Iran Sentences Woman To 24 Months For Removing Hijab

By Pamela Geller

Where are the women? Where are the women’s rights marchers? Where is their hijabbed heroine Linda Sarsour?

The American “women’s movement” says nothing and does nothing for the women who are fighting and dying for freedom in Iran. They are fighting against real misogyny. Real slavery. The whining losers of the women’s movement say nothing about the real issues women face. In fact, they are the problem women face. Instead of standing with the courageous women who are taking off their hijabs in Iran, they choose misogynist sharia enforcers such as terror-tied Linda Sarsour for their leadership. They partner with terror groups such as CAIR.

American “feminism” is anti-women.

“Iran sentences woman to 24 months for removing hijab,” World Israel News, March 11, 2018 (thanks to Mark):

A Tehran prosecutor says a woman who removed her obligatory Islamic headscarf in public in late December has been sentenced to 24 months in prison.

Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency on Wednesday quoted prosecutor Abbas Jafari Dolatabadi as saying the unidentified woman took off her headscarf in Tehran’s Enghelab Street to “encourage corruption through the removal of the hijab in public.”

In February, police detained 29 women who removed their headscarves as part of an anti-hijab campaign known as “White Wednesdays.”

These women appear to be following the lead of a 31-year-old protester identified as Vida Movahed, who took off her headscarf in the street in late December as part of widespread protests in the country. She was detained for a few weeks and then released.

The police say the campaign, advocated by Farsi-language satellite TV networks based abroad, purportedly encourages women participants to take their headscarves off on Wednesdays.

Women showing their hair in public in Iran are usually sentenced to far shorter terms of two months or less, and fined $25….

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

A Male Backlash Against #MeToo Is Brewing

By Kyle Smith

Men are scared, and feminists are delighted. But the urge to call out and punish male sexual transgression is bound to clash with an inescapable truth: We’re all in this together, men and women.

Consider what’s happening in the capital of Florida. Female staffers and lobbyists have found “many male legislators will no longer meet with them privately,” reported The Miami Herald. “I had a senator say, ‘I need my aide here in the room because I need a chaperone,’ ” lobbyist Jennifer Green told the paper. “I said, ‘Senator, why do you need a chaperone? . . . Do you feel uncomfortable around me?’ ‘Well,’ he said, ‘anyone can say anything with the door shut.’ ”

“I’m getting the feeling that we’re going back 20 years as female professionals,” said Green, who owns her company. “I fully anticipate I’m going to be competing with another firm that is currently owned by some male, and the deciding factor is going to be: ‘You don’t want to hire a female lobbying firm in this environment.’ ”

This kind of thinking is catching on in aggressively P.C. Silicon Valley, where men are taking to message boards like Reddit to express interest in sex segregation — sometimes labeled “Men Going Their Own Way,” or the “Man-o-Sphere.” How will that work out for women in the tech industry, where they already face substantial challenges?

Across industries, “Several major companies have told us they are now limiting travel between the genders,” Johnny Taylor, president of the Society for Human Resource Management, told the Chicago Tribune, citing execs who tell men not to go on business trips or share rental cars with women co-workers. UCLA psychologist Kim Elsesser, the author of “Sex and the Office,” sees a nascent “sex partition.” If men start to back away from women, at least in professional settings, it’s difficult to see how that will aid the feminist cause.

As is characteristic of movements led by the left in general, #MeToo faces the prospect of being seen to push too far, too fast. Not long ago, the British magazine The Spectator depicted the cause a feminist Reformation, with a modern woman nailing her demands to the door of a church like Martin Luther. These days the entirely justified anger and calls for change are venturing into iconoclasm: Let’s knock over some innocent statues and shatter all those stained-glass windows!

‘Several major companies have told us they are now limiting travel between the genders’

Outraged feminists triggered by “Thérèse Dreaming,” a suggestive 1938 painting of a clothed pubescent girl by the Polish-French artist Balthus, demanded the Metropolitan Museum of Art remove it. (The Met refused, to its credit). Moms are dressing their sons in humiliating “the Future is Female” T-shirts. The women’s Web site Bustle banned the word “flattering” because it implies there’s an ideal shape for a woman, and we all know women aren’t interested in looks.

Companies are firing perverts and sexual harassers, which is great, but those who can’t find any bad behavior to punish are casting around angrily looking for random things to attack. Jordan Peterson, the University of Toronto professor and author of the bestseller “12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos” who has become a YouTube sensation by rebutting crazy left-wing students, has been lambasted on social media for citing sociological studies that say women are more agreeable in the workplace and suffer some salary repercussions because of it. Although this is essentially a restatement of the thinking behind “Lean In” — if you want it, push for it — Peterson found himself being subjected to an absurdly hostile interview by British broadcaster Cathy Newman in a confrontation that went viral and led to more abuse being heaped on Peterson.

Writing in The American Interest, Claire Berlinski calls the #MeToo movement “a frenzied extrajudicial warlock hunt that does not pause to parse the difference between rape and stupidity” and “a classic moral panic, one that is ultimately as dangerous to women as to men.” She tells a story about how she just discovered she has a new power: the power to ruin the career of a professor she knew at Oxford who grabbed her butt 20 years ago while drunk at a party. “I was amused and flattered,” she writes, saying, “I knew full well he’d been dying to do that. Our tutorials — which took place one-on-one with no chaperones — were livelier intellectually for that sublimated undercurrent. He was an Oxford don and so had power over me . . . But I also had power over him — power sufficient to cause a venerable don to make a perfect fool of himself at a Christmas party. Unsurprisingly, I loved having that power.”

Reformers should keep her underlying point in mind: Change may be good, but be wary of unintended consequences. Turning men and women into hostile opposing camps is not going to be good for either sex.

Kyle Smith is critic at large at National Review


  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Tomi Lahren Blasts the 'Anti-Women's March'

The 'Mean Girls' Need to Take a Look in the Mirror

Tomi Lahren once again tells it like it is and sets the record straight on what should be an embarrassment to every woman. The way these women acted was disgusting and had nothing to do with empowering women.


If the video won't play please report the problem by clicking here.


  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

The Feminist Threat To Women And Men

Editor's Note: One of the primary goals of the global control freaks is population control, which is why they are destroying the natural male/female dynamic, why they fund and push these destructive radical feminist nonsense. What better way to prevent more babies than to create a situation where men can't stand/or are hesitant to go near women for fear of being accused of assault?


By Paul Craig Roberts

Recently I read in CounterPunch two feminist rants against men. Not all men, just white heterosexual men. It is not always easy for a male of my generation to understand what feminists are saying, but I try. One seems to be saying that women live in a society that puts in power men who believe that violence against women is acceptable. Elevating her accusation to a fact, the writer says that women should not have to prove their case when they bring sexual harassment and assault charges, much less prove their “personal validity to even be making a case against a man.”

Is the writer saying that any irate woman should have the right to inpugn a man with an unchallenged charge? Do men and American society believe that violence against women is acceptable? I think not, unless the violence is committed by police. Americans seem to accept police violence against men, women, children, the handicapped, and the family dog.

The other writer says women have to sell themselves to live. She, despite a degree from a prestigeous university, went to work as a stripper, lap dancer, and apparently as a prostitute. She blames men for her poor decisions.

To be clear, I sympathize with anyone who finds themselves in the position that survival requires the sacrifice of their self-esteem. This happens to people everywhere all over the world. It is not an unique experience of women.

The woman who was a stripper writes that “what I learned in the strip club taught me more about the realities of being a woman in the 21st century than anything else has done.” It was there, she writes, that she learned that her handicaps in life were her intelligence and sharp tongue, and “that while men dictated the terms of my existence, women were complicit in maintaining systemic inequality.” Complicit women, she writes, sliced off parts of her soul just as did men.

What caught my attention was her reference to “being a woman in the 21st century.” How different that is from being a woman in the pre-feminist era that I experienced. It was feminists who denounced men for putting women on a pedestal and worshiping them. The inculcated respect that men showed women, doffing their hats in their presence, standing when women entered the room, opening doors for them, helping to seat them at tables, never using a four-letter word in their presence, and never ever striking a woman, an action that would isolate a man and deprive him of male friends.

In my day, no one struck a woman. It was beyond the pale.

It was the feminists who said that putting women on a pedestal was the male’s way of disempowering women. What ignorant nonsense. The most powerful members of my family were my grandmothers, mother, and aunts. Little decisions they left to the men. The big decisions they made.

Feminists said that women had to reject the pedestal and come down into the male world and prove their worth. It never occurred to feminists that women had more worth and more power on the pedestal. Feminists taught women to be promiscuous. Cosmopolitian magazine taught women to find fulfillment in orgasm with as many sexual partners as they can find. A number of years ago I wrote about young men telling me that they would like to get married, but every woman they knew had been in bed with all of their classmates. They said they would feel funny having their friends at their wedding who had sexual experience with their bride.

Corporations contributed to worsening the position of women that feminists initiated. In my day women were protected by families being in the same place. Any man who abused his wife would be confronted by his father and mother, his wife’s father and mother, his and her grandparents, his brothers and sisters, his wife’s brothers and sisters, his aunts and uncles, her aunts and uncles, and by the cousins of both.

What the corporations did was to bust up this protective environment by sending its employees to some distant location where the husband and wife were isolated from family. Kids grew up never knowing their grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, people they might see one or twice a year. Isolated from the normal support systems, families broke apart, and the divorce rate soared.

A society that lowers everything to survival and to profit destroys women and men. That is what feminists should be complaining about.

But feminism has succumbed to Identity Politics and can only generate hatred of men who find women appealing. Judging by the growth of homosexuality, there is a reduction in the number of men who find women appealing. Consequently, feminism is complicit in the destruction both of the status of women and of Western society.

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

The #MeToo Movement Is Destroying Trust Between Men And Women

Like a disease, distrust is infecting our most foundational relationship as a people, the building block of a free, civil society—the relationship between men and women.

How do people from different walks of life, diverse experiences, and varied points of view live together peacefully within a civil society? What is the main ingredient necessary for democracy to thrive? It can be boiled down to one word: trust. Civil society is built on relationships, friendships, and associations that foster confidence in one’s fellow man or woman.

Freedom and community flourish in a culture of trust, and we’re losing it. This has been happening for some time. We see it across the American landscape in varying degrees. The poor don’t trust the rich. Blacks don’t trust whites. Populists don’t trust the elites. Voters don’t trust politicians. Teachers don’t trust parents. Citizens don’t trust the media. Democrats don’t trust Republicans—and vice versa.

We experience so much distrust that we’re numb to it; we even expect it, and often we thoughtlessly feed it. After all, we don’t think the distrust being bred “out there” in politics and social media affects us in our daily lives. But it does, and it’s increasing, expanding. Like a disease, it’s now infecting our most foundational relationship as a people, the building block of a free, civil society—the relationship between men and women.

Demonizing Men Undermines Both Sexes

The breakdown of trust between the sexes is the tragic legacy of the modern feminist movement, but it has taken on a new fervor with the #MeToo campaign and the growing accusation that masculinity is vile, toxic, and inherently predatorial. Fear of men is legitimized, as accusation is treated as fact. Men are seen as “the enemy,” an embodied deviance that must be remolded into the image of a woman. Their sexuality is assumed to be naturally brutal, a threat to be controlled and reduced for the individual man to be considered “safe.”

While women’s willingness to hold men accountable for criminal sexual behavior is to be applauded, the scorched-earth approach we are seeing today is destructive because it undermines trust. When anything from a naive touch during a photo shoot to an innocent attempt at a kiss is compared to rape and sexual abuse, we are not healing society but infecting relationships with the poison of distrust.

Whether it’s in the workplace, church, or home, the interaction between a man and a woman is unique and primary to all other relationships. When a breakdown of trust happens there, when fear of the other sex becomes generalized, society simply can’t thrive.

Essential to the relationship between men and women is the sexual dynamic. For trust to flourish, this reality can’t denied, and it must be handled with respect, care, and honesty. It can’t be shut down. It can’t be abused, and one part of the polarity—whether it’s masculine or feminine—cannot be labeled toxic, brutal, or evil (as was done in the past by certain totalitarian religions regarding feminine sexuality). Once that label sticks, distrust is generated to the detriment of all.

If women believe that all men with their masculine sexuality intact are dangerous, there can be no trust between the sexes. Men are not going to become eunuchs, change and become like women, abandoning their natural masculinity just because women are afraid of it. It’s impossible, because this is their identity—it’s their nature and it can’t be expunged without destroying who they are as free individuals, as men.

The sexual tension between men and women will always exist, and if women assume a man’s sexuality is a threat instead of a powerful complement to their own sexuality, they will always be on guard. In this environment of suspicion, there can be no privacy between a man and a woman. If there is any kind of interaction or discourse, even if it’s not sexual, the man can’t trust that the woman won’t use it against him—so communication is silenced. Fear is generated on both sides, and fear is the death of trust. It is also the death of love.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Sexual Civil War | Michelle Malkin and Stefan Molyneux

This is a great, thoughtful discussion about the current hysteria over sexual misconduct allegations that are beginning to spiral out of control and how simply accusing someone can ruin their lives with ZERO negative consequences to an accuser that is flat out lying.


  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

FREE Video Library: Feminism

  • This is What a Real Feminist Looks Like
    The left spent the last year normalizing the hijab. When actual women's rights activists in Iran discarded it to fight oppression, western feminists abandoned them.
  • The Inevitable Collapse of Feminist Societies
    This short but thorough presentation is a real eye opener.  The author reflects our current situation against historic facts and how, unless we wake the hell up, Islam is going to once again conquer western societies.
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)