A little while ago there was a showing of a Pakistani film advertised at the university. I was obviously interested but very much less so after reading the synopsis. It was all the worst cliches about Pakistan put into a Cinderella story line. I was unsure if I should invest the time. I am glad I decided to go as I wanted to hear the commentary from the lecturer and reactions from the other students. It was also worth watching the film for the excellent cinematography. The images of Karachi sent me back to my short stay there. I could almost feel the pleasantly warm sea breeze. The actors were also doing a really good job. But they couldn’t hide the fact that the characters were flat and there to convey a political message: Women are awesome and men are horrible and no matter how nice they seem at first, all they ever want is oppress women.
The reactions from the students were not really surprising though still quite shocking considering that their degree is supposed to provide them with more knowledge about South Asia than the general population. They are supposed to be more aware of stereotypes, their origin and their effects. But instead the first student raised her arm and enthusiastically talked about how great it was that the film had shown [insert stereotype] and [insert stereotype] and also [insert stereotype that wasn’t even in the film]. The joy in her voice and the smile on her face while talking about how the man in the movie had limited the woman’s life was remarkable. She was denigrating half the population (and by extension the other half) of a country that, by the choice of her university degree, she claimed to care about and it was giving her the greatest pleasure. If this how the people in the Asian Studies department think how can we expect anything more from the general population. It was only a student from Georgia who criticized the stereotypical depiction of men and women.
The lecturer then said that this was actually a very poor film and mainly conveyed stereotypes. She didn’t say why she had selected it and the message certainly didn’t reach the last row where the young ladies where still more than happy that their stereotypes had been confirmed. Their worldview was the right and just one and by perpetuating it they would be making the world a better place. These are the moments when I am about to lose hope in humanity but instead I have begun to just be fascinated by these people who claim to want to make the world a better place by dehumanizing half the world’s population. It makes me wonder if we as humans will always need someone to hate. These days we preach acceptance of other countries and cultures but it is still more than acceptable to hate on the men from that other culture. Maybe that is a primal need to the human species?
I am still hoping that it can be overcome and that there will be peace among humans at some point in the future. 🙂
this is absolutely shameful for the BBC …
UK readers may by now have had the misfortune of viewing some of BBC Three’s weekly feminist propaganda pieces, it’s hard to miss them as they’re endlessly repeated, often meaning there’s one such broadcast shown almost every day. We previously analysed “The rise of Female violence“, a hugely disappointing programme but still one of the better gender issues related broadcasts.
BBC Three’s latest attempt at “discussing” gender issues took the form of a programme by Tyger Drew-Honey, titled “Am I sexist”, a clip from which you can watch below. The programme really is astonishingly biased, even by BBC standards with a total disregard for basic ethics throughout let alone the strict impartiality rules of the BBC Charter.
The broadcast supposedly has the premise of examining whether we are becoming”more sexist than ever before”. Throughout the vast majority of the broadcast sexism is framed in true feminist SJW style…
View original post 1,163 more words
“If you haven’t been initiated into the ways of gender politics, you might expect domestic violence services to be concerned for the safety of all victims, regardless of their gender.”
This week the Labor premier of Queensland, Annastacia Palaszczuk, made headlines by calling for campaigns against domestic violence to be inclusive of male victims.
Predictably—for anyone who understands the world of gender politics—this call for greater inclusivity and gender equality was not celebrated (or even begrudgingly tolerated) by the feminist movement.
Responding in The Guardian, representatives from Domestic Violence NSW (DVNSW) and Brisbane Domestic Violence Service (BDVS) warned Palaszczuk not to “put domestic violence against men above women”.
If you haven’t been initiated into the ways of gender politics, you might expect domestic violence services to be concerned for the safety of all victims, regardless of their gender.
In reality, DVNWS believes in “managing and operating refuges within a feminist framework for women alone” and BDVS takes the position that “all the indications are that 9 out of every 10 domestic violence victims is a…
View original post 1,033 more words
The following is my response to Rachel Edwards excellent article: Safe Spaces
Hi Rachel, thanks for the article and generally your quest for making the internet a space where everyone feels safe to speak. Because that is what the internet has been for me over the past twelve years. A place where I dared speak my mind and thus gradually realized that other people’s angry reactions are not something I need to be afraid of.
My school life was similar to yours and I have now realized that this was what turned me mute. At school I was referred to as ‘shy’. I always hated that word, because not talking gives you the opportunity to observe others and I could see that I was different from actual shy people. My dad told me that as a preschooler I used to be very talkative and even when he took me to his office (telling his colleagues that the after school club, that I hated because the end of classes only gave the bullies more opportunities, was closed) I constantly talked to his colleagues and asked many questions about this and that.
When people say that social media has made human interaction more shallow I always disagree with them because it gave me a place to express myself bluntly and honestly (which is the only way I can express myself and probably the reason I go mute when I don’t feel safe to speak). Speaking my mind online has shown me that, while I received obviously criticism and also outright attacks, there are many people who share my opinions and who are more than that grateful that someone has said what I have said. This experience has helped me immensely become a more confident person in real life and clearly laying out my arguments in spoken conversation instead of going mute. As I am someone who can’t do small talk but will talk openly and honestly on any issue that comes up, every conversation runs the risk of differences of opinion. Accepting that any anger and screaming I encounter are the issue of the person who is freaking out and not mine has given me great opportunities to learn from other people and to broaden my horizon. Finding out about antifeminism and the men’s rights movement has fortified me to stay on this path. The number of amazing people I have met since speaking my mind on men’s issues and antifeminism far outweighs the number of people who have screamed at me. And thus I am more than happy to take the latter with the former.
The only time that I ever went mute online was last spring after the double incident of the honeybadgers being expelled from Calgary Expo and Sabeen Mahmud being shot in Karachi/Pakistan for providing a space where people could speak their mind without any ideological constraints being put on them (a week later). For a couple of months all I did on facebook was use the share button. When it was pointed out to me that I hadn’t written anything in a long time, I could not even say what was keeping me mute. When I thought about it between sobs I knew that the only appropriate reaction to both events was more speech but whenever I wanted to write I just had no words. It was the old shock over the realization that there are too many people who go to any lengths in order to silence people who utter words that make them uncomfortable. Maybe I don’t just fear the power these people have — on the school yard and in government — but they simply don’t make sense to me. I have always been ‘why’ child and continue to be as an adult. I want to know everything there is to know about any subject as there is no other way to form an opinion.
When youtube was banned in Pakistan to protect the sensibilities of a few screaming and US flag burning people the rest of the world was rightly shocked. But now the same people ban speakers from universities in the UK, the US and Canada to protect the sensibilities of a few screaming harpies and and in the same way want to restrict what can be said on the internet. People in Pakistan rightly cheered over a photo of the new prime minister of Canada taking part in Muslim iftar and wearing Pakistani clothes as an example of the religious tolerance that they wished to see in their country. Little do they know that the old religions have long been replaced in the west by new ideologies who dogma cannot be criticised either. While people who intentionally or accidentally cross the ideological lines don’t yet get shot, harassment campaigns against them that cost them their jobs, friends and family by the people who claim that to want to make the world a safer space are no longer uncommon. People in the west don’t have to hide in the bathroom if they want to eat lunch during ramzan but ask how many would openly criticise feminism at their place of work and you know how free speech in Canada really is.
This is not what a Nazi looks like
When I was 13 I went on holiday camp to Hungary and enjoyed myself, swimming in the Ballaton lake and using hands and feet to communicate with people. The next summer I went to Spain but this time I took a small English dictionary, so I could look up words and make sure that no one finds out that I am German. Having learned about my home country’s darkest past in the previous school year I was deeply ashamed of my heritage. I had always liked travelling and meeting different people. Though I grew up in a small suburb where everyone pretty much looked the same I never had any reservation towards people who looked different. In fact I still pay so little attention towards people’s looks that for years I believed my housemate’s hair to be blonde when it is in fact brunette and I have mixed up several people at my work place but could identify them again correctly once I remembered what we had talked about. According to the current strand of progressivism a person is racist when they don’t notice someone else’s skin colour. Fortunately, I have now left all German guilt behind and no longer worry about whether not instantly recognising that my best friend was Mexican when I first met him makes me racist. But when I was in my formative years and sat through the story of the holocaust in almost every subject except sports and maths, I was convinced that somehow behind my open-minded verneer there was a racist lurking in the shadows, waiting to come out any moment … While no one objected to my German nationality in Spain or years later on my stay as an Au-Pair in London I still fell fool to the story of an exchange student from London, who claimed that a class of Germans who had travelled to the North of the UK had been pelted with stones and their teacher had said to them: “No matter how poor your English is, don’t speak German”. In my following years on exchange in the UK, I came across many sections on WW II in museums, even in museums where they seemed out of place. However, there was never any reservation towards my being German. Quite on the contrary, I met quite a few people who shared stories with me of how they visited Berlin when the wall was still up. That was fascinating and I could see their empathy towards a people that were living under occupation without ever having committed any crime. My shame and what I now call ‘German guilt’ began slowly to diminish. It made a last desperate attempt to come back to life when I saw Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” being sold at a newsagents in Karachi / Pakistan. That book is forbidden in Germany and had to me always seemed like toxic material that no one should get their hands on. Now being in a city where people were violently murdered every night and day, feeling guilty for crimes, people that I am not related to had committed when my dad was a small child, suddenly seemed ridiculous. Here, the last dictatorship was only a few years past and thus it was no real surprise that people were a lot more relaxed towards the one whose name must not be said within the country that he brought so much blood shed to. I later learned about the genocide in Cambodia, Srebrenica, Ruanda and other parts of the world and realised that being German does not make one predisposed towards racism. There is not a country on earth whose inhabitants have not committed acts of cruelty against other human beings. Violence knows no nationality, race or sex.
Hence why the current fashionable talk of men as inherently violent makes me very uneasy. I feel a new kind of guilt, for being part of the half of the population on whose behalf men are asked to atone for sins that they have never committed. Since speaking out against feminism and misandry I have had to read statements from male feminists that made me shudder. In their self-flagellation they sounded so much like 14 year old me, claiming that discrimination against men is the right way forward as men constitute an inherent danger towards women … I cringe when I read the words of these men who look at their masculinity as something toxic and harmful towards society, when it has in fact built our infrastructure and saved many a woman’s life.
I personally was so intrigued by the atrocities committed by Germans in the past that I read many books on the subject from the library. From my classmates, however, I heard more than once that they were fed up with hearing about it in almost every class. As if they hadn’t understood it’s wrongness the first ten times around. When I now see what’s in the media referred to as casual racism I sometimes wonder if it couldn’t just be people who are fed up with being the eternal nazis. That is a thought I had more than once since the xenophobic Pegida movement surfaced about a year ago. Maybe, just maybe it does not do the human psyche any good when people are constantly told that they are the worst of the worst.
I certainly think we need education about the holocaust. I certainly think we need sexual education for young boys and girls. I certainly do not think that telling people they are genetically predisposed towards racism makes them open-minded. I certainly do not think telling men they are genetically predisposed towards physically harming women and enjoying seeing them suffer makes them empathic human beings. Yes, I do not only believe that consent-workshops are a waste of people’s time. I do also believe they are harmful.
Then how can we reduce sexual assault rates? I could not say it any better than George in his interview with Lauren Southern: “One of the things people have been asking me, what would I have as an alternative to consent classes. The way in which I learned not to rape people was through my upbringing. I was fortunate to be raised by very decent and very admirable parents and I am so grateful for that and. But I realise that not everybody has that privilege. Not everybody comes from a stable household. Not everybody comes from a household where their parents were there for them. So I think to teach consent we need to have long-term fundamental education. By fundamental education I mean being taught not what consent is and what it isn’t but what beinga decent person is. Exactly, so my mother never went to me: “George. don’t go into a club and don’t put your hand up a girl’s skirt.” She said to me: “George treat other people with decency and respect.” From that the rest follows. From treating people with respect you learn not to rape people and you learn not to abuse people.” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKuAVEX5ats)
This is not what a rapist looks like
To these words i have nothing to add as they adequately represent my own attitude towards life. What I could add is that my upbringing was not as stable as George’s but I still managed to not abuse people and also to protect myself against abusive people for all my adult life. So his point about self-reliance and individual responsibility instead of the currently fashionable victim attitude also strongly resonated with me. Also, during my youth I witnessed plenty of violence and thus know with certainty that violence knows neither sex, nor age, race or nationality. I will probably write about some of my observations on another post. However, after almost two years of being openly anti-feminist I know that the internet is not misogynistic as the Sarkeesians like to claim but very unkind towards people whose opinions differ from the commonly accepted narrative.
Paul Elam recently established a new youtube channel by the name An Ear for Men on which he has published a few essays about masculinity in an attempt to counter the male shaming that is out there. Due to time constraints I have only uplodaded the audio versions now and will later discuss in details the points that I find most useful. What I can say already that these are many and that this will eventually become quite a long post 🙂
A New Psychology for Men
Servant, Slave, Scapegoat
Why men can’t say no to women
Why men can’t say no to women II
Last week I saw this article from a respected Pakistani newspaper pop up on my facebook newsfeed. How anyone could ever think that domestic violence was an issue that affected only women as victims and only men as perpetrators is beyond me but now that countless studies have proven (what is obvious to any common sense person) that men and women lash out at each other at equal numbers it really pains me to still see the old narrative being peddled.
My hope here was that it was just done to get people to click and that the actual article would address how both men and women suffer in cousin marriages. But the actual article turned out to be biased to the bone.
The article opens with this strange assertion:
For centuries, parents of young Muslim women have forced their daughters into arranged marriages, often with their cousins, to protect land holdings or conform to their tribal customs.
and ends with a similar statement, coming full circle and thus ensuring that the reader leaves with an image in their mind of a young, helpless women being pushed by their evil parents to a similarly evil man who can’t wait to subjugate her.
Despite the evidence showing less infrequent abuse in first cousin marriages, women should not be forced into marriages against their wishes so that they may avoid spousal abuse. In a just society, people are kind to all, and not just to their blood relatives.
It is strange, people, feminists in particular keep reiterating that women are objectified. Yet, the person in this article, who is completely stripped of any humanity is clearly the man. According to the view of this journalist, he has no desire for a partner together with whom he can go through life, who desires him as much as he does her. Apparenty all he needs is a female that he can stomp his foot on. As anyone who has ever met a male human being knows this is not true. So, how come the journalist is not at least bothered by men who are forced into marriages against their will? They say there is no respect for women, anywhere, but especially in South Asia. But when the situation of men being forced into a marriage is not even mentioned it really makes me wonder how much respect there is in the so called male dominated society. Women forced into marriage is seen as a problem. Men forced into marriage is not even worth a mention.
It comes as no surprise then that in the comments people will justify violence against the husband by the wife.
So, this is what the archetypal patriarchy looks like. Men justifying women lashing out at their husbands. It is not really anything that surprises me as blaming men for violence they endure from their wives is also common in western countries. This is once more an area where people in the East and West do not differ from each other. Needless to say that in the rest of the comments men are trying to outdo each other in their proclamation of how they are condemning any mistreatment of women as if that would make them somehow special. Then there is the usual Pakistanies accuses Indians of mistreating their women and vice versa. Basically a miniature version of the age old “Muslim men mistreat their womenfolk”, said by Western men and “Western men mistreat their women folk”, said by Muslim / Asian men. A competition between different cultures and nations about who treats their women best?
It’s almost as if treating women well was an inherent part of masculinity.
Another curious part of the article was that it revealed that the study was financed by USAID and conducted by Canadian researchers. It’s almost as if colonialism never ended. Once again theories that have proven to have done more harm than good in the native population and are nowadays being openly challenged by many are taken to foreign lands and are engrafted on people there.