So Easy, a Muslim Could Do It!
For those of you who have the luxury or prudence to have sworn off television, you’re probably not familiar with the Geico automobile insurance company’s ad campaign that carries the slogan “So Easy, a Caveman Could Do It!†The only problem is that within this scenario, unbeknownst to Geico, there are still cavemen among us! The theme of the campaign is the proto-human culture’s indignation at these advertisements and what seems to be a sort of jab at notions of Political Correctness. It’s kind of cute.
I recently read one of the best and most insightful columns I’ve ever seen. “How my eyes were opened to the barbarity of Islam: Is it racist to condemn fanaticism?†by Dr. Phyllis Chesler originally appeared in The Times of London on March 7, 2007. Dr. Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies at City University of New York and carries too many other credentials to mention.
In her column, Chesler describes your basic story of an American woman who was swept off her feet by a Muslim man (in her case, a “charming, seductive and Westernized Afghan Muslim whom I met at an American collegeâ€), then goes “home†to his country where hell ensues.
Except this story is told by someone who is intelligent, resilient, and a good writer to boot. If every American were to read “How my eyes were opened†I honestly believe that all but perhaps half a dozen Marxist holdouts would be all for leveling Teheran and Damascus tomorrow, at the very least. I am not exaggerating.
“I saw how polygamous, arranged marriages and child brides led to chronic female suffering and to rivalry between co-wives and half-brothers; how the subordination and sequestration of women led to a profound estrangement between the sexes — one that led to wife-beating, marital rape and to a rampant but hotly denied male “prisonâ€-like homosexuality and pederasty; how frustrated, neglected and uneducated women tormented their daughter-in-laws and female servants; how women were not allowed to pray in mosques or visit male doctors (their husbands described the symptoms in their absence).â€
From “How my eyes were opened to the barbarity of Islam: Is it racist to condemn fanaticism?†by Dr. Phyllis Chesler
Chesler also points out that Afghanistan was never colonized, something of which Afghans are quite proud. It does, however, explode the Left’s nauseatingly tired, vapid, decades-old assertion that Third World cultures’ less positive attributes are the fault of Western imperialism and colonialism.
Despite firsthand experience living in the world radical Islam has sworn to impose upon us, destroy us, or themselves be destroyed in the attempt, Dr. Chesler has been excoriated as a reactionary and racist “Islamophobe†by Western elites whom I think ought to be granted a government-sponsored weekend in Teheran or Damascus (either one will do) shortly before the ICBMs fly.
Yes – I said ICBMs
I know that Muslims living in America – both radical and not-so-radical – will be offended by this writing, as will the spungiform liberal elites. But I’ve come to the conclusion, as Dr. Chesler said in a recent radio interview, that the “peaceful†Muslims among us are merely being “good Germans†– a reference to those Germans who didn’t approve of the machinations of the Third Reich, but did nothing to ameliorate its effects, reaped the benefits of its accomplishments, then threw up their hands, wide-eyed when it was all over. Millions were dead, but Germany was finally beaten: “What could we have done?†they whined. I personally find the willingness of Muslims in the U.S. to reap America’s benefits while this goes on connotes a putrescent, hypocritical cowardice, though perhaps not quite as odious as that of the suicide bomber or the cave-dwelling beard in a dress.
When the Iranian paratroopers rain down upon our cities – which I don’t believe will actually happen, it’s just a metaphor for when the proverbial fan gets hit – we can reasonably expect anything from apathy to complicity from the “peaceful†Muslims now living in our land.
I maintain that our military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq were merited. But establishing democracy in Iraq? I don’t know. I do know that the development of Western democracies were a natural outgrowth of Classical and Judeo-Christian thought, and that retrograde nations such as those in the Middle East appear to be perfectly comfortable living with tribal warfare or tyrants. This becomes more apparent every week. The only exception I see are people from predominantly Islamic nations who have been thoroughly Westernized, were not Muslims to start with, or abandoned Islam as a backward cult of death.
“Now is the time for Western intellectuals who claim to be antiracists and committed to human rights to stand with these dissidents. To do so requires that we adopt a universal standard of human rights and abandon our loyalty to multicultural relativism, which justifies, even romanticises, indigenous Islamist barbarism, totalitarian terrorism and the persecution of women, religious minorities, homosexuals and intellectuals. Our abject refusal to judge between civilisation and barbarism, and between enlightened rationalism and theocratic fundamentalism, endangers and condemns the victims of Islamic tyranny.â€
- Dr. Phyllis Chesler
“Islamâ€, translated means “submission.†Although submission to the Will of God is a common doctrine even in Judeo-Christian thought, in the modern world it is not implemented by force, nor does it involve human mutilation, flaying, immolation, rape or random murder. Islam is a barbaric religion and fosters a culture of barbarianism, bereft of notions of liberty or the value of life. This isn’t a racist statement, it’s a discernment based on their philosophical paradigm, their actions, and the words of a minority of former Muslims.
These charges against Islam, which Progressive elites would call racist calumnies, are as plain as the nose on one’s face, however; denying them is delusion in the clinical sense. The freedoms we take for granted, the cultural model we embrace, and the way of life we in America we practice truly aren’t “so easy a Muslim could do it.â€
| More from Erik Rush
Stumble It!
March 12th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
this is a biggoted article against Islam. The same standard should be applied here as was made about Charles Fockheart.
March 12th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Steven, to your contention that this is a biggoted article against Islam, well, er, yes…IT IS! And a pretty good one at that.
March 12th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
“this is a biggoted article against Islam. The same standard should be applied here as was made about Charles Fockheart.”
This is how liberals defend countless deprived and immoral things. They simply call the truth bigotry or racism and shut it out.
March 12th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
what we have here is a failure to communicate..elder george hit the nail right on the head when he suggested our true battle with the middle east…he suggests that the real battle is of an extrememe Europian feminine materialist culture (US included) against an extreme middle eastern patriarchal culture. with most other nations somewhere in the middle.
March 12th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
You quoted a professor of “wommin’s studies” ?
Sorry, lost the plot right there.
How is it possible for a female to have a professorship in a subject that wallows in lies, distortions and the total corruption of the truth
Sounds likes a feminist………
March 12th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
“this is a biggoted article against Islam. The same standard should be applied here as was made about Charles Fockheart.”
And you spew your bigotry and hatred towards men… on a MEN’S RIGHTS SITE TAH BOOT! Aint freedom of speech voodibah?
Deal with it asshat!
TMOTS
March 12th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
This article drives home the common ground liberals share with Islam. Perhaps this explains why liberals/progressives are so defensive when the cult of mass murder and child sacrifice is exposed.
March 12th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
WAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! It’s bigoted, or bigtoed or something. It’s also the TRUTH!!!!
Steven, Steven, Steven. When the fit hits the shan, we’ll fight for you. That is if your Islamic ‘friends’ haven’t already sawed your head off with a machete.
March 12th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Hate to burst the bubble that nitwit liberals live in, but everything that Dr Chesler says is 100%, right on, and correct!
I have lived in Saudi Arabia, for several years, and travelled throughout the middle east. I have witnessed and experienced the lunacy that passes for islamic society first hand. Unless you’ve been there and seen it, you have no clue.
Call names if you must, and keep your heads shoved firmly up your “free thinking” butts, as you criticize someone who is trying to let you in on what lies ahead for you. The sword of allah is coming for your effete necks, if you don’t wise up, and do it soon!!!…. al ham de allah!
March 12th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
“This article drives home the common ground liberals share with Islam.”
Actually S Baker, this article is what the far right has in common with radical Muslims – an intolerance of other religious views. Last I checked, it’s Progressive ideology – gay marriage, women’s rights, that radical Muslims hate, not the far rights agenda which fits neatly with Al Qaeda’s own view on several social issues. Aren’t liberals called the “secular progressives” rather than the “religious extremists?”
There are feminists who have a bias against Islam, and I believe those feminists are as ignorant as the far-right of this country on that issue.
March 12th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
stevee boy has a point..the american far right and islam do share a few common goals..they both feel lady liberty has an infectious case of venereal disease
March 12th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
scottkirk — “what we have here is a failure to communicate…”
Ah, another cinema buff at last!
“Cool Hand Luke.”
Still an obligatory MRA movie.
Might I nominate also — “Blade Runner?”
March 12th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
dadwithgirls. “cool hand luke” “blade runner” both good examples of men who kept themselves from being castrated. Quoteing bernard chapin “accepting guilt when youre innocent is a sign of cowardess” most men here are the un-psychologically castrated men….
March 12th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
How ironic that the women’s movement of 30 years ago freed women to become slaves. They’ve outwitted themselves, so much so that they’re going to embrace Islam because of their hatred for white males. And what will become of America’s metrosexuals once the Jihadists take over and learn who in this country waxes and use hair mousse? What will American women do with their advanced degrees under Islamic law? I’ll bet squatting in mud huts with their co-wives making flat bread for the husband will be such a bore. Maybe they’ll some day regret their distain for old fashing chivalry and masculinity, qualities they successfully beat out of Western men. There are indeed opposite reactions to every action.
March 12th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Stephony rails on about ‘Tolerance’. He is quite intolerant of different opinions. Indeed, tolerance is a virtue worth defending, Stephony, even professing, but when it is extended well beyond its natural limits to include accepting barbarisms, whether ancient or modern, it becomes a vice, as many vitues do.
Everything has a limit, Stephony. To rage against the limits of context, reason, nature, common sense or the lessons drawn from even the simplest comparison is the mark of a tantrum-throwing child. Tolerance as an unthought mantra is dangerous.
It’s being raised to a modern leftist article of faith has come about through the equally dangerous misuse and condemning of discrimination. The Stephonies of the world have been so brainwashed against developing their higher-order faculty of discrimination that they will tolerate the intolerable simply because they are caught in their own contradictions. Stephony cannot tolerate discrimination. He is caught between rages, trapped in a descending spiral of contradictions and intolerances and unable to discriminate.
Now where have we seen that before. Oh yes. Feminazism. Convert Stephony. Convert.
March 13th, 2007 at 8:05 am
“I honestly believe that all but perhaps half a dozen Marxist holdouts would be all for leveling Teheran and Damascus tomorrow, at the very least. I am not exaggerating.”
Don’t believe that for a second.
I’ve often wondered why we don’t see NOW sponsored protests outside the Saudi embassy every few days when a story rolls its way across the AP regarded some gang rape victim being lashed or stoned since she was alone with a male who wasn’t a relative or some other nonsense. I can only come to ne conclusion as to why they don’t protest;
There’s no money in it.
Till I see those protests, or perhaps the ones outside the scandinavian countries then I see no reason to take NOW seriously.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Stevie, it seems you and your crowd of the sexually confused missed this part of the article — it is a perfect fit for you et al — “one that led to wife-beating, marital rape and to a rampant but hotly denied male “prisonâ€-like homosexuality and pederasty; ”
Now, disregarding the stupidity of a naive child let’s move to something more serious: “There is a couple that hates you so much that they will kill their six month old baby in order to kill you, I am describing a level of ferocity, and a level of savagery beyond anything we have tried to deal with.
And, what is truly frightening about the British experience is they are arresting British citizens, born in Britain, speaking English, who went to British schools, live in British housing, and have good jobs.
This is a serious long term war, and it will inevitably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country, that will lead us to learn how to close down every website that is dangerous, and it will lead us to a very severe approach to people who advocate the killing of Americans and advocate the use of nuclear or biological weapons.
Make no mistake, they are coming. My prediction to you is that either before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech (I realize this is a liberal approach but even a blind fool finds a morsel occasionally), and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people (like the Stevies of the world) to destroy their lives while destroying us.
March 13th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Mr. Guess: In order for a person or an idea to be bigoted, they/it must be either unfair or untrue. Can you point to any of the suppositions in the article as being unfair or untrue? Do these thing not happen? I would offer the thought that Mr. Fockheart’s fancies were unprovable. The criticism of his tales were that they were fictitious and slanderous of an entire people. None of his claims could be verified. There is no actual evidence of Jews doing the things that he claimed. There is ample evidence that includes video and audio recordings of the factual actions of muslims around the world. The fact that this particular group shares the commonality of Islam does not shield them from criticism.
Your claim that Islamists and the “far right” share a common intolerance of other religions is laughable. We do not oppose other religions, but we do oppose homicidal maniacs. It just happens that these homicidal maniacs share the same religious beliefs.
March 13th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Steven Guess said, “this is a biggoted article against Islam. The same standard should be applied here as was made about Charles Fockheart.”
….
It may well be a bigoted article, but it does not come near to Mr. Fockaert’s assertions regarding secret plans, ethnic plots and a 200-year old Jewish conspiracy to rule the world.
One-off rants and raves are one thing, but Fockaert’s well-developed racialist ‘theories’ go well beyond simple venting.
My, my, Steven. You sure are quick to push that old censorship panic button, what?
March 13th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
I’m not asking it be censored, I’m asking that it be condemned. You never censored Mr. Fockaert’s article, to my understanding.
March 13th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
I did not ‘censor’ Fockaert, that’s true. I simply gave him all the rope he needed to hang himself. Once he did so to my satisfaction, I was able to remove him as an MND contributor.
Rush, on the other hand, hasn’t crossed that line in my opinion.
However, for the record, I do indeed condemn genuine racism and bigotry under any guise and directed at any particular group. Some of Rush’s words here may be bombastic and hyperbolic, but it’s not valid or fair to compare his emotional bombast with Fockaert’s ideological racism.
March 13th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
are you kidding? The title says “So easy, a Muslim can do it?” are you telling me that if it read “So easy, a Jew can do it” that would not be considered anti-semitic? He states, “Islam is a barbaric religion and fosters a culture of barbarianism, bereft of notions of liberty or the value of life. ” Please, I think we can try a little harder to understand a 1400 year old religion than that. Malcolm X was a Muslim, and most people in America consider him a hero, not a barbarian following a barbaric religion. The Ottoman Empire for 600 years was at the forefront of civilization, the Abassyd Empire are credited with some of the first hospitals in the Medieval Ages, and the Ottoman’s were among the first to preserve Greek literature, paving the way for the Renaissance in Europe whilst the Catholic Church regarding Greek texts as pagan and destroyed them. Make no mistake, the dark ages for Europeans were the height of civilization for Muslims. And yet to Mr. Rush, all Islam, all the time, is all the same. His token attempts to sound reasonable and defer to his critics belie the reality that he has nothing positive to say about Islam, the religion of 1.5 billion people, which is in my book both biased and bigotted.
I know a lot of Muslims, and you’d have to be stupid to think you can walk up to one say “Islam is barbaric” and then expect them to turn around and attack their own in response. No, like any normal person they lash out against people who seem to hate ALL Muslims, not just the “radical ones.”
Mike, I’ll spare you the details on my personal life, but suffice to say I have plenty of first hand experience with Muslims, both positive and negative. And this is now the second article hostile towards Islam which has been published on this website which has gone uncondemned by the vast majority of your readers.
March 13th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
steevee boy is quick to point out any discrimination that will act as a red herring against the discrimination she supports, which is the descrimination against men. stevee boy, as we project into post modernity, our sons will reflect on what youre feminist friends have done..The on average 10 years life span disparity between men and women pretty much speaks for itself..lies can make it around the world while the truth is putting on its sneakers….by the way stevee boy,with youre language and choice of words i sense a deep gyno-centricity…i sense hints of the( pre- oedipus penis envy) complex. whats the deal bro..
March 13th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
The difference is, Steven, that Charlie lambasted Jews – even secular, progressive, atheist, non-practicing Jews – according to their birth; by what they ARE.
These Islamofascists condemn themselves by what they DO.
March 13th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
“are you telling me that if it read ‘So easy, a Jew can do it’ that would not be considered anti-semitic?”
That would depend on the context, of course. The difference in this case is that “Jews” might be considered an ethnic group, while ‘”Muslims” (like “Christians”) more properly represent an organized belief system inclusive of many ethnic groups. Thus, insulting someone over what they believe is different from insulting them for who they are.
“Islam is a barbaric religion and fosters a culture of barbarianism, bereft of notions of liberty or the value of life.”
Same argument: “culture” and “religion” are dynamic human qualities that change over generations and are specific to the vagaries of history. Rush’s opinion on matters of culture are just as valid as that of Andres Serrano, Nikos Kazantzakis or Salman Rushdie.
On the other hand, ‘race’ or ‘ethnicity’ are constants that do not change from one generation to the next. No one can be talked out of being part of particular ethnic group, so the standard needs to be different.
In short, no sale.
Good points, though, Steven.
As an aside, I would also like to caution other commenters about use of ad hominem abuses like ’steeve boy’ etc.
March 13th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
scott kirk – even 10 seconds in a logic class will teach you that what you just did was moral relativity. You say it’s alright to discriminate against muslims because men are discriminated against. Makes no sense.
BTW – I’ve never written a single disparaging word about men in every single article I have ever written EVER. My arguments have always been limited to support of feminism. But try harder to stay on topic. I suspect you feel I’m winning this argument on bigotry, so you want to switch gears to something else.
Gonzman – so Charlie would have been ok to only blast Orthodox Jews and he would not be bigotted? That’s the most ass-backward argument I’ve heard from you thusfar. And if you go back and read this article, you’ll see quite clearly Eric Rush doesn’t differentiate between so-called “Islamofascists” and most Muslims. He calls Islam a “barbaric religion” he does not say “Islamofascists follow a barbaric peversion of their religion.”
Notwithstanding the stupidity of calling it Islamofascism… as I’m sure you are quite unaware of the contradictions between fascism (nationalistic ideology) and pan-Islamic ideology (which contradicts nationalism). But of course, yet another peversion of conservative “historians” on the world.
March 13th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Hey Gonz: great minds think alike, dude. Gotta love it.
March 13th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Shows what you know, Steven – the Islamofascist goal is one, world spanning, Muslim Theocratic State.
Think your good, Democrat, Al-Gore supporting buddy Fred Phelps – with Assault Weapons, Armored Divisions, and Nukes. (I put him up because I know how easy it is to get you Dhimmicrap Libtards hating Christianity).
Oh, God, I sait “CHRISTianity” instead of “Xtianity!” Oh God, I said “Christ” again! Oh, God – I said “God!”
Steve – tell me your eyes haven’t melted out, dude! I am so sorry!
Mike, Just shoot me now! WHAT HAVE I DONE?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh – BTW, Mike – The Bar and Grill is funky. I tried changing the theme to one of the others, and it went Kerflupple. Could ya take a look at it?
March 13th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Gonzman, that’s the whole point, Muslims across the world are encouraged to disregard their national identity and embrace their religious identity. That’s against nationalism. You could be born in France, but you’re always Muslim. That’s not fascism, even though it seems nice to compare one evil thing to another.
Just because you can’t think of ways to accurately describe pan-Islamic ideology because you haven’t really read any books on the subject, or understand where its origins come from (Muslim Brotherhood, Wahabism, Salafi ideology etc), you have to compare it to something in World War II that you think makes sense.
But you are really mising the point, this article was biased against Islam, period.
March 13th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Mike – so do stupid minds, but if I said that I’d have to go into rehab.
March 13th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Steven – a state is a state is a state. You statist fascists are so interested in parsing words you don’t see what those of us who are Liberty loving folk see: A sandal – a jackboot – on my neck? All the same. Left boot, or right boot? All the same.
A military uniform wearing despot who runs his country through fear, secret police, bogus trials, doors kicked down in the dead of night; where thinking and believing the same, and worshipping the state and “The Leader” is cumpusory, and any public deviance is punished….
Who Am I talking about, Steven? Stalin? Hitler? Qadaffi? Saddam? Who?
Whaty is the F**KING difference between any of them? Between any of YOU?
The SOB’s on the right want to jail me for what I do. You cocksuckers on the left want to “put me in rehab” (jail) for what I THINK. Either way, I am locked up – and the sorry-ass thing is, I am considered a “nutyjob” for basically saying the same things that the founding fathers did.
Every one of you loons – who think you know better than me what I should believe, and how I should run my own life – wants to run the world, and force your vision of “The Way it ought to be” down my throat by force, if need be.
To hell with you all. Hitler. Hussein. Pol Pot. Stalin. Qaddafi.
And Steven Guess.
March 13th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Oh so now a leftist is a “fascist”? I thought leftists were supposed to be Communists? Sounds like you are confused as to what a “political spectrum” even looks like.
What you call parsing words I call thinking before you speak. You don’t really understand what fascism entails, and it matters that you’re confused because you’re using language to insult and degrade a religious group of people. That dehumanization is the first basis of an atrocity, be it against Jews or Muslims. We learned that from Hitler, and we’re seeing that with radical Islamists. The key is not to become like these groups, it’s to be different from them, by making the crucial distinctions and understanding the complexities of the modern world.
But in words that probably mean more to you: Fascism is inherently non religious, which emphasizes cult-of-personalities to replace religious liturgy. In other words, Hitler becomes the God, the father (Furher) of the German people. A fascist Islamic state doesn’t make sense, any more than a fascist Christian state makes sense. Both Islam and Christianity, by and large, reject iconoclasm and the elevation of the party official to the diefied level required by fascists.
Once again, you do the only thing you know how to do. Fascism bad. Radical Islam bad. so they must be the same thing. No, they are not. And for that matter, most Muslims are fine people, and Islam expressly forbids the harming of innocents and suicide. Terrorism violates both those principles under a peversion of the principle of “martyrdom” which is unIslamic, insofar as no one gets to declare themselves a martyr, only “Allah” can do that. But that’s a theological discussion for another time. Its pointless for me to rittle off more facts that contradict you people, the bottom line is if you don’t respect basic dignity of other people, no amount of facts is going to get in your way.
March 13th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
oh and btw, thanks for comparing me to Hitler, it goes to illustrate my point that you are totally shameless and are willing to devalue terrible concepts, like Fascism, to attack anyone with whom you disagree (like me), damn the consequences. There are no gas chambers in my home, there is no hatred by me towards Jews or anyone else. The only thing I’ve done is speak out against intolerance, which apparently is “hitleresque”
why don’t you stop pretending like your this renegade intellectual who “tells it like it is” and just admit that you can’t bring yourself to actually THINK about the world in a way that remotely challenges what you’ve learned growing up. I know it’s hard, but just maybe HATING a group of people, is part of the problem in the world today, and not the “solution.”
March 13th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
“Its pointless for me to rittle off more facts that contradict you people…”
Hummm…. you mean dehumanizing people like this:
Or this.
“the bottom line is if you don’t respect basic dignity of other people, no amount of facts is going to get in your way.”
Hummm… are you possibly referring to the kind of facts you avoided in this article?
Yeah…. hummm…. (rubbing chin)…. I kinda see what you mean…..
March 13th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
don’t get butt hurt over that picture Mike, that’s the best you can come up with to try and convince people I hate my own gender. But nevertheless, it sounds to me as if you think it’s hypocritical of me to talk about MRA but not Muslims. But the logic cuts both ways, you can’t be offended about insults against Men if you are ok with insults against muslims.
Once again you talk about “facts I’ve avoided” while doing the only thing you could do, which is not state them. I’m well versed enough on Islam to be happy to debate whatever you’ve got Mike, put up or shut up. You have the right to attack Muslims, but you don’t have the right to avoid criticism of it.
March 13th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
steven,you argue like a girl..u use my comments on youre discrimination against men, to falselly imply my distaste for islam.. which is inncorrect..youre facade of distaste for bigotry is amusing, when your one of the biggest anti-male bigots in here…there will be a time when youre ilk will be held accounteable for youre cunning use of demagoguery, and sophistry..
March 13th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
I argue like a girl? I think I argue like I’m right. You might have noticed nobody has really coughed up this evidence that Islam is a barbaric religion, because people can already see my rebuttal, dealing with Christianity’s own sordid history in the Insquisition and the Crusades, not to mention the Salem Which Trials, and the incredible capacity of Christians in the medieval era to commit acts of atrocities. But I would never suggest that Christians are barbaric, even if Leviticus 25:44 says slavery is ok.
Now I’m a demagogue… well to be a “demagogue” you have to arouse the passions and prejudices of the people with whom you speak. I believe that the demagogue in this room is Mr. Eric Rush, and many of the commenters here on this blog. I am not playing to any prejudices against Islam.
March 13th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
You kidding? I LOVE that picture. Why do you think I keep referencing it? It’s remarkably symbolic of your own inability to recognize the contradiction between your apparent bleeding heart humanism and your easy dehumanization of people who hold ideas that are different from your own.
As far as not talking about the facts you avoided – that subject was thoroughly visited in the comments section of your article here.
I stand by my comment at that time: “It appears you have been presented with solid academic research demonstrating that rates of female violence are far greater than you had ever realized before. Yet your article was contrived to ignore the facts and remain faithful to the feminist ideological script.”
In respect to this current thread, you said, “I’m well versed enough on Islam to be happy to debate whatever you’ve got Mike, put up or shut up.”
Great – but I didn’t write this article and I don’t have any interest at all in defending it. But if you’re feeling particularly pugnacious today, why don’t do have a look at Yamin Zakaria’s latest piece – published on the home page of MND today – arguing happily for our nuclear extermination. (Mien Fuhrer! I can walk!)
March 13th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Mike I don’t dehumanize myself. I don’t think men are less than human, i think that MRA believe the role of men and women is engrained genetically in us from time immoral, hence my picture. You cite it as symbolic of what you THINK Im saying, because you don’t take the time to read and understand what I right.
“Great – but I didn’t write this article and I don’t have any interest in at all in defending”
Now your backpeddling. A second ago you said I was ignoring facts which you wont present. You also said this doesn’t meet your standard of being bigotted, but you won’t say why. In essence, you are defending this article based on those statements and the obvious bias presented here.
I saw “Yamin Zakaria’s” latest post and its retarded. I’d be happy to rip Mr. Zaharia’s post to shreds if you are so inclined, both from an Islamic point of view and what I like to call “reason,” but it doesn’t justify discriminating against Muslims. Nothing he said is represntative of the 1.5 bn Muslims in the World. Just because I’m progressive and support secular government, does not mean I accept intolerance against any religious group.
March 13th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
“don’t get butt hurt over that picture Mike, that’s the best you can come up with to try and convince people I hate my own gender. ”
LOL….. Stephanie, you’re coming off as a rather daft bitch trying to sell yourself off as a man. Feminazi porkers like yourself have been attempting that sort of nonsense on Internet-based forums for quite some time.
Man-hating scumbags like you are invariably obese bitches. And you’re almost certainly no exception.
March 13th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
steven the salem witch trials were sparked by two girls calling other women witches…just like 9 out of 10 black men who were brutally ripped from their beds, mutilated, and lynched were over a sexual accussation from a lily white female…note youre gonna have some serious historical facts concerning women and victim demagoguery to reconcile with…
March 13th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
I would ask that participants in this discussion refrain from ad hominems, name-calling and emotional displays. Rule of thumb: if you can’t express yourself without becoming nasty, it’s better if you lurk in quietude.
March 13th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
fourthwire – I TRULY hope, that you have pinned your entire dreams and hopes of defeating a single one of my arguments on the idea that I’m not actually a man. I mean i TRULY hope that is the single thing which helps you cling to the hope that you aren’t actually an idiot, because in all your 2908129038290381290 comments to me that’s all you’ve got. Even when I post about non feminism-related topics, like Islam, it’s all you’ve got to throw at me, this idea that I’m an obese woman. You can’t rebut what I actually say, can you? You just hope I’m a woman so you can disregard my views, which ironically, proves my point.
March 13th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
If you want to understand the psychotic dimension that radical multicultural feminism can promote …
There are links defending female circumcision (genital mutilation) by tenured American women’s studies professors, who argue that it is racist to decry this practice. (Largely still happening in Muslim Africa and U.S. & European immigrant populations…)
Personally, reading these feminist defensesa of torture puts me a little over the brink in my thinking about the possible redemption of rad-fems.
I cannot imagine a man supporting a gender-equality movement that requires him to endorse his own castration.
But, feminists do. With enthusiasm!
Just one more reason that I try never to use the words “logic” and “female” in the same paragraph.
March 13th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Stephanie, I do hope that you have pinned YOUR entire dreams and hopes of passing yourself off as a man, while you post as a misandrist feminazi bitch.
And a deranged fruitcake like yourself probably ought to worry more about your own lagging IQ, given that your attempts at “arguments” seem to consist of feminazi dogma, lies, damned lies, and mythology.
And no, my dull-witted feminazi, “all you’ve got to throw at me, this idea that I’m an obese woman” hardly even comes close to reality (although within the space between your ears, that might certainly seem to be the case).
Relax, porky….. I continue to point you out as a lying feminazi bitch for others’ sake (and truth be told, I ALWAYS enjoy debunking your nonsense – like most feminazis, you present a rather easy target since you’re apparently incapable of engaging either truth or logic).
Didn’t they warn you in your Womyn’s Studies textbooks that your usual collection of lies falls apart when you cannot control a forum?…;-)
There’s little reason to HOPE that you’re a woman, when your attempts at logic give you away every time, my silly feminazi.
And finally, I HAVE “rebutted” not to mention “debunked” your feminazi propaganda, multiple times. Have a man help you if you’re having difficulties understanding those tricky three- and even four-syllable words, girl…..;-)
Hey, keep ttrying…… you’re VERY entertaining when you’re not on the rag……
March 13th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Sounds like you are confused as to what a “political spectrum†even looks like.
I’m not confused at all. I reject your left and right wing “distinctions” which wind up the same way – with a uniformed thug being a dictator.
Stalin was “left” and Hitler was “right?”
What is the effective difference between the two, Steven?
You’re a statist, Steven. Just like all of the rest of them. Hitler, Stalin – they aren’t extreme examples – just your logical conclusion.
March 13th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Nothing he said is represntative of the 1.5 bn Muslims in the World.
Really?
Point me to some Muslims who are denouncing what he says. Besides you left-wingers half-dozen tired practicioners of taqqiya you always seem to trot out.
That’s the problem, Steven – What he says IS representative of the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world.
March 13th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Stephanie, I couldn’t help smiling when Mike provided your own “gift” of some artist’s rendition of a cave-critter back to you……. to rub your nose in your own hypocrisy.
And somehow, I doubt that this will be the last time that your hypocrisy comes back to roost.
You just may see that graphic whenever you start yammering and bleating about “dehumanizing” groups……..
The Nazis were famous for dehumanizing groups of people……… which is why I remind others by using the term “feminazi” when I refer to gender-feminists.