Hillary's bestie despises feminism

Article here. This one leaves me speechless. It's the classic man-bites-dog story. Excerpt:

'Hillary Clinton’s top campaign aide, and the woman who might be the future White House chief of staff to the first female US president, for a decade edited a radical Muslim publication that opposed women’s rights and blamed the US for 9/11.

One of Clinton’s biggest accomplishments listed on her campaign Web site is her support for the UN women’s conference in Bejing in 1995, when she famously declared, “Women’s rights are human rights.” Her speech has emerged as a focal point of her campaign, featured prominently in last month’s Morgan Freeman-narrated convention video introducing her as the Democratic nominee.

However, soon after that “historic and transformational” 1995 event, as Clinton recently described it, her top aide Huma Abedin published articles in a Saudi journal taking Clinton’s feminist platform apart, piece by piece. At the time, Abedin was assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs working under her mother, who remains editor-in-chief. She was also working in the White House as an intern for then-First Lady Clinton.

Headlined “Women’s Rights are Islamic Rights,” a 1996 article argues that single moms, working moms and gay couples with children should not be recognized as families. It also states that more revealing dress ushered in by women’s liberation “directly translates into unwanted results of sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility and indirectly promote violence against women.” In other words, sexually liberated women are just asking to be raped.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

... for the first time in my life I actually think the threat of Islamification of western countries creates a common cause for MRAs and feminists.

No actual feminist could possibly find anything redeeming about the strict gender roles and prescribed placement of men and women in society, or the stifling of human sexuality that Islam demands. Likewise, the curtailment of liberties and human rights that men endure under Islam repels the typical MRA. If MRAs and feminists have common cause in anything, it's stopping Islam.

Like0 Dislike0

Like0 Dislike0

My take on things (which may not be popular here) is that any culture which embraces traditional gender roles is more efficient. I say "more efficient" but it is not necessarily any more or less moral as people can choose whatever lifestyle they want, but to deny that it is not more efficient, I think denies all science and facts.

So it does not surprise me that an Islam culture is going to eventually overtake modern Western Culture. They will out-breed us as their numbers keep increasing. Feminist and MRA both seem to want to limit reproduction (or need to in order to envoke their ideologies.)

Anytime you expect a woman to meet the same work output that a man does, she has to limit her reproductive capabilities to do that. That is why feminist promote abortion and often have no kids or just one kid. Many MRA's match this belief. Also demanding that women take the same risks that men take also decreases reproduction abilities. (it takes 100 women to make 100 babies, yet only 1 man, which is why there is a biological instinct to protect women)

Each time feminist or MRA's demand equality without any thought about how it influences biological differences, they will limit reproduction rates. And anytime reproduction is limited, a culture which doesn't limit reproduction will occupy that much more space on earth.

The bottom line is that both feminism and MRA's have the risk of dying out before traditional gender role cultures. The only way to stop this is to increase breeding, in order to increase breeding you tend to need to adopt traditional gender roles.

Like0 Dislike0

My first exposure to Islam was not pleasant, and I have no wish to turn this country into an Islamic country. But it's not without its positives.

One thing I learned is that men and fathers have rights in the family; they're assumed. In the West, men have to fight for rights in the family. And women have rights--not as extensive as in the West, but Islam gave women defined rights long before anyone else did. So, what's better for a man: to live under Shari'a law with defined rights or to live under feminist laws and have no defined rights? If those were my only two choices, I'd choose Shari'a law. Fortunately, those are not the only two choices.

In the West we once had a gentler version of patriarchy that worked fairly well. And by patriarchy I mean father-headed families. And the longer I've examined this issue, the more I've concluded patriarchy is the only way to go. Our ancestors came up with that solution and they had the same problems we have.

Two aspects of patriarchy are important: marriage and gender roles. Marriage gives the child a father--and the rights of the father must be protected if marriage is to work. Gender roles were an exchange: the woman provided the man with a family and the man provided the woman with income and protection. It worked well, not perfectly. If we destroy gender roles, then we also destroy the exchange on which they were based. If woman does not need to fulfill her gender role, neither does the man, so the exchange does not take place. There is no basis for civilization to form. The exchange between men and women inherent in gender roles made civilization possible. It required both men and women to play by the rules.

The problem in the West today is that women want to be free from the requirements of their traditional gender role but still demand that men meet the requirements of their gender role. Women end up with the family and the money and men end up with nothing.

Kris is right when she says the Muslims will out breed us. They don't kill their own children. We do. The Muslims also do not denigrate their men in the way we now do in the West. We in the West have lost the conviction of our beliefs. The Muslims have not.

But do I want to see this become an Islamic country? No.

Like0 Dislike0

I completely agree with Kris, but from a different angle.

I have tried reading the Koran -- three times. One time, I got 100 pages in (I really did try). And each time, I gave up out of sheer boredom.

I have read the Bible. It is thrilling from both a theological and cultural perspective.

So my take comes from an agnostic position (even though I am not).

The Bible alleges itself to be the word of God, yet it was written by many people.
The Koran alleges itself to be the word of God, but it was written by one person.

Thus, one is is more likely to find internal inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible.

Now the Medieval Monks were faced with resolving these contradictions. How can the word of God contradict itself? So these monasteries of thought evolved into the University system we have today.

The west -- Christianity, Capitalism, Gender Roles -- are all connected.

Now, around this time, the philosophy (still assuming I am not a Christian) of Christianity began to flourish on the dead vines of the Roman Empire. It spread rapidly: it's thought, art, music, etc. (The Middle/Dark ages were never as dark as people suggested).

The West is intimately connected to Christianity and I do NOT want that severed. One finds Christianity in Bach to Beethoven, Don Quixote to Brother's Karamazov (the good and the bad of it).

It is in our science, too! For example, the following three questions are identical:
1. What is a black hole (infinite mass in finite domain);
2) what is a bounded set (does a set close itself?);
3) How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Christianity infuses our thought.

(I shudder when I hear the intellectual left mocking the influences of Christianity or Judaism -- those religions created our culture.)

I fear the banality of Islam. Muslims talk of the peace and beauty of the Koran. But I find only simplicity, boredom, and a complete lack of intellectual stimulation. It puts me to sleep. It does not challenge me to find God in the concept of a black hole in space or on the head of a pin.

We are moving toward a society of boredom; one where men and women are not challenged to respect each other and their roles. We are moving to a society of acceptance of all things (e.g.: gender transitioning). We are moving to a society where Bette Midler (the grand dame of the gay bath houses), is lambasted and pilloried by feminists after stating "Now that Caitlyn Jenner lost her show, will she change back to Bruce?"

The direct consequence of feminism now seems to be the stifling of thought; much like Islam.

Finally, I find it symptomatic of our times, that the prevailing moral question of our epoch is not respect, or love, or consideration of God, or where does one show one's compassion. Instead, the prevailing question of our epoch, driven by third wave feminism, is the profound and incredibly deep and challenging question: Where does one take a shit? In the men's room or the women's room?"

Like0 Dislike0

Some interesting and thought provoking comments above, but I wanted to point out that the growing influence of Islam is greatest in Europe, due to immigration and birthrate differences. In the U.S. it would be the influx and rapid growth of the Latino population, which is predominantly Catholic. So while the two groups would have an increasing influence on their respective adopted regions, it may take a different form. I think that the proportion of Muslims in the U.S. is a lot smaller than that in Europe.

An interesting question: Would the fact that most Latinos are Catholic mean that the Judeo-Christian values they bring will be more persistent in the U.S. vs. the Islamification of Europe?

Like0 Dislike0

IMO, it will all boil down eventually as to what group continuously has the most children. As the adage goes, "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world"

My guess is that you might see the Latino-Catholic culture immigrate to the United States before Muslim culture does because they have a closer proximity, but simultaneously Muslim culture would be overtaking Europe. Then it is a matter of time to see which culture out-breeds the other. There may be a war or two along the way. (now inject thoughts about females on the front lines here, as the culture which does NOT do that will have the advantage in both fighting and reproduction)

Cultures which live by traditional gender roles have healthier children (partly because they have more children) so they flourish compared to feminists culture and MRA culture.

I cringe a little when I see MRA's promote child-free lives. I understand the reasoning, but it is a reaction to defeat, not victory, not what someone actively fighting the battle should do. It's saying, we have lost the battle and this is the least painful way to die.

If MRA's want to get into the battle, they need to reproduce so they can create an army.

Like0 Dislike0

Well, MRA's could start a reproduction "boot camp" to start with under the tutelage of "The Patriarchy". I'm sure the Patriarchal Women's Auxiliary would be glad to help. And in a couple of decades we'd have a new army!

Oh wait, there could be some resistance to the idea from feminists and the government.

Like0 Dislike0