Welcome to the Net Muslims Forums.
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 42
  1. #1
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default Femen Protests

    When did breasts become so divisive? Ukraine-based feminist activist group Femen's International Topless Jihad Day, held outside European mosques and embassies last week, has upset Muslims and feminists alike. It's even upset Amina Tyler, the 19-year-old Femen member currently facing death threats in her home Tunisia after posting a bare-breasted selfie to Facebook, in whose honor the protest was staged. It's enough to turn you off toplessness permanently.

    Shortly after news coverage of the "topless jihad" began — and there was a lot of it, even for boob news — a Facebook group cropped up for Muslim Women Against Femen. There, women posted selfies with messages for Femen, along with an open letter to the group:



    “We understand that it’s really hard for a lot of you white colonial “feminists” to believe, but- SHOCKER! – Muslim women and women of colour can come with their own autonomy, and fight back as well! And speak out for themselves! Who knew?”

    The group’s chief complaint is that Femen’s protest was a racist overgeneralization which implied that all Muslim women are helpless victims. Femen silences real Muslim voices, some said. Others accused Femen of having a white savior-complex. This line of argument can be best observed on Tumblr (try searching for “femen” or “white feminism”), but Jezebel summed up the general mood:

    "Femen needs to recognize that Muslim women do in fact have agency, and the idea that Muslim women are helpless, passively indoctrinated by the alleged evils of Islam, and desperately need of Western feminist help is oppressive and orientalist....It's disturbing how a the rhetoric of "women's liberation" has been co-opted to justify aggression, violence, and prejudice against Muslim communities. In what way is it appropriate to "rescue" women by indulging in and re-circulating essentializing, stereotyped, and offensive depictions of their culture?"

    As for how a protest in support of a silenced Tunisian feminist became offensive to all of Islam and the feminist Internet, at least one member of Femen wore a fake beard and a towel around her head.

    Femen’s topless protest has — perhaps mistakenly — been extrapolated to suggest that Muslim women must also "bear their bodies" in order to be free. As if no Muslim woman chooses the veil, and as if no one ever unjustly polices Muslim women for that choice. The New Statesman’s Bim Adewunmi was the first to point out this hypocrisy. "Femen’s imperialist "one size fits all" attitude shows a deafening inconsistency in their own ideology," she wrote. "'Women!' they seem to be saying. 'Your bodies are your own — do with them what you will! Except you over there in the headscarf. You should be topless.'" It's like an inverted Slut Walk.

    http://nymag.com/thecut/2013/04/why-...ess-femen.html

    Comments:

    Jenninnyc:

    i'm a muslim woman and I find this campaign disgusting. this isn't just because it is ultimately belittling women of the muslim world by implying they cannot fight their own battles -- which muslim women can and do every single day under seriously dangerous conditions. But because at its heart it isn't about feminism at all, but about Islamophobia and good old fashioned prejudice/"racism" (understanding that religion and ethnicity are different from race).

    Even well-meaning people of the west (and as someone born and raised in the US, I consider myself one of these) need to understand that even the best-intentioned actions on behalf of women in the developing world is not without context. You cannot separate your personal desire to alleviate very real issues of women's suffering from what has been decades of abysmal western foreign policy in the Muslim world.

    Even a cursory understanding of the history of women's rights in the muslim world makes obvious that the suffering of women is a direct by-product of western foreign policy. You read that right. Women in the middle east, for example, have less rights than they did fifty years ago, largely owing to upheaval caused by entanglements between their own corrupt governments and the U.S.

    No one can escape this history, not well-meaning feminists, and not the racist exhibitionists featured in this article. If you want to empower muslim women, you should do just that: empower them to lead their own movements without trying to usurp their opportunity to speak for themselves.

    ---

    [Inna responded to the open letter of the Muslimahs, attacking Muslim Men while derogatorily referring to them as “bearded” repeatedly and calling “sisters” Muslims to come and stand on the front line with them. The comment below is a comment from a sister in response to that open letter reply news post]

    Izzipikacha Izzacha Jam

    Inna Shevchenko, please REEDUCATE YOURSELF. You claim not to be racist, yet you emphasize on 'bearded' so many times.. What the hell does it matter to you if they're bearded? Not every bearded person is an extremist, and eff you for trying to impose your Eurocentric standards of appearance NOT ONLY on women, but ALSO on men. And you know what your letter as well as this, mirrors a lot of rhetoric to some of the worst mistakes made in history.

    You over emphasize on European values and you still assume we would be desperate to want to fight our 'battles' alongside you. You still don't get it. Please remember history and how it mirrors so much of your behavior, words and actions;

    ''The Europeans defined themselves as the superior race compared to the orientals; and they justified their colonization by this concept. They said that it was their duty towards the world to civilize the uncivilized world. The main problem, however, arose when the Europeans started generalizing the attributes they associated with orientals, and started portraying these artificial characteristics associated with orientals in their western world through their scientific reports, literary work, and other media sources. What happened was that it created a certain image about the orientals in the European mind and in doing that infused a bias in the European attitude towards the orientals. This prejudice was also found in the orientalists (scientist studying the orientals); and all their scientific research and reports were under the influence of this. The generalized attributes associated with the orientals can be seen even today, for example, the Arabs are defined as uncivilized people; and Islam is seen as religion of the terrorist. - An Introduction to Edward Said’s Orientalism'''

    And you just portrayed the artifical characteristic of ''bearded'' to create a certain image about 'orientals' in need of your pathetic help. Don't assume that most Muslim women are uneducated or easily fooled.



    https://www.facebook.com/MuslimWomen.../photos_stream









  2. #2
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default

    I Am Not Oppressed
    Laila Alawa - Muslim-American activist, blogger and outspoken feminist

    I am a proud Muslim-American woman, and I am tired. I am tired of being told that I am oppressed. That I have no voice. That I need to be liberated.

    I am tired, and I am speaking out for the rights of my and other fellow Muslim sisters to be able to dress and be how they wish to be.

    When I first heard about the 'titslamism' campaign that the radical feminist organization FEMEN was undertaking, I regarded it with apathy. Their original mission seemed to be intended to raise awareness around the Tunisian activist Amina Tyler, a woman who posted a photo of her bare breasts to the FEMEN Tunisia Facebook page and received backlash from the Tunisian government for doing so. As a result, FEMEN opted to begin protesting in front of Islamic centers around the world, baring their breasts in an effort to deal with Islamism.

    Or so they purported.

    In actuality, however, their campaign is not aligned with what they supposedly intended. FEMEN and its supporters have banked on what they feel is 'politically correct' these days to tap into: a healthy dose of Islamophobia with a heavy dash of sex appeal. Inna Shevchenko, the leader of FEMEN, backs up these allegations in a response she wrote addressing the very Muslim women who protested the efforts of her campaign to 'free' them:
    So, sisters, (I prefer to talk to women anyway, even knowing that behind them are bearded men with knives). You say to us that you are against Femen, but we are here for you and for all of us, as women are the modern slaves and it's never a question of colour of skin. ... And you can put as many scarves as you want if you are free tomorrow to take it off and to put it back the next day but don't deny millions of your sisters who have fear behind their scarves, don't deny that there are million of your sisters who have been raped and killed because they are not following the wish of Allah!"
    Wow.

    As the very woman who is supposedly being 'freed' by these protests, I am offended and disgusted. As a covered Muslim woman, I am greeted on a daily basis with passersby who tell me that I no longer need to wear the headscarf because I am in America. In this exact statement supposedly freeing Muslim women from the clothes they seem 'forced' to don, there is a level of oppression being expressed, as though there is only one way to be 'free.' The same beliefs are employed in FEMEN's offensive and ultimately pointless protests.

    I anticipate there being a number of comments posted to this article notifying me that my father will stone me once he hears that I've spoken out (he will not, he is a sweet, supportive man, as most men are in the Islamic faith), that if I were 'back home' where I 'came from', I would be forced into a hut with four other women and raped on a daily basis under the guise of Islam (I come from Syria and Denmark, neither of which engage in those supposed practices, practices that are not condoned in Islam, although unjust instances of domestic violence still occur under the guise of the faith). So, for any readers who quickly scan through this piece and begin complaining about my so-called oppression, recognize that I am fully free and require no sort of help on your part.

    FEMEN protests display a blatant expression of orientalism and colonialism in their belief that there is only one way to be free: through the utter disrobing of all garments covering the body. In perpetuating the belief that there is only one way to go about being free, FEMEN provides a narrow-minded solution that is not feasible for anyone else to fit into. Rather than being revolutionary, FEMEN utilizes the same rhetoric used in colonial history to simplify women to just their attire as a representation of their ultimate freedom. Amusingly, topless protests are not even legally permitted in the free nations in which the FEMEN protests take place -- effectively contradicting the freedom that FEMEN attempts to express to Muslim women as being the only way to live. I have not heard a single Muslim woman speak out about how she now feels freed due to the FEMEN protests.

    Why is that the case? Is it because all of the -- as Inna so condescendingly put it -- "bearded men with knives" are holding Muslim women back from speaking out? No.

    It is because we have no need to be freed by a group of condescending protesters, all skinny, white and fitting squarely into the acceptable media paradigm of 'true beauty.' It's like a random stranger telling you how to eat 'better,' even though they have no information on who you are or how you manage your daily nutritional intake.

    Just as many past colonialist movements have only served to hurt, rather than help, the very people they pretend to care about, so too does FEMEN with its movement to 'free' Muslim women from the imaginary oppressors. n its attempts to bring attention towards the movement, FEMEN blatantly shut off any attempts for a dialogue, telling Muslim women that we have no right to speak out on the very issues that we are supposedly being hurt by.

    I speak out not because a bearded man told me to, not because I am nothing but, as Inna stated, a puppet for "dictatorial countries to promote the official position of the government... ." I speak out because the FEMEN protests offend and infuriate me, as a Muslim woman, as a covered woman, as a feminist, and as an equal human being in this world. I am tired, and I am speaking out for my own and fellow Muslim sisters' right to be able to dress as we like and be who we wish to be in this world.

    My choice to cover is my own, and FEMEN's very protest to uncover is oppression in itself.

    Follow Laila Alawa on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lulainlife
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laila-...b_3052001.html

  3. #3
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default

    Muslimah Pride: We Reject Femens Islamophobic and Neo-Colonialist Crusade to Save Us

    I have been following the exploits of Femen for a while now and have become increasingly frustrated with the way in which they carry out their campaigns. What Femen are doing is highly counterproductive and detrimental to Muslim women across the world. For me and hundreds of other women who have got in touch with me over the past few days, their tactics are a part of the ideological war that is going on between neo-colonial elements in the West and Islamic societies. Their aim is not to emancipate us from our presumed slavery, but instead reinforce Western imperialism and generate consent for the ongoing wars against Muslim countries.

    Despite my personal views about the effectiveness of Amina Tyler's actions, I hope that she is safe and well. However, I fail to see how declaring 'Topless Jihad Day' in 'support of her' will have any positive effect on her fate. A policy based on "Muslim women, let's get naked" is counterproductive and bordering on insane. This is what prompted me to launch 'Muslimah Pride Day'.

    It seemed that many other Muslim women across the world agreed with my stance and what followed was a defiant and vocal rejection of Femen's invitation. Instead of 'getting naked' Muslim women from across the world tweeted and uploaded pictures of themselves to Facebook in their hijabs, niqabs, and western attire. They held up signs telling the world why they were proud of their identities and did not need racist Islamophobic women to dictate to them on how they should dress. The sheer number of participants and support was indicative of the level of anger and frustration that Muslim women feel toward being perpetually infantilised and patronised by Femen and other such groups.

    In our open letter to Femen we referred to them as 'colonial feminists' to describe Femen's activities. I believe it is the most apt term to describe their particular brand of feminism. From Helen of Troy, the face that launched a thousand ships, to the pretext of female liberation surrounding the invasion of Afghanistan, women have always been used as pawns by men as an excuse to wage war. Femen are just the latest chapter in the long history of gender imperialists that manufacture consent and provide ideological foregrounding to justify going to war. By dismissing the role of western countries in the oppression of Muslim women and focusing solely on Muslim men they are only working to demonise Islam, not liberate Muslim women.

    In her latest piece in the Huffington Post UK, Inna Shevchenko suggests that we have "bearded men with knives" behind us that have pushed us to launch this campaign. In doing so she is dismissing our right to self-expression as impossible.

    What she is implying is that Muslim women are incapable of speaking for themselves. It is a blatant attempt at denying that we have agency in our own lives. This kind of inferiorising is symbolic of why so many Muslim women are so angry with Femen.

    The lead up to the Afghanistan war is a prime example of how feminism is used to construct and disseminate negative stereotypes about Muslim women to whip up support for warmongers. Former First Lady Laura Bush provided the speech act on the so-called plight of the women in Afghanistan, which turned a referent object like the Burkha into an obstacle to freedom. The reported plight of Afghan women was used to manipulate the public in to believing that this war was a well-intentioned feminist crusade to free them. The crude/sick reality that the chosen method of liberation for these women was by bombing, killing and raping them was cynically eclipsed by the fervour to save them from their own 'evil' Muslim men.

    In a climate where we are constantly warned about a 'clash of civilisations' and the West's state of perpetual war with Muslim countries, there is a fundamental need to dehumanise the 'enemy'. The overemphasis on the Muslim man's perceived misogyny overshadows the complete lack of scrutiny of the West's oppression against Muslim women. Femen's reliance on the overused media tropes of the modern western values versus traditional Muslim values is creating a dichotomous representation of the 'self' (West) and 'other' (Muslims).

    Discourses based solely on the way women dress has historically been used to justify oppression against all dominated groups in history. The French colonialists would physically rip the veil of from women's heads during the Algerian Revolution. In his essay Algeria Unveiled, in which he examines the role of women in colonised societies, Frantz Fanon quotes the French colonial authorities in saying: "If we want to destroy the structure of Algerian society, its capacity for resistance, we must first of all conquer the woman; we must go and find them behind the veil where they hide themselves and in the houses where the men keep them out of sight". Neo-cons and Islamophobes use the same approach to keep the Muslim woman subjugated.

    The hyper-sexualisation of Femen's campaign and the insistence on Muslim women to strip naked as a gesture of emancipation is a tell-tale symptom of Orientalist fantasies. When puritanical, prudish Christians from Europe first came across the Muslim world, Muslim women were off limits to the western man but that did not stop writers of harem literature fabricating their fantastical sexual encounters and present them as reality. Muslim women were depicted as the sex slaves lounging around in harems, there for the sexual pleasure of Muslim men. This has led to a construction of the 'Muslim Woman' as a submissive sexual object. Femen's tactics suggest that this mentality has not changed. Now that the West has become supposedly sexually liberated, the Muslim woman (the 'Other') represents covered up sex slaves trying desperately to clamber out of their stifling burkhas and forced marriages.

    I am not dismissing the fact that there are problems in the Muslim world. However history has shown that the West has directly (through slavery, colonialism and neocolonialism) and indirectly (through the propping up of misogynistic and oppressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia) done far more damage to Muslim women than Muslim men have. That is why I vehemently oppose Femen's universal imposition of the neocolonial agenda. If Femen really want to help Muslim women they should address the fact that for far too long now, Muslim women have been marginalised, bombed, raped, killed, and enslaved by men from the western world. They should work within their own countries to try and subvert future wars against Muslim countries and help break down barriers. Or perhaps they should stick to trying to liberate women in the west.

    We have been overwhelmed and are extremely appreciative of the messages of support and encouragement we have been getting from non-Muslims around the world. A woman from the US sent us a picture in which she had fashioned a hijaab out of a piece of cloth and headband in solidarity of our right to wear it. Western feminists such as Those Pesky Dames have also come out in support of our campaign. This is indicative of the ability to look past historically ingrained attitudes and the willingness of none Muslims to try and understand this misrepresented religion.

    Despite the popularity of our campaign and the strong message that it sent out, Femen have continued to display a flagrant disregard for our agency and have consistently tried to downplay the legitimacy of our collective voices. Femen have tried to dismiss our campaign using conspiracy and conjecture, and there has been no sign of intellectual debate or a constructive argument against the points that we have raised. They have made no attempt to approach us directly, nor have they provided a response to our open letter. Instead Inna Shevchenko has said that's she will see us on the "battle lines", but we do not wish to engage on those terms.

    For us this is not about a spat with Femen. Rather we are concerned with the bigger picture, of changing attitudes and perceptions and to foster a better understanding between Muslims and the West. This is our opportunity to tell our stories, let our voices be heard and take control of our own narratives. Femen should hope for a warm summer, they can get naked every day for all we care, the vast majority of Muslim women have shown that we won't be joining them anytime soon.

    Twitter @_MWAF
    Facebook Muslim Women Against Femen
    Follow the #Muslimahpride tag on Twitter
    Follow Sofia Ahmed on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sofiaahmed1
    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/sofi...b_3044015.html

  4. #4
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default

    Is Femen a fringe group? A sad history of racist feminism

    by Hakeem Muhammad - July 8, 2013




    ‘Femen’ is a white people-led feminist
    organization that seeks to ‘liberate’ Muslim women from the alleged oppression that Islam inflicts upon women. Though ‘Femen’ puts on a façade of bolstering the social status of Muslim women, their real agenda is to continue the colonial legacy of European feminists. Their ridiculous attempt to free Muslim women who are supposedly “repressed” is devoid of both decency and affectivity. Recently Femen has engaged in a bizarre (yet ultimately meaningless) attempt to protest the patriarchy that Islam allegedly subjects upon women by wearing hijabs, then entering Muslim holy sites and stripping naked.

    Anna Hutsol, a leader of Femen, declares that Femen’s problem is that “as a society we haven’t been able to eradicate our Arab mentality towards women” [1], making it clear Femen connects the entire Arab race of men as being both patriarchal and oppressive. Yet, there is no monolithic Arab mentality towards women. Such statements represent the definition of racism. Concerning Femen’s racism, many have argued that Femen is a fringe group among feminism, stating that their racism is not representative of all feminist groups. Hajer Naili wrote that “Femen’s Islam-bashing disregards muslim feminism” [2]. The argument is that non-racist forms of ‘feminism’ treats women of all ethnic groups (including Muslim women) fairly in relation to feminism, whereas racist groups such as Femen are on the fringe among feminists. One definition of a fringe group is, “a set phrase to dissociate a mainstream organization from outcast radical members” [3] which is an inappropriate description of Femen. Femen represents mainstream feminism. Why? Early feminists founded their ideology upon racism [4].

    One early feminist has also been quoted as stating:

    American women of wealth, education, virtue and refinement, if you do not wish the lower orders of Chinese, Africans, Germans and Irish with their low ideas of womanhood, to make laws for you and your daughters, awake to the danger of your present position and demand that woman, too, shall be represented in the government!”[5]

    History clearly indicates that racism has been a core element of feminism since its beginning. The original women’s suffrage movement which has often been labeled as feminist mainly focused on political rights, voting rights, and social rights for white women. Elizabath Cady Stanton who fought for voting rights, property rights, employment and income rights and divorce for white women repeatedly denigrated women of other races. While promoting voting rights for white women, she explicitly believed Black men having the right to vote was dangerous stating that they would introduce “pauperism, ignorance, and degradation” into the political system [6].

    She argued for feminist causes by using racism. Fearful, black men would receive the right to vote she stated: “a serious question whether we had better stand aside and see Sambo walk into the kingdom [of civil rights] first.” [7]


    Sambo is a deregulatory and racist term for Black people. Those using the term often portrayed Black men in a stereotypical and demeaning manner. The Sambo in minstrel shows often involved white men dressing up as black men to mock their physical features. Today, Femen does the same thing only towards Muslim men to also mock their physical features often dressing up in turbans and fake beards to mock their culture.


    Even mainstream feminist such as Susan B Anthony, did not have a high opinion of the intellect of black men and held them to be highly unintelligent. She was very unhappy that black men received the right to vote.

    “Negro men just emerged from slavery, and not only are they totally illiterate, but they’re densely ignorant of every public question.” [8]

    Helen Pits, another white feminist openly opposed Fredrick Douglas’ marriage to a white woman [9].

    At one women’s right conference they selected a few African-American women to attend as tokens in their movement. However, many white feminists did not like this. One white feminist writing later declared that “black, half-clad, flat-headed, big-nosed, protruding lips, a perfect type of brutality and heathenism [sic].”Femen employs similar caricatures of Muslim men, their leader Inna Shevchenko stated that she was, “irritated only by bearded men who pray five times per day. We have enough bearded bastards” [10]. Many early white feminists embarked on campaigns to civilize Native-American women by changing some of their native spiritual customs and converting them to their way of life just as Femen seeks to civilize Muslim women by having them take off their Hijabs to get naked.



    Feminists such as Josephine Daskam Bacon fought for feminist cause using racist language. Core to her feminism, was the belief that racial differences unlike sexual differences demanded separate political rights. She writes, “Women in not voting are not unrepresented in the sense or to the extent to which non-voting Negroes are unrepresented. The African is a separate race from the Caucasian, with its own ambitions and tradition. Either, without the other, is an entire and a distinct race, but the men and women of an American community are one race…the life of our [white] men and women is inextricably intertwined…..” She was not a fan of allowing black women to attend any conferences dedicated to women’s rights. One would think that a core element of women’s rights would be to allow women to marry whom they choose. Josephine did not think so raising the rhetorical question, “Do you want your daughter to marry a ne*gro?” in one of her publications [11].

    Second Wave of Feminism

    Second wave feminism occurred during the 60s with women fighting for reproductive rights, sexual liberation, contraception and equality with men. When African-American women wanted to fight in behalf of women rights with them- they were met with racism from white women feminists. Many white feminists did not even find the issues facing black women as worth listening to. They believed the experiences facing white women were universal. One author writes, “black women were not invited to participate on conference panels which were not specifically about black or Third World women. They were not equally, or even proportionately, represented on the faculty of Women’s Studies Departments, nor were there classes devoted specifically to the study of black women’s history” [12]. The racism African-American faced during this era lead to “Black Feminism” with African-American seeking to address the issues facing Black women.

    It was the white racist feminists which was mainstream, while the feminism of black women was considered to be a fringe. But this raises an interesting question - what exactly is feminism? Rebecca West once wrote “Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.” In reality, one obviously does not need to call themselves a feminist to believe that women are people and deserve justice just as one does not need to call themselves a socialist or communist because they are opposed to poverty. The feminism of Rebecca and Susan B. Anthony was more about basic rights for women. In modern day feminism has evolved into an entire ideology with different sects of feminists disagreeing on many crucial issues. Some feminists see the abhorrent pornography industry as a means of sexual freedom for women, whereas others see it as objectification. Feminism has no coherent methodology or worldview.

    Many people in the modern era associate abortion with the rights of women, but Susan B. Anthony opposed abortion stating, “When a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is a sign that, by education or circumstances, she has been greatly wronged.” Feminism has no clear methodology or agenda for what they want but many of them share racist attitudes. Femen is a mainstream feminist organization carrying on the same racist legacy of their foremothers. White colonists once encouraged the portrayal of black men as hypersexual savages whose prime motivation was to rape white women; Femen is now mimicking this archaic perception of a group of men as predators, condemning Muslim men for their alleged sexual crimes. Femen’s “topless jihad” is an attempt to shock people into accepting their skewed perception of Muslim men using the same racist discourse as their feminist predecessors.

    Just as early feminists made crude and racist remarks concerning black women and men, Femen is now making racist and crude remarks in their feeble attempts to civilize and liberate Muslim women. Make no mistake about it, Femen represents mainstream feminism which has always been and continues to be racist towards people of color!


    http://hakeemmuhammad.com/2013/07/08...acist-feminism


    References


    1) FettersFemen, Ukraine’s Topless Warriors, Jeffrey Tayler - http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/11/femen-ukraines-topless-warriors/265624
    2) Femen’s Islam bashing disregards muslim feminism - http://womensenews.org/story/religio...m#.UdoF8cr1xdo
    3) Definition of Fringe Group - http://www.definitions.net/definition/fringe%20group
    4) The Political Thought of Elizabeth Cady Stanton: Women’s Rights and the …By Sue Davis
    5) White Women’s Rights: The Racial Origins of Feminism in the United States
    6) IBID
    7) IBID
    8) IBID
    9) IBID
    10) FettersFemen, Ukraine’s Topless Warriors, Jeffrey Tayler - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...n_3035439.html
    11) White Women’s Rights: The Racial Origins of Feminism in the United States
    12) A history of black feminism - http://www.mit.edu/~thistle/v9/9.01/6blackf.html
    13) http://www.feministsforlife.org/Femi...rinkerhoff.htm

  5. #5
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default

    The man who made Femen: New film outs Victor Svyatski as the mastermind behind the protest group and its breast-baring stunts

    Geoffrey Macnab - 03 September 2013

    It’s the Ukranian feminist group that embarrassed President Putin. Its activists have staged many protests against sexual and political repression by stripping to their waists in carefully choreographed media stunts.

    “Our mission is protest, our weapons are bare breasts,” runs their slogan. Now, a new documentary screening at the Venice Film Festival has revealed that Femen was founded and is controlled by a man.

    Ukraine is not a Brothel, directed by 28-year-old Australian film-maker Kitty Green, has “outed” Victor Svyatski as the mastermind behind the group. Mr Syvatski is known as a “consultant” to the movement. According to the Femen website, he was badly beaten up by the secret services in Ukraine earlier this summer because of his activities on behalf of the group.

    However, Ms Green reveals that Svyatski is not simply a supporter of Femen but its founder and éminence grise. “It’s his movement and he hand-picked the girls. He hand-picked the prettiest girls because the prettiest girls sell more papers. The prettiest girls get on the front page... that became their image, that became the way they sold the brand,” she says.

    Today, several of the original members of Femen – among them its best known campaigner Inna Shevchenko – are due in Venice for the launch of Ms Green’s documentary. In recent days some of its original members have moved abroad to escape persecution in their home country, claiming that they have been “systematically harassed, severely beaten, kidnapped, and repeatedly received threats” from the authorities, while in June two French and one German member were jailed following a topless protest in Tunisia.

    Until now, the full extent of Mr Svyatski’s influence over Femen has not been realised. The film claims it was he who sent Femen activists on one of their most terrifying missions to Belarus where (according to testimony in the film) they were arrested by secret service agents, stripped, humiliated and abandoned in a forest close to the Ukranian border.

    Ms Green accompanied them on this trip. She told The Independent that her footage was stolen by the KGB and that she was abducted, “kept in confinement for about eight hours,” and then deported to Lithuania.

    In the documentary, Ms Green pays tribute to Mr Svyatski’s organisational abilities and charisma but questions his influence over the group.

    “He can be really horrible but he is fiercely intelligent,” she said of Mr Svyatski, who is interviewed on camera in her film. Ms Green spent a year living in a tiny apartment in Kiev with four of the Femen members and filming their stunts. “I would shoot their protests and they would take them and put them on their website,” she said.

    Only gradually did she become aware that Mr Svyatski was pulling the strings behind the scenes. “Once I was in the inner circle, you can’t not know him. He is Femen.”

    Initially, Mr Svyatski refused to allow Ms Green to film him but she was determined that he should feature. “It was a big moral thing for me because I realised how this organisation was run. He was quite horrible with the girls. He would scream at them and call them bitches.”

    When the Femen founder finally spoke to Ms Green, he sought to justify his role within the organisation and acknowledged the paradox of being a “patriarch” running a feminist protest group. “These girls are weak,” he says in the film.

    “They don’t have the strength of character. They don’t even have the desire to be strong. Instead, they show submissiveness, spinelessness, lack of punctuality, and many other factors which prevent them from becoming political activists. These are qualities which it was essential to teach them.”

    Mr Svyatski insists to Ms Green that his influence on the group is positive. However, when he is asked directly whether he started Femen “to get girls”, he replies: “Perhaps yes, somewhere in my deep subconscious.”

    One of the Femen campaigners talks of the relationship between the women and the movement’s founder as being akin to “Stockholm syndrome”, in which hostages feel sympathy for their captors.

    We are psychologically dependent on him and even if we know and understand that we could do this by ourselves without his help, it’s psychological dependence,” she says.


    http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...tService=print

    comments:

    These women have been protesting against Muslims and trying to "free" the Muslim women from the "evil, bearded, Muslim men", yet the truth finally exposes them. It is they who aren't free, it is they who are prisoners of one man and humiliate themselves on his orders.

    "...do those in whose hearts is disease think that Allah would never expose their hatred?" [Quran 47:29]

    "Mock [as you wish]; indeed, Allah will expose that which you fear." [Quran 9:64]

    ...they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners. [Quran 8:30]

  6. #6
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default Feminism Exposed

    Feminists Run Sweatshops for Their T-Shirts

    62p AN HOUR: What women sleeping 16 to a room get paid to make £45 'This Is What A Feminist Looks Like' T-shirts

    By Ben Ellery - 1 November 2014

    Feminist T-shirts proudly worn by Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and Harriet Harman are made in ‘sweatshop’ conditions by migrant women paid just 62p an hour, a Mail on Sunday investigation has revealed.

    The women machinists on the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius sleep 16 to a room –and earn much less than the average wage on the island.

    The £45 T-shirts carry the defiant slogan ‘This is what a feminist looks like’. But one of the thousands of machinists declared: ‘We do not see ourselves as feminists. We see ourselves as trapped.’

    In this special investigation by the Mail On Sunday, Ben Ellery reveals exactly what is like for these women...

    They are the T-shirts designed to make a political statement about women’s rights – but the female workers making them are paid just 62p an hour in an Indian Ocean ‘sweatshop’.

    Between shifts women making garments emblazoned with the slogan ‘This is what a feminist looks like’ sleep in spartan dormitories, 16 to a room.


    The workers paid just 62p an hour: Machinists at the CMT factory in Mauritius with one of the 'feminist' shirts it would take nearly two weeks' of their wages to buy

    And critics say the low wages and long hours at the Mauritian factories amount to exploitation.

    The shirts have been worn by Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and Harriet Harman, all keen to display their feminist credentials – even though the Deputy Prime Minister last night admitted he had ‘no idea’ where the garments were made.

    But The Mail on Sunday has toured a factory producing the T-shirts, where workers earn just 6,000 rupees a month equivalent to £120.

    The figure is just a quarter of the country’s average monthly wage, and around half of what a waiter earns. Each ‘feminist’ T-shirt costs just £9 to make, but high street chain Whistles sells them for £45 each a figure it would take the women a week and a half to earn.

    The retailer promised an urgent investigation last night in the wake of the Mail on Sunday exposé.

    At one factory visited by The Mail on Sunday, a female worker told us: ‘How can this T-shirt be a symbol of feminism when we do not see ourselves as feminists? We see ourselves as trapped.’

    An official from factory owner Compagnie Mauricienne de Textile (CMT) told us he ‘would not be happy’ if the women left the work camp during the week in case they turned up for work ‘hungover’.

    Whistles, whose customers include the Duchess of Cambridge, is selling the T-shirts in aid of women’s activism group The Fawcett Society – which receives all profits. The campaign is backed by fashion magazine Elle.


    Reality: Migrant worker Primerose Marcelin, 37, at one of the T-shirt firm's factories on Indian Ocean island

    Deputy Labour Leader Harriet Harman wore a shirt carrying the slogan on the front bench of the Commons during Prime Minister’s Questions last week, while the Labour and Liberal Democrat leaders proudly posed for photographs in Elle’s ‘feminism issue’ in the T-shirts.

    Fayzal Ally Beegun, president of the International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers Union said:
    ‘The workers in this factory are treated very poorly and the fact that politicians in England are making a statement using these sweatshop T-shirts is appalling.

    It would take a woman working in the factory nearly two weeks just to buy one shirt. What is feminist about that? These women have nothing in this world. They are paid a pittance and any money they do receive they send back home.

    They work very long hours and have no lives other than their work. They are on four-year contracts that mean they don’t get to see their families in that time. What kind of existence is it when you are sharing your bedroom with 15 other women?'

    The women have no careers or even the most basic of opportunities
    . This is not what feminism is supposed to be.’



    Slogan: Ed Miliband (left) and Nick Clegg (right) posed in the 'This Is What A Feminist Looks Like' T-shirt



    Posturing: Harriet Harman wearing the T-shirt during Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons

    Celebrities pictured wearing the feminist T-shirt in Elle magazine include Benedict Cumberbatch, Tinie Tempah, Eddie Izzard, Richard E Grant and Simon Pegg.

    Yesterday a reporter and a photographer from The Mail on Sunday were given a guided tour of CMT’s factory in La Tour Koenig, north Mauritius. As managing director Francois Woo showed us around the sleeping quarters he said: ‘All of our dormitories are identical. There are 16 beds in each room. They are based on university dormitories in China. They don’t need a lot of room because they only use them for sleep.’

    He told us that the plant is one of six across the island where living conditions and wages are identical.

    He could not say at which factory the Whistles T-shirts were made, but confirmed they made 300 at a cost of £9. ‘The machinists at our factories made the feminist T-shirt for Whistles’ he said, adding: ‘All the machinists earn 6,000 rupees.’

    Mr. Woo instructed workers to smile as our photographer took pictures of them on the shop floor.

    The tour was delayed when we asked to view the women’s accommodation block. Staff made several phone calls and 30 minutes later we were allowed to view the bedrooms.

    The 20ft square rooms are home to eight sets of bunk beds, each with a thin mattress and a pillow. Shelving on the far wall houses the workers’ meagre belongings.


    Sleeping conditions: One of the dorms used by the women with thin mattresses and a few shelves for their meagre belongings

    The women – who we could not talk to – work 45 hours a week
    basic and can earn more if they work overtime.

    After the tour and without the company’s senior staff, we visited another of the company’s factories, in Curepipe.

    Outside we spoke to one 30-year-old worker. She told us:

    ‘I have worked here for four years and I have not been able to see my son or husband in Bangladesh during all that time. We work very hard, sometimes 12 hour days, for not much money. I send all my money home and could not afford to fly back and see my family.

    It is awful but we have no choice. In my country, the rupees I earn here are worth three times as much as they are in Mauritius.

    How can this T-shirt be a symbol of feminism? These politicians say that they support equality for all, but we are not equal.

    CMT has an annual turnover of £125 million. It produces 40 million T-shirts a year for clients including Topshop, Next and Urban Outfitters.

    It employs 13,000 staff at its factories and about 4,500, all foreign, are housed on site. Migrants come from countries including Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, India and Vietnam.

    There are around 2,800 female machinists. Workers are expected to produce around 50 shirts a day and face discipline if they do not reach their target.

    Mr. Woo said: ‘The Mauritian government has set out a minimum wage that we must pay and we abide by their rules.

    ‘I am like a parent to the workers. They are free to come and go as they please but if they go out on a weeknight I will not be happy because then they will turn up for work the next day hungover. If people didn’t want to work for us then they don’t have to, nobody is forcing them. If they have the chance to earn more somewhere else then they should go elsewhere. If they didn’t like it, then we would not have existed as a company for 28 years.’

    The factory was the focus of an exposé in 2007 when it was revealed that workers were being paid just £4 a day to make clothes for Sir Philip Green’s Kate Moss range at Topshop. At the time, the factory employed agents who promised migrant workers good wages but when they moved to Mauritius they were told they would earn a pittance. The factory was also criticised for paying workers of different nationalities different wages.

    A spokesman for Labour Leader Ed Miliband and Deputy Leader Harriet Harman would only say: ‘This was a campaign run by Elle and the Fawcett Society to promote feminism and we were happy to support it.’


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-T-shirts.html

    comments:

    Anyone who has looked into this (feminism) movement will tell you that it is not about equality or women's rights. It is a hate (of men) ideology aimed at gaining power and destroying the family and they will exploit anyone to achieve their objectives.

  7. #7

  8. #8
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default

    Topless Femen activist grabs Baby Jesus in St Peter's Square

    12/26/14



    (RT) A FEMEN protester disrupted a nativity scene in St. Peter's Square in Vatican City, Thursday. The topless activist, who had 'God is a Woman' written on her torso, stole a statue of baby Jesus before the Vatican police could intervene. FEMEN say they are firmly atheist, stating that organised religion reinforces patriarchy.

    http://news.yahoo.com/vatican-arrest...175554757.html

  9. #9
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default

    Feminist claims: "We looove Nice Guys (when we get older)"


    Translation: From 18-28 this modern (feminist) woman was a whoring carousel and now her biological clock is running out!

    So she wants to find a nice guy to have a baby, marry and settle down. She is looking for a beta male who will provide and pay all her bills. It's so simple.

    And even if she will get divorced later on, she will get the child custody and life long alimony.


    Security is everything that matters for women, they don't care about "love", so we don't either anymore: Don't fall for the late 20s/ early 30s or older ladies who are looking for a "nice guy".

    watch video: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1514404835495119






    Women are selling positive pregnancy tests to ‘lock’ men down over Christmas

    21 Dec 2014

    Positive pregnancy tests are being sold online to keep struggling relationships from falling apart over the Christmas period.


    Ads have appeared on websites including Craigslist offering the tests for around $20 (£12.80).


    One ad reads: ‘I have positive pregnancy test for those of you who need a little help holding onto your man through the holidays, shoot me a message for $20 each.’


    Fake positive pregnancy tests have been available for some time, and are advertised on sites like eBay as a ‘prank’ gift.



    The ad on Craigslist (Picture: Craigslist)
    Another Craigslist post, which has since been removed, asks: ‘Wanna lock your man down just in time for Christmas?’


    But police have warned how buying these tests in a bid to tie down a partner could be classed as blackmail.


    Gary Mason, of Kansas force in the US, said: ‘For example, if a married man is having an affair and he tried to break it off with the girl, and she became upset and decided to present this fake pregnancy test and demand money, otherwise she would tell the spouse. That would be a level of blackmail.’

    http://news360.com/article/271480801#

  10. #10
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default

    2014 in review: The men strike back

    2014 was a watershed year -- it was the year it became apparent to a lot of folks with no personal stake in the issue that gender extremists have gone too far pushing their agendas on sexual assault. There is finally a mainstream backlash against rape culture hysteria. The rape culturalists are still winning, but for the first time, they have prominent opposition.

    Rape Culture Hysteria

    Before we get to the backlash, it is important to note that the year witnessed an explosion of jaw-dropping "rape culture" hysteria:

    Amanda Childress, Sexual Assault Awareness Program coordinator at Dartmouth College, declared that campus policies aren't going far enough to protect students. She asked: "Why could we not expel a student based on an allegation?" Dartmouth defended Childress's comment, noting that she "was asking a question—a provocative one—meant to generate dialogue around complex issues . . . .”

    Ms. Magazine quoted Caroline Heldman, a professor at Occidental College, on suits filed by men for alleged violations of their due process rights in connection with sexual assault claims: "These lawsuits are an incredible display of entitlement, the same entitlement that drove them to rape."

    Sen. Claire McCaskill circulated an extensive survey about sexual assault to 350 college and university presidents. The survey classified persons who make accusations of sexual misconduct as “victims,” and in one place called persons merely accused of sexual misconduct “offenders.” Then on page 14, it contained this query: "Below is a list of policies and procedures that may discourage victims from disclosing and reporting assaults at some schools . . . . 1. Disclosure of offender’s rights in the adjudication process . . . ." The implication: it is somehow improper to insure that students accused of serious sexual offenses are aware of their rights.

    Feminist professors attempted to prove campus rape is an epidemic by pointing to schools where there are no rapes

    A jury acquitted former Dartmouth student Parker Gilbert of raping a female student at the school in a "he said/she said" dispute. A juror told a reporter “(The woman’s) story of how the night played out, the evidence wasn’t there to support that." And: “There is tons and tons of evidence that just doesn’t add up.” But WISE, an organization that seeks to empower victims of domestic and sexual violence, issued a formal statement: "Today’s decision in the Dartmouth rape trial of Parker Gilbert is devastating and there is no doubt that it sends a terrible message to survivors of sexual assault."

    Gender zealots declared that they want the prosecution of rape liars to stop -- it violates human rights.

    Duke University Dean of Students Sue Wasiolek was asked what would happen if two students got drunk to the point of incapacity, and then had sex. "Assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex," said Wasiolek.

    Jessica Valenti mocked the efforts of three mothers who started Families Advocating for Campus Equality (FACE) that seeks to raise awareness about the injustices faced by presumptively innocent college students accused of sexual misconduct. Each of the three founders of FACE has been touched directly by campus rape injustice: their sons were ensnared by it. Valenti wrote: "Alternative name for this group: Not My Nigel." Of course, "Not My Nigel" is radical feminist shorthand to suggest that women who defend their male loved ones accused of rape or similar acts are defending rapists.

    Ezra Klein evinced satisfaction that possibly innocent young men will be expelled for rapes they didn't commit: "Critics worry that colleges will fill with cases in which campus boards convict young men (and, occasionally, young women) of sexual assault for genuinely ambiguous situations. Sadly, that’s necessary for the law’s success. It’s those cases — particularly the ones that feel genuinely unclear and maybe even unfair, the ones that become lore in frats and cautionary tales that fathers e-mail to their sons — that will convince men that they better Be Pretty D–n Sure."

    College orientation season saw the usual blaming of "men" for sexual assault.

    Elisabeth Dee, Stanford class of 2016, one of the organizers of the “Carry that Weight” demonstration where students were urged to carry a pillow or mattress around for a day to symbolize the burden placed upon survivors of sexual assault, called on the school to reduce the burden of proof required to find someone guilty of sexual assault, which is already the lowest legally permissible, "preponderance of the evidence." Dee said that Stanford, should not be focusing on "defending the perpetrator, because essentially burden of proof is a defense of the perpetrator.”

    Laura Dunn, executive director of SurvJustice, on why some colleges have pushed back against lowering the standard of proof for sexual assault cases to make it easier to hold young men accused of sexual assault: "To put it bluntly, I think it's arrogance and ingrained male privilege . . . ."

    "Offensive" posters at hospitals and colleges that carry the slogan "one in three reported rapes happens when the victim has been drinking" were condemned for victim blaming.

    Julia Horowitz, a journalist at University of Virginia’s school newspaper, wrote that "to let fact checking define the [sexual assault] narrative would be a huge mistake.”

    Zerlina Maxwell wrote this: “Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist.”

    Jessica Valenti debated Wendy McElroy at Brown University. A live-blog reveals that a questioner suggested that the conversation had become unnecessarily adversarial, with some people supporting the accuser and others supporting the accused. Valenti responded: “. . . in the society we live in now, we need to side with the survivors. That might not be a fair and equal thing, but that’s how I think it has to be."

    At the University of Virginia, the gender zealots want "private" rape trials despite the fact that, as Prof. KC Johnson said, "secret trials are anathema to the U.S. legal tradition" and "that open trials afford a critical protection to the wrongly accused."

    The Columbia University Marching Band's adopted a sexual assault policy that assumes all sexual assault accusations are sexual assaults.

    The University of Michigan defined "sexual violence" to include "withholding sex and affection."

    An anonymous Tumblr blog called the "Hyde Park List" listed the names of six male students and alumni who allegedly have perpetrated "gender-based violence" against other students. The blog was followed by fliers with the names taped around campus.

    An ESPN analyst said men need to be reprogrammed. CBS sports anchor James Brown used the Rice incident to boldly -- and bizarrely -- proclaim that when men say "you throw the ball like a girl," it leads to domestic violence against women.

    Feminist pundits assumed Woody Allen is a rapist because a woman said so, even though Woody Allen denied it.

    The rape culturalists got a big victory with California's "affirmative consent" law that governs sexual assault on college campuses. Under the law, the accused must show that he took "reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain whether the complainant affirmatively consented." The law also requires "affirmative" consent at each step of a sexual encounter on its college campuses. The co-author of the bill in the state assembly, Bonnie Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, was asked how an innocent person is supposed to prove consent. She said: “Your guess is as good as mine."

    One of the worst examples of rape culture hysteria in recent years was the Rolling Stone debacle. Sabrina Rubin Erdely, recounting an alleged gang rape of "Jackie" at a University of Virginia frat house, wrote this in Rolling Stone Magazine: "'Grab its motherfucking leg,' she heard a voice say. And that's when Jackie knew she was going to be raped. She remembers every moment of the next three hours of agony, during which, she says, seven men took turns raping her, while two more – her date, Drew, and another man – gave instruction and encouragement." And: "For men, skepticism is a form of self-protection . . . . For much of their lives, they've looked forward to the hedonistic fun of college, bearing every expectation of booze and no-strings sex. A rape heralds the uncomfortable idea that all that harmless mayhem may not be so harmless after all. Easier, then, to assume the girl is lying, even though studies indicate that false rape reports account for, at most, eight percent of reports." The Managing Editor of Rolling Stone later apologized for the story, noting with almost other-worldly understatement: ". . . there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie's account."

    The Backlash

    The Rolling Stone debacle might have been a tipping point, because suddenly, the mainstream media discovered that an important college "rape" story was filled with holes -- this, combined with other blows to the rape culture meme, led more and more people to realize that the Rolling Stone debacle is symptomatic of a culture that has allowed gender extremists to dominate the public discourse on sexual assault.

    Early in the year, much to the chagrin of feminist pundits, RAINN, the nation's leading anti-rape organization, debunked the "rape culture" meme: "Rape is caused not by cultural factors but by the conscious decisions, of a small percentage of the community, to commit a violent crime." This is what we've been preaching here for years. RAINN decried the "inclination to focus on particular . . . traits that are common in many millions of law-abiding Americans (e.g., 'masculinity'), rather than on the subpopulation at fault: those who choose to commit rape." It cites the work of Dr. David Lisak, just as this blog has done, in explaining that the notion of "rape culture" is inaccurate.

    More damning, the oft-repeated claim that 1-in-5 college women are sexually assaulted came under fierce attack, but not until the end of the year. Earlier in the year, George Will used the Obama administration's own stats to prove the one in five claim was too high, and he got ripped apart for being a rape apologist (by the way, an economist also proved it's way too high based on the government's own under-reporting statistics). Will was a pariah, and it looked like it might be the beginning of the end of his long career.

    But as the year went on, the 1-in-5 started to dissolve. The lead author of the principal one-in-five study, Christopher Krebs, told Emily Yoffe that it simply is not a representative statistic that can be relied upon when discussing American college women in general. The Washington Post concluded that the stat couldn't be relied on as representative. Then, at the end of the year, the Washington Post said it is "misleading to suggest that [the one in five stat] is representative of the experience of all college women." The New York Times says the stat is "flawed." And even Scott Berkowitz, head of the national advocacy group RAINN, says the 1 in 5 stat "is probably too high."

    Most important, the Department of Justice said that it's not 1-in-5 college women who are sexually assaulted, it's more like 1-in 52. Naturally, folks like Tyler Kingkade (who previously wrote "It's estimated that between one-quarter and one-fifth of college women experience sexual assault . . . .") penned a column titled: "Sexual Assault Statistics Can Be Confusing, But They're Not The Point," and Sen. Claire McCaskill (who previously wrote "According to the available statistics, 19 percent of undergraduate women have been the victims of sexual assault") said: "Frankly, it is irritating that anybody would be distracted by which statistics are accurate.”

    There was a mushrooming of litigation by college men accused of sex offenses -- respected lawyers were entering their appearances on behalf of young men who'd been expelled or suspended from colleges, and in suit after suit, the lawyers claimed that the young men were discriminated against because of their gender.

    It was also revealed that colleges pay a lot of money to settle suits filed by men who claim they were wrongly punished for sex offenses.

    The most astounding blow to rape culture excesses came on October 15, 2014, when a letter was published in the Boston Globe signed by 28 Harvard law professors -- mostly liberals -- that voiced very strong objections to the school's one-sided, feminist-inspired sexual misconduct policies. This letter was arguably the single most important statement to date on American colleges' hostility to due process when it comes to men accused of sexual misconduct. Prof. Alan Dershowitz, a titan of criminal jurisprudence, told Time Magazine"Harvard's policy was written by people who think sexual assault is so heinous a crime that even innocence is not a defense." Then, he made clear his opposition to Harvard's sexual assault policies was really "a criticism of the federal government. It’s a criticism of the Obama administration.” He added: “These rules are written to preclude a defense” for accused students.

    And suddenly, even The New York Times discovered there's another side to the story. Not to be outdone by Harvard, a Yale law professor chimed in, again in the New York Times. (So, of course, Jessica Valenti suggested the Yale law professor is a rape apologist. Robby Soaver esponded: "People who oppose the death penalty do not sympathize with murderers. Critics of U.S. drone warfare policy are not on the side of the terrorists. Most self-identifying liberals understand this. So why do feminist liberals smear every person who dissents from their extreme, unhelpful, and legally dubious positions on preventing rape as a rape apologist?" Soave said that Valenti's piece is but "the most recent and infuriating example of this contemptible, authoritarian demonization campaign." Soave offered Valenti some sound advise: "How about this, Valenti: If you can't talk about rape without attempting to shut down the discussion about how to actually prevent rape, maybe you are the one who shouldn't talk about it.")

    Law Prof. Glenn Reynolds chimed in, calling the alleged rape epidemic the "college rape hoax." Law Prof. John Banzhaf said that illegals crossing the border have more rights than college men accused of rape, echoing something this blog had previously written.

    Just as astounding, Brett Sokolow, head of the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management (NCHERM), chimed in. Sokolow has done more to shape the sexual assault landscape on American college campuses than any person outside the Department of Education. Since the year 2000, NCHERM has had in excess of 3,000 college clients. No group has more effectively fought for the rights of sexual assault victims on college campuses. Yet earlier this year, even Sokolow had seen enough, and he wrote a landmark letter to his clients called "An Open Letter to Higher Education About Sexual Violence." It says what this blog has been trying to say for years, only better, and in more forceful terms.

    He painted a chilling picture about the hostility on American college campuses to the rights of men accused of sexual violence. The letter goes into detail about recent cases NCHERM has investigated that illustrate, beyond any question, what this blog has been saying for years: in the "hook up" culture, the evidence is often too murky to warrant charging and punishing the male accused of sexual misconduct, but that's exactly what too many schools are doing. Among many other things, the letter states that "in a lot of these cases, the campus is holding the male accountable in spite of the evidence – or the lack thereof – because they think they are supposed to, and that doing so is what OCR wants." And that in "case-after-case . . . sincere victims believe something has happened to them that evidence shows absolutely did not . . .." And: "We see complainants who genuinely believe they have been assaulted, despite overwhelming proof that it did not happen."

    That's not all, in a separate letter, Mr. Sokolow cautioned colleges that when a man and a woman engage in mutually tipsy sex, the school can't single out the guy for discipline. This was a letter of immense importance that was ignored in the feminist community because it took a position some prominent feminist pundits had recently attacked when the Wall Street Journal said it.

    The courts also rolled back some rape hysteria excesses. The Washington Supreme Court reversed some very bad law that put the burden of proving consent in rape cases on the accused.

    The Usual Nuttiness

    In 2014, we saw the usual nuttiness. We saw a battle for the ages -- naked students of Harvard's 'Patriarchal Sausage-Fest' versus Harvard's Social Justice Warriors. It was the year we learned about special penis comparison software for law enforcement. In Germany, a male student was rescued from a giant vagina statue.

    The year saw the usual false rape claims made for daffy reasons, like the law school graduate who claimed her boyfriend raped her 11 times so she had an excuse for failing her bar exams.

    For their part, feminists also took up critical issues that oppressed women in 2014, like the need to avoid using the word "seminal," which it is "blatantly sexist" and "perpetuate[s] inequalities or marginalization." And they protested men taking up too much room on subways. And, of course, we can't forget the statue of a sleepwalking man at Wellesley College, which they said is "a source of apprehension, fear, and triggering thoughts regarding sexual assault." That pretty much says it all.


    http://www.cotwa.info/2014/12/2014-i...h-against.html


    Wendy McElroy - Fallacy of the Rape Culture



  11. #11
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default

    Most hateful quotes of 2014

    This year has witnessed a plethora of disturbing comments by influential mainstream writers, feminists, progressives, and others manifesting hostility to due process and college men accused of sexual assault. Which do you think is the most egregious?

    1. Amanda Childress, sexual assault awareness program coordinator at Dartmouth College, declared that campus policies aren’t going far enough to protect students. She asked, “Why could we not expel a student based on an allegation?” Dartmouth defended Childress’s comment, noting that she “was asking a question—a provocative one—meant to generate dialogue around complex issues….”

    2. Ms. Magazine quoted Caroline Heldman, a professor at Occidental College, on suits filed by men for alleged violations of their due process rights in connection with sexual assault claims: “These lawsuits are an incredible display of entitlement, the same entitlement that drove them to rape.”

    3. California’s new “affirmative consent” law requires “affirmative” consent at each step of a sexual encounter on its college campuses. The co-author of the bill in the state assembly, Bonnie Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), was asked how an innocent person is supposed to prove consent. She said, “Your guess is as good as mine.”

    4. Senator Claire McCaskill circulated an extensive survey about sexual assault to 350 college and university presidents. The survey classified persons who make accusations of sexual misconduct as “victims,” and in one place called persons merely accused of sexual misconduct “offenders.” Then on page 14, it contained this query: “Below is a list of policies and procedures that may discourage victims from disclosing and reporting assaults at some schools…. 1. Disclosure of offender’s rights in the adjudication process….” The implication: It is somehow improper to ensure that students accused of serious sexual offenses are aware of their rights.

    5. A jury acquitted former Dartmouth student Parker Gilbert of raping a female student at the school in a “he said/she said” dispute. A juror told a reporter: “[The woman’s] story of how the night played out, the evidence wasn’t there to support that.” And: “There is tons and tons of evidence that just doesn’t add up.” But WISE, an organization that seeks to empower victims of domestic and sexual violence, issued a formal statement: “Today’s decision in the Dartmouth rape trial of Parker Gilbert is devastating and there is no doubt that it sends a terrible message to survivors of sexual assault.”

    6. Duke University Dean of Students Sue Wasiolek was asked what would happen if two students got drunk to the point of incapacity and then had sex. “Assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex,“ said Wasiolek.

    7. Jessica Valenti mocked the efforts of the three mothers who started Families Advocating for Campus Equality (FACE), which seeks to raise awareness about the injustices faced by presumptively innocent college students accused of sexual misconduct. Each of the three FACE founders has been touched directly by campus rape injustice: their sons were ensnared by it. Valenti wrote: “Alternative name for this group: Not My Nigel.” Of course, “Not My Nigel” is radical-feminist shorthand to suggest that women who defend their male loved ones accused of rape or similar acts are defending rapists.

    8. Ezra Klein evinced satisfaction that possibly innocent young men will be expelled for rapes they didn’t commit: “Critics worry that colleges will fill with cases in which campus boards convict young men (and, occasionally, young women) of sexual assault for genuinely ambiguous situations. Sadly, that’s necessary for the law’s success. It’s those cases — particularly the ones that feel genuinely unclear and maybe even unfair, the ones that become lore in frats and cautionary tales that fathers e-mail to their sons — that will convince men that they better Be Pretty D–n Sure.”

    9. Elisabeth Dee—Stanford class of 2016 and one of the organizers of the “Carry that Weight” demonstration in which students were urged to carry a pillow or mattress around for a day to symbolize the burden placed upon survivors of sexual assault—called on the school to reduce the burden of proof required to find someone guilty of sexual assault (even though Stanford already uses the lowest legally permissible, “preponderance of the evidence”). Dee said that Stanford should not be focusing on “defending the perpetrator, because essentially burden of proof is a defense of the perpetrator.”

    10. Laura Dunn, executive director of SurvJustice, on why some colleges have pushed back against lowering the standard of proof for sexual assault cases to make it easier to hold young men accused of sexual assault: “To put it bluntly, I think it’s arrogance and ingrained male privilege….”

    11. Julia Horowitz, a journalist at University of Virginia’s school newspaper, wrote that while the Rolling Stone “gang rape” story may be false, “from where I sit in Charlottesville, to let fact checking define the narrative would be a huge mistake.”

    12. Zerlina Maxwell wrote: “Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist.”

    13. Jessica Valenti debated Wendy McElroy at Brown University. A live-blog shows that when a questioner suggested that the conversation had become unnecessarily adversarial, with some people supporting the accuser and others supporting the accused, Valenti responded, “… in the society we live in now, we need to side with the survivors. That might not be a fair and equal thing, but that’s how I think it has to be.”

    14. Sabrina Rubin Erdely, recounting the alleged gang rape of “Jackie” at a University of Virginia frat house in Rolling Stone magazine: “‘Grab its motherfucking leg,’ she heard a voice say. And that’s when Jackie knew she was going to be raped. She remembers every moment of the next three hours of agony, during which, she says, seven men took turns raping her, while two more – her date, Drew, and another man – gave instruction and encouragement.” And: “For men, skepticism is a form of self-protection…. For much of their lives, they’ve looked forward to the hedonistic fun of college, bearing every expectation of booze and no-strings sex. A rape heralds the uncomfortable idea that all that harmless mayhem may not be so harmless after all. Easier, then, to assume the girl is lying, even though studies indicate that false rape reports account for, at most, eight percent of reports.” (The managing editor of Rolling Stone later apologized for the story, noting with almost other-worldly understatement: “… there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account.”)


    http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism...uotes-of-2014/

  12. #12
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default

    I Aborted My Baby – Because it was a Boy


    Over the past 3 years, I have lost many friends, and several of my own family members have completely cut off communication with me. I now know that these are “adults” who just cannot handle the fact that I have the right to make choices, and that these choices ultimately hardly even affect them.

    Today, my doctor, who I will call “Sandy” did an ultrasound and everything appeared to be fine. “Would you like to know the gender?” Sandy asked. I thought to myself “That machine is an ultrasound, not a crystal ball, you couldn’t tell me the gender of my baby even if you wanted to”
    “Sure” was my response.

    “It’s a boy”

    “What?” I managed to sputter. Sandy then showed me on the ultrasound how exactly my body had betrayed me even worse than the misogynistic suit jockey on the airplane so many months before. I was in shock, I started crying, weeping at the thought of what I was about to curse the world with.

    On my way home, my driver asked if I was ok and if I needed anything. “JUST STOP RIGHT HERE” I yelled. Deciding to walk the 4 blocks back home. My home became my prison and my fetus became my warden the next 48 hours. Crying, sobbing, uncontrollable weeping, mental anguish the likes of which may only be experienced by those who have had their lives destroyed by war, I was a refugee, and my home was my refugee camp, an unfamiliar place that was just….sheltering me.

    By the third day, I started regaining some of my mental strength and knew what I had to do. I couldn’t bring another monster into the world. We already have enough enemies as it is. It didn’t matter that I would be raising a son, he would still come into contact with boys, men, perhaps even the suit jockey who would inevitably twist his carefully constructed upbringing with their kindness. He would think “These men aren’t so bad, why would mom say that they are holding me down?”

    But I knew what I had to do.

    A few days later, I went in for the procedure, as it was fairly later in my pregnancy, I was aware there were certain risks, but it went off without a hitch. My body’s betrayal was no more, I was free, and for the first time since the airplane incident, I felt strong. I had done something positive, something that would actually make a difference, something good, even though as I would find out, many others wouldn’t see it that way.

    Today, I have a beautiful 1 year old female who will hopefully grow up to be just as strong and driven as her mother. I have endured a lot regarding my first pregnancy, but I don’t care. Sometimes, even allies will turn on you, but I don’t care.

    I stand by my decision to abort my baby because it was a male.



    Full article at: http://injusticestories.com/i-aborte...-it-was-a-boy/

    Trigger warning: Severely cancerous content. You have been warned





    ----


  13. #13
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default

    VIDEO: Feminist activist wears plastic bags over shoes to mock female Senator Joni Ernst

    A secretary for the National Organization for Women, the largest feminist organization in existence, just made fun of a woman who grew up poor and worked her way up to Senator. Take a look at the shenanigans of the movement that claims to speak for all women. Quoting from the article:


    "While attending a pro-abortion celebration this past weekend, the secretary for Florida’s National Organization for Women chapter was caught wearing plastic bags over her shoes in an attempt to mock Sen. Joni Ernst (R).


    In her GOP response to the State of the Union, Ernst, a freshman senator from Iowa, recalled wearing plastic bags over her one good pair of shoes in order to keep them from getting ruined on rainy days.


    Bonni Axler, Florida’s NOW secretary, donned plastic Target bags over her own shoes while attending a pro-abortion celebration in Tampa over the weekend."


    http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6231


  14. #14
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default

    109 women prosecuted for false rape claims in five years

    Charity accuses authorities in the UK of pursuing cases against rape complainants more aggressively than other countries

    At least 109 women have been prosecuted in the last five years for making false rape allegations in the UK, according to campaigners who are calling for an end to what they claim is the aggressive pursuit of such cases.

    On Tuesday, the charity Women Against Rape (War) is taking its campaign to the House of Commons, where some of those who have been jailed for lying about rape allegations will speak out against their treatment by the authorities.

    The vast majority of the convictions in the last five years, 98 out of 109, involved prosecutions for perverting the course of justice – which carries a maximum life jail term – rather than the lesser offence of wasting police time, which has a maximum tariff of six months in prison or a fine.

    A US law professor, who will be speaking at the Commons, said the UK’s stance on false allegations is more aggressive than in countries such as the United States, Canada and Australia. Prof Lisa Avalos, of the University of Arkansas, said false allegations in the US were dealt with as a misdemeanour offence, not a felony – and most women were not jailed if found guilty.

    “In the course of my research I have not found any country that pursues these cases against women rape complainants in the way the UK does. The UK has an unusual approach and I think their approach violates human rights,” she said.

    In 2012/13 there were 3,692 prosecutions for rape in England and Wales, resulting in 2,333 convictions.

    The director of public prosecutions, Alison Saunders, is scheduled to publish a statement on the case of Eleanor de Freitas, a rape complainant who killed herself on the eve of a prosecution for perverting the course of justice.

    A spokeswoman said: “Cases of perverting the course of justice that involve allegedly false rape allegations are serious but rare. They are usually highly complex and sensitive often involving vulnerable parties, so any decision to charge is extremely carefully considered and not taken lightly.

    Such cases can only be brought where the prosecution can prove that the original rape allegation was false and the relatively few cases that are brought should not dissuade any potential victim from coming forward to report an assault.”


    http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/...P=share_btn_fb

    comments:

    Of course they should be prosecuted, their names published and their reputations and careers destroyed - exactly the same as happened to the person they accused.

    A letter to … the girl who accused me of rape when I was 15
    http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandst...sed-me-of-rape

  15. #15

  16. #16
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default

    Studies Prove Lesbians Batter Their Partners More Than Straight Men



    Amidst the constant vitriol against men due to inflated rape and domestic violence statistics, a deafening silence occurs. Study after study argues that lesbian women are equally or more violent than male partners in heterosexual relationships.

    The media and authorities nonetheless avoid the issue entirely. Admitting that lesbians, ergo a sub-set of women, seem to commit domestic violence as much as or more than men grossly undermines feminists’ obsessions with imaginary patriarchal control and concocted notions of male privilege.

    Many of these same studies assert that same-sex male relationships include domestic violence as much as heterosexual relationships. But lesbian domestic violence samples provide a better analogy, as the alleged victims are women, like in most reported accusations involving straight relationships.

    How to fake an anti-male argument


    The omission of lesbian domestic violence from the equation is ludicrous. It is akin to the hypothetical situation of stopping anti-drunk driving campaigns in Maine because there are far less people living there than in California, or focusing only on Caucasian-American alcoholism because whites form a majority compared to, say, the Native American population.

    If domestic violence is such a scourge, as feminists “articulate,” anything short of addressing the whole picture is a manipulative political ploy and agenda. And the agenda here is to attack men and describe domestic violence as a sport played only by straight males.

    These same domestic violence statistics, which involve self-reporting, are used to hound, vilify, and too easily convict men. In the convoluted playground of rape statistics, the threshold for “sexual assault” has commonly been reduced and caricatured to reported cat-calling and sex after consuming alcohol, even if a girl is entirely lucid or the male is intoxicated as well. Unsurprisingly, lesbians get a free pass when studies involving less amorphous, more strictly defined questions about violence are conducted (i.e. as basic as “Has your female partner hit you?”).

    Even The Atlantic, all too often a leftist smorgasbord of the most putrid media diarrhea, acknowledged that the same-sex domestic violence situation is an “epidemic”. Other figures collected by American government agencies and bodies cite 3.9 million women being physical assaulted by their female partners. Because the proportion of lesbians or functionally bisexual women in the United States is by most estimates about 20 times smaller than the straight female population, these numbers are staggering.

    Lesbians’ reluctance to report


    One of the hallmarks of feminist Newspeak is to always emphasize the proportion of straight females who never report domestic violence or sexual assault “committed” by men. They then assume, without any evidence, that these “cases” are all proven domestic violence or sexual assault crimes and therefore can be utilized in calling for the watering down of male due process rights.

    The problem with this narrative is how it reflects on the reporting of same-sex domestic violence. Studies such as the ones cited in the links above continually reference an under reporting of domestic violence amongst same-sex individuals. So the problem is actually much bigger.

    The confirmation bias of feminists allows them to appropriate the most stretched and tenuous methodologies, such as conflating alleged female sexual assault victims with victims as established by court processes (which are themselves being institutionally diluted and relegated to “he said, she said” dramas). But these methodologies are never appropriated where the alleged perpetrators are not straight males, let alone converted into demands in the political and social arenas.

    As you might have read in my recent inquiry into women slut-shaming women as much as men, females are stripped of agency when it involves mocking and bullying other women, while men are held to account as autonomous and privileged actors.

    The same principle applies to lesbians and domestic violence. Males in straight relationships have choices, but women in straight or same-sex relationships have oppression to explain away their violence.

    The feminist fear of loss


    Exposing the symmetry in same-sex versus straight domestic violence threatens to strip feminists of their political cash-cow: the fictitious institutionalized oppression of women by men. Ignorance of same-sex partner abuse, especially the lesbian variety, is thus mandatory to keep their agenda well-oiled and moving. Females battered by females highlights the individual choices made when partners abuse in private places, not any entrenched public system encouraging it.

    In as much as modern society now ascribes overly special status to gays, lesbians, and particularly transgender people, the domestic violence studies illustrate how feminists have resorted to throwing the LGBT community under the bus in order to preserve their anti-male narrative.

    If the heat from that abandonment becomes too much, feminists can simply blame the patriarchy for shaming and stigmatizing lesbians into hitting their partners in the first place. And so the cycle continues.

    http://www.returnofkings.com/61006/studies-prove-lesbians-batter-their-partners-more-than-straight-men


    Last edited by islamirama; May-29-2016 at 02:10 PM.

  17. #17
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default

    For Hillary Clinton, Feminism Means ‘Blame Men First,’ and to Disagree Is ‘Misogyny’

    1.29.16

    Please allow me to explain the progressive rules of modern discourse. A feminist — often seated in a powerful perch in academe, the government, or pop culture — spits out disdain for men as a whole, reserving particular venom for the worst of people, the dreaded “white male.” Never mind that white males include everyone from Bill Gates to a recovering junkie living in a trailer park, this courageous action is called “punching up.” It’s “speaking truth to power.”

    If the white male responds — especially if that response either is angry or includes any sort of sweeping generalization about women — then that man is “punching down.” He’s spewing hate and perpetuating the patriarchy. Thus, a white male student can oppress his professor merely be responding to her arguments, and Hillary Clinton is victimized by sexism merely because Bernie Sanders accused her of “shouting.” When inhabiting the comfortable confines of progressive cocoons, this style of argument is a no-lose proposition. The angry leftists’ position on the moral high ground is so unassailable that the very act of resistance is seen as proof of their argument. “Look at the angry white male. He can’t stand seeing a mere woman question his power and privilege.”

    Either the man acquiesces, or he’s a misogynist. But when the feminist leaves the cocoon, the argument is far less persuasive, and men are more difficult to browbeat. I was reminded of this reality by Camille Paglia’s fascinating recent essay in Salon, where she traces Clinton’s roots in “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” second-wave feminism. Paglia observes: Hillary has unfortunately adopted the [Gloria] Steinem brand of blame-men-first feminism, which defines women as perpetual victims requiring government protections. Hillary’s sometimes impatient or patronizing tone about men, which can perhaps be traced to key aspects of her personal history, may prove costly to her current campaign. Indeed, the gender gap hurt Clinton in 2008, Bernie Sanders is riding a massive gender gap to contention in Iowa, and early numbers indicate that Clinton could face the widest gender gap in modern political history in the general election.

    To her hard-core supporters, however, this is all proof of pervasive misogyny. The solution is more identity politics, more accusations of sexism, and more public shaming. But Clinton lost in 2008 when the race devolved into competing claims of racism and sexism, and the non-progressive public is growing increasingly inoculated against political correctness.

    Clinton forgets that there are very good reasons why the public embraces fairness and equal treatment for women while shunning “feminism.” Indeed, a recent Vox survey found that only 18 percent of Americans call themselves feminists. Increasingly, the public experiences feminism more as an anti-male ideology than a pro-female movement. It’s about tearing down more than building up, and that kind of messaging is deeply repugnant to the millions of women who actually like men — especially their husbands, fathers, and sons.

    Indeed, as modern feminists often view even the effort to be likeable as a capitulation to patriarchal norms, look for leftists to grow only more strident. And why not? It keeps working in universities, Hollywood, and government. Surely it will work in November. Despite the Democrats’ demographic triumphalism, Clinton looks to be a weaker general-election candidate than Barack Obama. As the race progresses, it will be interesting to see how her progressive allies deal with the gender gap. I’m expecting more hectoring, more public shaming, and claims of sexism at every turn. Expecting to rally women in a grand crusade, they may find out that gender solidarity isn’t as easy to manufacture as racial solidarity, and that the “coalition of the ascendant” is more fragile than they thought.


    http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-works-against


  18. #18
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default

    Princeton Warns Against Using THIS Offensive Word On Campus

    The Crazies Are Out Again

    The feminists in Princeton University’s HR department are out of control. This week, they have cautioned against using certain words and phrases with “man" in them, because this kind of language:

    “does not take into consideration individuals who identify as otherwise."
    The “Don’t Use" column of the “Guidelines for Using Gender Inclusive Language" includes language like “mankind," “freshman," and, thankfully, that heteronormative transphobic BS phrase “man and wife."

    The relatively new policy in effect at the Ivy League institution spells out the directive in a four-page memo that aims to make the department more gender inclusive.

    Instead of using “man," employees are told to use words such as human beings, individuals or people.

    Other guidelines? Instead of “man and wife" use spouses or partners. Switch out “man made" with artificial, handmade or manufactured. Don’t use the verb “to man," as in to work something, instead use to operate or to staff. Throw out workmanlike and replace it with skillful.

    The memo goes on to list a variety of occupations that typically include the word “man" in them and offers replacements: business person instead of businessman, firefighter instead of fireman, ancestors instead of forefathers, and so on.

    The memo goes on to state:

    “Consistent with style guidelines issued by Princeton’s Office of Human Resources and Office of Communications, and as endorsed by the Institutional Equity Planning Group as a preferred University practice, HR has developed these gender inclusive style guidelines, to be utilized by all HR staff members in HR communications, policies, job descriptions, and job postings,"

    http://www.meninist.net/2016/08/18/p...rd-man-campus/



    comments:

    They want to ban real words with the word "man" in it yet these same feminists invent new words with "man" in it as a way to insult men. New words such as "mansplaining" (man+explaining) for men who explain something that is too smart for the feminists to understand, and words such as "mangry" (man+angry) for when a man calls out their feminist BS for what it is.

  19. #19
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default


    Feminist Mother Publicly Shames Her Teenage Boys-With The Help Of The Media


    by Suzanne Venker - 09/20/2016

    On September 14, The Washington Post published what can only be described as a public display of child abuse. In an article entitled "My teen boys are blind to rape culture," feminist writer Jody Allard chastises her sons for questioning the propaganda she feeds them.

    "They've been listening to me talk about consent, misogyny and rape culture since they were tweens. They listened to me then, but they are 16 and 18 now, and they roll their eyes and argue when talk to them about sexism and misogyny."

    That Allard's boys won't take up their mother's fight makes them "part of the problem," writes Allard. They've "dipped their toes into toxic masculinity," she adds. Toxic masculinity is a favorite feminist term. It means the more masculine a man is, the more vile he is. Nice, huh?

    Fortunately for Allard's sons, their mother's efforts to indoctrinate them has failed. Unfortunately, her response was to publicly shame them.

    And The Washington Post gave her the space to do so.

    That's not even the worst of it. This same author, Ms. Jodi Allard, wrote an article back in February, also for The Washington Post, about one of her sons-who's suicidal.

    Yes, you read that right. One of Allard's sons, the 16-year-old, is a known suicide risk-known to Allard and known to The Washington Post editors. And still they publicly shamed him.

    There's more. Allard's article has since been reprinted at the Chicago Tribune, at The Denver Post, at Bangor Daily News, and at the Charlotte Observer.

    Now that is vile.

    Had the editors at any of these shockingly unprofessional media outlets dug deeper, they would have discovered the depth of Allard's madness.

    She has been married and divorced three times-her exes, of course, were the problem; her biological father abandoned her; she has "divorced" her mother, who she says is "incapable of mothering anyone"; and she's a victim of sexual abuse. Oh, and she was born with one hand, not two; and her adopted sister, who liked to kill animals, tried to kill her. The list goes on.

    How many of Allard's stories are true (save for the physical impairment) as opposed to ploys for attention is anyone's guess. What is clear is that Jody Allard is unwell.

    What is also clear is that somewhere along the line, feminism became her lifeline. That's typically how it happens: a childhood goes terribly wrong. Then, as adults, people find solace...

    As adults, these folks find solace in an ideology rooted in victimhood, one that promises to heal the wounds of the past. Rather than deal with problems on their own, they ban together with others who've been hurt and blame men and marriage for all things evil.

    Jody Allard is one of these women. Upon having sons, she writes that she "had no idea how to raise a boy into a man who wasn't an asshole."

    If you think Ms. Allard is an anomaly, she isn't. Feminist mothers abound, and they all sell some version of the same message Allard does. Where do you think she gets her fuel? Even our president (who, for the record, grew up without a father), pledged his allegiance to feminism last month.

    I've written a great deal about feminism's harmful effects on men (and women, for that matter). It's time we talked about our boys.

    Fortunately, a new documentary (The Red Pill) about the feminist myths Americans have absorbed-i.e. rape culture-will do just that. It has its first screening on October 7 and will be available later in homes across America.

    I hope Jody Allard's sons see it.

    But only after they've moved out.

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/20/fe...-of-the-media/

    comments:

    This author has summed up feminism and their lunacy quite nicely in such a short article. Take a look at feminists and you will see that they cause relationship problems (single/aging, lesbianism, domestic violence, multiple failed marriages, etc). All of it is because of their own lunacy and then they blame men for it instead of holding themselves accountable for their failures. Shaming boys/men is feminists/women's top tactic. It starts when the males are boys and continues even when they're adults.

    This documentary (The Red Pill) is created by a woman who started out as a feminist. She thought she would do research about the claims of MRAs (Men's Rights Activists) and make a documentary about that. She got a lot of funding from feminist organizations for it because everyone thought it was going to bash and mock men, but as this feminist started doing actual research and creating the documentary, it showed the truth of men suffering because of feminism through unfair laws and practices. The feminist organizations pulled their funding and tried everything they could stop the documentary once they saw it wasn't what they wanted. This woman had to raise money to finish the documentary.

  20. #20
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default

    Feminist PhD Candidate: Science Is Sexist Because It's Not Subjective

    Women and minorities cannot understand logic or objective truths, says a graduate student in her dissertation, so science classes should stop using the scientific method.

    By Joy Pullmann - September 29, 2016

    College science classes are hostile to women and minorities because they use the scientific method, which assumes people can find reliable truths about the natural world through careful and sustained experimentation, concludes a recent dissertation by a doctoral candidate at the University of North Dakota.

    Laura Parson, a student in the university's education department, reviewed eight science class syllabi at a "Midwest public university" and said she discovered in them a hidden hostility to women and minorities:

    Initial exploration of the STEM syllabi in this study did not reveal overt references to gender, such as through the use of gendered pronouns. However, upon deeper review, language used in the syllabi reflects institutionalized STEM teaching practices and views about knowledge that are inherently discriminatory to women and minorities by promoting a view of knowledge as static and unchanging, a view of teaching that promotes the idea of a passive student, and by promoting a chilly climate that marginalizes women.

    Even though the course syllabi contained no "gendered assumptions" about students or other overtly discriminatory implications, Parson writes, they display prejudice against women and minorities because they refuse to entertain the possibility that "scientific knowledge is subjective."

    Women Are Too Stupid to Use Logic

    Throughout her dissertation, Parson assumes and asserts that women and minorities are uniquely challenged by the idea that science can provide objective information about the natural world. This is an unfair assumption, she says, because the concept of objectivity is too hard for women and minorities to understand. "[N]otions of absolute truth and a single reality" are "masculine," she says, referring to poststructuralist feminist theory.

    Instead of promoting the idea that knowledge is constructed by the student and dynamic, subject to change as it would in a more feminist view of knowledge, the syllabi reinforce the larger male-dominant view of knowledge as one that students acquire and use make [sic] the correct decision.

    So, in other words, using logic and the scientific method are inherently "male" ways of knowing that women and minorities cannot employ. Rather than rejecting this insulting view of women and minorities' intellectual and rational capacities, Parson uses it as a pretext to advocate that science classes abandon the scientific method itself (which rests on the assumption that truth is unchanging and knowable) and all other "male" forms of oppression, such as "weed-out courses, courses that grade on a curve, a competitive environment, reliance on lecture as a teaching method, an individualistic culture, and comprehensive exams."

    Further, hidden inside these syllabi are imperative statements that - and I am not making this up - Parson says contribute to a "chilly climate" for women and minority students. A "chilly climate," she says, is "a classroom environment that is not welcoming, inclusive or supportive for women." (Note, please, her latent bias against cold climates and their inhabitants.)

    She gives an example: "the competitive, difficult chilly climate was reinforced in the syllabi through the use of unfriendly and tough language, 'Do not ask me to figure out your grade standing. I'll be glad to show you how to do it yourself, but the homepage includes that explanation already.'" Brrrr. How dare professors assume you're computer literate and can do basic problem-solving.

    Feminists Don't Get Cognitive Science

    Although Parson is a doctoral candidate in the UND's school of education, she seems not to have encountered in her "advanced" coursework the decades of significant research in cognitive science that directly contradicts poststructuralist feminist theories about how people acquire knowledge. Parson repeats the old canard that people construct knowledge, which stems from the anti-scientific theory that truth is relative, and what is true for one person is not true for another because we have all had different sensory experiences. In this view, people make up "their truth" as they interact with the world, and it will necessarily be different from other people's "truths." This, Parson and her feminist theorists say, is the "feminine" way of learning.

    In education theory this exhibits itself as a theory called "constructivism," and teachers who subscribe to it say students should be set free to "construct their own knowledge" by exposing them to many different environments and giving them freedom to select their own courses of study and even lessons and reading material.

    But cognitive research throws cold water over this outdated and ineffective theory about how people learn. It turns out that refusing to give students explicit instruction or set their course of study drastically increases minority achievement gaps. It also turns out that people do construct knowledge, but not independently; we develop knowledge best when it is directly and explicitly transmitted to us as an objective reality to digest.

    In knowledge construction, we essentially interact with and communicate with the thing we are learning. Humans and the thing we are studying each bring something to our interactions. And the something people bring in each episode of learning is prior knowledge they have acquired by systematically investigating and accumulating truths about the world around us. In other words, human beings learn essentially along the lines of the scientific method itself: Through exploring and testing their ideas in relation to a fixed, objective reality (as well as having our ancestors' experiences passed down to us to save time and forestall repeat mistakes).

    We take that reality into ourselves and add it to the reality we have already accumulated, somewhat like a mental version of eating a meal. We eat the food, and the food changes us. We don't conjure up the food from thin air, we don't imagine it; it is an objective, unchanging thing outside of us that we add to ourselves, to our benefit.

    Or, as the well-known education researcher and American public intellectual E.D. Hirsch put it in his newest book, "meaning is a construct composed of what the text says plus the additional relevant, unspoken knowledge that the reader brings to it" (p. 112). He has over many decades meticulously explained how constructivism and other progressive education theories, in refusing to consciously transmit specific, coherently organized subject-matter knowledge, deprives learners and has drastically diminished the effectiveness of American education.

    Stop Lying About Minorities; You're Hurting Them

    So the things Parson says women and minorities need from science education have in fact been proven to impede their progress. Since she hates science, however, it's no wonder she will reject its conclusions and continue to believe whatever fantasies she wants to cook up that are entirely unrelated to reality.

    The cognitive research-supported view of knowledge is not "male-dominant." It's accurate. And it's a pretty **** sorry form of feminism that implies only men can know truth and that insists on keeping women and minorities ignorant while pretending to do the opposite.

    The rest of us don't have to follow along with this offensive nuttery. It's shocking malpractice for UND's education department to have neglected to expose a pending doctor of education to some of the critical science in her field. Parson's ideas are not only wrong, but harmful. They have been proven to torpedo individual and thus societal achievement, most especially for the neediest among us.

    UND owes it to Parson and to all students to teach the validated research about how people learn, rather than preserve destructive, false, and, frankly, lunatic theories with taxpayer dollars.


    http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/29/...ot-subjective/

    comments:

    These are the femtards who go on to become teachers, principals, professors, education policy makers, and authors of books for children and their education. These are the same femtards who turn girls away from STEM fields and then cry that the patriarchy keeps girls from STEM fields. They are turning the next generations into retards through education.

    *STEM - Science, Technology, Engineering, Medical


 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •