Pussy Hats and Hijabs

This video has been “unlisted” on YouTube. Which, since you can still watch it, I take to mean you can’t find it with a search. So I post it here for a bit wider exposure than Google deems appropriate. 18:39

Barbara Kay – How to Launder a Hijab
Nth-wave Feminists support a female dress code, invented in 1970 by an Iranian mullah, and now enforced by males.

The only point of agreement between Feminism and Islamism I can detect here is that men are evil, though that’s offset from the current Western feminist dogma by the fact that sharia makes females entirely responsible for controlling men’s sexual behavior. More succinctly, “If you are raped, it’s your fault.”

Not so long ago, when feminists were called upon to condemn clitorectomies, honor killings, murder of young girls for attempting to get an education, inability to be seen in public unless accompanied by a male, and other aspects of Islamic totalitarian patriarchy, they demurred that they couldn’t be expected to denounce another culture. But, American Feminists weren’t really afraid to criticize other cultures, they were afraid their own complaints would be revealed as trivial.

Tiring of squirming on the charge of hypocrisy, accurately leveled, Feminists found themselves needing defenses against the realities of Sharia Law. They enlisted Islamic, Marxist activist Linda Sarsour to carry the water. Sarsour was co-chairman of the 2017 Day Without a Woman strike and protest where, as always, she wore her hijab. While consorting with women in pussy hats.

Here’s some Linda Sarsour tweets to ponder:

Happy birthday to the revolutionary #AssataShakur!” read the tweet, which featured a “#SignOfResistance, in Assata’s honor

Assata Shakur, aka Joanne Chesimard. is a convicted cop-killer living in Cuba, and is on the F.B.I.’s list of most wanted terrorists.

You’ll know when you’re living under Sharia Law if suddenly all your loans & credit cards become interest free. Sound nice, doesn’t it?

There’s that. Then, if you’re female, there’s ‘your educational opportunites will be entirely decided by the State Patriarchy.’

shariah law is reasonable and once u read into the details it makes a lot of sense. People just know the basics

Like being hung for self-defense against a rapist. Like risking a public flogging for participating in a public demonstration (maybe wearing an odd shaped pink toque) without your male guardian.

10 weeks of PAID maternity leave in Saudi Arabia. Yes PAID. And ur worrying about women driving. Puts us to shame.

And now, Sarsour has an even better point. Women have recently been granted the right to drive in Saudi Arabia so we don’t even need to worry about THAT anymore. This amazing privilege is somewhat tempered by the fact that they still need male permission to leave the house. But they get 10 weeks of paid maternity leave. Both of these privileges are granted by, and dependent upon, the whim of an absolute monarch. Where in the world, after all, are social conditions closest to Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tail?

Sarsour is notably silent on how many Saudi women are CEOs or on corporate boards, never mind that only about 15% of women (a tripling since 1992) in Saudi Arabia are even employed “outside the home,” and the female unemployment rate is around 30%. Saudi women don’t need to drive to get to jobs they don’t have, or to schools they can’t attend (emphasis mine):

“The Ministry of Higher Education was established in 1975 to provide higher education to all students based on Islamic laws and to supervise its process [27]. The goal of education for women was for them to be successful housewives and good mothers, with knowledge suitable to their nature such as teaching, nursing or giving medical treatment…

…it is very difficult for women to attend university since they need a male guardian [7-40][7]”

Saudi Arabia ranks 138th out of 144 on the 2017 Global Gender Gap Index published by the World Economic Forum. You may know of them from their annual meeting in Davos. The US ranks 49th, down 4 points due “to a significant decrease in gender parity in ministerial level positions,” so take it with a grain of salt. Even ranked by elite EU leftists, though, the discrepancy is notable – if incomprehensible to a desperately self-promoting Islamofeminist. It’s comical.

We can agree that as a stand up comic Linda Sarsour is in a class with Sandra Fluke. But there’s hope for Sarsour. Even the Saudis are moving away from Sharia. The cultural peeks in that link are worth reading, and are a bit chilling. Stand up comedy clubs are now permissible, if you have a license and don’t say the wrong thing. It reminds me of Jerry Seinfeld’s remark, “Don’t go near colleges. They’re so PC.”

That’s cultural appropriation by campus Lefties.

Victiming the blame

Thirty years ago Roman Polanski was a 43-year-old movie director in Hollywood. He drugged and then raped – vaginally and rectally – a 13-year-old girl. He plea bargained into lesser charges, but fled the country before he could be sentenced. In a 1979 interview, Mr. Polanski defended himself thusly

“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But … f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”

Not so much, thanks. I’d rather see Mr. Polanski f__ed. And maybe he finally will be. He has just been arrested in Switzerland, and is now awaiting extradition to the United States.

His arrest at a film festival, where free speech is greatly admired as long as it does not involve cartoons of Mohammed, praise of capitalism or speculation that George Bush was not the progeny of a Mengele experiment involving Hitler and a chimpanzee, has upset well over 100 Hollywood “movers and shakers.” We know this because they have signed a petition protesting his arrest.

Among these tinseltown ethicists are Woody Allen, who married his own adopted daughter, the quintuply married director Martin Scorsese, and producer Harvey Weinstein, described by LA Weekly as “one of the most successful yet psycho movie producers of modern times.”

More surprising perhaps, are the feminist women rallying to support Polanski’s patriarchal right not to be inconvenienced by the criminal sexual exploitation of a minor who, by the way, possessed two X chromosomes.

Debra Winger complains “the whole art world suffers” in such arrests. Millionaire film maker, unrestricted abortion advocate, and founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation, Peg Yorkin, says,

“My personal thoughts are let the guy go. It’s bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It’s crazy to arrest him now. Let it go. The government could spend its money on other things.”

“It’s bad a person was raped.” Indeed. And even worse than person, Polanski’s victim was a 13-year-old female who is apparently ineligible to be a member, or a concern, of the Feminist Majority Foundation – insofar as she didn’t need any government funds for an abortion.

Then there is Whoopi Goldberg, who explained that Polanski hadn’t really committed the crime he was charged with. The LA Police and the most of the rest of us have been calling it rape all these years, but Goldberg apparently knows it as “rape-rape.” Real rape, I guess she means. Mere rape is nothing that justifies arresting him while he’s attending a sacred film festival.

“Whoopi Goldberg has said that Roman Polanski was not guilty of “rape-rape” following his arrest in Switzerland over his conviction for unlawful sex with a minor.In 1977, Polanski was charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14 and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor.

These charges were dropped as part of a plea bargain that saw the director admit to the lesser charge of unlawful sex with a minor, while he later fled the US on the eve of sentencing.

Of Polanski’s crime, Goldberg told The View: “I know it wasn’t rape-rape. It was something else but I don’t believe it was rape-rape.

“He went to jail and when they let him out he was like, ‘You know what, this guy’s going to give me a hundred years in jail. I’m not staying’. So that’s why he left.”

She added: “We’re a different kind of society, we see things differently. Would I want my 14-year-old having sex with somebody? Not necessarily, no.””

[H]aving sex?” “Not necessarily?” “Different kind of society?”

Whoopi, you provoke this question; “Under what conditions is the rape, which you call having sex, of your 14-year-old child considered necessary?” I don’t need an answer, it just does prove you live in some different place.

It sounds like these moguls and celebs are taking their direction from ACORN, an organization that considers 13-year-olds “assets” on the “sex-slave” balance-sheet.

If you acknowledge the fact that by watching the movies made by this cadre you are financing a moral cesspool, then you are culpable if you do not boycott everything they touch.

They are entitled to express their opinions, and the rest of us are entitled to react. So while we’re mocking celebrities, here’s a mocking critique of another aspect of Hollywood’s moral preening. Same group of people, similar message: “We are advanced thinkers and your moral superiors. So we made this commercial.”