UN Ignores Islam-based FGM, Honor Killings and Under-Aged Marriage

blurb200

Ever wonder why the UN Human Rights Commission doesn’t do much about violence against women?  This video of the commission’s meeting with a concerned NGO will explain it is painful detail: Simple explanation; Islam may not be linked with ANY bad “traditions”, period, end of statement.

Littman UN video rev 4 from Vlad Tepes on Vimeo.

Watch it all, it is worth it!  Get ready to applaud the “point of Order” by the German delegate!!!

Voices from the Middle:Intelligence is Not an Affirmative Action Program


By: Barry Loberfeld

Earlier this year when Long Island’s Newsday printed on its cover the names and headshots of the 59 of the national Intel science contest’s 300 semifinalists who come from the region, it put journalism before politics by not concealing what would be a major problem for certain elements of the Left and Right: The contingent didn’t “look like” America — at least as some conceive it.

Feminists, for example, will be hard pressed to explain how 25 of the 59 could be young women. After all, isn’t there hindering discrimination against females everywhere in our society — especially in the science classroom? How was the number of 25 achieved with only student achievement and no affirmative action? What can feminists denounce — that a full one-half of those featured, 29½ people, weren’t female?

Worse, how will the whites-control-everything crowd explain the most glaring feature of the cover: The majority of the students are not European Christians. On the contrary, Jews, Orientals (“Asians”), and people from the Indian subcontinent (“South Asians”) form the greater part of the group. We find in one row: Feinberg, Fichtelberg, Gittin, Goldaper, and Gurevich. So, where is the “domination” by America’s dominant demographic?

Of course, nativists also can’t be too happy about the line-up. They won’t find a Smith or a Jones or a Johnson, to say nothing of an Alden or a Bradford or a Standish. Indeed, two young men who look as if they actually could have a Pilgrim forebear also have the names “Aleksandr Sinelnikov” and “Yevgeniy Yesilevskiy.” And Buchananite conservatives, for whom “America” is its true-blue-collar Catholics, would no doubt be calling for more than just immigration quotas if they were to learn that there was only one unequivocally Irish name (with one or two possibly Irish ones), as well as only one Italian name. Forget America — this group doesn’t even “look like” Long Island. Alas, young Miss Scavelli is not the only lone member of an “underrepresented” segment of our society: There is only one black student. And while the term “Hispanic” is fairly encompassing, it doesn’t encompass any of the semifinalists (as far as I can tell).

Finally, there is the matter of the number 59 itself, out of 300. Does Long Island have 19.6 percent of the population? As the article observes, that number is “more than double that produced by New York City’s high schools, and also more than double that for the entire state of California.” (In 2002, the number was 88.)

Well, what are we to make of it all? That the “women’s movement” was largely successful — for certain minority groups? Or that gender is irrelevant compared to ethnicity/race? That the judging panel, sponsor Intel Corp., and even the science itself are all biased against Hibernians and Sicilians but in favor of Ashkenazim and Chinese? Can there be “institutional discrimination” against minority and majority groups? If so, who’s instituting that discrimination — a privileged minority group? And why would Santa Clara-based Intel be disproportionately generous to Long Islanders? Taken all together, what we must have here are some very discriminating bigots, indeed.

Clearly, there’s only one real question: What would the contemporary promoters of “equality” consider a just and “natural” outcome, evincive of a total absence of any form of bias?

For that to be true, the 59 must reflect perfectly the ethnic breakdown of the United States — or at least Long Island — or better yet, for the full 300 to be a microcosm of the country. How would that be possible? What are they insisting upon — that the random differences from one individual to the next in ability, ambition, and values all add up to the same proportion of low/medium/high achievers for each demographic group…and that this in turn somehow translate into a “representation” of all groups relative to each one’s percentage of the population? One word: astronomical.

… Hear the words of one of the foremost exponents of faux egalitarianism:

[T]he shell in which the cultural construction and self-education of Communist man will be enclosed, will develop all the vital elements of contemporary art to the highest point. Man will become immeasurably stronger, wiser and subtler; his body will become more harmonized, his movements more rhythmic, his voice more musical. The forms of life will become dynamically dramatic. The average human type will rise to the heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx. And above this ridge new peaks will rise.

Leon Trotsky wrote this in his book Literature and Revolution.

Are today’s socialists any less absurd? Only slightly so. Barbara Ehrenreich, a socialist feminist considered by some to be reasonable, was called upon to explain why “fewer men are going to college,” despite the alleged persistence of male privilege. She insisted, “they suspect that they can make a living just as well without a college education; in other words they still have such an advantage over women in the non-professional workforce that they don’t require an education.” Would she assert that “fewer blacks are going to college” because “they suspect that they can make a living just as well without a college education; in other words they still have such an advantage over whites in the non-professional workforce that they don’t require an education”? When fewer women were going to college, was it because “they still had such an advantage over men in the non-professional workforce that they didn’t require an education”? Why would the Learned Elders of Patriarchy maintain male privilege in the non-professional workforce? Except for sports prodigies, who does better — or even “just as well” — without a college degree?

More and more, “discrimination” explains less and less. And yet the “progressive” disintelligentsia demands it be enshrined as the only explanation for any demographic “discrepancy” between any groups — i.e., as America’s defining reality. Hence Ehrenreich: Unable to find men’s “advantage over women” in the world of higher education, the author of Nickel and Dimed projects it onto the world of burger-flipping. Accordingly, the Left has convinced itself that those who contest this diagnosis — and its concomitant cures — do so only because they want to propagate the disease of “inequality.” Dissent from this Ivory Tower dogmatism is maligned as gutter bigotry.

One of the most stark examples — a rebuke to those who pronounce “political correctness” dead or mythological — is the recent blitzkrieg of slander waged against economist Walter Block. The particulars are simple: After giving a speech at Loyola College of Maryland, Block was vilified as a racist and sexist by sundry university and outside entities (call them the “Affirmative Action Diversity Task Force”) for not explaining the white-black and male-female wage gaps solely in terms of the mandatory societal-bias model. A solid scholar, he beat back these ad hominem attacks. But it is a telling indictment of that model that it can be sustained only with the imposition of an ideological litmus test — and in opposition to any intellectual standards.

It is not merely a dogmatic model, but one applied incoherently, i.e., hypocritically. Ehrenreich’s unwillingness to hypothesize women’s advantage over men in academia is one example. Another: If blacks are disproportionately “represented” in the penal system, that in itself “demonstrates” that there must be bias against them and in favor of whites. But if males are disproportionately incarcerated, no one — least of all feminists — argues for the culpability of a systemic bias against men and in favor of women. What kind of egalitarianism can’t maintain “equality” even in its own postulates and yet presumes to do so for the entirety of society?

How long will leftists insist that there must be something wrong if every field of endeavor doesn’t mirror America’s ethnic composition? How long will feminists insist upon their “minority” status even when women outnumber men in positive, successful areas?

And the “cultural conservatives,” who seem concerned less for Western civilization than for Country-and-Western civilization? By every indication they would delightedly set sail a ship of multiracial scientists in exchange for a dinghy of Scots-Irish creationists. What would America be without any non-Christians and non-whites? Evidently a whole lot dumber. And if Mr. Buchanan’s own children are not among any contest winners, he has no one to blame but himself.

In all areas, achievement is an individual responsibility.

Read it all!!!

Here is one you won’t find on Atlas or Jihad Watch

“Wives should submit to their husbands in everything,” writes Paul to the Ephesians about how they should order their domestic lives. Mary Slessor, 19th century Scottish missionary and early feminist wrote in her Bible next to this text, “Nay, nay, Paul laddie. This will na do.” Mary Slessor was right. Religious women need to challenge such religious justifications of domestic violence. Their lives can depend on it.

The primary connection between religion and domestic violence is religiously sanctioned subordination of women. Submission itself is institutionalized violence–a structure of unequal power that puts women in a vulnerable position in the home. The front door of such a “religious” home becomes a doorway to violence.

Mary Potter Engel, a Christian theologian and novelist, has called this the “Just Battering” tradition. She models her analysis of the Christian justification of violence against wives on the Just War tradition. Just War principles start with “Right Authority.” In the “Christian home,” ideologies of “submission” mean that only the husband has authority. This makes physical abuse of women “just” in the same way that political authorities can claim a war is “just” if it is authorized by them.
(See Kay Marshall Strom, In the Name of Submission: A Painful Look at Wife Battering)

Evangelical Christian ministries such as those run by Rev. Rick Warren at his Saddleback Church or James Dobson of Focus on the Family all stress “submission” as the Christian family role for wives. At the same time, these Christian Evangelical ministries staunchly deny that submission is a cause of violence against wives.

Some Evangelicals strongly disagree and have explicitly charged that it is submission that is responsible for wife battering in the “Christian” home. James and Phyllis Alsdurf, in Battered Into Submission: The Tragedy of Wife Abuse in the Christian Home, have noted that conservative Christian women can’t even get help because of this religious ideology of submission. “When she [the battered wife] musters up the courage to go public with ‘her’ problem (very likely to her pastor or a church member), what little human dignity she has retained can soon be ‘trampled underfoot’ with comments like: ‘What have you done to provoke him?’ ‘Well, you’ve got to understand that your husband is under a lot of pressure right now,’ or ‘How would Jesus want you to act: just submit and it won’t happen again.'”

In fact, Jesus gets invoked a lot to justify wife battering, especially as a model for suffering. In an article Time Magazine did when Mel Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ was first released, I noted the direct connection between an overemphasis on suffering as “saving” people and what women have told me for years about how their priests or ministers advise them to stay in a violent home. “Countless women have told me that their priest or minister had advised them, as ‘good Christian women’ to accept beatings by their husbands as ‘Christ accepted the cross.’ An overemphasis on the suffering of Jesus to the exclusion of his teaching has tended to be used to support violence.” (April 12, 2004)

This is a sad commentary on the role religion sometimes plays in human life. It does not have to be this way. We have put up with violence in the “religious” home for far too long. The truth is, “batterers” aren’t serving God, they are serving themselves and it’s sin, plain and simple.

Israeli girl ‘youngest divorcee’

(HH here: I know, you thought this would be about some radical Jesish sect that had merried off some pre-pubescent like the Muslims and some Hindu’s and Sihks do. But no…)

Both partners came from Jerusalem’s large religious Jewish community
A 14-year-old Israeli girl has got a divorce from her 17-year-old husband, making her what media are describing as the country’s youngest divorcee.
The divorce came after a rabbinical court ruled that their wedding met the major requirements of Jewish law.

The two sweethearts had exchanged vows in front of friends, exchanged a ring, and the union had been consummated.

(HH here: so the kids did things “by the book” and the religious authorities considered them married. Isn’t that a refreshing change from clerics that will kill young people before allowing them to take their own faith in to their hands.)

When her parents found out what had occurred, they insisted on a religious divorce, which she initially refused.

Both partners come from traditionally religious Jewish families.

The religious court in Jerusalem …n held the divorce proceeding.

The divorce will go on the girl’s legal file, meaning that when she is 16, her identity card will say she is divorced.

One consequence of this is that – if she follows Jewish religious law – she will not be able to marry anyone with the name of Cohen, who are traditionally the Jewish priestly caste.

Saudi women ‘kept in childhood’


From the BBC

Women cannot make even simple decisions on children, the report says
Saudi women are being kept in perpetual childhood so male relatives can exercise “guardianship” over them, the Human Rights Watch group has said.

The New York-based group says Saudi women have to obtain permission from male relatives to work, travel, study, marry or even receive health care.

Their access to justice is also severely constrained, it says.

The group says the Saudi establishment sacrifices basic human rights to maintain male control over women.

Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world where women are not allowed to drive.

Saudi clerics see the guardianship of women’s honour as a key to the country’s social and moral order.

‘No progress’

The report, Perpetual Minors: Human Rights Abuses Stemming from Male Guardianship and Sex Segregation in Saudi Arabia, draws on more than 100 interviews with Saudi women.

Read the full HRW report

The report says that Saudi women are denied the legal right to make even trivial decisions for their children – women cannot open bank accounts for children, enrol them in school, obtain school files or travel with their children without written permission from the child’s father.

Human Rights Watch says that Saudi women are prevented from accessing government agencies that have no established female sections unless they have a male representative.

The need to establish separate office spaces for women is a disincentive to hiring female employees, and female students are often relegated to unequal facilities with unequal academic opportunities, the report says.

Male guardianship over adult women also contributes to their risk of exposure to violence within the family as victims of violence find it difficult to seek protection or redress from the courts.

Social workers, physicians and lawyers say that it is nearly impossible to remove guardianship from male guardians who are abusive, the group says.

“It’s astonishing that the Saudi government denies adult women the right to make decisions for themselves but holds them criminally responsible for their actions at puberty,” said Ms Deif.

“For Saudi women, reaching adulthood brings no rights, only responsibilities.”

Read it all by clicking on the post title