Teenage gang rape victim commits suicide as second woman f

[Metahive]

You know, you wouldn't have to work yourself up into a frenzy of indignation if you knew what the fuck you were talking about. Immigration is at the discretion of the receiving country. Refusing a foreigner entry for being a neo-nazi is not the same thing as making it a crime to be a neo-nazi.

Why? Why should a homegrown neo-nazi be more tolerable than a foreign one? If you already grant your citizens Freedom of Speech and Expression, what's the justification to keep it from immigrants and only immigrants? In fact, seeking for Freedom of Speech and Expression is often a reason people emigrate from their home countries in the first place.
Nations can bar people from coming in at their own discretion, true, but they shouldn't use hypocritical BS reasoning to defend it.

Why do you have such a problem with the idea that it is harder to get and keep a visa to visit a foreign country than it is to not be exiled from your country of permanent residence?

You know that was a joke, right? Countries having double-standards regarding this shit is a reality, but at least this double-standard should be acknowledged instead of trying to sugarcoat it.

You accused me of being not only a racist, but somehow also sexist[?!] for saying that immigration of misogynists would make society most misogynist. Unless you think people suddenly forget all their opinions when they move country, the only way this is explicable is if you think the belief that any foreign culture is more misogynist than the west is intrinsically racist. This claim is obviously ridiculous.

It's ridiculous because it's a horseshit strawman. Your post was racist and sexist because it tarred all males from certain countries with the same brush, it's as simple as that. And here you are, repeating it! Have another cookie.

Moreover, since I'm sure you recognise that there are some misogynists living in the west, it's a double standard: you don't deny the existence of misogyny or that some groups of westerners can be more misogynist than other groups of westerners, only that foreigners can be more misogynist than westerners.

I'm not interested in the caricature you have drawn of me.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Perhaps because skin colour is not an important issue here?

Wow, you've refuted me. It's not like I already said you dissed billions of people only without talking about skin, is it?

To give an example you can relate more to, I am not American, so if I criticise the US religious right I am criticising a foreign culture. Is this evidence that I am an irrational xenophobe, or that I don't like misogynistic theocrats?

The US religious right is not a culture in and of itself, and you do not condemn an entire culture in condemning them. You honestly thought I would relate to that shit?

I want you to understand that I now gripe with you because this whole "culture but not skin" spiel is a fucking hallmark of modern racism. If I am wrong about pegging you accordingly, I'm sorry.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

I hear this a lot and it makes me angry. The idea that brown women are brainwashed or cowered into behaving the way they do and liking the things they like is an insidious and damging one. It strips brown women of their very humanity because it tells them that they're powerless, that the only power exists in the hands of other people. It's a self-defeating paradigm, because if you think that for example, Afghan women don't have any agency in their lives, then you're going to ignore what they choose to do, their acts of resistance and what they want. Instead, their acts of resistance are something 'foreign', maybe imported from the West, something that's claimed by both Islamists and Westerners. Islamists say that the West has imported the idea of women standing up for themselves and Westerners will claim that Western ideas have freed women. You can see this especially in discourses about women wearing hijabs in the West. Muslims are either thought of as being abused into wearing it or brainwashed. It's a total lack of disregard for what women say and it's just as damaging as brown men telling them what to do.
That's exactly what I was talking about the previous page with Spivak's paper. Even western feminists do it and by doing so, they deprive brown women of their voice.

And when women oppressed by Islamic culture speak out against the oppression I suppose they're just being uppity, because Islam is not at all oppressive and all the women are totally fine with it? Encouraging or supporting women to stand up against the oppression of their religion or culture is totally just the same as oppressing them. Mmhmm. The full-body coverings worn by Islamic women in some places were expressly designed as a tool of oppression, and while I totally support the right of women to wear that if that's what their happy wearing, their choices are often largely being influenced by a misogynist, violently patriarchal culture, and accepting that fact does not rob them of their agency, nor is it dehumanising.

This is the same shit western feminists get. They point out sexist gender roles that women are implicitly and sometimes explicitly expected to fill, and point out how that's harmful to society and the freedom of women to choose what to do with their lives, and someone pipes in "Well maybe some women WANT to be in the kitchen, maybe they're happier there", while ignoring that many women may not want to be forced into those gender roles, but feel pressured into it by society or are even forced into them with threats of violence or becoming a social outcast. Nobody is immune to their culture. Everyone is influenced by it. Of course women in Islamic country have agency, but many of them are forced or coerced into subservient positions that they may not have chosen if they had the ability to speak up and choose otherwise. This is especially true in Islamic cultures, where honor killings of women for being too western are a thing that happens.

So yes, I argue against cultures that oppress women. I'm opposed to burqas and niqabs as they're cultural and religious tools for oppressing women, but I have no quarrel with any woman who wants to wear them. The hijab is not as bad, but it is also such a tool, and it is not uncommon for men to violently enforce women to wear them. Gee, I wonder why some people have a hard time believing all woman wearing facial coverings are doing entirely by choice.

So you'll forgive me if I find your "you're stripping 'brown women' of their humanity by implying their choices aren't entirely their own" claim to be hardly worth humouring.

[Iron Bridge]

You accused me of being not only a racist, but somehow also sexist[?!] for saying that immigration of misogynists would make society most misogynist. Unless you think people suddenly forget all their opinions when they move country, the only way this is explicable is if you think the belief that any foreign culture is more misogynist than the west is intrinsically racist. This claim is obviously ridiculous.

It's ridiculous because it's a horseshit strawman. Your post was racist and sexist because it tarred all males from certain countries with the same brush, it's as simple as that. And here you are, repeating it! Have another cookie.

I didn't say all males from those places are misogynist, nor did my argument require it - only that they be more misogynist on average. If that's your only objection then I'd suggest you read more closely next time. But, I think you knew that I wasn't saying that and leapt to call me a racist anyway.

Wow, you've refuted me. It's not like I already said you dissed billions of people only without talking about skin, is it?

So what? If objecting to me "dissing" billions of misogynists then fuck them. It's only bad to "diss" people for inane reasons, like what they look like, not immensely damaging ideological views they choose to hold.

The US religious right is not a culture in and of itself, and you do not condemn an entire culture in condemning them. You honestly thought I would relate to that shit?

I want you to understand that I now gripe with you because this whole "culture but not skin" spiel is a fucking hallmark of modern racism. If I am wrong about pegging you accordingly, I'm sorry.

If US religious right took over the US tomorrow and everyone voluntarily joined Fred Phelps' church I would still "diss" them. There isn't some magical line of popular approval beyond which you become immune from criticism for being a sexist.

It seems you don't have a problem with racism as such, but rather with people criticising foreigners for any reason, even ones you agree would be well founded when it comes to people of your own nationality or race. You've adopted the racist/nationalist paradigm hook, line and sinker.

Ever thought that's because you're an outsider?

Outsiders and people who don't want to see agents, unsurprisingly only see slaves instead of people.

Yes, yes, if only I were a member of the cult I'd see how lovely the dear leader is! No, the presence of threats of social or physical reprisals either exist or they do not. If they don't, it doesn't matter if you're an outsider or not.

I hear this a lot and it makes me angry. The idea that brown women

Uh huh. And I'm sick of people trying to make a fundamentally religious and ideological issue about race because they have nothing else to say. There is no way in hell anyone on this board (or in their right mind) would get "angry" about criticism of Saudi, Iran, Taliban et al if those were white majority countries and organisations. The Taliban is the Ku Klux Klan if it had its own country.

if you think that for example, Afghan women don't have any agency in their lives

They don't have agency because people kill them if they try to exercise agency. Quite aside from lawless places like Afghanistan there are recognised states that literally impose the death penalty for trying to leave Islam. The agency of women in some of these places is comparable to that of an African-American in the Antebellum South, and yes, people argued that they "really liked it" back then, too.

That's not to say there are literally no women who wear Hijabs voluntarily - but I'm much much more likely to believe that if they live in a nice, diverse area of a free country like the US than if they live somewhere like Afghanistan or Pakistan.

[Broomstick]

Again the choice to move her made no medical sense.

So, what you're saying is that it wasn't enough for her attackers to throw her off a bus, the Indian government felt a need to then throw her out of the country?

[hongi]

And when women oppressed by Islamic culture speak out against the oppression I suppose they're just being uppity, because Islam is not at all oppressive and all the women are totally fine with it?

What's wrong with you. Seriously. What motivates you to construct strawmen like that?

No, I don't think Muslim women who speak out against oppression are being uppity.

Encouraging or supporting women to stand up against the oppression of their religion or culture is totally just the same as oppressing them. Mmhmm.

No, it isn't. I don't think that. Strawmen are bad, don't do it.

The full-body coverings worn by Islamic women in some places were expressly designed as a tool of oppression, and while I totally support the right of women to wear that if that's what their happy wearing, their choices are often largely being influenced by a misogynist, violently patriarchal culture, and accepting that fact does not rob them of their agency, nor is it dehumanising.

First of all, Muslim women's choices are influenced, but so are we in the West. I just want us to be crystal clear on that. Second, I'm fine with saying that Muslim women's choices are influenced and I don't doubt that some women are forced into wearing it.

But look at what I said:

The idea that brown women are brainwashed or cowered into behaving the way they do and liking the things they like is an insidious and damging one. It strips brown women of their very humanity because it tells them that they're powerless, that the only power exists in the hands of other people.

The viewpoint that I am arguing against claims that brown women, not just some brown women, are brainwashed or cowed into behaving the way they do. Brainwashing and force is not mere influence, because as much as we complain about the influence of the media on male and female body expectations, we don't claim that they are brainwashing or cowing men and women into thinking the body should look this way or that way.

Do you know how fucking amazing it is to witness a Muslim women giving her testimony for why she wears a hijab to an atheist who calls himself a feminist, and then for that guy to discount her testimony because she's a Muslim and she's brainwashed into it? You can go to /r/atheism and find dozens more examples. He doesn't know her, he doesn't know her family background. He doesn't know that she's oppressed, but because 1) she's a woman, 2) she's a Muslim, she must be brainwashed or frightened into doing it. What is this if not what I'm talking about? A generalisation that ignores the very possibility of agency.

Do you know how oppressive it can be to claim that a person is being oppressed and need to be saved?

This is the same shit western feminists get. They point out sexist gender roles that women are implicitly and sometimes explicitly expected to fill, and point out how that's harmful to society and the freedom of women to choose what to do with their lives, and someone pipes in "Well maybe some women WANT to be in the kitchen, maybe they're happier there", while ignoring that many women may not want to be forced into those gender roles, but feel pressured into it by society or are even forced into them with threats of violence or becoming a social outcast.

Any approach that totalises 50% of the human population as a uniform mass is just wrong. Some women do want the opportunity to be housewives. The problem with men who want to restrict employment opportunities to males is that they don't even want to give the opportunity to women to choose.

Nobody is immune to their culture. Everyone is influenced by it. Of course women in Islamic country have agency, but many of them are forced or coerced into subservient positions that they may not have chosen if they had the ability to speak up and choose otherwise. This is especially true in Islamic cultures, where honor killings of women for being too western are a thing that happens.

I highly suggest a book by Saba Mahmood, a Pakistani secular leftist academic that's called Politics of Piety: The Islamic Revival and the Feminist Subject. In it, she did ethnological work with Muslim women in Egypt who have chosen to speak up and choose for themselves, constructing a female Islamic pietist movement by themselves.

No one is immune to their culture, true. But more importantly, culture, politics, society and the contingencies surrounding our lives never goes away. The idea that agency only exists if you're not oppressed isn't true. People can have agency even under domination and suppression, whether it be under British occupation in India or Islamist rule in Saudi Arabia. Oppression just means that they express their agency in different ways.

Besides, agency is not only manifest in resistance (of which there are numerous accounts) but also in conformity. Women can choose to conform to patriarchal ideals, just as men can do the same.

So you'll forgive me if I find your "you're stripping 'brown women' of their humanity by implying their choices aren't entirely their own" claim to be hardly worth humouring.

So don't. But you're missing out on one of the present and very real concerns in post-colonial and non-Western feminist studies.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

I may have somewhat misinterpreted your initial posts. I wasn't intentionally strawmanning your position, just didn't quite interpret it correctly.

Do you know how fucking amazing it is to witness a Muslim women giving her testimony for why she wears a hijab to an atheist who calls himself a feminist, and then for that guy to discount her testimony because she's a Muslim and she's brainwashed into it? You can go to /r/atheism and see dozens of more examples if you want to see more.

I'd rather not. I've seen enough of /r/atheism to know they're more than just a little bit scummy.

The viewpoint that I am arguing against claims that brown women, not just some brown women, are brainwashed or cowed into behaving the way they do. Brainwashing and force is not mere influence, because as much as we complain about the influence of the media on male and female body expectations, we don't claim that they are brainwashing or cowing men and women into thinking the body should look this way or that way.

My point is largely that in a culture that so frequently and violently forces things like the hijab onto women, the influence is very extreme, and many women (but I would hardly say all) are cowed into it in Islamic cultures. It's not comparable to the influence of western media on male and female body expectations and gender roles, because it is frequently enforced with violence.

Any approach that totalises 50% of the human population as a uniform mass is just wrong. Some women do want the opportunity to be housewives. People who want to restrict employment opportunities to men don't even want to give the opportunity to women to leave the home.

Agreed. And? In Islamic countries many women are not given the freedom to choose. Their cultures and societies are far more restrictive.

No one is immune to their culture, true. But more importantly, culture never goes away. The idea that agency only exists if they're not oppressed isn't true. People can have agency even under domination and suppression, whether it be under British occupation in India or Islamist rule in Saudi Arabia. Oppression just means that they express their agency in different ways.

This sounds like an excuse to ignore or accept cultural oppression. Sure, people can express their agency in different ways, but they shouldn't have to. Culture can be changed, and nobody should be forced to accept cultures that want to oppress them.

Besides, agency is not only manifest in resistance (of which there are numerous accounts) but also in conformity. Women can choose to conform to patriarchal ideals, just as men can do the same.

And while this is true, you cannot assume that all conformity is the result of agency.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

So what? If objecting to me "dissing" billions of misogynists then fuck them. It's only bad to "diss" people for inane reasons, like what they look like, not immensely damaging ideological views they choose to hold.

So apparently you can be as broad and generalizing as you want in your condemnations, and if anyone objects they are misogynists so fuck them, eh?

If US religious right took over the US tomorrow and everyone voluntarily joined Fred Phelps' church I would still "diss" them. There isn't some magical line of popular approval beyond which you become immune from criticism for being a sexist.

Exactly. No amount of popularity can right what is wrong. But this has no bearing to my argument.

It seems you don't have a problem with racism as such, but rather with people criticising foreigners for any reason, even ones you agree would be well founded when it comes to people of your own nationality or race. You've adopted the racist/nationalist paradigm hook, line and sinker.

I thought you'd have the good sense not to try an appeal to motive fallacy. I am sorry for such an assertion.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Recall about a decade ago, when Bainbridge was on tour with the Stones, and had a hit song called "Bitch", her world tour ended and she went home to the US hospitalized because there was a riot at a concert where she was beaten, on stage. This on the first leg of the tour through South America, it's not just Middle East, we are talking most of the world where women are mistreated, even western countries are not immune, there is still an active human trafficing industry for sex slaves.

[hongi]

Yes, yes, if only I were a member of the cult I'd see how lovely the dear leader is! No, the presence of threats of social or physical reprisals either exist or they do not. If they don't, it doesn't matter if you're an outsider or not.

No, you don't have to be a Muslim to see that Muslims have agency, because Muslims themselves fail to see agency.

People who don't want to see agents, they think that the job's been done so well that people only act and think in certain uniform ways. Both Christian and non-Christian men, some of whom call themselves proud followers of Jesus and some of whom call themselves proud emancipators and defenders of women's rights, think that Christian women are indoctrinated into being submissive housewives. Both fail to see that there's an enormous undercurrent of agency that Christian women have. They had it even in far stricter times (i.e. post-Reformation Protestant societies or Medieval monasteries, there's loads of good work about women navigating those periods). In that sense, you can be an outsider even if you're an insider.

But of course it's going to be worse for someone who hasn't lived in country, hasn't met with many Muslim men or women, nor speaks their language. How can you claim to know what's really going on? I'm in contact with a lot of Egyptian friends of mine, some of whom are still in Egypt. They get their news directly from grass-roots activists and protestors right on the ground. The news is transmitted in Egyptian Arabic. Can you read Egyptian Arabic? If you don't, don't you think that's a crippling factor in understanding the situation on the ground? Isn't that the same for gender relations?

Uh huh. And I'm sick of people trying to make a fundamentally religious and ideological issue about race because they have nothing else to say. There is no way in hell anyone on this board (or in their right mind) would get "angry" about criticism of Saudi, Iran, Taliban et al if those were white majority countries and organisations. The Taliban is the Ku Klux Klan if it had its own country.

Get over yourself. I'm not going after you because you hate the Saudis. Brown women represent more than just one religion or one ideology. Brown people are billions of people, Christians, Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, South America.

They don't have agency because people kill them if they try to exercise agency. Quite aside from lawless places like Afghanistan there are recognised states that literally impose the death penalty for trying to leave Islam. The agency of women in some of these places is comparable to that of an African-American in the Antebellum South, and yes, people argued that they "really liked it" back then, too.

That's not to say there are literally no women who wear Hijabs voluntarily - but I'm much much more likely to believe that if they live in a nice, diverse area of a free country like the US than if they live somewhere like Afghanistan or Pakistan.

There are two women, one living in Pakistan and one living in the USA. Both wear hijabs. How can you tell which one is wearing the hijab voluntarily and the other not?

[hongi]

My point is largely that in a culture that so frequently and violently forces things like the hijab onto women, the influence is very extreme, and many women (but I would hardly say all) are cowed into it in Islamic cultures. It's not comparable to the influence of western media on male and female body expectations and gender roles, because it is frequently enforced with violence.

I'd like nothing better than to have a society where women can freely choose whatever they want. Especially in places like Pakistan, where Islamism (i.e. Islam in politics) is quite a recent, if very damaging phenomenon. Not only was the brand of Islam that was traditionally practiced in that region considerably more tolerant before the mid 20th century, Islamism only became a big thing because of Zia.

Look, I think we should listen to the women themselves and not make decisions for them. I think they've been fucked over by men with kind intentions because hey, even Islamists think they're doing women a favour, for long enough. That's really all I'm pushing.

This sounds like an excuse to ignore or accept cultural oppression. Sure, people can express their agency in different ways, but they shouldn't have to. Culture can be changed, and nobody should be forced to accept cultures that want to oppress them.

And while this is true, you cannot assume that all conformity is the result of agency.

I agree.

But I don't think it's an excuse for oppression to say that women are still in the game even under male dominance, unless you value male dominance and want to keep it going.

For me, it's just an acknowledgement that even under the male gaze, women have never been mewling sheep or that Aboriginal peoples have never been the meek silent ones under colonial dominance. In that light, I think of it as a real affirmation of human power.

[Malivotti]

Again the choice to move her made no medical sense.

So, what you're saying is that it wasn't enough for her attackers to throw her off a bus, the Indian government felt a need to then throw her out of the country?

I'm saying the choice to move her was made by the government, not her doctors, and considering her condition made no medical sense to the hospital that she was being treated in. Flying presents risks to even people that are 'healthy' much less someone that is considered to be in critical condition.

The hospital that the government moved her to is a multi-organ transplant facility, the victim was is no condition at that time to receive a transplant. However she did likely have liver damage, which might have needed to be address but that problem wasn't on the horizon at the time.

Why did the Indian government chose to move her against medical advice? Did that choice cause or significantly increase her death? Was a through autopsy done?

These are questions that need to examined.

IMO What I think happened is the government got scared by the shitstorm that was stirred up and in the sudden blinding light of international press attention and Had To Be Seen Doing Something, and the desire of the Indian Government to 'help' contributed to the victim's death. If the choices made by the Government where made with the intent to give the victim the best possible care then I can understand and accept that. The hardest thing to understand is that Shit Happens no matter what you do.

However if the decision to transport the victim was made for pure politics, then I'd love to see charges of reckless endangerment causing death be brought against the government members that ordered her transport. Unlikely I know but still...

[Broomstick]

"Best possible care" is obtainable in India. The top shelf Indian medical facilities are the equal of anywhere in the world. I knew she had been moved, I was not aware of the extremes of her condition at the time, but it was puzzling to me because India has perfectly fine facilities.

If she lost her intestines yes, a transplant would be ideal for the long term but that condition is perfectly manageable in the short term, requiring parental nutrition and hydration but that's old, established medical tech. Liver damage would complicate that (long term parental nutrition causes liver damage, so if your liver is already damaged...) but moving her to Singapore wouldn't improve that situation. If she has a raging infection (which would be expected under the circumstances) you can't transplant her anyway until that is dealt with. She was probably septic as hell, leading to heart attack, brain damage, and multi-organ failure.

Yes, that totally makes NO sense whatsoever. It's more than just a need to be seen "doing something", there's something else beyond that operating here.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I was figuring that the transplant of the patient probably had more to do with her safety than her health.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

Well so much for that, huh?

[amigocabal]

Personally for what she and her friend suffered, for the kind of hell her family was put through by the actions of those animals on the bus, kill the fuckers, don't bother making it humane, I'd consider death by impalement on short spear to just and fair, and have it public. It's not revenge, it's not for justice as there is nothing 'Just' in this, it's a warning to any other animal out there that if you cross a line from human being to animal you will suffer for your choice.

Myself, I believe they deserve the Edward II treatment.

[AniThyng]

I'm not going to play qoutes since I'm on a iPad, but I suspect from the earlier assertion in the thread that its mostly religious people who are mysigonist, already there is an additional problem in trying to discuss our worldviews. Now I come from Malaysia, and am familiar also with Singapore, and it is incredibly rare to meet a female atheist even in circles where you might think that would be likely. This is regardless of their personal feelings regarding feminism. Why women tend to be more religious or spiritual I lack the necessary background to truly say, but it is enough that the condescension continues to rankle. Maybe broomstick can offer an explanation?

[AniThyng]

Personally for what she and her friend suffered, for the kind of hell her family was put through by the actions of those animals on the bus, kill the fuckers, don't bother making it humane, I'd consider death by impalement on short spear to just and fair, and have it public. It's not revenge, it's not for justice as there is nothing 'Just' in this, it's a warning to any other animal out there that if you cross a line from human being to animal you will suffer for your choice.

Myself, I believe they deserve the Edward II treatment.

I'm somewhat curious if the people who normally come in on the side of "rehabilitation over punishment" and object to the effective permanent imprisonment of convicted murderers will put that aside for this particular kind of crime.

That said - going back to a much earlier thread about victim blaming from women themselves against other women, it is not uncommon to see viewpoints that blame the collapse of traditional morality and religious piety [and the easy availability of porn and sexualized media of all kinds] for a perceived raise in sex crime. Feel free to call these people morons and idiots if you like, and I'm quite aware that it is probably not true in the case of India, but it can be difficult to dismiss them out of hand, especially since this viewpoint crosses gender boundaries where I am from and is not the exclusive providence of men.

[Broomstick]

Why women tend to be more religious or spiritual I lack the necessary background to truly say, but it is enough that the condescension continues to rankle. Maybe broomstick can offer an explanation?

I suspect it's because of the way women form and use social networks and hierarchies, or at least that's an influence. Women simply can't rely on brute strength to keep their place and status due to men being inherently stronger in most circumstances. Religion does function nicely as a form of social control and for all the downsides of it religious adherence can also work to the advantage of women in some circumstances. Women who can't control men by force might be able to control them by woo-woo and fears of divine retribution. Religion may be a means to an alternative life, one other than simply producing as many children as possible. Religion might mandate better treatment than they would otherwise get - for example, under Islam a man is supposed to treat all his wives equally and not set one above another, unlike the pre-Abrahamic religions of many Middle Eastern peoples. Religions that tolerate slavery can mean free women can maintain a work force they have authority over and save them from the heavier labor involved in running a household that doesn't have the labor-saving conveniences of a 20th Century or later technology.

That doesn't in any way make the bad side of religion, especially in regards to women, OK. I look at it as why women might tolerate a man who beats them in certain circumstances: if you live in a world where the men have to be strong and physically defend the family/tribe/clan from outsiders and if being mated to the biggest, baddest motherfucker means you and your children are more likely to survive and you are less likely to be gang-raped to death that might be worth black eyes, the occasional lost tooth, and a lot of bruises. As I said, it doesn't make it OK, it just makes it more understandable why someone would make that trade-off. We who sit here in comfort in the First World can easily forget that for most of human history might made right and life was precarious at best. People make a lot of uncomfortable trade-offs in the name of survival.

If that sort of thing goes on long enough you get entrenched traditions that become hard to change when circumstances change.

We live at a very unusual time in history, when technology has made brute strength less necessary and some aspects of society favor traits that on average come easier to women, such as language skills and networking. We also live in a time when sex is less connected to reproduction and infant/child mortality greatly reduced over historical levels, freeing much of a woman's adult life for other things than maintaining the population. This has resulted in profound changes that our societies are still undergoing.

[Metahive]

I didn't say all males from those places are misogynist, nor did my argument require it - only that they be more misogynist on average. If that's your only objection then I'd suggest you read more closely next time. But, I think you knew that I wasn't saying that and leapt to call me a racist anyway.

ORLY? Looky here:

The problem is if you let the men come too they start making the West (or at least, islands within it) more like dysfunctional honour/clan-based societies.

I don't see any sort of nuance in there, you blistering ulcer. You say the men from certain nations shouldn't be left in because they'll stink up our liberal utopia with their backwards savagery if they do. Do you or don't you stand by this sentence? You will say either yes or no, no more beating around the bush, no more dog-whistling. Put your money where your mouth is.

It seems you don't have a problem with racism as such, but rather with people criticising foreigners for any reason, even ones you agree would be well founded when it comes to people of your own nationality or race. You've adopted the racist/nationalist paradigm hook, line and sinker.

I have a problem with people making racist and sexist generalizations. Know what? That other countries have certain deficiencies when it comes to progressive thinking is not relevant here. That some nations are more socially conservative than other is not relevant here. That you think that people from nation X should be barred from entering the West for the crime of being born in another culture, that is relevant here.

[Iron Bridge]

I didn't say all males from those places are misogynist, nor did my argument require it - only that they be more misogynist on average. If that's your only objection then I'd suggest you read more closely next time. But, I think you knew that I wasn't saying that and leapt to call me a racist anyway.

ORLY? Looky here:

The problem is if you let the men come too they start making the West (or at least, islands within it) more like dysfunctional honour/clan-based societies.

I don't see any sort of nuance in there, you blistering ulcer.

If you let men in general come from a society where men are more misogynist than the West, you will increase the average misogyny of the society. That doesn't require that every man is more misogynistic than the western average. You don't have a leg to stand on sir.

It seems you don't have a problem with racism as such, but rather with people criticising foreigners for any reason, even ones you agree would be well founded when it comes to people of your own nationality or race. You've adopted the racist/nationalist paradigm hook, line and sinker.

I have a problem with people making racist and sexist generalizations. Know what? That other countries have certain deficiencies when it comes to progressive thinking is not relevant here. That some nations are more socially conservative than other is not relevant here.

If the debate is about whether other countries are less "progressive" (not my word) then that is the only relevant thing here. You can agree with me that free immigration will make the West more misogynist (which is just an empirical question, whether I'm right or wrong) without opposing free immigration (which is an ideological question). That is a trade-off that you will have to think about for yourself.

That you think that people from nation X should be barred from entering the West for the crime of being born in another culture, that is relevant here.

As reasonable a conclusion as it may be, I didn't say that.

[Junghalli]

Perhaps western countries can make it much easier for women to migrate to better countries? I wouldn't know how, but getting women into an environment where they can be treated like human beings would reduce the suffering the pigs can inflict on them.

The problem is if you let the men come too they start making the West (or at least, islands within it) more like dysfunctional honour/clan-based societies.

Leaving aside the other issues with this, how would that only be an issue if you "let the men come too"? It sounds like you're assuming all the sexism against women in a culture is completely imposed and enforced on women from outside by men and the women in those cultures are just victims who will surely be grateful for being liberated from their tormentors, instead of people who've grown up in the same culture as the men and will have internalized its attitudes and beliefs including the sexist ones.

See what people are saying about how implicitly condescending this kind of savior fantasy is to Third World women? Oh, of course it's only the men who are invested in their own culture and would rebel against assimilation, the women are only passive victims and if you bring them over here I'm sure you'll have them wearing miniskirts and shopping at Good Vibrations in no time, the only way this approach could have problems is if the men are allowed to come over too and stop them from becoming the Western-style "liberated" women they all secretly desire to be!

Edit: PS, this is in no way suggesting other cultures don't have sexism problems that need addressing, just in case somebody feels like trotting out that strawman.

[Iron Bridge]

Are you saying it's sexist to oppose sexism? I feel like it might be time to throw away this whole knotted ball of victimisation sellotape and start again from first principles.

My view: if people want to leave their country because they feel they are being oppressed, that is a good prima facie reason to admit them. If they want to stay, I have no intention to force them to move. That is an individual decision, but it's not like no one ever wanted to escape a repressive culture before even if it is "theirs". Where do you think the US came from?

[Metahive]

Are you saying it's sexist to oppose sexism? I feel like it might be time to throw away this whole knotted ball of victimisation sellotape and start again from first principles.

My view: if people want to leave their country because they feel they are being oppressed, that is a good prima facie reason to admit them. If they want to stay, I have no intention to force them to move. That is an individual decision, but it's not like no one ever wanted to escape a repressive culture before even if it is "theirs". Where do you think the US came from?

You're not opposing sexism, shithead. You're expressing xenophobic paranoia towards people immigrating with a certain cultural background, based on nothing but racist and sexist assumptions.

East-Asia is also deeply misogynist, but they got your blessing as being "west-like", funny. So, it's really only those filthy 3/5ths of a person brown-skinned males that we should be alerted about, eh?

Here in Germany the far-right uses the same arguments to oppose immigration. They call it "Überfremdung" (foreign infiltration), the fear that those immigrants will negatively influence society as a whole if allowed in. I already know your kind, you're not going to pull the rug over anyone's eyes.

If you let men in general come from a society where men are more misogynist than the West, you will increase the average misogyny of the society. That doesn't require that every man is more misogynistic than the western average. You don't have a leg to stand on sir.

So it's a resounding yes, you do stand by your racist and sexist BS.
Funny you treat that mere assumption as some sort of truism that doesn't need to be supported with evidence. I have another idea, if dumbasses like you are allowed to spout their ignorant opinion in public, they lower the overall IQ. So why don't you shut up already?

If the debate is about whether other countries are less "progressive" (not my word) then that is the only relevant thing here. You can agree with me that free immigration will make the West more misogynist (which is just an empirical question, whether I'm right or wrong) without opposing free immigration (which is an ideological question). That is a trade-off that you will have to think about for yourself.

Yada yada yada, irrelevant, next.

That you think that people from nation X should be barred from entering the West for the crime of being born in another culture, that is relevant here.

As reasonable a conclusion as it may be, I didn't say that.

O goddamit! Stop being a fucking sophist. You do stand by your assumptions and you do consider it reasonable, so what's wrong with saying you support it? I tell you what, nothing. Good day, sir.

[madd0ct0r]

Perhaps western countries can make it much easier for women to migrate to better countries? I wouldn't know how, but getting women into an environment where they can be treated like human beings would reduce the suffering the pigs can inflict on them.

The problem is if you let the men come too they start making the West (or at least, islands within it) more like dysfunctional honour/clan-based societies.

Going back to the root of it - IronBridge - can you honestly not see how this is a racist statement?