Jewish Hasidic sect in Stamford Hill 'bans' women from driving - Home News - UK - The Independent

 Wondering what ever happened to the Eishet Chayil of Proverbs 31:

"Telling women they can’t drive isn’t modest, it’s alienating," she added. "I don’t see any difference between this and the ban on driving in Saudi Arabia. It fetishes women by saying 'we can’t see women and we can’t look at women' and I think that is completely against Jewish values and the Bible’s values.

The leaders of an Orthodox Jewish sect in north London have reportedly declared that women should not be allowed to drive in a letter sent out to the community.

Rabbis from the Belz Hasidic sect in Stamford Hill have said women driving cars contravenes “the traditional rules of modesty in our camp” and the conventions of hasidic institutions, according to a report by the Jewish Chronicle.

The letter, which was signed by Belz educational leaders and endorsed by rabbis, also said women could be banned from their schools if their mothers drove them from August onwards.

It cited increasing numbers of “mothers of pupils who have started to drive” which it said had led to “great resentment among parents of pupils of our institutions”.

Stamford Hill's residents are predominately Hasidic Jewish and only New York is believed to have a larger community of Hasidic Jews outside of Israel.

Dina Brawer, UK Ambassador of the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance, said the instructions within the letter had no scriptural foundation and could prove debilitating for Jewish women.

Jewish Hasidic sect in Stamford Hill 'bans' women from driving - Home News - UK - The Independent

For those of you who say apathetically that both parties are the same, I beg to differ

"When one provokes in a child a fear of the dark, one awakens in him a feeling of atavistic dread. Thus this child will be ruled all his life by this dread, whereas another child, who has been intelligently brought up, will be free of it."

Adolf Hitler,  "Table Talk" discussions on the night of July 11-12, 1941, p. 12

__

I've been thinking about what I wrote above concerning the SCOTUS decision - regarding Hobby Lobby - being a Reich wet dream and the possibility that their grand scheme may backfire.  I really didn't pull those ideas out of my ass, others have been pondering this thought as well.  Just maybe not in the same colorful language.

When one looks at the decision rendered by SCOTUS it has to be through the lens of the Reich's overall agenda -  starting with a "reformed" interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause or an outright repeal of the First Amendment,  continuing with the abolition of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ending with the implementation of dominionist ideology in order to govern by theocratic control.  With the ruling in Hobby Lobby, the Reich will "now" be able to exempt themselves from any laws that they don’t like; that they find “religiously objectionable.” 

Now here's where it gets a bit tricky.  I have more or less insinuated on various occasions that nothing done within the ranks of the Reich are individually motivated. Green's personally held religious convictions no matter how "sincere" they may be, have an agenda attached.  That agenda, "Hobby Lobby-related entities are some of the biggest sources of funding to the National Christian Charitable Foundation." 

According to Eli Clifton, the National Christian Charitable Foundation then funds "a range of causes including climate science denial, charter schools, free market and pro-life advocacy."  One of their biggest grant recipients,  Alliance Defending Freedom, one of the bulwarks behind Arizona's failed SB 1062 legislation. And their mission, "'[making] certain that governmental laws cannot force people to violate their faith unless it has a compelling governmental interest–a balancing of interests that has been in federal law since 1993.'”

So what does this have to do with Hobby Lobby and the Reich's agenda.  First Steve Green has a personal agenda.  One I have highlighted before.

That’s our goal, so that we can reintroduce this book to this nation. This nation is in danger because of its ignorance of what God has taught,,, Someday, I would argue, it should be mandated.  (Starting about the 4:28 mark)

Book? Mandate?  WTF you talking 'bout?

For those unaware, one of the goals of Mr. Steve "Hobby Lobby" Green,  is to have a 4 year Bible curriculum, that they (the Green Scholars Initiative) write, be mandated in all public schools.  Currently, the Mustang School Board (OK) approved Green's curriculum although it is still in draft.

I won't harp too much on the obvious (besides the legalities) but is this the "re-education" that Richard Mourdock, Tony Perkins, Austin Miles  and Rick Santorum are talking about?  In my mind, this curriculum is the gateway to theocratic rule with "its primary intent the conquest of the land — of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ.”

Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ — to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest.

As Leah Burton explains, "This notion of having to 'reclaim' something that they truly believe they lost is pervasive. In order to understand that they must convince you that we always were a Christian Nation and now it must be reclaimed by them in order to save our country from moral decline."

And what better way to indoctrinate the notion of Christian Nation ideology, "Give me just one generation of youth, and I'll transform the whole world."  Sound familiar?  It should, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin Steve Green said that, "We're working on 4 year public school bible curriculum.  The first year will be a summary of all three of those section. It's history, it's impact and it's story.  Then the next 3 years is going in depth in each of those -- a year for the history, a year for the impact and a year for the story -- in some order,,,."

“We're working on 4 year public school bible curriculum.  The first year will be a summary of all three of those section. It's history, it's impact and it's story.  Then the next 3 years is going in depth in each of those - a year for the history, a year for the impact and a year for the story - in some order,,, The nation is in danger because of its ignorance of what God has taught,,, If we don’t know it, our future is going to be very scary,,, we really want to get,,, be into the,,, high school level because we want to reach as many as possible.  Someday, I would argue, it should be mandated.  Here's a book that's impacted our world, unlike any other, and you're not gonna teach it? There's,,, something wrong with that."

We all are well aware that there is a slippery-slope in regards to the decision in favor of Hobby Lobby's demands.  Many writers are taking the high road of optimism.  I on the other hand, I see things getting more tumultuous  before they get better.  And this is where the Reich's agenda comes into play (keeping in mind Green's Bible curriculum takes care of the implementation of the dominionist/theocratic ideology) . From Clifton's article cited above,

'Individuals and entities with religious objections to certain laws that protect others are seeking to use their religion to trump others,' Brigitte Amiri, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union’s Reproductive Freedom Project, told Salon.
,,,
Center for Arizona Policy president Cathi Herrod heralded the Hobby Lobby lawsuit as a rare example of a 'business willing to step out in faith and literally risk it all to hold fast to their faith,,,'

Clifton then goes on to discuss how Green/Hobby Lobby is the poster child of the Reich by outlining some recent cases.  Cases that where funded by or through the National Christian Charitable Foundation:  McCullen v. Coakley, Elane Photography v. Willock, and the various "religious liberty" bills similar to SB 1062 that appeared in 13 other states.

Think of that as our starting point, testing the water of the SCOTUS if you will.

Remember what I said about the First Amendment?  Here is what the Hobby Lobby ruling has done by placing too much emphasis on the phrase "closely held."

The corporate plaintiffs' argument that they enjoy free exercise rights under the First Amendment and RFRA is in conflict with the text, history, and purpose of the First Amendment's free exercise guarantee. Amicus submits this brief to demonstrate that throughout our nation's history, corporations have been treated differently than individuals when it comes to fundamental, personal rights of conscience and human dignity. The First Amendment's free exercise guarantee has always been viewed as a purely personal liberty, guaranteeing the right of individuals to worship and exercise religion consistent with the dictates of their conscience. It has never been considered a right possessed by secular, for-profit corporations. Indeed, in the more than 200 years since the First Amendment's ratification, this Court has never held that secular, for-profit corporations may assert rights under the Free Exercise Clause. 
,,,
The Hobby Lobby case, of course, deals in part with the question whether the federal [Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)] was or is intended to benefit the owners of large, for-profit, nonreligious corporations. Hobby Lobby's interpretation that it does would open the floodgates to exempt every business owner in the United States from the anti-discrimination laws, because there is no real middle ground. The forces behind Hobby Lobby have tried to argue that the Court should hold for Hobby Lobby because it is "closely held," but that would not limit the holding to a few instances, because over 90% of corporations are "closely held." If the Court sides with Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, it will open the Pandora's box of corporate law.

As for civil right, please consider this in regards to the LGBTI community:

The Associated Press reported this weekend that social conservatives believe they have an opening to bring the state's religious freedom bill back in 2015. The legislation failed this spring; it passed the House, but stalled in the Senate after significant backlash from business groups. It would have prevented businesses from being sued if they refused to serve LGBT people for religious reasons.

"We are not going to let it die. We are very committed," Rev. Terry Fox, a leading Southern Baptist minister, told the AP. "The Body of Christ is a powerful movement when it comes together."

Gay rights advocates and social conservatives alike had watched the Hobby Lobby case to see how it might influence their cause. The Court's decision was decidedly narrow in its language, and some legal experts pointed TPM to Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurring opinion in the case as evidence that he would not support discrimination against LGBT people on religious freedom grounds.

But others warned on the day of the ruling that conservatives would likely take Hobby Lobby's win as their chance to resuscitate religious freedom legislation.

"The opinion really doesn't really resolve the question of whether for-profit businesses can seek religious exemptions from anti-discrimination law," Douglas NeJaime, a law professor at the University of California-Irvine, told TPM. "If I'm one of those groups, I'm going to pursue this."

Or this in regards to women:

At a time when women make up more than half of the workforce, the ruling also further denies women equal rights in the workplace. “By setting women’s reproductive health care apart from all other forms of health care the Roberts’ Court has legally enshrined a new kind of gender-based inequality where only women are specifically subject to interference from their employer when it comes to personal medical choices,” continued Cotler. “We hope that the President will explore ways to ensure that women who will otherwise be denied reproductive health care by their employers are not left without coverage.” 

And what about an individual employee's religious beliefs:

The First Amendment's establishment clause prevents the government from requiring people to bear the burden of religions to which they do not belong and whose teachings they do not practice. To be sure, the U.S. government should accommodate religious beliefs and practices but only when doing so does not impose significant burdens on others. We accommodate, for example, those who object for religious reasons to sending their children to public school; no one is hurt if these families opt for a private school or home-schooling.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court consistently has condemned government accommodations that shift the cost of practicing a religion from those who believe it to others who don't. For example, the court struck down a state law that gave employees an absolute right not to work on their chosen Sabbath because of the burden it imposed on others. If most employees were Christian and took Sunday off, the statute would have forced the remaining, non-Christian employees to work every Sunday. This, the court said, violated the establishment clause: "The First Amendment ... gives no one the right to insist that in pursuit of their own interests, others must conform their conduct to his own religious necessities."

If the court grants these businesses the religious exemption they seek, it essentially would be directing the women who work for these businesses to bear the cost of the owners' anti-contraception religion.

And for shits-and-giggles, consider this bizarre case that is pending in regards to individual employee's religious beliefs:

To explain, the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby did more than simply allow religious business owners to ignore a federal rule requiring them to include contraception coverage in their employees’ health plans. It tore down decades of law protecting workers from bosses who, in the words of one Supreme Court decision, would “impose the employer’s religious faith on the employees.” Prior to Hobby Lobby, that same Court decision held that “[w]hen followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.” Today, that is no longer the case.
,,,
Should Eden Foods prevail, however, it could shatter what may be the most fundamental assumption of any law protecting the free exercise of religion — religious exercise laws protect religious exercise, they don’t protect the right of an anti-government CEO to make a federal case out of every single thing the government does that he disagrees with.

Don't be lulled into believing that this "concern" for your religious liberty is mere coincidence.  This is a well thought out and implemented plan beginning with the take-over of the GOP in the 1990s by the Religious Right:

The formula they've concocted has been called the "15 per cent solution" by the Christian Coalition. Even in a well attended presidential election, only 15 per cent of eligible voters determine the outcome,,, "We don't have to worry about convincing a majority of Americans to agree with us," Guy Rodgers, the Christian Coalition's national field director declared at the 1991 Road to Victory conference. Most of them are staying home and watching Falcon Crest."

,,, "What the Christian right spends a lot of time doing," says Marc Wolin, a moderate Republican who ran unsuccessfully for Congress from San Francisco last year, "is going after obscure party posts. They try to control the party apparatus in each county. We have a lot to fear from these people. They want to set up a theocracy in America."

"They have acquired a very detailed and accurate understanding of how political parties are organized," says Craig Berkman, former chairman of the Republican Party in Oregon:

Parties are very susceptible to being taken over by ideologues because lower party offices have no appeal to the vast majority of our citizenry. Many precincts are represented by no one. If you decide all of a sudden because it's your Christian duty to become a precinct representative, you only need a few votes to get elected. Increasingly, they have the key say so on who will be a delegate at the national convention, and who will write the party platform and nominate the presidential candidate,,,

And if that candidate wins, guess what?  We have a SCOTUS filled with the likes of Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts.

Not a single justice appointed by either President Bill Clinton or President Barack Obama sided with Hobby Lobby. It was indeed only the justices appointed by socially conservative presidents who voted to keep women trapped in a bygone era. This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, because both sides of the aisle have been saying for the last few election cycles how important it is with our aging Supremes to have someone in the position to nominate justices of an ideological bent they agree with, and the proof of that concept is in Citizens United, McCutcheon v. FEC, and now the Hobby Lobby case. These narrow decisions will have a lasting impact on American society, and they are decisions made by men who have not been in power for decades in some cases, a half decade in one case.

So for those of you who say apathetically that both parties are the same, I beg to differ.  For those that say your vote doesn't count, yes it does; even if it is not for your ideal candidate.

Bend the Arc: SCOTUS Hobby Lobby Decision Chips Away at Women’s Rights, Undermines Religious Liberty | Bend the Arc

A very interesting point to consider,,,

“This decision plays into the false and insidious narrative that religious liberty is a battle between religious people and the so-called godless,” said Stosh Cotler, CEO of Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice. “The Jewish community—and the other faith groups who signed onto the amicus brief—are evidence that that narrative is in fact false. What the Roberts court has left us with is a system in which a corporation can claim a religious belief that has power and rights beyond an individual’s. It’s a dangerous precedent, especially for America’s religious minorities and people of no religious tradition.”

The brief cited America’s religious diversity as one of many reasons that private for-profit employers should not have the right to impose their religious convictions on their staff. Less than half (48%) of Americans identify as Protestant, and less than a quarter (22%) identify as Catholic; six percent identify as Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, or another faith, and nearly one in five (19.6%) do not affiliate with any religion. Workplaces are particularly diverse places, with approximately half of American workers having contact with people from different beliefs and identities at the workplace.

At a time when women make up more than half of the workforce, the ruling also further denies women equal rights in the workplace. “By setting women’s reproductive health care apart from all other forms of health care the Roberts’ Court has legally enshrined a new kind of gender-based inequality where only women are specifically subject to interference from their employer when it comes to personal medical choices,” continued Cotler. “We hope that the President will explore ways to ensure that women who will otherwise be denied reproductive health care by their employers are not left without coverage.”


Bend the Arc: SCOTUS Hobby Lobby Decision Chips Away at Women’s Rights, Undermines Religious Liberty | Bend the Arc

Christian ‘historian’: Allowing women to vote ‘hurts the entire culture and society’

You would think that in the 4000+ years of human existence there would be some sort of precept against lying. Oh. wait there is!!

Beck U professor David "I create my own HIStory" Barton has once again managed to ignore genuine history. He recently opened his mouth and out tumbled misogynistic psycho-babble he calls history.

The family was the first and fundamental unit of all government. Actually, you have individual self government first, then you have family government second, you have civil government third, and have church government fourth. Those are the four levels of government in the order they are given in the Bible.

So family government precedes civil government and you watch that as colonists came to America, they voted by families. You look at the Pilgrims, when they finally moved away from socialism and moved toward the free enterprise system, they called the families together and gave families plots of land. Private property given to the families. And so that’s the way things work.

And you have to remember back then, husband and wife, I mean the two were considered one. That is the biblical precept. That is the way they looked at them in the civil community. That is a family that is voting and so the head of the family is traditionally considered to be the husband and even biblically still continues to be so …

Now, as we’ve moved away from the family unit – you need to be independent from the family, don’t be chained down and be a mother and don’t be chained down and be a father and don’t be chained down to your parents, you know, we’ve moved into more of a family anarchy kind of thing, the ‘Modern Family’ kind of portrayal – that understanding has gone away.

Clearly, what [the listener] has asked is a brilliant question because it does reveal that the bigotry we’re told they held back then, they didn’t hold and what they did was they put the family unit higher than the government unit and they tried to work hard to keep the family together. And, as we can show in two or three hundred studies since then, the more you weaken the family, the more it hurts the entire culture and society.

So they had a strong culture, a strong society and it was based on a strong family to preceded government and they crafted their policies to protect a strong family.

As much as I would like to dissect this garbage, there is only one name I will mention, Lydia Taft, who in 1756 became the first legal woman voter in colonial America. And yes there is more evidence of pre-Revolution women voters.

Barton's blatant Biblical patriarchy aside, there is a danger in what this man preaches and teaches, depriving one group the right to vote will never satisfy him or his ilk. (And if you have read my diatribes enough you know who the "ilk" are.)

“First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.” (Martin Niemoeller, 1892 - 1984)

If they're successful in depriving women of their right to vote, who then becomes their next target? Gays? Asians? Catholics? What about the 99 "percenters"? They will keep going until only those they deem "worthy" of the right to vote are able to vote.

This man is dangerous, and those who listen to and believe him, I have one question for you. Will you be deemed worthy?

Christian ‘historian’: Allowing women to vote ‘hurts the entire culture and society’

Christian Women Who Wear Clothes Outlining Shape of Their Body Are 'Sensual' and 'Wrong,' Says Preacher Paul Washer

If I may be so bold to say, Taliban. But seriously, why do I "publicize" this crazy shit?   For one reason only, "know thine enemy."  As much as I dislike this shit and want to slam my head into a wall after reading it, it's important to understand exactly how these religionists are trying to roll back the clock and control women as property. These men are fighting for the power to impose this shit on ALL the women in America, not just their flock of female sheep.

Itinerant preacher and founder of HeartCry Missionary Society, Paul Washer, says Christian women who wear clothes that outline the shape of their body are "sensual" and "wrong" about how they are exhorted to dress in the Bible.

Preaching from 1 Timothy 2, Washer explained in a YouTube clip Paul's exhortation to women to dress modestly.

"He says, 'I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing.' That tells me that there is clothing that's improper for a Christian woman. Alright? I mean, that's just logic. There is clothing that is improper for a Christian woman."

"My wife has a really good thing that she says: 'If your clothing is a frame for your face, from which the glory of God is to shine, it's proper, if it draws attention to your face. If your clothing draws attention to your body, to outline it, to make it noticed, then it's sensual.' What you're doing is wrong," he warned Christian women.

Washer's interpretation of the word conflicts with the views of many contemporary Christian women, like Gospel singers Yolanda Adams and Erica Campbell of "Mary Mary," who was heavily criticized by the Christian community for wearing a form-fitting white dress in a photo she currently promotes on her social media profile



Christian Women Who Wear Clothes Outlining Shape of Their Body Are 'Sensual' and 'Wrong,' Says Preacher Paul Washer

VICTORY! Federal Court Strikes Down Demeaning North Carolina Ultrasound Law - ACLU of North Carolina -

On Friday a victory of sorts was attained in North Carolina,,,

A federal district judge today struck down a North Carolina law requiring abortion providers to show a woman an ultrasound and describe the images in detail four hours before having an abortion, even if the woman objects.

The court ruled that key provisions of the law violate doctors’ free speech rights. The law was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of North Carolina, the Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

“Today's court ruling protects the rights of women and their doctors from the ideological agenda of extremist lawmakers,” said Jennifer Rudinger, executive director of the ACLU of North Carolina. “If these unconstitutional measures had gone into effect, doctors would have been prevented from using their best medical judgment to provide patients with care based on their specific individual needs. This law represented an egregious government intrusion into individuals’ private medical decisions, and we are very pleased that it will not go into effect.”

VICTORY! Federal Court Strikes Down Demeaning North Carolina Ultrasound Law - ACLU of North Carolina -

See also: 
Federal Court Permanently Strikes Down Coercive North Carolina Ultrasound Law as Unconstitutional

Today’s decision represents a robust affirmation of the First Amendment rights of physicians, making clear that politicians cannot use physicians as mouthpieces for their political agenda and interfere with patients’ personal decision making.”

“Politicians don’t know better than doctors how to practice medicine, and they don’t know better than women how to navigate the often complicated personal circumstances surrounding a pregnancy.

“That has not stopped politicians in North Carolina from interfering with the medical judgment of doctors and the personal decision making of women, and it is a shame we have to rely on the courts to do so instead.

“The court’s ruling makes clear that politicians cannot use physicians as mouthpieces for their political agenda, and reaffirms the constitutional right of every woman to decide for herself whether to continue or end a pregnancy.

In Texas, Tampons Are A Bigger Threat Than Guns According To The Capitol Police -

This was just too good not to share. If your female, living in Texas, I would packing my bags and taking my tax money elsewhere. I have yet to figure out how any woman could support any man whose thought process has devolved to this point, whether in Texas or not. It you haven't figure out that the "abortion issue" is nothing but a means of manipulation and control of OUR rights, then you may want to upgrade your biologically implanted thought machine.

If these types of mandates and laws continue, WE as women will cease to be considered human. WE will become property that can be bought and sold!!

This is the last stand. This is a major battle in the war being waged on women. Those working to limit women, to restrict women, to push us back into an age where we had no rights, no say, no freedoms to make any decisions, are tireless and relentless in their efforts. Women must push forward, never letting their words, their efforts, their vitriol keep us from the rights that those women who came before us worked so hard and fought so long to attain. Today they fear our tampons and our maxi pads as symbols of that which they do not and refuse to understand. What we women need to do is not only fight their fear, but fight against their ignorance as well. After all, it is that which we do not understand that we fear the most.

In Texas, Tampons Are A Bigger Threat Than Guns According To The Capitol Police -

Evidence Shows That Illegal Female Genital Cutting Is a Growing Phenomenon in US | Alternet

Female genital cutting (FGC), also known as female genital mutilation (FGM) and female circumcision, is an increasing international concern to human rights activists and feminists across the globe. An estimated 140 million girls have been subjected to the practice worldwide and it is still prevalent in at least 28 countries according to the World Health Organization Progress Report in 2011.

In Western culture, mere mention of FGM sends feminist activists up in arms, generating intense negative feelings and evoking discussion about sexism, brutality and gender-based violence. However, while FGM is mostly practiced in African and Middle Eastern countries and classified as an “off-shore problem,” many Americans are unaware of the cultural complexities embedded in the custom and the fact that it is happening right under our noses.

[,,,]
It's difficult to estimate exactly how many girls have been exposed to the practice in the United States. The procedure is heavily under-reported and shrouded in secrecy by communities and family members who are aware of the legal ramifications of revealing that they have committed FGC. According to De Palma, anecdotal evidence suggests that the figures of those at risk of FGM in the United States are a lot higher than initially indicated.

[,,,]
Human rights activists and feminists view such examples of FGC as mutilation, a barbaric practice that violates women’s fundamental human rights—a position that is backed by international treaties, medical documentation and United Nations resolution. However, at the other end of the spectrum are hundreds of thousands of women who see such objections to FGC as ethnocentric and racist and wish to honor the custom, which has been passed down through generations.

In many cultures, it is inconceivable to think that a woman has not undergone some sort of cutting, with many women not considered “fully female” and ostracized by their communities for failing to undergo the procedure. The practice is said to pre-date religion and is linked to femininity, honor, social status and marriageability.

Cultural relativism plays an important role, as those who disagree with the ideology that FGC constitutes a human rights violation advocate for the right to cultural self-determination. While cultural relativism has shifted over time as human rights arguments gain momentum, there are a number of groups that view the international response as one-sided and ignorant of the culture complexities that underlie the practice.

[,,,]
“My experience is rare," she told AlterNet. "My parents were African immigrants and interested in preserving our culture and traditions whilst providing me with an education in the United States. When I returned to Sierra Leone, I was greeted by a supportive, embracing feminist society of women in my community. The practice was celebrated and girls were pampered and spoiled prior to the cutting. It was an opportunity for me to join a larger movement and I wanted to go through this experience because of the notion of empowerment.“

When asked her opinion on the consent issue, Ahmadu said, "Why do African girls have to give consent, when males circumcised at birth do not? Why are we singling out and stigmatizing African girls? I have a problem with the fact that we are treating these girls differently in a negative way. As a result, these girls are internalizing this negativity and believing that they are inadequate whereas once before, this procedure marked their sexuality and empowered them sexually. The standard of consent should be applied equally across the board and not just to Africans."

Ahmadu’s perspective rarely rears its head in human rights discussions, as we generally only hear about girls who are subjected to FGC against their wishes or who suffer irreparable harm,,,


Evidence Shows That Illegal Female Genital Cutting Is a Growing Phenomenon in US | Alternet

Daily Kos: Men are all unmarriageable slackers now because feminism

So it has gone from partnership to war,,,nothing like changing their tactics mid stream, since they found they couldn't legislate submissiveness,,,and Venker has learned from the best,,,

Venker has talked to lots of men and women over the years, and she's discovered the cold hard truth:

"And in doing so, I’ve accidentally stumbled upon a subculture of men who’ve told me, in no uncertain terms, that they’re never getting married. When I ask them why, the answer is always the same.

"Women aren’t women anymore."

[,,,]
As we learned in feminism indoctrination class back in kindergarten, between coloring and nap time, you are the enemy and we must destroy you so we can take what is rightfully ours—those 25 percent smaller paychecks, for example, or the visits to our doctors that must be pre-approved by woman-hating men in Congress. That's our right, and we have so taken it from you with our feminism and our anger! No wonder you don't want to marry us!

The worst part, of course, is what we've done to you with our feminism and our pedestal-knocking and whatnot. We've destroyed your once-manly manhood, so now you're pretty much worthless to everyone:

[,,,]
It all makes perfect sense now. You're not a loser who lives with his parents, pays for gas with the spare change found on the floor of your car, and doesn't want to have a real job because that's just conforming to The Man. Well, maybe you are, but it's not your fault. It's our fault. We lousy Not-Women, with our careers and our ability to buy groceries on a regular basis—we did this to you.

Daily Kos: Men are all unmarriageable slackers now because feminism

Attorney General Lisa Madigan Asked If She Can Handle Motherhood & Demanding Job At The Same Time | ThinkProgress

Not sure if laughing at this is appropriate,,,but WTF??  You can't be serious,,,

Working a demanding job? And being a parent? How could Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan possibly handle them both?

This was a question from the Chicago Sun-Times who were pressing Madigan about a possible gubernatorial run in 2014 against Governor Pat Quinn. She and her husband, Pat Byrnes, have two children ages four and seven; she was asked if she could both be governor and raise her kids the way she wants to. “Wow. Does anybody ever ask that question?” Madigan replied.

[,,,]
For their next big exposé the Sun-Times will uncover how Madigan manages to do the grocery shopping and the laundry, all while making sure her husband has his slippers the moment he gets home from a hard day at the office! Stay tuned.

Attorney General Lisa Madigan Asked If She Can Handle Motherhood & Demanding Job At The Same Time | ThinkProgress

Pat Robertson tells a man to beat his wife

What I don't get  is how his "side kick" can sit there and listen to the trash that comes out of his mouth concerning women,,,

[,,,]

Robertson's response encapsulates the mindset behind the war on women: Women are like children, to be controlled under the authority of men.

Pat Robertson tells a man to beat his wife

David Kappheim Threatens To Kill Girlfriend Over Liberal Political Views | Addicting Info

When I first saw this article I had no intention of re-posting it ,,,BUT of course I gained a bit of inspiration,,,I was planning a wee bit of a rant over another situation that boils downs to some conservative views being espoused about women,,,pregnant,,,barefoot,,,in the kitchen mentality,,,"YOU need to mind your place in life and not speak of things YOU could not possibly know or understand."  Basically what I was told,,,

BUT seriously folks,,,this has nothing to do with politics, tho it is a factor,,,this is all about domestic violence,,,and how men see women,,,,an attitude that is being ripped about without concern for the ramifications

David Kappheim Threatens To Kill Girlfriend Over Liberal Political Views | Addicting Info