Feminists fall silent

[Angel Heart]

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/....html?id=9953c22f-86e9-48c2-b526-12637e583d05

Feminists fall silent
Robert Fulford, National Post
Published: Saturday, September 15, 2007
On the question of honour killing, defined as the murder of women to protect men's pride, the news from Jordan has recently grown slightly worse. Although it's among the most civilized and modern of Arab countries, Jordan hasn't come close to eliminating this repellent crime, a bizarre remnant of the region's tribal past. It was only five years ago that the penal code made honour killing clearly illegal. Till then it was rarely punished.

In August, five Jordanian men were charged with the premeditated murder of a 22-year-old woman whose crime was to have a love affair with the man she later married. When the pre-marital affair came to light, her father, three uncles and a fifth male relative made the solemn collective decision that family honour demanded her death. One uncle has confessed to shooting her five times in the head; the four other men are charged as co-conspirators.
The Woman Issue Web site

The Woman Issue table of contents

On Tuesday the magazine Mideast Youth described the protocol now followed by Jordanian authorities when a woman believes her male relatives are about to kill her. The police move swiftly, taking her into protective custody. Unfortunately, the only place they can protect her is jail. She's sent there until the issue is resolved, but it may never be resolved and she may remain imprisoned for years. So the suspected planners of a killing remain free while their potential victim sits in jail until (unlikely possibility) a male family member comes forth to guarantee her safety.

Surely honour killing is the ultimate male oppression, being uniquely permanent and committed by close relatives in the name of an abstraction. It's among many anti-woman atrocities in the Arab world that should enrage feminists of the West and rouse them to urgent action -- mass rallies, pickets, boycotts, furious public debates and anything else they would do for, say, California grape pickers who have no right to health care. But no action of this kind ever materializes, which amounts to a grave abdication of responsibility. Feminism, after all, embodies the principle that women deserve the same rights and dignity as men. In the original discussions nobody said "except for Muslims."

A major reason for this failure is that feminism has generally made common cause with the left, and the left has in most cases decided it favours the Arabic cause. The Arabs have virtue on their side because they are not Americans.

Phyllis Chesler, an American therapist and psychologist who often writes on women's issues, argues that attitudes grounded in thoughtless cultural "sensitivity" inhibit what should be the natural response of women. The result is that "instead of telling the truth about Islam and demanding that the Muslim world observe certain standards, you have Westerners beating their breasts and saying, 'We can't judge you, we can't expose you, we can't challenge you.'" This reaches the level of absurdity when gay and lesbian activists support Palestinians "who, meanwhile, are very busy persecuting homosexuals, who in turn are fleeing to Israel for political asylum." The gay community in Tel Aviv contains a remarkable number of refugees from Palestinian homophobia.

Chesler became a feminist after her marriage to a fellow student who was an Afghan. She went to Afghanistan with him and discovered she was expected to be a typical Afghan wife, the prisoner of her husband and his family. Even the U.S. embassy assumed she had given up all her rights when she married. After great effort she escaped, and divorced.

She might well notice the silence of Canadian women on the war against the Taliban. Surely they should be the most passionate supporters of that struggle, but most of them are AWOL, even more indifferent than men like Jack Layton. "Stifle yourself, Edith," Archie Bunker, the chauvinist husband on All in the Family, used to tell his wife. No need to give that advice to women when this issue arises. They stifle themselves.

For feminism, these are the best of times and the worst of times. Throughout the West the success of women in the professions, business and the media has exceeded the dreams of those who launched a new wave of feminism at the end of the 1960s. Everywhere in the West, legislatures have passed laws to protect women's rights.

Today Islamic oppression should be the first item on the agenda of every women's organization in the country. Women should remember that their triumphs resulted from vigorous campaigning in the 20th century. But on the great feminist issue of the 21st century, feminism stands mute.

[email protected]

© National Post 2007

 

[Psychoblues]

I never knew a feminist or a female to simply fall silent. What is your point?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I never knew a feminist or a female to simply fall silent. What is your point?

Are you unable to read? No that can not be it. Are you unable to comprehend simple concepts?

The article is plain as day. Femi Nazi's are mostly liberal and the Liberals love Arab terrorists and the "rights" of the Muslim religion. These women do NOTHING about the obvious atrocities committed in Muslim and Arab nations to women, the defacto slavery of the women in those societies, etc etc.

 

[jillian]

Are you unable to read? No that can not be it. Are you unable to comprehend simple concepts?

The article is plain as day. Femi Nazi's are mostly liberal and the Liberals love Arab terrorists and the "rights" of the Muslim religion. These women do NOTHING about the obvious atrocities committed in Muslim and Arab nations to women, the defacto slavery of the women in those societies, etc etc.

I think he reads just fine. Are you now trying to garner support for blowing up Arabs because of the religious subjugation of women?

If you were concerned about women, you wouldn't have supported destabilizing a secular country where women were educated and allowed to work and allowed to walk the streets without "chaperones" or without getting stoned because their ankles showed.

"liberal" does not equate to support of terrorists. That is simply absurd. So, when Bush decides to actually address terrorism, do let us know. Or was that what he was doing when the Farsi interpreters got fired for being gay? (considering THEY were what was needed to really fight terrorism... but keep on keepin' on).

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I think he reads just fine. Are you now trying to garner support for blowing up Arabs because of the religious subjugation of women?

If you were concerned about women, you wouldn't have supported destabilizing a secular country where women were educated and allowed to work and allowed to walk the streets without "chaperones" or without getting stoned because their ankles showed.

"liberal" does not equate to support of terrorists. That is simply absurd. So, when Bush decides to actually address terrorism, do let us know. Or was that what he was doing when the Farsi interpreters got fired for being gay? (considering THEY were what was needed to really fight terrorism... but keep on keepin' on).

Yes yes, defend the total silence on the issue by turning it into some attack on Bush. Now if we had mentioned Israel in there somewhere you would be rabidly attacking to defend THAT.

 

[doniston]

I never knew a feminist or a female to simply fall silent.
QUOTE] I agree, I also think the practice described is dispicable. but I think he glided over his point. IMHO he sure didn't make it clear.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I never knew a feminist or a female to simply fall silent.

I agree, I also think the practice described is dispicable. but I think he glided over his point. IMHO he sure didn't make it clear.

Why do feminists fall silent about mistreated muslim women?
Why do homosexuals fall silent about homosexuals being strung up in muslim countries?
Why do secularists fall silent and not attack any religion - except for christianity?
Why do liberals scream bloody murder when an unkind word is said about a jew in America but fall silent when jewish children are attacked and slaughtered in Israel?
Why do liberals say they support the troops but then attack and defame a decent, successful general?
Why do liberals call those who are against illegals "racist" but fall silent about racist groups like La Raza?

It's because they all are hypocritical and because whenever there is a conflict of interest they all choose the ANTI-American position FIRST. Anything to destroy our American way of life comes first with these two-faced, seditious antagonists - they are the enemy within. This is because they all have the same underlying commonality and the primary goal of tearing up America and replacing our representative democracy with a socialist/communist/totalitarian new world order.

 

[jillian]

Yes yes, defend the total silence on the issue by turning it into some attack on Bush. Now if we had mentioned Israel in there somewhere you would be rabidly attacking to defend THAT.

Do I rabidly attack Chasidic and Orthodox Jews formaking their women second class citizens.

You're the one who won't acknowledge that Bush's actions made things worse, not better, for women. So it's disingenuous to now try to use a woman's issue as justification for this mishandled, failed policy.

It's like you have all these issues jumbled up in your head and can't suss them out.

Now take a look at what Bush's war ACTUALLY did in Iraq:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article717570.ece

 

[LiberPublicrat2]

Yes yes, defend the total silence on the issue by turning it into some attack on Bush.

I notice the loudest on the left are always doing this when debating just about anything.

 

[jillian]

I notice the loudest on the left are always doing this when debating just about anything.

Loud? First off, on middle east issues, I'm moderate and probably right of center. But one cannot say that a policy should be supported by women which undermined women in the first place.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Loud? First off, on middle east issues, I'm moderate and probably right of center. But one cannot say that a policy should be supported by women which undermined women in the first place.

It undermines women to point out Honor killings? To protest that women are treated like property? To complain that women have no rights to own anything? That they can not drive? That in some cases they can not go to school or be educated?

I will remember that the next time some woman complains in America about equal pay.

 

[Bern80]

Why do feminists fall silent about mistreated muslim women?
Why do homosexuals fall silent about homosexuals being strung up in muslim countries?
Why do secularists fall silent and not attack any religion - except for christianity?
Why do liberals scream bloody murder when an unkind word is said about a jew in America but fall silent when jewish children are attacked and slaughtered in Israel?
Why do liberals say they support the troops but then attack and defame a decent, successful general?
Why do liberals call those who are against illegals "racist" but fall silent about racist groups like La Raza?

It's because they all are hypocritical and because whenever there is a conflict of interest they all choose the ANTI-American position FIRST. Anything to destroy our American way of life comes first with these two-faced, seditious antagonists - they are the enemy within. This is because they all have the same underlying commonality and the primary goal of tearing up America and replacing our representative democracy with a socialist/communist/totalitarian new world order.

WARNING: Massive generalization to follow backed by observation and anecdotal evidence.

That's part of it probably. The bigger reason I think you see the 'falling silent' is because those situtations pose real moral conundrums for libs. The later part of all those questions could be considered morally relativistic I suppose. Falling under the we must respect their culture argument. They don't know what side to take so they take the one most popular by their peers which puts them in hypocritical situations.

 

[LiberPublicrat2]

Loud? First off, on middle east issues, I'm moderate and probably right of center. But one cannot say that a policy should be supported by women which undermined women in the first place.

What policy are you talking about?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

WARNING: Massive generalization to follow backed by observation and anecdotal evidence.

LOL to be sure

That's part of it probably. The bigger reason I think you see the 'falling silent' is because those situtations pose real moral conundrums for libs. The later part of all those questions could be considered morally relativistic I suppose. Falling under the we must respect their culture argument. They don't know what side to take so they take the one most popular by their peers which puts them in hypocritical situations.

When they get confused (easy to do when one has no moral compass) it's like they wait until they get their marching orders from their politburo. Ever notice in the media you always hear even the same exact words being repeated over and over by all the so-called "reporters"?

 

[jillian]

Ever notice in the media you always hear even the same exact words being repeated over and over by all the so-called "reporters"?

You mean like "no moral compass" or "stay the course".

You just love those bumper stickers.... but that's because you don't have to think too hard when you repeat them.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You mean like "no moral compass" or "stay the course".

You just love those bumper stickers.... but that's because you don't have to think too hard when you repeat them.

You don't like "no moral compass" because it smacks of the truth.

I don't have a problem with "stay the course".

 

[LiberPublicrat2]

You don't like "no moral compass" because it smacks of the truth.

I don't have a problem with "stay the course".

LOL!