by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog
In Nigeria and Iraq, Muslim armies are selling women as slaves. Iran hanged a woman for fighting off a rapist. ISIS was more direct about it and beheaded a woman who resisted one of its fighters.
But we don’t have to travel to the Middle East to see real horrors. The sex grooming scandal in the UK involved the rape of thousands of girls. The rapists were Muslim men so instead of talking about it, the UK’s feminists bought $75 shirts reading, “This is what a feminist looks like” which were actually being made by Third World women living sixteen to a room. This was what a feminist looked like and it wasn’t a pretty picture.
The same willful unseriousness saw Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a survivor of genital mutilation and an informed critic of Muslim misogyny, booted from Brandeis by self-proclaimed feminists. Meanwhile the major feminist cause at the moment is Gamergate, a controversy over video games which can be traced back to a female game developer who slept with a video game reviewer. Professional feminists have spent more time and energy denouncing video games than the sale and rape of girls in Nigeria and Iraq.
That is what feminism looks like and there is something seriously wrong with that.
Women Against Feminism touched a nerve because professional feminists know that few women want to identify as feminists. Polls have found that the majority of women view feminism negatively. Even among young women, the feminist label doesn’t come close to breaking the halfway mark.
Professional feminists respond to the negative feedback by claiming that feminism is simply equality. But if feminism were equality, women, and for that matter men, wouldn’t dislike it so much.
A feminist looks like a professional activist wearing a $75 t-shirt made by slave labor while proclaiming that she is a feminist. It isn’t fighting for the rights of women that makes her a feminist. It’s the pricey fashion statement of someone who toots their own horn while exploiting less fortunate women.
The professional feminist is not there to help women, but to promote the agenda of the institutional left. She will turn campus rape into a political cause while criticizing every rape prevention measure, from a rape drug detecting nail polish to self-defense for women, for not dealing with rape culture. Stopping rape doesn’t interest her. Exploiting the abuse of women to fight a culture war does.
Her concerns are limited to causes affecting upper class young women and the overall political organizational needs of the left. That’s why she will veer erratically from inflating college rape statistics to arguing for illegal alien amnesty despite the high number of rapes committed by migrants.
But the women being raped generally won’t be found on an Ivy League campus.
And that’s also what a feminist looks like.
The institutional left can’t call out Islam for sexism, homophobia and racism because it has already inducted it into its political coalition. And that’s why feminists can’t talk about the mass rape of young girls in the UK without stepping on a political landmine. Those courageous women who do talk about it, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Pamela Geller, represent the principles that feminists only claim to stand for.
It’s easy to take shots at gamers, but discussing the rise of honor killings, genital mutilation and domestic abuse among Muslims migrating to the West is dangerous territory. That is why Ayaan Hirsi Ali had to be silenced so that she wouldn’t show up the professional feminists trying to pretend that their mass distractions of video games, subsidized birth control or celebrating “sex workers” are real feminism.
Modern feminism is defined by talking non-stop about the things that don’t matter to avoid talking about the things that do. It long ago stopped being a movement and became a series of distractions. When feminists actually hit on a relevant issue they quickly scramble to avoid talking about it. That’s what happened with the viral Hollaback video of a woman walking around New York City and being harassed by minority men. The video quickly went from a hit to an embarrassment as feminists realized that they had unintentionally documented something that they could not talk about.
Feminism is filled with things that it can’t talk about. That’s why it long ago hit a dead end. It is too afraid of being politically incorrect to be relevant. It can’t advocate for women and so it frantically stirs up micro-controversies that are irrelevant to 99.99% of women. Its obsession with Gamergate as the biggest threat to women since the time that Miss USA suggested that women should take self-defense classes is another reminder of its inability to meaningfully address the problems facing women today.
Professional feminists don’t want to fight rape; they want to fight an intangible “rape culture”. They don’t want to help women. Instead they want to exploit the problems facing women to advance their own agendas and careers. They are part of a movement cut off from ordinary people and rooted in academia. Few women want to identify as feminists, because feminism doesn’t identify with them.
Feminism can’t talk about the problems facing women because it is a prisoner of the left. It’s a fundraising gimmick, an election turnout gimmick and a way to sell pricey shirts.
The War on Women meme has jumped the shark. Senator Mark Udall was mocked, ridiculed and written off by his own Democrats for his cynical abuse of the meme. An attempt by a congressional candidate to invoke it during a debate in New York was met with uproarious laughter.
The last election cycle had reduced feminism to subsidized birth control. This cycle wiped it off the map entirely. The next election cycle will bring us Hillary Clinton as the ultimate feminist candidate. Hillary built her career and won elections on the strength of her husband’s name. Polls show that she appeals to voters because they think her husband is part of the package deal.
If Hillary wins, the first female president will be a woman who got the job only because she refused to divorce her husband after he cheated on her because she hoped to exploit his political connections.
That too is what a feminist looks like.
Hillary Clinton laughing at her client’s rape of a 12-year-old girl from a working class family or Carol Costello chuckling over the assault on Bristol Palin reminds ordinary women what feminists really think of them.
Feminism no longer speaks to women. It has become a privileged sorority for actresses, politicians, media types and academics who don’t actually like women. Especially working class women.
The public face of feminism should be Ayaan Hirsi Ali, but instead it’s the neurotic privileged pettiness of Lena Dunham.
Feminism has become a lightweight movement heavy on pop culture and phony outrage and unbelievably light on content. It speaks all the time, but it no longer has anything to say.
@ honeybee:
If I’d meant to refer to myself w/o using the usual pronouns, I’d’ve said “YoursTruly” or a variation on it.
OTOH, when somebody says “PresentCompany,” they’re referring not to themselves, but directly to the person they’re addressing.
In this case, that would’ve been yourself, Twinkie.
— That is, I’ve seen little evidence that YOU’re all that much better informed in the matter [above] than most of the men you “always enjoy listening to…discuss something about which they know nothing.”
We can quit this game any time you want to. Your choice
@ yamit82:
Since Elohim breathed the breath of life into Adam and he became a living soul; that’s when.
The ego is the soul, the conscious self. Classically, the terms are interchangeable.
YOU, however, are apparently using the word “ego” in its New Age, psychobabbly sense of personal vanity, ‘pride’ (effectively, hubris), etc.
So, in order to make it easier for you to wrap your poor little keppele around the matter, I’ll restate it in language that won’t throw you from your poorly cinched-up saddle, and we’ll at least be on the same page:
The notion that the soul ‘reincarnates’ is a crock of shit.
— There; a bissel besser for you, boychikel?
Not a flight of stairs but a cliff — and actually it was an attempted suicide. (Well, a ‘successful’ one, to be precise; but God revived him.) So there WAS a physical fall, to go along with the metaphysical one.
When, with time, Adam came to comprehend the enormity of his disobedience, the sense of justice which was implanted in him when he was created impelled him to seek to carry out (in the only way he knew) what he understood to be the prescribed punishment of which he had been warned, and which he now realized that he deserved.
He took himself to a high promontory and threw himself off of it.
Adonoi Elohim, however, after reviving him from death, explained that as a now-flawed & finite being he (Adam) did not possess, within himself, the capability to make himself just or whole again (he had lost that w/ the bright nature he’d had before his disobedience)
— that, rather, the time would come when Adonoi Himself would provide the means for the redemption of His creation.
And as He always keeps his word, He kept THIS promise too.
@ yamit82:
Nor am I the only one to whom she THROWS them, putzele.
You just don’t see the game (not nearly the extent of it), so, like any fox terrier, you’re all too ready to play.
You have YET to substantiate ANY point you raised — let alone, refute a single challenge of mine to even one of them.
Ooh, good argument! . . . . So eloquent, so articulate, so profound, so well reasoned.
“So what”? — So that would make her the mother of a dead baby, that’s what
— a baby who would’ve died in excruciating agony on her order; that’s what.
Body quite literally ripped apart (think: drawing & quartering — only within what used to be the very SYMBOL for safety & security: the womb)
— or scalded to death by an amniotic-sac-injected saline solution (in abortion clinics, they call such bright red — fire-engine red babies. . . “candy apples”)
— or after moving you into breach position & pulling you out feet first, so only yr head remains in the birth canal, a hole poked in the back of your head at base of the skull (think: execution-style murder) to make rm for a suction tube to suck out the brains, to collapse the head for e-z removal (“partial birth abortion” at late term).
Wanna hear more? — or is it too close to your dinner hour?
yamit82 Said:
honeybee Said:
You too what? >>>>
yamit82 Said:
Me too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@ dweller:
HB isn’t the only one who throws you bones you AH…
We have had this discussion more times than I can count, you have always been wrong as you are now. On EVERY point I raised. Your opinion is a sick mumbo jumbo psychobabble. Since when is ego a soul except in you own bizzaro head?
The only fall Adam had is when he fell down a flight of stairs that eve probably pushed him during an argument.
Hope you enjoy your future in your pagan christian hell. Get a paddle you are going to need it unless they make exceptions for the insane
@ yamit82:
It was the (above) Knish article which used the term “modern,” but it’s clear from his text that he meant the movement which began ca. 1963.
Personally, I would’ve used the term “contemporary feminism,” which is more suitable here (and actually started to in my reply, but then thought better of it when I realized that wasn’t the language he‘d used).
I’ve never used Mk Twain as an ‘authority.’ Whenever I cite him, it is ALWAYS by way of illustration.
I said Sanger & her movement had the same ROOTS as the Nazis. (Have you considered getting bifocals?)
Apples & Oranges. Just as there is an ocean of difference betw the feminist movements of 1870-1920 and 1963-present day — there is just as vast a difference betw the conservative movements of the early 20th century and the one that began w/ Buckley ca. 1950.
No. What I said (above) was ELECTIVE abortion. Fetal homicide as a matter of “choice” (anybody‘s choice but the baby’s), despite that the baby poses no physical threat to the mother’s life.
The only legitimately warranted circumstance is
A. when the baby’s existence in utero poses a direct & imminent threat to the physical life of the mother (not merely to her ‘health,’ an infinitely elastic catch-all), AND
B. the opinion of the medical community, at the time, is that termination of pregnancy has better prospect of saving the mothers’ life than any less drastic course of action.
Under those circumstances, aborting the pregnancy is not a matter of ‘choice’ — on her own part or anybody else’s — it is OBLIGATORY on the community’s part to save the mother’s life. (Less than 1 [one] percent of all abortions are performed for that reason — over 99% are for other ‘reasons.’)
And even then, even if the pregnancy is terminated, it may YET be possible, per circumstances, to save both mother and child. Abortion, as practiced, however, is not merely the ending of a pregnancy
— it is a search-&-destroy action, deliberately & explicitly INTENDED not merely to remove the baby but to KILL the baby; no ifs, ands, or buts.
They don’t have the market cornered in that department. Lots of JEWS (fanatic or otherwise) just as READILY misread, misinterpret, and misunderstand Hebrew scripture. (I’m addressing this very post to one such.)
The notion that the ego ‘reincarnates’ is a crock of shit.
You keep saying that, but it’s not so. You cannot ‘murder’ what was not created b’tzelem elohim.
He was created to be, yes.
After he took his fall, however, all that changed. His body was altered by the consequences of his disobedience. And the bodies of all post-deluvial generations have been further altered.
yamit82 Said:
Maybe a rich family ???????>>>
dweller Said:
Meaning yourself?????????????????
@ dweller:
Modern for you is around 50 years with no connection to what preceded the 60’s? Heck you can’t even use Mark Twain as your authority on this one…. Think you just bit off more than you can defend.
The Eugenics movement predated the NAZIS not the other way around. Your fellow American Conservatives virtually ran and pushed the movement. Hitler loved them even gave some like Ford Medals. American Conservative and the Nazis were a match made in your concept of hell.
Abortion??? Not for and not always opposed depends it’s not a one size fits all proposition except for you fundamentalist christian fanatics who always misread misinterpret and thus hardly ever understand Hebrew scripture, and based on the diversity of opinions among you christians it’s obvious most if not all christians don’t understand you own scriptures either.
If my mom had decided to not allow me to be born so what I would just come back as someone else’s kid.
I’m sure your not a Vegan and meat is also murder Adam was a Vegan wasn’t he????
@ honeybee:
Most women are no better informed in the matter than most men.
And so far, I’ve seen little evidence that PresentCompany is among the exceptions to that rule.
@ yamit82:
I specified “modern” feminism, not the earlier variety (of the late 19th & early 20th centuries, which incorporated the sufragettes). Margaret Sanger & co had no part in that earlier feminist movement — which was overwhelmingly, vehemently, and bitterly opposed to abortion. In fact (and quiet as it’s kept), Sanger’s eugenics movement had the same roots as the Nazis.
Quite so — anybody who believes in the moral legitimacy of elective abortion is effectively declaring that their OWN mother should’ve had a “choice.”
— And in that regard, one could hardly disagree with them. . . .
yamit82 Said:
Through observation????????????
@ honeybee:
Learn a lot?
@ dweller:
@ yamit82:
I always enjoy listening to men discuss something about which they know nothing !!!!!!!!!!!!
dweller Said:
Excuse me genius but Margret Sanger has had more of an effect that still as you well know resonates. On October 16, 1916 Margaret Sanger, her sister Ethel Byrne, and Fania Mindell opened the first birth control clinic in the U.S. in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn, New York.
Appears to me than more than any other feminist movement this is the one that dwarfs all others even suffrage!!!
Margret Sanger and eugenics: Sanger agreed with some of her contemporaries who advocated the voluntary hospitalization or sterilization of people with untreatable, disabling, hereditary conditions, and limits on the immigration of the diseased.
Seems to me that besides dogs and cats some-HWSNBM– should have been afforded similar treatment.
Too bad they missed at least one!!!
That’s surely true of the contemporary feminist movement, but not specific to it. There are lots of things it could be said about — environmentalism/’climate change,’ ‘homophobia,’ ‘racism,’ etc. Bullshit as escape from reality.
Modern feminism — the incarnation that began ca. 1963 — has not ‘BECOME’ a “lightweight movement heavy on pop culture and phony outrage and unbelievably light on content.” It was ALWAYS that way from Day One.
It’s simply been losing its allure as more & more of its façade — like BHO’s papier mâché “Acropolis” at Invesco Field — has cracked & crumbled in the sunshine, and fallen away.
Feminism has always spoken all the time, yet has never had anything to say
— from first to last, a tale told by an idiot, full of sound & fury. . . .
Funny, though, how it was always a certain kind of GUY who was quickest to exploit it.
Although the BBC and Guardian are super busy practicing antisemitism 24/7/52, they found the time to keep the Jimmy Savile and new “Muslim Asians” sex scandal hidden from the good and venerable Brits. Now that our President has conferred absolute protection to “Islam & Muslims”, even in GB they can do whatever they wish. The rot is everywhere in England. What comes to GB may come to the US.
yamit82 Said:
Black Jack >>> Now I got supper to get, Cowboy !!!!!!!!!!!
@ honeybee:
I think I’ll Join you. Going to get my bottle of JD.
Cheers!!!
@ yamit82:
@ keelie:
Your saying Obama’s light in his moccasins?????????
Feminism: An elitist passtime.
@ yamit82:
He walks lightly in his shoes.
@ honeybee:
Unbearable lightness???
Ah, too true