Germany and EU to legalise paedophilia?

June 28, 2009 at 3:08 pm | In Gender Issues, Society | 9 Comments

BERLIN, July 30, 2007(LifeSiteNews.com) – Booklets from a subsidiary of the German government’s Ministry for Family Affairs encourage parents to sexually massage their children as young as 1 to 3 years of age. Two 40-page booklets entitled “Love, Body and Playing Doctor” by the German Federal Health Education Center

“Fathers do not devote enough attention to the clitoris and vagina of their daughters. Their caresses too seldom pertain to these regions, while this is the only way the girls can develop a sense of pride in their sex,” reads the booklet regarding 1-3 year olds.  The authors rationalize, “The child touches all parts of their father’s body, sometimes arousing him. The father should do the same.”

Canadian author and public speaker Michael O’Brien who has written and spoken extensively about the crisis of culture in the West spoke to LifeSiteNews.com about the shocking and extremely disturbing phenomenon. It is, he said, “State-encouraged incest, which in most civilized societies is a crime.” The development is, he suggests, a natural outcome of the rejection of the Judeo-Christian moral order.

“The imposed social revolution that has swept the western world is moving to a new stage as it works out the logical consequences of its view of man’s value,” said O’Brien. “It is merely obeying its strictly materialist philosophy of man. If man is no more than a creature created for pleasure or power. If he is no more than a cell in the social organism, then no moral standards, no psychological truths, no spiritual truths can refute the ‘will to power’ and the ‘will to pleasure’.”

Read the rest here

If this is supposed to be an attempt to encourage children not to be ashamed by parts of the body (as private parts of children may be taught by some parents to be dirty which can lead to development of intimacy problems and issues with the body later in life) then it is going in the wrong direction. “Exploration” of this sort, spurred on by parental involvement is a dangerous ground to be treading.

What do you make of this article?

Banning the “Burka”

June 25, 2009 at 3:08 pm | In Culture, Discursive, Islam, Media, Men, Muslims, Non-Muslim, Patriarchy, Society, Women | 10 Comments

Recently French president Sarkozy, upon returning from Afghanistan stated that the burka was not welcome in France and argued for it to be banned despite it being a rare practise in the province.

There have been calls in favour of this , largely due the argument of it being synoymous with oppression and subjation of women, whereas others argue state intervention in how people dress to be a dangerous ground to tread, and its subjectivity.

Surely state interference in what is acceptable to wear in public (as France may very well be on the path towards) makes it similar to other countries who enforce various dress codes for its citizens (e.g. Saudi, & Iran – and Afghanistan during Taliban rule). These countries are often attacked for being limiting, intimidating and impinging on rights of its citizens as a result of their laws and regulations, some being puritanically enforced moreso than others.

Much of this discussion has spread into Britain which has its own chequered history regarding the niqaab, as was the infamous comment made by Jack Straw who found interacting with niqaabed women as “uncomfortable”. Others argue the aggressive alienation that niqaab perpetuates, it indicates “I wish not to talk to you” or “I wish to be different”. Perhaps the Emo’s, Punks and Goths (and the numerous other groups who pride on being “different”) are trying to be inclusive by their demeanour? Another commentator  in a tabloid newspaper stated the niqaab prevents communication and explicitly states “I don’t wish to talk to you”. I don’t recall there being a single occurrence where I have witnessed a hubbub of conversation on the Tube amongst complete strangers. None of them are “impaired” by having a niqaab on. All but a rare few have their face on full show for communicative purposes, so where is this chitter chatter?!

Despite calls by some segments of the population to follow Sarkozy’s call for banning burka (niqaab), such an enforcement would not be possible in the UK which prides itself on being a multi-cultural country, and promotes cultural diveristy, where freedom of faith and religious practise is key. Much argue this multiculturalism is the cause of the lack of integration and assimilation of slivers of the minority ethnic, and was the often touted cause for the 7/7 tube bombings and concern over growing and silently breeding extremism/islamism amongst its Muslim minority. And of course the result of this and many other situations involving individuals from BME communities, has led to the increasing popularity of the right wing political group, the BNP.

Instead discussions involving niqaab and its undesirability in the UK have focused on issues of identity and security and have remained within those parameters. Very occasionally has the discussion spilled over the veil being a male symbol of repression of the woman quite as fiercly as Sarkozy has propositioned.

One would argue in a free society (which Britain supposedly is – despite the much Big Brother style surveillance) the state cannot dictate what is or isn’t acceptable to wear in public. So you can dress in niqab, hijab, a turban, a Somali style khimaar, Orthodox Jewish attire, long robes, small shorts and a tank top, vest tops and hot pants or in your underwear etc. Only thing illegal is nudity in public spaces, unless it is has a permit to allow nudity.

The argument of whether the niqab is a religous order or a cultural phenomenon is irrelevant as the primary focus in this discussion sparked by Sarkozy is the item of clothing itself and its symbolic association with repressive practises. Despite interpretations and associations of the symbolic nature of the niqaab (confused with the burka here) there will remain a proportion of women who will wear it with convinction of it being a personal choice, regardless of the arguments of its requirement or otherwise on religious grounds.

Me too…

June 16, 2009 at 10:00 am | In Personal | 21 Comments

Like Achelois, I am also not ignoring this blog.

My reasons for not blogging much or even commenting on other dear friends blog’s are similar to Achelois’. My apologies to fellow bloggers for this.

I’m too tired to blog, too tired to comment on things I see, hear, read and feel because I have effectively been worn out and wrung dry from it all. Tired physically, mentally, emotionally and perhaps intellectually. From thinking all the time and having a struggle.

The struggle being? Wanting to put pen to paper and writing all these thoughts down,  rants, idea’s, realisations and criticisms but realising the permanency this action results in. At least if a thought is in your mind it will evetually flitter away into the recesses of the blackholes which the mind is made of (only to later re-surface momentarily). But once written down, it is etched and engraved for time immemorial.

This urge however is subdued. I too like Achelois wish to sleep all the time. TV doesn’t appeal, but revisiting old documentaries or radio station programmes are.  Some topics and issues although important and of interest, I feel no desire to comment on because it rings of deja vu.

People have writing blocks. I have a lack of passion and desire as well as a writing block.

I need to be inspired and to feel enough to write.

Cosmetic Usage is for Wanted Male Attention

May 15, 2009 at 8:48 pm | In Discursive, Gender Issues, Learning, Life, Media, Men, Women | 23 Comments

There was a recent debate which took place on The Guardian, initiated by a self-confessed and open lesbian about the use of cosmetics. Julie Bindel is of the opinion, from a feminist stance, that no self-respecting woman, who was confident and comfortable in her own skin would employ make up. Cosmetic usage is purely for the attraction of men, in the hope that they may notice you and for you to pass off as a “normal” person.

She has come under fire for her own appearance, but vouches that:

Throughout my feminist career, I have been regularly – and often viciously – criticised for my appearance by misogynists, and yet what they are really reacting to is my refusal to dress up for male approval.

Do you agree with Julie that make up is a medium for dressing up for male approval? Or is it simply about enhancing features and the beauty that you already have been blessed with? Is there a push for females to conform to a the stereotype of a plush, fresh faced, full pouted, glossy haired vixen? Does make up come under the same category as restrictive and harmful items of clothing such as corsets, incredibly high heeled stiletto’s?

Is any kind of dressing up always  for male attention and approval?

Should Neither Be Seen Nor Heard…

May 6, 2009 at 8:55 pm | In Culture, Discursive, Gender Issues, Islam, Men, Muslims, Patriarchy, Women | 41 Comments

…at least children are told they should be seen but not heard. Women it turns out should completely render their existence obsolete. As quietly as possible please, phase yourselves out, as not to disturb the sentiments of the menfolk who lose all sense at the sheer sight of our bony hands and round faces as per hijaab rules. Or eyes if you are privy to niqaab.

It irks me to find time and time again certain attitudes from Muslim women regarding how the Muslim sisterhood should behave, what characteristics they should have and ultimately what their role in the grand scheme of life should be. Please let me explain in more detail:

  • Women should try their utmost to not be appealing to men. This includes wearing “colours which do not attract attention” in other words black, to fit the appearance of a crow as per this hadith:

Abu Dawood (4101) narrated that Umm Salamah said: “When the words ‘and to draw their veils all over Juyoobihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms)’ [al-Noor 24:31 – interpretation of the meaning] were revealed, the women of the Ansaar went out looking as if there were crows on their heads because of their garments.” Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood.(Source)

  • They should not “invoke desires in men” by means of their garb, and their scent – so perfumes are out and BO is in:

‘Unadorned’ means not wearing perfume… they are commanded to go out like this and are forbidden to wear perfume lest they provoke men’s desires with their perfume. That also includes other things which are forbidden because they provoke desire, such as beautiful clothing and visible and expensive adornment. (Source)

  • Women should not make any noise whilst out in pubic, so tinkling jewellery, clicking shoes, jingling keys – all avenues to Hell.
  • She should not raise her voice, if possible she should not speak at all since a man may become aroused on hearing such a sweet murmur. Is a woman’s voice awrah or not? After all Aisha (ra) spoke to the men who came and visited her (from behind a curtain) with a finger in her mouth to distort her voice. But we are not subject to the same rulings as the Prophets (saw) wives were. Emulating them  in character is one thing, but to effectively live life as they did along with the limitations and special injunctions they had is not a requirement nor a necessity for Muslim women.  Having the opinion that a woman’s voice is awrah effectively makes her become mute, as all of her is awrah. But, on the flip side, it is said of course she can talk, but to do so firmly – no pleasantries; just in, command, purchase/enquire and out. So a “thank you” and a “have a good day” have no place in this fitnatastic world.

Something strange (which I found strange anyway) I wish to share with you all. A few weeks ago, I attended what can only be described as a small mendhi/henna function for the neighbours son. It didn’t even feel like a mendhi, I didnt think they’d have one what with being of a certain religious persuasion and so not of the singing kind (women singing out loud in the house? The shame of it all!) but anyway that’s a different topic altogether. What I want to bring to your attention is this:

We were sitting there, munching away as you do. And the doorbell goes, someone goes to answer it as is the norm. This girl  (who is related to the chap somehow or other) runs into the room having answered the door exclaiming “Its a MAN” ~shock horror~ A man? A member of that species? Oh dear God. I had about to hide my expression behind my plate as to not give away the look which was forming on my face. It was a cross between “how pathetic” and “oh for God sake, what stupidity, are all women down in this part of the UK inherently man-a-phobic?” I have come across this “Its a man” phenomenon usually amongst women who wear hijab (strictly) whenever there is an impending threat of a man about to enter the room or simply waft across anywhere near where the women may be. “Its a man” usually indicates to take cover under your hijabs should you have decided to remove them in the first place.

If its not man-a-phobia then it is giving preferential treatment to the men:

  1. The men will eat first, the women later even if there is ample room for them all to sit together to eat. Months ago, during my newly wedded days, I was asked by an extended family member if this type of gatherinbg was the same in my family I replied “no, we – the men and women- sit together and eat” – the response to that? “Oh we can eat how much we want this way, stuff ourselves silly w/o the men watching! hahahahah” – I think there was meant to be humour in there somewhere….
  2. The men will get the roomiest of places to sit in even if they amount to a grand total of 5 people and the women nearing 20, including the children who harbour the kitchen or a small room off the kitchen.
  3. The men when together expect their women to not be seen nor heard. God forbid other men catch on there are women in the house. The women are just there to churn out the tea and biscuits. And cook of course. Their existence amounts to little else but to serve men as he is their gateway to Hell and Heaven.
  4. Women don’t have an opinion on anything. Even if they do, don’t voice it – it’s not very womanly to debate and go against the decision of the man

Children get the better end of the deal than women do it seems.

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.