“I wish my own women to understand that what I am going to say is for them as well as others, and I want those who are here to tell their sisters, yes, all the women of this community, and then write it back to the States, and do as you please with it. I am going to give you from this time to the 6th day of October next, for reflection, that you may determine whether you wish to stay with your husbands or not, and then I am going to set every woman at liberty and say to them, Now go your way, my women with the rest, go your way. And my wives have got to do one of two things; either round up their shoulders to endure the affliction

It may not have been you, but someone else that said something to the effect that “if women were so powerful, why don’t they, etc”. I can’t recognize the voice tones, so that was why I thought it was you.

I was more or less reframing the issue with that phrase in mind.

How can it be that even I could still be shocked by the Left’s bizzare alliance with Islamo-fascism. Surely, I keep thinking, surely someone’s going to say something. Perhaps Islamism is like the Mob, once you’re in with them, its hard to get out.

Humans are predictable, Bigman. We all follow the path of least resistance.

However, there are several multi-million sex-discrimination cases in court now, against banks due to a woman not getting promotion.

Since the path to million dollar rewards is a lot easier than the path to getting your head chopped off, women go for the path of least resistance. Predictable. Not admirable, but predictable at least.

There is no crime, absolutely none, that cannot be condoned when ‘our’ side commits it. Even if one does not deny that the crime has happened, even if one knows that it is exactly the same crime as one has condemned in some other case, even if one admits in an intellectual sense that it is unjustified — still one cannot feel that it is wrong. Loyalty is involved, and so pity ceases to function.

Ramsey Clark and the Vietnam guys, must have been following Orwell like a prophet and messiah.

Speaking about prophets, I wasn’t accusing Mormons of anything.

Unless you are claiming that Mormons never had any anti-women tendencies in the first place to expurgate, then you can’t be right.

Link

While John advanced women’s suffrage in order to produce more political power, it still is a valid point, but not all that relevant.
Link

Here’s a link that talks about young and his wives. I found it pretty funny, given the historical ageness. But it is important, because it is about polygamy. I could say that this is what he gets for having so many wives, but I won’t.

“I want all the people to say what they will do, and I know that God wishes all His servants, all His faithful sons and daughters, the men and the women that inhabit this city, to repent of their wickedness, or we will cut them off. …

“There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see

This makes me tired.

Um, please don’t accuse Mormons of “reactionary anti-woman tendencies.” Polygamy was instituted by Mormons to take care of unmarried women, many of whom had been widowed or abandoned by their husbands. Women in polygamous relationships were allowed to initiate divorces, but the men almost never were. These same women were also sent back East to medical school because we needed doctors. My great-great grandmothers had the vote long before yours did, and in fact, when Utah joined the union, the vote was taken away from women because the US was behind Utah with regard to women’s rights. My ancestors were suffragettes.

Mormonism teaches that Eve is the hero of the creation story because she understood that we had to pass through sorrow to grow. Women are not despised as temptresses but admired as those who “get it” with regard to religion much more readily than men do.

If, on the other hand, you’re talking about those loonies in Colorado City/Hilldale, those are a breakoff group that has nothing to do with mainstream Mormonism. Those people refuse to educate women past eighth grade, marry them off as young teens, and tell them that their only function in life is to provide posterity for their husbands. That’s nothing like what mainstream Mormonism teaches or practices.

I’m a single Mormon woman with a Cornell education. Nobody in the church has ever so much as insinuated that I ought to get married for the sake of providing some random, mouth-breathing idiot with posterity or that I shouldn’t go to school. On the contrary, we’re encouraged to get as much education as humanly possible, and if marriage doesn’t happen in this life, well, maybe in the next.

[…]
Cultural relativism serves these crimes. It legitimizes and maintains savagery. It says that people’s rights are dependent on their nationality, religion, and culture. It says that the human rights of someone born in Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan are different from those of someone born in the United States, Canada or Sweden.

Cultural relativists say Iranian society is Muslim, implying that people choose to live the way they are forced to. It’s as if there are no differences in beliefs in Iran, no struggles, no communists, no socialists, and no freedom-lovers. If so, why have 150,000 people been executed for opposing the Islamic Republic of Iran? If it’s the entire society’s culture and religion, why does the Islamic regime need such extensive tools for repression? If it’s people’s beliefs, why does the regime control their private lives – from their sexual activities, to what video they watch, to what music they listen to? If the entire society is Muslim, why did Zoleykhah Kadkhoda enter a voluntary sexual relationship for which she was buried in a ditch and stoned? If it is people’s culture, why did the residents of Bukan revolt against the stoning and save her life? Why are thousands of women rounded up in the streets for “improper” veiling if its their culture and religion? How come, after two decades of terror and brutality, the universities are still not Islamic, according to an official of the regime? Though it’s untrue, even if every person living in Iran had reactionary beliefs, it still wouldn’t be acceptable. If everyone believes in the superiority of their race, does that make it okay?
[…]
Cultural relativists go further to say that universal human rights are a western concept. How come when it comes to using the telephone,car,or building centrifuges to enrich uranium to build nuclear weapons (a 60-year old Western Technology) the mullah does not say it is western and incompatible with an Islamist society? But when it comes to universal human rights, they become western. Even if rights are western, it is absurd to say that others’ are not worthy of them. In fact, though, rights are gains forcibly taken by the working class and progressive social movements. Therefore, any gain or right obtained anywhere is a gain and a right for all humanity…
[…]
The defeat of Nazism and its biological theory of difference largely discredited racial superiority. The racism behind it, however, found another more acceptable form of expression for this era. Instead of expression in racial terms, difference is now portrayed in cultural terms. Cultural relativism is this era’s fascism. Cultural relativists are defenders of this era’s holocausts…

Just to be picky, Orwell wrote to that effect in 1945 in Notes on Nationalism, an essay worth reading. If you haven’t seen the correct quote, here is the paragraph in which it appears (emphasis mine).

All of these facts are grossly obvious if one’s emotions do not happen to be involved: but to the kind of person named in each case they are also intolerable, and so they have to be denied, and false theories constructed upon their denial. I come back to the astonishing failure of military prediction in the present war. It is, I think, true to say that the intelligentsia have been more wrong about the progress of the war than the common people, and that they were more swayed by partisan feelings. The average intellectual of the Left believed, for instance, that the war was lost in 1940, that the Germans were bound to overrun Egypt in 1942, that the Japanese would never be driven out of the lands they had conquered, and that the Anglo-American bombing offensive was making no impression on Germany. He could believe these things because his hatred for the British ruling class forbade him to admit that British plans could succeed. There is no limit to the follies that can be swallowed if one is under the influence of feelings of this kind. I have heard it confidently stated, for instance, that the American troops had been brought to Europe not to fight the Germans but to crush an English revolution. One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool. When Hitler invaded Russia, the officials of the MOI issued ‘as background’ a warning that Russia might be expected to collapse in six weeks. On the other hand the Communists regarded every phase of the war as a Russian victory, even when the Russians were driven back almost to the Caspian Sea and had lost several million prisoners. There is no need to multiply instances. The point is that as soon as fear, hatred, jealousy and power worship are involved, the sense of reality becomes unhinged. And, as I have pointed out already, the sense of right and wrong becomes unhinged also. There is no crime, absolutely none, that cannot be condoned when ‘our’ side commits it. Even if one does not deny that the crime has happened, even if one knows that it is exactly the same crime as one has condemned in some other case, even if one admits in an intellectual sense that it is unjustified — still one cannot feel that it is wrong. Loyalty is involved, and so pity ceases to function.

So before you intend to get blinded by the false ideology of reenacting your forefathers’ mistakes; understand that the male psyche can not subsist without its female half-core; a stifled female Always means a Defeated Male. A Defeated Male means the endangered world we live in now.

P.S. One of the first laws Khomeini changed after establishing the Medieval Republic of Tazis was to bring down the age of marriage from 18 to 9 years old.

Iranian Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi has issued a fatwa that it is legitimate for men to beat their disobedient wives. Shirazi wrote on his website: “The Koran first recommends a man to try and convince his wife to obey him in a polite way and through advice, and then by refusing to have sexual relations with her. Finally, if all these fail to make her come to her senses, proceed with physical punishment.”

Did I hear the Grand Ayatollah suggesting that as a form of punishment a man should refuse to have sexual relations with his wife? Are you kidding me? That’s not a punishment, that’s a reward. How many wives do you know that actually enjoy having sexual relations with their husbands? When was the last time you saw a wife crying her heart out because her 250-lbs hairy husband refused to have sex with her? So, you’re telling me that a wife who will not have to fondle her husband’s sweaty balls is being punished? I think not.

Another thing I’m confused about is at what point do I stop refusing sexual relations with the wife and move on to knocking the crap out of her? Is it two weeks? Two months? Two years? Additionally, am I allowed to have sexual relations with other men’s wives while punishing my own by refusing her the Tower of Power? (Or is it the Thunder Down Under? I forget.) Can’t I just skip the part about refusing sexual relations and move directly to the beating? Just a thought. Furthermore, does a quickie count?

Well, I gotta go before my wife catches me writing this stuff and beats the shit out of me.

http://www.iranian.com/Shorts/2006/oct2006.html#31