"Feminism"?

[Skip]

[I think feminism should move to the middle east, where it's needed...]

It makes one wonder why they don't...

They do.
https://intpolicydigest.org/2012/02/02/ ... ddle-east/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9582900243
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opini ... 86926.html
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion ... cle568783/
https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/4889/2/UNRIS ... _final.pdf
https://www.globalfundforwomen.org/inve ... th-africa/
https://gss.princeton.edu/global-femini ... and-beyond

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

I find it growingly peculiar how you maintain this dichotomy of decrying the PC progressives, while having the constant intent of bringing up a sin of America's past, connecting it to everything. Do you know who else likes to do that?

What are you disputing? And it's the past, present, and no doubt the future as well. Do you think it all just happened by accident?

You just bring it up under the most feeble excuses imaginable. Like pretending that women 'were doing pretty well' in the ME before US occupation. In this case it's not even 'feeble', because it's just such a demonstrably false statement. Maybe if we go all the way back to the age of Cleopatra, things weren't so bad for women.

Showing a few cute pictures of a couple Indian people from the 60-70s, in locations you don't even name, is nothing but an attempt to manipulate the actual situation to anyone who's really that stupid. The Taliban was still a thing, Sharia Law was enforced in an even less secular way than it is today, and the idea of women voting wasn't even a question. They weren't doing that good, and even now in countries where there has been no US 'conflicts' (or whatever you want to call it) like Saudi Arabia, Mali, or Sudan, women have/had it extraordinarily bad.

The main reason why I compared you to a progressive in this sense is because you constantly look to blame people for the past, but I'm also not sure you're able to differentiate the son from the 'sins of the father'. This is going a bit off topic, but I've seen you talk about americans like they've all personally carried bombs to iraq. It brings to mind, the type of progressives who want reparations.

[Immanuel Can]

They do.

Well, the indigenous ones do. Fair enough. But I was referring to the Western ones.

It's no surprise that women in the Middle East are standing up for themselves, and good for them -- but what's the alternative, after all: rolling over and permanently accepting second-class property-status, child brides, forced marriage, revenge-rape, sharia and the burkha, while the West rolls on? It's the total indifference -- or even abuse-apologetics -- of the majority of Western Feminists that I find baffling.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I find it growingly peculiar how you maintain this dichotomy of decrying the PC progressives, while having the constant intent of bringing up a sin of America's past, connecting it to everything. Do you know who else likes to do that?

What are you disputing? And it's the past, present, and no doubt the future as well. Do you think it all just happened by accident?

You just bring it up under the most feeble excuses imaginable. Like pretending that women 'were doing pretty well' in the ME before US occupation. In this case it's not even 'feeble', because it's just such a demonstrably false statement. Maybe if we go all the way back to the age of Cleopatra, things weren't so bad for women.

Showing a few cute pictures of a couple Indian people from the 60-70s, in locations you don't even name, is nothing but an attempt to manipulate the actual situation to anyone who's really that stupid. The Taliban was still a thing, Sharia Law was enforced in an even less secular way than it is today, and the idea of women voting wasn't even a question. They weren't doing that good, and even now in countries where there has been no US 'conflicts' (or whatever you want to call it) like Saudi Arabia, Mali, or Sudan, women have/had it extraordinarily bad.

The main reason why I compared you to a progressive in this sense is because you constantly look to blame people for the past, but I'm also not sure you're able to differentiate the son from the 'sins of the father'. This is going a bit off topic, but I've seen you talk about americans like they've all personally carried bombs to iraq. It brings to mind, the type of progressives who want reparations.

How would you know 'how they were doing'? Those photos were of Iranians and Iraqis, not Indians. You have so little knowledge of the history of the region that you shouldn't really comment on it at all. And we've all seen how 'beneficial' Western meddling is.
Americans have this weird idea that Middle Easterners are so primitive compared to them, and need their 'help' to make them 'civilised' (how ironic is that?).
And how exactly is it PC to point out easily verifiable facts about Middle Eastern countries? ''PCProgressives'' don't give a rat's arse about the people of the ME, unless it's to cry crocodile tears over Palestinians. You won't find them complaining about their own country's murderous and destructive rampage in countries that were civilised thousands of years before McDonalds and chucky cheese had been invented.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

Those photos were of Iranians and Iraqis, not Indians.

I realize the place wasn't actually india - I said that it wasn't. I thought it was obvious I was using slang to mock the absurdity of what you were trying to do, but now I can see how what I said could be perceived as a bit racist, and I retract calling them 'indian'.

What you did here is still incredibly misleading; It's literally equivalent to propaganda. I don't even doubt that Iraq and Iran probably were better places before 9/11, I mean they're the exact places where the conflict was - but that doesn't mean women were doing pretty well, even if they were better.

More importantly, it doesn't speak for the whole middle east. So again I ask, why are countries like Saudi Arabia or Sudan some of the worst places for women in the ME, when they've had NO US occupation? In fact, the first one has positive relations with the US.

You have so little knowledge of the history of the region that you shouldn't really comment on it at all.

I agree, I don't know that much about it, I probably don't even know as much as you. I just know enough to determine that 'Women were doing pretty well in the ME until.. ' is an obviously false statement - and I think you know that, too.

The only reason I talk about the middle east at all is because my hand keeps getting forced. You bring up the iraq conflict incessantly, and not only blame it for everything, but seem to blame every american for it as well. Frankly, it annoys me more than it offends me, because when we look at the actual polls, most americans don't even support this stuff as they assumable do in your generalization.

And we've all seen how 'beneficial' Western meddling is.
Americans have this weird idea that Middle Easterners are so primitive compared to them, and need their 'help' to make them 'civilised' (how ironic is that?)..

I never even came close to insinuating anything like that. This is just a straw-man created in your mind of how the average american thinks.

And how exactly is it PC

I said you were like the progressives in the sense of bringing up america's past and finding blame for the 'sins of the father'. Do you understand what I mean when I mention that concept? You look to blame others for something they did not directly do, namely you project the things our government has done to the average american; This is almost the driving motivation for 'slavery reparations' argued by staunch progressives, to a T.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Those photos were of Iranians and Iraqis, not Indians.

I realize the place wasn't actually india - I said that it wasn't. I thought it was obvious I was using slang to mock the absurdity of what you were trying to do, but now I can see how what I said could be perceived as a bit racist, and I retract calling them 'indian'.

What you did here is still incredibly misleading; It's literally equivalent to propaganda. I don't even doubt that Iraq and Iran probably were better places before 9/11, I mean they're the exact places where the conflict was - but that doesn't mean women were doing pretty well, even if they were better.

More importantly, it doesn't speak for the whole middle east. So again I ask, why are countries like Saudi Arabia or Sudan some of the worst places for women in the ME, when they've had NO US occupation? In fact, the first one has positive relations with the US.

You have so little knowledge of the history of the region that you shouldn't really comment on it at all.

I agree, I don't know that much about it, I probably don't even know as much as you. I just know enough to determine that 'Women were doing pretty well in the ME until.. ' is an obviously false statement - and I think you know that, too.

The only reason I talk about the middle east at all is because my hand keeps getting forced. You bring up the iraq conflict incessantly, and not only blame it for everything, but seem to blame every american for it as well. Frankly, it annoys me more than it offends me, because when we look at the actual polls, most americans don't even support this stuff as they assumable do in your generalization.

And we've all seen how 'beneficial' Western meddling is.
Americans have this weird idea that Middle Easterners are so primitive compared to them, and need their 'help' to make them 'civilised' (how ironic is that?)..

I never even came close to insinuating anything like that. This is just a straw-man created in your mind of how the average american thinks.

And how exactly is it PC

I said you were like the progressives in the sense of bringing up america's past and finding blame for the 'sins of the father'. Do you understand what I mean when I mention that concept? You look to blame others for something they did not directly do, namely you project the things our government has done to the average american; This is almost the driving motivation for 'slavery reparations' argued by staunch progressives, to a T.

Too idiotic to waste energy on, especially as you don't even seem to understand anything I post. It gets tedious having to explain yourself in babytalk over and over again. The US has meddled with both Sudan and Somalia. Are you going to list every country on the planet where 'shit happens' as some kind of pathetic defence of the US? The US is in the face of everyone on the planet, in every way possible. How many military bases do you think it has compared to everyone else?
Actually Saudi Arabia is a good example for you to bring up. The only reason the US didn't attack Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq is because Iraq was by far the weakest target (and the US needs Saudi Arabia more). Plus, Bush likes to kiss and hold hands with King Abdullah. I mean, bin Laden was a Saudi Arabian after all.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

especially as you don't even seem to understand anything I post.

It's beginning to seem much more like you don't understand anything you post.

It gets tedious having to explain yourself in babytalk over and over again.

When have you ever gone through one of my posts, 'baby-talking' through all of my points, like I misunderstood, or misrepresented everything you were saying? I know you've used this excuse before, as a reason to not reply to me, but the thing is I don't ever recall a time where you had to expand on a point because I didn't understand it. I mean, I'm sure this has happened, but not often, because you tend to speak in a very blunt way that's easy to understand.

It would be one thing if you quoted a specific point you made and told me I misunderstood it, but what you're doing by saying that I just always misunderstand you leaves everything so open-ended that I have no idea where I started to get things wrong in the discussion. I believe you actually go on to misunderstand a few of my points as well, but unlike you I'm actually going to show you why.

The US has meddled with both Sudan and Somalia.

Not in as notable a way that would demonstrate a parallel between all these countries that treat women like sub-humans.

Are you going to list every country on the planet where 'shit happens' as some kind of pathetic defence of the US?

No, you were literally the one that made the point that women 'had it well' in the ME before US intervened in Iraq. My point of bringing up Somalia, Mali, Sudan and Saudi Arabia was to show that the intervention isn't the only component to the oppression of women in that part of the world.

The US is in the face of everyone on the planet, in every way possible.

It's funny that I have never seen an american talk about america as much as you do, so how much of this do you think is your own fault?

Actually Saudi Arabia is a good example for you to bring up. The only reason the US didn't attack Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq is because Iraq was by far the weakest target (and the US needs Saudi Arabia more). Plus, Bush likes to kiss and hold hands with King Abdullah. I mean, bin Laden was a Saudi Arabian after all.

And they still have a massive oppression of women. That was actually the point of me bringing that up as an example - we are allies with them, and they still treat women like shit, but whatever. Go off on another tangent about the president from 2008, I think I'm just about done here. Let me know if you want to go back and actually show me why you think I'm wrong about things.

[Skip]

Well, the indigenous ones do. Fair enough. But I was referring to the Western ones.

Do you think imposing American feminism on the local indigenous movements would be any more beneficial than imposing American 'democracy'?
It's not quite so simple as MacDonald's franchises - and even those are not equally welcome everywhere.
http://internationalstudies.oxfordre.co ... 6626-e-490

[Immanuel Can]

Well, the indigenous ones do. Fair enough. But I was referring to the Western ones.

Do you think imposing American feminism on the local indigenous movements would be any more beneficial than imposing American 'democracy'?

No, because "American-style feminism" has become quite toxic lately. I wouldn't recommend it for anyone, let alone as an export.

Western feminists generally -- whether from Europe or North America or elsewhere -- ought to be committed to universal human rights for women, and thus should be quite militant about seeing their "sisters" freed from Islam's iron grasp, if they were sincerely interested in the rights of all women. However, they're only interested in extending their own privileges, it would seem; because while they march around in silly pink hats, the most horrendous abuses of Arab and Southern Asian (and indeed, even of many European) women go entirely unopposed by them. Islamic misogyny is not even really on the feminist radar.

[Skip]

Western feminists generally -- whether from Europe or North America or elsewhere -- ought to be committed to universal human rights for women, and thus should be quite militant about seeing their "sisters" freed from Islam's iron grasp,

Muslim women disagree with you. In general, it's not a good idea for outsiders to barge into other people's domestic disputes.
In most cases of outside meddling, the situation gets worse, rather than better; the outsider (even if the outsider understands what needs to be done, rarely has the power to change all the circumstances and relationships. Sometimes the abuse victim is later punished for the interference; sometimes both parties turn on the outsider; sometimes communications break down, old balances are destroyed and everybody ends up worse off. In this case, it's far more complicated than domestic disputes: any outside interference is also an attack on the culture, beliefs and customs of the indigenous women. Nobody, not even a loyal sisterhood, has that right.

if they were sincerely interested in the rights of all women.

... they would offer whatever help the local women ask for, and take nothing for granted.

However, they're only interested in extending their own privileges, it would seem; because while they march around in silly pink hats, the most horrendous abuses of Arab and Southern Asian (and indeed, even of many European) women go entirely unopposed by them. Islamic misogyny is not even really on the feminist radar.

Ever hear the saying "Put your own house in order."?

[Immanuel Can]

Western feminists generally -- whether from Europe or North America or elsewhere -- ought to be committed to universal human rights for women, and thus should be quite militant about seeing their "sisters" freed from Islam's iron grasp,

Muslim women disagree with you.

Maybe. That's the sort of evil indoctrination Islam produces. But Islam's not a nationality, not a race, nor even a culture. I think you'd agree it's pretty clear that nobody in their right mind thinks that women are property, that sharia, forced marriages, paedophelia, and slavery are a normal and healthy alternatives, that revenge rape is justice, that the burkha is a comfort garment, or that the word of a woman should be worth only half that of a man.

In general, it's not a good idea for outsiders to barge into other people's domestic disputes.

That would be true only in cases where basic human rights were not being violated -- egregiously and routinely, too. In the countries to which I alluded earlier, this is very clearly what is happening.

Ever hear the saying "Put your own house in order."?

Absolutely. And we still have stuff to fix in the West, for sure.

But if a feminist is going around claiming to have an unalienable right to the vote, to equal pay, to fair treatment in court, to freedom from sexual attack and open access to education, then she can't turn around and say, "Women of other countries don't deserve these things." That would not just be selfishness and hypocrisy...it would probably actually be racism. For why would we think a white woman could deserve what a woman of colour does not? Only one reason for such thinking seems obvious.

One difference really remains to be noted: Western women have tremendous power. Their political influence, their economic power and their advantages in education and the media are absolutely massive. Many women in poorer countries have no power at all. So before we go telling them to "Put their own house in order," we ought to check to see if they even have a choice. And if they don't, then maybe, out of basic human compassion, we ought to see that they get some power to make some choices for themselves.

[Skip]

[Muslim women disagree, re western women liberating them]
Maybe. That's the sort of evil indoctrination Islam produces.

So,if they fight for what you want them to have, they're right; if they want something different, it's because they don't know any better.

But Islam's not a nationality, not a race, nor even a culture.

No shit! It's a religion, like Christianity or Buddhism, that crosses national boundaries and influences, as well as being influenced by, local cultures.

I think you'd agree it's pretty clear that nobody in their right mind

It's not my job to determine what is anyone else's "right" mind.

thinks that women are property, that sharia, forced marriages, paedophelia, and slavery are a normal and healthy alternatives, that revenge rape is justice

Really? So all the people of the Bible and quite a lot of people in the modern Christian nation of USA, are out of their right minds? Very possibly.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 71656.html

, that the burkha is a comfort garment,

It was a desert garment. Now it's just traditional, like business suits neckties, bellhop's and Playboy Club uniforms.

or that the word of a woman should be worth only half that of a man.

And yet 49% of American voters believed the most blatant lies of Donald Trump, rather than check the facts, while they readily believed that Hillary Clinton was lying, without bothering to check the facts.

[not a good idea for outsiders to barge in]
That would be true only in cases where basic human rights were not being violated -- egregiously and routinely, too.

So, then, the UN should invade the USA. I'm strangely okay with that.

But if a feminist is going around claiming to have an unalienable right to the vote, to equal pay, to fair treatment in court, to freedom from sexual attack and open access to education,

American women can accurately say that in America. They can refer to a dozen different amendments written into their constitution.

then she can't turn around and say, "Women of other countries don't deserve these things."

Which feminist said that?

One difference really remains to be noted: Western women have tremendous power. Their political influence, their economic power and their advantages in education and the media are absolutely massive.

Yes, it's approaching the political influence and economic power of western men.

Many women in poorer countries have no power at all.

And many do. In fact, they're making far more rapid progress than you give them credit for.
https://www.africa.com/7-africas-intere ... liticians/

So before we go telling them to "Put their own house in order,"

Not them. You!
Until human rights, social organization and equality are in perfect balance in your own country, keep out of other peoples'.
And afterwards, keep out of other peoples'.

[Immanuel Can]

So...

You sound like Kathy Neuman: "...so you're saying...."

I can see you're just sporting for an argument over nationalism. But I don't find that remotely interesting at the moment. I'm not who you want to talk to on that subject, and not a member of the nation that's apparently chaffing your shorts at the moment. So I'm not going to speak for them.

I'll leave it at this: all women, regardless of race, culture, creed or situation, deserve the chance not to be raped, "circumcised," kept from education, beaten, forced into slavery, refused a vote, denied a voice and held down in poverty. If you're prepared to defend any of that, then I don't think much can be said. And if those aren't real issues for every feminist, then perhaps it's clear that feminism has no issues at all.

[Skip]

I can see you're just sporting for an argument over nationalism.

Naw. Merely refuting some of your charges against western feminists.
I don't determine what they do or why. I just dislike gratuitous attacks on anyone, especially by those with no stake in the issue and who are apparently short on up-to-date information.

I'll leave it at this: all women, regardless of race, culture, creed or situation, deserve the chance not to be raped, "circumcised," kept from education, beaten, forced into slavery, refused a vote, denied a voice and held down in poverty.

That's an excellent start. If you support their liberation movements, I'll respect you.
I'll respect you lot more, if you confront the men who oppress them, rather than exhorting foreign women to rush the rescue before they've even finished their own liberation.

And if those aren't real issues for every feminist, then perhaps it's clear that feminism has no issues at all.

Of course those are issues for feminists.
I just don't think either you or I are qualified to instruct them on how to achieve their goals.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

If you could call those obsessivelyPC pink-haired nut-jobs we are lumped with today ''feminists''. A Germaine Greer or Emmeline Pankhurst they definitely ain't.

Aside: How did Ireland manage to escape becoming a 'glorious multicultural melting-pot', the likes of which we have all come to love and cherish so dearly? Has the clammy, grey, bony hand of creeping ''Progressiveness'' not reach it yet? Those poor Irish. They must be desperate to rid themselves of their rich culture and unique identity after all these centuries.