Posts Tagged ‘ jezebel ’

Nude Protests: Is Feminism Different for Different Cultures?

It’s understandable why the Islamists would protest against FEMEN’s ‘jihad’ campaign. It escapes me why any educated liberal, in the Western or the Muslim world, would support the #MuslimahPride on this.

Western feminists of the Jezebel variety have, through their opposition to FEMEN, set an example that their cherished concepts of gender-equality and freedom are not applicable to the Muslim world. Being able to wear what you want is a Western-thingy, and preaching the same to the Muslim world would be “culturally insensitive”. Note that FEMEN members have employed the same tactics when protesting against the Catholic Church’s misogynistic policies.

For Western liberals, it has become fashionable to revere foreign cultures as it allows them to feel more open-minded. In their outstanding ignorance, they often become apologists for cultures and ideologies that are consistently inspiring unspeakable crimes against humanity, and women in particular.

This is but the only conclusion one may draw from the act of supporting Amina Tyler for nude protests and cursing FEMEN for doing exactly the same!

The peaceful religious people being offended by Femen’s protest are the theist apologists who do not have the decency to flatly disown a source of unfathomable suffering to the world.

It’s those who are still mucking about with translations and interpretations and no-true-Scotsman fallacy, trying to unlink themselves from all the damage being generated by the ideology they revere. Those who are more enthusiastic about defending their ‘precious little believies‘ than defending human freedom and well-being. That’s the reason the MuslimahPride group is practically teeming with self-righteous assholes, generally more concerned about women’s modesty than the suffering inflicted upon countless women like Amina Tyler.

Being an anti-Islamist doesn’t make you anti-Muslim by default. Take it from a liberal Pakistani man with Muslim parents, mostly Muslim friends, and a whole bunch of Muslim heroes, none of whom I intend to offend by my criticism of their religion.

If Todd Akin ever issues a statement, “Women are a tilth for men to plant seeds in however they please” (Quran, 2:223), heads will explode from London to New York. Nobody will excuse this incident fearing that an attack on Akin would be an offense to all his political supporters because, you know, not all his supporters endorse this statement. No liberal would defend him saying, “Oh, you’re misinterpreting Mr. Akin’s words” or “You need to read all of Akin’s statements ever made before you decide whether you like him or not”.

At least in theory, there should be no confusion among us that these are harmful ideologies unworthy of our defense. Whether we choose to tread lightly or act diplomatically to safeguard the world from them, without endangering the peaceful Muslims, is another matter.

Am I Feministy Enough for You?

Turns out, I’m not just 102 85 kilograms of feminsm. I’m many things.

I’m a man. So even though I recognize that women are far more commonly mistreated than men, I am not dismissive about the existence of misandry either. I despise the term “reverse-sexism”, because it implies that discrimination against women is different from that against men. It’s all “sexism”, plain and simple. If you rant about how not all women love the color pink, and end your speech with “Urgh, men and their stupid obsession with sports!”, you’re being sexist.

Furthermore, I’m a man of science, thus not a fan of the idea that any study whose conclusion does not fall perfectly in line with what’s considered politically correct, must be false (and the scientist behind the study must be a rape-apologist).

Feminism (fem-uh-niz-um) is a movement advocating social, political, and all other rights and opportunities for women equal to those of men. Up till here, I’m feminist to the bone. It is not a prudish rampage. It is not a movement of man-haters, porn-haters, science deniers or of those who pity or judge all sex workers for their line of work.

Unfortunately, the movement seems to have been overrun by the Jezebel crowd and when I call myself a feminist, I’m often stereotyped as being an angry, man-hating, sex-phobic person. I’m many things, but not that.

As theists have traditionally used the term “God did it” to explain everything without having to prove anything, many feminists have latched on the term “patriarchal society” as an explanation to all their woes. The feminist theory asserts that there are no real psychological and behavioral differences between men and women, and all observed differences in the way males and females behave is the result of society teaching us to do so.

Science asks why the society became patriarchal in the first place. The common feminist explanation, I can only imagine, is that Bam-Bam I, the High King of the Cave People, ordered all men to go out and hunt, and leave women to cook and clean inside the caves. And this law has been followed ever since. The scientific idea, is that the way society has become structured today in a patriarchal form, is the result of genuine biological differences between men and women.

Now if you read the above sentence and went, “Oh? So you’re saying that men should be allowed to rape women because its in their nature?! That gender-based discrimination is natural and shouldn’t be fought against?” then you’re among the stupider variety of feminists who thinks that a natural explanation of behavioral differences among men and women, is necessarily a validation of harmful discriminatory attitudes and stereotyping.

It isn’t justification. It isn’t apologia. It’s merely scientific inquiry.

Like it or not, men ARE hornier than women and they DO have greater sexual needs. Study after study has proven this fact, and it explains why you’re more likely to find female prostitutes than males.

Does this mean that men must be exempted from controlling their sexual urges? No. Does it mean that we may need to restructure our system that could more easily accommodate people with greater sexual needs (which may include women too) instead of forcing them to battle their instincts out of an artificial sense of propriety? Probably so. Note that sexual assault is not a matter of “propriety” but an actual crime that needs to be prevented no matter what, to maintain social order and ensure prosperity of human race as a whole.

Women ARE more socially aggressive than men, and that’s a proven fact too. Does this mean that all women, in everyday life, must be treated as back-biters? No. Because the study only shows how an average female can be expected to act. It doesn’t show that every woman is more socially aggressive than every man. But is it justified for Jezebel or any other feminist banshee group to deny this research on political grounds? No to that too.

Feminism cannot go very far if it continues to be at war with science, particularly evolutionary psychology, seeing it as a threat to their awkward doctrine that men and women are behaviorally, psychologically the same, and any observed differences are the result of the patriarchal society alone.

Feminism needn’t be that convoluted, and the aim should be simple: Ensure equal rights and opportunities for men and women, regardless of any behavioral/psychological differences that there may be. Because not every man is an “average male” or every woman an “average female”.