To paraphrase one loyal reader's gadfly of a question, "If we expect Muslims to loudly condemn the Islamist violence in Bombay, shouldn't we hold men to the same standard in instances of violence against women?"
Being a man of course is not a choice (er, alas, I suppose that's an antiquated axiom), but shouldn't men want to clear their name anyway?
Yes, if men killed 200 women in Bombay in the name of the universal cult of men (and took down the WTC/Pentagon, and beheaded, crucified, and suicide bombed women on a daily basis across the world in the name of men), men should make a point to condemn it.
But even so, Muslims were livid and wrote letters to my college newspaper when I suggested Islam might be a violent religion; Muslims torched embassies when the Danish cartoons made a similar insinuation. The Bombay Islamists made this point better than me or the Danes did, so shouldn't we expect more letters to the editor and more embassy torchings?
And yes, if a man passionately wrote letters or torched embassies to denounce the cult of man's inclination to violence, I'd expect him to vigorously denounce men who killed women in the name of men.
But here's the analogy's problem: Men don't share a common ideology based on the life of an illiterate pedophile who spent his life mutilating Arabs that opposed his delusional cult fantasy of a global caliphate. The ultimate ideal of Islam is for everyone to become Muslim. The ultimate aim of men is not for everyone to become men, I can assure you.
Besides, which ideology is it that reveres as the unalterable, ultimate, and perfect word of God a book that commands men to beat their wives if they are disloyal? Under which ideology are the females genitally mutilated so they can't experience sexual pleasure, and forced to sit in the back when they worship?
It begins with an "I" and ends in "slam," as Mark Steyn would say. He must have read this blog's posts before he wrote his most recent article: "Silence = Acceptance," because he makes the same points about calling the Islamists mere "gunmen," and the victims "ultra-orthodox."
If you're silent on AIDS, you were thought to accept it. What if you're silent on Islamist terror?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I also love this one. Dude, you've got some serious talent.
I think we should start the cult of man and all worship Tim Allen and Adam Corolla. Then we could kill people who don't like us. And when people insinuate men are violent we can burn their homes. It will be awesome.
Yeah. And then when conservative jerks try to condemn us, people will say "hey man, that's just their culture."
And the Star Tribune will help cover our exploits: "Youth group sets fire to ultra-orthodox insane feminist complex," which will make us look good.
Post a Comment