The Reason Behind The British State's Institutionalised Prejudice Against Men.
By Philip Jones 5th May 2009.
I have written previously and with great foreboding on how government interference in people's lives is increasing at an alarming rate. In the UK this micromanaging of human affairs has over the past decade taken on a very sinister aspect, as the `social engineers` planners and managers, with their army of programmed social workers, invariably armed with a signed and sealed mandate from Brussels via Westminster, intrude into the most private and personal regions of individual liberty and privacy.
The question ‘When did you stop beating your wife?’ is a well known rhetorical device to illustrate the impossible situation in which whatever answer someone gives traps them into an admission of guilt.
It now appears that the British Government has updated this snare for the modern era with the question: ‘When did you stop getting beaten by your husband?’ Doctors and midwives are being told to ask all pregnant women if they are being abused by their husbands or boyfriends.
It doesn't take an Einstein to work out the implications of this behemoth of political correction. British Society now presumes that all men are inherently bad? One has to wonder what construct of human government polices pregnancy and seeks to convert doctors and midwives into `state snoopers` in such an inappropriate and intrusive manner, invading and brutalising that which is sacred and private between a man and his wife?
To aggressively probe women about their men's behaviour, without evidence of any wrongdoing, is invasive and oppressive, and breaches our fundamental right to a private life. It tramples over that very presumption of innocence, upon which historically, we British have depended upon to guarantee being able to go about our daily business without state interference and harassment, this being the very essence of a free society.
But it also raises deeper questions. How have we slid so quiescently into such an authoritarian political culture? How has it been so easy to mount such a direct assault on natural justice, men and family life? How have we allowed our values to be turned upside down? And why are we so silent when lies and distortions are presented as facts?
Just consider the premise behind this pregnancy abuse directive. The government seeks to justify it by saying that 30 per cent of domestic violence is triggered by pregnancy. This may indeed be so; and clearly, violence against a pregnant woman is an ill earnestly to be avoided.
But in itself, that statistic is meaningless. For it obviously does not mean there is a risk of violence to pregnant women overall. Only a small minority of women ever suffer violence at the hands of their menfolk. But the number of these cases has been hugely exaggerated by spurious figures compiled by feminist ideologues, claiming that one in every four women suffers from domestic violence.
The idea that a quarter of all women have been assaulted in this way is outrageous. This figure has been taken from deeply unreliable research which does not stand up to serious scrutiny. Some of it has been extrapolated from self-selected samples of individuals in battered women’s hostels. The rest is derived from research of a dubious quality, in which women are interviewed but men are not.
Even worse, the premise that men are the sole perpetrators and women always their victims is simply false. Dozens of studies have shown categorically that in domestic incidents, violence is initiated by men and women equally. Moreover, much male victimisation is hidden because many men are too embarrassed to admit to having been assaulted by a woman to report their injuries.
I accept that women tend to come off worst in such encounters because men are physically stronger. But that’s not the point. The demonisation of men as violent aggressors with women merely their passive victims is just not the case.
In the UK, even the Home Office’s own respected research unit reported recently that equal numbers of men and women said they had been assaulted by a current or former partner. Yet the same Home Office chooses to ignore or even deny such findings.
It points instead to the fact that around 100 women a year are killed by men in domestic incidents (along with about 50 men killed by women). But it does not follow that the murder of a woman by her husband or lover results from sustained domestic violence in that household - the assumption behind the question that doctors and midwives must now ask.
Many, if not most, murders of women in the home are one-off episodes of violence in which the man suddenly loses control, often due to jealousy. It is not unusual in such cases for the man to kill not just the woman but the children, and even himself, too.
Moreover, if one is looking at the main perpetrators of violence within the home, it is a fact that most child deaths happen to be caused by women. But if doctors or midwives were accordingly to view all pregnant women with suspicion, we would rightly regard this as intolerable. So why is a similar assumption about male violence justified?
Also significant is the fact that most women victims of domestic violence are assaulted or killed by men to whom they are not married. This is almost certainly because of the greater instability in unmarried relationships. So if the government really wanted to isolate the potential for abuse, it should surely be requiring doctors and midwives to ask pregnant woman whether they are married to the father of their child - and if not, place both woman and child on the ‘at risk’ register.
Just imagine, though, the outcry if anyone were to propose this. The Home Office itself has previously acknowledged that marital breakdown is a ‘key risk factor’ in domestic violence. Yet the government has nevertheless promoted the false belief that all relationships are equal in value. By thus encouraging transient relationships, it has almost certainly helped foster a culture in which domestic violence is more likely to occur. So why is it, on the one hand, apparently encouraging unfettered behaviour which leads to violence, while on the other taking intrusive measures to prevent it?
Ordo Ab Chao (Order Out Of Chaos) And The Hegelian Dialectic.
Ostensibly at least, here lies the key paradox at the heart of the regime's broader social programme. At the same time that it wants to police pregnancy in order to supposedly stamp out the ill of domestic violence, it is licensing a range of behaviour which is socially destructive and which will cause increasing chaos, harm and distress -all under the guise of trying to control it.
Its proposals to deregulate gambling, for example, will turn our cities into tawdry sleaze-pits: magnets for crime and corruption which will increase gambling addiction and in particular the misery of the poor in rising rates of poverty, debt, ill-health and family breakdown. It almost defies belief to hear ministers breezily condoning the fact that casino operators intend to bribe local authorities to grant planning permission for their expanding gambling empires.
The deregulation of gambling is all of a piece with its proposals for all-night drinking, which will merely exacerbate our already rising rates of drunken disorder, violence and crime. Even more extraordinary is the government’s relaxation of controls over soft drugs, despite overwhelming evidence of the harm they do not just to individuals but to society.
In addition, the government is flirting with the idea of ‘zones of tolerance’ for prostitution, despite the fact that these would become magnets for sex tourism and trafficking, creating seedy centres for drug-taking and other associated crimes.
Moreover, all-night drinking, gambling and clubbing - with its attendant culture of drug-taking - are heavily promoted as the basis for the regeneration of our cities. Economic prosperity is thus being pursued through the active and official marketing of vice.
In all this, ministers are systematically taking apart the outstanding social reforms of the late Victorians, who were driven by liberal and religious motives to improve society and thus elevate the human condition. This great movement of conscience to attack moral and social degradation was rooted in the Methodism which gave rise to the Labour party, and which it is now so comprehensively betraying.
For it is licensing, legitimising and promoting behaviour considered socially harmful while actively attacking married family life, the premier institution of social order. This onslaught on the family is far broader than the obsession with domestic violence, or the rigging of rape trials by weighting the burden of proof against the defendant to get more convictions.
It has used the welfare system to redefine the family as woman and child with a man as an optional extra. It undermines parental authority by providing contraceptives and abortions to under-age girls without their parents’ knowledge. And it is using the gay rights agenda to spearhead the movement to give equal rights and recognition to sexual relationships outside marriage and destroy altogether the very idea of norms of behaviour.
This is no accident. It is because ministers - many of whom have never grown out of their sixties attitudes - have absorbed the revolutionary philosophy of that decade first promoted by the Italian communist thinker Antonio Gramsci. He said that the liberal-democratic societies of the west could be overturned through the subversion of their morality and culture, in which the moral beliefs of the majority would be replaced by the free-for-all practiced by all those who transgressed those norms.
These would form a ‘coalition of oppositional groups’ which would capture all society’s institutions - schools, universities, churches, the media, the legal profession, the police, voluntary groups -and make sure that this intellectual elite all sang from the same subversive hymn-sheet.
These ideas penetrated intellectual life and shaped a generation of thinkers.The outcome was an assault on morality through a coalition of minorities promoting ‘victim culture’ in which minority demands trump majority values; an assault on the nation through multiculturalism and the wrecking of education; an assault on men and marriage through extreme feminism.
It was a process once memorably dubbed by the American senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan as ‘defining deviancy down’. Whereas previously there was intolerance of unmarried mothers or homosexuality and stigma over divorce, there is now ruthless enforcement of the doctrine that all lifestyles are morally equivalent and intolerance instead of anyone who objects.
The obsession in government with ‘equal opportunities’ -which radiates outwards to other establishment institutions like the police or judiciary - is in reality an agenda to enforce minority values over those of the majority and pillory anyone who dissents.
And dissent is stamped upon - not least because, when deviant behaviour becomes viewed as normal, normal behaviour inevitably becomes treated as deviant. So, for example, sexual encounters where a woman may have second thoughts afterwards is suddenly defined as ‘date rape’. And the traditional family, that bastion of security and safety, becomes stigmatised instead as a fetid stew of child abuse, marital rape and violence against women.
As a result of decades of propaganda, intimidation and spinelessness, the ‘long march through the institutions’ urged by revolutionary thinkers has been achieved. The evidence is on display all around us: academics producing crooked research projects, zealot feminist civil servants in the Home Office, or judges whose hearts bleed for burglars rather than their victims and permit the demands of gypsies to ride roughshod over the planning laws that bind the rest of us.
Wittingly or unwittingly, such people are helping promote an agenda for legislating against virtue and in favour of vice; against self-restraint and for irregularity; against domestic order and for disorder. It is a corruption of our traditional values. The demonising of men as potential rapists, child abusers and woman-beaters is a crucial part of that agenda, and the lamentable questioning of pregnant women but its latest manifestation.
There is no doubt in this writer's mind that the UK Government is actively participating in a calamitous and treacherous game of `Hegelian Dialectics` with the lives of it's own citizens and the security and wellbeing of the whole nation. More simply put, create the problem, incite the reaction, impose the solution, and their solution always seems to include elements which erode more of our ancient rights and personal freedoms, and increases government control over our lives. The unfathomable chaos, injustice and the rapid retreat from reason we see everywhere, and which has resulted in the bewilderment and demoralisation of a whole nation has been planned and orchestrated during top secret meetings held under `Chatham House` rules and in the Masonic Lodges from whence came the motto `Order Out Of Chaos`.
Ref: Melanie Phillips : All Must Have Prizes.
Problem Reaction Solution is a term coined by David Icke.
http://nord.twu.net/acl/dialectic.html What is the Hegelian Dialectic by Niki F. Raapana and Nordica M. Friedrich
http://catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_882.shtml The Frankfurt School
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/ The Royal Institute For International Affairs.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Mathmatics: The Final Frontier In The Feminists War Against Boys Part 2
By Philip Jones 7/26/08
Recap : Last week, The `Associated Press` proudly reported that in the `largest` study of it's kind, a survey found that girls are now as `tough` as boys in the field of Mathematics. and that this, the supposed last bastion of male dominance in education had been breached. Janet Hyde, of the University of Wisconsin Madison, who led the study said, " Girls have now achieved gender parity on standardised Maths Tests". The relentless war on all fronts against the masculine has been raging for many decades now, not least in our schools and universities. It really doesn't take too much research and investigation in order to identify the whole movement as being one part of a cynically orchestrated `Psychological Operation` against all things male specifically, and humanity generally. This `Psy Op` although once highly covert has now become overtly obvious in it's aims, at least to those of us who have been able to see through it's facade of `righting wrongs.'
So what are the goals of 21st Century Feminism in the arena of education ? It would be easier to state what it's goals are not. Equality in it's true sense is most certainly not a desired aim. If it were so, then the `ideologues` would be as concerned with the opportunities of boys as they claim to be with those of girls. Creating a stable environment for learning is clearly not a part of their agenda either, nor is the nurturing of young people, or the encouragement of any natural balance between young males and females during their formative years. As for facilitating the increased possibilities of girls opting for careers in Engineering, Science etc. enabled by any betterment of Mathematics standards, does anyone really `swallow` that one.
I would suggest that the continued propagation of gender chaos is the primary reason that this `study` was commissioned, in the same way as all the others before it were. To `hit home` another nail in the coffin of masculinity, and further demoralise the human male psyche. Just as the `Feminazi's` have misled, manoeuvred and manipulated young women into believing that a career in the Military was a positive and viable option, now they are similarly luring girls into a career choice in the Science and Engineering fields for which not only are they mostly unsuited, but which few would even consider as being something they would naturally want to do.
This relentless campaign is not about advancing the cause of women, nor some Utopian ideal of equality. It is about destroying the `masculine` by the use of vicious anti male propaganda and vitriol, designed to deconstruct the masculine consciousness, especially in the fragile young , engendering feelings of confusion, inadequacy, failure and thereby emasculating boys entering their prime years. This in turn causes resentment and levels of implied misogyny, via pornography and other forms of disrespect towards the female, unknown, until very recently. For their part, young girls become confused as to what is expected of them. Their instinct and natures are constantly suppressed by feminist teachers agitating on behalf of a sinister ideology born (not conceived) half a century ago on the back of `Big Money` funding hateful and deranged `women` like Betty Freidan and Gloria Steinham.
This latest `victory` in the seemingly ceaseless and overwhelmingly one sided `war of the sexes` is almost certainly not the last which will be publicly heralded as yet another vindication of Feminist theory. So now, we are told, girls cannot only `Kick Ass` as good as if not better than the boys. They can `add up` too. Does anyone else sense the condescension here ?
Having discounted above what the `She Devils` agenda is not, let's identify what it is. Well, there can be no doubt that these `banshees` will stop at nothing short of total victory coupled with unconditional surrender. We are looking down the barrel of a `Fem Dom` artillery piece here. All around is chaos, and as the Freemasonic Motto goes, out of chaos comes order. Their order not ours. The goals of Feminism are the goals of the New World Order. Feminism is their `Fat Boy` and Education is the `Enola Gay` they have used to carry it.
They say you can tell a tree by it's fruits. For goodness sake people, apply that little piece of wisdom to your lives and wake up. The enemies of good knew that in order to deconstruct western society, they would need to `steal our children` and fashion them in their image not ours. Now, the Feminist `Tree` is dropping it's fruit all around us., Apples of distrust, resentment and animosity. Acorns of divorce and fatherless children. Berries of resentment, hostility, animosity, misogyny, and Pears of depopulation and a decaying civilisation. These are the fruits of Feminism, and they are bitter indeed.Divide and Conquer has been a proven technique of control down the ages. The Feminist Agenda is the `sharpest blade` in the Illuminati's Arsenal, they have divided man from his mate, and can anyone truly deny that `we the people` have been conquered.`
Recap : Last week, The `Associated Press` proudly reported that in the `largest` study of it's kind, a survey found that girls are now as `tough` as boys in the field of Mathematics. and that this, the supposed last bastion of male dominance in education had been breached. Janet Hyde, of the University of Wisconsin Madison, who led the study said, " Girls have now achieved gender parity on standardised Maths Tests". The relentless war on all fronts against the masculine has been raging for many decades now, not least in our schools and universities. It really doesn't take too much research and investigation in order to identify the whole movement as being one part of a cynically orchestrated `Psychological Operation` against all things male specifically, and humanity generally. This `Psy Op` although once highly covert has now become overtly obvious in it's aims, at least to those of us who have been able to see through it's facade of `righting wrongs.'
So what are the goals of 21st Century Feminism in the arena of education ? It would be easier to state what it's goals are not. Equality in it's true sense is most certainly not a desired aim. If it were so, then the `ideologues` would be as concerned with the opportunities of boys as they claim to be with those of girls. Creating a stable environment for learning is clearly not a part of their agenda either, nor is the nurturing of young people, or the encouragement of any natural balance between young males and females during their formative years. As for facilitating the increased possibilities of girls opting for careers in Engineering, Science etc. enabled by any betterment of Mathematics standards, does anyone really `swallow` that one.
I would suggest that the continued propagation of gender chaos is the primary reason that this `study` was commissioned, in the same way as all the others before it were. To `hit home` another nail in the coffin of masculinity, and further demoralise the human male psyche. Just as the `Feminazi's` have misled, manoeuvred and manipulated young women into believing that a career in the Military was a positive and viable option, now they are similarly luring girls into a career choice in the Science and Engineering fields for which not only are they mostly unsuited, but which few would even consider as being something they would naturally want to do.
This relentless campaign is not about advancing the cause of women, nor some Utopian ideal of equality. It is about destroying the `masculine` by the use of vicious anti male propaganda and vitriol, designed to deconstruct the masculine consciousness, especially in the fragile young , engendering feelings of confusion, inadequacy, failure and thereby emasculating boys entering their prime years. This in turn causes resentment and levels of implied misogyny, via pornography and other forms of disrespect towards the female, unknown, until very recently. For their part, young girls become confused as to what is expected of them. Their instinct and natures are constantly suppressed by feminist teachers agitating on behalf of a sinister ideology born (not conceived) half a century ago on the back of `Big Money` funding hateful and deranged `women` like Betty Freidan and Gloria Steinham.
This latest `victory` in the seemingly ceaseless and overwhelmingly one sided `war of the sexes` is almost certainly not the last which will be publicly heralded as yet another vindication of Feminist theory. So now, we are told, girls cannot only `Kick Ass` as good as if not better than the boys. They can `add up` too. Does anyone else sense the condescension here ?
Having discounted above what the `She Devils` agenda is not, let's identify what it is. Well, there can be no doubt that these `banshees` will stop at nothing short of total victory coupled with unconditional surrender. We are looking down the barrel of a `Fem Dom` artillery piece here. All around is chaos, and as the Freemasonic Motto goes, out of chaos comes order. Their order not ours. The goals of Feminism are the goals of the New World Order. Feminism is their `Fat Boy` and Education is the `Enola Gay` they have used to carry it.
They say you can tell a tree by it's fruits. For goodness sake people, apply that little piece of wisdom to your lives and wake up. The enemies of good knew that in order to deconstruct western society, they would need to `steal our children` and fashion them in their image not ours. Now, the Feminist `Tree` is dropping it's fruit all around us., Apples of distrust, resentment and animosity. Acorns of divorce and fatherless children. Berries of resentment, hostility, animosity, misogyny, and Pears of depopulation and a decaying civilisation. These are the fruits of Feminism, and they are bitter indeed.Divide and Conquer has been a proven technique of control down the ages. The Feminist Agenda is the `sharpest blade` in the Illuminati's Arsenal, they have divided man from his mate, and can anyone truly deny that `we the people` have been conquered.`
Mathmatics: The Final Frontier In The Feminists War Against Boys Part 1
By Philip Jones 26th July 2008.
Last week, The Associated Press proudly reported that in the `largest` study of it's kind, where Mathematics is concerned, girls are now as `tough` as boys. This last bastion of male dominance in education has been breached. Janet Hyde, of the University of Wisconsin Madison, who led the study said, " Girls have now achieved gender parity on standardised Maths Tests".
This relentless war on all fronts against the masculine has been raging for many decades now, not least in our schools and universities. I find myself asking "What is the `Femi` Brigade's` Endgame" ?. Is it to grow a penis on a baby girl and thus perfect the androgynous being they seem intent on creating by all means at their disposal ?Before I digress and go off on one of my `rants`, let's examine this business with maths and education more closely.
As some might know by now, I am British, so I will continue this article based on what is happening in my own sad country.In August, when the GCSE results come out, it is highly likely that, once again, girls will have beaten the boys at the examination game.
For years now, girls have been taking the lion’s share of success in public examinations. This year’s A and AS-level results were further evidence of the trend. Girls out-performed boys in almost every subject. They took nearly 47,000 more subjects than boys at A-level, and nearly 91,000 more at AS level. And in both exams, they achieved a higher proportion than boys of A grades in almost every subject.
Of course, it is good news that girls are doing so well. But it is worrying that boys seem to be slipping further and further behind. For this trend isn’t confined to the high-fliers passing exams. At the bottom of the system, the drop-out rate among boys is causing serious concern.
The reason is nothing other than the wholesale feminisation of the education system. In GCSEs, A-levels and increasingly degree courses too, coursework accounts for an ever greater proportion of the final marks. This in itself favours girls.Boys tend to like ’sudden death’ exams. They like taking risks, pitting their wits against the odds. Girls don’t. They prefer to work steadily and conscientiously without gambling against memory, the clock and questions from hell. Which is why at degree level boys have until now achieved more firsts and thirds than girls who tend to get safe, if dull, seconds.Nor is it surprising that girls are taking more exams than boys. For the curriculum has expanded in ways that suit girls rather than boys, with a proliferation of discursive, ’soft’ subjects like general studies, sociology or drama.
The evidence suggests that boys and girls learn in different ways. Research has found that girls gain more satisfaction than boys from understanding the work they are doing. Boys are more ‘ego-related’, gaining more satisfaction from competing with each other.
Nevertheless, education policy denies such differences and imposes instead an agenda of ‘equality’. For at least twenty years, feminist teachers have made a determined attempt to change a school system they held to be hostile to girls. The assumption was that since boys tended to opt for science, maths and technology and girls for languages, humanities and domestic science, this proved discrimination against girls.
It never occurred to them that this pattern had evolved because each sex naturally gravitated towards these subjects. The view was that boys and girls were identical, and these differences therefore had to be corrected. The result was active discrimination against boys. As James Tooley comments in his book, the Mis-education of Women, girls began to be privileged over boys at school. Teachers gave priority to girls in classroom discussions, playground space and sporting fixtures.
The ‘masculine content and orientation’ of textbooks, topics and tests was obliterated in favour of female references; teachers were forbidden to use ’sexist’ language; and male teachers’ bonding with boys through jokes or shared allusions to football had to be reprogrammed out of the system.
During the 1980s, moreover, one project followed another to get girls into studying maths, science and technology.But it wasn’t sexism that was keeping girls away from such subjects - it was their choice. For time and again it has been shown that wherever they have the opportunity, boys gravitate naturally to mechanical sciences and girls to discursive or domestic subjects.
Clearly, if any prejudice existed it would be right to address it. But this was not prejudice. It was rather that boys and girls behaved in different ways. This was never an issue in single sex schools. But once co-educational schools became the norm, the differences became striking - and feminism assumed that to be different meant inferiority and discrimination.This was not only wrong in itself. It was also disastrous for boys. For rather than men being masters of the universe as feminists contend, their sense of what they are is fragile. Unless their particular male characteristics are acknowledged and supported, they start sliding downhill and some go off the rails altogether.
In school, boys find girls intrinsically threatening, a fact generally masked at the top of the ability range but in often violent evidence at the bottom. Girls mature earlier than boys, so unless boys are exceptionally able they tend to be outclassed by girls. And if they don’t dominate, they tend to give up or drop out.
Because doing well in school involves no manual or physical activity but requires instead sitting quietly, reading and writing, the most vulnerable boys view learning as feminine and `uncool`. And being feminine is their deepest dread.This is because men’s sense of their masculinity is far more vulnerable than women’s sense of their femininity. Biology reminds girls what they are every month. Boys, by contrast, need to prove their identity and role, particularly among those with poor prospects and few confidence-boosting attributes.
But rather than celebrating male characteristics, society tells boys at every turn that its values have turned female, and that if boys want any place in it they must do so too.
Thus, male characteristics are derided. Warfare is said to be obscene. Authority is oppressive. Chivalry is a joke. Competition creates losers - taboo in education, where everyone must be a winner. Stoicism is despised; instead, tears must flow and hearts be worn on sleeves at all times.
Men, however, define masculinity by being different from women. So this unisex culture has resulted in two things. More men are driven into stereotypical macho behaviour to prove their masculinity. And they simply withdraw from any sphere which becomes identified with women.
Because girls’ success is now such a regular feature of the league table carnival, disadvantaged boys identify school failure with being macho and worthwhile. So more give up or drop out.
It is not good for either sex to be placed at a disadvantage by the other. The aim must be to make opportunity as fair as possible. But that cannot be done by confusing equality of opportunity with identical experience, the fundamental error of our age.
Boys and girls are different. It would be far better if they were educated in single-sex schools. Neither sex is well served by co-education. Neither sex benefits from coercion by the educational gender police.
Many girls resent the pressure to do science subjects. Feminists fear that if girls don’t study science in the same number as boys, they won’t have the same career opportunities later on. But girls make different choices from boys because they have different impulses and interests and calculate their life prospects very differently.
This is not an argument against girls studying engineering, or women becoming train drivers or particle physicists. It is rather that the system has become unfair and discriminatory against boys - the outcome of a philosophy that, despite its feminist credentials, does not allow girls the freedom to make their own choices, for fear that the dogma of unisex behaviour will be exposed once and for all as a big lie.
In conclusion, I would suggest that this superficial levelling of the Mathematics `playing field` has long been considered one of the goals in the endless march towards that miserable, androgynous Utopia so longed for by the Friedens, Sontags, and Gurley Browns. I would also suggest that in reality, the Exam Results are in many cases more to do with politically motivated marking and preferential treatment, rather than any increase in the aptitude of girls in the field of Calculus, Geometry et al.
Ref: All Must Have Prizes by Melanie Phillips
Last week, The Associated Press proudly reported that in the `largest` study of it's kind, where Mathematics is concerned, girls are now as `tough` as boys. This last bastion of male dominance in education has been breached. Janet Hyde, of the University of Wisconsin Madison, who led the study said, " Girls have now achieved gender parity on standardised Maths Tests".
This relentless war on all fronts against the masculine has been raging for many decades now, not least in our schools and universities. I find myself asking "What is the `Femi` Brigade's` Endgame" ?. Is it to grow a penis on a baby girl and thus perfect the androgynous being they seem intent on creating by all means at their disposal ?Before I digress and go off on one of my `rants`, let's examine this business with maths and education more closely.
As some might know by now, I am British, so I will continue this article based on what is happening in my own sad country.In August, when the GCSE results come out, it is highly likely that, once again, girls will have beaten the boys at the examination game.
For years now, girls have been taking the lion’s share of success in public examinations. This year’s A and AS-level results were further evidence of the trend. Girls out-performed boys in almost every subject. They took nearly 47,000 more subjects than boys at A-level, and nearly 91,000 more at AS level. And in both exams, they achieved a higher proportion than boys of A grades in almost every subject.
Of course, it is good news that girls are doing so well. But it is worrying that boys seem to be slipping further and further behind. For this trend isn’t confined to the high-fliers passing exams. At the bottom of the system, the drop-out rate among boys is causing serious concern.
The reason is nothing other than the wholesale feminisation of the education system. In GCSEs, A-levels and increasingly degree courses too, coursework accounts for an ever greater proportion of the final marks. This in itself favours girls.Boys tend to like ’sudden death’ exams. They like taking risks, pitting their wits against the odds. Girls don’t. They prefer to work steadily and conscientiously without gambling against memory, the clock and questions from hell. Which is why at degree level boys have until now achieved more firsts and thirds than girls who tend to get safe, if dull, seconds.Nor is it surprising that girls are taking more exams than boys. For the curriculum has expanded in ways that suit girls rather than boys, with a proliferation of discursive, ’soft’ subjects like general studies, sociology or drama.
The evidence suggests that boys and girls learn in different ways. Research has found that girls gain more satisfaction than boys from understanding the work they are doing. Boys are more ‘ego-related’, gaining more satisfaction from competing with each other.
Nevertheless, education policy denies such differences and imposes instead an agenda of ‘equality’. For at least twenty years, feminist teachers have made a determined attempt to change a school system they held to be hostile to girls. The assumption was that since boys tended to opt for science, maths and technology and girls for languages, humanities and domestic science, this proved discrimination against girls.
It never occurred to them that this pattern had evolved because each sex naturally gravitated towards these subjects. The view was that boys and girls were identical, and these differences therefore had to be corrected. The result was active discrimination against boys. As James Tooley comments in his book, the Mis-education of Women, girls began to be privileged over boys at school. Teachers gave priority to girls in classroom discussions, playground space and sporting fixtures.
The ‘masculine content and orientation’ of textbooks, topics and tests was obliterated in favour of female references; teachers were forbidden to use ’sexist’ language; and male teachers’ bonding with boys through jokes or shared allusions to football had to be reprogrammed out of the system.
During the 1980s, moreover, one project followed another to get girls into studying maths, science and technology.But it wasn’t sexism that was keeping girls away from such subjects - it was their choice. For time and again it has been shown that wherever they have the opportunity, boys gravitate naturally to mechanical sciences and girls to discursive or domestic subjects.
Clearly, if any prejudice existed it would be right to address it. But this was not prejudice. It was rather that boys and girls behaved in different ways. This was never an issue in single sex schools. But once co-educational schools became the norm, the differences became striking - and feminism assumed that to be different meant inferiority and discrimination.This was not only wrong in itself. It was also disastrous for boys. For rather than men being masters of the universe as feminists contend, their sense of what they are is fragile. Unless their particular male characteristics are acknowledged and supported, they start sliding downhill and some go off the rails altogether.
In school, boys find girls intrinsically threatening, a fact generally masked at the top of the ability range but in often violent evidence at the bottom. Girls mature earlier than boys, so unless boys are exceptionally able they tend to be outclassed by girls. And if they don’t dominate, they tend to give up or drop out.
Because doing well in school involves no manual or physical activity but requires instead sitting quietly, reading and writing, the most vulnerable boys view learning as feminine and `uncool`. And being feminine is their deepest dread.This is because men’s sense of their masculinity is far more vulnerable than women’s sense of their femininity. Biology reminds girls what they are every month. Boys, by contrast, need to prove their identity and role, particularly among those with poor prospects and few confidence-boosting attributes.
But rather than celebrating male characteristics, society tells boys at every turn that its values have turned female, and that if boys want any place in it they must do so too.
Thus, male characteristics are derided. Warfare is said to be obscene. Authority is oppressive. Chivalry is a joke. Competition creates losers - taboo in education, where everyone must be a winner. Stoicism is despised; instead, tears must flow and hearts be worn on sleeves at all times.
Men, however, define masculinity by being different from women. So this unisex culture has resulted in two things. More men are driven into stereotypical macho behaviour to prove their masculinity. And they simply withdraw from any sphere which becomes identified with women.
Because girls’ success is now such a regular feature of the league table carnival, disadvantaged boys identify school failure with being macho and worthwhile. So more give up or drop out.
It is not good for either sex to be placed at a disadvantage by the other. The aim must be to make opportunity as fair as possible. But that cannot be done by confusing equality of opportunity with identical experience, the fundamental error of our age.
Boys and girls are different. It would be far better if they were educated in single-sex schools. Neither sex is well served by co-education. Neither sex benefits from coercion by the educational gender police.
Many girls resent the pressure to do science subjects. Feminists fear that if girls don’t study science in the same number as boys, they won’t have the same career opportunities later on. But girls make different choices from boys because they have different impulses and interests and calculate their life prospects very differently.
This is not an argument against girls studying engineering, or women becoming train drivers or particle physicists. It is rather that the system has become unfair and discriminatory against boys - the outcome of a philosophy that, despite its feminist credentials, does not allow girls the freedom to make their own choices, for fear that the dogma of unisex behaviour will be exposed once and for all as a big lie.
In conclusion, I would suggest that this superficial levelling of the Mathematics `playing field` has long been considered one of the goals in the endless march towards that miserable, androgynous Utopia so longed for by the Friedens, Sontags, and Gurley Browns. I would also suggest that in reality, the Exam Results are in many cases more to do with politically motivated marking and preferential treatment, rather than any increase in the aptitude of girls in the field of Calculus, Geometry et al.
Ref: All Must Have Prizes by Melanie Phillips
The Silence of the Lambs. (The True Story)
By Philip Jones 29 Oct 2007.
This past weekend, MSN has been running a `Forum` entitled 'Should the 24 week Abortion Limit be reduced ?' referring to UK guidelines on the time limit up to what point an Abortion may be carried out. This `timescale` has been in effect since 1967. Pro Life campaigners in the UK are saying that owing to medical advances, babies of 24 weeks have a better chance of survival and this upper limit should be reduced. It also publishes a thought provoking statistic; 186,000 `legal` abortions were carried out last year in the UK.
In his book` The Death Of The West` Sen. Patrick Buchanan states that between 1973 and 2000, 40 million legal abortions were carried out in the US, and a third of all pregnancies now end up at the `clinic`, making Abortion the most practiced Surgical procedure in the US.
I went and made my own contribution to the `forum` whilst it was at a fairy early stage. What shocked me is the arrogance and vehemence of the `Pro Choice `comments. Then there are the `Apologists` for Abortion with remarks like ' Isn't it better for the foetus to be aborted, rather than be born unwanted, or in bad or poor circumstances.' I wonder if they would feel the same if their parents had had the same idea. But then, they wouldn't be here to make such banalities would they.
What is evident throughout, is that no matter which way people view this subject, almost none have any grasp of the `Big Picture`.
In 1960, People of European stock constituted a quarter of the Earths Population of three billion. By 2000, whilst the World Population doubled, the `Euro Stock` had stopped reproducing. Only Albania in Europe maintained a replacement level birth-rate. Between 2000-2050, the world population is expected to rise to nine billion. This increase will come almost entirely from the developing world, while 100 million people of European decent will die un-replaced. By 2050, Western peoples will make up only 1/10 the world populace and will begin to feel minorities in many of their own cities.
This decline has awesome implications for the West. People there will be faced with stark choices; import millions of immigrants to work and pay the taxes needed to support a burgeoning elderly population, or keep on raising taxes, and push back the `retirement` age ever further.
Together with the Contraceptive Pill, `Planned Parenthood`, and the almost maniacal promotion of Feminism and Homosexuality throughout all avenues of the media and state education, women in the West have been indoctrinated into believing that a valid life can only be attained via career, and that marriage and motherhood is somehow a poor choice.
One of the most staggering factor's in all this is how selfish and callous many women have become. Now, one can almost hear the `Feminazi's` preparing their `Men should step up to the plate and take some responsibility` tirade. But hold on a minute. These are the very same types, who have been encouraging males to `get in touch with their `feminine side` for decades. After being `Nanny'd` much of their lives, is it any wonder that young men today are unable, or at the very least reluctant to take on the burden of a family. More to the point, even if they so desired, where would they find a young woman so inclined.
The `Pro Choice` lobby cannot be taken in isolation. It is part of a long running and long term UN coordinated war on population. The contention that the Earth is overpopulated is one of the great `hoaxes` of the past 100 years. Overpopulation is a crucial link in the `One World `agenda, which the UN uses to justify far reaching controls over economy, environment and our reproductive lives. `World Bank` loans are given to `developing` nations on the condition that they partake in `family planning`, and `Third World` country's have suffered greatly from this ideology, along with the economic exploitation of their peoples and natural resources.
Convincing women in the west not to have babies has been easy. The full spectrum of the mass media has been coordinated to ensure that the Feminist view is always given the fullest and most positive coverage. In education, films, TV and Popular Music, nowhere is Marriage and Motherhood encouraged.
Young women are told `behave just as the boys do`, practice `safe sex`, and if all goes wrong, well there is always the Abortion Clinic. Many women treat their wombs like `trashcans`. They show no regard for themselves, nor the life growing inside them. Then they moan that modern men have no respect for them. Little wonder that the relationship between the men and women has never been more strained. But of course, this is exactly what the`Lords Of Money` want. A strong family, is a `bulwark` against their plans for the world control of sad and isolated people.
Divide and rule is an age old song, and the feminists have danced well to it. What will happen to all the Ms' when they have served their purpose, (having largely assisted in the depopulating of our planet, the emasculation of the male, the alienation of millions of young men and women, who will never know how it is to find lifelong love and companionship, and the needless and malevolent slaughter of the innocents growing in the wombs) and find their services `no longer required` when the Draconian State, imposed with their complicity, drags them back into a new `Dark Age`.
The saddening aspect in all of this is how effective the whole thing thing has been. Mention Abortion, or marriage or family to the vast majority of women and the almost `robotlike` response is so uniformly predictable in it's support of the `feminist ideal` expounded by Ms Frieden and Co. Women are of course among the primary victims in this `Scam`, together with those helpless souls who have no voice, nor say as to whether they live or die. Millions of them sentenced to death for the crime of being conceived.
This past weekend, MSN has been running a `Forum` entitled 'Should the 24 week Abortion Limit be reduced ?' referring to UK guidelines on the time limit up to what point an Abortion may be carried out. This `timescale` has been in effect since 1967. Pro Life campaigners in the UK are saying that owing to medical advances, babies of 24 weeks have a better chance of survival and this upper limit should be reduced. It also publishes a thought provoking statistic; 186,000 `legal` abortions were carried out last year in the UK.
In his book` The Death Of The West` Sen. Patrick Buchanan states that between 1973 and 2000, 40 million legal abortions were carried out in the US, and a third of all pregnancies now end up at the `clinic`, making Abortion the most practiced Surgical procedure in the US.
I went and made my own contribution to the `forum` whilst it was at a fairy early stage. What shocked me is the arrogance and vehemence of the `Pro Choice `comments. Then there are the `Apologists` for Abortion with remarks like ' Isn't it better for the foetus to be aborted, rather than be born unwanted, or in bad or poor circumstances.' I wonder if they would feel the same if their parents had had the same idea. But then, they wouldn't be here to make such banalities would they.
What is evident throughout, is that no matter which way people view this subject, almost none have any grasp of the `Big Picture`.
In 1960, People of European stock constituted a quarter of the Earths Population of three billion. By 2000, whilst the World Population doubled, the `Euro Stock` had stopped reproducing. Only Albania in Europe maintained a replacement level birth-rate. Between 2000-2050, the world population is expected to rise to nine billion. This increase will come almost entirely from the developing world, while 100 million people of European decent will die un-replaced. By 2050, Western peoples will make up only 1/10 the world populace and will begin to feel minorities in many of their own cities.
This decline has awesome implications for the West. People there will be faced with stark choices; import millions of immigrants to work and pay the taxes needed to support a burgeoning elderly population, or keep on raising taxes, and push back the `retirement` age ever further.
Together with the Contraceptive Pill, `Planned Parenthood`, and the almost maniacal promotion of Feminism and Homosexuality throughout all avenues of the media and state education, women in the West have been indoctrinated into believing that a valid life can only be attained via career, and that marriage and motherhood is somehow a poor choice.
One of the most staggering factor's in all this is how selfish and callous many women have become. Now, one can almost hear the `Feminazi's` preparing their `Men should step up to the plate and take some responsibility` tirade. But hold on a minute. These are the very same types, who have been encouraging males to `get in touch with their `feminine side` for decades. After being `Nanny'd` much of their lives, is it any wonder that young men today are unable, or at the very least reluctant to take on the burden of a family. More to the point, even if they so desired, where would they find a young woman so inclined.
The `Pro Choice` lobby cannot be taken in isolation. It is part of a long running and long term UN coordinated war on population. The contention that the Earth is overpopulated is one of the great `hoaxes` of the past 100 years. Overpopulation is a crucial link in the `One World `agenda, which the UN uses to justify far reaching controls over economy, environment and our reproductive lives. `World Bank` loans are given to `developing` nations on the condition that they partake in `family planning`, and `Third World` country's have suffered greatly from this ideology, along with the economic exploitation of their peoples and natural resources.
Convincing women in the west not to have babies has been easy. The full spectrum of the mass media has been coordinated to ensure that the Feminist view is always given the fullest and most positive coverage. In education, films, TV and Popular Music, nowhere is Marriage and Motherhood encouraged.
Young women are told `behave just as the boys do`, practice `safe sex`, and if all goes wrong, well there is always the Abortion Clinic. Many women treat their wombs like `trashcans`. They show no regard for themselves, nor the life growing inside them. Then they moan that modern men have no respect for them. Little wonder that the relationship between the men and women has never been more strained. But of course, this is exactly what the`Lords Of Money` want. A strong family, is a `bulwark` against their plans for the world control of sad and isolated people.
Divide and rule is an age old song, and the feminists have danced well to it. What will happen to all the Ms' when they have served their purpose, (having largely assisted in the depopulating of our planet, the emasculation of the male, the alienation of millions of young men and women, who will never know how it is to find lifelong love and companionship, and the needless and malevolent slaughter of the innocents growing in the wombs) and find their services `no longer required` when the Draconian State, imposed with their complicity, drags them back into a new `Dark Age`.
The saddening aspect in all of this is how effective the whole thing thing has been. Mention Abortion, or marriage or family to the vast majority of women and the almost `robotlike` response is so uniformly predictable in it's support of the `feminist ideal` expounded by Ms Frieden and Co. Women are of course among the primary victims in this `Scam`, together with those helpless souls who have no voice, nor say as to whether they live or die. Millions of them sentenced to death for the crime of being conceived.
Danes Told Anal Sex Healthy for Men - 4/7/2008
By Philip Jones
The `Ekstra Bladet`, a daily `News` Paper here in Denmark ran an article in Sundays edition entitled 'Anal Sex is healthy for men'. The author, a Danish `Sexologist` Mr Robert Lubarski, writes that `men should surrender themselves to their sexuality, and that it was time that the social spotlight was shone on the `Male Orgasm`. He continues that 'Men who allow the accepted male role to dictate their habits in the bedroom are negatively affecting themselves' and that some men who have experienced Anal Sex worry that they might be Homosexual (a fair bet I think). He is concerned that today's man focus's too much on what he believes is his expected part to play sexually, instead of simply enjoying himself. This self proclaimed Sexual Guru, has his wife to bugger him with a strap on dildo. He doesn't believe that a man who allows his girlfriend to sodomise him with said `strap on` is any less of a man, quite the contrary. He believes that if a woman is so repulsed by such a request from her `lover` that she leaves him, then she wasn't worthy of the man's affections anyway.
In the article, he recommends that all men experience the joys of Anal Sex, particularly the `receptacle` part in the `play`. According to Mr Lubarski, the Anus is a very important part of a man's sexuality, and likens it's sensitivity to a woman's clitoris. He advises that men `massage` their prostate gland through the Anus, and suggests that either the owner of the gland, or his girlfriend/wife might do so.
The `News` paper then smugly states that six months ago, in a `poll`, 60% of male readers stated they enjoyed anal stimulation, and 62% of female readers answered that they enjoyed giving their male partners the afore mentioned stimulation.Zany, indeed! Of course, if a woman is `buggering` her man, thereby taking on the male role, then she effectively becomes the dominant partner. Don't tell me this `Freakzoid` Lubarski isn't aware of this fact.
Feminism is the ultra poison of our age. So much of the evil flows from it, it is one the Illuminati's premier vehicles for dispersal, and this latest piece of bile, if adopted/accepted by all those idiot men who can't see the wood for the trees, will be the final nail in the coffin of male patriarchy, soundly hammered in.
This article was printed in a Daily, where children and teenagers would have had easy access to this poison. Danish society along with most others in Western Europe is so far past the point of no return now, that for any decent minded person, the situation is intolerable. How on earth are parents expected to raise their children to be adults with a sound moral base, in a society which openly promotes and flaunts perversion and degradation as being `healthy` practice ?
The `Ekstra Bladet`, a daily `News` Paper here in Denmark ran an article in Sundays edition entitled 'Anal Sex is healthy for men'. The author, a Danish `Sexologist` Mr Robert Lubarski, writes that `men should surrender themselves to their sexuality, and that it was time that the social spotlight was shone on the `Male Orgasm`. He continues that 'Men who allow the accepted male role to dictate their habits in the bedroom are negatively affecting themselves' and that some men who have experienced Anal Sex worry that they might be Homosexual (a fair bet I think). He is concerned that today's man focus's too much on what he believes is his expected part to play sexually, instead of simply enjoying himself. This self proclaimed Sexual Guru, has his wife to bugger him with a strap on dildo. He doesn't believe that a man who allows his girlfriend to sodomise him with said `strap on` is any less of a man, quite the contrary. He believes that if a woman is so repulsed by such a request from her `lover` that she leaves him, then she wasn't worthy of the man's affections anyway.
In the article, he recommends that all men experience the joys of Anal Sex, particularly the `receptacle` part in the `play`. According to Mr Lubarski, the Anus is a very important part of a man's sexuality, and likens it's sensitivity to a woman's clitoris. He advises that men `massage` their prostate gland through the Anus, and suggests that either the owner of the gland, or his girlfriend/wife might do so.
The `News` paper then smugly states that six months ago, in a `poll`, 60% of male readers stated they enjoyed anal stimulation, and 62% of female readers answered that they enjoyed giving their male partners the afore mentioned stimulation.Zany, indeed! Of course, if a woman is `buggering` her man, thereby taking on the male role, then she effectively becomes the dominant partner. Don't tell me this `Freakzoid` Lubarski isn't aware of this fact.
Feminism is the ultra poison of our age. So much of the evil flows from it, it is one the Illuminati's premier vehicles for dispersal, and this latest piece of bile, if adopted/accepted by all those idiot men who can't see the wood for the trees, will be the final nail in the coffin of male patriarchy, soundly hammered in.
This article was printed in a Daily, where children and teenagers would have had easy access to this poison. Danish society along with most others in Western Europe is so far past the point of no return now, that for any decent minded person, the situation is intolerable. How on earth are parents expected to raise their children to be adults with a sound moral base, in a society which openly promotes and flaunts perversion and degradation as being `healthy` practice ?
In Defense of Danish Manhood?
By Philip Jones
I remember as a small boy being completely enthralled by the Hollywood Movie, `The Vikings` starring Kirk Douglas, Tony Curtis and the beautiful Janet Leigh. I must have been around seven years old at the time I first viewed this epic, and in many ways, it stimulated in me a life long interest in history generally and that of Northern Europe particularly. Many books have been written about the `terrible` and fierce men of the north; The `Norsemen` or more famously, `The Vikings.` Such books are generally filled with descriptions of immensely tall, strong and brutal warriors with names like `Harald Bluetooth, Sveyn Forkbeard, Canute the Great, and Brodir.` I think it fair to say that these men were not projecting their masculinity due to any deeply felt feelings of insecurity about their manhood.
By the time I moved to Denmark back in 1995, I had been thoroughly immersed in and fascinated by Viking History, myths and legends for the greater part of thirty years. It is fair to say that I was looking forward to seeing the homeland of my childhood heroes for myself, and actually meeting the descendants of the Vikings. Real men, the sons of warriors.
Now before I continue, I must make it clear that what comes next is not intended as a degradation of Danish men at all . Quite the contrary. But it must also be said that what I found upon arriving in Denmark was not quite what I had expected. Within a short space of time, I was asking the question; “Where were the sons of Odin, the Berserker's, the Wolves of the North Sea?”
With some exceptions, it is true to say that many of the Danish men I have come into contact with these past thirteen or so years, have borne very little resemblance to those warriors described in the `tales of old.` It's not that Danish men appear physically weak or in any way lesser men than anywhere else. In fact, Danish and other Scandinavian men, are generally taller, and more muscular than say Slavs, Scots, Welsh and Irish men for example. No, the difference was in their demeanour. My impression was then and still is that Danish men have been deliberately cowed down, and emasculated by a State apparatus seeking absolute authority over every minute detail of a Danes life. There can be no arguing that here in Denmark, as it would seem with the rest of Scandinavia, the socially strategic `High ground` has been well and truly captured by the `Feminists` with the complicity of successive sitting governments.
Only a few days ago, I was speaking with a young Tunisian woman studying here as an exchange student, and she remarked to me that it appeared to her that it was the women, who `ruled the roost` in Denmark, and she motioned with her hands depicting how one leads a Bull by the Nose. Exactly the same observations were made by another young woman staying here who comes from Moldavia. She is lodging with a Danish family locally and has been astounded at how dominant the wife is, and how compliant the husband is. It should be noted that the husband in question is physically very strong, intelligent and articulate, so why the subservience at home? Danish men have had their self confidence very badly bruised by incessant `pro femi` propaganda, which attacks them on all fronts simultaneously.
Having lived here for many years now, I must say that I can only concur with the comments made by the two young women mentioned above, and furthermore, this `Feminist` dominance, at least on the surface, is across the board and throughout all the public institutions. It seems to me that in order to actually get to deal with another man these days, one has to set one's sets very high up the Corporate or Municipal ladder.
So how were the progeny of `The Vikings` so reduced in stature? Scandinavia is the home of Social Democracy, which in reality is nothing more than `Cultural Marxism.` The whole social ethos of these Northern lands is Marxist to the bone. But there is more to this than first meets the eye. In fact, Danish society can appear to be something of a paradox, with it's flourishing consumerism (somewhat curtailed of late by the world economic downturn) and unashamed materialism on the one hand, neatly wed to a deeply embedded Marxist Socialist spirit on the other. Yet in reality, there is no paradox. What do you get when a Socialist State gets in bed with Monopoly Capitalistism? You get as Mussolini is once quoted as describing, `Corporatism` or rather `Fascism."
That's right, I'm saying that Denmark is a Fascist State. A place whereby even the most minute details of a persons life are regulated and micromanaged by a vast State Bureaucracy. A Totalitarian Regime, elected by an deliberately uninformed and indoctrinated populace.
Back in the 1960's, `equality of the sexes` was adopted as policy by the Social Democrats and placed on the school curriculum. At an early age, conventional ideas of male and female roles were broken down. Boys were taught to sew, girls to do woodwork. So called equality was taken to it's logical conclusion. There was no longer any reason why a father could not stay at home and care for the children whilst the mother went out to work. One of the purposes in predisposing women to work was clearly economic, but I suggest that this is only one `cog in the wheel.
`Men don't like being told what to do. Women are far easier to coerce and manipulate. The greatest obstruction to Totalitarianism is Masculinity. The Danish State like all the other Dictatorships masquerading as democracies, hand in hand with Feminist ideologues, has conspired to emasculate the Danish male to the point where any prospect of some long lost `Viking` mentality rearing it's head in defiance of the suffocating levels of control exercised by the State here would be unthinkable. Instead, as is the case in many other western lands, Danish men console themselves with Sports, DIY and other non idealogical, apolitical diversions, leaving such things very often to what arguably passes for the female here. These `hobbies` are the only outlet left for men to express their masculinity, and the Danes do so with gusto. The Danish National Football (Soccer for North American readers) consistently outperforms sides from much larger countries, and Danish Boxers, although not truly World Class, are to be found around and about every weight division of the various Boxing Authorities. It is similarly the case with other sports.
Gender Role confusion is rampant, particularly in young men and teenage boys. My own Step Son has confided in me many times that he just doesn't understand what girls expect of him. He tells me that they are impossibly argumentative, confrontational, show no respect for the masculine at all. He says that he would like to meet a nice girl and settle down, but he cannot imagine ever finding one.
Danish girls play football, chew gum, shout and behave badly in public, dress slovenly, have bad attitudes and are generally not a good advertisement for the feminine at all. I myself, as a former `Guest Lecturer` have been dumbfounded at the open bias towards girls and young women in the schools and universities here. If anyone reading this doubts my accuracy, please check out the website of any Danish School or University. The preponderance of young women featured in the photographs on these web pages defies any such argument to the contrary. When a young male student is depicted, it is usually some unfortunately effeminate `girlie boy,` with his girlie hair and girlie clothes complete with those hideous girlie shoulder bags.
The whole system is set up to belittle and ridicule the masculine. How many nauseating times have I heard this phrase, “ Macho men are really frightened little boys.” How I hate that one, and challenge any `woman` to say that to my face.
Anyone who has read my previous articles will be aware that my opinion of Danish womanhood is not very positive. There are many pretty young girls to be found here, albeit of the invariably `Jeans and T Shirt` variety. But by the time they reach thirty, they will have almost certainly `morphed` into what I can only term a `non male.` Neither visually male or female. This condition worsens with age and becomes chronic by the time they reach fifty. Once again, if anyone doubts what I am writing, please visit any `Supermarket` in Denmark for confirmation. What I miss is seeing a `classy` well dressed, well groomed mature woman`. Excepting my dear wife, it would appear such a thing does not exist amongst the `Non Royals` here, and if it does, seems unable to survive for very long.
In conclusion, what has been done to Danish men is in many ways what is being done to men all across the world, only here, the condition is extreme. Nothing about the masculine is celebrated. Everything about the `Feminist` (note, I said feminist, not feminine) is automatically taken as being the accepted `Truth` and symbolically carved in stone.
One last point, I was driving back from the local village a month or so ago when I saw some teen aged boys and girls playing football together. Not wishing to appear in any way strange, I parked up some distance away and watched, and saw that almost every time there was a disputed call, the referee (a non male) awarded the decision to the girls. Every time the boys scored, it was disallowed, every time a girl was tackled, she fell to the floor and was awarded a penalty. One could see the heads of the boys dropping, their enthusiasm and will to win being sucked from them, resigned to the hopelessness of their situation. What could they do, everything was against them. Of course, the girls won and jumped around , shouting and screaming, making fun of the opposing team. It was all rather sad, and in many ways, encapsulated what has become of the masculine in Danish Society.
Every now and then though, one gets a glimpse of what once was, when Danish men were the terror of all `Christendom.` Like when recently, the excellent Danish Boxer Mikkail Kessler won the WBA Super Middleweight Belt. In the Danish man, there is a sleeping warrior, waiting for his time to come. The only problem is, that if he waits too much longer, the Aspartame, Fluoride, 21 vaccines per child, Tetra Waves and all the other insidious weapons being used against him and the rest of humanity by the New World Order will have dumbed him down to such a level, that resistance will be impossible.
So, `Sons of Thor` it's now or never. Take back what's yours by right of your ancestors blood and toil, and stop giving in. Turn off the TV, leave the DIY alone and open your eyes to what is being done to you and yours by a government who's only reason for being is to control you, and drip by sodden drip, take away all the fruits of your labour.
I remember as a small boy being completely enthralled by the Hollywood Movie, `The Vikings` starring Kirk Douglas, Tony Curtis and the beautiful Janet Leigh. I must have been around seven years old at the time I first viewed this epic, and in many ways, it stimulated in me a life long interest in history generally and that of Northern Europe particularly. Many books have been written about the `terrible` and fierce men of the north; The `Norsemen` or more famously, `The Vikings.` Such books are generally filled with descriptions of immensely tall, strong and brutal warriors with names like `Harald Bluetooth, Sveyn Forkbeard, Canute the Great, and Brodir.` I think it fair to say that these men were not projecting their masculinity due to any deeply felt feelings of insecurity about their manhood.
By the time I moved to Denmark back in 1995, I had been thoroughly immersed in and fascinated by Viking History, myths and legends for the greater part of thirty years. It is fair to say that I was looking forward to seeing the homeland of my childhood heroes for myself, and actually meeting the descendants of the Vikings. Real men, the sons of warriors.
Now before I continue, I must make it clear that what comes next is not intended as a degradation of Danish men at all . Quite the contrary. But it must also be said that what I found upon arriving in Denmark was not quite what I had expected. Within a short space of time, I was asking the question; “Where were the sons of Odin, the Berserker's, the Wolves of the North Sea?”
With some exceptions, it is true to say that many of the Danish men I have come into contact with these past thirteen or so years, have borne very little resemblance to those warriors described in the `tales of old.` It's not that Danish men appear physically weak or in any way lesser men than anywhere else. In fact, Danish and other Scandinavian men, are generally taller, and more muscular than say Slavs, Scots, Welsh and Irish men for example. No, the difference was in their demeanour. My impression was then and still is that Danish men have been deliberately cowed down, and emasculated by a State apparatus seeking absolute authority over every minute detail of a Danes life. There can be no arguing that here in Denmark, as it would seem with the rest of Scandinavia, the socially strategic `High ground` has been well and truly captured by the `Feminists` with the complicity of successive sitting governments.
Only a few days ago, I was speaking with a young Tunisian woman studying here as an exchange student, and she remarked to me that it appeared to her that it was the women, who `ruled the roost` in Denmark, and she motioned with her hands depicting how one leads a Bull by the Nose. Exactly the same observations were made by another young woman staying here who comes from Moldavia. She is lodging with a Danish family locally and has been astounded at how dominant the wife is, and how compliant the husband is. It should be noted that the husband in question is physically very strong, intelligent and articulate, so why the subservience at home? Danish men have had their self confidence very badly bruised by incessant `pro femi` propaganda, which attacks them on all fronts simultaneously.
Having lived here for many years now, I must say that I can only concur with the comments made by the two young women mentioned above, and furthermore, this `Feminist` dominance, at least on the surface, is across the board and throughout all the public institutions. It seems to me that in order to actually get to deal with another man these days, one has to set one's sets very high up the Corporate or Municipal ladder.
So how were the progeny of `The Vikings` so reduced in stature? Scandinavia is the home of Social Democracy, which in reality is nothing more than `Cultural Marxism.` The whole social ethos of these Northern lands is Marxist to the bone. But there is more to this than first meets the eye. In fact, Danish society can appear to be something of a paradox, with it's flourishing consumerism (somewhat curtailed of late by the world economic downturn) and unashamed materialism on the one hand, neatly wed to a deeply embedded Marxist Socialist spirit on the other. Yet in reality, there is no paradox. What do you get when a Socialist State gets in bed with Monopoly Capitalistism? You get as Mussolini is once quoted as describing, `Corporatism` or rather `Fascism."
That's right, I'm saying that Denmark is a Fascist State. A place whereby even the most minute details of a persons life are regulated and micromanaged by a vast State Bureaucracy. A Totalitarian Regime, elected by an deliberately uninformed and indoctrinated populace.
Back in the 1960's, `equality of the sexes` was adopted as policy by the Social Democrats and placed on the school curriculum. At an early age, conventional ideas of male and female roles were broken down. Boys were taught to sew, girls to do woodwork. So called equality was taken to it's logical conclusion. There was no longer any reason why a father could not stay at home and care for the children whilst the mother went out to work. One of the purposes in predisposing women to work was clearly economic, but I suggest that this is only one `cog in the wheel.
`Men don't like being told what to do. Women are far easier to coerce and manipulate. The greatest obstruction to Totalitarianism is Masculinity. The Danish State like all the other Dictatorships masquerading as democracies, hand in hand with Feminist ideologues, has conspired to emasculate the Danish male to the point where any prospect of some long lost `Viking` mentality rearing it's head in defiance of the suffocating levels of control exercised by the State here would be unthinkable. Instead, as is the case in many other western lands, Danish men console themselves with Sports, DIY and other non idealogical, apolitical diversions, leaving such things very often to what arguably passes for the female here. These `hobbies` are the only outlet left for men to express their masculinity, and the Danes do so with gusto. The Danish National Football (Soccer for North American readers) consistently outperforms sides from much larger countries, and Danish Boxers, although not truly World Class, are to be found around and about every weight division of the various Boxing Authorities. It is similarly the case with other sports.
Gender Role confusion is rampant, particularly in young men and teenage boys. My own Step Son has confided in me many times that he just doesn't understand what girls expect of him. He tells me that they are impossibly argumentative, confrontational, show no respect for the masculine at all. He says that he would like to meet a nice girl and settle down, but he cannot imagine ever finding one.
Danish girls play football, chew gum, shout and behave badly in public, dress slovenly, have bad attitudes and are generally not a good advertisement for the feminine at all. I myself, as a former `Guest Lecturer` have been dumbfounded at the open bias towards girls and young women in the schools and universities here. If anyone reading this doubts my accuracy, please check out the website of any Danish School or University. The preponderance of young women featured in the photographs on these web pages defies any such argument to the contrary. When a young male student is depicted, it is usually some unfortunately effeminate `girlie boy,` with his girlie hair and girlie clothes complete with those hideous girlie shoulder bags.
The whole system is set up to belittle and ridicule the masculine. How many nauseating times have I heard this phrase, “ Macho men are really frightened little boys.” How I hate that one, and challenge any `woman` to say that to my face.
Anyone who has read my previous articles will be aware that my opinion of Danish womanhood is not very positive. There are many pretty young girls to be found here, albeit of the invariably `Jeans and T Shirt` variety. But by the time they reach thirty, they will have almost certainly `morphed` into what I can only term a `non male.` Neither visually male or female. This condition worsens with age and becomes chronic by the time they reach fifty. Once again, if anyone doubts what I am writing, please visit any `Supermarket` in Denmark for confirmation. What I miss is seeing a `classy` well dressed, well groomed mature woman`. Excepting my dear wife, it would appear such a thing does not exist amongst the `Non Royals` here, and if it does, seems unable to survive for very long.
In conclusion, what has been done to Danish men is in many ways what is being done to men all across the world, only here, the condition is extreme. Nothing about the masculine is celebrated. Everything about the `Feminist` (note, I said feminist, not feminine) is automatically taken as being the accepted `Truth` and symbolically carved in stone.
One last point, I was driving back from the local village a month or so ago when I saw some teen aged boys and girls playing football together. Not wishing to appear in any way strange, I parked up some distance away and watched, and saw that almost every time there was a disputed call, the referee (a non male) awarded the decision to the girls. Every time the boys scored, it was disallowed, every time a girl was tackled, she fell to the floor and was awarded a penalty. One could see the heads of the boys dropping, their enthusiasm and will to win being sucked from them, resigned to the hopelessness of their situation. What could they do, everything was against them. Of course, the girls won and jumped around , shouting and screaming, making fun of the opposing team. It was all rather sad, and in many ways, encapsulated what has become of the masculine in Danish Society.
Every now and then though, one gets a glimpse of what once was, when Danish men were the terror of all `Christendom.` Like when recently, the excellent Danish Boxer Mikkail Kessler won the WBA Super Middleweight Belt. In the Danish man, there is a sleeping warrior, waiting for his time to come. The only problem is, that if he waits too much longer, the Aspartame, Fluoride, 21 vaccines per child, Tetra Waves and all the other insidious weapons being used against him and the rest of humanity by the New World Order will have dumbed him down to such a level, that resistance will be impossible.
So, `Sons of Thor` it's now or never. Take back what's yours by right of your ancestors blood and toil, and stop giving in. Turn off the TV, leave the DIY alone and open your eyes to what is being done to you and yours by a government who's only reason for being is to control you, and drip by sodden drip, take away all the fruits of your labour.
Women in Islam: Misconceptions and Outright Lies
By Pervaiz Jamal Ibn Sharrif
Islam gave women rights and privileges at a time when only barbaric manners and values dominated.Yet, some people argue that Islam has alienated women in some domains. In fact, this belief is a misconception. People who say so, may have read about it in a magazine or seen it on TV. A quick examination of the issues judged as unjust to women will certainly correct the misunderstanding.Man as the head of the household: Some people believe that a woman in Islam is regarded as inferior to man since the Quran says (what means):"Men have one degree above women." [Quran 2: 228]In fact, to understand this Quranic verse, you should see another one, related to the issue in question. It reveals the wisdom behind this concept.
In the Quran it also says (what means): "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allaah has given the one more than the other and because men support them from their means." [Quran 4:34]This verse implies that it is a man's duty to support his wife, and not the reverse, but this, in no way, makes him superior to her. In fact, the rights and responsibilities of a woman are equal to those of a man but they are not necessarily identical. Since men and women are not created identical, they have different physical and emotional qualities, jobs and privileges. This does not mean that women are inferior. On the contrary, women are considered crucial members of society in Islam since they are assigned the job of bringing up future generations. People today tend to look down at housewives but, in fact, raising children is one of the most important and difficult tasks. The way a mother brings up her child determines the way he will behave in the future. This duty, which requires patience, love, understanding and wisdom was significantly assigned to women in Islam because her nature suits this job. Allaah The Exalted, in His Wisdom, has assigned a role for each member of the family so that there would be no arguments concerning who should do what. If a sailboat has two leaders, each will want to follow a path, leading ultimately to chaos and even a crash. In the same manner, how many times have your parents fought over some decision because each had their own point of view and wanted to apply it? This is precisely why it is preferable to have one leader for each household. However, this does not give the leader the right to be a dictator, or to neglect the role of his companion. This does not make him superior to other members of his family. It just gives him a larger duty.
Inheritance: Some people claim that Islam is unjust towards women because it entitles them to inherit half of what men get. In fact, those people only know one side of the truth. First, the principle of women inheriting half the money is only applicable in 45 percent of the cases. In the other 55 percent, women inherit the same amount or sometimes even more. For example, a mother and a father each inherit the sixth of their son's property when they are not the only inheritors.In addition, the laws of inheritance in Islam are proportional to the duties of spending. Indeed, a man in Islam has the responsibility of supporting his family, his brother's children (when his brother dies), his parents (when they retire and do not have an income), his children from his previous marriage (if he has them) and his household, including his wife and children. A woman, on the other hand, does not bear this responsibility. She has the freedom to use the money she collects from her dowry or work as she pleases.
You might object here, saying that women today are working and helping their husbands pay the expenses, which entitles them to share equality with men. In fact, you should know that women's economic assistance to their husbands, which has become the norm today, is only an answer to the females’ wishes. Islam does not oblige women to spend on their households. It is a free choice many women have themselves taken today to feel more liberated, so it does not entitle them to a bigger portion of the inheritance.
Polygyny: Polygyamy is one of the most questioned principles that Islam grants men and women. Indeed, many people wrongfully accuse Islam of injustice because it allows a man to have up to four wives. Nevertheless, like every instruction in the Quran, polygamy has a reason. You see, Islam is a practical religion that acknowledges the needs and temptations of human beings and provides laws that deal with them, thus preserving harmony and morality.
· Polygyamy might be the solution for a couple if the wife is barren, the husband wants children of his own and the option of separation does not appeal to both parties.
· If a woman is chronically ill and is unable to perform her marital duties. Polygyny may also be the solution when the couple does not want divorce.
· Polygyamy is the religion's answer to cases where some men have excessive sexual needs that cannot be fulfilled by one wife. This in no way means that men should abuse this right and use it whenever they fancy a woman. It is rather a chance Islam has provided to prevent men from committing adultery. Many people who condemn polygyny cheat on their wives, calling this phenomenon a 'swift affair.' Islam, at least, has offered the second woman the option of being called 'a wife' rather than 'a mistress', especially in some countries where women remarkably outnumber men.
· Polygyamy may settle the problem of an increased number of unmarried women, especially during wars.
However, polygyamy has some limits and conditions to be met. Indeed, the Quran instructs the man to be fair with his wives on all levels, including treatment, money, house, etc. The only level where the man may have an uneven stance is the level of the feelings that he cannot control:
The Quran says (what means): "You will never be able to do perfect justice between wives even if it is your ardent desire, so do not incline too much to one of them [by giving her more of your time and provision] so as to leave the other hanging [i.e. neither divorced nor married]. And if you do justice, and do all that is right and fear Allaah by keeping away from all that is wrong, then Allaah is Ever-Forgiving and All-Merciful." [Quran 4:129]
Finally, it is worth knowing that Islam gives a woman the right to refuse polygyamy for her husband by setting it as a condition during the marriage procedures. If this condition is set, then the woman is granted divorce if her husband marries another while he is still married to her.
You might ask, why could not there be polyandry (a woman having more than one husband)? The answer is simple. Islam did not allow it because Allaah is All-Aware that it will create a problem of kinship. This means that the child may not know who is actually his father (it could be anyone of the four husbands). In addition to the psychological damage it may cause, this problem also complicates the issue of inheritance. Even birds and animals do not allow polyandry.
Divorce
Islam considers marriage a basis for the Islamic family, since it develops bonds of love and caring and a secure atmosphere for the growth and progress of the human race. This, in turn, produces a sound society. This is why the Prophet taught us in a narration, that although classified ‘weak’, has a valid and important meaning. He said: "The most detestable of all lawful things in the sight of Allaah is divorce."However, this does not mean that divorce is prohibited. On the contrary, it can sometimes be the best alternative. Divorce is a right for both women and men if their problems cannot be solved. Two French legislators, Planoil and Ripert, have said: "Divorce is a mischief. However, it is a measure that cannot be avoided for the welfare of the community, because it is the only remedy for another harm which may be more dangerous, i.e. murder."
The above statement applies to cases where the husband and wife have lost their love for each other and where harmony in the marriage is over. Indeed, any other alternative will make them unhappy and will affect their children in the long run.In these cases, Islam advises the couple to try to reconcile their differences in the presence of some immediate relatives belonging to both sides. If they are unable to do so, they are instructed to seek counseling through a third party, such as friends or other relatives. If there is still no solution, then they should seek a solution through a judge.
The judge will advise the couple to be patient and think of the children. However, if the problem remains unsolved, the family life becomes unbearable and the children are affected, then divorce becomes the only alternative, to enable them to have other spouses.
When it is inescapable, divorce is neither harmful to men nor to women. It is also definitely not unjust to women. First, the couple must seek divorce in an amicable way. They are instructed to separate without hard feelings towards each other. They should keep a minimum of understanding that will secure the children's situation after the divorce.
The Quran says (what means): "Divorce is twice. Then [after that], either keep [her] in an acceptable manner or release [her] with good treatment. And it is not lawful for you to take anything of what you have given them unless both fear that they will not be able to keep [within] the limits of Allaah, and then there is no blame upon either of them concerning that by which she ransoms herself. These are the limits of Allaah, so do not transgress them. And whoever transgresses the limits of Allaah -- it is those who are the wrongdoers [i.e. the unjust]." [Quran 2: 229]
In Islam, the woman is not neglected after the divorce. Indeed husbands are instructed to provide housing to the divorced wife until her waiting period is completed, as in the saying of Allaah (which means): "Lodge them (During their waiting period (referring to wives whose divorce has been pronounced) [in a section] of where you dwell out of your means and do not harm them in order to oppress them (so that they would be forced to leave or to ransom themselves). And if they should be pregnant, then spend on them until they give birth. And if they breastfeed for you, then give them their payment and confer among yourselves in the acceptable way; but if you are in discord, then there may breastfeed for him [i.e. the father] another woman." [Quran: 65:6]
Finally, although it is true that only men are allowed to pronounce divorce, yet a woman has the right to ask for a divorce, which is called ‘Khul’. In this case, she has to return the dowry given by the husband, so that he utters the divorce.
Attestations
In Islam, one male witness equals two females: The Quran says (what means): "And get two witnesses out of your men. If there are not two men, then a man and two women such as you choose [maybe in place of two men as the witnesses]; so that if one of the women errs, the other one will remind her..." [Quran 2:282]
Here again, many people tend to denounce Islamic principles as unjust to women. They tend to interpret this requirement as proof of men's superiority over women. Again, this assumption is not true. In fact, various psychological and biological studies conducted on the psyche and hormonal functions of women, have proved that men generally tend to react more rationally and less emotionally, than women.
In cases of crime, for example, torn bodies and pouring blood are more likely to spur an emotional reaction among women than among men. This reaction is alone capable of distorting the female's perception and/or memory.
On the other hand, men are also bound by rules concerning their testimony. For instance, they must not be parents, friends or enemies of the accused. Can we then conclude that, if it was the case for women, that male parents and friends of the accused must be considered inferior too? Of course, they are not.
Finally, one should note that there are matters where a woman is the only witness required. These are related to areas where women are the experts, for example, in issues of breast feeding, bringing up children and the question of kinship (who is her child's father).
The Veil
How many times have you seen an educated veiled woman, working and acting normally on television ? Very, very rarely. On the other hand, how many times have you seen a veiled woman being hit by her husband, in tears or fighting and rioting along with fundamentalists?
Just think: What does a black 'Hijaab' veil evoke in your mind? Certainly not the image it is meant to evoke -- religious commitment and peaceful, deep-rooted faith. How many times have you seen a veiled young girl and said: "Haraam! Poor thing! She has not seen the world yet..." Is all this just a coincidence?Veiled women today are either associated with alienation or fundamentalism. They are either looked upon with pity or fear. Have people ever asked the question: Where is the woman's will to surrender to God in this? Where is her choice of protecting her dearest possession, her body?
When Islam ordered women to wear the veil, it did it to privilege her, not constrain her:
The Quran says (what means): "O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw upon them their over-garments. That is more appropriate so that they may be recognized and not molested." [Quran 33: 59]
The above verses show that Islam aims to protect women from being considered sexual objects. It instructs women to uncover their faces in front of their husband, close relatives whom she cannot marry (Mahaarim) and other women. In front of strangers, she must conceal everything but her face and hands.
Why does one need to show a semi-clad woman in a car's advertisement? Why do we not see a veiled woman? In the first case, because the advertisers are trying to sell the image of the woman with the car. Unconsciously, you buy the car wishing it will provide you with such a "babe." In the second case, the woman has refused to be treated as an object for trade and has worn the veil, a sign of dignity rather than humiliation.
Among the many topics of interest to non-Muslims, the status of Muslim women and the theme of their rights -- or rather, the perceived lack of them – seems to be foremost. The media’s portrayal of Muslim women, usually outlining their “oppression and mystery” seems to contribute to this negative perception.
The main reason for this is that people often fail to distinguish between culture and religion -- two things that are completely different. In fact, Islam condemns oppression of any kind whether it is towards a woman or humankind in general.The Quran is the sacred book by which Muslims live. This book was revealed 1400 years ago to a man named Muhammad , who would later become the Prophet . Fourteen centuries have passed and this book has not been changed since, not one letter has been altered.In chapter 33, entitled Soorah Al-Ahzaab (The Clans), verse 59 Allaah The Exalted Almighty Says (what means): "O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the woman of the believers to bring down over themselves (part) of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known (as free respectable women) and not be abused. And ever is Allaah Forgiving and Merciful." [Quran 33:59] This verse shows that Islam makes wearing a Hijaab necessary. Hijaab is the word used for covering, not only the headscarves (as some people may think) but also wearing loose clothes that are not too bright.Sometimes, people see covered Muslim women and they think of this as oppression. This is wrong. A Muslim woman is not oppressed, in fact, she is liberated. This is because she is no longer valued for something material, such as her good looks or the shape of her body. She compels others to judge her for her intelligence, kindness, honesty and personality. Therefore, people judge her for who she actually is.When Muslim women cover their hair and wear loose clothes, they are obeying the orders of their Lord to be modest, not cultural or social mores. In fact, Christian nuns cover their hair out of modesty, yet no one considers them “oppressed”. By following the command of Allaah, Muslim women are doing the exact same thing.
The lives of the people who responded to the Quran have changed drastically. It had a tremendous impact on so many people, especially women, since this was the first time that the souls of man and women were declared equal -- with the same obligations as well as the same rewards. For the first time in history, women were granted economic independence in Islam. The money they bring in to marriage is theirs as well as the money they earn. In Islam, women are allowed to choose their own husbands and in extreme cases, ask for divorce. A woman has the right to be educated, contrary to what the contemporary world might think. The responsibility is that of the person who is raising her. Islam is a religion that holds women in high regard. Long ago, when baby boys were born, they brought great joy to the family. The birth of a girl was greeted with considerably less joy and enthusiasm. Sometimes, girls were hated so much that they were buried alive. Islam has always been against this irrational discrimination against girls and female infanticide.
The Prophet Muhammad, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wasallam, said: "Seeking knowledge is mandatory for every Muslim (male and female)." Men and women both have the capacity for learning and understanding. Since it is also their obligation to promote good behavior and condemn bad behavior in all spheres of life, Muslim women must acquire the appropriate education to perform this duty in accordance with their own natural talents and interests.While maintenance of their homes, providing support to the husband and bearing, raising and teaching children are among the first and very highly regarded roles for a woman, if she has the skills to work outside the home for the good of the community, she may do so. However, this is allowed only as long as her family obligations are met and as long as she complies with the Islamic code of dress and conduct, with no intermingling with men in the workplace. Islam recognizes and fosters the natural differences between men and women despite their equality. Some types of work are more suitable for men and other types for women. This differentiation in no way diminishes the effort or benefit of one gender over the other. God will reward both genders equally for the value of their work, though it may not necessarily be within the same sphere of activity.
The two great roles a woman plays in life are that of a wife and a mother. The Prophet , once said to a group of Companions : "The best among you are those who are the best to their wives." This shows that Islam highly encourages treating the wives well. They should be shown love, respect and care. To foster the love and security that comes with marriage, Muslim wives have various rights. The first of the wife's rights is to receive dowry, a gift from the husband, which is part of the marriage contract and required for the legality of the marriage. The second right of a wife is maintenance. Despite any wealth she may have, her husband is obligated to provide her with food, shelter and clothing. He is not forced, however, to spend beyond his capability and his wife is not entitled to make unreasonable demands.
Concerning motherhood, the Prophet Muhammad, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wasallam, said: "Heaven lies under the feet of mothers." This implies that the success of a society can be traced to the mothers who raised it. The first and greatest influence on a person comes from the sense of security, affection and training received from the mother. Therefore, a woman having children must be educated and conscientious in order to be a skillful parent. A man came to the Prophet, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wasallam, and asked: "Who among my kinfolk is worthy of my good companionship?" The Prophet , replied: "Your mother" three times before saying: "Your father." This indicates the impact that a mother has in a person's life. So women are highly honored in this great religion.Islam is a religion that treats women fairly. The Muslim woman was given a role, duties and rights 1400 years ago that most women do not enjoy even today in the West. These rights are from God and are designed to maintain a balance in society; what may seem “unjust” or “missing” in one place is compensated for or explained in another place.
Since the height of the feminist movement in the late 70's there has been a magnifying glass placed over the status of Muslim women. Unfortunately, the magnifying glass that has been used is an unusual one. Unusual in the sense that it is very selective about which items it will magnify; other items it will distort to such a degree that they will no longer look familiar. I remember once reading an "in depth" article about the lives of Muslim women. This article "explained" that at any time a man can divorce his wife by simply stating "I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you". This article can lead anyone ignorant of the Islamic ruling regarding divorce to believe that in less than five seconds the woman is left with no husband and is left to care for herself (and possibly children) by any means necessary. The question that immediately popped up in my mind was, "Did the author innocently write that out of sincere ignorance or was it another of the many attempts to degrade the religion of Islam and its followers (Muslims)?" It may be out of paranoia, but I tend to believe it was the latter of the two. The truth of the matter is that Islam has the most humane and most just system of divorce that exists. Firstly, many options are taken and tried before coming to the decision of divorce. If the man and woman decide that they can no longer live together successfully as a husband and wife, the husband (in most cases, not always) pronounces the divorce by saying "I divorce you". At this point the waiting period begins. The waiting period lasts for three menstrual cycles to assure the woman is not pregnant. This period allows the couple time to think about what they are doing and if this is what they really want to do. There are no lawyers involved to antagonize an already delicate situation. In the case that it is realized, that the woman is pregnant, the waiting period lasts the entire time she is pregnant. During the waiting period (whether the woman is pregnant or not) the man is obligated to provide food, clothing and shelter to the woman as he did before the divorce pronouncement. If the couple carries the divorce through to the birth of the child and the woman suckles the baby, the man is obligated to feed and clothe both his ex-wife for the time the woman suckles (the maximum being two years). After his weaning, the child will be provided for by the father until he/she is no longer in need of support. It is quite ironic that in such an "advanced society" as America, there are divorce cases in which women are being forced to pay alimony to their ex-husbands. Can this and many other things we know about the American system of divorce compare to the Islamic system of divorce?
I have also read stories wherein it is stated that women are forced to marry men without their consent. This in no way resembles the marriage system in Islam. In Islam the woman marries the man of her choice. She may even marry someone that her mother and/or father objects to. The point is that it is the woman who makes the final decision as to whom she will marry. Once the man and the woman decide that they are interested in one another for marriage, a dowry is decided upon. A dowry is not a bride’s price but it is a gift from the groom to the bride. They agree upon a gift that is affordable by the groom. In the time of the Prophet , often things such as livestock and money were given. This is a wise decision in the event that a woman becomes divorced or widowed, she has some financial security to fall back on even if it is for a limited amount of time. Once the man and woman are married, the man is required to clothe, feed, shelter and educate her (or allow her to be educated) in the same manner as he does himself. The last distorted image that I will cover is that of the Muslim women's dress. The western-influenced media portrays our dress to be outdated and oppressive. Needless to say, I differ with these adjectives. Our dress code does not hinder us from doing anything productive in our lives. Muslim women maintain a variety of jobs, none of which are devalued nor hampered due to their dress code. And as for the timing of Muslim women's dress during these contemporary times, it seems most appropriate due to decreasing morals in the world today. For those who say that Islamic dress is outdated, they speak from great ignorance. The decreasing morality and trials of this time makes Hijab even more in need. More than ever before sex crimes are rampant. Although this society tells women they can wear what they want to wear, anytime a rape occurs the woman is the one put on trial and one of the first questions is, "What were you wearing?" This concept seems as though it is a set up directed against the so-called contemporary woman. Also there is a direct correlation between the respect a man has for a woman and the amount of her body she displays flauntingly.
In conclusion, I hope this article helps to clear up some distorted/misunderstood aspects of Islam and women. Women in Islam are respected and held in high regard. We will never find success and/or solutions to our problems until we realize that Allaah knows best and that this disbelieving society will ruin itself.
Pervaiz Jamal Ibn Shariff.
Islam gave women rights and privileges at a time when only barbaric manners and values dominated.Yet, some people argue that Islam has alienated women in some domains. In fact, this belief is a misconception. People who say so, may have read about it in a magazine or seen it on TV. A quick examination of the issues judged as unjust to women will certainly correct the misunderstanding.Man as the head of the household: Some people believe that a woman in Islam is regarded as inferior to man since the Quran says (what means):"Men have one degree above women." [Quran 2: 228]In fact, to understand this Quranic verse, you should see another one, related to the issue in question. It reveals the wisdom behind this concept.
In the Quran it also says (what means): "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allaah has given the one more than the other and because men support them from their means." [Quran 4:34]This verse implies that it is a man's duty to support his wife, and not the reverse, but this, in no way, makes him superior to her. In fact, the rights and responsibilities of a woman are equal to those of a man but they are not necessarily identical. Since men and women are not created identical, they have different physical and emotional qualities, jobs and privileges. This does not mean that women are inferior. On the contrary, women are considered crucial members of society in Islam since they are assigned the job of bringing up future generations. People today tend to look down at housewives but, in fact, raising children is one of the most important and difficult tasks. The way a mother brings up her child determines the way he will behave in the future. This duty, which requires patience, love, understanding and wisdom was significantly assigned to women in Islam because her nature suits this job. Allaah The Exalted, in His Wisdom, has assigned a role for each member of the family so that there would be no arguments concerning who should do what. If a sailboat has two leaders, each will want to follow a path, leading ultimately to chaos and even a crash. In the same manner, how many times have your parents fought over some decision because each had their own point of view and wanted to apply it? This is precisely why it is preferable to have one leader for each household. However, this does not give the leader the right to be a dictator, or to neglect the role of his companion. This does not make him superior to other members of his family. It just gives him a larger duty.
Inheritance: Some people claim that Islam is unjust towards women because it entitles them to inherit half of what men get. In fact, those people only know one side of the truth. First, the principle of women inheriting half the money is only applicable in 45 percent of the cases. In the other 55 percent, women inherit the same amount or sometimes even more. For example, a mother and a father each inherit the sixth of their son's property when they are not the only inheritors.In addition, the laws of inheritance in Islam are proportional to the duties of spending. Indeed, a man in Islam has the responsibility of supporting his family, his brother's children (when his brother dies), his parents (when they retire and do not have an income), his children from his previous marriage (if he has them) and his household, including his wife and children. A woman, on the other hand, does not bear this responsibility. She has the freedom to use the money she collects from her dowry or work as she pleases.
You might object here, saying that women today are working and helping their husbands pay the expenses, which entitles them to share equality with men. In fact, you should know that women's economic assistance to their husbands, which has become the norm today, is only an answer to the females’ wishes. Islam does not oblige women to spend on their households. It is a free choice many women have themselves taken today to feel more liberated, so it does not entitle them to a bigger portion of the inheritance.
Polygyny: Polygyamy is one of the most questioned principles that Islam grants men and women. Indeed, many people wrongfully accuse Islam of injustice because it allows a man to have up to four wives. Nevertheless, like every instruction in the Quran, polygamy has a reason. You see, Islam is a practical religion that acknowledges the needs and temptations of human beings and provides laws that deal with them, thus preserving harmony and morality.
· Polygyamy might be the solution for a couple if the wife is barren, the husband wants children of his own and the option of separation does not appeal to both parties.
· If a woman is chronically ill and is unable to perform her marital duties. Polygyny may also be the solution when the couple does not want divorce.
· Polygyamy is the religion's answer to cases where some men have excessive sexual needs that cannot be fulfilled by one wife. This in no way means that men should abuse this right and use it whenever they fancy a woman. It is rather a chance Islam has provided to prevent men from committing adultery. Many people who condemn polygyny cheat on their wives, calling this phenomenon a 'swift affair.' Islam, at least, has offered the second woman the option of being called 'a wife' rather than 'a mistress', especially in some countries where women remarkably outnumber men.
· Polygyamy may settle the problem of an increased number of unmarried women, especially during wars.
However, polygyamy has some limits and conditions to be met. Indeed, the Quran instructs the man to be fair with his wives on all levels, including treatment, money, house, etc. The only level where the man may have an uneven stance is the level of the feelings that he cannot control:
The Quran says (what means): "You will never be able to do perfect justice between wives even if it is your ardent desire, so do not incline too much to one of them [by giving her more of your time and provision] so as to leave the other hanging [i.e. neither divorced nor married]. And if you do justice, and do all that is right and fear Allaah by keeping away from all that is wrong, then Allaah is Ever-Forgiving and All-Merciful." [Quran 4:129]
Finally, it is worth knowing that Islam gives a woman the right to refuse polygyamy for her husband by setting it as a condition during the marriage procedures. If this condition is set, then the woman is granted divorce if her husband marries another while he is still married to her.
You might ask, why could not there be polyandry (a woman having more than one husband)? The answer is simple. Islam did not allow it because Allaah is All-Aware that it will create a problem of kinship. This means that the child may not know who is actually his father (it could be anyone of the four husbands). In addition to the psychological damage it may cause, this problem also complicates the issue of inheritance. Even birds and animals do not allow polyandry.
Divorce
Islam considers marriage a basis for the Islamic family, since it develops bonds of love and caring and a secure atmosphere for the growth and progress of the human race. This, in turn, produces a sound society. This is why the Prophet taught us in a narration, that although classified ‘weak’, has a valid and important meaning. He said: "The most detestable of all lawful things in the sight of Allaah is divorce."However, this does not mean that divorce is prohibited. On the contrary, it can sometimes be the best alternative. Divorce is a right for both women and men if their problems cannot be solved. Two French legislators, Planoil and Ripert, have said: "Divorce is a mischief. However, it is a measure that cannot be avoided for the welfare of the community, because it is the only remedy for another harm which may be more dangerous, i.e. murder."
The above statement applies to cases where the husband and wife have lost their love for each other and where harmony in the marriage is over. Indeed, any other alternative will make them unhappy and will affect their children in the long run.In these cases, Islam advises the couple to try to reconcile their differences in the presence of some immediate relatives belonging to both sides. If they are unable to do so, they are instructed to seek counseling through a third party, such as friends or other relatives. If there is still no solution, then they should seek a solution through a judge.
The judge will advise the couple to be patient and think of the children. However, if the problem remains unsolved, the family life becomes unbearable and the children are affected, then divorce becomes the only alternative, to enable them to have other spouses.
When it is inescapable, divorce is neither harmful to men nor to women. It is also definitely not unjust to women. First, the couple must seek divorce in an amicable way. They are instructed to separate without hard feelings towards each other. They should keep a minimum of understanding that will secure the children's situation after the divorce.
The Quran says (what means): "Divorce is twice. Then [after that], either keep [her] in an acceptable manner or release [her] with good treatment. And it is not lawful for you to take anything of what you have given them unless both fear that they will not be able to keep [within] the limits of Allaah, and then there is no blame upon either of them concerning that by which she ransoms herself. These are the limits of Allaah, so do not transgress them. And whoever transgresses the limits of Allaah -- it is those who are the wrongdoers [i.e. the unjust]." [Quran 2: 229]
In Islam, the woman is not neglected after the divorce. Indeed husbands are instructed to provide housing to the divorced wife until her waiting period is completed, as in the saying of Allaah (which means): "Lodge them (During their waiting period (referring to wives whose divorce has been pronounced) [in a section] of where you dwell out of your means and do not harm them in order to oppress them (so that they would be forced to leave or to ransom themselves). And if they should be pregnant, then spend on them until they give birth. And if they breastfeed for you, then give them their payment and confer among yourselves in the acceptable way; but if you are in discord, then there may breastfeed for him [i.e. the father] another woman." [Quran: 65:6]
Finally, although it is true that only men are allowed to pronounce divorce, yet a woman has the right to ask for a divorce, which is called ‘Khul’. In this case, she has to return the dowry given by the husband, so that he utters the divorce.
Attestations
In Islam, one male witness equals two females: The Quran says (what means): "And get two witnesses out of your men. If there are not two men, then a man and two women such as you choose [maybe in place of two men as the witnesses]; so that if one of the women errs, the other one will remind her..." [Quran 2:282]
Here again, many people tend to denounce Islamic principles as unjust to women. They tend to interpret this requirement as proof of men's superiority over women. Again, this assumption is not true. In fact, various psychological and biological studies conducted on the psyche and hormonal functions of women, have proved that men generally tend to react more rationally and less emotionally, than women.
In cases of crime, for example, torn bodies and pouring blood are more likely to spur an emotional reaction among women than among men. This reaction is alone capable of distorting the female's perception and/or memory.
On the other hand, men are also bound by rules concerning their testimony. For instance, they must not be parents, friends or enemies of the accused. Can we then conclude that, if it was the case for women, that male parents and friends of the accused must be considered inferior too? Of course, they are not.
Finally, one should note that there are matters where a woman is the only witness required. These are related to areas where women are the experts, for example, in issues of breast feeding, bringing up children and the question of kinship (who is her child's father).
The Veil
How many times have you seen an educated veiled woman, working and acting normally on television ? Very, very rarely. On the other hand, how many times have you seen a veiled woman being hit by her husband, in tears or fighting and rioting along with fundamentalists?
Just think: What does a black 'Hijaab' veil evoke in your mind? Certainly not the image it is meant to evoke -- religious commitment and peaceful, deep-rooted faith. How many times have you seen a veiled young girl and said: "Haraam! Poor thing! She has not seen the world yet..." Is all this just a coincidence?Veiled women today are either associated with alienation or fundamentalism. They are either looked upon with pity or fear. Have people ever asked the question: Where is the woman's will to surrender to God in this? Where is her choice of protecting her dearest possession, her body?
When Islam ordered women to wear the veil, it did it to privilege her, not constrain her:
The Quran says (what means): "O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw upon them their over-garments. That is more appropriate so that they may be recognized and not molested." [Quran 33: 59]
The above verses show that Islam aims to protect women from being considered sexual objects. It instructs women to uncover their faces in front of their husband, close relatives whom she cannot marry (Mahaarim) and other women. In front of strangers, she must conceal everything but her face and hands.
Why does one need to show a semi-clad woman in a car's advertisement? Why do we not see a veiled woman? In the first case, because the advertisers are trying to sell the image of the woman with the car. Unconsciously, you buy the car wishing it will provide you with such a "babe." In the second case, the woman has refused to be treated as an object for trade and has worn the veil, a sign of dignity rather than humiliation.
Among the many topics of interest to non-Muslims, the status of Muslim women and the theme of their rights -- or rather, the perceived lack of them – seems to be foremost. The media’s portrayal of Muslim women, usually outlining their “oppression and mystery” seems to contribute to this negative perception.
The main reason for this is that people often fail to distinguish between culture and religion -- two things that are completely different. In fact, Islam condemns oppression of any kind whether it is towards a woman or humankind in general.The Quran is the sacred book by which Muslims live. This book was revealed 1400 years ago to a man named Muhammad , who would later become the Prophet . Fourteen centuries have passed and this book has not been changed since, not one letter has been altered.In chapter 33, entitled Soorah Al-Ahzaab (The Clans), verse 59 Allaah The Exalted Almighty Says (what means): "O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the woman of the believers to bring down over themselves (part) of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known (as free respectable women) and not be abused. And ever is Allaah Forgiving and Merciful." [Quran 33:59] This verse shows that Islam makes wearing a Hijaab necessary. Hijaab is the word used for covering, not only the headscarves (as some people may think) but also wearing loose clothes that are not too bright.Sometimes, people see covered Muslim women and they think of this as oppression. This is wrong. A Muslim woman is not oppressed, in fact, she is liberated. This is because she is no longer valued for something material, such as her good looks or the shape of her body. She compels others to judge her for her intelligence, kindness, honesty and personality. Therefore, people judge her for who she actually is.When Muslim women cover their hair and wear loose clothes, they are obeying the orders of their Lord to be modest, not cultural or social mores. In fact, Christian nuns cover their hair out of modesty, yet no one considers them “oppressed”. By following the command of Allaah, Muslim women are doing the exact same thing.
The lives of the people who responded to the Quran have changed drastically. It had a tremendous impact on so many people, especially women, since this was the first time that the souls of man and women were declared equal -- with the same obligations as well as the same rewards. For the first time in history, women were granted economic independence in Islam. The money they bring in to marriage is theirs as well as the money they earn. In Islam, women are allowed to choose their own husbands and in extreme cases, ask for divorce. A woman has the right to be educated, contrary to what the contemporary world might think. The responsibility is that of the person who is raising her. Islam is a religion that holds women in high regard. Long ago, when baby boys were born, they brought great joy to the family. The birth of a girl was greeted with considerably less joy and enthusiasm. Sometimes, girls were hated so much that they were buried alive. Islam has always been against this irrational discrimination against girls and female infanticide.
The Prophet Muhammad, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wasallam, said: "Seeking knowledge is mandatory for every Muslim (male and female)." Men and women both have the capacity for learning and understanding. Since it is also their obligation to promote good behavior and condemn bad behavior in all spheres of life, Muslim women must acquire the appropriate education to perform this duty in accordance with their own natural talents and interests.While maintenance of their homes, providing support to the husband and bearing, raising and teaching children are among the first and very highly regarded roles for a woman, if she has the skills to work outside the home for the good of the community, she may do so. However, this is allowed only as long as her family obligations are met and as long as she complies with the Islamic code of dress and conduct, with no intermingling with men in the workplace. Islam recognizes and fosters the natural differences between men and women despite their equality. Some types of work are more suitable for men and other types for women. This differentiation in no way diminishes the effort or benefit of one gender over the other. God will reward both genders equally for the value of their work, though it may not necessarily be within the same sphere of activity.
The two great roles a woman plays in life are that of a wife and a mother. The Prophet , once said to a group of Companions : "The best among you are those who are the best to their wives." This shows that Islam highly encourages treating the wives well. They should be shown love, respect and care. To foster the love and security that comes with marriage, Muslim wives have various rights. The first of the wife's rights is to receive dowry, a gift from the husband, which is part of the marriage contract and required for the legality of the marriage. The second right of a wife is maintenance. Despite any wealth she may have, her husband is obligated to provide her with food, shelter and clothing. He is not forced, however, to spend beyond his capability and his wife is not entitled to make unreasonable demands.
Concerning motherhood, the Prophet Muhammad, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wasallam, said: "Heaven lies under the feet of mothers." This implies that the success of a society can be traced to the mothers who raised it. The first and greatest influence on a person comes from the sense of security, affection and training received from the mother. Therefore, a woman having children must be educated and conscientious in order to be a skillful parent. A man came to the Prophet, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wasallam, and asked: "Who among my kinfolk is worthy of my good companionship?" The Prophet , replied: "Your mother" three times before saying: "Your father." This indicates the impact that a mother has in a person's life. So women are highly honored in this great religion.Islam is a religion that treats women fairly. The Muslim woman was given a role, duties and rights 1400 years ago that most women do not enjoy even today in the West. These rights are from God and are designed to maintain a balance in society; what may seem “unjust” or “missing” in one place is compensated for or explained in another place.
Since the height of the feminist movement in the late 70's there has been a magnifying glass placed over the status of Muslim women. Unfortunately, the magnifying glass that has been used is an unusual one. Unusual in the sense that it is very selective about which items it will magnify; other items it will distort to such a degree that they will no longer look familiar. I remember once reading an "in depth" article about the lives of Muslim women. This article "explained" that at any time a man can divorce his wife by simply stating "I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you". This article can lead anyone ignorant of the Islamic ruling regarding divorce to believe that in less than five seconds the woman is left with no husband and is left to care for herself (and possibly children) by any means necessary. The question that immediately popped up in my mind was, "Did the author innocently write that out of sincere ignorance or was it another of the many attempts to degrade the religion of Islam and its followers (Muslims)?" It may be out of paranoia, but I tend to believe it was the latter of the two. The truth of the matter is that Islam has the most humane and most just system of divorce that exists. Firstly, many options are taken and tried before coming to the decision of divorce. If the man and woman decide that they can no longer live together successfully as a husband and wife, the husband (in most cases, not always) pronounces the divorce by saying "I divorce you". At this point the waiting period begins. The waiting period lasts for three menstrual cycles to assure the woman is not pregnant. This period allows the couple time to think about what they are doing and if this is what they really want to do. There are no lawyers involved to antagonize an already delicate situation. In the case that it is realized, that the woman is pregnant, the waiting period lasts the entire time she is pregnant. During the waiting period (whether the woman is pregnant or not) the man is obligated to provide food, clothing and shelter to the woman as he did before the divorce pronouncement. If the couple carries the divorce through to the birth of the child and the woman suckles the baby, the man is obligated to feed and clothe both his ex-wife for the time the woman suckles (the maximum being two years). After his weaning, the child will be provided for by the father until he/she is no longer in need of support. It is quite ironic that in such an "advanced society" as America, there are divorce cases in which women are being forced to pay alimony to their ex-husbands. Can this and many other things we know about the American system of divorce compare to the Islamic system of divorce?
I have also read stories wherein it is stated that women are forced to marry men without their consent. This in no way resembles the marriage system in Islam. In Islam the woman marries the man of her choice. She may even marry someone that her mother and/or father objects to. The point is that it is the woman who makes the final decision as to whom she will marry. Once the man and the woman decide that they are interested in one another for marriage, a dowry is decided upon. A dowry is not a bride’s price but it is a gift from the groom to the bride. They agree upon a gift that is affordable by the groom. In the time of the Prophet , often things such as livestock and money were given. This is a wise decision in the event that a woman becomes divorced or widowed, she has some financial security to fall back on even if it is for a limited amount of time. Once the man and woman are married, the man is required to clothe, feed, shelter and educate her (or allow her to be educated) in the same manner as he does himself. The last distorted image that I will cover is that of the Muslim women's dress. The western-influenced media portrays our dress to be outdated and oppressive. Needless to say, I differ with these adjectives. Our dress code does not hinder us from doing anything productive in our lives. Muslim women maintain a variety of jobs, none of which are devalued nor hampered due to their dress code. And as for the timing of Muslim women's dress during these contemporary times, it seems most appropriate due to decreasing morals in the world today. For those who say that Islamic dress is outdated, they speak from great ignorance. The decreasing morality and trials of this time makes Hijab even more in need. More than ever before sex crimes are rampant. Although this society tells women they can wear what they want to wear, anytime a rape occurs the woman is the one put on trial and one of the first questions is, "What were you wearing?" This concept seems as though it is a set up directed against the so-called contemporary woman. Also there is a direct correlation between the respect a man has for a woman and the amount of her body she displays flauntingly.
In conclusion, I hope this article helps to clear up some distorted/misunderstood aspects of Islam and women. Women in Islam are respected and held in high regard. We will never find success and/or solutions to our problems until we realize that Allaah knows best and that this disbelieving society will ruin itself.
Pervaiz Jamal Ibn Shariff.
Sotomayor and the Selling of America
By Jean Bush
In TIME magazine’s June 8 issue, the cover showed Sonia Sotomayor, titled with the words LATINA JUSTICE. These are hypnotic trigger words, designed to instill in anyone who reads it the subconscious idea that this justice is more powerful, demanding and certain than the impartial but fair justice our forefathers founded for us.
Her picture on the cover, as explained inside, “On the cover, illustration for TIME by Tim O’Brien,” is not even a photograph of her, just a drawing that creates the illusion of female perfection, softening the heavy, hard and aging look she is so well recognized for.
Richard Lacayo, in writing this article, fell all over himself trying to make Sotomayor look almost like a “knight in shining armor” who has just arrived to save this country from disaster. In his subtitle to the article, he writes: “What her extraordinary life says about the kind of Justice she would be.” And he goes on to write one of the most insipid and insidious propaganda pieces in TIME’s most recent history.
What is so great about her life? Born in 1954 in a “poor Bronx neighborhood,” to immigrant parents from Puerto Rico. The word immigrant is my addition, not the author’s. Did they enter the country legally during WWII? Why has no one asked this? Is it important? I don’t know.
Her “extraordinary journey” in life is no different then the thousands of others who raised themselves and succeeded in their chosen professions. Her father died when she was 9 and her mother raised her and her brother on a nurse’s salary. She managed to go to Princeton and law school at Yale. Yet this article makes no mention of how she afforded to go to these two prestigious schools. I find this rather strange. She finally became a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.
This pathetic article makes her seem like some sort of goddess who has defied all the odds, including the self-perceived barriers of men and the system, to get where she is. I am sure nothing could be further from the truth. She worked and studied hard and with the help of family, friends and perhaps a few mentors, rose in her field of endeavor.
However, there are many out there that don’t like her. John, my contact in McLean, VA has this to say: “Well, you asked me what I think about Sonia Sotomayor being a nominee for the “supreme court” so here it goes. I don’t care for her racist remarks about “white men.” Sounds like she is your typical reverse racist and militant La Raza member. Remember Jean, I’m part Italian which means I’m also part “latin” what ever that means and I really don’t care for hardcore La Raza people. America is supposed to be the great melting pot of humanity and I feel her views belong in the trash heap and that she is a divider, not a joiner. She reminds me of a woman version of Clarence Thomas.”
Many consider her a racist for being a member of the radical group La Raza, or The Race. Their stated goal is to “reclaim” the entire southwestern United States, including Colorado, California, Arizona, Texas, Utah, New Mexico, Oregon and parts of Washington State. This territory makes up and area known as Aztlan, a “legendary homeland of the Aztecas.” In other words, pure fiction.
Now let us examine the very controversial remark that John mentioned:
“First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a
universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman
with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a
better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
This creature is a Feminist to the core. And in her unbelievable arrogance, is most certainly referring to herself. It would seem the good and wise Prof. Minnow has never heard of a dictionary.
Wise: having wisdom; Sage; 2. having or showing good sense or good judgment. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
Why not a Hispanic man? Or a black man? Or an Asian man? Why white only? And why not another woman? Her experience is beside the point. Any judge will bring to the bench their very own experiences and knowledge, whatever their race. And she is a racist.
Let’s look at some professional opinions of her.
The following was taken from michellemalkin.com website: Judge Sotomayor’s personal views may cloud her jurisprudence. As Judge Sotomayor explained in a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color” in their decisionmaking, which she believes should “affect our decisions.”
Substantial questions also persist regarding Judge Sotomayor’s temperament and disposition to be a Supreme Court justice. Lawyers who have appeared before her have described her as a “bully” who “does not have a very good temperament,” and who “abuses lawyers” with “inappropriate outbursts.
And here’s the rundown on Obama’s SCOTUS choice from Wendy Long at the Judicial Confirmation Network:
Memorandum
TO: JCN Members and Interested PartiesFROM: Wendy Long, Counsel to JCNDATE: May 26, 2009RE: Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor
• President Obama has threatened to nominate liberal judicial activists who will indulge their left-wing policy preferences instead of neutrally applying the law. In selecting Judge Sonia Sotomayor as hisSupreme Court nominee, President Obama has carried out his threat.
• Judge Sotomayor will allow her feelings and personal politics to stand in the way of basic fairness. In a recent case, Ricci v. DeStefano, Sotomayor sided with a city that used racially discriminatory practices to deny promotions to firefighters. The per curiam opinion Sotomayor joined went so far out of its way to bury the firefighters’ important claims of unfair treatment that her colleague, Judge Jose Cabranes, a Clinton appointee, chastised her.
o According to Judge Cabranes, Sotomayor’s opinion “contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at he core of this case” and its “perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.” Even the liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen expressed disappointment with the case, stating, “Ricci is not just a legal case but a man who has beendeprived of the pursuit of happiness on account of race.”
o Sotomayor’s terrible decision in Ricci is under review by the Supreme Court and an opinion is expected by the end of June.
• Sotomayor readily admits that she applies her feelings and personal politics when deciding cases. In a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she stated that she believes it is appropriate for a judge to considertheir “experiences as women and people of color,” which she believes should “affect our decisions.” She went on to say in that same speech “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of herexperience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” She reiterated her commitment to that lawless judicial philosophy at Duke Law School in 2005 when she stated that the “Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”
• The poor quality of Sotomayor’s decisions is reflected in her terrible record of reversals by the Supreme Court.
• Sotomayor is a favorite of far left special interest groups. In addition to her record as a hard left judicial activist, Sotomayor has been recommended for the Supreme Court by Nan Aron of the very liberal Alliance for Justice, who stated in a 2004 memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee that Sotomayor had “been through an initial vetting and fit into the criteria that we believe should be thestandard for any Supreme Court justice.”
• The White House is sure to argue that Sotomayor is a “bipartisan pick” because Bush 41 appointed her to the district court: President George H.W. Bush nominated Sotomayor in 1991 only because the New York senators had forced on the White House a deal that enabled Senator Moynihan to name one of every four district court nominees in New York. In 1998, 29 Republican senators voted against President Clinton’s nomination of Sotomayor to the Second Circuit.
Sotomayor also says that:
In a foreword to the 2007 book, "The International Judge," Judge Sonia Sotomayor says it is worthwhile to "learn from foreign law and the international community when interpreting our Constitution ..." She also says it is important to "learn from international courts and from their male and female judges about the process of judging and the factors outside of the law that influence our decisions."
In other words, she does not consider our US Constitution the supreme law of our land, and will mix international laws and decisions of other countries until we have completely lost our sovereignty. And that is the Illuminati’s agenda for us.
In conclusion, I believe that Sonia Sotomayor may be one of the most dangerous judges ever to sit on the Supreme Court. She will be allowed to eat away at our laws and Constitution, thereby eroding what little protection from our corrupt government we now are left with. Will she be voted in next week? Probably. Do the people want her? Not by a long shot. Does she have the NWO’s vote? Most definitely.
In TIME magazine’s June 8 issue, the cover showed Sonia Sotomayor, titled with the words LATINA JUSTICE. These are hypnotic trigger words, designed to instill in anyone who reads it the subconscious idea that this justice is more powerful, demanding and certain than the impartial but fair justice our forefathers founded for us.
Her picture on the cover, as explained inside, “On the cover, illustration for TIME by Tim O’Brien,” is not even a photograph of her, just a drawing that creates the illusion of female perfection, softening the heavy, hard and aging look she is so well recognized for.
Richard Lacayo, in writing this article, fell all over himself trying to make Sotomayor look almost like a “knight in shining armor” who has just arrived to save this country from disaster. In his subtitle to the article, he writes: “What her extraordinary life says about the kind of Justice she would be.” And he goes on to write one of the most insipid and insidious propaganda pieces in TIME’s most recent history.
What is so great about her life? Born in 1954 in a “poor Bronx neighborhood,” to immigrant parents from Puerto Rico. The word immigrant is my addition, not the author’s. Did they enter the country legally during WWII? Why has no one asked this? Is it important? I don’t know.
Her “extraordinary journey” in life is no different then the thousands of others who raised themselves and succeeded in their chosen professions. Her father died when she was 9 and her mother raised her and her brother on a nurse’s salary. She managed to go to Princeton and law school at Yale. Yet this article makes no mention of how she afforded to go to these two prestigious schools. I find this rather strange. She finally became a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.
This pathetic article makes her seem like some sort of goddess who has defied all the odds, including the self-perceived barriers of men and the system, to get where she is. I am sure nothing could be further from the truth. She worked and studied hard and with the help of family, friends and perhaps a few mentors, rose in her field of endeavor.
However, there are many out there that don’t like her. John, my contact in McLean, VA has this to say: “Well, you asked me what I think about Sonia Sotomayor being a nominee for the “supreme court” so here it goes. I don’t care for her racist remarks about “white men.” Sounds like she is your typical reverse racist and militant La Raza member. Remember Jean, I’m part Italian which means I’m also part “latin” what ever that means and I really don’t care for hardcore La Raza people. America is supposed to be the great melting pot of humanity and I feel her views belong in the trash heap and that she is a divider, not a joiner. She reminds me of a woman version of Clarence Thomas.”
Many consider her a racist for being a member of the radical group La Raza, or The Race. Their stated goal is to “reclaim” the entire southwestern United States, including Colorado, California, Arizona, Texas, Utah, New Mexico, Oregon and parts of Washington State. This territory makes up and area known as Aztlan, a “legendary homeland of the Aztecas.” In other words, pure fiction.
Now let us examine the very controversial remark that John mentioned:
“First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a
universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman
with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a
better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
This creature is a Feminist to the core. And in her unbelievable arrogance, is most certainly referring to herself. It would seem the good and wise Prof. Minnow has never heard of a dictionary.
Wise: having wisdom; Sage; 2. having or showing good sense or good judgment. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
Why not a Hispanic man? Or a black man? Or an Asian man? Why white only? And why not another woman? Her experience is beside the point. Any judge will bring to the bench their very own experiences and knowledge, whatever their race. And she is a racist.
Let’s look at some professional opinions of her.
The following was taken from michellemalkin.com website: Judge Sotomayor’s personal views may cloud her jurisprudence. As Judge Sotomayor explained in a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color” in their decisionmaking, which she believes should “affect our decisions.”
Substantial questions also persist regarding Judge Sotomayor’s temperament and disposition to be a Supreme Court justice. Lawyers who have appeared before her have described her as a “bully” who “does not have a very good temperament,” and who “abuses lawyers” with “inappropriate outbursts.
And here’s the rundown on Obama’s SCOTUS choice from Wendy Long at the Judicial Confirmation Network:
Memorandum
TO: JCN Members and Interested PartiesFROM: Wendy Long, Counsel to JCNDATE: May 26, 2009RE: Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor
• President Obama has threatened to nominate liberal judicial activists who will indulge their left-wing policy preferences instead of neutrally applying the law. In selecting Judge Sonia Sotomayor as hisSupreme Court nominee, President Obama has carried out his threat.
• Judge Sotomayor will allow her feelings and personal politics to stand in the way of basic fairness. In a recent case, Ricci v. DeStefano, Sotomayor sided with a city that used racially discriminatory practices to deny promotions to firefighters. The per curiam opinion Sotomayor joined went so far out of its way to bury the firefighters’ important claims of unfair treatment that her colleague, Judge Jose Cabranes, a Clinton appointee, chastised her.
o According to Judge Cabranes, Sotomayor’s opinion “contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at he core of this case” and its “perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.” Even the liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen expressed disappointment with the case, stating, “Ricci is not just a legal case but a man who has beendeprived of the pursuit of happiness on account of race.”
o Sotomayor’s terrible decision in Ricci is under review by the Supreme Court and an opinion is expected by the end of June.
• Sotomayor readily admits that she applies her feelings and personal politics when deciding cases. In a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she stated that she believes it is appropriate for a judge to considertheir “experiences as women and people of color,” which she believes should “affect our decisions.” She went on to say in that same speech “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of herexperience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” She reiterated her commitment to that lawless judicial philosophy at Duke Law School in 2005 when she stated that the “Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”
• The poor quality of Sotomayor’s decisions is reflected in her terrible record of reversals by the Supreme Court.
• Sotomayor is a favorite of far left special interest groups. In addition to her record as a hard left judicial activist, Sotomayor has been recommended for the Supreme Court by Nan Aron of the very liberal Alliance for Justice, who stated in a 2004 memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee that Sotomayor had “been through an initial vetting and fit into the criteria that we believe should be thestandard for any Supreme Court justice.”
• The White House is sure to argue that Sotomayor is a “bipartisan pick” because Bush 41 appointed her to the district court: President George H.W. Bush nominated Sotomayor in 1991 only because the New York senators had forced on the White House a deal that enabled Senator Moynihan to name one of every four district court nominees in New York. In 1998, 29 Republican senators voted against President Clinton’s nomination of Sotomayor to the Second Circuit.
Sotomayor also says that:
In a foreword to the 2007 book, "The International Judge," Judge Sonia Sotomayor says it is worthwhile to "learn from foreign law and the international community when interpreting our Constitution ..." She also says it is important to "learn from international courts and from their male and female judges about the process of judging and the factors outside of the law that influence our decisions."
In other words, she does not consider our US Constitution the supreme law of our land, and will mix international laws and decisions of other countries until we have completely lost our sovereignty. And that is the Illuminati’s agenda for us.
In conclusion, I believe that Sonia Sotomayor may be one of the most dangerous judges ever to sit on the Supreme Court. She will be allowed to eat away at our laws and Constitution, thereby eroding what little protection from our corrupt government we now are left with. Will she be voted in next week? Probably. Do the people want her? Not by a long shot. Does she have the NWO’s vote? Most definitely.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Raping The Scapegoat
By Philip Jones : 19th July 2008.
Although written from a UK perspective, the subject matter of this article is I am sure, equally relevant to recent developments in most western societies. So for those readers who are not British, please `tune out` those aspects and elements which are written with my own country primarily in mind, and apply the necessary equivalents from your own societies. Like I have said, it shouldn't be too hard to do, as what is now occurring in the UK with regard to this subject can be seen to be happening throughout the west.
The American writer Mark Twain once observed that there were three kinds of untruth: lies, damned lies and official statistics. Perhaps it is time to add to this list a fourth category:
The United Kingdom Home Office Research Study.
According to one such specimen published recently, at least one in every twenty women aged between sixteen and fifty nine years of age in England and Wales have been raped, and one in ten have experienced some form of ’sexual victimisation.’ The majority of these alleged assaults, said the study, had been committed not by strangers but by intimates; partners, former partners and casual acquaintances. If true, this would indeed be an appalling state of affairs. Such large numbers of women suffering serious sexual assault would clearly seem to indicate that British women were living in constant fear of an insufferable level of violence at the hands of men. Rape is one of the most serious crimes on the statute book, and rightly so considering the damage it does to a woman, both physically and psychologically.
So if the researchers were correct, we would therefore expect to hear of a voluminous level of female distress and rage being verbally vented against these male ‘intimates.’ We would all of us surely know women friends or relatives who had been raped or sexually assaulted. But we are not hearing this. Instead, we are shocked and amazed by these figures. The reason for our incomprehension is quite simple. What the researchers are telling us is not true. Indeed, this study is a nothing less than a load of manipulative, malevolent rubbish which calls the very credibility of the Home Office Research Department seriously into question.
The `Satan` here is to be found in the definition. To most people, rape means sexual penetration against the victim’s consent, which implies of necessity an act of violence or the threat of violence. The Home Office researchers have I believe, intentionally and willfully muddied this concept. Instead of using the legal definition of rape as ‘penile penetration,’ the study now defines it merely as one being ‘forced to have sexual intercourse against one's will.’ But the definition of ‘forced against one's will’ is highly subjective. It can very easily translate into ‘if you didn’t want to,’ which can become rendered meaningless. Even though the study claims that the word ‘forced’ implies an assault, it does nothing of the kind.
A woman might feel forced to have sex against her will, if for example, her lover tells her that unless she does, he will leave here for another woman. Or she might be an unwilling participant because he is drunk, or hasn’t taken a shower for a week, or she no longer loves him. The crucial point is, that in circumstances such as these, she is still participating in the sexual act, even though she could choose not to do so. No one is forcing her. She cannot therefore be termed a victim of violence. By any just or common-sense definition, this is not rape. Yet the Home Office researchers appear to have included exactly this kind of experience in their definition.
This already highly questionable exercise, then becomes positively surreal. Astoundingly, believe it or not, the women who the researchers allege to have been ‘raped,’ state in the survey, that they themselves don’t classify what has happened to them as rape. In fact, the study actually admits that of the women who the researchers said had been raped, fewer than two thirds themselves described what had happened to them as rape. And fewer than three quarters of those who the researchers said had experienced sexual victimisation thought of themselves as victims of a crime.
The reason for the discrepancy is perfectly obvious to anyone who is not too busy playing the game of sexual politics. These events were simply not rapes or sexual assaults, and the women concerned knew this perfectly well. That is because most of these incidents happened within sexual relationships with intimates, and the women involved appeared to accept what most people would think, that the issue of consent between lovers can be highly ambiguous. Yet what these women themselves made of their experiences seems to be of no consequence to these Whitehall researchers, who of course know better than the victims what has happened to them. This makes laughable the insistence by the Home Office that they are about putting the victim first. They therefore dream up one self-serving reason after another to explain why sexual experiences, which the women involved did not consider to be rape, were indeed rape.
Thus, they suggest that the women might not want to admit they have been raped because this is degrading and stigmatising; or they may not want to acknowledge that someone they like or love is a rapist. The idea that they knew perfectly well that the person they liked or loved was not a rapist does not occur to these researchers. The women are simply wrong. This astonishing display of contempt arises because nothing as inconvenient as a few facts can get in the way of the assumption behind this study: that women are being raped, and men are getting away with it.
The ideological bias that is clearly the driving force behind this research is underlined by a crucial omission. The study says that most sexual violence is committed by partners. But, and this is highly significant; it omits to make any distinction between partners and spouses. It therefore does not tell us whether women suffer as much sexual assault from husbands as from boyfriends or cohabitants. Yet all the available research suggests that the risk of sexual violence is negligible within marriage, and is hugely increased among cohabitants or more casual sexual partners. Marriage is actually the best physical protection against sexual violence.
Instead, this study states that home life not safe. It is here we get to the rotten core of this whole misleading exercise. For the underlying purpose is to demonize men and write them out of the domestic script altogether. It is this agenda of marriage-busting, man-hating feminism which has now got the Home Office well and truly in its clutches. Ever since New Labour came to power, it has been spouting a torrent of distorted information about domestic violence.
It has been exaggerating its incidence, omitting a vast amount of international evidence that women are equally as aggressive as men and again can be seen to be refusing to acknowledge the key fact that most domestic violence takes place between cohabiting and other unmarried couples.
The fact is that sexual mores have dramatically changed. Women now initiate casual sex; they carry condoms in their bags and drink, smoke, swear and often parody the worst caricature of macho culture. As a result, the rules of the mating game have totally altered. The room for ambiguous signals has hugely expanded. That’s why the courts are ever more reluctant to convict men accused of rape.
But Whitehall’s feminists cannot allow a little thing like injustice to interrupt their agenda. So the government is now hell bent on rigging the justice system itself to get men convicted of rape, by hook or by crook. To justify this, men have to be shown as perpetrating an intolerable level of violence upon women. The result of this lie is not only to commit a calumny upon the male sex. It will also trivialise real rape when it occurs, make it harder to convict the guilty and betray the true needs of women to be protected against violence.
Once again, the House of Lords has ridden to the rescue of elementary justice, fairness and common-sense. Once again, the government has announced that it is determined to prevent their Lordships from carrying out this service to the nation. Earlier this week, peers voted in an amendment to the Sexual Offences Bill that the names of defendants in rape cases should be kept secret. The government promptly announced it would overturn this decision when the bill returned to the Commons.
The Home Office minister Lord Falconer told the Lords the criminal justice system had to remain open and transparent. But women who bring rape charges against men are granted anonymity. So why does Lord Falconer believe the criminal justice system can justifiably suspend its important transparency for women accusers but not for the men they accuse? The reasons given for this discrimination are utterly preposterous. The radical barrister Baroness Kennedy said anonymity for women was essential because otherwise they would not bring their accusations forward on account of the ’stigma’ attached to making such claims.
Now, no-one should minimise the ordeal for a woman in not only having to face her attacker in court and having to give evidence of a highly distasteful kind, but in facing cross-examination which inevitably calls into question her own character and morals. But what about the stigma that attaches to men who are unjustly charged? For the concern that women won’t bring charges if they are identified totally ignores the fact that a steady stream of men who are thus accused are subsequently shown to be innocent. Yet their reputations and careers have nevertheless been ruined.
Last year, for example, the Australian snooker player Quinten Hann was cleared of raping a student. He said he felt that he was the victim after a nine-month investigation and six-day trial in which he consistently claimed that his accuser had been a willing partner. Then there was the case of the rugby player Hywel Jenkins, cleared of rape in just five minutes after the Crown Prosecution Service said there was not enough evidence to put him on trial. Afterwards, he said that he had endured ’seven weeks of hell’ after being accused by a 28-year-old woman of raping her during a party.
Giving women the protection of anonymity means it is more likely that women will make such false accusations. But then, the monstrous presumption beneath this bill is that all women are truthful and all men who are accused of rape are guilty. The reason for the bill is that the government believes there are not enough convictions for rape. It thinks too many men are getting acquitted of rape who are actually guilty. It is simply astonishing that people who purport to understand the rule of law and care about the presumption of innocence can say that not enough people are being convicted. On whose say-so? By what criteria?
Do they have any reason for thinking that any of these acquitted men is guilty of rape? Of course not. How can they possibly do so? It is merely their prejudice - a pathological belief in male sexual guilt. It is not even the case that rape convictions are particularly low. Convictions for murder, for example, are running at 40 per cent while convictions for rape at 41 per cent. But no-one suggests that ‘not enough’ people are being convicted for murder.
There may be a variety of reasons for the low number of rape convictions, just as there are for other crimes. The incompetence of the Crown Prosecution Service is undoubtedly a factor in not properly assessing the evidence in cases that fail to convince the jury. But one of the most likely reasons why convictions have fallen is that rape claims have become highly ambiguous through the dramatic changes in sexual mores. While the number of rapes by complete strangers has gone down, the frequency of casual sexual encounters has caused a steep rise in claims of ‘date rape’.
This is clearly far less straightforward than a case where a woman claims she has been pounced upon in a dark alley. A sexual encounter freely entered into but where at some point the woman may have changed her mind, or where one or both partners were drunk, poses very tricky problems of judgement for juries. So not surprisingly, they are reluctant to convict - especially for a crime which can result in life imprisonment.
But such an obvious explanation is dismissed out of hand because it assumes that women may not always be victims - indeed, that they may even be partly responsible for what has happened to them but are not prepared to take any responsibility for it. And this contravenes the cardinal tenet of extreme feminism - the assumption that men are intrinsically rapists, wife-beaters, child abusers and generally violent individuals, that women are their prey and that society additionally loads the dice against the female sex.
Lady Kennedy actually said in the Lords: ‘To treat as equal those who are unequal creates further injustice.’ So women are to be given a protection denied to men, despite the proven injustice of innocent men having their reputations ruined by women - because women are supposed to be the victims of society!
To paraphrase George Orwell, all animals have equal rights — but women have more equal rights than others.
No-one should be surprised that the government, unabashed by the eloquent arguments mounted in the Lords against this proposed injustice, is refusing to admit that it was wrong. For it has been captured by an ultra-feminist agenda promoted by pressure groups which have put down deep roots within government - in the Home Office in particular. So determined are ministers to pursue this anti-man vendetta that the new Sexual Offences Bill loads the court dice drastically against male defendants.
Until now, a man accused of rape could use the defence that he honestly believed the woman had given her consent. The bill not only removes that defence, but reverses the burden of proof. Now, the man will have to prove that no reasonable person could have doubted that the woman gave her consent to sex. The inclusion of that objective ‘reasonable’ test, the Lords heard, means that even if the defendant honestly believes the woman had consented, he might still be convicted. In other words, the test he will have to meet to be acquitted is now being set impossibly high.
Civil libertarians like Lady Kennedy, who would die in the last ditch to defend the presumption of innocence, normally pronounce that ten guilty people should go free rather than one innocent person be convicted. They ruthlessly use the Human Rights Act to pursue such principles through the courts. Yet they suddenly put all that into screaming reverse when it comes to fighting the sex war. Rigging the justice system in this way is based on sheer malicious, vicious prejudice against men - mostly driven through, ironically, by male politicians, in thrall to a feminist agenda they are too cowardly to confront.
Although written from a UK perspective, the subject matter of this article is I am sure, equally relevant to recent developments in most western societies. So for those readers who are not British, please `tune out` those aspects and elements which are written with my own country primarily in mind, and apply the necessary equivalents from your own societies. Like I have said, it shouldn't be too hard to do, as what is now occurring in the UK with regard to this subject can be seen to be happening throughout the west.
The American writer Mark Twain once observed that there were three kinds of untruth: lies, damned lies and official statistics. Perhaps it is time to add to this list a fourth category:
The United Kingdom Home Office Research Study.
According to one such specimen published recently, at least one in every twenty women aged between sixteen and fifty nine years of age in England and Wales have been raped, and one in ten have experienced some form of ’sexual victimisation.’ The majority of these alleged assaults, said the study, had been committed not by strangers but by intimates; partners, former partners and casual acquaintances. If true, this would indeed be an appalling state of affairs. Such large numbers of women suffering serious sexual assault would clearly seem to indicate that British women were living in constant fear of an insufferable level of violence at the hands of men. Rape is one of the most serious crimes on the statute book, and rightly so considering the damage it does to a woman, both physically and psychologically.
So if the researchers were correct, we would therefore expect to hear of a voluminous level of female distress and rage being verbally vented against these male ‘intimates.’ We would all of us surely know women friends or relatives who had been raped or sexually assaulted. But we are not hearing this. Instead, we are shocked and amazed by these figures. The reason for our incomprehension is quite simple. What the researchers are telling us is not true. Indeed, this study is a nothing less than a load of manipulative, malevolent rubbish which calls the very credibility of the Home Office Research Department seriously into question.
The `Satan` here is to be found in the definition. To most people, rape means sexual penetration against the victim’s consent, which implies of necessity an act of violence or the threat of violence. The Home Office researchers have I believe, intentionally and willfully muddied this concept. Instead of using the legal definition of rape as ‘penile penetration,’ the study now defines it merely as one being ‘forced to have sexual intercourse against one's will.’ But the definition of ‘forced against one's will’ is highly subjective. It can very easily translate into ‘if you didn’t want to,’ which can become rendered meaningless. Even though the study claims that the word ‘forced’ implies an assault, it does nothing of the kind.
A woman might feel forced to have sex against her will, if for example, her lover tells her that unless she does, he will leave here for another woman. Or she might be an unwilling participant because he is drunk, or hasn’t taken a shower for a week, or she no longer loves him. The crucial point is, that in circumstances such as these, she is still participating in the sexual act, even though she could choose not to do so. No one is forcing her. She cannot therefore be termed a victim of violence. By any just or common-sense definition, this is not rape. Yet the Home Office researchers appear to have included exactly this kind of experience in their definition.
This already highly questionable exercise, then becomes positively surreal. Astoundingly, believe it or not, the women who the researchers allege to have been ‘raped,’ state in the survey, that they themselves don’t classify what has happened to them as rape. In fact, the study actually admits that of the women who the researchers said had been raped, fewer than two thirds themselves described what had happened to them as rape. And fewer than three quarters of those who the researchers said had experienced sexual victimisation thought of themselves as victims of a crime.
The reason for the discrepancy is perfectly obvious to anyone who is not too busy playing the game of sexual politics. These events were simply not rapes or sexual assaults, and the women concerned knew this perfectly well. That is because most of these incidents happened within sexual relationships with intimates, and the women involved appeared to accept what most people would think, that the issue of consent between lovers can be highly ambiguous. Yet what these women themselves made of their experiences seems to be of no consequence to these Whitehall researchers, who of course know better than the victims what has happened to them. This makes laughable the insistence by the Home Office that they are about putting the victim first. They therefore dream up one self-serving reason after another to explain why sexual experiences, which the women involved did not consider to be rape, were indeed rape.
Thus, they suggest that the women might not want to admit they have been raped because this is degrading and stigmatising; or they may not want to acknowledge that someone they like or love is a rapist. The idea that they knew perfectly well that the person they liked or loved was not a rapist does not occur to these researchers. The women are simply wrong. This astonishing display of contempt arises because nothing as inconvenient as a few facts can get in the way of the assumption behind this study: that women are being raped, and men are getting away with it.
The ideological bias that is clearly the driving force behind this research is underlined by a crucial omission. The study says that most sexual violence is committed by partners. But, and this is highly significant; it omits to make any distinction between partners and spouses. It therefore does not tell us whether women suffer as much sexual assault from husbands as from boyfriends or cohabitants. Yet all the available research suggests that the risk of sexual violence is negligible within marriage, and is hugely increased among cohabitants or more casual sexual partners. Marriage is actually the best physical protection against sexual violence.
Instead, this study states that home life not safe. It is here we get to the rotten core of this whole misleading exercise. For the underlying purpose is to demonize men and write them out of the domestic script altogether. It is this agenda of marriage-busting, man-hating feminism which has now got the Home Office well and truly in its clutches. Ever since New Labour came to power, it has been spouting a torrent of distorted information about domestic violence.
It has been exaggerating its incidence, omitting a vast amount of international evidence that women are equally as aggressive as men and again can be seen to be refusing to acknowledge the key fact that most domestic violence takes place between cohabiting and other unmarried couples.
The fact is that sexual mores have dramatically changed. Women now initiate casual sex; they carry condoms in their bags and drink, smoke, swear and often parody the worst caricature of macho culture. As a result, the rules of the mating game have totally altered. The room for ambiguous signals has hugely expanded. That’s why the courts are ever more reluctant to convict men accused of rape.
But Whitehall’s feminists cannot allow a little thing like injustice to interrupt their agenda. So the government is now hell bent on rigging the justice system itself to get men convicted of rape, by hook or by crook. To justify this, men have to be shown as perpetrating an intolerable level of violence upon women. The result of this lie is not only to commit a calumny upon the male sex. It will also trivialise real rape when it occurs, make it harder to convict the guilty and betray the true needs of women to be protected against violence.
Once again, the House of Lords has ridden to the rescue of elementary justice, fairness and common-sense. Once again, the government has announced that it is determined to prevent their Lordships from carrying out this service to the nation. Earlier this week, peers voted in an amendment to the Sexual Offences Bill that the names of defendants in rape cases should be kept secret. The government promptly announced it would overturn this decision when the bill returned to the Commons.
The Home Office minister Lord Falconer told the Lords the criminal justice system had to remain open and transparent. But women who bring rape charges against men are granted anonymity. So why does Lord Falconer believe the criminal justice system can justifiably suspend its important transparency for women accusers but not for the men they accuse? The reasons given for this discrimination are utterly preposterous. The radical barrister Baroness Kennedy said anonymity for women was essential because otherwise they would not bring their accusations forward on account of the ’stigma’ attached to making such claims.
Now, no-one should minimise the ordeal for a woman in not only having to face her attacker in court and having to give evidence of a highly distasteful kind, but in facing cross-examination which inevitably calls into question her own character and morals. But what about the stigma that attaches to men who are unjustly charged? For the concern that women won’t bring charges if they are identified totally ignores the fact that a steady stream of men who are thus accused are subsequently shown to be innocent. Yet their reputations and careers have nevertheless been ruined.
Last year, for example, the Australian snooker player Quinten Hann was cleared of raping a student. He said he felt that he was the victim after a nine-month investigation and six-day trial in which he consistently claimed that his accuser had been a willing partner. Then there was the case of the rugby player Hywel Jenkins, cleared of rape in just five minutes after the Crown Prosecution Service said there was not enough evidence to put him on trial. Afterwards, he said that he had endured ’seven weeks of hell’ after being accused by a 28-year-old woman of raping her during a party.
Giving women the protection of anonymity means it is more likely that women will make such false accusations. But then, the monstrous presumption beneath this bill is that all women are truthful and all men who are accused of rape are guilty. The reason for the bill is that the government believes there are not enough convictions for rape. It thinks too many men are getting acquitted of rape who are actually guilty. It is simply astonishing that people who purport to understand the rule of law and care about the presumption of innocence can say that not enough people are being convicted. On whose say-so? By what criteria?
Do they have any reason for thinking that any of these acquitted men is guilty of rape? Of course not. How can they possibly do so? It is merely their prejudice - a pathological belief in male sexual guilt. It is not even the case that rape convictions are particularly low. Convictions for murder, for example, are running at 40 per cent while convictions for rape at 41 per cent. But no-one suggests that ‘not enough’ people are being convicted for murder.
There may be a variety of reasons for the low number of rape convictions, just as there are for other crimes. The incompetence of the Crown Prosecution Service is undoubtedly a factor in not properly assessing the evidence in cases that fail to convince the jury. But one of the most likely reasons why convictions have fallen is that rape claims have become highly ambiguous through the dramatic changes in sexual mores. While the number of rapes by complete strangers has gone down, the frequency of casual sexual encounters has caused a steep rise in claims of ‘date rape’.
This is clearly far less straightforward than a case where a woman claims she has been pounced upon in a dark alley. A sexual encounter freely entered into but where at some point the woman may have changed her mind, or where one or both partners were drunk, poses very tricky problems of judgement for juries. So not surprisingly, they are reluctant to convict - especially for a crime which can result in life imprisonment.
But such an obvious explanation is dismissed out of hand because it assumes that women may not always be victims - indeed, that they may even be partly responsible for what has happened to them but are not prepared to take any responsibility for it. And this contravenes the cardinal tenet of extreme feminism - the assumption that men are intrinsically rapists, wife-beaters, child abusers and generally violent individuals, that women are their prey and that society additionally loads the dice against the female sex.
Lady Kennedy actually said in the Lords: ‘To treat as equal those who are unequal creates further injustice.’ So women are to be given a protection denied to men, despite the proven injustice of innocent men having their reputations ruined by women - because women are supposed to be the victims of society!
To paraphrase George Orwell, all animals have equal rights — but women have more equal rights than others.
No-one should be surprised that the government, unabashed by the eloquent arguments mounted in the Lords against this proposed injustice, is refusing to admit that it was wrong. For it has been captured by an ultra-feminist agenda promoted by pressure groups which have put down deep roots within government - in the Home Office in particular. So determined are ministers to pursue this anti-man vendetta that the new Sexual Offences Bill loads the court dice drastically against male defendants.
Until now, a man accused of rape could use the defence that he honestly believed the woman had given her consent. The bill not only removes that defence, but reverses the burden of proof. Now, the man will have to prove that no reasonable person could have doubted that the woman gave her consent to sex. The inclusion of that objective ‘reasonable’ test, the Lords heard, means that even if the defendant honestly believes the woman had consented, he might still be convicted. In other words, the test he will have to meet to be acquitted is now being set impossibly high.
Civil libertarians like Lady Kennedy, who would die in the last ditch to defend the presumption of innocence, normally pronounce that ten guilty people should go free rather than one innocent person be convicted. They ruthlessly use the Human Rights Act to pursue such principles through the courts. Yet they suddenly put all that into screaming reverse when it comes to fighting the sex war. Rigging the justice system in this way is based on sheer malicious, vicious prejudice against men - mostly driven through, ironically, by male politicians, in thrall to a feminist agenda they are too cowardly to confront.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
