I blogged about the first batch of posters, aimed at the binge drinking crowd. I couldn’t make myself blog about the current batch. Fortunately, Robert Avrech did it for me. So, regarding this vile poster and the others in the series, I point to Seraphic Secret and yell out “Yeah! What he said!”
I have written often at this blog about the wise words a friend of mine told me more than a decade ago. I can no longer remember his precise words, but I can summarize them: Islam’s problem with the West, he said, boils down to sex. Muslim men are terrified that accepting Western ways means losing the stranglehold they have over women. A religious and political leader in Iran confirms just how right my friend was:
Ahmad Khatami, a senior Iranian cleric and a member of the Assembly of Experts that chooses the next Supreme Leader has warned Iranians not to fall into the trap of negotiating resolution of the nuclear issue with the United States. “If this issue is resolved, the [US] will raise the issue of human rights,” he said, explaining, “Today their problem is the nuclear issue, and when this issue is resolved, they will raise the issue of human rights and say whatsoever rights men have, women should have them, too.”
Read more here.
It makes sense, actually. Humans have needs (food, water, shelter, etc.), and humans have drives (sex, power, etc.). Once the needs are fulfilled, sex is undoubtedly the strongest drive. Western society constrains men’s sex drive; Islamic society constrains the women in service to men’s sex drive.
Women voters, terrified by the Todd Akin bogeyman and promised a lifetime of free birth control, put Obama over the top in the 2012 election. Now many reap what they sowed:
Frey’s situation reflects a trend in which women in the United States have been losing the government jobs they dominate even as the private sector has added positions. Women have lost 454,000 federal, state and local government jobs, compared with 267,000 by men, since the 18-month recession ended in June 2009, Bureau of Labor Statistics records indicate.
The gap has widened in the past year even as government job losses have slowed. Government payrolls cut about five times as many women as men in 2012, and the pattern is continuing. In January, women surrendered 8,000 positions compared with 1,000 for men.
State and local governments have done the majority of firing as their revenue plummeted and are poised for a rebound as the economy picks up. Yet the imbalance could persist if Congress doesn’t avert the automatic federal spending reductions scheduled to begin this month, said Harry Holzer, a professor at Georgetown University in Washington and former chief economist at the Department of Labor.
I don’t think I need to add any further commentary. Frankly, I’d rather read what you guys have to say, because I always enjoy your clever and informed comments.
Colorado State Rep. Joe Salazar’s ham-handed, even troglodyte, advice for campus women worried about rape came as no surprise to me. My experiences at UC Berkeley thirty-odd years ago left me fully prepared for this Leftist approach to females and true self-defense, an approach that hides both misogyny and an overriding fear for the men involved in a potentially dangerous situation.
Long-ago, when I attended Cal, my economic situation — too poor to afford on-campus housing, too middle-class to get meaningful financial aid — meant that I lived at home and commuted. This was not an ideal way to attend college. I spent an awful lot of time in transit and I had a hard time maintaining a social life (something made harder by the fact that I worked my way through college).
A significant chunk of my transit time was devoted to finding all-day parking and then walking to and from that parking. The closer one got to campus, the more limited the parking options were: there was resident-only parking, 30-minute parking, 1-hour parking, 2-hour parking, etc. Since my job and my classes kept me on campus all day, I usually ended up parking between a mile and a mile-and-a-half away from my classes. The walk, although time-consuming was pleasant, although less so if I had a lot of books to carry or it was raining.
In my senior year, however, things changed, because there was a rash of rapes and assaults on women near campus. I was less than thrilled when, during winter’s early, dark afternoons, I had to walk to my car alone.
Since many women around this same time were unhappy about walking to their dorms, apartments, and cars alone, the campus police instituted an “escort service.” With this service in place, women could go to the campus police office and an authorized man (I don’t know if they were employees or volunteers), armed with a walkie-talkie, would walk them to their destinations.
I immediately availed myself of the service — only to discover that it wasn’t a service at all. The deal was that these escorts were not allowed to exceed a half-mile radius. The reason given was that their walkie-talkies didn’t work outside of that radius, so it was unsafe for them to go further. You got that, right? It was unsafe for the men to exceed a half-mile radius but presumably more safe for the women to continue on their own.
The nice escorts would stand at their little boundary to listen in case they heard your screaming. Frankly, I really didn’t feel that this auditory aid amounted to much. You see, the reality of this so-called “escort service” was that I was left on my own on Berkeley’s dark and unfriendly streets.
Given the program’s manifest inadequacies, I rather quickly abandoned the whole notion of applying to the campus police for aid in getting to my car. Not only was it unhelpful, it actually increased my risk. Since there were only a few escorts available at any given time, I had to hang around the office waiting and waiting, even as the skies grew darker and the streets scarier.
This experience at UC Berkeley was the first time I ran headlong into the Progressive’s devotion to lip service over actual service. They made lots of noise, but they cared more about men than about women, and more about image than reality.
Those unpleasant evenings on campus, when I felt alone and defenseless, returned to me in living color when I heard about Colorado State Rep. Joe Salazar’s bizarre advice to women facing a scary campus environment:
It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop around at somebody.
The gloss is that “he cares.” The reality is that this ostensible “caring” is mere lip-service. What Salazar carelessly let slip is the misogyny that underlies so much strident feminism (perfectly realized in this amalgam of this Koran and an anti-rape rally). The Nanny state is built upon the elite’s belief that individuals cannot care for themselves, and nowhere is this more obvious than in the claim that women are incapable of recognizing danger or acting appropriate when they do recognize it.
Moreover, rather than worrying about high-risk women being hurt, Salazar is terribly worried that low-risk men will get hurt (“you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at”). Here’s the deal Rep. Salazar: the good guys, the men who don’t rape, don’t stalk women and they don’t interview women (“Hey, babe, can you tell me the time? No? Too bad. You’re cute. You know you’re cute, don’t you?”). What they do is to keep a respectful distance and attitude. Do that, and you won’t get “popped.”
In other words, Salazar is my UC experience all over again: lip-service and misogyny, wrapped up in a package of making sure that the men are safe.
It’s not just Salazar, of course. Looking at this much-publicized advice from University of Colorado. Apparently awed by the abilities its bulimic students have shown over the years, the university advises women who are threatened to vomit on demand (emphasis mine):
- Be realistic about your ability to protect yourself.
- Your instinct may be to scream, go ahead! It may startle your attacker and give you an opportunity to run away.
- Kick off your shoes if you have time and can’t run in them.
- Don’t take time to look back; just get away.
- If your life is in danger, passive resistance may be your best defense.
- Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.
- Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.
- Yelling, hitting or biting may give you a chance to escape, do it!
- Understand that some actions on your part might lead to more harm.
- Remember, every emergency situation is different. Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.
I especially like that first one: “Be realistic about your ability to protect yourself.” With that advice in mind, ask yourself this: Am I more likely to protect myself against a power-hungry predator who may be hopped up on drugs by doing this?
Or by doing this?
By the way, don’t fall into the trap of thinking that Salazar’s going to be humiliated about this one. Although the conservative blogosphere is pointing fingers, liberals who were outraged by Todd Akin’s stupid rape quote are perfectly fine with Salazar’s stupid and demeaning advice to women.
And why not? They agree with it. Moreover, their agreement matters because, just as the Dems used Akin and women to give Obama that last little push he needed to get into the White House, Dems are planning that same strategy with women and guns. They’re already starting the “women who love their communities hate guns” trope, which we can expect to get worse with time.
Long-essays like mine are great at educating women about guns and warning conservatives about future gun attacks, right? Oh, God no! I wish. In a short-attention span universe, I am a poison pill. After the first paragraph, the average voter’s eyes are rolling back into her head, she’s reaching blindly for her TiVo clicker or her smart phone, and she’s totally tuned out.
The reality is that, in short-attention span America, we do not need long essays like mine. I’m a pre-programmed essayist, though, and, sadly, I can’t seem to help myself.
What I’d love is to be more visual, so that I could create pithy posters or punchy videos that could easily be circulated on Twitter and Facebook, all of which drill home the same point: guns make women safer, not less safe.
If you have photoshopped a poster that puts together gun statistics (such as these) in a clever, easy-to-see way, or you’ve created a video that does the same, let me know, and I’ll do my best to promote it. Dems are already planning for the next election, so we need to as well.
Women have been responsible for some pretty bad presidents. Warren Harding leaps most easily to mind, since his was the first presidential election in which women participated, but women were also water carriers for JFK and Bill Clinton.
The Barack Obama campaign clearly hoped to capitalize on women’s bad habit of voting for bad boys, so they offered women (1) free birth control, (2) the charmingly helpless Julia, (3) stunningly stupid attacks against Ann Romney; and (4) the pithy claim that Republicans (and Romney) are waging a “War Against Women.” If you live in a liberal bubble, this seems like a very good tactic.
Sadly for the Obamites, what looks good on Dem party paper doesn’t necessarily work in real life. In real life, women have children, and they worry about those children. That worry trumps their concerns about birth control or silly wars on women or gay marriage. And that concern focuses on two things: a strong economy, so that women can raise healthy, happy children who go on the a good life; and a safe world in which those same children will thrive. Funnily enough, when the soccer Moms, and working Moms, and la crosse Moms, and football Moms, and harassed Moms, and happy Moms look at these serious, rather than superficial concerns, one candidate floats to the top — and it ain’t Barry:
After months of manufactured “GOP War on Women” silliness, a new CBS/NYT poll (!) finds Romney leading Obama 46-44% among woman voters. Mind you, that isn’t GOP woman or even independent women, but ALL women voters.
More importantly, today’s poll finds a notable shift among women in just the last month. In April, Obama was leading Romney by 6% among women. No other group saw an 8 point shift in their support.
Turns out women’s top concern is the same as men’s: The Economy. All the contrived outrage about contraceptives and women’s health can’t mask the fact that 73% of voters listed either the economy or the federal deficit as their number on issue.
I feel vindicated. Last week, I wrote that Barry is the Eddie Haskell of politics. He’s a bad boy, who seems like fun, until he gets you in trouble. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is this election’s Ward Cleaver. He’s the voice of reason, the protector, and the bread winner. The girls in the political world know a good provider when they see one — and, more importantly, they understand that this “providing” doesn’t mean selective government handouts that slowly but surely eat away at the nation in which their children are born but, instead, means a stable, healthy economy that gives opportunity to all.
[Gotta run, so this is "dictated, but not read." My apologies for typos.]
In 1920, for the first time, American women had the right to vote in a federal election. Warren G. Harding won that election by a landslide and, rightly or wrongly, he went down as the president whose dashing good looks and insouciance so charmed American women that they put him in the White House. Here is the dashing, insouciant Harding:
Harding’s good looks and charm have not worn well. Neither has his reputation. His administration is remembered as one of the most corrupt in history — and, sadly, that first batch of women voters is remembered for having put him in the White House.
Almost one hundred years later, Tina Korbe has identified a new group of voters who may well be remembered for their role in placing one of the most corrupt presidents ever into the White House. It seems that the millennials (those young ‘uns who come of age politically in the new millennium) are no more. Our President has given them a new name, one that, unsurprisingly, is tied closely to his own presidency:
President Barack Obama has rebranded us. To him, we’re “Gen44.” Expanded, that means we’re the generation that elected him as the nation’s 44th president. Can you say, “hubris,” anyone? It’s almost like pleading to restart the calendar with 2008 as 1 Anno Obama.
In addition to the overwhelming narcissism this re-branding displays, Korbe points out that there is a certain truth to this horrible appellation:
What’s particularly galling about this is that he’s right. To date, our record participation in his election is our defining achievement.
What women were to Warren G. Harding, Gen44 will be to Barack Obama. Let us just hope that Obama’s administration will be almost as short-lived as Harding’s (only Obama, God willing, will be booted out via the ballot box, rather than congestive heart failure).
UPDATE from Bookworm: Poor Enrico’s. Because its name features prominently on the building, people are assuming it posted the sign. It did not. From Enrico’s facebook page:
You may have received an email about a sign that says “FU (spelled out) Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina” asking you to call Enrico’s Restaurant to complain. Enrico’s is not responsible for the sign. It was put there by the Law offices of Tony Serra who has offices above Enrico’s. Enrico’s,like most businesses, doesn’t take political stands and is not responsible for the sign.
And now back to Ms. GW’s original post:
San Francisco sign threatens Fiorina and Whitman
This vulgar sign, spotted in San Francisco above a prominent restaurant at the corner of Kearney and Broadway, raises the same question one more time:
Why must the Left continue to demean female conservative candidates? How desperate is the Left?
To help answer the question, here’s some insight from a licensed psychotherapist who wrote on this very topic after observing the Left’s attacks on Sarah Palin two years ago:
As every woman knows, leering looks, lurid words, and veiled threats are intended to evoke terror. Sexual violence is a form of terrorism. In the wilding of Sarah Palin, the Left shows its true colors. Rather than shield the vulnerable, Leftists will mow down any man, woman, or child who gets in their way.
So: Leftists are bullies, plain and simple. The Left has been in power for two years, but apparently that’s not enough. Using vulgar language is a simple, common tactic to intimidate, repress and silence others. A “f*** you!” says plenty, and its recipient is instantly diminished. Words hurt and vulgar ones stop any conversation cold and do nothing to advance civilization. As our moms used to tell us, “People use bad words when they want attention or lack the language or creativity to express themselves.”
Interestingly, although it doesn’t show up clearly in this photograph, the sign bears the name of J. Tony Serra, a well-known San Francisco criminal defense attorney who has defended Huey Newton and the Black Panthers, Chol Soo Lee, Ellie Nesler, and other “society outcasts,” according to Serra’s website. Notably, Serra’s own website says, “Tony Serra has always known how to express the poetry of the law, while fighting in the ditches and dark alleys of legal practice.”
Poetry of the law, huh? Fighting in the ditches and dark alleys? If Serra did authorize this sign, most civilized folks will find nothing poetic or courageous in the threat of sexual violence against Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina. Let’s hope Tony Serra and the restaurant are not behind this sign . . . talk about desperately wanting attention.
And by the way, where’s the outrage from San Francisco’s politically correct women? Where’s the outrage from the San Francisco’s politically correct media? Where’s the National Organization for Women when we need them?
Ms. GW is a long-time Bay Area resident and woman who is appalled and offended by the Left’s attacks on any female candidate, conservative or liberal.
UPDATE II from Bookworm: Please also check out the article on this subject that Ms. GW wrote for American Thinker’s blog. It’s similar, but raises some slightly different points you may find interesting.
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.
I need help from you guys developing a thought. The thought started with this picture of Michelle Obama in a deep-veed, fluffy blouse; a saggy sweater; a bondage belt; and the gypsy skirt from hell:
Aside from the fact that the picture pretty much puts the lie forever to the media’s desparate attempt to liken Michelle to Jacquie O, I think Michelle’s completely bewildered clothing speaks to something deeper about what society’s Leftist grip does to women’s self image.
I’m thinking about the difference between elegance and femininity, as opposed to a sort of trashy, hard-edged “feminism” that equates female sexuality, which can be beautiful and graceful, with Hustler-esque sex. There’s definitely been a trend in the past years that cheapens, rather than elevates, women, and this trend has marched hand-in-hand with the radicalization of feminism.
Recall, if you will, that feminism was originally sold as a way to ensure that women got equal rights under the law and equal opportunities. It’s now morphed into some shrill Leftist monster that says women should have sex like a porn star, be able to cry rape at will, get opportunities denied to men, ignore the plight of their truly oppressed sisters around the world, forgive rapists as long as they’re “good” presidents, get more than equal pay for unequal work, etc. At precisely the same time women stopped being women and started being these weird Frankenstein monsters, the concept of attractiveness and feminity in clothing vanished — something I’ve bemoaned my entire adult life.
In other words, I think this picture speaks to something larger about the way women, for all their greater earning power and societal presence, have lost something over the last 30 years.
I know I’m old-fashioned, and getting more so with every passing day, but I’m pretty sure “viva la difference” didn’t mean you guys look like effete metrosexuals and we gals look like bondage vixens.
There is no bliss inherent in the ignorance displayed by one judge in England:
A judge lambasted a rapist for claiming his victim was a liar – then commended him for becoming a muslim.
Judge Anthony Goldstaub QC sentenced Stuart Wood for seven years for the attack, then told him: ‘You have turned to Islam and this promises well for your future, particularly as you are now an adherent of a religion which respects women and self-discipline.’
Apparently Goldstaub has never heard of honor killings, burkhas, systematic rapes of non-Muslim women, the whole Saudi/Taliban package (unveiled girls being forced to die in burning buildings, chronic house arrest, being beaten on the street for showing any flesh), etc. To characterize Islam as a religion that respects women, when 90% of Islam’s energy is directed to the subjugation of women is such a travesty that it defies words. It’s impossible to tell if the judge was motivated by ignorance or malice in making that kind of statement.
I’ll close this short post with a quote from my cousin, the prison chaplain, with his take on prison conversions to Islam:
It is not a contradiction to be a Muslim and a murderer, even a mass murderer. That is one reason why criminals “convert” to Islam in prison. They don’t convert at all; they similarly remain the angry judgmental vicious beings they always have been. They simply add “religious” diatribes to their personal invective. Islam does not inspire a crisis of conscience, just inspirations to outrage.
I’m noticing an interesting pattern in Obama’s Muslim speeches. He thinks it’s a very good thing for women to cover up. In his Cairo speech, he made that point, not once, not twice, but three times. As I caught in the post I wrote at the time, he said:
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.)
Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit — for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We can’t disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.
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.
That obsession with women’s attire might have been aberrant but for the fact that, at tonight’s White House Ramadan celebration, Obama brought it up again (emphasis mine):
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.”
Why, oh why, is Obama so impressed with Muslim women wrapping their heads? His he just part of the same trendy Left wing cadre that thinks head coverings are a cool fashion statement by which enlightened Islamic feminists thumb their nose at men? Naomi Wolf, American “feminist” and nutcase, believes this to be so:
The West interprets veiling as repression of women and suppression of their sexuality. But when I travelled in Muslim countries and was invited to join a discussion in women-only settings within Muslim homes, I learned that Muslim attitudes toward women’s appearance and sexuality are not rooted in repression, but in a strong sense of public versus private, of what is due to God and what is due to one’s husband. It is not that Islam suppresses sexuality, but that it embodies a strongly developed sense of its appropriate channelling – toward marriage, the bonds that sustain family life, and the attachment that secures a home.
Outside the walls of the typical Muslim households that I visited in Morocco, Jordan, and Egypt, all was demureness and propriety. But inside, women were as interested in allure, seduction and pleasure as women anywhere in the world.
At home, in the context of marital intimacy, Victoria’s Secret, elegant fashion and skin care lotions abounded. The bridal videos that I was shown, with the sensuous dancing that the bride learns as part of what makes her a wonderful wife, and which she proudly displays for her bridegroom, suggested that sensuality was not alien to Muslim women. Rather, pleasure and sexuality, both male and female, should not be displayed promiscuously – and possibly destructively – for all to see.
Wolf would benefit from reading Phyllis Chesler’s response to her inane article, in which Chesler emphasizes the reality for the vast majority of those Muslim woman wrapped up in movable tents:
Most Muslim girls and women are not given a choice about wearing the chador, burqa, abaya, niqab, jilbab, or hijab (headscarf), and those who resist are beaten, threatened with death, arrested, caned or lashed, jailed, or honor murdered by their own families. Is Wolfe thoroughly unfamiliar with the news coming out of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan on these very subjects? Has she forgotten the tragic, fiery deaths of those schoolgirls in Saudi Arabia who, in trying to flee their burning schoolhouse, were improperly veiled and who were beaten back by the all-powerful Saudi Morality Police?
Most Muslim girls and women are impoverished and wear rags, not expensive Western clothing beneath their coverings. Only the pampered, super-controlled, often isolated, and uber-materialistic daughters of wealth, mainly in the Gulf states, but also among the ruling classes in the Islamic world, match Wolf’s portrait of well kept courtesan-wives.
Being veiled and obedient does not save a Muslim girl or woman from being incested, battered, stalked, gang-raped, or maritally raped nor does it stop her husband from taking multiple wives and girlfriends or from frequenting brothels. A fully “covered” girl-child, anywhere between the ages of 10-15, may still be forced into an arranged marriage, perhaps with her first cousin, perhaps with a man old enough to be her grandfather, and she is not allowed to leave him, not even if he beats her black and blue every single day.
So does Obama side with Wolf or does he understand the reality that Chesler articulates?
Or are we looking in the wrong place altogether when it comes to Obama’s hijab obsession. Maybe he’s just dreaming that, one day, he can replace this angry face:
With this, all signs of anger neatly hidden away:
UPDATE: To those who I’m mocking Michelle for being ugly, I’m not. I don’t think she’s the raving beauty the MSM would have us believe, but there’s nothing wrong with how she looks. It’s the anger that’s in her face whenever she’s not actively smiling. That is one very, very angry woman. That can’t be a nice thing in a marriage. A burqa wouldn’t make the anger go away, but you wouldn’t have to see it all the time. I’ve updated the captions for the photos a bit to show that my emphasis is on personality, not looks.
A young British woman, raised in the North of England, escaped her abusive Muslim father and converted to Christianity, a fact that saw her father lead an axe wielding mob clamoring for her death. She wrote a book about her experience. When the Times interviewer asked why she didn’t seek help from the authorities, the woman explains how political correctness creates a straight jacket as tight as fundamentalist Islam itself:
When, at school, she had finally summoned the courage to tell a teacher that her father had been beating her (she couldn’t bring herself to reveal the sexual abuse), the social services sent out a social worker from her own community. He chose not to believe Hannah and, in effect, shopped her to her father, who gave her the most brutal beating of her life. When she later confronted the social worker, he said: “It’s not right to betray your community.”
Hannah blames what is sometimes called political correctness for this debacle: “My teachers had thought they were doing the right thing, they thought it showed ‘cultural sensitivity’ by bringing in someone from my own community to ‘help’, but it was the worst thing they could have done to me. This happens a lot.
“When I’ve been working with girls who were trying to get out of an arranged marriage, or want to convert to Christianity, and they have contacted social services as they need to get out of their homes, the reaction has been ‘we’ll send someone from your community to talk to your parents’. I know why they are doing this, they are trying to be understanding, but it’s the last thing that the authorities should do in such situations.”
This is the sort of cultural sensitivity displayed by Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, last year when he suggested that problems within the British Muslim community such as financial or marital disputes could be dealt with under sharia, Islamic law, rather than British civil law. What did Hannah, now an Anglican, think on hearing these remarks?
“I was horrified.” If you could speak to him now, what would you say to the archbishop? “I would say: have you actually spoken to any ordinary Muslim women about the situation that they live in, in their communities? By putting in place these Muslim arbitration tribunals, where a woman’s witness is half that of a man, you are silencing women even more.”
She believes the British government is making exactly the same mistake as Rowan Williams: “It says it talks to the Muslim community, but it’s not speaking to the women. I mean, you are always hearing Muslim men speaking out, the representatives of the big federations, but the government is not listening to Muslim women. With the sharia law situation and the Muslim arbitration tribunals, have they thought about what effect these tribunals have on Muslim women? I don’t think so.”
Hat tip: Hot Air
American feminists, who have done quite a number on Palin, are remarkably silent about the mind-boggling restrictions placed upon, and indignities visited upon, their sisters in Saudi Arabia:
A new prohibition may be added to the long list of those placed on women in Saudi Arabia: A new sentence according to Islamic law (fatwa) determines that women exiting the doorways of their homes must cover one of their eyes.
The array of prohibitions currently placed upon Saudi women includes forbiddance to leave home without a familial “patron,” fraternize with men in public, drive a car, put makeup on and wear high heels.
The modesty squad on the streets of Saudi Arabia follows women whose abaya (long cloak) is too tight and likely to reveal their curves or those whose hair is visible through their veils.
A senior religious cleric in the country, Sheikh Muhammad al-Habadan demands that the rules of modesty be further enhanced.
In the new Islamic legal sentence, al-Habadan announced that when leaving their homes, women must keep only one eye revealed.
According to the sheikh, “revelation of both eyes behind the veil is likely to encourage women to put make-up on and accentuate their eyes. This is corrupt behavior which conflicts with Islamic principles.”
Read the rest here.
I know I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again: A prescient friend of mine told me before 9/11 that the Muslim hatred of the Western world is grounded in the fear Muslim men have of female sexuality. Everything else — alcohol prohibitions, dog prohibitions, etc. — is just static. In apocalyptic fight between Islam and the West, it’s all about sex. And in that regard, keep in mind that the incentive for Muslim men to commit suicide/mass murder is, yes, sex with those 70 luscious virgins (or, possibly, which will be a surprise to them, grapes).
I found fascinating the fact that, even in San Francisco, the most liberal, diverse, open to everything (except conservatism and religion) city in the whole US (except for Berkeley), women are not making headway in politics:
In a year when gender has played a significant role in the presidential campaign – 18 million people voted for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the Republican base is enthused by Gov. Sarah Palin – women in San Francisco politics aren’t gaining nearly as much traction.
In fact, they have been losing ground for decades in this famously open-minded, diverse city. In the 1980s and 1990s, several configurations of the 11-member Board of Supervisors had female majorities of six or seven members. Now, the board has three.
It doesn’t seem to occur to anyone that the fault, Dear Brutus, might not lie with the voters, but may lie with the women — or, to be more accurate, with the children. In my neighborhood, all of the women started out in their 20s as high achieving professionals. With children, all of those who don’t have to work have stopped. And all of those who do have to work try to keep it part-time.
I believe all opportunities should be available to woman. (That would be the famous equality of opportunity that true feminists desire.) However, it’s worth noting that all women may not wish to take advantage of those opportunities. (Putting the lie to the Leftist belief that government can force equality of outcome, that which NOW feminists desire.)
In the past couple of days, I’ve read more than a few articles in which liberal women express incendiary anger about Sarah Palin. I blogged yesterday about Michelle Cottle’s screed, and today read equally over-the-top material from Judith Warner (h/t The Anchoress) and Heather Malick (h/t Small Dead Animals). In each of these articles, women complain that those who play by feminism’s rules are kicked in the teeth and that Quislings like Sarah Palin get rewarded with perks and praise. Never mind that their feminine ideal, Hillary, got ahead the old-fashioned way, by marriage. It was her rhetoric, not her conduct, that appealed.
I find the attitude these women express interesting, because I understand it so well. When I worked at my first law firm, I was a horrible employee because I had all these ideas that, as a woman who paid full (and sincere) lip service to feminism’s principles, I was entitled to special treatment. I couldn’t understand why the men who started the same year as I did were treated better and liked more — overlooking completely the fact that they worked harder, complained less, and contributed more. I was a woman! Didn’t “they” understand that?
Incidentally, I didn’t arrive at this self-serving, egotistical hubristic attitude on my own. My year was the year the law firm decided to embrace diversity and hired a large group of whiny women, African-Americans and gays.* We knew we were affirmative action hires but, instead of being grateful, we felt we were owed more than just a job. We expected to be coddled and given opportunities notwithstanding our failure to earn them.
As the years went by, we were horrified by how obvious it was that the firm powers didn’t like us. It never occurred to us that we were neither likable nor beneficial to the firm’s business. Eventually, I jumped ship for a different firm where, with a clean slate, I started to learn to be a lawyer and not a feminist. The rest of the malcontents with whom I’d worked were all fired summarily a short time later as part of a — ahem — “cost cutting” move.
Reading the articles to which I’ve linked, it’s apparent that many American women still live in the “you owe me” bubble. Worse, since they seldom get what they feel they’re owed, they find themselves embittered — and, sadly, without even having the countervailing consolation of guns and God.
*This is not to imply that women, gays and African-Americans are whiny. It is to say that this particular group of women, gays and African-Americans, all of whom believed they were entitled to special treatment because of their non-white male status, were in fact whiny.
After pointing out how ignoble the attack on Palin is coming from the self-appointed coastal elites, Victor Davis Hanson sums up how Palin is the ultimate feminist triumph:
Sarah Palin is the emblem of what feminism was supposed to be all about: an unafraid, independent, audacious woman, who soared on her own merits without the aid of a patriarchal jumpstart, high-brow matrimonial tutelage and capital, and old-boy liaisons and networking.
This is kind of cool — I’m on a list that Michelle Malkin heads! The young man who runs the Enkay Blog has assembled a list of the top 100 female bloggers and I’m currently in there at number 78. Of course, if this list gets more play (and he hopes it does and is seeking submissions), and more women’s blogs get added to the list, I can see myself slipping. I’m therefore enjoying my brief moment of glory.