It wasn’t very long ago that newby Senator Kamala Harris
made a name for herself by trafficking in bad manners. Sitting on Senate
panels, questioning administration officials, Harris distinguished herself for
being unable to shut up long enough for the witnesses to answer her questions.
For her efforts she was twice, or was it thrice, rebuked by the committee
chairman.
The Feministocracy rose up to defend Harris against this
egregious instance of manly oppression. Some practically nominated her as
the next Democratic candidate for the presidency. She leaned in; she refused to
be cowed; she showed how tough and strong she was when facing manly men. She stood up to the patriarchy.
But then, last week Harris was given an opportunity to take
a stand against misogyny, to take a stand against Islamist oppression of women.
She was part of a Senate panel, from the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, convened to interview victims of Islamist oppression. What
did she do? You guessed it. She said nothing. As in, nothing. She did not even ask a question.
She shrunk into the corner like a scared little girl.
As for other three female senators on the panel, it was the
same story: the silence of the feminists. North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp, New
Hampshire’s Maggie Hassan and Missouri’s Claire McCaskill shrunk into their own
corners, for fear of offending Islam. Senator McCaskill managed to pipe up that
the hearing was offensive to Islam.
Neither she nor Harris found anything offensive in the fact that witness Ayaan
Hirsi Ali suffered genital mutilation and a forced marriage. Not one of the women senators found anything objectionable about any of it. They stood up for Islam. Another witness Asra
Nomani had been threatened with death for having had a child out of wedlock.
About that the brave Senator Harris had nothing to say.
Hirsi Ali and Nomani wrote about it all in a New York Times op-ed. They explained:
When
it comes to the pay gap, abortion access and workplace discrimination,
progressives have much to say. But we’re still waiting for a march against
honor killings, child marriages, polygamy, sex slavery or female
genital mutilation.
Of course, it’s raw hypocrisy. But it also shows that
terrorism works. It shows that terrorism threatens, intimidates and silences
women. Even women senators. During the last election many people seemed to understand that Hillary
Clinton, like Angela Merkel, was not tough or strong, but was weak. Even
if they thought that Donald Trump was more bluster than power, they preferred
rolling the dice with a man rather than take the risk that a woman in power would
shrink into the woodwork, like a scared little
girl.
16 comments:
It is ironic that so called Feminists have made it their business to pretend they are tougher and smarter than us traditional women. Well look at them now. When confronted with a real threat they are the first ones to take fright and do as they are told.
I've said this before: Multi-culti TRUMPS feminism. And women's issues.
Re Sens Harris and Gillibrand, I find it interesting that they have adopted public vocabulary usually associated with crack whores in the drunk tank.
If experience is a guide, that's what Progressives equate with courage, as exemplified by S Colbert (Hillary Clinton's pantiliner) and R Aslan (Islamic cannibal and erstwhile CNN commentator)
AO comments need to be cut down to size or removed. Can't believe we have to ask again.
It's all a ruse. Fight the real enemy: Kamala Harris and her Californiaglorification of the faux revolutionary culture.
http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2017/06/a-recipe-for-revolution/
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised this blog is more interested in condemning democrats than looking at the statements of the supposedly silenced speaker.
This is not your blog. Either you keep your comments short or you can take them somewhere else. I have already told you this....
Thank you, Stuart. Once upon a time, long ago, Ares Olympus had his own blog. It failed. Now, he does whatever he can to wreck yours, with volumes of content no one wants to read, speaking to why his blog failed in the first place.
It looks like my learning curve on what I can share is still in progress. I aim to be useful, not to success or fail to any single person's optimal needs.
"I aim to be useful..."
But you're not...
Blahgga the Hutt
Blahgga the Hutt... But you're not...
Ah, so I'll have to try harder, right? Do you give up when you fail the needs of your critics?
Curious how feminists aren't afraid to criticize the evil, oppressive, violent patriarchy of western democracies though.
It's almost as if there are not just no non-trivial comebacks but instead grants, cushy jobs in NGOs, book deals, professorships, political advancement beyond ability, etc, etc.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Curious how feminists aren't afraid to criticize the evil, oppressive, violent patriarchy of western democracies though.
* * *
..Because they know that no one from the eovp of wd is really going to hurt them.
Reminds me of an exchange on Hugh Hewitt's show some years ago when he was talking with a guy who frequently said pretty nasty things about Mormons but never about Muslims.
When asked why the discrepancy (HH was a Romney supporter), he answered essentially that Muslims would kill him, but Mormons brought him cookies.
Post a Comment