Posted on 09/05/2006 12:03:24 AM PDT by spkpls4
Another possibility is that Western feminists fail to confront Muslim immigration for ideological reasons. Many of them are silent on Islamic oppression of women because they have also embraced “Third-Worldism” and anti-Western sentiments. I see some evidence in support of this thesis.
American writer Phyllis Chesler has sharply criticized her sisters in books such as The Death of Feminism. She feels that too many feminists have abandoned their commitment to freedom and “become cowardly herd animals and grim totalitarian thinkers,” thus failing to confront Islamic terrorism. She paints a portrait of current U.S. University campuses as steeped in “a new and diabolical McCarthyism” spearheaded by leftist rhetoric.
(Excerpt) Read more at brusselsjournal.com ...
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
Yes, and what's more, we didn't have these problems back in the days when the women wore corsets. If we could get them back into corsets, things would improve considerably. Women enjoy the feeling of being restrained, and the corset was an ideal invention in that regard.
This is right on the money:
"If all oppression comes from Western men, it becomes logical to try weakening them as much as possible. If you do, a paradise of peace and equality awaits us at the other side of the rainbow. Well congratulations to Western European women. You’ve succeeded in harassing and ridiculing your own sons into suppressing many of their masculine instincts. To your surprise, you didn’t enter a feminist Nirvana, but paved the way for an unfolding Islamic hell."
The words of my favorite contemporary British author are remarkably appropriate. They're taken from an essay (which I posted here some time ago) that David Brooks of the NYT cited as the "best journal article of 2004".
Having lived in various Muslim societies he explained the contradiction noted in the post as follows:
"Here, for once, are instances of unadulterated female victimhood; yet the silence of the feminists is deafening. When two pieties - feminism and multi-culturalism - come into conflict, the only way of preserving both is an indecent silence".
bingo
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
fjordman BUMP! One of the most thought-provoking writers on the planet. Thanks very much for posting.
"Women are more naïve, and less willing to rationally think through the long-term consequences of avoiding confrontation or dealing with unpleasant realities now."
Just insert liberals for women here. It plays all the way down the line, from gay marrage to social security to the War on Terror to economic policy.
How many times have we seen the left completely unwilling to even approach these problems from a long-term perspective???
How that marriage is undermined, how that the notion of marriage existing between a man and a woman as a timeless and pancultural, pangeneral stable system of raising offspring from generaton to generation.
How that there is no looming social security disaster but how we are threatening old people who just want to retire.
How that what is happening in the Middle East is our own doing and that somehow if we are nice and give pretty presents that everything will be okay.
How long-term economic progress is scrapped to feed the hangers-ons who refuse to care for themselves, only to encourage more people to become hangers-on.
This article is spot-on. I have long said that liberals are lacking an ounce of testosterone in their body (either by birth or because it was sucked out of them), and this one pretty much takes the same tack.
There is no question a place for women in all of this, but it is a place. One with boundaries. Just as men exist with boundaries. Failure to recognize this and to take one's role in society has disastrous consequences, as we are seeing today.
What a great article.
And - If men are going to put down Islam, women are going to have to get behind them. Most men will do almost anything for a woman.
In psychiatry, female patients are seen more frequently with self-inflicted wounds or self-destructive behaviour than men, who tend to direct their aggression outwards. It is also a well-known fact that many women blame themselves for abusive husbands, and make excuses for their abusers’ behavior. Has the West adopted some of the negative traits of the female psyche? The newly feminized West gets attacked and assaulted by the Arab and Islamic world, and continues to blame itself, while at the same time be fascinated by its abusers. It is thus behaving in the same way as a self-loathing woman towards an abusive man.
ping to a superb analysis and read.
Thanks for a great ping. Good to see common sense emanating from at least one person in Belgium.
"Totalitarian feminists in Norway are threatening to shut down private companies that refuse to recruit at least 40 percent women to their boards by 2007, a Soviet-style regulation of the economy in the name of gender equality."
Also nice to see communists come in for a good thwacking. Sadly, this isn't quite the right place to hit them. I've been going on about fascism a lot lately and this is a prime example of fascist behavior. A communist wouldn't require gender equity on the board, they'd do away with the corporate board and replace them with government functionaries. It's the fascist way to tell someone they can have property but then need guidance on how to use it.
What the heck? Feminism is hardly a mainstream movement. What it does or believes is largely irrelevant!
The silence of the feminists and libs on Islams treatment of women has been deafening.
bump
no-more girly men
This has already been accomplished in "feminist world"; sensible feminists were silenced many years ago for not utter "heil!" Those who are fascists wearing feminist "clothes" have been placed into power in courtrooms, classrooms, business and private entity heirarchies. They run "sensitivity" seminars and plot "multi-culti" madness. And yet they hide under "feminism". Feminism was far too easy to manipulate by those with a fascist ideology. The feminists, from the get go, have been telling everyone what to think, what to eat, what to believe. It is here that we find the article in this thread, IMO, most illuminating. It's about feminism as the most ready and adaptable vehicle for fascists and terrorists. It is true.
Excellent piece- thanks for posting..
Radical feminism is a branch of marxism. It views radical islamic fascism as a useful tool in the process of overthrowing the civil order and establishing a communist paradise.
When highlighting the differences between communists and fascists, it is worthwhile to review the similarities.
See the 3nd quote on my FR profile page, the two paragraph one from Hayek.
I don't agree that is true at all, unfortunately. See Alia's #20. Also see my previous post.
They have a huge impact, far beyond their numbers and acceptance in the the general populace, due to their being embedded in the media and academe. They are front and center in pushing what has been termed Cultural Marxism, but as this thread's discussion highlights, might better be called Cultural Fascism.
What the heck? Feminism is hardly a mainstream movement. What it does or believes is largely irrelevant!It is as much or as little a mainstream movement as are liberalism and leftism. Sure, only a few people actually subscribe to the whole nonsense, but they are influential people: College professors, journalists, Democrat leaders. Most women aren't feminists? That's nice, but Hillary unfortunately is one. And I fear that the latter is more important.
"Women enjoy the feeling of being restrained..."
Uh oh, now you stepped in it...
Can't recall the exact title but an ex-Mossad agent wrtote a book titled (paraphrase) "Shoot the Women First". The point being that female terrortists were so far beyond the pale of their genetic and cultural norms (the caring sharing maternal instincts ) that they were more deadly, more fierce and more cunning than the men.
Gorgeous, just gorgeous...
In Canada we can see female fascism at work.
How many have been drawn and quartered by the castrated poodles in the Canadian courts for preaching against the Marxist orthodoxy?
But, but....I thought they were "fierce, feminists and in your face!"
We replace the soccer mom
with the security mom
what we really need is
MOTHERS who raise boys to REAL MEN.
The goal of feminists (meaning democrats) is to raise metrosexuals.
Western (pseudo-)intellectuals aren't yet ready to face the concepts outlined in the article. It will take three or four glowing, radioactive holes where cities used to be before the key players begin to understand where they have led society.
The numbers are on our side, over the long haul.
Families rearing real men have more kids than families headed by feminazis.
However they have the public schools.
Although I'd far, far rather the Scandinavians return to the faith of the undivided Church embraced by St. Olaf Haraldson, this article makes me for the first, and I hope only, time feel some sympathy for the Norwegian and Swedish youth who have fallen into neo-paganism, even of the variety that spawns 'death metal' rock bands.
 |
| Although I believe femi-Nazis are a much more dangerous crowd than actual Nazis, I'm quite sure I don't buy into the author's thesis. Islam was warring it's way across the eastern hemisphere 1600 years ago. The only major political party in Norway that has voiced any serious opposition to the madness of Muslim immigration is the rightwing Progress Party. This is a party which receives about two thirds or even 70% male votes. At the opposite end of the scale we have the Socialist Left party, with two thirds or 70% female votes. I'm sure this is quite an accurate statement, but it's truth doesn't necessarily say squat about the cause of the rise of Islam. I awakened at sunrise this morning. It doesn't mean I'm the cause of the sun rising. |
Feminazi's are cute.
This is one of the best articles I have read on the subject of "why?"
I don't post very often, but sometimes I hit "gold". This is one of those times.
retrosexual..heh that's a good one
I've always thought this was self-evidnt.
This explains, then and now, the passionate defense of Clinton by feminists.
Let 'em come and get me.
Mind blowingly good. I had to read it twice just to really savor it the second time through.
I got your back!
I know a great deal about Canada, and Canadians. It was far easier for feminism to advance in Canada, IMHO, due "God Save the Queen"ism, and on the east coast, the DeGaul influence of France. My great uncles, WWI vets, forsaw the oppression and downfall of Canada many years ago when Universal "Healthcare" (socialized healthcare) was enacted.
Canada will rise again. Canada, despite the rumblings of fascist appeasers, has been our strong ally in this world-wide good fight. Blessings to you, Canada.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.