Only a left-wing liberal living in subjective reality could promote the hijab — the quintessential symbol of feminine oppression — as fashion. This is yet another salvo in the attempt to Islamicize the West by making the unacceptable dictates of sharia law acceptable.
Psychologically speaking, it is well known that familiarity brings acceptance, so the purpose of making the hijab fashionable and familiar is to make hijabs (and oppressive sharia law) acceptable. This is a deliberate strategy of indoctrination designed to change public perception of the hijab from a symbol of oppression (objective reality) to a symbol of fashion (subjective reality). Anyone who participates in this idiocy is a useful idiot.
A useful idiot like this; ‘Congrats, you’re scum’: Kirsten Gillibrand gets DESTROYED for #Time100 write-up of Linda Sarsour
Moldylocks. It’s all over social media, the Antifa chick in the dreds getting clocked in the forehead by a “Nazi” (whatever that means) at the Tax Day rally in Berkeley. The usual sources are outraged. The other side is wryly amused. For many years now Hollywood has been giving us heroines who are as strong or stronger than men. They take a punch but never go down. They kick ass. Those of us who live in reality know that this is pure fantasy, but there is a generation of youngins’ who think it’s possible for a 5’4″, 100 lb. girl to fight toe to toe with a 6-foot-tall man and walk away with a bruise or two while leaving the man on the ground in a pool of his own blood. Lara Croft and a million other plucky FBI agents and CIA super spies with big boobs and deadly aim have taught us this.
For all the info you could ever wish on the bottle wielding Moldylocks scroll through this forum
One would think the Vagina family would be outraged.
People wonder why some of us are so unimpressed with modern feminism. To those people, I would direct their attention to the news that a Michigan doctor allegedly performed female genital mutilation (FGM) on multiple young girls.
More specifically, I’d direct their attention to the lack of attention feminists have given this horrific story.
On her LinkedIn profile, Chelsea Leibow calls herself a “Patriarchy-Smashing PR Priestess.” In a complaint filed last month with New York’s Human Rights Commission, however, Ms. Leibow calls herself a victim of sexual harassment. According to Ms. Leibow, while she was employed by the Manhattan-based firm Thinx, her boss “groped female underlings’ breasts, pranced around the office naked, and video-chatted workers from the toilet.”
The Red Pill’ began as a critical look at the Men’s Rights movement but evolved into a sympathetic portrait.
Intellectual humility—the acknowledgement that the truth is more important than your version of it—requires you to be open-minded enough not only to listen to an opposing viewpoint but to be willing to change yours when you are wrong. It is a quality in short supply and sadly undervalued in our age of arrogance. Filmmaker and former feminist Cassie Jaye not only possesses that sort of humility but was willing to risk documenting a profound ideological transformation in her latest film, a highly controversial documentary about the men’s rights movement.
“Have you ever been through something,” Jaye begins the film, “and you don’t know what just happened, but you know it was important to go through? This was that journey for me.” That admission signals that this film is as much about her personal struggle to come to grips with her topic as it is about the topic itself.
Seventy women in Prince George donned Muslim head scarves, most for the first time, as part of a ‘hijab for a Day’ event at the University of Northern B.C., in Prince George this week.
Students from the campus women’s centre presided over a box of colourful scarves, offering women on their way to class a chance to wear a hijab around campus.
“I’m not Muslim, but I just got a hijab put on me by another student,” said Dara Campbell. “There’s a lot of myths and false things that go around about what a hijab means. We should understand other women’s choices.”
Kerby Martin, a high school junior from Cypress, Texas, had been working on a school essay about several myths pushed by feminists about gender inequality, specifically focusing on how third-wave feminism only divides people. So, she tweeted out a picture of herself in an anti-feminist shirt that read “#Meninist” to prove that third-wave feminists were only tolerant towards liberals. Within hours, she was proven right.
“Today’s feminists feast at a smorgasbord of whinges, whines, victimhood claims, misogyny claims, gender binary discussions, western world obsessions about pay gaps and quotas and glass ceilings. Brave riders of the feminism’s third-wave include pop stars like Taylor Swift who recently said: “I didn’t see myself as held back until I was a woman.” As Heather Wilheim wrote recently for The Federalist: “Held back from what?” Building a net worth of $250m?”
Many feminists claim that all they want is equality — for the sexes to be treated the same. Meanwhile, critics such as myself argue that what feminists say and what they do don’t line up particularly well.
You can’t do anything these days without getting the progressives all bent out of shape. You can’t even make a movie about an Amazonian warrior princess who can hold her own with the likes of Superman and Batman without wounding the feelings of a modern feminist, because something about that warrior princess will still not be “progressive” enough.
The recent flurry of marches, demonstrations and even riots, along with the Democratic Party’s spiteful reaction to the Trump presidency, exposes what modern liberalism has become: a politics shrouded in pathos. Unlike the civil-rights movement of the 1950s and ’60s, when protesters wore their Sunday best and carried themselves with heroic dignity, today’s liberal marches are marked by incoherence and downright lunacy—hats designed to evoke sexual organs, poems that scream in anger yet have no point to make, and an hysterical anti-Americanism.
All this suggests lostness, the end of something rather than the beginning. What is ending?
America, since the ’60s, has lived through what might be called an age of white guilt. We may still be in this age, but the Trump election suggests an exhaustion with the idea of white guilt, and with the drama of culpability, innocence and correctness in which it mires us.
Deterrence is the strategy of persuading someone in advance not to do something, often by raising the likelihood of punishment.
But in the 21st century, we apparently think deterrence is Neanderthal and appeals to the worst aspects of our natures. The alternative view insists that innately nice people respond better to discussion and outreach.
History is largely the story of the tensions between, and the combination of, these two very different views of human nature — one tragic and one therapeutic.