Feminist Fantasy

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Skip wrote

Prominent men who are socially and politically (and economically) active ignore the horrific abuse of women, children and men in other countries, as well as the United States.

Agreed. Society is always complaining of abuse by men.

Usually money. Sometimes power, too, but mostly money.

So women are equal to if not worse than men in their acceptance of the abuse of women. So much for all these women's equality groups. They'll stab a woman in the back if it makes them an extra buck. At least if they support Sharia abuse as a rape fantasy a person can say "well, they didn't really mean it." But you are describing an "in your face" horror. Abuse is fine as long as the bribe is right. So much for the gentle sex.

It seems to me you are only interested in a hate-rant about women and the problem you have with them. I'm sure some women like to be dominated by men. That's obvious. Certainly not ALL women. And I've already explained to you why the PC say very little about islam. PC men don't have a lot to say about islamic misogyny either. Apparently the PC are very picky about who we must be 'tolerant' towards. Perhaps they think that muslims are inherently inferior, and therefore hold them to a much lower standard than the rest of us. How patronising.

[Nick_A]

Maybe I'm getting too old for this. A feminist fantasy is easier to explain. These feminists and progressives are caught up in secular political arguments to the degree that they can believe there is something noble about Sharia abuse so don't condemn it. After all, spousal abuse is common so must hold some attraction. But have female political and social activists become so callous and cold that they openly sell out women to Sharia abuse for political or financial benefit without any sense of remorse? One thing for sure - such women would never be good in bed.

[Nick_A]

Vege wrote:

It seems to me you are only interested in a hate-rant about women and the problem you have with them. I'm sure some women like to be dominated by men. That's obvious. Certainly not ALL women. And I've already explained to you why the PC say very little about islam. PC men don't have a lot to say about islamic misogyny either. Apparently the PC are very picky about who we must be 'tolerant' towards. Perhaps they think that muslims are inherently inferior, and therefore hold them to a much lower standard than the rest of us. How patronising.

So it boils down to women with character, courage, and compassion will condemn Sharia abuse. Others will ignore it and still others will try and make a buck off of it. I prefer including the possibility of a feminist fantasy. Stupidity is easier to accept than "in you face" cruelty as an excuse for supporting Sharia abuse.

[FlashDangerpants]

It is hard to separate fact from fiction but one thing is certain; Sharia law is becoming more influential in America because more people live by it.

Your first "fact" was blatant fiction, it was not hard to see that at all.
Your new fact is just paranoia. Sharia law is not becoming more influential in America.
Just because something gets discussed more often than before by Fox News does not make it an emerging or a growing threat.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Sharia law is tautology. Sharia means law.
There are such things as Sharia courts in the UK, where Muslims can go to get judgements that are in tune with their religion. The judgements can frame binding agreements, but they have no standing in the Lex Britannica.
Such courts are wholly voluntary.
Does this mean Sharia is more influential in the UK. Only by the most strangled definition of the world influence.

[Nick_A]

There are more people who believe in Sharia law entering the United States every day so its influence is growing through numbers. Sharia law supports the abuse of women by traditional American standards. There are women who consider themselves both political and social activists who speak continually about women's rights. But at the same time they support by ignoring the abuse of women by Sharia law. Why? Comments so far lead me to believe it is the result of feminist rape fantasies. The only alternative is too horrible to take seriously. This alternative is that such women are openly shallow, callous, and cruel to the degree that they support open vile abuse of women for political or financial profit. I'll stick with an over active fantasy life.

[FlashDangerpants]

The only alternative is too horrible to take seriously. This alternative is that such women are openly shallow, callous, and cruel to the degree that they support open vile abuse of women for political or financial profit.

Poor Nick. Are you trying to be subtly ironic while also parroting shrill nonsense about a Sharia takeover of the US?

They don't work together unless you are knowingly mocking those who believe that Sharia is a threat in a country with separation of religion and state enshrined within its constitution.

Also,l you cannot do irony, you have a fist of ham.

[Nick_A]

FDP wrote:

Poor Nick. Are you trying to be subtly ironic while also parroting shrill nonsense about a Sharia takeover of the US?

Of course this has nothing to do with the topic. But it raises the question of why you find women so offensive that you find it impossible to openly and loudly oppose abuse inflicted on women under the excuse of Sharia law? I can see how and why Hillary supports this abuse since she makes money from nations engaging in this abuse. Some women fantasize about being abused by men so protect abuse. But why you? I don't get it.

[FlashDangerpants]

FDP wrote:

Poor Nick. Are you trying to be subtly ironic while also parroting shrill nonsense about a Sharia takeover of the US?

Of course this has nothing to do with the topic. But it raises the question of why you find women so offensive that you find it impossible to openly and loudly oppose abuse inflicted on women under the excuse of Sharia law? I can see how and why Hillary supports this abuse since she makes money from nations engaging in this abuse. Some women fantasize about being abused by men so protect abuse. But why you? I don't get it.

I never support any abuse of women under Sharia law or any other law. I don't single out Sharia as if it is a particular threat to my secular nation - because it clearly is not, just as it is not in yours. In both our countries there are plenty of people doing fucking horrible stuff for reasons entirely unrelated to Sharia law. So why are you deflecting from real to imagined problems?

I also don't approve of them flogging and beheading atheists. Or throwing homosexuals off tall buildings. Nor any of the other stupid shit those guys do. Hillary doesn't support any of these actions either.

[Skip]

So women are equal to if not worse than men in their acceptance of the abuse of women.

Nope. Women still have far less than equal power in the decision-making of corporations and nations. Foreign policy and trade agreements are almost never made with a consideration of the ally's or trading partner's human rights record. It's not restricted to Sharia, or Muslims; it can as well be racial, political or tribal oppression; it can be economic exploitation and environmental degradation; theft of livelihood, land and water; depriving children of medical aid and education; legal sanctions against minorities, persecution of dissent in any form.

It's not about women. It's never been about women.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Sharia law is tautology. Sharia means law.
There are such things as Sharia courts in the UK, where Muslims can go to get judgements that are in tune with their religion. The judgements can frame binding agreements, but they have no standing in the Lex Britannica.
Such courts are wholly voluntary.
Does this mean Sharia is more influential in the UK. Only by the most strangled definition of the world influence.

They shouldn't exist at all in the UK.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

FDP wrote:

Poor Nick. Are you trying to be subtly ironic while also parroting shrill nonsense about a Sharia takeover of the US?

Of course this has nothing to do with the topic. But it raises the question of why you find women so offensive that you find it impossible to openly and loudly oppose abuse inflicted on women under the excuse of Sharia law? I can see how and why Hillary supports this abuse since she makes money from nations engaging in this abuse. Some women fantasize about being abused by men so protect abuse. But why you? I don't get it.

I never support any abuse of women under Sharia law or any other law. I don't single out Sharia as if it is a particular threat to my secular nation - because it clearly is not, just as it is not in yours. In both our countries there are plenty of people doing fucking horrible stuff for reasons entirely unrelated to Sharia law. So why are you deflecting from real to imagined problems?

I also don't approve of them flogging and beheading atheists. Or throwing homosexuals off tall buildings. Nor any of the other stupid shit those guys do. Hillary doesn't support any of these actions either.

Yes, all kinds of people do horrible things, but most countries don't have them written into their laws. Women are treated like shit in muslims countries. Only an idiot would deny that.

[FlashDangerpants]

Correct. But Nick is using that fact in a somewhat bizarre way - he is claiming that there is a Sharia takeover of the USA. That latter thing is a fantasy. Meanwhile, here is a story about born again Christians in the USA selling their own daughter to a peadophile.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... tance.html

Also in the USA and Britain right now are many trafficked girls who are getting raped every day. In Britain we will be hearing more stories of young girls being spirited out of the country to have their genitals mutilated - some of this will be done under the auspices of Islam, but some will be Christians and others something else. Each of these events is equally bad.

We don't need Nick to tell us that Sharia law results in lots of bad shit, it is a fact daily broadcast around the world. The other things he's trying to tell us about it are inaccurate (American takeover), exaggerated (this or that group of people don't complain - when the most you could say is they don't complain s much as he would like or ignore other subjects to the degree he would wish in favour of this one), or just fucked up (that silliness about rape fantasies).

Nick appears to be trying very hard to subtly insinuate additional things with this thread. He isn't a gifted communicator of ideas, so what they may be is still hard to tell. It seems to involve some problem he has with women, some other issue he has with Hillary Clinton, and some deep loathing of "liberals" (American variety).

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Correct. But Nick is using that fact in a somewhat bizarre way - he is claiming that there is a Sharia takeover of the USA. That latter thing is a fantasy. Meanwhile, here is a story about born again Christians in the USA selling their own daughter to a peadophile.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... tance.html

Also in the USA and Britain right now are many trafficked girls who are getting raped every day. In Britain we will be hearing more stories of young girls being spirited out of the country to have their genitals mutilated - some of this will be done under the auspices of Islam, but some will be Christians and others something else. Each of these events is equally bad.

We don't need Nick to tell us that Sharia law results in lots of bad shit, it is a fact daily broadcast around the world. The other things he's trying to tell us about it are inaccurate (American takeover), exaggerated (this or that group of people don't complain - when the most you could say is they don't complain s much as he would like or ignore other subjects to the degree he would wish in favour of this one), or just fucked up (that silliness about rape fantasies).

Nick appears to be trying very hard to subtly insinuate additional things with this thread. He isn't a gifted communicator of ideas, so what they may be is still hard to tell. It seems to involve some problem he has with women, some other issue he has with Hillary Clinton, and some deep loathing of "liberals" (American variety).

Yes. He clearly has an agenda here. He also can't recognise obvious satire.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Sharia law is tautology. Sharia means law.
There are such things as Sharia courts in the UK, where Muslims can go to get judgements that are in tune with their religion. The judgements can frame binding agreements, but they have no standing in the Lex Britannica.
Such courts are wholly voluntary.
Does this mean Sharia is more influential in the UK. Only by the most strangled definition of the world influence.

They shouldn't exist at all in the UK.

it's a free country. Any club or other organisation can pronounce judgement on its members. As long as such judgements do not translate into unlawful actions, they have every right to exist.