When I heard that Malala Yousafzai had been named as co-recipient of the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize, I was filled with a deep sense of unease. I sensed that this young woman, terribly used and abused as she has been, and coming as she does from that crucible of international terrorism, the Swat valley in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border lands, has all the potential of becoming even more dangerous to world peace than Osama Bin Laden ever was in his time operating from that troubled region.
I constantly hear from women (and men) who declare themselves to be feminists, that feminism is a ‘broad church’ with many different aspects to it: that feminists can’t all be expected to see eye-to-eye with each other, and it all seems rather obvious to them. Their argument goes that people can disagree, and that’s alright.
But I’m afraid this selective hypocrisy simply doesn’t wash if you stack it up against reality.
It is a universal truth that a person’s rights end where another’s begin. Put another way, the right to swing my fist ends at the other man’s nose. You cannot gain rights to anything without infringing the rights of others. There are only so many rights to go round, and feminists who claim their rights without proper regard for the consequences for everyone are engaging in little more than an irresponsible social mutiny. It cannot end equitably.
All British political parties today have feminists within their ranks, such is the degree to which this ideology has come to dominate the political process. Despite its extreme left-wing origins, feminism has displayed an almost unique ability to transcend traditional political leanings, and insert itself into thinking across the political spectrum.
However, it is the British Labour Party that has always been the nurturing parent of feminism (for obvious reasons: Marxism is its pulsing heart), and I think the party will be over for it – in all senses of that saying – because of the recent referendum over Scotland’s independence.
The cultural and political al Qaeda1The Arabic word qaida ordinarily means ‘base’ or ‘foundation – it is also used for ‘groundwork’ and ‘basis’. of feminism in Britain, might be on the brink of the abyss. The society-sapping, family-destroying cult of the woman could be losing its main political power base. Now wouldn’t that be an amazing thing?
[ + ]
|1.||↩||The Arabic word qaida ordinarily means ‘base’ or ‘foundation – it is also used for ‘groundwork’ and ‘basis’.|
On the 14th September 2014, Joan Smith published this article in The Independent newspaper, which she opened by saying [Oscar]
‘Pistorius is already on his way to rehabilitation in a country where three women a day are killed by a husband or boyfriend.’
Smith’s article, reeking as it does with shameless feminist bigotry in this most tragic of human experiences, is reprehensible. Any reading of it reveals her agenda, which is standard feminist-speak, straight out of the manual as written by the likes of Women’s Aid, Refuge, and a host of others in the domestic violence industry – both here in Britain and in North America.
If ever there was an example of the sheer unrestrained infantility of some young women today, the professional victim Laura Bates is the epitome. Yet she seems to pop up everywhere in her crusade, Jeanne D’Arc- like, against what she calls ‘Everyday Sexism’. Catch her TEDx talk here – if you can stand seventeen minutes of simpering solipsism, that is.