This is female privilege:  men are not allowed to fight back


The incredible double standards around violence are not going to come as any surprise to regular readers, but I want to put the “Solange beats the crap out of Jay Z” incident in a broader cultural context.  The following quote has apparently been misattributed to Voltaire, but whoever actually said it was on to something, I think:


First, let’s flip the script and have Jay Z beat up Solange just to demonstrate how very different cultural, and in particular, feminist attitudes are towards women who are physically abusive to men.  Here is Tracie Egan Morrissey, writing at Jezebel about the assault.  Of course, her first question is “what the hell did Jay Z do to earn that beating?”, which is a totally appropriate reaction, right?  We’ll turn the assault around just to show what a piece of shit Morrissey really is.

Today’s leaked elevator surveillance video of Jay Z getting all…

View original post 1,901 more words

Student forced off school blog because someone labeled him a ‘rapist’ on a bathroom wall

The mysterious and incessant lists of alleged rapists popping up all over Columbia University’s campus have already had an effect.

The fliers, proclaiming “RAPISTS ON CAMPUS,” lists four names, one of which was apparently a staff writer for Bwog, an independent, student-run campus blog. Since the lists garnered media attention, editors at the news site have asked for the staff member’s resignation.

“On May 7, allegations that a member of our staff had violated Columbia University’s Gender Based Misconduct policy were brought to our attention by an anonymous tip,” a statement released from Bwog Tuesday night said. “As a reiteration of our continued work against rape culture, we have taken steps to ensure that the makeup of Bwog’s staff, without question, reflects this. Accordingly, we asked this staffer to permanently and immediately resign from their position, and they agreed.”

The distributed lists of names labeled three persons “found ‘responsible’ by the University” and one “serial rapist.” It is not clear which of these was the staff member.

Nebraska Senate Nominee Says Religious Beliefs Can Justify Breaking Any Law


“[O]ur right to the free exercise of religion is co-equal to our right to life,” according to the campaign website of Ben Sasse, a Nebraska Republican who won his party’s nomination to the United States Senate on Tuesday. Nebraska is a solid red state that preferred Romney to Obama by a massive 21 point margin in 2012, so Sasse is now all but certain to succeed retiring Sen. Mike Johanns (R) this November. If he does, Sasse promises to promote an almost anarchistic vision of religious liberty as a member of the Senate. According to Sasse’s website, “[g]overnment cannot force citizens to violate their religious beliefs under any circumstances.”

Here’s a screenshot of the relevant part of Sasse’s website:

Sasse screenshot

The question of when religious belief exempts believers from following the law is at the forefront of our national debate right now, with the Supreme Court poised to decide whether religious business owners can refuse to offer birth control coverage as part of their employer-provided health plans, even when doing so would violate federal law. Yet, even the plaintiffs before the Supreme Court acknowledge that religious liberty is not an absolute right to violate any law at any time. As the crafting chain Hobby Lobby says in its brief to the justices, the government may limit religious believers actions when it uses “‘the least restrictive means of furthering’ a ‘compelling governmental interest.’” This is the standard set by federal law, although there is some uncertainty about how the justices will interpret this legal standard in its Hobby Lobby decision.

Sasse, however, apparently believes that this law does not go far enough, even if the Court gives Hobby Lobby everything it is asking for. His proposed rule — that government cannot require someone to act counter to their religious beliefs “under any circumstances” — would mean that literally any law could be ignored by someone who held a religious belief counter to that law. According to National Geographic, for example, “[h]undreds, if not thousands, of women are murdered by their families each year in the name of family ‘honor,’” and while this practice “goes across cultures and across religions,” some of the perpetrators of honor killings are motivated by their religious faith. Under Sasse’s formulation of religious liberty, a person who killed his own sister because he believed he was under a religious obligation to do so would be immune from prosecution for murder.

Similarly, religious beliefs have been used to justify discrimination against racial minorities, women, and LGBT Americans at different points in American history. In an opinion upholding Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage, a state judge wrote that “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” Former Mississippi Gov. Ross Barnett offered a similar view in 1960, claiming that “the good Lord was the original segregationist.” The conservative Bob Jones University drew a similar connection between religion and racism to justify excluding African Americans entirely until the early 1970s, and then to justify a ban on interracial dating and marriage among its students.

In the 1980s, a California religious school called Fremont Christian refused to offer health benefits to most of the married women in its employ, claiming that “in any marriage, the husband is the head of the household and is required to provide for that household” — and thus wives should have to depend on their husbands for health coverage. They unsuccessfully tried to convince a federal appeals court that, because of their religious beliefs, they are allowed to deny equal compensation to women. Much more recently, Arizona lawmakers pushed a bill that would have likely given religious business owners the right to refuse to serve LGBT customers. One of the lawmakers who backed this bill explained that it was introduced in response to instances where anti-gay business owners in other states were “punished for their religious beliefs.”

Under Sasse’s preferred rule, where “government cannot force citizens to violate their religious beliefs under any circumstances,” racists, sexists and homophobes who claim a religious justification for bigotry would be immune from anti-discrimination law. And his rule would not simply apply in sensitive areas of the law that protect people’s lives and their livelihoods. Indeed, under Sasse’s formulation, a person who believes that they violate their religious beliefs if they are late to church could ignore the speed limit, traffic lights, and stop signs if obeying traffic laws would cause them to miss just one minute of their church’s Sunday service.

ThinkProgress contacted the Sasse campaign to offer them an opportunity to clarify whether the candidate truly believes that any practice, including “stoning adulterers or putting to death those who work on the Sabbath” should be allowed if it is justified by a religious belief. As of this writing, we have not received a response.

Law Society risks ‘undermining’ rule of law by promoting sharia, warns Justice Secretary

The Law Society has again defended its practice note on “Sharia succession rules” despite a warning from Chris Grayling, the Secretary of State for Justice, that it must not “undermine” British legal principles.

The Justice Secretary’s intervention follows criticism of the Law Society from lawyers and human rights campaigners for publishing guidance to help lawyers draw up ‘Sharia compliant’ wills and running training courses in Sharia.

Critics say the Law Society is legitimising sharia by giving it the unwarranted respectability and credibility of a legal discipline.

straight from the horses mouth: Gail Dines admitted that radical feminism keeps feminism vital

link to the confession

Now THIS, is the ‘smoking gun’ response to all of those nitwits who declare that “radical feminism is nothing but fringe extremism!”
Gail Dines (no less!) flat-out TELLS us that radical feminism is the only thing which moves people and keeps feminism vital!

Gail hands us a golden confession on a silver plate, and we must surely thank her!

After you have listened to this brief clip, go and read the following, which is directly relevant: