Death by Cigarettes, or by Man?

I was contemplating posting something regarding women in third world countries who are being murdered by men in the name of family honor. Feminists regard this matter very seriously, and it is a ubiquitous topic on feminist websites. I wanted to do a post in order to apply some context. Fortunately, a very nice feminist by the name of Amanda has come to visit, and since she has also pointed out these killings, I thought I would be lazy efficient and kill two birds with one stone by doing a post and a reply at the same time. Amanda's full comments can be found here.



Amanda,

Thank you for pointing out the issue of "honor killings". I frequently see this issue brought up on feminist websites, and throughout the internet where feminists are involved as they try to bring attention to the matter, as you have. I find this situation to be egregious.

Since feminism so desperately wants to spread information about this around the world, should I conclude that feminism is concerned about saving women from a terrible death?

Lets get some perspective on this situation. The UN estimates that 5000 women die annually from “honor killings” at the hands of men. And since the UN has a tendency to inflate certain numbers to help it’s own cause, I suspect the actual number may be lower.

However, it is known that roughly 2 million women die annually from cigarette smoking. If feminism was so concerned with saving women, why are there no major campaigns to get women worldwide to stop smoking? This would make sense since getting women to stop smoking can be achieved relatively easily in comparison to the honor killings, which are not so easily resolved. But all we see is this issue about a few thousand women dying at the hands of men and essentially nothing to save 2 million women from a horrible death from cigarette smoking.

While I don't want to minimize the deaths of those women who are killed for the sake of family honor, I have to ask what feminism gains from focusing on these 5 thousand women who die by the hands of men, instead of the 2 million that could be saved simply by smoking cessation?

The answer is grim. I'm afraid these 5 thousand women are merely a matter of politics and propaganda. Feminists have something actually concrete to demonstrate that women are victims (much better than trying to pass off fashion as somehow oppressive), and at the same time taint men as villains. It’s great for recruiting more women, and the issue serves as a wonderful lobbying tool with government. Governments also love to use issues like this to validate many of their own actions and legislation. (It's used frequently to justify actions by the US Government in the Middle East.) It also sounds really ominous for those students in women's studies courses.

That is it.

Feminism ignores the lives of so many women just so it can vilify men and point out that women are victims, all in order to serve its own desires.

How ironic that women are the victims in this situation at the hands of feminism.


Regarding reproductive rights:


As far as feminism wanting "special legislation," there are some women's issues (like reproduction) that require separate legislation since it does not apply to any other group.


Where have I been? I had no idea women have mastered asexual reproduction, since your comment implies that reproduction apparently doesn’t apply to men.

Amanda, I hate to break this to you, but I must. If you acknowledge that women require special legislation because they are women, then you also acknowledge that women are different from men. And if women are different and require “special“ treatment, how likely is it that equality can be achieved? Is feminism really pursuing equality by demanding “special” treatment, or is feminism merely serving feminism?

Can you name one reproductive right that a man in our civilization has?

Questions to Ponder

I had a very brief conversation several weeks ago with a woman that commented to me regarding an article in my local newspaper. I didn’t bother reading the article, but it had something to do with a new abuse shelter being built for women.

I don’t recall what her comment was, but I do remember that somewhere within this brief dialogue I said to her that I believed everyone should have a place of safety if they are truly abused, including men.

I wasn’t surprised by her response. She looked at me with squinting eyes and said “Men can take care of themselves.”

Naturally, her statement raised some questions. If men can take care of themselves, then why can’t women? If women can’t take care of themselves, would it not stand to reason that they must be taken care of by those who can?

Can there really be equality between two such groups?

Happy Thanksgiving

As I viewed this picture, I thought of how odd this bird is. It really doesn't do much more than produce alot of crap and gobble. But then it dawned on me that the turkey is like that too.


Happy Thanksgiving!

The Mouse that Roared

Well…I see Feministink is at it with YouTube videos. Oh, roar ye little mouse!

I enjoyed this video. In fact, I want to watch it again after I’m done posting this!

But first, let me begin by telling you that I know a few medical professionals, and they get very uptight when the subject of their license comes up. It is their source of income, and no sane person is going to intentionally break the law, or standards set forth by their respective board. If Jessica knows someone that is doing something unethical or illegal, all she has to do is contact the State Board of Pharmacy and make a complaint. The State Board is then forced to investigate, and if any wrong doing is found these individuals can get disciplinary action, suspension, or even loss of their license. So, I have to ponder…

Are these pharmacists breaking the law, or are they just exercising freedom of choice? I thought Jessica was all for that, but it appears that she is only as long as it is her freedom of choice. These pharmacists aren’t fitting in well with her feminist ideology, and that’s a big problem to Jessica.

She could hop in her Escalade and drive to another pharmacy. After all, most pharmacies will dispense contraception. But she is in a state of torment because a few pharmacies will not. Oh, the oppression!

So kick back, grab a beverage of choice, and enjoy this feminist in her state of torment as she rails at her perceived oppression.

And enjoy!

On Behalf of the Ignoble White Male

I think the only group in the US that doesn’t have some form of protection or special status is the white male. We are labeled as the oppressor class, and the teaching of our history now seems to involve nothing much more than how efficiently we subjugated women and minorities with impunity throughout time. They say that history is written by the victorious, so I must conclude that the white male is not part of the winning team.

I recently made an excursion into a deceiving realm. It was a place of majestic buildings and aged trees that imparted an air of reason and enlightenment. A superficial glance would indicate that it was a repository of knowledge for the cultivation of fertile minds open to free thinking and ideas, but was it? I must admit that I entered with preconceived notions, for I considered this place to be, possibly, one of the most dangerous pieces of real estate in the US.

As I walked across the university campus and entered a breezeway, I noted a scholarship board attached to a wall. A small group of women were gathered there, some pointing and tapping here and there on the board. On a whim, I decided to pause and take note of what was so interesting to them.

There were many scholarships posted, 52 to be exact. 46 of these scholarships were restricted to women and minorities only. I was not surprised by this, and the women standing there gave no inclination they found anything disturbing. But I wondered, what would be their reaction if these scholarships had been restricted to white males only? Would there be an outcry of indignation at such oppression?

I began thinking, which made me feel strangely uneasy in this environ of understanding. What would their reaction be if I pointed out that these scholarships were a combination of racism and sexism? Would they be angered?

Feminists portray women’s achievements within this country as if won in the context of total war against an unwavering force of white male elitism. But total war is only possible with the unwilling, who must be totally decimated in the end with no other option than to capitulate. Would they become hostile if I told them that no such war had been fought, since white males were complicit in their achievements? Would they view this complicity as somehow minimizing their struggle?

How open to potentially opposing perspectives would these students be? What would I find if I tested their knowledge and asked them about the Three Fifths Compromise? Would they be uncomfortable if I told them it was an antislavery measure that decreased representation of slave holding states within Congress, and not the act of white males merely viewing a black as three fifths of a person?

Would they call me a liar if I told them it was common practice of Native-Americans to capture members of other tribes and use them as slaves? Would they know that in the years of the American colonies, Indian tribes allied themselves with the white man against other Indian tribes in order to gain hegemony over peoples of their own race?

I wondered if they saw Steven Spielberg’s movie about the aftermath of the 1839 mutiny on the slave ship Amistad. It portrayed Cinque, the mutiny leader, as a noble black man and his trial as the turning point in the American perspective on slavery. Would they know that Cinque returned to Africa to be a slave trader, or that African rulers were heavily involved in slave trade of their own people?

I would agree with them if they made issue of the fact that the history of the white male has plenty of skeletons, and our history of black slavery is one of a holocaust. But do not forget that a Civil War was fought upon this land. Some will tell you that is was only a matter of state’s rights, but without the impetus of slavery, there would not have been a state’s rights issue, and there would have been no Civil War. Hence, over 600,000 white males went to their death, on the impetus of slavery, in one of the most brutal wars in human history. Would they attempt to spin this fact?

I am not of a protected class, so I decided to leave campus quietly and not voice my thoughts, lest security be called. It would seem that ideology has closed our institutions, and our society, to reason and free thought. If history teaches us anything, it is that no race or gender holds a high ground of morality, and no race or gender is infallible. And so, white males cannot be the root of all evil as we are portrayed. Perhaps those that promulgate views otherwise would be prudent to consider this, before their ignorance enables history to repeat itself. Unfortunately, we seem to be on the precipice of a dark age.

It is frequently pushed upon us that our strength is in our diversity, but nothing could be further from the truth. Our strength comes only from unity. It is clear that we are not united.

Benjamin Franklin is famous for a certain quote. I will apply it here, but in a different context: “Either we all hang together, or assuredly we will all hang separately.”

Wandering Thoughts

It’s not surprising that Obama won the election and it certainly wasn’t hard to forecast the event. Week after week of the McCain debacle made Obama an easy prediction.

What if McCain had actually researched his VP choices and picked a competent running mate, or at least one that could give the illusion that she knew what the hell she was doing. That would have helped much, but I think as time progressed and more people began to see her for what she is, they ended up being turned off by his choice. If he can’t even pick a seemingly qualified VP, is his judgment really good enough to be President?

Even though he picked an incompetent woman based on gender, I think he still could have stood a chance if he had added some weight to his maverick claim. If he would have stood with the majority of the American people against the wall street bailout, and issued a reasonable, straightforward plan to deal with the fundamentals of the economy, he would have demonstrated that he is not status quo. But he suspended his campaign, as if that would make any difference, and chose the socialization of our banking system, then went on to attack Obama for being socialistic. Seems status quo to me.

Obama won by a landslide. Maybe that has something to do with everyone being sick to death of seeing GW fumbling with the pronunciation of three letter words in front of the entire world. Everyone was probably thinking, “God, just give us someone articulate and everything will be ok.” He may turn out to be a complete flop, but he’ll sound good.

Will Obama flop? He has a lot to face, and I seriously doubt he is the right man( ok, I'm understating). After eight years of Bush/Cheney, we won’t know the damage that was done to our nation for years to come. They say we are winning in Iraq, but take that with a grain of salt. They were saying the same thing a few years ago about Afghanistan, and that is unraveling. No doubt, a lot of damage has been done. Expect blowback from here to eternity. We are not in good standing with the rest of the planet.

I don’t think Obama will wear well, especially when we come face to face with what will hit us next year. I suppose he will try a lot of this and a lot of that to fix the economy, or at least present the façade that he is doing something, but no matter what he does the situation will grow worse.

Unemployment will continue to increase , early next year more banks will fail, and corporations will start to go bankrupt. There will be inflation with a vengeance. We are nowhere near what the Great Depression was, but we have great potential. I'm glad I didn't bother to vote.

All of these ominous things to occupy us, yet I suppose all the feminists continue to worry about is the current state of their oppression, as if they really had any.

What is a Feminist?

Another video from the lunatic movement known as feminism. Made by a lackey, no less.

If you are male, consider it carefully. This video is not intended to vilify some subset of the male populace.

It is intended to vilify all males.

It is intended to vilify you.

The message is clear: We, as males, are responsible for all ills of the world. We, as males, are inferior.


sex·ist [séksist]
adj
1. believing one sex is inferior: believing that one sex is inferior to the other in a variety of attributes.


This video is clearly sexist. Is that what a feminist is?