The Ehical Superiority of the Female Sex

While doing the modest research for the previous entry I found this:

It's a one-page website and the above is the sole content. It can be found at the URL:
http://www.howtogetyourexboyfriendbacktips.com. And no, I'll not go there, I or my computer might catch something nasty.

At my German blog I recently discussed an article in the leading German "teen mag" (Gosh, the word alone is nausea-inducing) Bravo (which targets at a readership between 12 and 17), where the young were informed how to deal with their "exes", another just as pukeworthy piece of vocabulary. Notabene that the strategies, all heavily relying on in-depth knowledge of the dirtiest of human sexuality, suggested for girls to apply to their ex-boyfriends are notably more fiendish and swinish than those suggested for the boys to treat their ex-girlfriends with. I wonder why. Not.

(Notabene that they were not castigated for THAT by the a certain faction of the blogosphere, but because they only focused on -- ta-daaa -- heterosexual sex. (I am considering to rename this blog, because I have come to think that not feminism, but the homosexual lobby may be the "most destructive single cause for the decline of our civilisation".)

In case you wonder whether there is a page http://www.howtogetyourexgirlfriendbacktips.com -- there isn't, I tried it. I wonder why. Not.

Praise to the Conduct-or

And if the young man had bitch-slapped her in return, as he ought to have done, all hell would have broken loose. Something like this will happen if women are setting the standards for behaviour. Men are emasculated because their best instincts are vilified and incriminated. Notabene that this didn't happen in America, but in a Catholic, European country. It's creeping in everywhere.

Hat tip: So much wrong.

The Compatibility of Western "Progressivism" with Islam

The entry It's Islam, Stupid! -- Redux at Roncesvalles got a couple of interesting comments. Let me summarize: Why do liberals, artists, atheists, homosexuals, feminists favour Islam over a traditional Christian society? Isn't that illogical? No it isn't. That would only be the case if one would assume that they were, in fact, into freedom. But that is not the case. They are into control, and that's exactly why those people are usually not into just one "progressive", politically correct cause, but into all of them. A leftist will be as well feminist, into "equal rights" for homosexuals, vegetarian- or veganism, teetotalism (which, funny enough, doesn't extent to drugs), "animal rights", the cult of man-made climate change, the choice to murder your unborn child, agnosticism or atheism, "progressive" pedagogy and art, gun control, anti-racism and a rabid egalitarianism, and and and... In fact, it is all about control, bullying and might. They want to see the separation of powers, so fundamental for the rule of law, abolished. They are their own lawmakers, judges and law enforcers, political correctness is their constitution. They are abhorred at the thought that anybody anywhere on this earth might have fun. Wholesome fun, above all. They'd ban heterosexual sex, if they could. They want people sick of body and soul, helpless and frightened.

And that is exactly what Islam wants as well. They are mutually compatible, and each faction think they can control the other and we are supposed to lean back and wait who wins.

I'd like to add that the mutual hatred of Jews fits perfectly well into all this. For to the rebels in the West against God and the Ten Commandments, the godless cult of Islam must appear as the perfect ally.

The Peculiar Way of Women to Deal with Their Problems

F.C. sent me the following comment via email:

Hallo, I found your Blog through this and I wanted to comment that last one ... I was wondering are you a Female or a Male? Your Judgement against ... about Phyllis Chesler is really horrible (and I say that being a Female) - I say, Dr. Phyllis Chesler is just wonderful.

Anyway, I saw your Post about Nagla Al-Imam and her Statements: People recently talk(ed) about her, since she appearently converted to Christianity and got persecuted by the Authorities of her Country. About her, an Article appeared on PajamasMedia.

Thank you for approaching Islam/-ic/-ist Threat ... that's great.

I wish you a nice Day and Life.

First, thank you for your kind words, F.C. As for the points you have addressed:

Yes, I am female. "Editrix" is the female form of the male "Editor". Why are you asking? Would you expect a female to be more lenient in her judgement of women because she is one herself? If that is the case, I don't agree.

As for Phyllis Chesler, I think I made a good job of proving my point that Chesler is a hysterical egomaniac and grotesquely overrated shame to any academic environment, and that she is not criticising Islam as such, but talking about her (HER HER HER) personal problems with it. It's all in my various articles about her in German and English. Not my judgement is horrible, it's the plain truth. Chesler is horrible. You, on the other hand, just said you think she is wonderful. I would be seriously interested to learn why you think that. No provocation or sarcasm intended.

Now Nagla Imam: So evil Islamists gave her a bad name by doctoring (how?) what she said about Israel. I guess they did that because they knew what a worldwide outcry would ensue because the Jews generally and Israel specifically are so well loved everywhere, as proven by the massive protests against what she said.

(But sarcasm aside and let's for argument's sake assume they DID doctor her statements. The question remains WHERE THE OUTCRY WAS because we had to believe that she had really said that. The feminists' reaction, however: *CRICKETS*.)

I will say what I think of all that: No Muslim in a Muslim country will convert to Christianity lightly, so in that she is credible. I think it just proves that hatred of Jews is the spiritual staple of Islam and the West. She may have, as it was discussed at a blog, tried to give herself some notoriety to protect herself, but again, it would be a peculiar, peculiarly ineffective -- and very telling -- way of doing so. She may be simply a crackpot, but I don't think it's quite that simple. One thing I know: That a case like that will typically and enthusiastically be picked up by Pajamas Media, this great melting pot of a couple of liberals who don't like Islamic extremism (but have mostly nothing against Islam as such) and thus consider themselves "conservatives".

And to revert to the topic of this blog: I wonder whether a man would have dealt with his personal problems in a similarly less-than-straightforward way.

Thank you again for your opinion. Great food for thought!

If there is no man at hand...

... a suppressed Muslim woman will do the job just as well:

This hasn't anything to do with Islam, really:

A Calgary mother won’t spend a day in jail for killing her teenage daughter with a head scarf — a decision that has prompted outrage.

A national victims’ group, based in Toronto, is stunned by the suspended sentence given to Aset Magomadova by Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Sal LoVecchio on Thursday.

“I really strongly disagree. It sends a massively huge message to the rest of the country and the world that her daughter’s life was valueless,” said Joe Wamback, co-founder and chairman of the Canadian Crime Victims Foundation. Dear Mr. Wamback, no doubt you are meaning well, but you are talking about a Muslim family. To her, her daughter's life WAS valueless. You have ... HOW many Muslims in Canada? (It doesn't really matter how many exactly. If something like that happens, there are too many already.) Get an education!

“Even though this girl may have been a handful and trouble, that’s not the issue. Good to know! We are relieved, otherwise we'd thought that killing her is just the appropriate measure to discipline an unruly teenager. The issue is human life. Oh yes? Sentencing is not just about the criminal, but has to speak for the victim and to denunciation.” Gosh, how frightfully non-politically correct. No wonder nobody gave a damn.

In October, LoVecchio acquitted Magomadova, 40, of second-degree murder and found her guilty of manslaughter in the death of Aminat, 14. He placed her on probation for three years with several conditions, including taking counselling for grief, depression and anger management. And a trip to the Caribbean and an unlimited supply of McDonalds coupons for life.

The judge rejected an argument by Crown prosecutors Mac Vomberg and Sarah Bhola for a 12-year prison term, instead accepting the position of defence lawyer Alain Hepner, saying a suspended sentence can still meet the demands of sharia justice.

“At first blush (a suspended sentence) may sound like a get-out-of-jail-free card. It is not,” said LoVecchio. What else is it then?

“The court has said the act in question does not merit a period of incarceration. What the court has done is reserved or, to use the word of the statute, suspended judgment on that point for a period of time on conditions. If the conditions are satisfied, then the individual will not be sentenced. If they are breached, the individual will be brought back to the court to be dealt with further.” This is so debauched, so debased and rotten to the core, that it can only come from a judge in a liberal Western country.

Magomadova was charged after the deadly incident at their home the morning of Feb. 26, 2007, after Aminat refused to go to court to be sentenced for assaulting a female teacher at her school.

The devout Muslim mother claimed Aminat came at her with a knife in her sewing room, where she prayed several times a day. She said she reacted by wrapping the scarf around her daughter’s neck and twice told the girl to put the knife down before the teen lost consciousness.

A knife was found in the room, but the daughter’s fingerprints were not on it. But Muslims don't lie. Didn't you know that their faith forbids lying? It's peace, too. Oh yes, and mercy!

LoVecchio, who rejected a defence of self-defence, deemed the woman did not intend to kill the teen, even though medical examiner Dr. Sam Andrews testified that death as a result of such an act would have taken at least 2 1/2 minutes.

Jennifer Koshan, an associate professor at the University of Calgary’s faculty of law who researches family violence, said the vast majority of fatal family violence cases involve husbands killing their wives. I guess this totally useless and a-topical information is supposed let the murder of the girl somehow appear less gruesome. At least it wasn't a man who choked her.

“It’s relatively unusual to see a mother killing a child, especially an older child,” [sic!] said Koshan. “So it’s rare for the court to be faced with this situation. Maybe that influenced the judge in his decision.” Right! So the court said: "We have never dealt with a mother strangling her teenage daughter cruelly to death over a time of 2 1/2 minutes, so let's not deal with it at all!" What a magically wise solution.

Marilyn Millions, one of Magomadova’s sponsors with St. James Anglican Church, said outside court she was relieved “at the compassion and mercy that has been shown” by the court. Sorry, I'm not commenting on that. Words fail me.

“There were lots of tears and emotion,” she said. “If you’ve lived through it and you’ve gotten to know these people, it’s all in the context. It’s a lot different than reading a little bit about it. It’s a very different situation.” WHAT is a very different situation? Having to deal with a murderous Muslim walrus?

Millions also said it was the wish of the family that “people would know mental-health services for young people and help for their families will be improved, and changes made to the system, so that others who have to go through similar situations do not fall through the cracks.” So that woman killed her daughter because she fell though some "cracks"? It wasn't really her fault?

Hepner said his client was crying after she learned she’d be free to go home and agreed it was an appropriate sentence. You bet!

“The judge considered all the factors and it was a very lengthy decision,” said Hepner, who had sought either a conditional jail sentence to be served in the community or the suspended sentence. “He considered the background, psychological and psychiatric background. What else can a judge do in arriving at a proper decision?” Maybe use some common sense and simple human decency?

LoVecchio said he wrestled with the dynamics of the family in reaching his conclusions. The "dynamics" of that family are that of a Muslim family in the West.

He noted that the woman came to Canada for a better life for herself and her children from Chechnya, where her husband had been killed by Russian invaders and she had part of her foot blown off. And that excuses killing her child, no doubt. I don't want to appear unkind, but I'm afraid the Russians blew the wrong body part off.

“This was a family in crisis with events spiralling out of control,” he said, alluding to the friction between Aset and Aminat leading up to the deadly confrontation that morning. Well, whatever.

“It cannot be reduced to simply a case of mom choosing to kill her daughter as a form of discipline because she misbehaved. Quite simply, the events of that morning cannot be seen as a single isolated event.” Blah blah blah yabber yabber yack yack ...

And nobody even remembered that all this was supposed to be, too, about speaking for the victim and denunciation.

And, you know, that is not really about Islam, that's how Islam is EXPLOITED by people like that infanticidal hippopotamus.

But whatever. I, for one, will think twice in the future if Islam critics (myself included) are waxing lyrically about the victims of Islam who long so much to be free, weren't it for that evil, testosterone-laden culture. Not that it is all THAT new, mind you. A Google search Muslim mother kills daughter returns the following hits on page one:

Gary Robinson's Rants: Mother kills raped daughter to restore 'honor'
Mother kills raped daughter to restore 'honor'. I could hardly believe this story: Raped by her brothers and impregnated, Rofayda Qaoud refused to commit ...

Daughter raped by brothers, murdered by mother
18 Nov 2003 ... 'Thousands of women have been killed in the name of honor' ... Related stories: Muslim slays daughter in 'honor killing' ...

CANADA: MUSLIM mother attempts to 'honor kill' her own daughter ...
14 Jun 2010 ... A Montreal Muslim mother from Afghanistan is facing charges that she tried to kill her teenaged daughter, in what police suspect could be an ...

UK: Muslim mother hires hit man to kill Westernized daughter ...
4 Sep 2009 ... UK: Muslim mother hires hit man to kill Westernized daughter. After my adventures yesterday in Florida, it seems as if the only people who ...

The Google bot, befuddled, asked me at the bottom of the page: Did you mean to search for: Muslim father kills daughter

No, Google. I most definitely do NOT mean to search for that. Methinks that even a search engine can become a victim of the "It’s a very different situation” phenomenon.

P.S. Do you have any idea, Americans, what triggers off one of my recurrent "I-dislike-America"-bouts (it is applicable to the entire North American continent, by the way)? If your media calls somebody like that "a [insert location] mother". "Mom" is worse.

Had tip: Beak!

More Deadly Than The Male

Yesterday, commenter FPB posted Rudyard Kipling's poem in the comment thread of an entry headed Is feminism the root cause of America's (and the rest of the West's) problems?. It is indeed so apropos to the topic of this blog that I retrieve it from the comments dungeon and put it up here:

Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)
The Female of the Species

WHEN the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside.
But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When Nag the basking cobra hears the careless foot of man,
He will sometimes wriggle sideways and avoid it if he can.
But his mate makes no such motion where she camps beside the trail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,
They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws.
'Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man's timid heart is bursting with the things he must not say,
For the Woman that God gave him isn't his to give away;
But when hunter meets with husbands, each confirms the other's tale—
The female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man, a bear in most relations—worm and savage otherwise,—
Man propounds negotiations, Man accepts the compromise.
Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact
To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.

Fear, or foolishness, impels him, ere he lay the wicked low,
To concede some form of trial even to his fiercest foe.
Mirth obscene diverts his anger—Doubt and Pity oft perplex
Him in dealing with an issue—to the scandal of The Sex!

But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame
Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same;
And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail,
The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.

She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast
May not deal in doubt or pity—must not swerve for fact or jest.
These be purely male diversions—not in these her honour dwells—
She the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else.

She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great
As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate.
And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim
Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.

She is wedded to convictions—in default of grosser ties;
Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies!—
He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild,
Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.

Unprovoked and awful charges—even so the she-bear fights,
Speech that drips, corrodes, and poisons—even so the cobra bites,
Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw
And the victim writhes in anguish—like the Jesuit with the squaw!

So it comes that Man, the coward, when he gathers to confer
With his fellow-braves in council, dare not leave a place for her
Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands
To some God of Abstract Justice—which no woman understands.

And Man knows it! Knows, moreover, that the Woman that God gave him
Must command but may not govern—shall enthral but not enslave him.
And She knows, because She warns him, and Her instincts never fail,
That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male.

My thanks go to FPB. By the way, the entire entry is well worth reading. When I re-read it just now I thought: "Did *I* write that?" Thanks FPB for that experience, too.

Where are the feminists? Where is the outrage?

Found here at the eyeblast.tv blog.

It may be 2 years old but I think it’s emblematic of the situation. Watch the video again and let it sink in how chilling this is. A crazed anti-semite comes out saying that Muslim men should sexually harass and even rape Israeli women and what does this arab tv network do? They invite her on and interview her as though she were just another political commentator with a provocative position.

And the sad thing is that in a society where the call for mass genocide against the Israelis is a common event this woman’s disgusting insanity really is just provocative. In a region of the world where denials of the holocaust and calls for its renewal are common place perhaps the treatment of the call for the mass rape of Israelis as legitimate by a tv network isn’t surprising.

But, clearly, it is disgustingly reprehensible and yet another reminder of exactly what the Israelis are up against.

Notabene that this woman wears no headscarf, that she has had obviously a Western education and that the anchor wears a Western suit and tie. These are the textbook moderate Muslims the West yearns so much to embrace.

If this is two years old, where have the feminists been in the meantime? Where is the outrage? What else do we need to prove the utter worthlessness and hypocrisy of feminism?

---

Hat tip: The 'gator!
Cross-posted at Roncesvalles.