Sunday, January 22, 2017

Women marchers "fight patriarchy" by supporting Islam?

Linda Sarsour is a Palestinian Muslim American and co-chair of the recent women's march on Washington. She is also, it has emerged, a supporter of sharia law.

So try and wrap your head around this: the feminist movement of today wants to unite Muslim women who support sharia with feminists "fighting the patriarchy".

And just to add to the fun, Linda Sarsour is tetchy with the role of white women in the women's movement:




It wasn't that long ago that American feminists were organising topless slutwalks. Now they are pushing, as a symbol of "We the people," a woman wearing a hijab:



Has the "Muslim woman in a hijab" become a symbol of the "value bearing other" for liberals now? If so, this is going to clash mightily with the "absolute individual autonomy to do whatever I like with my body" aspect of feminism.

And what will white feminists in America do when they realise that a racial politics is being played out against them and not just against white men? When it becomes clear that they too are a target of this kind of politics?

I'll finish with a photo that would have perplexed the feminists of the 1980s. It is a photo from the women's march showing an "emotional moment" when white women had hijabs tied on them by Muslim women:


10 comments:

  1. Feminists for chattelism. And they claim to be equal.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "If so, this is going to clash mightily with the "absolute individual autonomy to do whatever I like with my body" aspect of feminism."

    That is what any reasonable man would expect. But the actual outcome in real life indicates otherwise. As I have written here before, the Swedish feminists are already all aboard the sharia train. The transition from slut walks to burqas seems uncomplicated for them.

    In my humble opinion, I think that our male surprise at this turn of events is due to a serious misunderstanding of how women think. If a man says "I want a good job", it will mean just that. Nothing more, nothing less.

    But for woman, a significant proportion of what they claim to want is just a function of what they do not have at the moment. They wanted sexual freedom when they did not have it. Now they have it, so they want the opposite.

    Women wanted to work. Now they all have jobs and they are starting to complain that it is horribly stressful to work. They want fewer hours, more flexibility, less stress, etc, etc.

    Some feminists are now saying that only in Islam is a woman really free, since she is not obligated to work and is not made in to a sex object. I am not kidding, I just read a long report on Swedish and other European women that are converting to Islam, and this is how they argue. And the feminists approve!

    EuroSwede

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EuroSwede, I looked this up and found this from a Swedish newspaper about Swedish women converting to Islam:

      They convert to protest against the fixation with looks in our modern society. The tougher living conditions for women, who are supposed to both have a career and do the housekeeping, play a part, too. Many of the women feel that their lives lack a sense of purpose, but Christianity does not seem like a relevant alternative to them...

      The attraction of the Islamic family life seems to be a common feature among women converts. Several of them state that in Islam, the man is more rational and logical, while the woman is more emotional and caring. This means that the woman should be the one to take care of the children and do the housekeeping, while the man should be the one to work and provide for the family.

      ...The informants particularly stress that Islam represents equality between people in general and between men and women in particular, that Islam represents the good patriarchal family life and that women should obey their husbands.


      What can you say? I suppose this was predictable. We know that treating men and women as the same was never going to work out. That feminism is founded on false premises. And that Christianity has become too influenced by secular liberal values to represent much of an alternative to mainstream view.

      The good thing about the American women is that they want to preserve their own tradition and so are calling for their own men to take a stand, rather than looking for an alien tradition.

      Delete
    2. Good job finding some of it in English! GoV is an excellent site!

      I assume that it is this post:

      http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.ch/2006/05/devils-bargain.html

      This is based on the PhD paper by Madeleine Sultán Sjöqvist. She is quite active in the debate in Sweden and a few months ago she came out with a long article that has been discussed a lot. It really says the same as the summary that you found, only in more detail. Here it is, if anyone is interested:

      http://kvartal.se/artiklar/vi-valde-islam

      I would say that the key message is summed up in on sentence:

      " I detta perspektiv blir kvinnlig underordning lika med befrielse."

      this translates as:

      "In this perspective, female submission becomes equivalent to liberation."

      There you have it!!! Franz Kafka has been outclassed!

      EuroSwede

      Delete
  3. It all begins to make sense if you hypothesize that the postmodern Left (of which feminism is a part) is a Western suicide cult. The anti-traditionalism, libertinism and atomism they promote is just a battering ram against Western civilization and Christianity so that they can be replaced, eventually, with the culture of the holy, oppressed "Other."

    Of course, the pathetic "right-liberals" you often criticize are not clued in to this. Here in the US, they still imagine that the third-world immigrants we are getting want to become Yankee-Doodle-Dandees-Born-on-the-Fourth-of-July.

    BTW, the Left does not just "support" Muslims, through the Leftist-controlled US education system at all levels, it actively promotes Islam as a more-or-less perfect religion and civilization, certainly far superior to Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course, the pathetic "right-liberals" you often criticize are not clued in to this. Here in the US, they still imagine that the third-world immigrants we are getting want to become Yankee-Doodle-Dandees-Born-on-the-Fourth-of-July.

      Yes, that's part of what we are facing. It's why I posted that video in which not a single student in a French classroom said that they felt French.

      Delete
  4. I think I've mentioned here before that it's inevitable that Islam will start to occupy the vacuum left by traditional western society, but there's also a less complex angle to this fascination with hijabs from left wing women. Objections to the hijab are often rejected as attacks on the freedom of individual expression, placing the hijab in the same category as regular clothing items like shoes, or a red shirt. It occupies two states of significance:

    1) Identifying a woman as a devout muslim who participates in a traditional, collective form of society. This becomes obvious when you see a large group of these women in public, and the effect in mass projects a sense of collective ownership over the public space. It says 'this is a muslim space and our values dominate here.'

    2) More in isolation it is a symbol of liberal ideas of self-expression and individuality, and thus takes on almost sacred significance for liberal individualists, especially when the idea of a ban is put forward.

    Many liberals seem to have no problem vacillating between these perspectives without a shred of cognitive dissonance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, your point 2 rings true. No doubt that is the mindset of many of the women on the march.

      Delete
  5. The only 'patriarchy' that Western women are concerned about is "White" patriarchy.
    The day when "White Patriarchy" isn't concerned about Western women like these can't come a day too soon.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Democrats and oligarchs of the USA have been working with the Muslim Brotherhood, the mother organisation of all Sunni Islamic terrorist groups to overthrow Arab Governments "the Arab Spring" including that of Syria. Huma Abedin, assistant to Hillary Clinton is the link. She is a member of the affiliated women's branch. This shows the depth of Islamic co ordination with the former USA regime. This Linda of Palestine is very likely to be another one hence the opposition to the new Trump Government obvious. Her role will be to ally with the anti Trump demo. Both feminists and the Muslim Brotherhood, Ikhwan in Arabic are tools and useful idiots of the oligarchs. The oligarchs have throughout the twentieth century used Islam as a weapon against Christianity which is their true enemy and the religion they want to destroy. Islamic societies are totalitarian and easier to control and exploit.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.