Misogyny: Hijacking the Minds of a Generation

The word misogyny is defined as the hatred of, and prejudice against the female gender. So what does this entail? And how are those feelings of hatred manifested? I will try to discuss this by giving it some historical context.

Misogyny can be manifested through things such as segregation, hostility, exclusion, male privilege and supremacy, belittling, objectification and of course physical and sexual violence. With me so far? Okay.

Now let’s make it a little more complicated to try to understand where this kind of brutality comes from. Some say its religion – namely Islam, but I’ll get back to that – and others say it has more to do with upbringing and culture. Although the latter has some truth is, the single biggest reason for this kind of behaviour is the current education system in the world, along with television shows, and adverts, movies, and products that are sold freely all over in supermarkets. So from an incredibly young age, we are taught to believe that men are better, smarter and stronger than women. This is called indoctrination (teaching a group of people to accept a set of beliefs uncritically).

Growing up, little girls are taught to dream of becoming a princess through adverts and children’s shows, or that society won’t accept them unless they look a certain way or are shaped in a certain manner. From there they are then slowly introduced to certain clothes and products, which are then sold to them for the rest of their lives, because they have been socialised into believing they are not beautiful without them.

As for little boys, from the moment they can communicate and understand things, they are told they an be superheroes, that they can do anything they set their mind to, that they can take over the world. And as if that wasn’t enough, they are also subtly told that girls will always be inferior to them. Let me give a real life example. A few weeks ago, while I was teaching a group of young boys between 5 and 10 years of age, one of them starting chanting something repeatedly. His words were “Girls go to Jupiter to get stupider, boys go to college to get more knowledge”. This boy was six years old.

So as you can see, there is clearly a difference between the way the two genders are brought up, and this is without the mention of the domestic issues, where girls are forced to cook for their brothers, and always clean after them. We all know that testosterone produces an already large enough ego, and here we are massaging that ego, hence creating a generation of girls that rightfully despise their brothers, and a generation of boys that have no idea how to look after themselves. Then comes adulthood and oldage. When you think of an old man with grey hair, you automatically think of wisdom and experience. But switch it up and take a woman with grey hair. How many of us will straight away think of her wisdom and all that she’s experienced? This is the society that has been created for us. At this point all of this may seem like disorganised waffle but there is a point.

There is also a long historical parallel to this. During pagan times in Central Asia and the Middle East around 1400-1500 years ago, it was seen as the ultimate shame to have a daughter, so if anyone had a baby girl, they buried her alive. This was a predominately Arab practice, and still manifests itself today with the well known practice of hate speech and oppression – at times physical – in the Middle East. It was a pagan practice and it is today a Satanist practice on a smaller scale but much more vicious. Instead of burying them, they now let them live and just rape and defile them, thus robbing them of their childhood and leaving lifelong scars. So that is the link to culture in society, handed down over generations. The link to religion comes through the current smear campaign on Islam and Muslims. If you watch the way Islam is portrayed in the news, and then you hear the story of a Saudi “scholar” claiming that women only have a quarter of a brain, it is easy to jump to the conclusion that the religion is misogynistic and mistreats women.

Today we do live in a society that not only favours the male gender, it also subtly and violently oppresses each and every female brought into it. Then it goes on to find us culprits by blaming religion, or “uncivilised” people of colour – because white people are all a bunch of sinless saints right? So it does become very easy to blame each other, and alienate the whole of society.

It is easy to create movements against black oppression, or several different movements against female oppression, or new movements for homosexuals and trans genders. It is very easy for each and every one of us to go around shouting about this abuse or that oppression. But we have been doing that for a very long time, and all that it’s achieved is that we’ve turned on each other. Now we have black men claiming they’re the most oppressed people, and then women disagreeing with them because a lot of black men also practice abuse of women (which is true), and then the cycle starts all over again.

It is a fact that nearly every man on this planet is a misogynist on some level, or has done things that are classed under misogyny – myself included. Because of this it is easy to understand the mistrust any woman will feel about a man discussing this subject, especially since we will never be able to understand what a woman goes through, just for being born a woman. This creates a tendency for the topic to be written off by men as something that should be left to the other gender, and there is also a long historical parallel where discussion has broken down due to man not really understanding (and at times not respecting) the views and the points laid out by the women who have suffered. In turn, this then created the idea that a man’s opinion on the issue doesn’t really matter.

So I’m going to finish by saying there may not be many, but there are a few men who genuinely want to see change, and of course we are always stronger together.

N.B.

This blog post is mainly the opinion of one person, so if you do have issues with anything stated here, I am more than happy to discuss it and be corrected.

 

 

Did the World start in 1967?

Having been born in the early 90s and practically been raised as a millennial, every discussion I have ever heard regarding the Israel-Palestine issue has revolved around returning to pre-June 1967 borders, which begs the questions, do we no longer care about what happened previous to that? Or did the whole world just start in 1967? We all seem to want to forget what happened in the Middle East before ’67.

The problem is that for 19 years, between the first war in 1948 to the six day war in 1967, all Arab states had an active blockade and boycott in place on Israel, and only a handful of countries in the world had even recognised Israel as a legitimate state before 1967.  There were hundreds of thousands displaced Palestinians already by that year, countless people who had already lost their homes. So why is it that, if there is ever a peace deal signed and Palestinians are returned to their homes, no one will even mention the ones that lost everything before 1967.

So either we’re all a bunch of cabbages that  forgot to correctly record the history of that region, or there are people out there with an ulterior motive. We are never allowed to forget the crimes of Adolf Hitler some 30 years before that, nor are we allowed to forget the fallen of the First Great War, a full half decade before ’67. Food for thought…….

Lebanon & the Far-reaching Consequences of Betrayal

On Friday the 3rd of November 2017, the Prime Minister of Lebanon, a one Saad Hariri, travelled from Beirut to Riyadh. The very next day, on live Saudi TV, he announced his resignation, citing an assignation plot – which has been denied and never proved – and foreign interference in Lebanon’s internal matters. Aside from the fact that a statement like that – coming from the capital city of another country, on said country’s TV channel – stinks of double standards and hypocrisy, there was so much more at play here, and a move like this could lead to the complete annihilation of the entire region, maybe the whole world as we know it. Let us first take a look at the lines and allegiances of a potential conflict.

On one side you have Saudi Arabia and their allied countries in the Persian Gulf and North Africa (Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait, Egypt, Morocco and potentially Algeria, Djibouti, Sudan and Tunisia). This side is not only financially and militarily backed by the war criminals in Washington and London, but it is now forming the most dangerous alliance any Arab or Muslim country can forge, a friendship with Israel.

On the other side you have the coalition that drove ISIS out of Iraq and Syria. This side is led by Iran, and now involve Turkey, Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah) and to a certain extent, Qatar. Russia is the superpower that backs this side. That is the big picture of the current Middle East divide.

But what has any of this to do with Hariri resigning, you may ask. Well that just boils down to the reasons he gave. The fact that he singled out and named Iran and Hezbollah as the “foreign” entities that keep interfering in Lebanese matters shows that it is a direct attack against Iran, from Riyadh of all places. Now that on its own does not mean much, but the statements that followed, from the regional leaders, in the next few days, says much more. There was suddenly an extreme anti-Iran rhetoric flying out of Riyadh, Tel Aviv, Abu Dhabi, London and Washington. Once again there was growing hysteria, based on statements made with zero evidence. Remember Saddam’s non-existent WMDs in 2003? In addition – as if provocative statements weren’t enough – there was recently an Arab League summit held, at which Hezbollah was designated a terrorist organisation, and discussions were made on how to counter Iranian aggression in the region. How that makes sense, when Hezbollah and Iran were the main architects of the defeat of ISIS in Syria and Iraq, beats me.

All of those speeches and acts, when studied separately, do not really constitute to much. But, when put together, a clear picture emerges. A picture that has defined the region since the Khomeini-led Iranian revolution in 1979. A picture of a rivalry between two regional powers that is now threatening to go beyond boiling point. It is no secret that Saudi Arabia and Iran have built a forever growing rivalry, mainly focused on proxy wars that date back decades, with just millions of innocent corpses to show for it. So it becomes pretty clear that the resignation of Hariri had nothing to do with Hariri or Lebanon. It is just a platform for a greater confrontation between the main powers in the region.

The Saudis are so hell-bent on seeing Iran fall that they directly fund and support murderous terrorists to make it happen. They funded ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria and Iraq and lost. They funded and fought alongside Al Qaeda in Yemen, with no clear end and no clear winner there, just a host of dead bodies. Now they seem ready to risk all-out war in Lebanon to achieve their goals. They are ready to betray their Muslim brothers and sisters in the Levant, who have now suffered a full century of persecution, perpetual war and , dare I say it, ethnic cleansing.

Hariri is now back home in Beirut and, by the Grace of God, has postponed his resignation. Common sense has temporarily prevailed, but there are players in the region who will do anything to achieve what they have set out to. This includes killing scores of their own Arab and Muslim people, and the ultimate betrayal of recognising Israel and allying themselves with the notorious movement masquerading as old-school Zionism.

Islam & Socialism

It is claimed by many that the two can never compliment one another. Islam is a methodology that believes in the Oneness of God, and socialism hands decision and policy making power to the people. According to a large number of experts, socialism and belief in God can never go together. This begs the question, what does socialism, a political and economic ideology, have to do with whether an individual believes in a God or not?

Saudi Arabia, the so-called home of Islam, and its scholars, believe that socialism and communism are anti-Islam, claiming you cannot be a socialist and also believe in God. So let’s dissect socialism and Islam and look at their similarities.

Islam is a religion that believes all human beings are equal. Race, gender, class or life choices do not define who is superior. Islam also states that every individual has a role in society. The latter of those two happens to be the main idea that Marx based his theory on. Socialism states that profit maximisation and exploitation should be outlawed. The Quran mentions several times that profit should not be concentrated. It should be capped and shared with the entire population. Islam and socialism both maintain that power and rule should be shared, going back to each individual having a role. The rulers must always go through parliament or a committee in every decision. This is one of the first legislations of politics in both Islam and socialism. Finally (as if all of that wasn’t enough), both ideologies separate religion and worship from politics and economics. Islam may have some rules and regulations derived from the religion to be implemented in economics and politics, but both systems allow freedom of worship and coexistence.

So in conclusion, socialism is not  Godless system, and Islam is not a totalitarian system that prohibits freedom of worship, expression or politics. It is entirely possible to be both a Muslim and a socialist. If anything, the two systems together may in fact be the most ethical and moral political and economic system the world has so far seen.