Pakistan Organizes Event to Discuss Feminism With All Male Panel

Pakistan is one of the most Islamic countries in the world (95% Muslim) and is typical of a country that has a strong Muslim majority. Most people want Sharia as the law of the land, and most people identify as Muslim before Pakistani. Islam is hopelessly misogynistic.

‘We’ll teach them how to menstruate!’ Uproar after Pakistani feminism event featured
NO WOMEN

A woman hold sign as she takes part in an Aurat March, or Women's March in Karachi, Pakistan March 8, 2018. © REUTERS/Akhtar Soomro

A feminism discussion organized by the Arts Council of Pakistan has been changed to include women, after social media users blasted the panel for being all-male.

The Karachi event, billed as “Feminism: The Other Perspective,” originally featured a panel of five prominent men involved in media, entertainment, and activism in Pakistan. The only woman included in the line-up was the event’s female moderator, whose name was put at the bottom of the promotional flyer. Social media users expressed near unanimous disgust with the panel, arguing that it reflected Pakistan’s extremely conservative, male-dominated society.

This is not out of step with a society that prefers to keep its women invisible.

Atiya Abbas
@AtiyaAbbas_
should ve just called it men's day 
and why are all these men agreeing to participating? @manelwatchpk

One upset netizen accused the event organizers of "exploiting feminism" to benefit men.

Some criticism was more light-hearted. Comedian Shehzad Ghias Shaikh joked that he would be hosting a “workshop on how to menstruate,” followed by a talk on breastfeeding.

“Please join me in teaching the world about women’s lives,” he wrote on Twitter.

Responding to the backlash, the panel’s female moderator said that the discussion was meant to focus around what men “think and perceive about feminism,” the “other perspective.”

uzma alkarim
@uzmaalkarim
Hello all, We are now re-framing the event and including a more diverse group of speakers. Requesting all of you to attend as your participation will add value to the conversation around understanding "feminism” together.

She announced that two women would be added to the panel and that the event’s name would be changed to “Understanding Feminism.”

With 5 men and 2 women. That's a far as the organizers were willing to go. Good grief!

A High School Student Speaks Out on Feminism and It's Amazing

Hard to believe she is a high school student. Her vocabulary is far beyond any high school student I know. Nevertheless, this is really worth the read.

by Helene Hennig 

Today’s feminism has lost its way.  In the late 1800s, “first wave” feminism rightfully started out as a movement to establish, first and foremost, suffrage for women (i.e., the right for women to vote). From there, it then quickly evolved into a movement that focussed on gaining women equal opportunity in the workplace and equality in the eyes of the law.  Through the 1960s, “second wave” feminism sought an end to sexual harassment and fought against discrimination. 

All of these were worthy goals and, to a large extent, have successfully been accomplished.  However, feminism today—“third wave” feminism—has morphed into a shrill, self-righteous crusade that, in what seems like a desperate bid to remain relevant, has not just vilified men but has turned on children, families and even women themselves.

Modern feminism has set out to infiltrate family life, destroying it with poisonous lies through the cultivation of a “culture of grievance” in which women are always to be seen as victims. It has done this by promoting the ideological falsehood that men and women are not natural allies, but that their relationship is adversarial in nature. Feminism strives to pit women against men at every opportunity.  

Because of this, men are not allowed to speak on any issue concerning women, from the supposed “pay gap” to abortion to even the difficulties men face simply being men.  The new anti-men hashtags coined by modern feminists—#killallmen or #menstears to name a couple—show how feminism has allowed itself to become synonymous with misandry. Delivering generalizations on the back of slogans is, as Chairman Mao proved, a powerful way of thought control. It allows the idea to form that all men are inherently bad while overlooking the fact that there are also bad women.

The fact is, over all, men and women work well together and I can attest to this personally. My father raised five girls with my mother. When my mother gets complimented on having been a good mother to so many children, she always responds that she couldn’t have been half the mother she is without the extraordinary support of her husband. It is important to note now far this goes against the modern-day feminist creed. From today’s feminist standpoint, my father is an oppressor who kept my mother locked away at home to raise the children and cook the meals when, instead, she could have had a fulfilling role slaving for a big corporation as a top executive. 

In the eyes of today’s feminist, my mother sacrificed her education to the “drudgery” of motherhood and therefore failed to reach her full potential. My mother is, in essence, a “traitor to the sisterhood.” This is not how my sisters and I see it, nor how my father sees it and certainly not how my mother sees it.

Furthermore, because feminism promotes the idea that women should have a “fulfilling” career, the majority of today’s children are now left in daycare centres to be raised by the state. This is another Maoist idea that Western feminism, in the name of female empowerment, has embraced: collective, state-sponsored childcare. We can already see the results of what happens when the state raises the children instead of the parents; today we have a generation of children in which mental illnesses, suicides, and drug use are all out of control. 

How did this happen? Feminism thrives on the lie that the centre of woman’s life is her career. But if my father is anything to go by, in the end, a career is not even the centre of a man’s life. Most people lying on their deathbeds do not lament the career they must now relinquish. Instead, the dying lament the loved ones they must now leave, most especially their children.

Secondly, feminism has turned from meaningful, worthy goals into a dogmatic, indoctrinating agenda. With its poisonous slogans, the new age feminism is just repeating history from totalitarian regimes with their propaganda. There is no clearer example of this than the fight over the rights to abortion. Feminists use slogans such as “Shout Your Abortion” as they wave placards and mindlessly chant through megaphones. But in actual fact, it can be argued that none of us own our bodies; in short, we are all little more than mere tenants of our bodies and we are forced to vacate when we die.  

However, more worrying than the slogans and propaganda is that, in its rabid promotion of abortion, feminism has actually turned against itself in a grotesque twist of irony; abortion has paved the way for the erasure of future women through sex-selection abortion. Little girls are aborted for being little girls because little boys are more valued in some cultures. In a nutshell, feminists claim for themselves an almost untouchable virtue even in the face of something as fundamentally and obviously discriminatory as sex-selective abortion.

Lastly, feminism has managed to hoodwink an entire society into believing that a woman deserves a job or a promotion just because she’s a woman. No one demonstrated this bizarre, modern-day fraud better than our very own Prime Minister—the buffoon with a bouffant—Justin Trudeau. When he created his cabinet, he mandated that it was to consist of 50% women. However, he did so from a caucus that was made up of only 22% women. The unpleasant message for women is that they don’t have to be particularly good to assume a job, they just have to be female. How infantilizing. When I finally start my career, I hope I’m chosen because I’m competent, able, and skilled. NOT because I’m female.

Feminism has become its own worst enemy. Far from promoting the rights of women as it once did, it now strives to (take?) away from women any sense of responsibility by promoting a culture of victimhood. With its faux outrage over “mansplaining,” “manspreading,” and eggplant emojis to obsessions over trivial matters such as “slutwalks,” armpit hair and bra burning, feminism is rendering itself ridiculous and petty. Its silence over real issues of concern for women, such as female genital mutilation, forced marriages, and honour killings has made it difficult to take it seriously anymore.

Helene Hennig 17-year-old student high school in Vancouver.

Is This the Beginning of No-Go Zones in Australia?

Australian police restrict a Canadian journalist from a Sydney street

where a Muslim mosque exists

I am not familiar with Southern's work. I don't know how far to the right she leans, but she definitely leans right.

Nevertheless, she asks good questions that need to be asked and she is horrified by the absurdity of political correctness that is the cause of cultural suicide in the west. That means she is closer to the truth than a lot of western politicians.

Jordan Peterson is Completely Misrepresented by Left-Leaning Journalists

Well written and very intelligent article. Below you will find a video of Peterson's explanation of Peter Pan that is absolutely brilliant and gives us a glimpse of why this man has become so astonishingly popular.

What the left gets wrong about Jordan Peterson

J Oliver Conroy

One might think that by now progressives would figure out that

vilifying Peterson almost always redounds to his advantage.

One would be wrong.

‘Immersing oneself in the Peterson fandom sphere is a perspective-changing experience.’ Illustration: Rob Dobi for the Guardian

Perhaps you’ve heard of Jordan Peterson, the Canadian psychologist, self-help guru, and social media star who is also, if some media accounts are to be believed, a dangerous stalking horse for far-right ideas?

“In reality, Peterson’s ideas are a mixed bag,” the journalist Cathy Young wrote in a balanced recent Los Angeles Times piece. “He says some sensible and insightful things, and he says some things that rightly draw criticism. But you wouldn’t know this from reading Peterson’s critics, who generally cast him as a far-right boogeyman riding the wave of a misogynistic backlash.”

The current media narrative about Peterson is often lazy, as Young notes. But worse, this narrative doesn’t take account of, let alone try to explain, the appeal Peterson’s message holds for his millions of fans – most of whom are more interested in his affirmative spiritual message than his pugilistic views on gender and political correctness.

True, Peterson’s own followers sometimes feed the perception he is leading a reactionary counterrevolution. They upload YouTube clips highlighting Peterson’s apparent triumphs over leftist foes – “Jordan Peterson Leaves Feminist Speechless”, “Jordan Peterson on Homosexuals Raising Children”, “Transgender Professor INSULTS Jordan Peterson, Gets OWNED”.

But these (fan-edited) videos give the false impression that most of Peterson’s fans are attracted to his attacks on political correctness. They’re not. If anything, Peterson’s penchant for polarizing political claims distracts from his core message. In his lectures – freewheeling mixtures of self-help counsel, pop philosophy and Jungian theory – Peterson emphasizes self-worth, responsibility, and a Christian-ish notion of man as fallen but redeemable.

Cathy Newman’s combative interview with Jordan Peterson has been watched millions of times on YouTube. Photograph: Channel 4 grab

In fact, immersing oneself in the Peterson fandom sphere is a perspective-changing experience. For every rant about “social justice warriors”, there are a dozen completely apolitical posts: geeky discussions of Peterson’s lectures about mythology, personal testimonies to the effectiveness of his self-help advice.

Peterson’s advice appears to have helped thousands of people. (Peterson has estimated he’s received more than 35,000 letters of appreciation.) Fans say his message – which starts with seemingly banal directives to “clean your room” and “stand up straight with your shoulders back” – has motivated them in battles against addiction to drugs, alcohol, video games, or pornography; helped them form positive relationships, or exit toxic ones; become better spouses or parents; take charge of their physical health; and rekindle relationships with estranged family members.

In their messages of appreciation, Jordan Peterson’s fans sometimes border on religious testimony.

In a post on Quora, a commenter describes a harrowing period in which his six-year-old almost died of auto-immune disease. During “those dark days”, Peterson’s lectures were “something to anchor me” when “my emotions were in turmoil”, the person writes. “The man is a gift from God. He will undoubtedly go down in history as one of the great thinkers and possibly a person that changed our culture in a significant way.”

It seems questionable that Peterson will go down in history as a great thinker. And, as with all gurus, he ought to be treated with instinctive skepticism. But that skepticism should extend to how he has been presented by the media.

 Anyone who investigates Peterson’s work knows that his

harshest rebukes aren’t addressed to women, but men

One might think that by now progressives would figure out that vilifying Peterson almost always redounds to his advantage. One would be wrong. By repeatedly trying to put words in Peterson’s mouth during a 29-minute interview this January, Cathy Newman, a British journalist, came across as misreading his ideas.

During a recent panel debate in Toronto, on political correctness, the preacher and academic Michael Eric Dyson’s ad-hominem attacks against Peterson, whom he called a “mean mad white man”, only turned audience sentiment against Dyson.

None of this is to say Peterson’s more inflammatory statements shouldn’t be contested or scrutinized.

In a recent New York Times profile, Peterson appeared to suggest that “incels” – aggrieved young men who describe themselves as “involuntarily celibate” – should be assigned mates to prevent them from taking out their rage on society.

“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Peterson was quoted as saying of the 25-year-old man who went on a killing spree in Toronto in April. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”

‘None of this is to say Peterson’s statements shouldn’t be contested.’

Photograph: Carlos Osorio/Toronto Star via Getty Images

The article continues: “Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.”

Besides failing to clearly condemn incels, Peterson’s quote made it seem as if he believes women should be required to sacrifice themselves against their will to fix male violence. He doesn’t. He’s said that by “enforced monogamy” he merely meant encouraging monogamy through social norms. Peterson, of course, is a public figure commanding a vast following, and he should expect to be held accountable for what he says. It is impossible to defend his wild regressive flourishes – like his suggestion, in a recent Financial Times profile, that women would be happier under traditional gender roles.

But anyone who makes even a cursory investigation of Peterson’s work knows that his harshest rebukes aren’t addressed to women, but men, whom he urges to reject self-pity and embrace self-improvement. These aren’t messages tailored to resentful, women-hating “incels” and men’s rights activists; they’re the opposite.

Despite the notion, popular on the left, that Peterson functions as a pipeline to the “alt-right”, it seems as likely, as Peterson himself has claimed, that he saves more directionless young men from far-right radicalization than the other way around. And, if nothing else, the Peterson phenomenon may leave at least one lasting achievement: it has gotten men to open up about mental health.

Although Peterson’s fans are probably more diverse in their ethnicities, genders, and walks of life than described, critics nonetheless like to highlight his following among young white males. It only requires a little empathy to see why such men – grappling with addiction, unemployment, depression, and a feeling of uselessness and failure – desperately crave the paternal encouragement and affirmation Peterson provides.

I had heard that Peterson’s online fandom was a swamp of reactionism, but it turned out to be less striking for its politics than its relative lack thereof. 

One of the recurring themes of Peterson’s lectures is that life is painful; only by accepting that pain – “shouldering the heaviest burden you can bear” – can one begin to transcend it. It is a seemingly simple message that turns out to have enormous emotional resonance. (Quotations have been lightly edited for clarity.)

In a Reddit thread called “I think Dr Peterson saved my life”, a 24-year-old Polish man describes how Peterson’s lectures pulled him out of self-imposed isolation and the brink of suicide:

I hope that thanks to [Peterson’s advice], in a year or two I will be a different person, both mentally and physically. Someone who is finally happy, who finally lives and not just barely exists. […] So … thank you, Dr Peterson. Perhaps you have saved another soul.

In another Reddit thread, called “There are people who are 20+ years [old] that have never had a friend”, commenters discuss loneliness. One commenter describes growing up in an impoverished and abusive household:

I didn’t have friends until I was about 17. […] I was the smelly kid at school because I couldn’t shower, had no way to wash my clothes, and I wore the same clothes every day every year for a really long time. […] I’ve been working on social skills for years and years. Finally I “broke through” with the help of Jordan Peterson.

When news consumers get around to reading or watching Peterson’s work for themselves, they often find his ideas far less radical than characterized – and feel betrayed by the media and cultural elite’s representation of Peterson.

The notion that there is nothing redeemable in Peterson’s message – and the accompanying assumption that any fan of his is beneath contempt – is not only wrong, but represents a rather bleak, zero-sum vision of politics.

The left’s most profound message used to be that all human beings deserve dignity and worth, and those who need help should receive it, regardless of their race or gender or class or other characteristic.

If that axiom still holds true – these days I’m not always sure – then it applies to many of Peterson’s fans.

J Oliver Conroy is a writer and journalist based in New York

Labour’s 'TERF' War: Mass Walkout Threats over Transgender Acceptance

Transgender women's officer Lily Madigan and Jeremy Corbyn © Reuters/ Lily Madigan

A radical feminist group in Labour is threatening to leave, after the party announced it would be backing trans people standing on women-only shortlists. The policy looks set to ignite larger divisions over gender recognition.

The UK Labour Party has been papering over an internal rupture over whether or not transgender people can stand for selection. There are no candidates at present, but a group of radical feminists – so-called Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs) – want the policy scrapped before it happens.

The group’s demands received a blow today. The equality subcommittee of Labour’s ruling National Executive Committee is planning to officially back a statement to rebuffed their demands.

The NEC is going further, reports say, and is likely to insist the party stamps out “transphobia and the abuse of members based on their trans identity will not be tolerated in the Labour Party.” A copy of the statement, leaked ahead of the meeting to HuffPost, said “the Labour Party continues to have an inclusive definition of women,” and explicitly affirms that “All Women Shortlists and women’s reserved places are open to self-defining women.”

Labour has been locked in a brutal battle between TERFs and trans members. One young trans activist was repeatedly abused online by people from within the party when she took a role within her local constituency in Kent.

Lily Madigan was the first ever elected women’s officer, after her lesbian predecessor was ousted for anti-trans comments. Madigan was subjected to online hate, including ridicule and claims she was not fit for the role.

The decision by the NEC’s committee has provoked anger among some sections of the party. The news has led to threats of mass resignations from anti-transgender campaigners.

In a public post on Mumsnet, activist Jennifer James wrote: “The secret squirrel beardy bro Momentum careerists [have] been showing true colours. Bros don’t care about trans rights… they just want to use trans ppl as a human shield for sexism and abuse cos we won’t do as they say.”

A formal statement on behalf of her crowdfunding campaign later added: “Our solicitors have, today, sent our pre-action protocol and submissions letter to the Labour Party in respect of the definition of ‘woman’ for protected positions and all-women shortlists.

“Our solicitors are Bhogal Partners, and through them we have instructed Amanda Jones of Counsel, who is a tenant at Great James Street Chambers in London. The letter was drafted by Miss Jones after consultation with the solicitors and on instructions. We hope that the Labour Party will take our letter and concerns seriously, and consider the points raised in it carefully.”

James is currently suspended from the Labour Party over allegations of transphobic and abusive conduct. Group ‘Mayday4Women’ is planning a mass resignation of Labour members from the party to protest the decision, timed for International Women’s Day on Thursday.

It said: “WOMEN! Stop resigning individually from @labour – we keep receiving copies of resignation emails from women leaving over Self-ID. Rather than do it individually let’s coordinate together and make it something mass that can get press coverage. Get in touch if you’re up for it.” 

The statement on transgender acceptance will now head to the full NEC for approval.

It's not bad enough that women get constantly abused and pushed aside by men, now they are getting pushed out by men who dress up like women. What an insane world we live in.