Racist Feminism has gone global. feminism is the enforcer of white supremacy
A huge row has erupted in India over India’s Daughter, a film made by the BBC on the gang-rape and murder of a young medical student on a Delhi bus in November 2012. What aroused particular anger was how the film, designed to be shown in seven countries to mark International Women’s Day, seemed to want to portray India as the rape capital of the world, with its headline claim that the country has “a rape every 22 minutes”.
But what has also come to light is that when the film was privately previewed in Delhi, its original version included evidence that in many countries in the West the incidence of rape is actually much greater. In Britain, the official Crime Survey for England and Wales 2014 estimated that there are 85,000 rapes every year, or one every six minutes. Equivalent US figures suggest that 1 per cent of all women are sexually assaulted each year, one every 25 seconds.
Those who saw the preview of India’s Daughter in Delhi have testified that the original version did make comparisons with the rest of the world. One, Anna Vetticad, praised it as a “balanced documentary”, because it ended with “worldwide statistics highlighting violence against women from Australia to the US”. But when the final version emerged, all this had been cut out. India was shown standing alone, as a country where rape is an exceptional problem.
What also led the Indian courts to ban showing the film was its portrayal of a country where violence towards women is part of its national culture. Particularly controversial was its prison cell interview with the bus driver, waiting on death row for the outcome of his appeal to India’s Supreme Court. He showed no remorse for the woman he had helped to rape and murder. He suggested that she had brought this on herself by travelling on a bus late at night. But again this picture of India as having a peculiar cultural problem over its acceptance of gang-rape is belied by the statistics. According to UK and US figures, 14 per cent of rapes are by strangers. In India the figure is less than 1 per cent.
Back in 2012, when that Delhi crime first attracted worldwide coverage, I looked into many horrific stories of gang-rape reported in Britain. According to the Metropolitan Police, more than 15 per cent of rapes reported in London each year involve three or more attackers. In one Essex case, the rapists of a 16-year-old girl poured acid over her in an attempt to destroy the evidence of their crime. We scarcely need reminding of recent revelations about what was going on in Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford and elsewhere.
If there is a cultural problem here, it is the longstanding desire of the Western media to stereotype Indian males as somehow, to a special degree, sexual predators. Back in 1984, Western screens showed the TV series Jewel in the Crown and the film A Passage to India, both featuring rapes by Indian men of white women (although one was imaginary). More recently no films about India have been more popular in the West than Slumdog Millionaire and Monsoon Wedding, again featuring rapes, although this time by Indian men of Indian women.
As for the BBC’s latest effort at reinforcing this stereotype, there is already evidence that it has done damage to the image of India in the West, such as the much-publicised case of the Leipzig professor who barred an Indian student from an internship on the grounds that “we hear a lot about the rape problem in India, which I cannot support”. Female professors in Germany are reported as refusing to teach Indian male students for similar reasons. But the question the BBC has to answer is why did it so deliberately omit the evidence from the final version of that film, which might have given its worldwide audience such a different picture? It seems that, across the board, it now takes its right to distort evidence so much for granted that it no longer has the ability to recognise what damage this is doing.
This cunt cares more for “equality” than putting real rapists behind bars. the cunt claim she was sexuality assaulted at Yale in an article at the feminazi anti-male U.K Guardian but failed to report it to the police. now if the assault actually happened other women are potentially in danger. this cunt advocating putting women in danger from potential rapists by telling victims not to report them to the police.
When asked by the Washington Examiner why these cases shouldn’t be turned over to the police, given the fact that they already have the training to handle them and that activists could spend their time fixing the problems with the current system rather than creating a whole new system, Brodsky responded:
“The point of school decision-making is not to be a sort of local police, you know, criminal justice equivalent, but to ensure that a student can continue to learn despite facing gender-based violence. And because of that, I think that if we were to pass this along to the police we would lose all of these equality concerns and all of these protections. And I think that, again, we would also just end up with an environment where no one feels like they can – where students feel like they can talk to no one.”
But not passing these cases to the police means we lose basic due process in cases that are actually felonies. I’ve written before about how schools and activists can help accusers go through the difficult criminal justice system. Instead of creating an entirely different court system led by people with minimal training – and no law enforcement background – it would be better to try and make the criminal justice system more friendly to accusers.
One surprising statement from Brodsky was her aversion to putting permanent marks on the transcript of a student who was expelled or suspended for sexual misconduct.
“I worry about that because it treats sexual misconduct differently. I also worry about that because I think that people can change. And my public defender hat says that we need to give people the opportunity to learn from this experience.”
That was in response to an Examiner question about allowing supposedly dangerous rapists to go jail free. Since campus courts can at most expel a student, that leaves these alleged monsters free to prey on non-students or apply to another school and prey on students there. The fear of that situation alone, I think, should make activists want these cases taken to the criminal system.
In Finland anyone can find out how much you earn and how much you pay taxes by using the data in Tax Office. Most of people wouldn’t even imagine that their annual income may be an interest of some people. Local news tabloid Helsingin Uutiset has interviewed a person in company that helps people to find tax information from the public tax data, and he tells that women use this service to find out the income of their boyfriends or dates, sometimes even before the first date.
So they basically check how much they can suck on you and get value for their vagina.
“Ignorant” has got to be one of the most misused words today. An ignorant person is someone who is uninformed, missing some key information.
Not someone who holds an opinion that you don’t share.
Are the people who support banning the niqab during citizenship oaths ignorant? For some, sure. It could be a knee-jerk position they’ve latched onto without much reflection. But – memo to the politically correct! – it’s also possible to oppose the niqab from an informed and educated position.
I’ve read the Qur’an multiple times. I’ve done the crash course in Islamic history and jurisprudence. I routinely chat with Muslims, both supremacists and liberal. Heck, I even watched Lawrence of Arabia as a kid.
So when I argue that wearing the niqab is a pretty bad choice to make and that the government is completely right to insist women remove it during citizenship oaths, I’m not saying that out of ignorance.
It’s actually the sad faux-feminists out there aligning themselves with a religion that has misogyny bred in the bone who are the ignorant ones.
The more I study religion, the more I don’t like it. This goes particularly for Islam, the religion that demands absolute submission (hey, that’s more or less what the name means).
We heathens can’t tell you how the universe was created or what the meaning of life is. But that doesn’t in turn mean the many dodgy claims made by religions are automatically correct.
I highly doubt a god actually told ancestors of my Jewish friends to take a knife to their genitals. I don’t believe Jesus’ mom never had sex nor do I believe it’s possible to turn water into wine. (Although if that last one does turn out to be true, I’ll return to the Roman Catholic Church in a heartbeat, jaw open, head tilted back.)
And I most certainly don’t believe that Muhammad was visited by an angel – while alone in the desert without any witnesses! How convenient! – and received the final revelation of god.
That over a billion people disagree is immaterial. Truth is not determined by mob rule.
The above is simply to illustrate that it’s permissible to view religion with knitted eyebrows. It’s okay to have disdain for one or all of them.
If we can passionately bicker over which hockey team sucks more, we certainly can and should do it for something of greater geopolitical consequence as religion.
Yet too many politically correct posers in the West think this shouldn’t be the case. In a speech last week, Justin Trudeau put the vice grip on free thought by accusing critics of Islam of “stoking anxiety and fomenting fear.”
Western society routinely makes degrading jokes about Christians. Anti-Semitism abounds (with friends like these…). Nobody gets too freaked out about this.
But somehow Islam – the one lacking a critical culture, the least self-reflecting, least humorous and therefore most troublesome monotheism – is treated like a victim when exposed to legitimate criticism.
It’s pathetic to see the social media misfits hash-tagging away their #dresscodePM antics – facetiously acting like the prime minister wants to approve all public female clothing choices because he doesn’t want the niqab worn during citizenship oaths.
Okay, we get it. You don’t like Harper. But do you have to embarrass yourself by deliberately misunderstanding the issue and, in turn, siding with the theocrats?
This is not about how women dress at all. It’s about how some people destructively believe random religious edicts should be able to dictate civic procedure in a non-theocracy.
The niqab conversation is a sectarian issue. It’s a religious choice – a choice one should be free to make when out and about in a free society. It’s dictatorial to tell people how to dress in public and outright burqa bans are wrong.
But the rules change when you go from walking about on the street to interacting with the state in an important civic matter. Your primary identity in these interactions is not, for example, as a Muslim woman. It’s as a citizen.
It would be lovely if religious and civic responsibility never came into conflict. But evidently they sometimes do. And in the civic sphere, civic duties come first.
It’s deeply troubling that an aspiring citizen would attempt to assert the superiority of her religion over the state while fulfilling her first civic responsibility.
Why is Harper the one being called intolerant? It’s these new Canadians who are being intolerant of a country gracious enough to extend them citizenship.
Any serious country must assert that a citizen’s religious duties come second to their civic responsibilities. If not, it’s not a country anymore. It’s just a land of appeasement begging to be walked all over.
And what happens when two groups with equally earnest but contradictory claims to special treatment come into conflict? That’s when we realize what a joke accommodation has become.
It’s not ignorant to argue this. It’s not sexist. It’s about understanding the sanctity of civic life.
NDP and opposition leader, Thomas Mulcair, visited (February 27, 2015) the ISNA Mosque (Islamic Society of North America) in Mississauga, accompanied by Fayaz Karim, the NDP’s candidate for Mississauga-Streetsville.
Just after the Friday sermon and prayer ended, Mulcair was invited to speak to the Muslim congregation. In his speech, Mulcair said that he is inspired by message of unity promoted by Muhammad, whom he called “Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him”.
The following are excerpts of Mulcair’s speech as posted by the NDP’s official website:
“For years, this mosque has played a vital role in Mississauga—promoting education and charity for all. And it’s been a leader in promoting unity—a lesson so important to the Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him. It’s that unity—the rock-solid belief that we are all stronger when we support one another—that brings me here today…
“That’s why our party is so committed to fighting Islamophobia in all its forms— hate has no place in Canada. And that’s why we are the only party standing up to Stephen Harper’s dangerous new anti-terrorism legislation—legislation that threatens the very values that Canada is built on.
“Like everyone in Canada, New Democrats were shocked by the horrific and cowardly attacks in Ottawa and Quebec last fall. On the night of the Parliament Hill shooting, I spoke to the nation and said that violence should never make us more fearful of our neighbours or less confident in ourselves.
“Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has chosen a very different approach. He’s chosen to divide, to drive fear and to weaken the very freedoms we’re supposed to protect. He’s chosen to make Muslims—your family and friends—the scapegoat of his political debates.
“Why else would he openly suggest that Islamicism is Canada’s biggest threat, or that Canadian mosques are home to radicalization?
“The Prime Minister’s comments are offensive, they fuel Islamophobia… and he should apologize. And why else would the Harper government try to convince Canadians that they have to choose between their security and their freedoms. You and I know that’s a false choice…
“In the United States, President Obama is working with communities and faith leaders, supporting them in their efforts to fight radicalization before it starts. Canada needs a similar approach—yet there is nothing in Mr. Harper’s bill to fight radicalization…
“Friends, I’m here with you today because New Democrats understand that Islam is not our enemy. Muslim-Canadians make remarkable contributions to this country… you deserve to live and raise your children without fear and suspicion.
“I’m proud of the close bond that New Democrats have with Muslim-Canadian communities right across the country…”
“Our analysis of the information obtained during the course of the audit has led the CRA to believe that the Organization had entered into a funding arrangement with the Kashmiri Canadian Council/Kashmiri Relief Fund of Canada (KCC/KRFC), non-qualified donees under the Act, with the ultimate goal of sending the raised funds to a Pakistan-based non-governmental organization named the Relief Organization for Kashmiri Muslims (ROKM) without maintaining direction and control. Under the arrangement, KCC/KRFC raised funds for “relief work” in Kashmir, and the Organization supplied official donation receipts to the donors and disbursed over $281,696 to ROKM, either directly, or via KCC/KRFC.
“Our research indicates that ROKM is the charitable arm of Jamaat-e-Islami, a political organization that actively contests the legitimacy of India’s governance over the state of Jammu and Kashmir, including reportedly through the activities of its armed wing Hizbul Mujahideen. Hizbul Mujahideen is listed as a terrorist entity by the Council of the European Union and is declared a banned terrorist organization by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967.
“Given the commonalities in directorship between ROKM and Jamaat-e-Islami, concerns exist that the Organization’s resources may have been used to support the political efforts of Jamaat-e-Islami and/or its armed wing, Hizbul Mujahideen.”
ISNA’s bookstore in Mississauga offers Islamic books authorizing wife beating in certain circumstances and conditions and determining that the Muslim wife must respond positively when her husband calls her to bed.
If you’re a University of Texas girl with blue hair and “queer social issues,” the sisters of Gamma Rho Lambda are there for you:
UT students established a campus colony of the national sorority Gamma Rho Lambda this semester — the first queer-focused and transsexual-inclusive women’s Greek society at the University, according to the organization’s leadership.
The sorority aims to combat issues regarding the status of queer women in mainstream society and within the LGBT community, Lauren Ferguson, president of the colony and art history and English senior, said. As part of the three-semester colonization process, the organization’s leaders recruited nine members this semester for the Alpha class and will start taking pledges in the fall.
Ferguson is also a columnist for the UT student newspaper, and recently published a column containing some interesting non-facts:
According to a 2001 report from the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, women on college campuses are more likely to be assaulted than women in the general population. And Katherine Hirsch’s study titled “Fraternities of Fear: Gang Rape, Male Bonding, and the Silencing of Women” estimated that one in four college women will be assaulted during their academic career.
Fact: Female college students are actually less likely to be raped than female non-students the same age.
According to the report, the actual number of rapes of college-age females is 6.1 per 1,000, a drastically smaller number than 1-in-5. Meanwhile, non-college-attending females in the same 18-to-24 age group had about a 20% higher rate of rape (7.6 per 1,000).
To put it quite bluntly, there is zero evidence to support feminist claims of a “rape epidemic” on U.S. college campuses.
To put it even more bluntly, feminists are lying about rape.
The claim of a “rape epidemic” is a deception, manufactured with“Statistical Voodoo and Elastic Definitions,” as part of a propaganda campaign by feminists to augment their own (already formidable) power within academia. Of course, we don’t expect an art history major to understand that she is a pawn in someone else’s political power-grab. Indoctrination doesn’t work if the subjects realize that they’re being indoctrinated. The blue-haired queer Laura Ferguson is an LGBT celebrity now, interviewed by Huffington Post Live:
“I was really bothered when I first came to Austin and couldn’t find a safe space for queer women.”
Safe space? Safe from whom? The idea that “queer women” are unsafe in Austin — terrorized by heteronormative patriarchy, we might presume — is contradicted by Ms. Ferguson’s own words in another interview: “For every one person who doesn’t like us, there’s a thousand who support us. UT has been insanely supportive of us. . . . They’re not only willing to support us, but they’re excited about it.” One wonders what sort of menace requires these “queer women” to have a “safe space.”
Well, yes — mocking laughter might damage their self-esteem, and so the UT administration is “insanely supportive” of Gamma Rho Lambda providing a “safe space” where the weirdos can gather without being exposed to cruel jokes. This is where the cultural celebration of victimhood leads, to a world in which misfits and malcontents can imagine they are oppressed. (See “‘There Is No Spoon’: Radical Feminism and the Paranoid Matrix of Patriarchy.”) Despite the fact that university administrators are “insanely supportive” of LGBT activism on campus, it is still necessary — for the purposes of this charade of pretended victimhood — for the “queer women” to present themselves as suffering societal oppression and injustice. Does no one in Austin have enough common sense and courage to call bullshit on this bogus hustle?
There are more than 50,000 students at the UT Austin campus, and yet when Gamma Rho Lambda offered “safe space” for “queer women,” they were able to recruit a grand total of nine members. A little more than half of UT-Austin students are female, and if we assume that 2% of those are lesbian, that means about 500 “queer women” on campus. Yet it would seem that fewer than 2% of lesbian students at UT-Austin care enough about “safe space” to join Gamma Rho Lambda.
To repeat: THERE IS NO SPOON.
UPDATE: Why do the president and vice-president of the UT-Austin chapter of Gamma Rho Lambda have the the same name? Thanks to Zohydro in the comments and my brother Kirby for pointing me to this story which clarifies this point:
Lauren, and her sister, Audrey, decided to create a new organization. . . .
“Being a transwoman it’s hard to find places that are completely comfortable, I knew this needed to be an area specifically for female identifying and female queer individuals,” Audrey Ferguson said.
In other words, Lauren’s “sister Audrey” is in fact her brother, who is “identifying” as her “sister.” As Kirby said, “Imagine family Thanksgiving at their house!”
Yeah. It’s like The Rocky Horror Picture Show.