Unquestioning groupthink is a Leftist hallmark, especially for blacks. Antonia Okafor details how she escaped from that intellectual prison.
Obama’s Cairo speech first tipped me off to the fact that he’s probably a misogynist. He may have a couple of powerful women upon whom he relies (Valerie Jarrett and Michelle Obama), but his instinct is to avoid women and hide them away. The Cairo speech got my antenna up because I thought it was peculiar that Obama twice boasted that one of the hallmarks of his presidency would be ensuring that women could continue to wear the hijab:
Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one’s religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That’s why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it. (Applause.) [This makes me uncomfortable. It’s good to trumpet America’s religious freedom, but I find it icky that he would boast about the fact that America (rightly, I guess) allows its Muslim citizens to enshroud their women — and please note that this last is an applause line.]
The sixth issue — the sixth issue that I want to address is women’s rights. (Applause.) I know –- I know — and you can tell from this audience, that there is a healthy debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. (Applause.) And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well educated are far more likely to be prosperous. [There he goes again with the hijab. Maybe it’s freudian, and he wishes he could shut Michelle down.]
Three months later, Obama was at it again, applauding the hijab:
The president paid special tribute to Kareem Khan, who “made the ultimate sacrifice” when he died serving in Iraq, Nashala Hearn, who won the right to wear a hijab in school, Bilqis Abdul-Qaadir, who holds the record for the most points scored by a high school basketball player in Massachusetts, and Muhammad Ali, who – though he couldn’t attend – is “a man of quiet dignity and grace and continues to fight for what he believes.”
We are a pluralist society, with First Amendment for freedom of religion, so I’m no going to quarrel with women who voluntarily chose to wear the hijab. Nevertheless, to the extent that it represents the first step in de-sexualizing and even de-humanizing women, and I am no fan of the garment and could not understand why Obama gave two speeches lauding the garment. My snarky guess at the time was that Obama doesn’t like women and that his admiration for the hijab represented a Freudian desire to see women subordinated.
With these thoughts in my mind, it came as no surprise to be that Obama’s White House discriminates ferociously against the women who work for him. Aside from a few high profile female staffers, women who work for Obama are paid less than men across the board. Obama’s cabinet also boasts only eight women out of a total of twenty-three positions, something ardent feminists demand he remedy by applying a 50% quota (showing that, while Obama may not like women, modern feminists are fools).
I also don’t think it’s a coincidence that, in a couple of speeches, Obama almost randomly targeted his grandmother as a racist. In his Rev. Wright speech, he spoke of her inherent racism:
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
Having said that, he helpfully clarified that his grandmother was “typical”:
The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity, but that she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know (pause) there’s a reaction in her that doesn’t go away and it comes out in the wrong way.
So, Obama started off by insulting his grandmother — a female target — and then extended that insult to all white Americans.
I’d be lying if I tried to pretend that those four disparate pieces of evidence — two speeches referencing hijabs; lower wages; and a small, but not insignificant, number of women in his cabinet — prove that Obama doesn’t like women. They prove nothing, although they hint at a trend.
Today, I learned another factoid that hints at this same trend — Obama, the great golfer, has golfed with women partners only two times, despite playing the game 107 times during his presidency:
President Obama, who ran a campaign that alleged Republicans were waging a “war on women,” refuses to bring women along on his favorite recreational pastime, golf.
Obama has not included a woman in his golf outings in more than two years, choosing instead to bring along male staffers, male politicians and, while vacationing, a regular group of old friends, all of them men.
The last time he brought a woman out onto the golf course was October 17, 2010, when he played with HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Since then, he’s been golfing 54 times, but has never brought along a woman.
I’m only aware of one other golf outing Obama has had with a woman during his presidency, a round with chief domestic policy advisor Melody Barnes on October 25, 2009. The White House acknowledged at the time that this was the first time he had golfed with a woman as president.
That makes, as of today, two out of 107 total outings during his presidency.
Keith Koffler, who noticed this interesting phenomenon, also points out that women have been railing for years against men only golf courses and clubs because so many deals are brokered in those segregated preserves.
One can draw two reasonable conclusions from Obama’s golfing patterns, neither of which is mutually exclusive: (a) When in relaxation mode, Obama does not enjoy women’s company; and/or (b) Obama does not believe in making deals with women. Both of those conclusions provide further corroboration that Obama, if not actually a misogynist, has misogynistic tendencies.
Would anyone care to explain to Mr. Bookworm the difference between an extremist sect breaking its country’s laws by discriminating against women, and a country that has as an integral part of its law and culture murderous attacks on women, “witches,” children and gays?
He professes to be bewildered.
L’affaire DSK is all the rage in France.
On my recent visit to France, you might say I was somewhat surprised that nobody asked me about the U.S. economy, the Euro’s impending collapse or Obama. Rather, the first question out of their mouths was “what do Americans think about the DSK affair?”. They were, of course, referring to Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the recently deposed head of the International Monetary Fund and French President wannabee. DSK had been arrested in New York in somewhat dubious circumstances involving alleged transgressions with a chamber maid (think “Paula Jones”).
The reason that the DSK affair was on peoples’ minds, I think, is because it jolted the French to an awareness that there was something very wrong in their society’s treatment of women in the workplace and elsewhere. It’s about time.
During my visit, I spoke with a woman that had enjoyed a fabulous career in finance and who, as a university student, had been taught by DSK. “He was truly brilliant,” she said, “But…”. Another woman, a retired Air France flight attendent, described how she and her colleagues would beg and bribe their cabin mates in order to be reassigned out of First Class whenever certain French politicians were traveling. But then, on the flip side, I heard a few men talk about how such things should be expected of powerful men, you know, “droit du seigneur” and all. These men were the exceptions, not the rule.
But then, I listened to one man I know, an elderly, world-renown attorney who easily straddles both sides of the Atlantic, tell me how his law firm hires only women attorneys today. “We interview both men and women, but inevitably the women prove to be the better attorneys”. He got it. He was profoundly embarrassed and angry about the DSK affair. In his view, the grandstanding New York City prosecutor did a complete hack job on the case and DSK deserved to be completely discredited and set-up for a civil suit “even if his guilt can’t be proven in court” (for the record, I completely disagree with this premise on the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”).
I can’t say anything about DSK’s innocence or guilt. What I do know is that France is having a major conversation with itself on the proper treatment of women and that this is a good thing. The conversation is moving them in the right direction.
I bring this up this narrative up with regard to the reports of misogyny emanating from our White House. I don’t know if they are true or not, but I suspect this isn’t the last we’ve heard of them. Our MSM press will cover it up, no doubt, just as they did with JFK and LBJ, but eventually the truth will out. We lost a lot of ground during the Clinton Administration (Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Juanita Broderick, etc.) and I would hate to think that workplace misogyny will again become the new norm.
Perhaps we, too, need a national conversation.
Back in September 2009, I posted about Obama’s obsession with getting women into burqas which is, to my mind, a very misogynistic approach to women. I’m therefore entirely unsurprised to learn that those women who have worked in the White House claim that it’s a hostile environment to women, and that this hostility comes from the top.
Obama always signals things: his dislike for Jews and Israel (all his pro-Palestinian friends and advisors were the giveaway), his love for socialist economic fallacies (his Chicago organizer background, his Ivy League education, and all his socialist friends), and his misogyny (that burqa obsession). Patting myself on the back, I consistently predicted who and what this man would be, something that was pretty easy if one paid attention to what he said and did.
From whence does the viciousness in the Leftwing soul emanate?
I know that most if not all of us in the Bookworm circle have seen this horrific video below. I post it because we need to see this again and again. We need to look into their eyes to recognize what this is. I view this with fascination, much as I would were I an anthropologist viewing South Pacific cannibals at the village feast…with morbid horror at the depths of human depravity:
I have never, never experienced such hatred and vileness emanating from any group of conservatives that I know. Not even close. When I have observed rank racism, misogyny or homophobia, it has almost always emanated from people of the Left. It’s as if by incanting a few pat phrases of Liberal/Left orthodoxy or voting for a half-black man (speaking of race, not culture) as President, they feel they get a pass at spewing such vileness (as in, “I can’t be racist, I just voted for Obama”).
I like to use my own Leftwing /Liberal brothers-in-law as my own anthropological laboratory. A couple are happy cheerful people who don’t have a mean bone in their bodies. OK, they are clueless, but that is another story. There is one, however, who projects a portly, kindly exterior that absolutely seeths with venom underneath (his Facebook postings make my skin crawl).
Perhaps one clue is that he is also a man very much disappointed with his choices in life. I also don’t know if he is able to see himself as others see him. Similarly, we have the wife of a close family friend…outwardly, she is a very kind and considerate person. She talks the talk, anyway. But if you get her on the subject of George Bush or Sarah Palin, she transforms into a writhing, spitting demon (to her credit, she is at least aware of this and admits it as a character flaw).
Frankly, these people scare me. I feel that, should they ever be given the power to act out what they verbalize, they would unleash great evil on humanity.
What’s going on with such people? What goes on in their hearts and minds?
Does any budding psychiatrist within our discussion group have insights to share?
I meant to post this yesterday, but time got away from me: many, many, many congratulations to the Marines and their Afghan allies for the Marjah victory. I never doubted that they would win, but I certainly understood that each Marine and Afghan soldier faced the risk that he would make the ultimate sacrifice for that victory.
Naturally, the Times, rather than celebrating a great military feat, is already trying to set up new (and in Times-land, almost certainly insurmountable) hurdles for our troops. I have no doubt that our troops will do just fine.
For a reminder about what out-of-control, murderous troops really look like, read this story of the way in which Soviet soldiers raped the women who found themselves in the soldiers’ path during WWII. There are no, and I mean no, stories like that about our American troops, whether one is looking at WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the First Gulf War, the war in Iraq or the war in Afghanistan. (Indeed, I bet I could say the same for American troops going back to the Revolutionary War.) Sure, there are always renegade men who go off and do bad things, but these same men appear periodically in our cities and towns too. Bad guys exist, but American troops have proven definitively that they are part of a good institution, one that does not use rape as a weapon.
Drifting a little further afield, the fact that American men are not rapists even when they have the power of the military behind them, is also a useful reminder about what a misanthropic religion Islam is. (And no, I didn’t get confused and substitute misanthropic for misogynistic.) While it’s certainly true that one of Islam’s most glaring deficiencies is its desperate desire to subjugate women out of fear of their sexuality, it’s quite obvious that the Islamists hide from feminine sexuality because they believe men to be inherently weak. In the Islamic world, the theory goes, any man, upon seeing a woman, will be incapable of refraining from raping her. That is a scathing indictment of men.
In stark contrast, American men are civilized creatures. Sure, they might leave the toilet seats up, scratch their crotches in public, and belch at inappropriate times, but when push comes to shove, they are models of self-control.
So, in thinking it through, congratulations are due to our Marines, not only for being great warriors, but also for being great human beings.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News
One of the defining features of Islam is its obsession with sex. Every rule regarding women is based upon a driving need to control their sexuality. They are married off as children, sequestered, dressed in clothes that rob them of any hint of femininity, deprived of any opportunities to function outside the reproductive sphere, and fearfully abused, with stonings, hangings, beheadings and beatings if they transgress in any way Islamic rules regarding their sexual or even merely feminine behavior.
A large part of the Islamic world’s hatred for America specifically, and the West generally, is premised upon the fact that the West gives women sexual freedom. And by sexual freedom, I don’t simply mean the freedom to have sex. I mean the freedom to be feminine in public.
The fearful degradation directed at women has two extremely ugly manifestations. The first is pedophilia, and the second is an obsession with pornography. (You’ll recall that both the 9/11 and Fort Hood terrorists spent their last days on earth visiting strip clubs.)
Now, word is coming out of Afghanistan that an Af/Pak warlord, both to feed his lust (which includes both pedophilia and rape) and to fund his war chest, arranged to have local women raped, with the rapes filmed and distributed for profit. When word leaked out that he was involved, he responded by murdering the participants, both the men who carried out the raping and filming, and the innocent young girls who were brutalized. He also destroyed all the videos, or so he thought. In fact, a video landed in the hands of one Imam who actually has a conscience and prepared a video speaking out against these loathsome moral transgressions. Author Brad Thor got a hold of the video, and you can now read the whole sordid story and see the video at The Jawa Report. I should warn you that the video is very graphic, and that’s despite the fact that much of it is edited out.
Because the video and the story behind it so perfectly illustrate the dangerous pathologies that drive radical Islam, Rusty would like his post to go viral. (He actually asked that the video go viral, but I think his post is a sufficiently important backdrop that you really shouldn’t have one without the other.) So, I’m doing my bit, and I hope that you do yours.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News
The Emperor of Japan is not a totalitarian dictator, thank goodness. Indeed, he seems like a very sweet little man. But what in heaven’s name is up with our president going around the world bowing?
We’re Americans! We show respect, but we don’t bow. And there’s something really weird, too, about the most arrogant person on earth (that would be the guy on the left) turning into a gelatinous substance before male royal figures. As you recall, he didn’t bow to Queen Elizabeth. I thought that this had to do with his anti-British animus, which I still believe, but I’m ready to add his misogyny into the mix of reasons he didn’t fold at the middle.
With the trigger being Obama’s obsession with niqabs and hijabs, I did a lengthy post about my belief that Obama fundamentally does not like women. He depends on strong women (his wife, Valerie Jarrett), but he doesn’t like them. In fact, I’m willing to bet that his dependence on them only increases that dislike. I’ll add here that male narcissists are often the product of genuinely unloving mothers and that a strong dislike for women is an intregral part of their make-up. (And consider how frequently Obama’s mother abandoned him throughout his young life, when she wasn’t dragging him around like an old anchor.)
Others are catching on to Obama’s fraught relationship with women. The trigger isn’t anything so deep as his desire to see women veiled. Instead, it’s those all male golf courses. Obama’s desire to get his recreation in all male environments (golf, basketball, etc.) has Bonnie Erbe, at U.S. News and World Reports, thinking:
Whether it was his treatment of Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail (as in his condescending remark that she was “likeable enough”) or his clearly career-oriented mate who has been toned down and remorphed into a Stepford Wife, I just don’t get the impression this man is comfortable with women. Nor do I believe he cares about them beyond needing women’s votes. It’s an act and a thoroughly see-through, amateur one at that.
As you know, I was all over that condescending remark to Hillary, but I saw it more as a sign of the man’s arrogance, than his innate misogyny. Put it together with the other stuff, though, and Erbe may well be on to something.
One more thing: Erbe can’t resist in her post being nasty about the old Southern politician Jesse Helms. But I think there’s a difference between, on the one hand, old guys who never got it with women’s lib, but who still fundamentally liked women (and I don’t think Helms ever showed dislike for women) and, on the other hand, a true misogynist, who really hates women at a fundamental level that goes far beyond societal beliefs about women’s roles.
Didn’t Obama bow to the king?
A Saudi court on Saturday convicted a female journalist for her involvement in a TV show, in which a Saudi man publicly talked about sex, and sentenced her to 60 lashes.
In the program, which aired in July on the Lebanese LBC satellite channel, Mazen Abdul-Jawad appears to describe an active sex life and shows sex toys that were blurred by the station. The same court sentenced Abdul-Jawad earlier this month to five years in jail and 1,000 lashes.
One thing I have to give credit to Barack Obama for being is a complete pragmatist, even if that pragmatism operates to the exclusion of moral decency. Witness his decision to jettison Israel entirely (something Elliott Abrams explains carefully here) in order to placate the Muslim world. Many think that Obama’s affinity for the Muslim world has a lot to do with his upbringing, although that’s mere speculation. (I wouldn’t doubt it, but it’s still speculative.)
Much more likely, though, because it’s been an oft expressed sentiment on the Left for years, is that Obama is animated by the pragmatic belief that the Muslim world hates us because we support Israel and, if we’d just stop that support, they’d stop hating us. If this theory is correct, the benefits that would flow from sacrificing Israel would be obvious: cheap oil and no suicide bombers. If you’re goal driven, it’s a worthwhile experiment. After all, Jews have died before and they’ll die again, but peace in the Middle East is a once in a lifetime experience. (And who cares if its the kind of peace only Tacitus would recognize? Atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.)
The problem with this type of bottom-line pragmatism is that you have to sell your soul to achieve it. Aside from running the risk of exposing a liberal democratic nation to nuclear annihilation (or just good old-fashioned machete slaughter), you also find yourself sending almost a billion dollars in aid to people who espouse values you might find just a little bit, just a wee bit, antithetical to your own. We know about the misogyny, the homophobia, the antisemitism, and the anti-Christianity that characterize the Muslim world.
(Thinking about it, we ought to find new words than ones I used to describe Middle Eastern Muslim culture. In America, those words lack punch, because in practice, they involve saying mean things about woman or gays or Jews or Christians, or depriving them of jobs or housing or, very, very occasionally, physical attacks. In the Muslim world, the word “misogyny” means women have no legal rights, suffer regular physical abuse, including genital mutilation, and are regular victims of honor killings; homophobia means that gays are tortured and executed; “antisemitism” means a cultural press for total genocide; and anti-Christianity means that Christians are dispossessed, expelled and killed. You know a culture is bad when it demands a whole new vocabulary to be intelligible. But as is often the case, I digress.)
But if you thought those were the only things that need change in a culture that Obama proposes become our ally against the Jews, you’re wrong. At Brutally Honest, Rick exposes yet another stomach churning aspect of Muslim culture.
In the culture of alcohol and drug abuse, a well recognized person in the game of addiction is the enabler:
An enabler in most definitions is a person who through his or her actions allows someone else to achieve something. Most often the term enabler is associated with people who allow loved ones to behave in ways that are destructive. For example, an enabler wife of an alcoholic might continue to provide the husband with alcohol. A person might be an enabler of a gambler or compulsive spender by lending them money to get out of debt.
The West has always been a Muslim enabler, whether it’s by buying Muslim oil (which we admittedly have needed, especially because we refuse to produce our own), or by funding to the tune of billions of dollars the most corrupt, hate-filled governments on planet earth. Barack Obama is taking it to a new level. Voters need to look inside themselves and see whether they want to take a gamble on pragmatism that sees them supporting these same governments, or if they want to continue to exist on the side of greater truth and morality. I know where I fall. Sadly, I also know where my president falls.
UPDATE: Rick cautions that the video to which he linked might not be as it seems. Nevertheless, I stand by everything else I said, and the possibility that Rick’s video isn’t as bad as it looks doesn’t change the basic tenor of my post.
UPDATE II: Today, it’s a story out of Sudan regarding the misogynistic cruelty committed in Islam’s name. And just reflexively, I’ll ask: Where’s NOW now?
The movie is a viscerally exciting, adrenaline-soaked tour de force of suspense and surprise, full of explosions and hectic scenes of combat, but it blows a hole in the condescending assumption that such effects are just empty spectacle or mindless noise.
Ms. Bigelow, practicing a kind of hyperbolic realism, distills the psychological essence and moral complications of modern warfare into a series of brilliant, agonizing set pieces.
It has intense, horrific violence and appropriately profane reactions to the prospect of same.
Let me sum that up: This is an incredibly violent movie, with really gross stuff, but we love it.
[This movie] thoroughly blurs the line between high-minded outrage and lurid torture-porn.
Not since “The Passion of the Christ” has a film depicted a public execution in such graphic detail. In the approximately 20 minutes during which the killing unfolds, the camera repeatedly returns to study the battered face and body of the title character (Mozhan Marno) as she is stoned to death.
In one of the film’s sickeningly exploitative touches, Ali, wearing a triumphal grin, examines his wife’s crumpled, blood-drenched body to make sure she is dead and discovers signs of life in a rolled-up eye. The stoning is promptly resumed.
Mr. Negahban’s Ali, who resembles a younger, bearded Philip Roth, suggests an Islamic fundamentalist equivalent of a Nazi anti-Semitic caricature. With his malevolent smirk and eyes aflame with arrogance and hatred, he is as satanic as any horror-movie apparition.
As “The Passion of the Christ” showed, the stimulation of blood lust in the guise of moral righteousness has its appeal.
Again, let me sum things up: This is an incredibly violent movie, with really gross stuff, and we were deeply offended.
As I’m sure you’ve figured out by now, the second movie is The Stoning of Soraya M. It depicts true events in an Iranian village that is subject to the worst kind of sharia law, misogyny, and power run amok. The movie does not shy away from showing what it looks like for someone to be stoned to death, nor the evil that motivates that kind of action. And lest you think the violence is exaggerated, just think of the beheading tapes the jihadis like to release, in which they are in an ecstasy of bloodlust. Bottom line: showing the true horror of a religious, misogynistic act is really tacky, and it’s downright cruel to force New York Times reviewers to have to watch it.
The first movie may not be one you’ve heard of. It’s called The Hurt Locker — and is a critic’s pick. Set during 2004 in Iraq, it shows a squad dedicated to disarming (or blowing up) IEDs. The only really problem, in the critic’s eyes, is that the film isn’t more antiwar. Thus, he lauds the fact that “you will . . . be thinking” but complains that the film did not go further:
[You will . . . be thinking] Not necessarily about the causes and consequences of the Iraq war, mind you. The filmmakers’ insistence on zooming in on and staying close to the moment-to-moment experiences of soldiers in the field is admirable in its way but a little evasive as well.
It is in this context that the reviewer thinks all that bloody, graphic, horrifying violence is just about the most thrilling thing he’s seen in, God, who knows how long. Bottom line: showing American military people and Iraqi citizens being blown up in graphic detail is incredibly exciting, because it reminds us that Bush lied and people died.
As I said, all violence is equal, but some violence is definitely more exciting and rewarding than others.
A thirteen year old (or, maybe, a 23 year old) was stoned to death for adultery after 3 men raped her. Showing their humanity, Somali authorities had nurses on hand to check on the girl. When the nurses exhumed her from the hole they’d placed her in for the stoning, and reported that she was alive, she was reburied, and the stoning continued until she was conclusively dead.
Honest to God, I really do wonder sometimes if the garden-variety fusion betwen Islamic and Arabic culture is salvageable:
A teenage Iraqi girl who fell in love with a British soldier when he was in Basra was murdered by her father in an “honour killing”, it was revealed today.
Rand Abdel-Qader, 17, was suffocated and then hacked at with a knife after her family discovered she was friends with the 22-year-old soldier who she knew only as Paul.
The pair first met when Rand was working on an aid project for displaced families but it is thought the soldier is unaware of the girl’s fate.
She was stamped on, suffocated and stabbed – leaving her with puncture wounds all over her body, including her face.
Her own mother, Leila Hussein, has spoken out about the crime, revealing how her husband called out that he was cleansing “his honour” as he carried out the murder.
She told the Observer he was arrested after the brutal murder but was released without charge two hours later because it was an “honour killing”.
“He was released two hours later because it was an ‘honour killing’. And unfortunately that is something to be proud of for any Iraqi man,” she told the paper.
Five months on, she was brutally killed and buried without the traditional mourning ceremony in a mark of her “impurity”.
Her uncles are also said to have spat on her body because of the shame they felt she had brought on the family.
These people were not “radical Islamists,” they were not bomb throwers, they were just an every day family of Arab Muslims whose men mutilated a 17 year old girl to death and spat on her body because she had the temerity to like a man. This ferocious level of misogyny and self-loathing (because only people who really hate themselves can be so insecure about the face they present to the world) may be beyond any remediation.