First, evidence? For what? I wasn't making a claim, I asked illram what he made of the poll.
Second, 80% support for IS in any kind of a poll is an extremely shocking number. But sure, laugh away and keep your head in the sand.
Third, it's not like this is the only point of reference. Numerous surveys have shown shocking figures, like this recent Pew one, despite its misleading title.
Aea said:
These are perfectly valid sources. When they agree with your bias.
Yeah, the internet: where everyone's a troll and nothing is taken seriously. Especially in the realm of public opinion. Unless you also mean to suggest that over a billion people watched Gungnam Style.
In the very least the culture does encourage some level of dishonesty, theft, lying and submission snd it is know for a terrible abuse of women. It is amazing how difficult it is to intergrate and absorb muslims because of Islamic 'culture' A large percentage sometimes a majority do support things like Sharia meaning they seek to overthrow the values of place like HongKong, S.Korea, Europe and replace them with muslim law, they also cause trouble in Africa, in Thailand, India and the Philippines. Many see Sharia law above the US Constitution, and so many are paranoid they see infidels in all things and 'Jewish' conspiracies everywhere
I would be a liberal on many issues but I do not support the current refugee and immigration fiasco, I think the conservatives have a good point here
California and Portland and other States and areas are entertaining, I think like Dearborn they will get a rude awakening what it is to bring so many of this 'culture' into your nation
Seen all kinds of vids out there
some left, some rightwing, some conspiracy-ish
What would someone controversial like Dawkins say? Maybe Allah does not exist. Muhammad's teachings are bunk. Muhammad was a child molester. Or he might say the story of Al-lah is false, it isn't real. Mohammad was prone to war and a child molester, was claiming to be a prophet so he could get away with it.
...With Sharia slowly but already creeping into some nations how long will we be no longer able to have frank and open discussions like this?
California and Portland and other States and areas are entertaining, I think like Dearborn they will get a rude awakening what it is to bring so many of this 'culture' into your nation
Pish posh. The same things have been said about the Chinese and the Japanese and the Oklahomans and the Philipinos and the Vietnamese and the Mexicans and yet here we are, perfectly fine. You're welcome to say what you want about this state but you clearly know nothing about it.
I think my favorite part of this refugee ridiculousness is the doublethink inherent to the whole thing. That people can at one time condemn Muslims for not integrating while simultaneously praising Little Italy or Chinatown or refraining to some Yiddish idiom or making a Godfather reference. I'm the product of German immigrants. My great grandpa lived in the Midwest his whole life and never learned English. My Great Uncle still belongs to a community in Minnesota where Norwegian is the lingua franca. The integration arguments are dumb.
Forgive me for being suspect of a source that manages to turn 61000 votes (out of around 60000) into 81%. I mean, the Express managed to literally break mathematics.
So somewhere along the line their math went badly wrong and the Express -echoing their high standards of journalistic integrity- gave essentially no information on how to find the original Al-Jazeera online poll to check to see where their math went wrong.
Does it make a difference? Do you set the bar so low? Should we not expect every sane moral person to be wholeheartedly against IS?
The story was all over the news when it came out. When I posted the figure yesterday, I linked the first article that mentioned it, assuming that everyone here had heard about it anyway. I didn't recall at that moment that such stories are not brought on rawstory, or any of the other regressive "news" sites. That this specific article contains a mistake is completely irrelevant, despite your desperation to discredit the source.
The question was whether people supported the victories of IS. Are you seriously suggesting that this question is somehow ambiguous? That some of the people who voted "Yes" may actually have been against IS?
I would like to call everyone's attention to the last 2-3 pages of this thread, because what we have seen is typical in regard to the thread title. First, a graph was posted, based on Pew research, which shows that large majorities of Muslims are against gender equality and for sharia. One would think that people would be interested in a discussion about these abysmal numbers. But instead, the next page was filled with a rather pathetic attempt to discredit Pew. Then we hear about 80% of Arabs supporting IS. Obviously this was not a representative study, but nevertheless it is a catastrophic poll result. Yet again, nobody feels the need to talk about the numbers, instead the poll is discredited, and absurd excuses are introduced, like that the question was unclear. The further Pew poll I posted at the top of the page, which showed that in the 11 surveyed countries alone between 63 and 287 million people support IS, was completely ignored.
All along, the denial of facts is cloaked in a subtle yet distinct guise of moral superiority. Aren't I a great person? I am not criticising the "other". I am defending the underdog! Of course this notion is not only extremely condescending, by assuming that the people viewed as being in the "other"-group are less responsible for their beliefs and actions. Ignoring a problem is dangerous and becomes a problem in itself. How much longer do you want to wait, regressives, before you finally start addressing reality?
No it isn't. You underestimate how effective the no-life reactionary mobs in the internet actually are. IS islamist internet warriors are basically the Muslim redpill/gamergate.
No it isn't. You underestimate how effective the no-life reactionary mobs in the internet actually are. IS islamist internet warriors are basically the Muslim redpill/gamergate.
Funky your issue is you take data and then twist it to suit your agenda (assuming you even present accurate data at all, which is sometimes questionable). And your agenda appears to be that Islam is bad and scary and crazy and we should all be super duper worried about anyone who is Muslim until they prove otherwise.
Exhibit A. I could say the exact opposite. Because the Pew poll says
In many of the countries surveyed, clear majorities of Muslims oppose violence in the name of Islam. Indeed, about three-quarters or more in Pakistan (89%), Indonesia (81%), Nigeria (78%) and Tunisia (77%), say suicide bombings or other acts of violence that target civilians are never justified. And although substantial percentages in some countries do think suicide bombing is often or sometimes justified – including a 62%-majority of Palestinian Muslims, overall support for violence in the name of Islam has declined among Muslim publics during the past decade.
Is it troubling that a majority Palestinian Muslims think suicide bombing is "sometimes or rarely" OK? Is it troubling that in some countries only a little over half of the population has a negative view of, say, Al Qaeda? Absolutely. Is it fair to say "vast numbers of Muslims" support terror based on these little nuggets of polling? I guess, depending on how you want to define vast numbers. But when you fail to mention the much much larger number of Muslims who do not support terror it calls into question your motives in making a statement like that and it undercuts your premise that this all boils down to some fundamental theological flaw in Islam. Majorities of Muslims view terrorist groups unfavorably and are concerned about Islamic extremism. Very large, clear majorities view suicide bombing unfavorably. An objective discussion needs to take into account all the facts. You choose to ignore certain facts, which makes me and others consider your perspective non objective and rather distorted.
Your earlier graphic suffers from the same problem. I don't really know why you think social and political views are really of dire importance to people who don't live in these countries, but clearly you have an agenda in posting this information as like the "information" you posted above it picks and chooses what it wants to present. I am guessing that agenda is "Islam is bad, we should all be super duper scared of Islam."
First, obviously political perspectives should take into account variance by region. Problem #1 with your presentation of the graphic as evidence of these opinions flowing from some theological flaw in Islam. The Pew report this graphic extrapolates from mentions this.
Attitudes toward Islamic law vary significantly by region.
Sort of a fun example of this: guess which group of Muslims is least likely to believe in Evolution? Americans. This is sadly in line with Christian polling on the question.
Indeed, when it comes to evolution, U.S. Muslims are closer to U.S. Christians (46% of whom say they believe in evolution) than they are to fellow Muslims elsewhere in the world.
Second, as above, the graphic doesn't mention things "Westerners" might see as positive. I could cherry pick good facts from that poll and make my own graph to make Islam seem super moderate and awesome as well. For instance what about the following:
% of being saying it is a "good thing" for other people to be free to openly practice their (non muslim) religion:
South Asia (97%), Southern and Eastern Europe (95%), sub-Saharan Africa (94%), Southeast Asia (93%) and Central Asia (92%). In the Middle East-North Africa region, nearly as many (85%) share this view.
Given a choice between a leader with a strong hand or a democratic system of government, most Muslims choose democracy. Regional medians of roughly six-in-ten or more support democracy in sub-Saharan Africa (72%), Southeast Asia (64%) and Southern and Eastern Europe (58%), while slightly fewer agree in the Middle East and North Africa (55%) and Central Asia (52%). Muslims in South Asia are the most skeptical of democratic government (a median of 45% say they support democracy).
Violence against civilians in the name of religion is bad:
In most countries where the question was asked, roughly three-quarters or more Muslims reject suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilians.
Political and social beliefs are interesting but again I circle back to the central issue: why raise the issue of your political or social disagreement with Islamic majorities in the Middle East and North Africa and South East Asia? What's the point? What do you hope to achieve? Yes, women need more freedom in the Muslim world. Yes, LGBT communities need more freedom in the Muslim world. Yes, Theocracies are a bad thing. So what? What's the angle? Do you see a link between conservative religious perspectives and the likelihood that someone will commit a terrorist act? Do you worry these restrictive social beliefs will take over Germany? Beyond coffee table disagreement over how some people act, why should I care about what laws Saudi Arabia has about driving or inheritance?
As for the Al Jazeera poll, all I could find was this, which google translated into:
Have you considered offering to organize an Islamic state in Iraq and Syria for the benefit of the region?
Like others noted, a public internet poll is not really something you can make any objective conclusions from. Troubling certainly but taken with a rather massive grain of salt.
the backlash is not from the conservative right anymore, it is from within the left movement and there are people who say they are the lefts true freedom lovers and true liberals...
these 'real liberals' they call those others the il-liberals call them maybe a kind of Anti anti-communist or call them 'regressives'
The problem is there are some people would love to silence and censor and sadly the left can sometimes be just as bad like those crazy conservatives on the rightwing. The far-left can be equally as dangerous!! Some of them would like to keep things quiet for political correctness, some on the left find some subjects just too 'taboo' to talk about. Sure some data is not always accurate but on the regressive left side, they like to dismiss certain data, certain polls and figures as flawed or like to say they are founded on 'racism' or something and therefore wrong.
The regressive left phrase is not going away, until the Left movement across the United States across English cities in Britain, across the Western world gets its act together this debate from the left against the 'regressive leftsist' will continue
The Regressive Left term is now trending, its on yahoo buzz, its on twitter, if you look at google trends its OFF THE CHARTS
Richard Dawkins: Regressive left turns treacherous blind eye on misogyny & homophobia because they absurdly think Islam must be "respected" as a "race". (reddit/twitter.com)
Link to video.
fill in the blanks for this link - links with rude words not allowed on civi forums http:// judgy b i * tch .com/ 2015/06/09/feminists-dont-challenge-radical-islam-because-real-misogynists-are-terrifying/
Feminists don’t challenge radical Islam because real misogynists are terrifying
Richard Dawkins 'disinvited' from skeptic conference....for skeptical tweet
This is causing a bit of a storm on the internet as it looks like the 'no-platforming' trend among feminists and modern 'social media' liberals has hit new ironic heights. It all started when Richard Dawkins tweeted this (rather silly) satirical video which makes links between radical Islamism and radical feminism:
I think there are real genuine refugees out there, people with children and famalies who are fleeing the religious extremism of the middle east need help and they can be helped.
However
Bringing in thousands of radical people from the Middle East who believe in things like 'Sharia Law' is not going to improve the human rights of the Danish people or improve the rights of people in the Western world. There have already been many attacks, there is now a new 'game' of group collective rape or collective sexual harassment in crowds.These kinds of attacks were normally confined to the streets of the middle east but now this cultural 'sport' of Taharrush Gamea, the rape game, has been "played" all over Europe in recent months. The same collective molestation and rape game almost cost CBS correspondent Laura Logan her life in Tahrir Square on the night of the Muslim Brotherhood's victory. This Arabic gang-rape 'Taharrush' phenomenon which sees women surrounded by groups of men in crowds and sexually assaulted.
Unfortunatley the mainstream media was not reporting all this and Merkel had chats with Facebook CEO Zuckerberg to censor anti-immigration posts. It all started to leak out on blogs, tinfoil head sites like Alex Jones, it leaked out on youtube and on twitter, then reports started coming in from both left news media sources and right media sources, there were so many independent sources that it had to be true. It turns out Sweden was not just censoring the riots, stealing, the attacks and the rapes during New Years but Swedish media may have been censoring, burying news and deleting reporting for the past 2 years!!
Do you agree with secular people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris? Even though people like Dawkins, Harris, and Bill Maher are left wing on 99% of issues
Her argument is both false and a fallacy. There are plenty of feminists who are concerned with and tackle with the problems of patriarchy in the Middle East.
This doesn't mean that Anita Sarkeesian can do much to alleviate the problem.
It also doesn't mean that feminists cannot criticize video games for their problematic depictions of women.
The fallacy you are making is called the fallacy of relative privation. It's the most common tool of reactionaries and far right wingers to suppress dissent at home. The argument goes something like this usually: "how dare you criticize workers rights at home when there are far worse problems in North Korea". It assumes that domestic activists 1. do not care for the problems faced by people in other countries, 2. can actually do something to alleviate them effectively and that 3. smaller problems aren't problems worth resolving.
Richard Dawkins: Regressive left turns treacherous blind eye on misogyny & homophobia because they absurdly think Islam must be "respected" as a "race". (reddit/twitter.com)
Yes. Islam is a "race". In that it's an a deep cultural and spiritual identity that people are born with. One can say that Americans are born American, so why can't you say that Muslims and born Muslim. It's an identity that is shaped in formative years, becomes ingrained in the individuals understanding of himself, yet doesn't guarantee that he will support any particular political ideology or that he becomes homophobic. Dawkins is too stupid to understand this elementary reality.
The death of liberalism: Goldsmiths feminists ally with Muslims opposing feminist speaker Maryam Namazie
She is just another bigot who says Muslims have effectively no individual agency. Her argument is that liberal interpretations of islam are impossible. That is bigotry.
Funky your issue is you take data and then twist it to suit your agenda (assuming you even present accurate data at all, which is sometimes questionable). And your agenda appears to be that Islam is bad and scary and crazy and we should all be super duper worried about anyone who is Muslim until they prove otherwise.
Let me ask you, do you really think what you write? Do you seriously think that I have some agenda to exaggerate the threat Islam is posing? I mean, why would I do that? Why would I care?
I am interested in an honest discussion about facts. That's it. Everything else you threw into the equation is a figment of your imagination. It's not my fault that most of the data we have on Islam is extremely worrying. But I don't shy away from talking about it. I have been studying the religion for over three years, and the more I have learnt about it the more concerned I am. That is why I tell you guys to do your own research. Just don't deny the problem without honestly having evaluated the data.
About the rest of your post, we obviously have very a different perception of what numbers should be comforting. First of all, regarding the Pew graph on suicide bombing, the numbers of just the Muslims who "often" and "sometimes" support suicide bombing are already high. If we counted in the "rare" results, we would have majorities in several countries who support this practise. In many of these countries we find that only around 50% or even less reject it out of hand. It is hard to comprehend how you can post these numbers as being on your side of the argument. These are extremely shocking figures.
Is it troubling that a majority Palestinian Muslims think suicide bombing is "sometimes or rarely" OK? Is it troubling that in some countries only a little over half of the population has a negative view of, say, Al Qaeda? Absolutely.
Seriously? So as long as "most" Muslims don't support suicide bombing - nevermind that in some countries there are majorities who do - it is not legit for me to criticise that vast numbers of Muslims support this practise? I must always add that "most" Muslims, as in 51+%, don't support terrorism, so... so what exactly? Is the problem somehow lessened? Do you expect so little of Muslims that as long as a majority of them is against suicide bombing, then it's not so bad? Do you set the bar so low?
And how would bringing up that the majority of Muslims don't support terror add anything of value to the discussion? When talking about suicide bombing and support for terror, I am interested in the Muslims who support suicide bombing and terror. I am not interested in the Muslims who don't. And the numbers of those who do present a massive problem.
Think about the absurdity if you'd apply what you said to any other ideology, say Nazism. If you'd say that Nazi ideology is hideous and leads to terrible outcomes, and I'd respond by telling you that most Nazis are just normal, peaceful people. Most Nazis don't commit acts of violence against Jews or gays, or are all too worried about conquering German living space. The general staff, and perhaps members of the NSDAP, they are a problem. But you shouldn't generalise their behaviour to all Nazis and paint them with a broad brush. For most Germans, Nazism gives them hope and comfort in their everyday lives. By criticising Nazism per se, you are just an anti-Nazi bigot.
You'd probably consider me insane. But this is what these conversations are like for me all the time.
For instance what about the following:
% of being saying it is a "good thing" for other people to be free to openly practice their (non muslim) religion:
When talking about religious diversity in the Islamic world, we must take into consideration the practise of dhimmitude. Christians and Jews are free to live in Muslim-majority countries as long as they recognize the superiority of their Muslim overlords and forgo certain rights. We also have to note the mistreatment and persecution of religious minorities in the Islamic world today, Christians being by far the largest persecuted religious group in the world, mainly due to Muslims. Nevertheless, I'll grant you that the numbers on this issue are encouraging.
On this issue though, again I am astonished how you could see the numbers as a good thing. When in most places we have scarcely over half of Muslims being in favour of democracy. These numbers are alarming. It gets even worse when we factor in that in the predominantly Islamic regions large majorities of the people believe religious leaders should have a large political influence on politics.
In most countries where the question was asked, roughly three-quarters or more Muslims reject suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilians.
So a quarter of the Muslim population in the surveyed countries considers suicide bombing and violence against civilians legitimate, and you present that as a good thing?!
Political and social beliefs are interesting but again I circle back to the central issue: why raise the issue of your political or social disagreement with Islamic majorities in the Middle East and North Africa and South East Asia? What's the point? What do you hope to achieve?
Germany is currently being flooded with people who hold illiberal beliefs. Who add up to the 4.5 million Muslims who have already been living here who have illiberal beliefs. Oh, not all. But disproportionately many.
Beyond coffee table disagreement over how some people act, why should I care about what laws Saudi Arabia has about driving or inheritance?
There are people who are interested in the future of humanity, there are those who aren't. If you belong to the second group, I will certainly not try to convert you.
There is nothing wrong with suicide bombing as long as the targets are legitimate. Even civilian targets can be legitimate; like Hiroshima and Nagasaki most prominently. It's always wrong only when brown people do it, of course.
In britain, im more at danger of being attacked and killed by Northern-Irish terrorists then muslim terrorists, yet i don't see the usual suspects demanding for the irish moderates to come forth.
Her argument is both false and a fallacy. There are plenty of feminists who are concerned with and tackle with the problems of patriarchy in the Middle East.
This doesn't mean that Anita Sarkeesian can do much to alleviate the problem.
It also doesn't mean that feminists cannot criticize video games for their problematic depictions of women.
I'd agree with this argument were it not the case that for every 100 (western) internet "feminists" that talk about how problematic <western non-problem X> you'll struggle to find a single internet "feminist" actually talking about the very real issues women face in other countries.
It's funny how your whole post basically boils down to: "X is dumb because he/she doesn't agree with me!" That already makes you look stupid, but I have no doubt that in an open exchange of ideas without deflection tactics such as redefining words Dawkins would probably make you look like a pathetic clown.
I'd agree with this argument were it not the case that for every 100 (western) internet "feminists" that talk about how problematic <western non-problem X> you'll struggle to find a single internet "feminist" actually talking about the very real issues women face in other countries.
That's what you think because you don't actually read anything feminists write at large, you just watch sargon of akkad videos. Feminists at large run shelters and promote gender equality: obsessing over women's rights in far away countries usually doesn't make much sense since there is very little you can actually do about the women's rights situation in Saudi Arabia.
That said, there are plenty of feminists who do make it their cause to combat third world misogyny.
"Islam is a race... if we redefine the word race so that it includes Islam!"
Not redefining: race has always used to refer to ethnic groups with similar customs and language, in addition to the phenotypical category.
In a sense, I'm using terms meaningfully, because Muslims might as well constitute a race in practice. A child born in Iran or Saudi learns to integrate Islam into his fundamental cultural identity starting from his very formative years. None of that really means that he is destined to support any specific political view, and it might as well be racist to imply that he must support a certain political viewpoint in order to be a muslim.
When talking about religious diversity in the Islamic world, we must take into consideration the practise of dhimmitude. Christians and Jews are free to live in Muslim-majority countries as long as they recognize the superiority of their Muslim overlords and forgo certain rights. We also have to note the mistreatment and persecution of religious minorities in the Islamic world today, Christians being by far the largest persecuted religious group in the world, mainly due to Muslims. Nevertheless, I'll grant you that the numbers on this issue are encouraging.
Hi Funky
I think some political people might have a little bias but the thing is we are now getting so many independent reports from different sources that it must be true
At first I did not know what to make of the reports about illegal islamic immigration into Europe, but we get so many reports and reports now its just 'regular'
Not sure about this Walid Shoebat and guys like him, I think some clearly have an agenda he's an anti-Muslim activist self-proclaimed "Former Muslim Brotherhood" turned "Peace Activist" http://shoebat.com/2016/01/22/this-...ion-and-replace-it-with-a-muslim-slave-class/
I think he's too tinfoilly to be taken serious and too much of a preaching guy
but the thing is the reports are now coming from EVERYWHERE from ALL SOURCES
Left, Right, Center, Alternative under ground media....they all report the same thing, Europe is having serious problems with Muslim Immigration into the Western world
You are incorrect here, Islam is a belief system and it means submission to the Koran, submission to Al-Lah and it is the faith of the believers the 'muslims'. Anyone can be a muslim, a yellow Thailand man can be muslim, a brown man or woman from Bangladesh can be muslim, a whiteman from America can be muslim, a blackman from South Africa can be muslim, you can join Islam from any race so it is not a race and it is not ethnicity. Islam is a religion, it is a religious and political belief system and not a race, and is commonly practiced among many ethnicities. Also an Arab from the middle east can be a Christian, can become an Atheist, an Arab can become Jewish, can become Druze and Baha'i. Your logic is simply wrong
So she's not a racist anymore, we can call the critics a 'bigot' now?Jews under the Muslim rule rarely faced martyrdom or exile, or forced conversion and they were fairly free to choose their residence and profession. Their freedom and economic condition varied from time to time and place to place. Forced conversions occurred mostly in the Maghreb, especially under the Almohads, a militant dynasty with messianic claims, as well as in Persia, where Shi'a Muslims were generally less tolerant
Tell me how to interpret these liberally?
Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, “Kill any Jew who falls under your power.” Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad’s men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim.
Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
Quran (17:16) - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction."
Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 484: - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”
Koran (47:3-4) - "Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord... So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost."
Princeps said:
The Muslims are like Jews where few centuries ago, scapegoats
I don't understand your paranoid obsession with a medieval poll tax. To me, obsessing over Jizya all the bloody time as an example of horrendous oppression is extremely weird.
You are wrong and I think your previous posts dismissing critics of Islam as 'racists' is a very dishonest debating tactic
try listening to this woman for a few seconds, she grew up in the middle east
Link to video.
I heard she quit islam and received many death threats for this video
Not redefining: race has always used to refer to ethnic groups with similar customs and language, in addition to the phenotypical category.
In a sense, I'm using terms meaningfully, because Muslims might as well constitute a race in practice. A child born in Iran or Saudi learns to integrate Islam into his fundamental cultural identity starting from his very formative years. None of that really means that he is destined to support any specific political view, and it might as well be racist to imply that he must support a certain political viewpoint in order to be a muslim.
You might make an analogy with anti-Catholicism in the US, which historically was not-particularly-subtle code for prejudice against immigrants from Catholic Europe, especially Ireland.
That's what you think because you don't actually read anything feminists write at large, you just watch sargon of akkad videos. Feminists at large run shelters and promote gender equality: obsessing over women's rights in far away countries usually doesn't make much sense since there is very little you can actually do about the women's rights situation in Saudi Arabia.
That said, there are plenty of feminists who do make it their cause to combat third world misogyny.
Besides that, I much prefer armchair feminists to armchair critics of feminists, who devote all their intellectual energy to maintain the status quo and convince themselves and others that no change is necessary, least of all for themselves.
How does criticizing feminists who decide to focus on domestic issues help women in even more overtly patriarchal societies again? Such appeals to hypocrisy are inherently hollow and intellectually dishonest.
You might make an analogy with anti-Catholicism in the US, which historically was not-particularly-subtle code for prejudice against immigrants from Catholic Europe, especially Ireland.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
