The clash of opposing progressive causes: which will win out, feminism or PC protection of Muslim refugees?
The recent sexual gropings in the New Year’s Eve crowds in various European capitals, apparently perpetrated by gangs of Muslim men on local women, have thrown Europe’s progressives into turmoil. They are being presented with the dilemma of choosing between two favored principles, the freedom of modern women and the right of Middle Eastern Muslim immigrants to emigrate freely to Europe.
This clash was inevitable. Anyone the least bit familiar with customs in the Middle Eastern Muslim world toward women would know how harsh the treatment is, and what often happens to women who transgress (as all Western women would probably be considered to be doing just by living their normal Western lives). In this clash, so far it’s the women who are losing and the new arrivals who are winning, although that could change if the situation gets bad enough.
For example, you can see the clash in the angry reaction to the statements of the mayor of Cologne—a woman—who suggested guidelines for female behavior at future public festivities:
Reker’s suggestion that women could avoid being sexually harassed (or raped, as two women reported they were on New Year’s Eve) by keeping potential assailants at “arm’s length” drew immediate backlash. On Twitter, the outrage””much of it alternating between shock and sarcasm””amassed under #einarmlaenge, or “an arm’s length” in German.
Aside from everything else you might say about it, Reker’s suggestion sides against the women and on the side of the perpetrators, in placing the onus on the women to change their usual behavior in order to be protected, behavior Western women have come to see as perfectly reasonable and ordinary: that of going out into a celebrating crowd. In addition, if you think about it, Reger’s suggestion is also absurd on the face of it: in crowds, it is impossible to keep anyone at arm’s length; that’s the very nature of a crowd. So if you follow Reker’s words to their logical conclusion, it means that women shouldn’t go out to celebrate where there might be crowds of people in close proximity.
It has been clear for a long, long time (actually, for centuries) that anyone who defends Islam as it is often practiced in the countries of the Middle East is defending a culture that oppresses women (to use a leftist term). And yet it has also been clear for a long time—at least since the 1979 revolution in Iran, when leftists joined forces with the repressive Islamists to overthrow the Shah—that leftists would often choose the Islamists over feminism. In some cases, actually, it was even the feminists themselves who chose to stand with the Islamists (I recall feminists/leftists donning chadors in 1979 in Iran as a badge of solidarity), or at least winked at them or tolerated them, perhaps thinking that in the end the progressives would win out over the Islamists. But the Islamists have had the last laugh there, haven’t they? And so they may again.
“Reker’s suggestion that women could avoid being sexually harassed (or raped, as two women reported they were on New Year’s Eve) by keeping potential assailants at “arm’s length” drew immediate backlash.”
If we’re going to keep them “at length”, I recommend a sword’s length, or a spear.
Supposing there will be a clash between the Left and islam pre-supposes that the Left’s principles have any meaning or consistency. That’s a pre-supposition I cannot make.
As for the feminazis, what do they stand for? They are nothing but a death-cult. And their whole being, like the rest of the Left, seems to be build on hatred for Western civilization.
Muslims, definitely.
Women/feminists don’t have anything close to the body count the others guys have for those who dare to disagree with them.
Also, it really seems to come down to cultural supremacy: the Western culture is so degraded, so marginalized that the other culture is now given higher status by default, whatever that “other” option may be. Those women & progressives who worked so hard to do this never saw it’s natural outcome, eh?
I support Ken Mitchell’s suggestion.
It is not rocket science. If you open your doors to immigrants, refugees, or intruders from cultures that clash with your basic values, you will be challenged. If you do not respond to the challenge, you will suffer.
Europe is offering us lessons. Wonder if we will learn?
The Left clashing with Muslims?
Other commenters could no doubt provide a comprehensive list, but there’s clear history of the Left working in conjunction with Muslims. Two examples off the top of my head: (anti-war/pro-abortion feminist) Code Pink partners with MB, Hamas, Hezbollah: Black Lives Matters partners with CAIR, Palestinian activists & is bankrolled by Soros’ Center for American Progress (Obama’s primary source of policy ideas). They all have the same goal: fight traditional Western culture and stability. This is going to get uglier as they continue to succeed in doing so.
Feminism loses by a wide margin.
Europe is in a demographic death spiral brought on – in part – by feminism.
Europe needs cheap labor paying into their social welfare systems.
Europe could turn it around but liberals don’t have the will.
One of the problems of Europe is that they no longer need the labor of immigrants; and they are a net drain on social systems. Social systems based on traditional marriage, even if only loosely; are stained to the breaking point by unemployed polygamous families.
Per Lizzy: “Women/feminists don’t have anything close to the body count the others guys have for those who dare to disagree with them.”
Not unless you count the millions of aborted babies in the US and around the world.
I would urge all readers of this excellent blog to read the article posted to the Australian magazine Quadrant a few months ago by Christie Davies, a retired British professor. It is the finest treatment of the Muslim problem in the UK and Europe I have ever encountered.
… Reger’s suggestion is also absurd on the face of it: in crowds, it is impossible to keep anyone at arm’s length; that’s the very nature of a crowd.
I also thought her suggestion was absurd, but for a different reason. Even if these women were just in a moderately busy neighborhood, not a tight crowd, what good would keeping “potential assailants at arm’s length” do? The tactic these thugs used was to surround the woman and then move in on her. How is she supposed to keep a bunch of attackers away when they’re closing in from all directions?
The Other Gary:
That occurred to me, too, but I think the idea would be that then the woman would have time see it happening, and move away before the attack occurred.
Absurd, because of course she would not be able to move away, particularly in a large crowd.
She might have also suggested they wear running shoes at all times.
Women are irresistibly attracted to alpha males, and despise beta males.
Feminism has been working for 40 years or more to turn all Western men into grovelling, apologetic betas.
Now our countries are being invaded by alpha Muslim men.
Despite everything they say, Western women will flock to them, and will willingly be dominated by them.
j e
Link here
https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/10/points-compass-ii-london/
This is just a mixture of anecdote and the obvious, so maybe it’s not worth much. On top of that it’s going to sound as if I’ve become one of the Dodger’s disciples. Although that’s far from true, I’ll go as far as saying I mostly agree with Rickl (January 9th, 2016 at 4:20 pm), even though he’s put it more crudely than I’d like.
Marxism, multiculturalism, and feminism have long aimed to destroy European and American civilization. Most university-educated people are vaguely leftist, but they’re just along for the ride. Without thinking too much about it, they follow what their teachers, professors, TV stars, news writers, and politicians tell them.
The feminist leaders win by losing, and in Europe we’re seeing the late stages of that. This is both a class war and a race war, and feminists have allied themselves with Muslims against the white working class. From time to time, I still hear people argue that this isn’t true, but — to me — it seems obvious. I think denial requires twisting oneself into knots.
Aside from the political arguments we’ve all heard, I think that women’s unconscious instincts are very relevant when discussing Europe’s collapse. Although it’s rarely talked about in polite company, there is a strong sexual element to this. European feminists really have tried to destroy European men at a personal level — including sexually. To a large extent, they’ve succeeded. At the same time, it’s become fashionable among European women, to date and marry extremely aggressive — often abusive — African and Arab men. In most European capitals, this has become a cliche. In Sweden, rape of Swedish women by Arab men has reached epidemic proportions, but the government has succeeded in largely suppressing news reports of the rapes. In the UK, the Rotherham rape crisis has finally become widely known, despite government and police efforts to cover it up. As in Sweden, feminists have been complicit in this.
In my own little world, I’ve seen some of this. When I worked in the Middle East, I know lots of women from the UK. They were all university educated; many had postgraduate degrees. They were all vaguely leftist; all were polite Jew-haters. Most of them — married or not — had a casual contempt for European and American men. “Wankers” was the most commonly applied term. Again, almost all of them were very attracted to Arab men, none of whom had any traits that could be called politically correct or feminist approved. None of these women were extreme feminists. They were just products of a feminized culture. When the Left says that the personal must become political, they mean it, and destroying a culture is a pervasive act. It obviously includes sex and family.
Cornflour:
For what it’s worth, I’ve never seen that phenomenon among the leftists and liberals I know. I did know one woman who had married someone of Arab or perhaps Iranian heritage (I don’t remember where he came from) but I recall them as getting divorced in fairly short order.
Tammy Bruce once observed that feminism exists to serve the left. A women’s issue which can be used to forward lefty purposes will get feminist attention. A women’s issue which does not forward lefty purposes will be ignored. Or, considering feminists’ reaction to Bill Clinton’s victims, it may not be ignored.
The premise of the article is that Islam and feminists have a difference of opinion, so to speak, which will eventually collide.
Actually, not so. They have the same goal, although if achieved, feminists will not survive it.
“A woman is out camping with her good-for-nothing husband when they’re attacked by a bear. The husband is struggling with the bear, they’re going at it hand-to-paw, and he shouts out to her to get the rifle. But she just stands there, looking on and shouting out:
“Go, husband! Go, bear!””
The ‘blues’ enourage the barbarians in the mistaken belief they can control the jihadists and us them to rub out the right. The ‘reds’ will hunt down and dismember the jihadists and then purge the surviving ‘blues’ from polite society. There will be bumps and potholes along the way, but that is what I believe will happen.
For those who have read Watership Down, Europe has become Cowslip’s Warren.
Never mind how they view infidel and Western women. Muslim men are so convinced that their lust is uncontrollable that they keep their own women covered in tents.
I think we should take them at their word that they are that uncontrollable. Women from burqa cultures should be allowed to immigrate, and bring their children. Men should not.
Our elites want to bring in tens of thousands of the same culturally different people as are now refugees in Europe, but definitely not Christian refugees it seems; those who would have some degree of common values with those in the West. If the Muslim refugees could be actually vetted for cultural values, IMO they would be denied entry into the US.
With a reported 1 out of every 7 people in the US having been born outside of our country, we have enough people to assimilate without adding to the mix people with little in common with our values. The 1965 change in immigration laws to allow many more third world people into the US may present too much of a problem now without adding to it.
Every time you see a photograph or video of public gatherings of moslems in their own countries, there is one thing that is always there case. There are
NO WOMEN.
Try it. Look through every photo you can find online. Almost never do you see ANY moslem women in these gatherings.
They know how their men behave. They know that if a strange moslem man molests them, THEY will be whipped or put to death.
This could be the One Thing that opens liberals’ eyes (the Leftists have consigned themselves to perdition and are actively abetting/weaponizing the moslems against the West, and particularly against Christendom). But liberals may start to feel queasy. Here’s hoping, anyway.
And, not for nothin’, but Reker’s suggestion is pluperfect idiocy: how is a lone female, surrounded by a wolfpack of molesting moslem marauding males, going to “keep them at arm’s length???”
Insane, just insane.
slightly off subject. If Moslem immigration continues there will be a drastic increase in antisemitic violence. It will be unsafe to be openly Jewish in the US as it is in Europe.
Leftists will side with the Muslims. There’s a hierarchy of What They Care About, and, for some reason, they think protecting Muslims, including the hardcores, is more important, despite hardcore Islam standing directly against everything Leftists stand for.
Pingback:Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove
The lefties live in such a bubble and they think their ideas are so superior that with a little understanding all will come around to their point of view. They are incapable of really crawling into the skins of others to see what they think and value and the emotional bonds people develop to their heritage. Sure, a few will begin to think for themselves, but most will feel caught in the middle of the cell phone/facebook society and the way men in their families treated their women. Young women may remember their relationships with their mothers with great fondness and not want to dishonor them by working toward a different society.
These feminists also think that a $2 minimum wage increase will measuably improve the lives of clerks in convenience stores and compensate for the lack of a partner to help raise their kids. They don’t realize that by making ikons of “designers” who put some buckles on shoes they are telling young women what is important in life. Without those buckles, the girls are losers. How can they ever learn to value relationships and men who are willing to sacrifice for them.
Lefties and feminists know nothing of real life.
Talk about asymmetric warfare!
Islam is winning, without physical violence or combat.
A **Threat** shuts down an institution like a university with everyone there “sheltering in place” like frightened rabbits who have run down their holes to hunker together.
Organized New Year’s Eve groping yields Ruling Class acquiescence. Now Euro mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, girls will stay home, confined, just like Sharia commands.
The fiscal costs of dealing with Islam effectively constitute jizya, the tax paid to the caliph by the unbelievers for the privilege of being tolerated by the Ummah. The actual numbers are huge; consider just the cost of searching the Schengen for a handful of terrorist “Syrians” who lied to the overwhelmed “authorities” in order to enter Europe. “They lied to us, so we don’t know who they are. But we will find them.”
Sure.
It’s all good.
I don’t hear/see anyone of my 200 FB friends talking about this.
Liberals don’t see no evil, hear no evil.
Except Republicans
Feminists have been oppressing women for some time now.
The idea that they are liberating women is… what happens when humans fall for the con. They get mind controlled before they know it.
despite hardcore Islam standing directly against everything Leftists stand for.
“Leftists stand for”…. see what I’m talking about it. It’s right there. What they stand for.
Say what you will, but I’m convinced that multi-culti trumps feminism because leftists take it as a matter of faith that all kinds of what might be called “westernism” is hateful and must be hated. Feminism is a westernism, so multi-culti wins, and wins BIG.
The people who lack sufficient hate are the Westerners against the traitors. They do not hate them enough, so they will be destroyed from within and from without.
I recommend a sword’s length, or a spear.
They should pick up swordmanship or the Japanese kenjutsu.
There’s even an armor selling good weapons these days.
http://chenessinc.com/
I recommend the 9260 spring steel one, wakizashi length, short sword for urban areas and easier carrying. Not really concealable, unless you just go dagger length.
Imagine the Islamic Jihadist with his raghead pulling out his combat twelve inch pig sticker and then proceeding to saw through your neck and the neck of the girls.
Then imagine you pulling out a 3 foot piece of steel, poking a hole through said raghead, and then swirling it around inside the jihad head until his insides look like that lava glow lamp decades ago in the past.
Multiculti will win for the hard core lefties, because they self-hate. For the casual feminists (i.e. the girls who don’t understand the actual state of orthodox feminism in the academy), when they finally realize that the left will throw them under the bus they will bolt.
Every time I see a violent group of radicals, of whatever stripe, there are always women there. They urge their men on.
THIS is the very issue that woke me the hell up from my own liberal birdbrained trance. I saw that the Leftists didn’t give a damn about their alleged “ideals,” because they almost instantly made absolute pets out of the moslem men, the most murderous, most misogynist, most “patriarchal” group of humans on the planet.
There I saw ’em — there I smelt ’em out.
What was left? Their hatred of Christendom, specifically Anglo-Saxon Protestant Christendom, is the ONLY thing they care about. Even more specifically, America as the exemplar of same. And boy, they hate us with a white-hot heat.
When Ann Coulter published the book titled “Demonic,” I thought, “Girlfriend, that’s going a Bit overboard.” But now? I think she nailed it. In a way, their hatred of us is a backhanded compliment. We must be doing something right.
God help us.
At this point of history only another Fuhrer alike Hitler can save German nation and the rest of Europe from Islam onslaught. How to deal with him later, is another, if daunting question. But let us solve problems in order of their actuality.
Sergey:
A Fuhrer like Hitler wouldn’t save Germany or Europe from anthing; it would plunge both into the abyss.
I assume you don’t really mean like Hitler. I assume you mean some sort of strongman/strongwoman. I don’t think that’s necessary or desirable. Democratic nations can be preserved, and immigration gotten under control, if the people had the will and the leaders took a firm stance against more arrivals. I don’t know much about German politics, but I assume that someone like Marine Le Pen exists there, within this group or others.
This is how God usually operates: He chooses lesser evil to oppose bigger evil. It is much preferably to plunge for a decade or so into European medieval barbarity than for a millenia to Arabic 7-century savagery. And, of course, I meant somebody more like Franko or Mussoliny than clinically insane Hitler. I see not much difference between Franko or other radical Catholic nationalist and Marine Le Pen.
Franco, of course. What is desperally needs now is Reconquista in Europe combined with Crusade in Middle East. All it is possible if society devolves under stress to its Medieval self, which is entirely realistic for Germany and other European nations, as Third Reich history shows.
I am reasoning from experience: I have seen how quickly supposedly modern society can adopt premodern attitudes if some talented demagogue uses propaganda on it. In just 2 years Russia recently radically transformed to 19 century norms and values. Even educated people from my close circle turned out to be totally amenable for such transformation.