|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 6:34 pm Post subject: Hope for Old Europe? |
 |
|
| Quote: |
In September of last year, Robert Redeker, a French philosopher, went into hiding after getting death threats for an op-ed piece he wrote on Islam. In his short piece for the conservative daily Le Figaro, Redeker argued that while Jesus was a �master of love,� Mohammed was �a master of hate.� Islam, he noted, was the only major religion for which war was integral to its theology.
Outside of a handful of intellectuals, like Andr� Glucksmann, and a stray politician or two, Redeker had no defenders. When famed Al Jazeera personality Sheik Youseff al-Quaradawi, scourge of the Jews and crusaders, took to the airwaves to denounce the blasphemer, Le Monde echoed his condemnations. Yet just ten months later, Nicolas Sarkozy has been elected French president on a platform of affirming France�s Enlightenment heritage.
Sarkozy�s road to the Elysee Palace was paved not only by the mini-Intifada in the Paris banlieues, but also by a memorable public exchange about Islam. An intellectually confident Sarkozy, then the interior minister, debated suave, articulate Tariq Ramadan, the grandson and heir of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. With 6 million viewers watching, Sarkozy asked Ramadan, famed as an Islamic version of a Euro-Communist, if he agreed with his brother Hani Ramadan�who had argued, in line with Muslim law, that adulterous women should be stoned to death. Pressed to agree or disagree without obfuscation, Ramadan, his Western facade crumbling, said he favored a �moratorium� on such stoning. Sarkozy responded with anger, �A moratorium?� He went on to mock the Islamists� leftist apologists. �If it is regressive not to want to stone women, I avow that I am a regressive.�
Across the channel, the British elites went even further than did the French in abasing themselves before Islamic extremists. In the wake of the 7/7 London bombings, Prime Minister Tony Blair named the same Tariq Ramadan�hailed as a moderate by supposed liberals like Oxford�s Timothy Garton Ash�as an advisor on Islamic matters. In a similar vein, London�s mayor, Ken Livingstone, praised Sheik Quaradawi as a moderate and treated him as an honored guest. Many British intellectuals and pols had once rallied to the defense of Salman Rushdie when the Iranians issued a fatwa for his death, but in more recent years they�ve ignored or downplayed his plight. Similarly, the Danish cartoon affair, which raised the most fundamental issues of freedom of speech, produced a cowed response from the British press and pols about the importance of not offending Muslims.
But there are signs of a shift in England as well. Blair, who is about to leave office, has knighted Rushdie. A Pakistani legislator greeted the announcement with a call for suicide attacks on England. Blair responded in turn with aplomb.
Writing in the Observer, the jihad-friendly Guardian�s Sunday paper, left-wing journalist Will Hutton has admitted that �the space in which to argue that Islam is an essentially benign religion seems to narrow with every passing day.� �The West,� he continued, �provokes Islam not by doing anything, although what it does is hardly helpful; it provokes at least some strands of Islamic thought simply by being.� That means �the only way we can live together peaceably with Islam is if we don�t compromise our own values.� Hutton�s argument buttresses the point made by repentant jihadi Ed Husain in the left-wing New Statesman. Husain, who has received veiled death threats, argues that �the most powerful weapon against Islamists and jihadists is to create public spaces in which former extremists can discuss why they entered Islamist networks and why they left.� �This removes,� he said, �the impenetrable mystique of these networks. It opens up their underworld.� Here is a liberal answer to the problem of illiberalism.
In recent months, notes David Goodhart, the editor of the liberal journal Prospect, the British government has changed its attitude toward purportedly moderate Muslim spokesmen. Goodhart himself had previously defended Tariq Ramadan from criticism, including Paul Berman�s recent piece in the New Republic. But he now has second thoughts about the Oxford philosopher, prompted by a recent Ramadan article in the Guardian advocating a different kind of moratorium�on asking Muslims to integrate into British society. It appears, says Goodhart, that the real Tariq Ramadan has instructed British Muslims to remain in social and intellectual isolation.
For the past decade, men like Ramadan have played a skillful double game. They have used Western liberal tropes to undermine Western values�extremism, they would suggest, was just another form of free speech. Aiding them in this game have been Western apologists for Islamic extremism such as Ian Buruma and Tony Judt, who brand courageous dissenters from Islamist orthodoxy like Ayaan Hirsi Ali �enlightenment fundamentalists.�
The British have tried multiculturalism; the tolerant Dutch have allowed Muslims to create a separate �pillar� within their society; the French insist on the model of Jacobin uniformity; the Spanish have been merely craven. All have failed. But as Hutton argues, the best route for the West is to be true to its own heritage. If, like the courageous Danish prime minister Anders Rasmussen, Europeans unambiguously stand up to the Islamists, they will flush out double dealers like Ramadan while allowing the Ed Husains of the world to directly engage the extremists.
Let the open debate begin. |
http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-06-19fs.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would ask any Islam supporter a simple question. Why do you hate women? Why do you support a system that strips women of all human rights and human dignity? Why are you anti-freedom, anti-human rights, why do you support a system that aims to deprive as half the population of equality and make them sub-human.
I want an answer to these questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jinju wrote: |
I would ask any Islam supporter a simple question. Why do you hate women? Why do you support a system that strips women of all human rights and human dignity? Why are you anti-freedom, anti-human rights, why do you support a system that aims to deprive as half the population of equality and make them sub-human.
I want an answer to these questions. |
They would argue that they don't hate women, they honor them and strive to protect them. If they were being honest, they would say they don't hate women, they feel threatened by them. Islam is built, as mohammed supposedly said it should be, around men being in charge. If you start giving women more "rights" than being married (usually being one of multiple wives) and producing babies, then you start down that long, slippery slope to women taking over. Of the Arab men and women I met, the women were, by far, the most articulate, thinking and genuinely nice of the two genders. If men can keep women "under thumb" then the male-dominated culture is in no danger. The tide seems to be turning, albeit very slowly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fair enough.
I find it strange that it is �conservatives� who generally lament the treatment of women and homosexuals (and religious minorities, and well, damn near everybody who isn�t a radical with a *beep*) in muslim nations/communities and �lefties� who don�t seem to care. This is odd, no? Both are not being consistent.
You can�t fight against something as a defining feature of your movement, like homosexual or women�s rights, and then when the rights are established, whine about other countries not establishing them as well. Also, you can�t say that women and gays should be fully free, and then only concern yourself with women and gays if they are White.
This is the problem in Europe. Conservatives are better at defending the values that they argued against a generation ago. It would be nice if �social liberals� were the ones who were agreeing with me on these issues, and not illiberal dudes like Jinju (though, no offense to him).
The �lefties� in the West who fully ignore the plight of non-White women, minorities and gays should be ashamed of themselves. Can you believe that men like Jinju are not a better spokesman for women�s rights than are you?
Multiculturalism is a disease of the mind. It clouds the judgment of otherwise reasonable people. If homosexuals and women are worth defending in the West, they are worth the exact same elsewhere. If they aren�t, then I want it to be said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| the tolerant Dutch have allowed Muslims to create a separate �pillar� within their society..All have failed. |
I'd take exception to that. Of course, since it doesn't appear that any rubric is given, I can only assume that he is giving an opinion on something. Regardless, I would, most definitely NOT call NL's methods a failure; neither would any of my relatives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Any country that allows Islam to destroy the dignity and humanity of women has FAILED. There can be no question about this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I find it strange that it is �conservatives� who generally lament the treatment of women and homosexuals (and religious minorities, and well, damn near everybody who isn�t a radical with a *beep*) in muslim nations/communities and �lefties� who don�t seem to care. This is odd, no? Both are not being consistent.
You can�t fight against something as a defining feature of your movement, like homosexual or women�s rights, and then when the rights are established, whine about other countries not establishing them as well. Also, you can�t say that women and gays should be fully free, and then only concern yourself with women and gays if they are White.
|
Susan Okin touched on this point in an article that I've posted before...
| Quote: |
During the 1980s, the French government quietly permitted immigrant men to bring multiple wives into the country, to the point where an estimated 200,000 families in Paris are now polygamous. Any suspicion that official concern over headscarves was motivated by an impulse toward gender equality is belied by the easy adoption of a permissive policy on polygamy, despite the burdens this practice imposes on women and the warnings issued by women from the relevant cultures.1 On this issue, no politically effective opposition galvanized. But once reporters finally got around to interviewing the wives, they discovered what the government could have learned years earlier: that the women affected by polygamy regarded it as an inescapable and barely tolerable institution in their African countries of origin, and an unbearable imposition in the French context. Overcrowded apartments and the lack of each wife's private space lead to immense hostility, resentment, even violence both among the wives and against each other's children.
|
Basically, it's an any-weapon-to-hand strategy for the conservatives. They use the mistreatment of women as an issue when it suits them, and ignore it otherwise. And I should say that in my experience, conservatives seem much more comfortable defending the rights of women in Muslim communities than the rights of homosexuals.
As for the leftists, they probably do really care about the rights of women and homosexuals, but don't really enjoy criticizing "people of color" in Southeast Asia as much as they enjoy criticizing "fundy trailer trash" in West Virginia. So, for the former, they fall back on excuses like "well, you know, we're just as bad" or "those cultures wouldn't be so messed up if we hadn't done bad things to them". And there is some truth to these excuses; the problem is they never get applied consistently. Trailer park homophobia is never excused by pointing to the economic deprivation of the Appalachians.
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR22.5/okin.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khyber wrote: |
| Quote: |
| the tolerant Dutch have allowed Muslims to create a separate �pillar� within their society..All have failed. |
I'd take exception to that. Of course, since it doesn't appear that any rubric is given, I can only assume that he is giving an opinion on something. Regardless, I would, most definitely NOT call NL's methods a failure; neither would any of my relatives. |
No. It has been a total failure. 100% unmitigated disaster.
Read the Dutch government's report on it.
http://www.aivd.nl/contents/pages/42345/fromdawatojihad.pdf
The money quote:
| Quote: |
The capability in Dutch society to resist the threats from radical Islam is low. Recently, however, Dutch society has shown a willingness to adopt a more resistant attitude. The low resistance capability can be explained by, among other things, the insidious character of radicalisation processes. Processes that may initially seem innocent, may threaten the democratic legal order in the longer term. When, for example, there is a not immediately visible but steady increase in the number of persons with radical-political or religious ideas, this can in due course lead to tensions
between different groups in society that are not publicly apparent yet. This applies to, for example, the role of some radical mosques and religious Islamic leaders in radicalisation process among Muslim communities. It is difficult for especially local authorities to gain insight into what is going on inside these mosques. In a number of cases it turned out that a mosque board's viewpoints expressed to the local authorities were quite different from those propagated within smaller, more private circles. |
The model has failed. The Dutch have little ability to counter the effects of their failed policies as well.
Have you ever read anything Ayaan Hirsi Ali has written about the muslims in The Netherlands? Do you know that a scary number of people in the Netherlands live in hiding for fear of murderous muslims?
What the hell are you talking about?
http://www.slate.com/id/2141276/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
I find it strange that it is �conservatives� who generally lament the treatment of women and homosexuals (and religious minorities, and well, damn near everybody who isn�t a radical with a *beep*) in muslim nations/communities and �lefties� who don�t seem to care. This is odd, no? Both are not being consistent.
You can�t fight against something as a defining feature of your movement, like homosexual or women�s rights, and then when the rights are established, whine about other countries not establishing them as well. Also, you can�t say that women and gays should be fully free, and then only concern yourself with women and gays if they are White.
|
Susan Okin touched on this point in an article that I've posted before...
| Quote: |
During the 1980s, the French government quietly permitted immigrant men to bring multiple wives into the country, to the point where an estimated 200,000 families in Paris are now polygamous. Any suspicion that official concern over headscarves was motivated by an impulse toward gender equality is belied by the easy adoption of a permissive policy on polygamy, despite the burdens this practice imposes on women and the warnings issued by women from the relevant cultures.1 On this issue, no politically effective opposition galvanized. But once reporters finally got around to interviewing the wives, they discovered what the government could have learned years earlier: that the women affected by polygamy regarded it as an inescapable and barely tolerable institution in their African countries of origin, and an unbearable imposition in the French context. Overcrowded apartments and the lack of each wife's private space lead to immense hostility, resentment, even violence both among the wives and against each other's children.
|
Basically, it's an any-weapon-to-hand strategy for the conservatives. They use the mistreatment of women as an issue when it suits them, and ignore it otherwise. And I should say that in my experience, conservatives seem much more comfortable defending the rights of women in Muslim communities than the rights of homosexuals.
As for the leftists, they probably do really care about the rights of women and homosexuals, but don't really enjoy criticizing "people of color" in Southeast Asia as much as they enjoy criticizing "fundy trailer trash" in West Virginia. So, for the former, they fall back on excuses like "well, you know, we're just as bad" or "those cultures wouldn't be so messed up if we hadn't done bad things to them". And there is some truth to these excuses; the problem is they never get applied consistently. Trailer park homophobia is never excused by pointing to the economic deprivation of the Appalachians.
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR22.5/okin.html |
Yeah, I have read some of her articles. She talks of a hierarchy of sins that commands the leftist mind. Interesting stuff.
Screw you all (though, not you OTOH). I believe that all people, regardless of colour/race/language etc are granted by virtue of being alive certain unalienable rights. Full stop.
If calling a spade a spade earns me the badge of 'bigot' or 'islamohpobe' then I wear those badges with honor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
..Have you ever read anything Ayaan Hirsi Ali has written about the muslims in The Netherlands? Do you know that a scary number of people in the Netherlands live in hiding for fear of murderous muslims?
What the hell are you talking about?
|
I visited my extensive extended family there. They live all around holland. Nobody had any serious concerns about fear of muslims. Nobody was, in fact, at ALL concerned. In fact, most of the cousins, aunts and uncles I talked to expressed (in paraphrase) the following statement: "I don't feel threatenned by them at all. They can practice their religion and I have no problems with that, but they cannot expect us to change to accomodate them". My family over in NL is a pretty smart and reasonable bunch; all of them teachers, professors, doctorate holders etc. I'm not gonna claim that all Dutch people think like that, but at the same time, do some research: You'll actually find that Muslims have been victims MORE OFTEN than Dutch folks.
http://fra.europa.eu/fra/material/pub/muslim/Manifestations_EN.pdf
As for this supposed "money quote", with the exception of the first sentence, it seems fairly innocuous. It CERTAINLY doesn't appear to be, as you claim "a total failure. 100% unmitigated disaster". Problems? Heck yes. But frankly, it's a miracle it's not worse considering:
1) The space issues/
2) Population density
3) Sheer number of Muslims
4) The "open mindedness" of the Dutch.
And if you want to read about Ayaan Hirsi Ali go read on wikkipedia. There is a well sourced, ACTUAL description of what happenned and not some long winded passions from hitchens.
Her story is unfortunate but lying on your refuge application status in MOST countries IS enough to get you kicked out of the country, regardless of your position. Has there EVER been an American member of congress/Senate that has been found to bear false testimony on their immigration papers?
Perhaps, after he's been elected John Kanno (an Iraqi, Anglo-American) will be found to be a fraud. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Multiculturalism cannot work as long as at least some within one party remain stubbornly ethnocentric and intolerant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Khyber,
Are any of your family members muslims? More importantly, are any of them Muslim WOMEN?
Heres where the failure lies for me. Holland is allowing a system that strips women of their humanity, dignity and basic human rights to exist within its own democratic system. What is basically happening is that by tolerating Islam's repressive nature it has created a system where some of their own citizens are placed under the heavy thumb of an oppressive religion. Can you justify this in ANY way? Can you justify the Dutch government totally turning its back on citizens that need its attention the most? I cannot. How can you do so and still call yourself civilized? Your family doesnt have any problems, theyr are not the litmus test for the success of muslim non-integration into Dutch society. Muslim WOMEN are.
A normal country would, even if by force, guarantee that nobody is oppressed by a religion. People should be subject ONLY to secular laws of the country where they reside, and in Holland thats DUTCH laws, not those of a barbaric stone age cult from the Middle East. Kapish? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Are any of your family members muslims? More importantly, are any of them Muslim WOMEN? |
no. So?
| Quote: |
| Holland is allowing a system that strips women of their humanity, dignity and basic human rights to exist within its own democratic system. What is basically happening is that by tolerating Islam's repressive nature it has created a system where some of their own citizens are placed under the heavy thumb of an oppressive religion. |
Just so we're clear, can you provide me with a link that discusses the Sharia debate in The Netherlands in Detail?
Here is the passage from wikki:
| Quote: |
| In 2006 Minister of Justice Piet Hein Donner provoked an outcry when he suggested the Netherlands might accept Sharia law in a constitutional manner. "It is a sure certainty for me: if two thirds of all Netherlanders tomorrow would want to introduce Sharia, then this possibility must exist. Could you block this legally? It would also be a scandal to say 'this isn't allowed! The majority counts. That is the essence of democracy." [27] The statements were categorically refused by parties across the political spectrum, as well as by some Muslim leaders.[28] |
http://www.nisnews.nl/public/130906_1.htm(cite 2
Look at the first sentence:
| Quote: |
| Muslim leader Hikmat Mahawat Khan lashed out fiercely yesterday at the government. Instead of defending Dutch values, it fosters Islamic behaviour that does not belong in the Netherlands. "It is simply unacceptable," he stated in newspaper Trouw. |
From the reading I've done, the biggest beef with the system is not the system itself but how individuals react within the system. A great quote to that affect:
| Quote: |
| "The Imams and the government both want to avoid rocking the boat so they make socially desirable statements instead. They know precisely what the government does and does not wish to hear. They avoid broaching thorny issues. The government does not wish to bring them up either, because that would mean having to solve these problems |
Muslim leaders and the government officials acting as intermediaries refuse to acknowledge any problems because of their own fear (coming from BOTH parties).
| Quote: |
| Your family doesnt have any problems, theyr are not the litmus test for the success of muslim non-integration into Dutch society. Muslim WOMEN are. |
Can you show me some statistics taken from Muslim women in the Netherlands? I realize you could very well be right but for now I'm working on the assumption that you're talkin out your ass (with the lack of a cite, I think it's a safe bet).
Here's some reading i've quickly picked up:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6159046.stm
But that's all I've been able to find that comes CLOSE to applicable.
Two more little notes:
1) 95% of muslims in NL are considered moderates. That leaves about 50,000 conservatives. How many of these are radical conservatives and how many of these radical conservatives are capable of violence: Those are the numbers to consider.
2) From what I've read, it appears that the greatest number of radicals joining the cause are misguided youth stuck between two cultures. Do I feel pity for them? Well, I'd like to think that they'd grow a brain and realize that someone is feeding them billshut.
And on a sidenote here jinju, I need for you to acknowledge that you've read this sentence: Violence (including a bomb in an Islamic primary school in Eindhoven) perpetrated BY muslims on the Dutch is about HALF the amount of by violence perpetrated by ethnic Dutchies upon the Muslims.
And lastly, perhaps you can be happy in knowing that muslims are leaving their religion at the same speed as catholics and protestants. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
Fair enough.
I find it strange that it is �conservatives� who generally lament the treatment of women and homosexuals (and religious minorities, and well, damn near everybody who isn�t a radical with a *beep*) in muslim nations/communities and �lefties� who don�t seem to care. This is odd, no? Both are not being consistent.
You can�t fight against something as a defining feature of your movement, like homosexual or women�s rights, and then when the rights are established, whine about other countries not establishing them as well. Also, you can�t say that women and gays should be fully free, and then only concern yourself with women and gays if they are White.
This is the problem in Europe. Conservatives are better at defending the values that they argued against a generation ago. It would be nice if �social liberals� were the ones who were agreeing with me on these issues, and not illiberal dudes like Jinju (though, no offense to him).
The �lefties� in the West who fully ignore the plight of non-White women, minorities and gays should be ashamed of themselves. Can you believe that men like Jinju are not a better spokesman for women�s rights than are you?
Multiculturalism is a disease of the mind. It clouds the judgment of otherwise reasonable people. If homosexuals and women are worth defending in the West, they are worth the exact same elsewhere. If they aren�t, then I want it to be said. |
Frankly, I've never met one of these "lefties." I've met a lot of leftwing types, and never met one who thought 'plight of non-White women, minorities and gays' should be ignored. If anything, they're more likely to be concerned, whereas more 'conservative types' I know seem to be less inclined to care.
I suspect that if there are any such "lefties" they are few and far between. Just another invention for the conservative media to w@nk on about. In fact, the first I ever heard of this phenonomen was when we were coming up to the war in Afghanistan. People who objected to bringing war to an already impoverished land were berated for not caring about the plight of the women there. The RETARDED logic being this: if you didn't think it was a good idea to bring war to Afghanistan, you therefore supported the Taliban, and you therefore didn't care about the plight of women there. Since "lefties" were more likely to feel concern and compassion for the unfortunate civillians of Afghanistan, there were more likely to oppose the war. They were then of course subjected to the above nonsense.
Ridiculous. Indeed RAWA, an organisation of very brave Afghani women who have risked their lives to speak out about the plight of women under the Taliban, begged the West not to bring war on them. They knew it wouldn't help. And by many accounts, the plight of women in Afghanistan has worsened since 2003. I followed RAWA with interest, since the late nineties. Only 'leftwing types' gave a sh.t about them then. And they are still ignored by 'conservative sorts' because their criticism of the war doesn't sit well with those that supported the war on the grounds it would liberate the women of Afghanistan. If I could have believed that that war would have forever stamped out religious terrorism and actually improved women's lives, I would have supported it. But I knew it was total bollocks.
It kind of reminds me of silly people I used to hear saying "these people who care about animal rights don't give a damn about humans." In fact, people I knew who passionately cared about animal rights, tended to also be the sort of people who campaigned for amnesty international and went on marches against the National Front.
So, when I hear this sort of nonsense about "lefties" who only care about the rights of white people, the only reaction I have is:  Yeah sure.
Just another invention of the conservatives, so they can sit there w@nking themselves into a euphoric stupor, as they congratulate themselves on their own (imagined) moral superiority.
Just w@nk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sure sure. You might want to take an honest look at the women's studies department at your local university. See how much time they devote to the evils of Western society and how preciously little to hindu, islamic, Confucius etc. An even better example would be to look at the stunning silence about how gays have been treated by hamas/fatah in these past few years. Total silence, less a few articles in the various islamophobic publications.
I'm sure you are aware that this was the biggest criticism of so-called feminism by non-white women. That it was a white club that treated non-white women as having almost mystical abilities to withstand their own cultural garbage. I'm quite astonished that someone who thinks herself such an "'ist" of all stripes doesn't know this.. Maybe it wasn't in The Guardian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
