Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Gender Issues » Mysogeny (Page 3)

Category Archives: Mysogeny

Indonesia’s Courts vs Team 6, or Justice delayed is better than justice denied

There are times when I have been not so  impressed with Indonesia’s courts and there are times when I have been pleased that they can deliver justice to some rather nasty wrongdoers well I must say that I was pleased that that merchant of hate will probably spend the rest of his life in a prison cell, Sadly though I expect that he will still have the chance to preach his  hatred  and bile from within that jail cell.

click for source

Although I can’t help thinking about the way that other inciter of Jihad have been dealt with in recent months could perhaps have been an inspiration for dealing with Bashir…. No, dealing with him  through the courts is the best option and hats of to Indonesia for finally making the charges stick, after all its the rule of secular law that is the mark of a proper civilisation and sometimes they even manage to deliver justice….

Cheers Comrades

Intact genitals are a human right

I have always thought that circumcision of male  infants is tantamount to the most cruel child abuse. It is an unnecessary mutilation of a most vulnerable person often done without anaesthetic. So I find the rising tide of those who object to the practice in the USA an interesting phenomena, well it seems that the matter is to be put to the people in San Francisco:

Click for source

While there is no doubt that male circumcision, is a lesser magnitude mutilation than that which is visited upon girls, but it is still an unnecessary mutilation of vulnerable children, done for all of the wrong reasons, and frankly I think that it should be banned everywhere.

Cheers Comrades

a worthwhile link

Good sportspersonmanship in the political process, or a good reason not to whine about sarcasm in debate

If anyone were to take the time to peruse the pages of Hansard or even the media’s public record you would soon be struck by one very obvious fact and that is the tendency for our MPs and senators to use cheeky sarcasm towards  their political opposites. After all our politics is a combative and competitive sport of the tongue and the clever retort or put down is the stock in trade of any skilled politician. Even in a senate committee the Chair exists to act as umpire and if any comment is actually going too far in its content or taste then it may be withdrawn or apologised for. That is entirely reasonable.

Frankly I have watched the vision of this little spat several times and I would really like to see more of the meeting that preceded Wong spitting the dummy here because I suspect that it would contain a fair bit of the usual tendency of government minister trying to avoid providing real answers to reasonable requests.  That said the conflated outrage about one off the cuff “Meow” is ridiculous and to some extent hypocritical. Personally I think that there is a real and admirable beauty to the clever use of sarcasm (think of Oscar Wilde) and those who would ban it must be terribly dull and dreary people. However as the piece in today’s OZ points out the Labor party are being particularly hypocritical over “Meowgate” because even Gillard  has played the same sort of game herself:

But yesterday, Liberals Sophie Mirabella and Kelly O’Dwyer questioned Labor’s sincerity.

Ms Mirabella, who in 2008 was told by Labor MP Belinda Neal that evil thoughts could turn her unborn baby into a demon, told The Australian yesterday that none of the Labor women had complained when former Labor leader Mark Latham described a female journalist as “a skanky ho”.

“It was just hypocrisy for a Labor woman to raise this when the silence has been deafening when conservative women — politicians or journalists — have been attacked in the past,” Ms Mirabella said.

Ms O’Dwyer said Senator Bushby’s comment had been injudicious but he had apologised to Senator Wong.

“The Labor Party is absolutely hypocritical,” Ms O’Dwyer said.

On one hand they get righteously indignant on this, where an apology was made right away. But you have other examples where there hasn’t been the same level of intensity.”

Senator Wong told ABC radio she also objected to the Opposition Leader’s recent comment that he wanted to “make an honest woman” of the Prime Minister when discussing Ms Gillard’s breach of her pre-election promise not to impose a carbon tax.

Senator Wong said: “We all know what that generally refers to, and that’s making sure the woman’s married. So, I think, Tanya’s quite right to name what she perceives is happening.”

Special Minister of State Gary Gray said Senator Bushby had apologised for his “inappropriate, dumb observations” and he hoped politicians would learn from the incident and accept that parliament was “not the place for reverting to type”.

Earlier, when Ms Gillard was challenged about her description of Mr Pyne, she accused journalists of misreporting her comment, urging them to check the record.

“I actually never used that terminology,” she said.

However, a copy of the parliamentary Hansard makes clear that Ms Gillard, comparing the relative merits of Mr Abbott and Mr Pyne, described the pair as a doberman and a poodle and noted that choosing between the two for a job was “a choice between macho and mincing”.

There are clear and reasonable constraints upon the way that participants in our democracy are expected to behave as they go about the business of politics and it is hardly surprising that players form all sides try to push the envelope as they sharpen and hone that most important political weapon, a clever tongue, to seek advantage in debate or any other element of the political process (like committee meetings). Now I very much prefer that such things are done with perfect sweetness and good manners but realise that when dealing with human beings perfect manners and absolute consideration of every word before it is set free upon the world would make for a very dull political process.

Politics is a tough sport and those who play at the elite level should realise that it is a game played on the basis of no quarter given and none expected in return. Which is why conflated outrage like that form Penny Wong and her supporters  just reflects badly upon her and them  rather than the man who made a vaguely insensitive remark in a senate  committee meeting.

Cheers Comrades

In the mean time it will be sensible lefties like Nick Dyrenfurth and Nick Cohen who are lighting the path for those of a progressive inclination

I get a fair bit of stick for repeatedly knocking the idiocy from those that I call Latte-Sippers ™. You know the well intentioned but naive lefties who seem to spend a great deal of their time berating any conservative who is concerned about totalitarian Islamists or idiot Warministas. The irony is that I have a very strong sense of true social justice and I am quite far from being any sort of fan of rampant winner takes all  capitalism, in fact when I did one of those “where do you sit in the political spectrum” quizzes I came out with a score that put me just to the left of centre  So when I criticise the left it probably has more to do with a feeling that they have betrayed their own principles to support either totalitarians or the most foolish millenarian  scam of our age. Why else do you think that I have such respect for the likes of Nick Cohen?  Well now it seems that there are a few more sane lefties coming out of the woodwork who are willing to say just how nutty the far left have become and just why they are trashing the “progressive” centre left with their idiotic support for any mob who happens to oppose the capitalistic western democracies:

Today, however, noisy elements on the far Left – think Noam Chomsky, John Pilger and our local scribblers – seem to believe that Western-style democracy is in fact the real enemy.

With monotonous regularity they excuse bin Laden and his fellow Jihadis’ death-cult or rationalise Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s vile anti-Semitism, instead preferring to blame the US and Israel for all the woes of the world, including partial responsibility for the September 11 atrocities.

There are of course brave souls on the Left who have challenged the ostensible status quo. One thinks here of Geras and his fellow Euston Manifesto signatories. Recently a local player emerged to put a similar case.

In his maiden speech to NSW parliament last year Labor MLC Luke Foley, from the party’s Left, argued that social democrats must confront the newest “totalitarian movement of the far Right” just as they successfully opposed fascism. “This global Islamist movement is misogynist, racist and homophobic [and] based on an utter perversion of the Islamic faith.

“Too many progressives are silent about this,” Foley insisted, “or worse, deny this.”

It is hard to disagree with the crux of Foley’s argument. And yet if I must quibble with his analysis and that of Geras et al, it is their designation of the apologists for radical Islam, as “Left”, an association that is arguably harming the electoral viability of centre-left parties across the globe. For they are no such thing.

It is high time these values-free misfits received a new appellation.

Practically speaking, they oppose mainstream Left thinking on virtually every subject. Amazingly they can see no tangible difference between a theocracy and a democracy nor denounce Islamic fundamentalism in unequivocal terms. To my mind, they should be known for what they are: nihilists.

So let them rail against liberal democracy and chant: “We are all Hezbollah” from the rooftops but do not besmirch the good name of others by deeming themselves Left. No, let them stand with like-minded nihilists, Jew-haters and other enemies of social democracy, including a recently deceased jihadist unlikely to be enjoying a judenrein paradise of virgins. On behalf of the sane Left, good riddance to the lot of them.

Perhaps the problem with the far left is that they just can’t admit that for all of its many faults that our society is actually pretty good, certainly still a work in progress but a bit closer to being a better picture than just about any other social template on the planet. If our Latte sipping friends could only see beyond the milky froth on their own lips and look at the bigger picture then they might just realise that by giving succour to theocratic misogynist despots they are undermining the “progressive” future they claim to care so much about. In the mean time it will be sensible lefties like Nick Dyrenfurth and Nick Cohen who are lighting the path for those of a progressive inclination and earning the respect of social conservatives like yours truly.
Cheers Comrades

Being Bob's Biatch….

for a contrary view click this image

In colloquial terms a person is someone’s bitch when they are subservient to their will, this term of derision is freely used when describing individuals of both genders and while it may seem rather crude, when it comes to describing the relationship between Gillard and Brown on the environmental issue de jour. There is some merit in the terminology.

Of more concern to me is the lack of an apostrophe to designate the possessive case in the word “Browns”. It is usually the left who make such basic orthographic errors and I am deeply disturbed that one of my fellow conservative/sceptics has been remiss enough to have missed the most important punctuation marks from their placard…

To be honest I have been amazed at the rancour of the many minions of the left  over the pithy signs at this rally its not as if the minions of the left have never been lacking in good taste or due respect to the leaders of the nation when the coalition have been the subject of the people’s ire in public protests,  In my youth I vividly remember some lefty wag  writing (in metre high letters) on the wall of the Milton underpass. “DOES FLO GIVE JOH A (BLOW) JOB?” after Joh made her a senator to fill a casual vacancy that was certainly crude but it was also bitingly funny and how many times have the left  referred to Tony Abbott as the “the mad monk”? Look such things are horses for courses in our political dialogue and if one side can do it freely then so to can the other.

Some protesters did seem to be off message but what is new about that?

More from the rally

Protest sign Spell check in action?

We have a most robust  democracy that does not allow excessively  obsequious deference to our political leaders, that is one of the strengths of our egalitarian society and to my mind that makes Australia a better democracy than is evident in the USA where they revere their leaders in a way that is entirely alien to us. All I can say to the lefties who are getting upset about signs like the one at the top of this piece is, well, grow some and stop pretending that our democracy is not robust enough to tolerate a little justified derision of those we have in power (or of those who aspire to power), it helps to keep them grounded and free of hubris and that has to be a good thing.

Update just compare the following images and consider their tone and content  compared to those exhibited yesterday:

Cheers Comrades

Racism and barely disguised anti Semitism

The thing that I find endlessly amusing about our learned  friend’s criticism of Andrew Bolt is the way that he never  appreciates Andrew’s clear and obvious sarcasm. Its there for all to see if you click through to the original piece that Jezza is attempting to criticise here. Instead our learned friend takes that sarcasm and pretends that it is being said with deadly seriousness.

The very sad thing about Latte-sippers of our learned friend’s ilk is that they have this rather bizarre idea that Islam and the culture it underpins should be immune from any sort of criticism, Or that any criticism of that faith must be both wrong and made from base (racist) motives. Frankly given the way that our Jezza beats the Gay Marriage drum with such vigour I find this surprising. In many Islamic countries our friends of the shirt lifting persuasion face a rather nastier problem than not being able to call their unions a marriage, they face the rope. Yet there is never as much as a squeak out of him about it while he is prepared to pillory any Christian group which merely defends the idea that Marriage is a heterosexual institution.

Isn’t it time that minions of the left like our learned friend admitted that while we should be tolerant of human cultural diversity it is foolish to pretend that templates for  society propagated by people of faith are all equally good?  Especially when those templates are at such odds with the sort of modern secular values that he otherwise argues for with such vigour. Notions like women having equal humanity and the right to retain their clitorises or that we may all love whom so ever we please no matter what their gender may be. Or that we may mock and jeer everyone’s religion without some  nutter blowing us up or other wise threatening us with death  for doing so. Or even that we should not have to be unknowingly complicit in cruel methods of animal slaughter just because some people want to have animals killed as if the last 1300 years have not happened?

This is the problem with that “lets pretend that all cultures are equal” left they end up being strangled with their own contradictions. We all want to see Australian society and its cultural diversity work. I truly love the many types of faces I see every time I stroll through the public places of our cities. It is enriching for all of us to have that diversity but it is ridiculous to pretend that we have change to suit intolerant immigrants. My late father in law once chided his aged mother in my presence because she wanted to speak to him Dutch “this is Australia you speak English here” he said . Now I got where he was coming from, he was enunciating the notion that the onus is upon the newcomer   to fit in, but I also appreciated the way that my wife’s Oma wanted to speak to her son in her mother tongue. You need to have a balance between the different imperatives in play here and isn’t seeking that balance precisely how any culturally diverse society reconciles its differences?

The final “Elsewhere” aside in our learned friend’s post is most amusing because it exposes the the left’s often  ridiculous blind faith  support for the Palestinian cause. There is a sort of irony in this because for those of us who are critical of the left we  see the unwavering  attacks  of the state of Israel under the “anti Zionist” banner as being little more than barely  disguised anti Semitism, sadly for our learned friend he is defending an untenable position because the anti-Semitism of the Palestinians in particular and Muslims in general is very clear and openly enunciated. So accrding to his own logic (if you support racists then you must be racist yourself [paraphrase]) If you support Anti Semites then you must be one yourself…

Cheers Comrades

Targets of lust and sexual repression

It is sadly amusing the way that our latte sipping friends want to insist that there is nothing in Islamic culture that encourages immigrant Muslim men to “groom ” or rape the young women of the countries that have welcomed them. Of course such problems are not evident in every individual who prays in the direction of Mecca but when you have a respected member of the community in the UK admitting that it is a problem.


Lord Ahmed warned young Asian girls as well as white girls are targeted

Lord Ahmed, a Labour peer, said he was talking about Asian men in general and warned they can target young Asian girls as well as white girls.

He said: “They are forced into marriages and they are not happy.

“They are married to girls from overseas who they don’t have anything in common with, and they have children and a family.

“But they are looking for fun in their sexual activities and seek out vulnerable girls.

“I get a lot of criticism from Asian people who ask, ‘How can you say this about Asian men?’ But they must wake up and realise there is a problem.”

He added: “While I respect individual choice, I think the community needs to look at marriages in the UK rather than cousin marriages or economic marriages from abroad.

Religions that deny that we are creatures of flesh and blood  and privilege arranged marriages of an individual’s right to choose their life partner  are bound to cause more problems than they solve for humanity especially when they so easily maintain a double standard of socially acceptable behaviour within their community.

Cheers Comrades

Pat Condell on the money , again


Cheers Comrades

%d bloggers like this: