Archive for the ‘islam’ Category

Stockholm Syndrome: a euphemism for bad female behavior

June 6, 2009

The Editrix has an excellent post today:

Another Arm on the Octopus of Woman’s Insanity

She theorizes that the alleged phenomenon known as “Stockholm Syndrome” is actually just an excuse people came up with for irrational, unscrupulous female behavior. You know, in the original kidnapping that named the syndrome, two of the hostages later became engaged to their captors. No points for guessing which sex they were.

The Editrix then relates some of the behavior exhibited by men in captivity. Hint: they don’t generally decide their captors are actually wonderful, misunderstood people.

It made me remember some of the inspiring stories I’ve read of the courage of male POWs. Ever see The Great Escape? Based on a true story.

This post inspired me to Google to see if there was any data about the relative prevalence of Stockholm Syndrome between the sexes. I didn’t find any, though I did learn that there is actually a great deal of skepticism that it exists at all.

I also came across a whole bunch of crackpot feminist sites that declared that women who love men, enjoy being married, or approve of patriarchy are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. Shall we apply the same logic to children who love their parents?

Then I came across this: Muslim sisterhood eclipses feminism, says Brit convert

“I know I shouldn’t generalise, but Western women are always bad-mouthing each other, pinching each other’s husbands and boyfriends and trying to pull each other down,” says Ms Ridley, a dryly witty Brit in her mid-40s who is speaking in New Zealand this week.

“Muslim women pull each other up and are encouraging of each other. They pull together.”

Western women do behave in the way she describes. Oh, not all the time, but a lot. I am skeptical, however, that Muslim women are any different.

Thrice-married and solo mum to 12-year-old Daisy, Ms Ridley exchanged a hedonistic life full of overwork and late-night boozing (“I used to be like a tightly coiled spring and I hated my own company”) for alcohol-free piousness, full-time hijab (hair coverings) and five prayer sessions daily.

You know what this reminds me of? In the days of royalty, kings’ mistresses and other courtesans tended to become devoutly religious when they got old and lost their looks and couldn’t get any more lovers. The famous courtesan Ninon de Lenclos disdained this practice as “making God a gift of the Devil’s leavings”.

Ms Ridley, now political editor of Islam Channel, a London-based satellite service, enjoys the respectful behaviour that her conversion prompts in others. It’s a while since she has heard a really filthy joke and doesn’t miss them.

“Sexual harassment” had to be invented because feminists demanded that men stop treating them like ladies, then discovered they couldn’t stand the way men behaved otherwise. There was a time when women didn’t have to join an oppressive, misogynist religion and wear a hijab to get a minimum of courteous behavior. That time was before feminism.

Her hijab has provoked hostile glares in public. She is not disturbed, but wonders what stokes such aggression.

Huh? Two sentences ago the article was saying that her conversion inspired “respectful” behavior.

She hit the headlines in 2001 after the September 11 attacks. Then a Sunday Express journalist, she sneaked into Afghanistan, at the time ruled by the fundamentalist Taleban.

Wait, shortly after 9/11, she figured it was a good idea for a white woman to sneak into Taliban-ruled territory?? She should’ve been committed. And what would have happened to her daughter if she hadn’t come back? Men have to take such risks sometimes, to keep the women and children back home safe. For women, there’s seldom a good reason for it.

According to her darkly funny book In the Hands of the Taliban

Darkly funny?!

According to her darkly funny book In the Hands of the Taliban, she was burqa-clad and posing as a deaf mute when the donkey she was mounting moved. Ridley yelled “Flaming Nora!” and as she reached for the reins, her camera – a banned item – swung into the view of a passing Taleban soldier.

Is this woman incredibly stupid, or did she subconsciously want to be caught?

During her 10 days in captivity, Ms Ridley was treated respectfully.

“Respectfully”? Did this woman inspire Joanie de Rijke?

Although terrified, she decided to behave as badly as possible, spitting and swearing. There was, she says wryly, no chance of getting Stockholm Syndrome – a condition in which hostages begin to side with their kidnappers.

I don’t see why. Maybe the book gives better reasons. Also, notice the “wryly”. The article keeps claiming Ridley is witty or funny, but fails to show any examples of this.

Once home, she started reading up on Islam and got a shock: “The Koran makes it clear that women are the equal of men.”

I have read the Koran. It makes no such thing clear. This is not a misunderstanding, it is an outright lie.

Also, she didn’t read up on Islam until after sneaking into Afghanistan?

In New Zealand for the first time, Ms Ridley has been impressed by the cohesiveness of New Zealand’s 40,000-strong Muslim community. Followers of different backgrounds mingle easily, something she says does not happen in Britain.

The openness reinforced what she had heard: that New Zealand “has a fantastic reputation for its humanitarian approach and welcoming refugees with open arms – and for refusing to get involved in an illegal war”.

Oh, bollocks. Liberals always say crap like that about foreign countries. I’ve heard American women claim that in Europe, women can walk around after dark in total safety, unlike here. Actually, doing so is even less safe there than it is here. (The women who have said this to me who have actually been to Europe were talking about walking a few blocks from a famous restaurant or theater to their expensive hotels. They’re the kind of middle-class people who splurge a bit on vacation, not that it’s wrong to do so, but it’s not a good indication of what a country is like. Affluent areas like that always have good security, if only because rich people have mean lawyers. If they lived there, in a normal middle-income area like the ones they live in over here, they would quickly learn not to walk to the grocery store after dark, any more than they would here.)

Anyway, do read the Editrix’s post. She is one smart lady.

Feminists and Islam: Unholy Partnership

May 21, 2009

Feminists Betray Muslim Women

A feminist professor has once again passed up an opportunity to stand up for the human rights of Muslims women. Recently Dr. Laura Briggs, Associate Professor of Women’s Studies and Head of the Department of Women’s Studies at the University of Arizona, welcomed new Ph.D. students to the department.

In the course of her address, Briggs, author of Reproducing Empire: Race, Sex, Science, and U.S. Imperialism in Puerto Rico, praised the work of other professors, including that of Saba Mahmood, Associate Professor of Social Cultural Anthropology at the University of California at Berkeley. Mahmood, said Briggs, “confronted one of the legacies of a long history of orientalism and the recent wars in the Middle East: the way we are invited to see Muslim women as hopelessly, painfully oppressed, without their own autonomy, will, or individual rights.” So apparently the oppression of Muslim women has nothing to do with Islamic law or culture; it is merely a byproduct of “orientalism and the recent wars in the Middle East” – in other words, it is the West’s fault. “If we sometimes notice other Middle Eastern women—women’s rights activists, for example,” Briggs continued, “it is only to reinforce the notion that the great mass of Muslim women are terribly oppressed by the rise of conservative religiosity, by their husbands, by the ways they are compelled to dress.”

Briggs has good news: Mahmood spent two years – two years! – in Egypt and discovered that that oppression is just a mirage: “But after two years of fieldwork in the women’s mosque movement in Egypt, Mahmood asks us to consider a new question: what if community, as much as or more than the notions of individual rights, is a route to living meaningfully? Perhaps we ought to rethink the idea that women’s agency and personhood spring from resistance to subjection, and attend to the ways that in conservative religious communities, the cultivation of virtue and of closeness to God, of certain emotions and of forms of embodiment, are challenging but hardly one-dimensional ways of producing the self.”

Clearing away the pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook, Briggs is apparently saying that if women feel fulfilled in being subjugated as inferiors under Sharia law, then their good feelings outweigh their oppression and subjection. One wonders what Betty Friedan or Gloria Steinem might have said in the 1960s if this same argument-from-fulfillment had been posed to them regarding American women. But aside from being inconsistent with what has been the feminist view of women’s oppression for decades, Briggs’s words also represent a betrayal of the Muslim women whose suffering is objective, ongoing, and largely unnoticed.

Well, yeah. For one thing, feminists are uncivilized females, and those are always enamoured of violent criminals. They’re the kind of women who send love letters to serial killers in prison, and who date vicious cheating bullies. Feminists are creaming their panties waiting for the day that Mohammedans storm in, kill all the men and children, and gang-rape them. Why do you think they keep trying to shame Western men into not fighting those barbarians? Even “fight” in the sense of “don’t let them move en masse into our countries and rape our teenage daughters”?

More civilized women would rather have Western men with spines. That is, they would like a man who will stand up to them, but not beat or rape them. A man who will defend them and their children from animals like that. A man who will sometimes indulge them, with little gifts and kindnesses, without being a doormat, ever.

Uncivilized women, whether the poor feral teenage girls on welfare in the projects or the overeducated feminist, are too primitive to see any kind of kindness, decency, or self-restraint as anything other than weakness. The only kind of man they can recognize as a man is one who’s apt to kill someone.

Feminists encourage rape

June 21, 2008

The Greatest Betrayal in History

Many Marxist feminists, who have for generations worked to break down Christianity and the nuclear family in the West, now passionately embrace Islam, the most repressive religion on earth. Marxists do not care about “women’s liberty.” They do not care about anybody’s liberty. They support anything that can destabilize the West. The fact that a newspaper that has been at the forefront of radical Feminism for generations now suddenly warns against “Islamophobia” and “prejudice” against the world’s most anti-female religion is highly revealing.

If women want to be taken seriously, they should take responsibility for their own actions. Women cannot attack men for decades and blame them for being male chauvinist pigs, generally evil, stupid and weak and then expect men to come rushing to their defense to clean up the problems women themselves voted to create.

There are still a few sensible self-designated feminists left in the West, but they clearly constitute a minority. I’ve been told by radical feminists that rape is a weapon used by men — that is, men in general — to keep women down. This is also the line Swedish feminists usually take regarding rapes: It’s about the “patriarchy,” not about mass immigration. Swedish men are just as bad as the Taliban, as one prominent feminist famously said.

As one of Marilyn French’s characters said, “All men are rapists, and that’s all they are.” In Norway in 2008, we had a case where a native teenage girl had been gang raped by Muslim immigrants, and the four female judges voted in favor of giving the rapists a “discount” on the minor compensations they were sentenced to pay to the victim. The one dissenting judge was the one male. As the female blogger Nina commented, this and other cases indicate that we need fewer female judges, not more.

Women are simply too soft and emotional to be performing these kinds of tasks. The effect of radical Feminism is to treat all men as criminals, except those who really are criminals, who should receive soft treatment. All men are rapists, except those who actually are. They are victims of “society.” Despite the fact that Muslim immigration has triggered an unprecedented wave of anti-female violence, women still vote disproportionately for pro-immigration parties, and yell “racism” at men who suggest it’s not a good idea.