Barbarians. . .

Published by

Clarissa

March 14, 2013

Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, the power behind President Mohamed Morsi, usually makes its more incendiary statements in Arabic only. But such was the movement’s horror at a United Nations proposal to reduce violence against women that it issued a statement in English today complaining that “the complete disintegration of society” would result if the UN adopts a set of recommendations from its Commission on the Status of Women. . . The UN thinks it would be useful to raise the age of marriage, decriminalize homosexuality, make contraceptives more readily available, and give unmarried mothers the same rights as married ones.

The Brothers are not pleased:

“The document includes articles that contradict established principles of Islam, undermine Islamic ethics and destroy the family, the basic building block of society, according to the Egyptian Constitution,” the movement wrote. “This declaration, if ratified, would lead to complete disintegration of society, and would certainly be the final step in the intellectual and cultural invasion of Muslim countries, eliminating the moral specificity that helps preserve cohesion of Islamic societies.”

Just substitute “Islam” by “Christian” and “Muslim” by “American” and you will recognize the verbiage immediately. Note how the obsession with the same old issues of homosexuality, contraception and single motherhood drives all of these barbarians nuts.

The really interesting question is why these fundamentalists hate each other so much. Their goals are exactly the same, their language couldn’t be more similar. Of course, we should all be happy they are too dense to join forces. If they did, progressive causes would have a much more complicated journey to complete victory.

Rate this:

25 responses to “Barbarians. . .”

Shedding Khawatir

March 14, 2013

“The really interesting question is why these fundamentalists hate each other so much. Their goals are exactly the same, their language couldn’t be more similar.”

This is what I’m always wondering myself . . . each is convinced the influence of the other will destroy them, when in reality they are a perfect fit with each other!

LikeLike

Reply
thevenerablecorvex

March 14, 2013

Fundamentalism is definitionally xenophobic which means that cross-cultural alliances are very difficult for them to form, even when they have everything in common.
Give it a few generations, though; remember that fifty years ago, the thought of Catholic and Protestant extremists teaming-up in North America would have seemed equally unthinkable.

LikeLike

Reply
1. David Gendron
  
  March 14, 2013
  
  Your last post about feminism is excellent! Contrary to Radfems, I think “non-trans privilege” exists, but I don’t think that criticizing transgenderism (if their contribution would be only that: I agree that this would not be feminism, though) is their only contribution, though, and they have never harrassed any minority group of women, in fact.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. thevenerablecorvex
    
    March 14, 2013
    
    Thank you.
    You are quite right that many radfems actually have more contributions than merely attacking people like me; for example, much as it galls me to admit, Janice Raymond actually has done some very good work against international sex trafficking.
    I was referring mainly to one (particularly infamous) radical “feminist” who’s name I am loathe to repeat as she is fond of googling her own name and attacking anyone who criticizes her.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      March 14, 2013
      
      “I was referring mainly to one (particularly infamous) radical “feminist” who’s name I am loathe to repeat as she is fond of googling her own name and attacking anyone who criticizes her.”
      
      – OK, now I’m curious. Is it Twisty?
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
      1. thevenerablecorvex
        
        March 14, 2013
        
        No, Twisty (whatever her other issues) tries to rein-in her transphobes.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
  2. bloggerclarissa
    
    March 14, 2013
    
    Yes, it is a very good post.
    
    For everybody else, this is what we are talking about: http://voxcorvegis.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/public-service-announcement-feminism/
    
    Talented writing, precise, intelligent thinking.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
  3. Stille (@aperfectbalance)
    
    March 15, 2013
    
    I believe the transphobe Corvex is talking about is nannerB ythaC, since I don’t think she also googles her name in reverse. She’s certainly infamous.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
  4. David Gendron
    
    March 15, 2013
    
    1) Cathy Brennan is not liked very much by Radfems now, and this understandable.
    
    2) There’s more evidence of transjacktivists harassing Cathy Brennan than radfems harrassing trans people.
    
    3) Brennan believes that trans women are men, which is not my case. (even though they were clearly MABs who were less harmed than FABs by the patriarchy before their transition)
    
    4) Brennan was right when she said this: “All anti-discrimination laws have an exception built in them to permit discrimination based on sex in certain public accommodations -this is why we have sex-segregated bathrooms, showers, locker rooms, and the like. The definition of gender identity that the LGBT
    organizations keep putting forth is overbroad, and allows males who
    are not transgender or transsexual access into female only space. This
    is bad for women.”
    
    http://bugbrennan.com/brennan-answers-critics/
    
    That’s exaclty what I was talking about! But there is no rational debate on this, because of the “twanzpobia” strawman.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      March 15, 2013
      
      Ah, the worshiper or “female-only spaces.” I’m sure she will feel very much at home in a seraglio.
      
      I, on the other hand, don’t need to build a ghetto around myself. Hence, I can tell her where she can stick her female-only space.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
  5. David Gendron
    
    March 15, 2013
    
    1) Cathy Brennan is not liked very much by Radfems now, and this is understandable.
    
    2) There’s more evidence of transjacktivists harassing Cathy Brennan than radfems harrassing trans people.
    
    3) Brennan believes that trans women are men, which is not my case. (even though they were clearly MABs who were less harmed than FABs by the patriarchy before their transition)
    
    4) Brennan was right when she said this: “All anti-discrimination laws have an exception built in them to permit discrimination based on sex in certain public accommodations -this is why we have sex-segregated bathrooms, showers, locker rooms, and the like. The definition of gender identity that the LGBT organizations keep putting forth is overbroad, and allows males who are not transgender or transsexual access into female only space. This is bad for women.”
    
    http://bugbrennan.com/brennan-answers-critics/
    
    That’s exactly what I was talking about! But there is no rational debate on this, because of the “twanzphobia” strawman.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      March 15, 2013
      
      “That’s exactly what I was talking about! But there is no rational debate on this, because of the “twanzphobia” strawman.”
      
      – What rational debate can there be with a strange individual who thinks “female-only spaces” are a good thing? One has to be incredibly stupid and uneducated not to know that such spaces are the death of feminism. Jeez. Why doesn’t she just go read a book instead of clucking impotently?
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
  6. David Gendron
    
    March 15, 2013
    
    So men should have to right to access to female-only spaces?
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      March 15, 2013
      
      David, let’s not start again, OK? I already said many times that I find the very concept of “female-only spaces” to be egregiously offensive to my feminist sensibilities. Just the words make my blood boil. Saudi Arabia and Iran are filled with such spaces. Why don’t people who like them so much just move there?
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
  7. David Gendron
    
    March 15, 2013
    
    Okay, so you are in favor of unisex bathrooms. At least, this is coherent…
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
David Gendron

March 14, 2013

That proselytism!

LikeLike

Reply
David Gendron

March 14, 2013

That’s proselytism!

LikeLike

Reply
Rob F

March 14, 2013

There’s also this:

Who is to blame [for the inability of delegates to the UN Commission on the Status of Women to reach a consensus and create a communication]? Delegates and activists are pointing fingers at the Vatican, Iran and Russia for trying to eliminate language in a draft communiqué asserting that the familiar excuses — religion, custom, tradition — cannot be used by governments to duck their obligation to eliminate violence. The United Nations Human Rights Council endorsed similar language just six months ago.

Conservative hard-liners seem determined to fight it out again. They have also objected to references to abortion rights, as well as language suggesting that rape also includes forcible behavior by a woman’s husband or partner. Poland, Egypt, other Muslim states and conservative American Christian groups have criticized one or more parts of the draft. The efforts by the Vatican and Iran to control women are well known. It is not clear what motivates Russia, although there is a strong antifeminist strain in President Vladimir V. Putin’s [sic] government. He may also be trying to curry favor with Islamic states.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  March 14, 2013
  
  “Poland, Egypt, other Muslim states and conservative American Christian groups have criticized one or more parts of the draft.”
  
  – Poland should be ashamed of itself. Shame on you, Poland. What, you wanted freedom from the USSR in order to fall into a similar bondage to Vatican?
  
  “The efforts by the Vatican and Iran to control women are well known. It is not clear what motivates Russia, although there is a strong antifeminist strain in President Vladimir V. Putin’s [sic] government.”
  
  – I think it’s all much simpler. If the US is in favor of today being Thursday, or the sea being blue and roses being red, Putin will be against. I now entertain myself by watching the Russian TV for the completely stupid things people say about the US. Do you know, for instance, why medical services are so expensive in the US? I just learned from a Russian TV channel that it happens because the labor union of US doctors forces all doctors to charge so much. I also just learned that every US family has in its account at least $300,000 in savings. At the same time, there are millions of homeless starving children roaming the streets of US cities. This is an identity building mechanism for the Russians.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. David Gendron
    
    March 14, 2013
    
    “Poland should be ashamed of itself. Shame on you, Poland. What, you wanted freedom from the USSR in order to fall into a similar bondage to Vatican?”
    
    That’s why I’m glad that the pope is not a Québécois.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
  2. Rob F
    
    March 14, 2013
    
    I believe that a number of “pro-(heteronormative patriarchal women-oppressing) family” organizations like Poland a lot.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
el

March 14, 2013

From today’s Israeli newspaper I learned that:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/160754#.UUI-1tZFBqw

FROM THE ARTICLE:

An Egyptian film documenting Jewish life in Egypt prior to the 1950s has stirred controversy after it was screened at a film festival in Cairo, Al-Arabiya news reported.

Amir Ramsis, director of “Jews of Egypt,” was accused of promoting normalization of ties with Israel through attempting to gain the audience’s sympathy for Jewish Egyptians, who are seen as the “Zionist enemy” by the majority of Egyptians.

“Those accusations are absolutely groundless,” Ramsis told Al-Arabiya. “Those who think the film promotes normalization either did not watch it or analyzed it very superficially.”

He maintained that the documentary is against Israel and against normalization.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  March 14, 2013
  
  This just goes to show that people see whatever they want in any text. 🙂
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
cliff arroyo

March 15, 2013

I eagerly await Obama’s denunciation of the Muslim Brotherhood and their (very literal) war on women.

Let’s start the countdown!
1,
2,
3,
(to be continued)

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  March 15, 2013
  
  You aren’t serious, are you? He will never do this.People who don’t lose their breath and start bowing down when they hear the words “cultural difference ” are very very few. I think it is perfectly OK to judge cultures and pronounce them inferior or superior according to my system of values but the majority of self-flagellating Liberals never dare to do this.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply