↓
 
Home » Most women’s rights organizations are worse than worthless

Most women’s rights organizations are worse than worthless

The New Neo Posted on by

Women’s rights organization are basically wholly-leftist boilerplate operations at this point. Maybe they always were, but whether or not that’s the case, it’s become abundantly clear as time has gone on that their principles are utterly changeable, and depend almost completely on politics.

Therefore, post-10/7 it’s been easy to see that they have been silent or taken the wrong side about a massacre and rape festival that should have been a no-brainer for them to vigorously and unequivocally condemn.

Instead we have this sort of travesty:

UN Women, the United Nations’s leading organization for the protection of women’s rights internationally, issued its first statement on the Hamas attacks on October 13. There is no mention of Hamas in the statement. There is no mention of sexual violence. It does call for the “immediate release of the hostages,” but the majority of the text is devoted to the “dire” situation in Gaza.

“Within a month following the Russian invasion to Ukraine, UN Women expressed grave concern over evidence of rapes and other conflict related sexual violence and called for an investigation into these allegations. Likewise, they reacted immediately to the reports of rapes of Yazidi women by ISIS, which was referred to as a terrorist group,” a professor and academic director of the Rackman Center for the Advancement of Women at Bar-Ilan University, Ruth Halperin-Kaddari, tells the Sun. “Their failure to acknowledge what actually took place on October 7 adds fuel to the propaganda, to the campaign of denial, in which we find ourselves now.”

The UN group is hardly alone. For example:

Where are the self-righteous sisters of The Squad? Where is AOC, Rashida, and Ilhan? I guess their duplicitous feminist stance takes a pause when the victims are Jewish. Where is the Me-Too movement? They shamed and helped prosecute sexual predators in show business and the workplace. Why are they giving Hamas a pass? Where are the female journalists on the BBC and MSNBC? …

Where is the outrage from Save the Children or UNICEF? In 2014, after Boko Haram terrorists kidnapped 276 schoolgirls in Nigeria, movie stars and politicians spearheaded the global outcry. Michelle Obama launched a social media campaign to “Bring Back Our Girls.” But the former first lady has been nowhere to be seen since October 7. Her silence has been deafening. …

In the aftermath of wars in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and Ukraine, the crimes against women were central to the international criminal indictments and prosecutions of men responsible for orchestrating the campaign of rapes. It is unlikely that such a special prosecutor will be called to protect Israeli and Jewish women. I have fought the destructive virus of anti-Israel bias of the International Criminal Court for years. The court in The Hague has historically used its jurisprudence as a platform for attacking Israel and not defending it.

See also this, and this.

In a story that seems related, there is also the news that young US women are converting to Islam in record numbers. I haven’t read the article – paywall – but it doesn’t surprise me. Young women are adrift at sea these days, and Islam offers a very strict direction. That it is a misogynist direction may not matter to those women seeking whatever it is they think they find there.

I will close with an excerpt from this poem by Sylvia Plath. Although the poem says “every woman,” I disagree about that. But I think it expresses something of the truth for at least some women who are attracted to violence and subjugation. I hate to say it – and I’m not one of the women thus described – but there is a masochistic strain in some females that does fit what Plath wrote here:

Every woman adores a Fascist,
The boot in the face, the brute
Brute heart of a brute like you.

Comments

Most women’s rights organizations are worse than worthless — 39 Comments

  1. Newly released evidence of Hamas treatment of women, two women to be specific:

    Viewer discretion advised: New video presents horrific evidence of cold blood killing
    A new video obtained from the security cameras at Kibbutz Alumim serves as horiffic evidence of Hamas’ systematic, intentional killing and targeting of civilians who attended the Nova Music Festival

    https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/380631

  2. Interesting how western leftist women decry the ” patriarchy” but have been friendly to mass migration of the highly ” patriarchal” religion of Islam.

    If you want to get past all the erosion of modern Christian thinking, the Biblical model of Christianity is that the man is to be the head of the family, but it is to be servant leadership, not brutal leadership. There are probably many people who have never personally observed servant leadership, or if they did, they did not understand what they were seeing. In Army NCO school in the late 90s, they were still talking about the very concept of servant leadership. A servant leader puts the mission and his subordinates above his own personal desires. Seems I even recall a biblical reference in the old army leadership manual. I bet that is gone now.

  3. Then there’s this woman:
    _________________________________

    UPDATE: Wake Forest prof resigns after saying she would have been ‘tempted to shoot up’ Israeli music festival

    A Wake Forest University professor has resigned after making social media comments defending Hamas’ violent terror attack against civilian music festival attendees in October.

    https://www.campusreform.org/article/update-wake-forest-prof-resigns-after-saying-she-would-have-been-tempted-to-shoot-up-israeli-music-festival/24380
    _________________________________

  4. and when they are subjugated they will be stoned as per the late Salafi evangelist, Quradawi recommends,

    they don’t defend biological women either, so per Warren Starr ‘what are they good for,’

  6. Women can say what they want – they deeply desire a strong man who is independent of them.

    There is probably a biological component to this.

    Many of the women turned on by Islam find there what they do not find among the soyboys.

  8. Many of the women turned on by Islam find there what they do not find among the soyboys.

    I don’t know as is go so far as to say they find it there, but I tend to agree they’re looking for it there.

    And it’s hard to blame them. Look at what young college educated women have to choose from (or think they do): the “sensitive” men who have themselves been brought up to believe that the more openly they share the pain of their victimhood or of their deep empathy for victims, the more attractive they’ll be (the “soyboys” you mentioned); the players who will require more or less immediate and deviant sex acts just to get their attention; and the “toxic” males of the working class, whom the young women believe only want to subjugate them.

    Then you have Islam, where female chastity and modesty and male strength are explicit values. How those values are played out depends on the Muslim, but some of these young women who convert apparently think they’ll be able to steer that ship themselves, not realizing that the convert’s opinion doesn’t matter a bit when set against the veteran’s.

  9. yes, but most of those think it’s liberating, when it’s the most retrograde philosophy imaginable,

    back in the 70s, there was Leila Khaled, who was the PFLP skyjacker, the basis for the villainess in Black Sunday,

    in this era, you have the Chechen Black Windows, that fourth member of the Charlie Hebdo hit squad et al

  10. There are personal rights, there are civil rights, there are rights one is due consequent to statutory law, there are rights one is due consequent to contracts and consequent to wills. To the extent there are women’s ‘rights’ consequent to constitutions and statutory law, they fall into the following categories:
    ==
    1. Entitlements which have not been matters of controversy in over a century (property ownership, occupational licensure, suffrage).
    ==
    2. ‘Rights’ which are actually impositions (jury service, military service)
    ==
    3. ‘Rights’ which were not fully realized prior to the war, then replaced with favored status after 1969 (berths in public employment and in state schools).
    ==
    4. ‘Rights’ which are infringements of freedom of contract and association.
    ==
    5. ‘Rights’ which are ill advised if not nefarious (abortion, features in the administration of matrimonial law, features of evidentiary rules in sexual assault cases, and, going back a ways, what used to be called ‘welfare rights’).
    ==
    The people who generated feminist discourse and agitation after 1962 had one satisfactory idea (articulated most precisely by the otherwise odious Marilyn French): that much of what was done under the heading of housewifery was time not spent well.

  11. I’ve read the Free Press article about women converting to Islam. My immediate reaction was “not women but exceptionally stupid girls.” TikTok brains. Many will soon go on to a different fad. Some may be very unpleasantly surprised when they learn that apostasy is punishable by death in many Islamic societies.

    I recommend subscribing to the Free Press btw. I disagree with them on some very important matters but they are doing very good work in challenging the left from an old-school liberal position.

  12. It is safe for these women to convert here in the US. They won’t be beaten by their husbands (for the most part), subjugated by their MIL, or the husbands first or second or third wife or brothers.
    I remember in college in the mid/late 60’s college girls falling for foreign exchange students. Some of them got married and moved to wherever. They soon found out what a mistake that was.

  13. Some of them got married and moved to wherever. They soon found out what a mistake that was.
    ==
    Some of their husbands did as well. (Lolo Soetero, for one).

  15. Back in the day, figuring I couldn’t write fiction featuring half-century old mating rituals, I spent a lot of time looking at dating and advice sites. Conservative Christian ones. No More Mr. Nice Guy types. Stayed away from Taken In Hand–which was a real thing–but heard about the fact that if the guy doesn’t choose the restaurant, he’s a loser. Might have rescued seventeen kids from a burning orphanage on the way home from having received the Medal of Honor, but if he didn’t put his foot down about the restaurant….forget him.
    Pick Up Artist type sites.
    More dating and advice sites. The ones actually selling something had to make their case in the ads…without making buying the product unnecessary–so their general approach would be obvious.
    There were dating boot camps.

    Far as I could tell, most women wanted, or were said to want, a take-charge guy, at least up to a point. The restaurant, in bed, whichever or whatever.

    Being a take-charge guy without being a jerk was not easy, I suppose, but, then, jerks were sought for by some women.

    “I want a guy who’ll call me on my crap.”
    “If he can’t stand up to me, how can he stand up for me?”
    “I want a man who won’t let me push him around!”

    Each of these presumes the woman in question will give the guy a hard time just to see. The quarterly macho check. The crap test. Looking for something which might not be obvious from day to day.

    And as the bell curve tells us, some folks go overboard in…anything, but in this case, some in what they want in terms of “take-charge”.

    I’ve made a couple of bucks writing about life insurance.

  16. Today I got stuck for six hours waiting for car stuff. I watched YouTube Pearl Davis’s content. She’s 26, conservative, Catholic, and grew up in Chicago with two parents and nine siblings. She calls herself an “anti-feminist.” She sells a t-shirt reading “Women Shouldn’t Vote.”

    Not surprisingly, she has attracted some controversy. TikTok banned her earlier this year. YouTube demonetized her this past week.

    She’s definitely a Red Pill kinda gal. I’m a Red Pill kinda guy, so I agree with most of what she says and appreciate it coming from a woman.

    I’m not sure how far I go with her on the voting. Here’s her argument:
    _______________________________________

    “A lot of people think I’m insane because I don’t think women should vote,” she said in a Twitter video this week which has been viewed 860,000 times. “If anything this is probably my most extreme opinion.”

    She went on to explain that she “came to this conclusion” because she wanted to know “why men were so angry about women”.

    “When I started researching this stuff it was pretty easy to figure out why — 90 percent of women have been on birth control, one out of three women has had an abortion, one out of three women has an STD, the average body count is over five, 95 per cent of women are not virgins on their wedding day — so I understand these complaints,” she said.

    Davis then claimed that “the courts, the legal system, all of society is basically pandering and simping for women”, citing examples such as payments for single mothers.

    “If you pay women to be terrible, then you’re probably going to have more terrible women,” she said.

    “The issue is that the politicians, the only way they can get elected, the women vote for them. The reason we can’t see a change in these laws … is because they won’t be re-elected. Does every person deserve the right to vote? Because essentially we have a society where men are just paying for women’s bad decisions.”

    https://nypost.com/2023/07/01/viral-anti-feminist-youtuber-pearl-davis-dubbed-female-andrew-tate/

  19. SHIREHOME,

    “I remember in college in the mid/late 60’s college girls falling for foreign exchange students. Some of them got married and moved to wherever.”

    You went to college with Stanley Ann Dunham?

  20. Thanks huxley. It’s generally my aim — though I can’t guarantee! — to bring some “value added” as the saying goes.

  22. These women are going to regret finding that Muslim men are authorized by their religion to beat their wives if they are disobedient.

    The descriptions of the condition of some of those female bodies from Oct. 7 is truly horrifying. No group can call itself “feminist” and fail to condemn this.

  23. I offer Phyllis Chesler as an ardent 70s feminist (Second Wave) who saw through modern feminism:
    __________________________________

    The Death of Feminism (2005)

    In The Death of Feminism: What’s Next in the Struggle for Women’s Freedom,” Chesler documented how western academic and activist feminists came to abandon their former concepts of universal human rights for everyone and became multicultural relativists.

    She argues that their desire to avoid being labeled “racists” or “Islamophobes” eventually trumped their concern with women’s and human rights in the Third World.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Chesler
    __________________________________

    Perhaps it didn’t hurt that Chesler was raised Orthodox Jewish.

  24. Huxley,

    I recall, far back, some feminists lamenting the state of women in Afghanistan and, worse, the only person who could help them was George Bush and a bunch of US troops.
    It was not to be stood.

    Maybe having a “strong man” in a relationship is a proxy for having a guy who can “take care” of circumstances. In a civilized situation, such circumstances don’t come along very often for somebody’s abilities and forthrightness to be tested. So….

  25. Richard Aubrey:

    I think I agree on basically biology:

    (1) Two genders for diversity in the next generation.,
    (2) One gender protects the children, which may require violence.
    (3) The other gender nurtures the children.

    It’s not a bad arrangement.

  26. huxley,

    Speaking from a pure, evolutionary perspective I don’t think 2 and 3 came about in the manner you suggest. Two is generally better than one so no reason to select against both genders protecting and/or nurturing, and I don’t think we see any real difference in those two traits in human parents (with one exception which I’ll deal with later).

    I’m sure you know about brain size and bipedalism. Humans have to be born about a year before we’re “fully cooked” or our mothers would not survive our births. And, even being about a year premature our cranial bones still have mechanisms for flexibility and hardening during and after birth so birth is postponed as long as possible. Yet, this still means human infants are born extraordinarily helpless.

    Bearing live, premature children requires additional hardware (ovaries, etc…), nursing them requires extra fat stores, etc. and big brains and bipedalism requires certain pelvic ratios. Males not requiring all this additional hardware and hormones have more biological energy to develop muscle mass and evolve pelvises, chests, etc. with a focus on athleticism. Due to their lack of needing to bear, birth and nurse children, human males tend to be about 10% more effective at feats of physical strength and endurance than their female counterparts.

    From living with and watching a woman (the lovely, Mrs. Firefly) go through this process on multiple occasions I can assure you her motivation to protect her offspring, even to the point of violence, is no less hard-wired or sufficient than mine. So, regarding 2, men are typically more capable of defending in physical confrontations, but both men and women have the same, innate drive and desire to protect, and will do so to the limits of their capabilities.

    The additional factor on your 3rd point. Having so much more physically invested in their offspring (carrying them for 9 months, birthing them at real risk of death to the mother and nursing for months afterwards, as well as a more extreme attachment and bond due to those factors) I think women tend to be better and more effective nurturers. But it’s like the physical difference I described above. My desire to nurture is no less than my wife’s, but biology and circumstance make her better at it. Also, since her investment is so much greater she is more hesitant to take risks with them and their health. She is more “protective” in that sense.

    I agree. It’s not a bad arrangement. As Ira Gershwin wrote, “Nice work, if you can get it.”

  27. Used to be, the woman’s role in the household was known as ” the distance side”, distanced having something to do with spinning and weaving, other household tasks.
    Lost, for the most part, is the man’s equivalent, “the sword side”‘.
    Not ax, hoe, plough, scythe.

    How does a modern, western man show his capacity to deal with such as may require a sword, metaphorically speaking?

    Without that?

  28. Allowance for manly error acknowledged, I’m thinking “distaff” is the proper term. Though what precisely a distaff is? I dunno.

    Penelope. She’s the ticket!

  30. Funny coincidence Richard and sdferr,

    One doesn’t hear the word, “distaff” often, but the Catholics on this thread heard it last Sunday as it was featured in the first reading at Mass; Proverbs 31:10-13, 19-20 and 30-31. Although I knew the word one could easily discern its meaning from that Bible passage.

  32. Rufus T. Firefly:

    I commented in broad strokes. Certainly females can protect children and do; males can nurture children and do.

    However, the general male/female dichotomy in terms of protect/nurture holds. With the caveat:
    ________________________

    Specialization is for insects.

    –Robert A. Heinlien

  33. huxley,

    I respectfully disagree, and I think you missed my point. In sexual reproduction one and only one has to make and carry an egg. There can be some swapping, like with seahorses and penguins, but that’s not an option with live births. That biologic fact dictates the rest.

    Nature/evolution/God/Richard Dawkins… they all want women and men to be as strong and able to defend themselves and their offspring as possible and they all want women and men to be as nurturing as possible. The mechanics of the thing dictate the specialization. It puts some limitations on the amount of strength and athleticism women can achieve, vis a vis men; and increases the nurturing bond mothers have with their progeny, vis a vis fathers.

  34. Rufus T. Firefly:

    As near as I can tell we agree. What am I missing? Aside from the hard egg/sperm dichotomy.

  35. Pearl Davis makes an interesting point about current American parents that I’ve seen elsewhere, but I haven’t drilled into.

    Single fathers do a better job of raising children than single mothers.

  36. RAH never considered Bach or Motzart; all around guys, who just had generalized skilz, not focused or specialized …. Insects cpmprise a multitude of “species,” Homo sapiens, one. That’s science fiction for you.

  37. @ huxley > “If you pay women to be terrible, then you’re probably going to have more terrible women,” she said.

    By Pearl’s logic, most men should not be allowed to vote either.

  38. }}} Therefore, post-10/7 it’s been easy to see that they have been silent or taken the wrong side about a massacre and rape festival that should have been a no-brainer for them to vigorously and unequivocally condemn.

    Not the least-bit surprising in the face of the even more obvious no-brainer 25 years ago… When Clinton sexually molested his interns.

    No, not Monica, she got well-paid for her Presidential Kneepads, with a cushy pentagon job, a book deal, and a weight watchers contract in return for her infamy.

    No, the ones that were sexually molested were all the other interns who did not want kneepads, and we denied any “rewards” for earning such.

    No, opprobrium at all…

    25 years ago Time contributor Nina Burleigh told then-Washington Post writer Howard Kurtz: “I’d be happy to give [Clinton] a blow job just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.”

    She also said, same timeframe:
    “I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”

  39. Nina hasn’t gotten any smarter since she tried to libel melania, and got knocked down by chuck harder,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑