Why Wynne government mum on statements over sexual violence against women?

http://en.cijnews.com/?p=17973

 

In November, Premier Kathleen Wynne has unveiled Ontario’s latest public education campaign on sexual violence and harassment with an ad depicting behaviours that some Ontarians may have trouble recognizing as sexual violence or harassment including inappropriate comments regarding one’s sexuality, lewd looks and suggestions from the coworkers, and the expectation of sexual favours following a date.

The video, created by Leo Burnett and debuted at the 2015 Summit on Sexual Violence and Harassment, is a continuation of the province’s $41-million multimedia awareness campaign, a pillar of the Wynne government’s goal of ending sexual harassment and violence in Ontario. “It’s Never Okay: An Action Plan to Stop Sexual Violence and Harassment,” released in March 2015, aims at tackling the roots of sexual violence and harassment, and improving supports and services for survivors.

Since its’ launch, Ontario’s #WhoWillYouHelp TV spot has reached over 85 million people worldwide, and the number of Ontarians who believe they have an obligation to intervene if they witness sexual violence has increased since March 2015 from 37 to 58 percent.

Statistic shows that one in three women will experience some form of sexual assault in her lifetime; 28 per cent of Canadians say they have been on the receiving end of unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favours, or sexually charged talk while on the job.

However, Ipsos Reid poll, commissioned by the province, has shown that, many Ontarians are still unsure which behaviours constitute sexual violence and harassment. This new ad aims to help Ontarians identify sexual violence and harassment when it happens, so that they are able to step in and help.

Tracy MacCharles, Minister Responsible for Women’s Issues, said: “It is our responsibility as a government to ensure all Ontarians feel safe in their communities, workplaces, homes and schools, free from sexual violence and harassment. While this research shows progress, there is much work still to be done. We are calling on all Ontarians, through their actions and attitudes, to make change happen. We all have a role to play in stopping sexual violence and harassment.”

According to Ontario government website, sexual violence is any sexual act or attempt to obtain a sexual act by violence or force. It includes unwanted sexual advances or comments; selling or attempting to sell someone for sex; acts of violence directed against an individual because of their sexuality, regardless of the relationship to the victim.

Sexual violence against women is rooted in misogyny, a notion that women are inferior to men, which can be manifested in sexual discrimination, violence and sexual objectification of women and girls. It is historically true that for centuries, women had fewer rights in regards to property ownership and choice of marriage, solely dependent on their fathers, brothers and/or husband to provide for them. However, society has evolved and today, at least here in Canada, we pride ourselves to be a stronghold of equality in regards to ones’ gender and sexuality.

It seems, though, that some of the archaic notions in regards to women are still existent and are reinforced here in Canada by the Muslim community leaders, and Canadians actually accept these as cultural things and live it alone.

CIJnews previously reported that Shazim Khan, the Imam of al-Salaam mosque in Peterborough, Ontario, in a a speech at Abu Huraira Center in Toronto few years ago, explained that the wife must always respond to her husband’s call to bed unless she has a genuine reason.

This notion was taken further by Bilal Philips, the Canadian Muslim scholar, in his book “Contemporary Issues” from 2002, where he explained that the scenario of a wife being raped by her husband is generally irrelevant to Muslims. He stated that, even though in Western society if the husband desires sexual relations and she does not and he insists it is considered rape, “[in] Islam, a woman is obliged to give herself to her husband and he may not be charged with rape.”

Sheikh Musleh Khan, Director of Education at the Khalid bin Walid Mosque in Toronto, at his webinar ‘The Heart of The Home: The Rights And Responsibilities of A Wife’ in March 2013 also said that the wife should make herself available to her husband, after marriage has taken place and he has given the mahr [dowry], she should not withhold this right from her husband without a valid excuse (sickness, obligatory fasting etc.), and if she refuses without a valid reason then she has committed a major sin: “Even some scholars went as far as saying that even if it doesn’t feel right, or you’re just not in that emotional relationship you know it’s not the right manner, you’re not feeling that at that particular time, still try to make it happen, still try to force yourself even if you have to do that.”

York Muslim Students’ Association (MSA) held in campus (February 23-27, 2015) the annual event of Islam Awareness Week bearing the title “What Does The Qur’an Say?”

York MSA Female students wearing hijab and niqab, who manned the Info Booth at the Central Square of York University, handed out to students the book “Women in Islam & Refutation of some Common Misconceptions,” authored by the Saudi scholar Dr. Abdul-Rahman al-Sheha and printed by the Saudi Dawah organization Muslim World League (رابطة العالم الاسلامي). For Blogwrath’s report on the event clickhere.

The following are excerpts of the book: “Although beating of women is generally forbidden, Islam permits the beating of wives in a restricted and limited sense only as a final solution and acceptable valid reason when all else fails… Allah deals with the case of a wife who behaves immorally towards her husband’s rights. The treatment of this extremely sensitive issue comes in gradual stages… Third and final stage: Beating without hurting, breaking a bone, leaving black or blue marks on the body, and avoiding hitting the face or especially sensitive places at any cost. The purpose of beating her is only to discipline… This treatment is proved to be very effective with two types of women… The first type: Strong willed, demanding and commandeering women… The second type: Submissive or subdued women. These women may even enjoy being beaten at times as a sign of love and concern… Beating, according to the Islamic teachings, is listed as the last and final stage of disciplining methods.”

The other notion that some Canadian Muslim leaders are continuously reinforcing and justifying is that the man has a right of gheerah (protected jealousy) over his wife – the idea that a wife should be obedient to her husband at all times, not admitting anyone husband dislikes, ask her husband’s permission before leaving the house, before talking to other men or hold a job of her own.

This can be interpreted by feminists as another example of deeply seated misogyny, when a woman is seen as one of men’s possessions, instead of another human being, meant to serve her husband’s every wish and maintain his honour.

More on this issue at Wife “beating in Islam is a type of education”: Canadian Islamic perspective.

One of the points of Ms. Wynne’s campaign states: “Just because someone buys you dinner or a drink, doesn’t mean you owe them sex in return.” It could be also said then, that if someone provides for you because you are bound by the union of marriage it shouldn’t mean that you have to repay your husband by accepting rape and losing any control over your life.

CIJnews reached out to Premier Kathleen Wynne and the Government of Ontario, asking why Ontario Campaign to Stop Sexual Violence and Harassment does not address the issue of Canadian spiritual community leaders condoning what is perceived as sexual violence and prejudice against women, while using religion to justify it?

CIJnews also inquired whether this campaign was faith restricted and Canadians should just accept that some women will continue to face sexual violence and harassment because of the culture they were born in.

No comment was received at the time of the publication.

Radical Feminist Activist Denounces Feminism, Apologizes to Christians

FEMEN is obviously anti-heterosexual. like the rest of the feminasties.  There is a reason why Eastern European Countries throw them out of the region

 

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/radical-feminist-activist-denounces-feminism-apologizes-christians

 

The co-founder of the Brazilian chapter of the international radical feminist group Femen has publicly renounced feminism and apologized for her offensive behavior toward Christians. She has also published a book detailing the abuse she suffered at the hands of fellow feminists, and exposing the hatred underlying radical feminism.

 

 

According to LifeSiteNews, Sara Fernanda Giromin, known under the alias “Sara Winter,” first expressed her repentance back in October for aborting her first child, after acknowledging that the recent birth of her second child had changed her attitude toward abortion:

“I have repented of having had an abortion and today I ask for forgiveness. Yesterday marked one month after the birth of my baby and my life has taken on a new meaning. I’m writing this while he sleeps serenely on my lap. It is the greatest sensation in the world.

“Please, women who are desperate to abort, think carefully about it. I was very sorry I did it. I don’t want the same for you.”

Since then, Giromin has repudiated feminism and gender ideology as well as her bisexuality, which she felt pressured to adopt in order to receive maximum respect in the movement:

“Lesbian and bisexual women have much more voice and respect within the movement, so in the search for recognition of my struggle, with each day that passed, I deconstructed my heterosexuality and was substituting it with an artificial bisexuality.”

She strongly denounced feminism as a religious “sect” that uses women  as weapons of hate and promotes pedophilia:

“For the feminist sect women are not the inspiration, they are prime matter in the worst sense of the term. They are convenient objects useful for the purpose of inflaming hatred against the Christian religion, hatred against men, hatred against the beauty of women, hatred against the equilibrium of families. That’s what feminism is, and I can guarantee it is like that because I was on the inside!”

“I saw the feminist movement cover up for PEDOPHILES. I saw the feminist movement PERSECUTE WOMEN… I am a witness to the fact that today in the feminist movement women are not of any importance but serve as fuel for the fires of hatred that the feminist sect cannot allow to die.”

As LifeSiteNews notes, she has also expressed remorse for having offended Christians in January of 2014, when she engaged in a well publicized same-sex kiss with another seminude girl with a cross in the background, before the Church of Our Lady of Candelária in Rio de Janeiro. The photo of the two became iconic in Brazil of homosexual contempt for Christianity.

In a YouTube video entitled “I ask Christians for forgiveness for feminist protest,” Giromin said,

“Asking for forgiveness is certainly not an easy thing to do. We went way too far and ended up offending many religious and non-religious people,” she added, recognizing the stunt as a form of “blasphemy.”

In her book Bitch, No! Seven Times I Was Betrayed by Feminism, Giromin reveals that she was repeatedly pressured by fellow feminists to do drugs and engage in sex with strangers, and was even molested by a lesbian. She also recounts that when she once confided in a feminist academic that she was involved in prostitution as a teen, the woman affirmed her behavior and did nothing to help her find a way out. One of the few times she received affection, kindness, and understanding from a female friend, it was from an older, conservative “anti-feminist” who treated her like a daughter.

Giromin is donating a percentage of her book earnings to pro-life causes, and is now beginning to give talks against feminism, gender ideology and cultural Marxism. “Today I’m much happier and I’m able to help women more.”

#FeminismIsCancer by Rachel Edwards

https://medium.com/@naughty_nerdess/feminismiscancer-3f55acd16aaa#.hbqgw1ynj

 

Right now there is a hashtag going around, #feminismiscancer. Truthfully I couldn’t agree more and for a variety of reasons. Now sure, some you reading this now are probably really attached to the feminist label, so such a hashtag probably has you completely furious.

You probably can not imagine why anyone would say that feminism is a cancer upon human civilization itself. I mean why would you if you put a lot of time and effort into adopting the feminist label into your identity. After all, it’s about equal rights isn’t it?

Truth be told the hashtag was started by a well-known professional troll and provocateur, by the name of Milo Yiannopoulos. Even so he actually has a point. I would say that as an ideology feminism has destroyed more lives than it’s saved.

The reason for this is that when we’re brutally honest, the rhetoric and lifestyle coming out of second wave feminism was most beneficial to lesbian women.

It was beneficial to women who had no interest in men and who needed to be able to live independently. Second Wave was all about women’s liberation, and not making women equal to men. Third wave is not much different.

Basically it was about telling women that they are a slave class to men, and telling them that if they want to be free they have to topple their oppressors. Again this message is more beneficial to lesbian women who have no desire to be the equal to a man, or to make peace with men. It is least beneficial to heterosexual women who actual care about equality and human rights.

Is it any wonder that heterosexual feminist women are so miserable and angry? It’s because their political beliefs about gender boil down to being a house that was not built for them. The modern feminist dogma is a house built by lesbians and political lesbians, for lesbians and political lesbians.

There’s no room for you to play nice with men and respect them if you believe that women are so disadvantaged in the world that they can’t meaningfully consent to heterosexual sex. How can you have a good healthy relationship with a man, if you believe that all heterosexual sex is rape? You simply can’t.

Now certainly people will say that this is merely the beliefs of radical feminists. Alright, well what are you doing to criticize these radical feminists? What are you doing to shutdown their arguments?

Where are you when they shit all over men, and throw the gender dynamics out of balance? Where are you when they complain that a man sitting with his legs slightly apart on the subway, is a display of patriarchial dominance and a kind of assault?

If you are one of these reasonable feminists I’ve heard so much about, it should infuriate you that these women are saying such ridiculous things and treating men badly. You should feel as though the words of these women are a great betrayal, and an assault on what you believe feminism is about. But I have seen few feminists truly take up the task of taking on radical feminists, and when they do they are berated for it.

I’m sorry, but from my perspective, feminism isn’t about equality. It’s always been about advancing women by any means necessary and liberating them from what they believe to be a kind of social slavery imposed on them by men. So it’s not in any way like actual slavery, but you know they felt enslaved, and I suppose that’s all that really matters in feminism; feelings.

In all this, women never took the time to consider the possible negative impacts on society, or they just didn’t care. They don’t seem to care that now there is this huge division between men and women, a large chasm that has opened between the genders. Furthermore these women are burning all the fucking bridges that people are attempting to erect over this rift, making it impossible for society to truly heal.

If you are one of the women who are contented to see men suffer and walk on eggshells to please women, then you are far from being reasonable. I’d think it fair to say that you are not only unreasonable but bordering on sociopathy. Sadly I have seen women like this, who are contented to watch the world burn, because they believe that from the ashes of civilization that they can build a feminist utopia.

Even sadder, I am seeing men who are also contented to watch the trust and love between men and women, wither and die. Feminists may not want to take responsibility for their actions, or the actions of their predecessors, but this is what they’ve wrought nonetheless.

Simply put, feminism is a cancer on civilization itself. Governments are built on communities that are built on stable families. A war between the genders makes stable families an impossibility. Feminism makes women unemployable walking lawsuits, and then asks that the government pick up the financial slack.

It is a fundamental assault on the legs that any government stands on. The suggestion that women have always been by default a slave class, is utterly laughable. You go back through history and find that most cultures not only respected women but knew that there would be no future without them. They understood that women were important members of the community, but that’s not what gender studies teaches women in universities.

If human civilization is a creature, then feminism is the disease devouring it from the inside out, and it will continue to do so until someone stops it, or until there is nothing left. It is not a means of empowering women. It is instead a means of encouraging women to ask the government to provide for them and to force people to be nice to each other. It’s not a real ascent for women, but a descent into unfathomable stupidity, weakness, and moral decay.

You might think that feminism is about equality, but it isn’t. It’s the belief that men are holding your freedom hostage and limiting how you can live your life. But it seems to me that the only thing holding these women back is themselves.

The thing preventing them from feeling represented is them. The only person preventing them from feeling a sense of contentment is you guessed it, them. It is the complete and utter denial of one’s own agency and personal responsibility.

It is the means by which angry mentally ill women with chips on their shoulders can project malice onto the most mundane of actions, and never be punished for it. It is an ugly cancerous mass that can not be sated or bargained with, and the chemo is a single word; no.

We have to look these people in the face and tell them how ridiculous they are, and people need to hold them accountable. Because if we don’t it will devour us alive, until there is nothing left to resemble civilization as we know it.

The Value of Motherhood

http://theothermccain.com/2015/12/27/the-value-of-motherhood/

 

Charles Murray (@charlesmurray on Twitter) co-authored with the late Richard Herrnstein one of the most controversial books of the 20th century, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (1994). When it was first published, the harsh criticism from liberals — who claimed the book was practically neo-Nazi propaganda — led me to believe that it really was a bad book.

Liberal propaganda works this way. If enough people tell you they seesmoke(sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.) you tend to assume that there must actually be some kind of hateful fire. So in 1994-95, after reading numerous reviews, articles and op-ed columns condemning The Bell Curve as crypto-racist pseudo-science, I just assumed the critics were correct. It wasn’t until 1996, when I made a dismissive remark about The Bell Curve in an Internet argument, that I found myself challenged: Had I actually read the book? So . . .

Charles Murray’s critics were not merely wrong, they were dishonest (because SJWs Always Lie, as Vox Day has recently explained). The recognition that I had been scammed, hoodwinked and bamboozled by liberal smears of The Bell Curveangered me. The first 125 pages of the book, which have nothing to do with the subject of race, are perhaps the most valuable part of The Bell Curve. Standardized testing and nationwide recruiting by elite universities have resulted in cognitive segregation, the creation of something very much like a caste system. The educational apparatus by which high-IQ children are tracked into “gifted” programs in elementary school and “honors” programs in high school, with the goal of sending every smart kid in the country to an elite university, has the effect of dissolving the social and cultural affinities between the elite caste and the vast majority of Americans. (At age 11, I was placed in an experimental “gifted” program, the first of its kind in our community. I hated it — a ridiculous waste of time, a burdensome “honor” conferring no actual benefit — and rebelled against the system, becoming a teenage hoodlum in middle school.) Once you get past page 125 of The Bell Curve, really, it is an attempt to explain why liberal policies have failed to eliminate socioeconomic disparities between racial and ethnic groups. If you keep in mind that the argument is about the efficacy of public policy — what the government is doing in our name, with our tax dollars — the accusations of “racism” directed at The Bell Curve must be recognized as an attempt to silence a cogent criticism of five decades of blundering, misguided wastefulness. “The Ivy League is decadent and depraved.” But I digress . . .

On Saturday, the Harvard-educated liberal snob Matthew Yglesias smeared Charles Murray by way of attacking Donald Trump, with the unintended consequence that a quote by Murray was called to my attention and, considering my own interest in radical feminism, I asked Murray via Twitter, “Did you ever tackle the ‘innate differences’ controversy that got Larry Summers fired at Harvard?” He replied with a link to an AEI paper he published in 2005, “The Inequality Taboo”:

 

The president of Harvard University offered a few mild, speculative, off-the-record remarks about innate differences between men and women in their aptitude for high-level science and mathematics, and was treated by Harvard’s faculty as if he were a crank. The typical news story portrayed the idea of innate sex differences as a renegade position that reputable scholars rejected. . . .
One such premise is that the distribution of innate abilities and propensities is the same across different groups. The statistical tests for uncovering job discrimination assume that men are not innately different from women, blacks from whites, older people from younger people, homosexuals from heterosexuals, Latinos from Anglos, in ways that can legitimately affect employment decisions. . . . Affirmative action in all its forms assumes there are no innate differences between any of the groups it seeks to help and everyone else. The assumption of no innate differences among groups suffuses American social policy. That assumption is wrong.
When the outcomes that these policies are supposed to produce fail to occur, with one group falling short, the fault for the discrepancy has been assigned to society. It continues to be assumed that better programs, better regulations, or the right court decisions can make the differences go away. That assumption is also wrong. . . .

 

Here we may interrupt to point out that the phrase “innate differences” refers toaverage differences between groups. Anyone who watches the NBA cannot help but notice that most of the players are black. This doesn’t mean, however, that there are no good white, Asian or Hispanic basketball players. Nor does it mean that all black people are good at basketball. Also, it does not mean that the NBA is engaging in discrimination. Whenever we see any disproportionate outcome that might be explained by average group differences, we must keep in mind that such differences do not tell us anything about any individual‘s potential, abilities or tendencies, and it is generally a mistake, in a free society, to leap to the conclusion that discrimination causes disparities in outcomes. (The Bell Curve carries many such disclaimers, by the way.) Now, we return to Charles Murray’s 2005 article:

 

The technical literature documenting sex differences and their biological basis grew surreptitiously during feminism’s heyday in the 1970’s and 1980’s. By the 1990’s, it had become so extensive that the bibliography in David Geary’s pioneering Male, Female (1998) ran to 53 pages. Currently, the best short account of the state of knowledge is Steven Pinker’s chapter on gender in The Blank Slate (2002). . . .
Regarding women, men, and babies, the technical literature is as unambiguous as everyday experience would lead one to suppose. As a rule, the experience of parenthood is more profoundly life-altering for women than for men. . . . Among humans, extensive empirical study has demonstrated that women are more attracted to children than are men, respond to them more intensely on an emotional level, and get more and different kinds of satisfactions from nurturing them. Many of these behavioral differences have been linked with biochemical differences between men and women.
Thus, for reasons embedded in the biochemistry and neurophysiology of being female, many women with the cognitive skills for achievement at the highest level also have something else they want to do in life: have a baby. In the arts and sciences, forty is the mean age at which peak accomplishment occurs, preceded by years of intense effort mastering the discipline in question. These areprecisely the years during which most women must bear children if they are to bear them at all.
Among women who have become mothers, the possibilities for high-level accomplishment in the arts and sciences shrink because, for innate reasons, the distractions of parenthood are greater. To put it in a way that most readers with children will recognize, a father can go to work and forget about his children for the whole day. Hardly any mother can do this, no matter how good her day-care arrangement or full-time nanny may be. My point is not that women must choose between a career and children, but thataccomplishment at the extremes commonly comes from a single-minded focus that leaves no room for anything but the task at hand.

You can read the whole thing, to which I wish to add this: It does not matter whether male-female differences, as they relate to parenting, are “innate” or “socially constructed.” Biological realities of pregnancy and nursing mean that women have a greater personal investment in parenthood. Without any resort to Darwinian explanations, there are numerous practical reasons why we should expect mothers to be more nurturing than men. Furthermore, we would also expect mothers to be more nurturing than women who avoid motherhood. Radical feminists scoff at any suggestion that women’s greater tendency toward nurturing is a matter of hard-wired neurological differences. Radical feminists deny that there is any such thing as “human nature” which could explain women’s behavior in terms of a “maternal instinct.” Radical feminists generally eschew motherhood and many of them abhor heterosexuality,per se. Women’s Studies textbooks assert that only social and cultural influences (e.g., “compulsory heterosexuality”) explain why most women desire husbands and babies. Because they have no “maternal instinct” nor any romantic or sexual interest in males, radical feminists seem to assume that other women are under the spell of some sort of patriarchal brainwashing: “Most Women Have to Be Coerced into Heterosexuality.”

Why is this abhorrence of men, marriage and motherhood so common among radical feminists? Because they are intellectuals — academics, authors and journalists — and their chosen careers force them into a competition against males that makes it impossible for them to view men as anything other than hostile antagonists. In the ruthless competition for tenure-track professorships, the ambitious female academic has every incentive to avoid the “distractions” of marriage and motherhood.

There is a reason why “lesbianism and feminism have been coterminous,”as Professor Bonnie Zimmerman said, and the disproportionate overrepresentation of lesbians on university faculties is surely not a coincidence. One of the most outspoken critics of Larry Summers in the 2005 “innate differences” controversy was a lesbian professor named Denice Denton, who committed suicide not long after she became chancellor of UC-Santa Cruz. The anti-male/anti heterosexual ideology of feminism (“Fear and Loathing of the Penis”) is pervasive in academia. One consequence is that college-educated women are encouraged to believe that motherhood is a task for which only stupid women are suited. No intelligent woman could possibly find pleasure in caring for small children, according to the anti-natalist fanatics who insist that motherhood is nothing but patriarchal oppression.

“I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding . . . time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness. . . . I don’t want a baby. . . . Nothing will make me want a baby. . . . This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion.”
— Amanda Marcotte, March 2014

Feminism is not only man-hating, but also baby-hating, and insofar as feminism is the official philosophy of women in academia, a major function of our higher education system is to discourage intelligent women from having children. This means that each subsequent generation of American children will have less intelligent mothers, and yet feminists seem unconcerned about the potential consequences of this dysgenic trend. The Census Bureau issued a report in April that demonstrated the scope of this problem:

Not a high school graduate
Lifetime births (average) ….. 2.6
Childless ………………………….. 11.6%

Bachelor’s degree
Lifetime births (average) ….. 1.8
Childless ………………………….. 19.9%

As I summarized this data, “High-school dropouts, on average, had 44% more children than women who had college diplomas. Childlessness was 72% more common for college graduates than for high-school dropouts.” What does this mean? The future will be an increasingly stupid place.

An electorate with more stupid voters is good for the Democrat Party, I guess, which may explain why feminists don’t give a damn about the emerging Idiocracy. Anything that helps Democrats is OK with Amanda Marcotte, but this trend that feminists have done so much to encourage should concern all Americans who have children and grandchildren.

Feminism stigmatizes motherhood. Feminists deny that the mother caring for her own children is doing valuable work. Feminism teaches that husband is a synonym for oppressor, and feminists proclaim that not only are fathers unnecessary to the well-being of children, but that fathers — like all other males — are a violent and terrifying menace.

“All women are prisoners and hostages to men’s world. Men’s world is like a vast prison or concentration camp for women. This isn’t a metaphor, it’s reality. Each man is a threat. We can’t escape men.”
— Radical Wind, August 2013

These are the ideas taught by Women’s Studies professors in our universities. Ideas Have Consequences, Richard Weaver observed, and we cannot safely ignore the consequences of feminist ideas.

My stake in America’s future is not merely a matter of rhetoric and ideology, but flesh and blood. “The personal is political,” after all.