Why women’s draft is bad for men, seriously!

Premise: i do not give a damn about gender equality and I see feminism as a plague. I’m a men’s rights advocate and I’m fully supportive of MGTOW philosophy. As such, I would like women of the modern age to face the flipside of the equality dream.

Nevertheless, the above does not stop me from being foremost a rationalist.

The draft for women turns out to be bad for men, deadly bad. And it is quite simple to understand simply putting aside the emotional drive.

Women are bad in combat roles and the army needs a woman like a fish needs a bicycle.

One year ago an article painted a clear picture of the effectiviness of women’s deployment in combat warfare. Women (especically in infantry) are not only ineffective; they also represent a burden which is detrimental to males’ performances.

rtr3018zYou know it, I know it, women know it. The army knows it.

Do women want to be deployed in the combat line? The uniform may look nice, the salary may help but the trenches, the minefields, the bodybags… they are simply too gross for the ladies.

Let’s face it. The army does not want women in combat roles and women feel the same. The logical conclusion is that the draft for men is not the same for women.

“Yeah, but how that turns to be bad for men?” you might wonder.

The answer is in the nature of the draft. The draft is put in place during peace times by the government to force people to engage in large conflicts, in confrontations with enemies of similar military capabilities. Such as a NATO vs China and Russia, for example. You do not need a draft to bomb Iraq.

During a (real) war a significant share of military personnel is involved in support roles. Guess who will end in support roles and who will end in the front line?

The more women are drafted the more men will be deployed on the frontline. Pretty simple, after all.

During peace times everyone is idealist; during war times everyone is pragmatic.

That’s the way I see it. The more real a women’s draft becomes the more inevitable a war appears.

UN Insanity and feminist “Food Tank”

Quote:

“Women are the priority. The majority of smallholder farmers in Africa are women and, in urban areas, you’re primarily looking at women-led households. So we can’t solve hunger if we don’t have gender-sensitive programming that addresses access to opportunities for women, whether it’s through education or tools for cooking, like solar-powered stoves,” says Ertharin Cousin, executive director of the U.N. World Food Programme.

As the impacts of climate change become more evident, the world will need to invest in more effective strategies to alleviate hunger and poverty. That means standing with our mothers, grandmothers, and sisters who are farming, as well as giving women farmers the resources they need to nourish both people and the planet.

Yes, you need to stand with your mothers, grandmothers and sisters who farm.

Then do me a favour. Leave your comfortable air-conditioned room and unplug the power-angry PC. Climate change will benefit.

And start farming.

Yes, stand with your mothers, grandmothers and sisters, even if you have never seen them. Sisterhood is global.

Why #feminism loves radical #Islam

I find often hilarious reading, or listening, debates about the supposed contradictions in feminism when dealing with Islam.

How can feminists attack the evil white heterosexual male of the “western” world, while conceding a trump card to the rigid androcentric set-up of the Islamic religion and relevant societies?

Let alone the radical Islam and the implied misogynistic view of women?

The seemingly contraddiction stems from a superficial understanding of feminism.

What critics of feminism fail to get, yet, is that feminism has achieved the status of a criminal organization based on the incremental absorption (and abuse) of power, by accurate manipulation of human social psychology.

Who hasn’t eared a feminist evoking the spectre of the sharia law, to warn everyone in the “western” world about the danger of turning back the (feminist) clock of history?

Women would be chattels in the patriarchal world designed by men in the “First” world, pretty much as women are forced into burkas by radical Islam.

muslim-womanSound familiar, doesn’t it? And sometimes it works with ingenuous folks.

The power of such position relies on “victimhood by association”. Women are, as a class, victims of the oppressors, men as a class. So men inherit the oppressor status despite cultures, religious beliefs and geographical differences; the same, in the opposite direction, applies to women.

So you may wonder: if feminists care about women and hence about Muslim women, why don’t they condemn firmly Islam?

If you pose yourself this question, you bought, at least partially, the propaganda according to which feminism cares about the “rights and dignity of women”. Feminism cares about women, pretty much as politicians care about their voters. Feminists care about power, and men in the “first” world are the obstacle on their way. Women just represent the consensus basis to consolidate and to mobilize against the enemy.

Feminists can’t condemn radical Islam, for two very simple (and coherent) reasons, stemming from the “gender as a class” paradigm. It has nothing to deal with “double standards” or hypocrisy.

Firstly. They simply can’t condemn Islam, even if inclined to, because doing so they would put a spotlight on the differences among women living in different cultures; thus, tearing down the concept of women as a monolithic class of oppressed beings. Women in the “western” world dress burkas, get it. Indeed, if you carefully analyse the feminist usage of “sharia” victim card, you’ll notice that it isn’t brought up to draw a separation line between women’s status in the “western” world and those under sharia, but to build a bridge between the latter ones and first world grandmothers. The condition of women under radical Islam has nothing to deal with religion, but with lack of feminist enlightenment. Deal with it

Secondly. They can’t stress out men’s misogynistic attitudes under radical Islam otherwise they would downplay the evil implications of first world men’s attitudes, such peeing while standing, staring at women, catcalling and manspreading. Men are an oppressor class, and our grandfathers forced women in burkas as well. Nowaday we don’t thanks to feminism. Feminists, simply put, do not see differences among men; they only see different stages of oppression when male attitudes are not properly confined.

Condemning radical Islam, in essence, would undermine the very pillars of feminism. If feminism accepted just for a second that the status of people is pretty much situational, it would open the door to the possibility that women in the first world (in comparative terms with men) are not oppressed and maybe they have never been. And that men are not oppressors. And that maybe women not only are not oppressed, but they are, as a whole, a priviledged demographic. This is not simply conceivable.

sinRemember this.

Maleness is the original sin, and the sin can’t be extinguished until its very root perishes.

The only fair share of power feminism conceives, it is the absolute power.

Social Justice Whores – #SJW

Unce upon a time men waged wars.

It was about honour and shame, victory beyond the death.

At stake there were lives, of those taking up arms.

Once there were warriors, crude was the fight.

Then feminism took the scene and SJWs came along.

Everyone will be equal, with few moving on.

Crusading for the justice, with nothing but just tweets.

twitter-war

No more shiny swords, only gentle words.

To win the final war, without a drop of blood.

Parading in top and bras, and sleeping with the boss.

It was a needed change, with warriors stepping down.

A future forged by whores will bring the coming dawn.

The question Megyn Kelly will never pose to Hillary Clinton

Dear Kelly Megyn, I’ve just watched some excerpts of the GOP show. I’ve noticed you posed a question to Donald Trump, aimed at “validating” his stance towards women. Apparently there is a “war on women” in the US. If such war is in place, I wonder why the casualities are mostly males. But it is my fault, my lack of empathy.BbQrA8uCUAAMnIB

I’m not inferring you where trying to put Trump in bad light with a loaded politically correct question, at all. I’m sure you were just looking for the truth. And a good journalist MUST do harsh questions.

So, here I am to suggest you a question to raise to Hillary Clinton. Ideally just a few weeks before the elections.

And, no, it is not a question about the Benghazi scandal.

And, no, it is not about why she is now in favour of same-sex marriage while just a few years ago she was strongly against it (like Barack Messiah Obama, by the way).1101111107_400

Actually, this is the question you should pose:

Mrs Clinton, recently you stated that you consider “being a woman” a plus factor. A couple of years ago you sponsored and supported the UN initiative to forcibly circumcise African boys, a procedure that, reversing the sexes, would be considered a female genital mutilation. Also, you copyrighted the statement “women have always been the primary victims of wars”, despite men represent almost the totality of deaths in the military ranks and the overwhelming majority of deaths among civilans (you can check here to have some statistics on the death bill of the “peace” mission in Afghanistan). Mrs Clinton, can you give us a convincing statement that you value men’s lives as much as women’s? Thank you.

Dear Kelly, does it sound a too much loaded question?

No, it isn’t.

This would be a loaded question:

Mrs Clinton, why do you hate men?

Cheers.


EX-POST DISCLAIMER

I’m not a US citizen. And my lack of proficiency in English proves it.

If I were, I would definitely not vote for Trump. Even if I have a left leaning, in 2016 I would vote for Rand Paul the only candidate across the spectrum that could bring back some dignity to the US. Why am I saying this? Firstly, because I believe in intellectual honesty. Secondly, because I do not like sexist, lying warmongers; such as Hillary.

Intel 3DXPoint technology is sexist

And here it comes. Out of the blue, a breaktrough in technology. Intel accnounces the availability of 3DXPoint storage technology. A revolutionary tech with the potential to shuffle the SSD market, and likely to impact the DRAM market as well, in a few years.

What does that mean to you?

For you, high tech dude, it means high density, low latency response, non volatile memory.

For you, average pc-nerd out there, in 2016 it will be about time to get rid of your “high speed” SSD you just bought.

For you, average gamer, games will run smoother, and objectifying women will be an even more satisfying experience.

For us, porn addicts, no more frame lags during the ….crucial moments.

But there’s more, much more. Intel has just launched an initiative that will project the horizons of the PC business, even further. In the hyperspace.

Take a deeeep breath…here it comes:

Intel Corporation is taking a praiseworthy step towards hiring more women, minorities or veterans by giving a double referral bonus to employees who refer new hires in these categories

Praiseworthy! Praiseworthy? Only praiseworthy? This is awesome. Wow!

Once, it used to be “women and children”, but saddly the Silicon Valley still does not allow children to put their precious hands (and brains) on 10 nanometers technologies. So, for now, it’s “women and minorities” …and veterans.

We understand that women account for 51,8 % of population, definitely a minority. And women deserve a special treatment, far more than those sent to kill and die for their country. We all know women kill themselves at much higher rate than men, especially male veterans. But, personally, I’ve have just a little trouble in understanding how a minority made of, let’s say, 5% or 10% can compete against a minority of 51,8 %; leave alone the few thousands of veterans who will have to run (sometimes without legs) for a job against a minority made of millions of people. Also, is the bonus cumulative? I mean, if my referral leads to hire a veteran black woman, will I get a 6x bonus?

Well, it’s my fault. After all I’m just an high-tech engineer, and I have also a tedious androcentric attitude: to teach Mathematics.

Good job, good job. Universities have taken every step to make men unemployable. It was about time that society took further steps in reducing the addressable job market in hi-tech.

It’s He4She, after all.

Let’s face it; 3DXPoint is just crap, the real innvoation is “diversity”.

Praiseworthy, definitely.

#GamerGate and the Pandora’s Box

Yes, even if you are not a “gamer”, even if you despise videogames, still the “gamer gate” matters to you.

If you are familiar with GamerGate, you can skip this part and move below to the next section of this post, the “Pandora’s Box”. If not, the “GamerGate”, in short and admittedly with oversimplification, it is about the attempt by some people in the gaming ecosystem, to take over journalistic integrity and to introduce an ideological perspective into the gaming business. These ideologues stem from the belief that the gaming business, currently male “dominated”, perpetuates gender stereotypes, enables misogyny, and makes games hostile to potential female audience and developers. In essence, to them, female game developers are entitled to “free passes” in the gaming business, and games have to be scrutinized and reviewed by a feminist perspective.SONY DSC

When this stuff was first uncovered, many gamers, and even some professionals of the gaming industry, exposed the “conspiracy”, and the hashtag #GamerGate was born. The outrage was not only raised by the undermining of journalistic integrity, there was more. “Gamers” were painted as a sort of distributed group of psychopathic individuals, addicted to misogyny. They were not anymore the main stakeholders of the business, but a sort of social psychology target. Quoting the emblematic words of one of these ideologues: “gamers are over“. A superior ethical playground had to be deployed by Social Justice Warriors (SJW); crusaders waging a war under the flag, as it soon became clear, of radical feminism.

The “grassroots” of GamerGate, the gamergaters, grew exponentially; they exposed the lies, the non-sense and the inherent anti-male bias of the “conspiracy” plan. Some of them, saddly, decided to engage in a personal battle with the most prominent SJWs, and someone decided to address them also with “virtual” threats. A  SJW, unable to grasp the relation between insulting hundreds of millions of people and getting back harsh reactions from a dozen of them, made even more clear her ideological standpoint; the problem was not the game but the dominant demographic behind the game:

We need to seriously address connections between violence, sexism and toxic ideas of manhood before boys and men commit more mass shootings.

and

Not a coincidence it’s always men and boys committing mass shootings. The pattern is connected to ideas of toxic masculinity in our culture.

The mass media, as expected, sided with the SJWs, hiding facts, twisting the real matter of concern of gamers, and giving unilateral “prime time” to Social Justice Warriors instead of hosting fair debates. The bias in media made clear, if ever needed, the intimate and suspicious relation between SJWs and the media.

This is, to make a long story short, the development of the GamerGate during the last two-three months.Pac_Man_Wallpaper

Actually, to be even more accurate, the GamerGate started well before the fall of 2014, long before the hashtag was coined. Three years ago, already, some SJWs launched a campaign to tackle misogyny in multiplayer games; according to them, if a woman gets an occasional stupid or offensive comment in a multiplayer gaming session over the Internet, it is widespread misogyny; female gamers, naturally, deserved special protection rules on top of those already existing in gaming moderation for normal people. And just few months after that, a prominent SJW launched a campaign to tackle stereotypes in video games; games were, in her opinion, demeaning of female empowerment and they encouraged the misogynistic attitude of male population. This representation of “truth” came from a SJW who was neither a gamer or a game developer.

Now, you should have a wider, even if superficial, knowledge of the #GamerGate.

The Pandora’s Box

That being said, why should GamerGate matter to you, even if you are not interested in videogames? Even if you hate videogames? Even if you despise just the idea of a dude wasting time with a console?

Surely, you should worry about media corruption, because it is a thing, but there is much more than this. Gamergate is serious stuff because it opened the “Pandora’s box”; in the box there is much more than games, there is social profiling, social engineering, megalomania, and foremost, misandry.

Radical Feminism has taken over social studies in the academia, especially in the USA, becoming a cult based on the disdain of male identity. With a declared enemy: masculinity. Most of religions are based on a benevolent God; this cult is based on a malevolent one, an Evil, which embodies in male population in the form of “toxic” or “hegemonic” masculinity.

But do not be fooled; the “toxic” masculinity is just a moving target, to divert ingenuous people from the real declared enemy, the male identity. It is as simple as that.sin

Being male is the “original sin” of this cult; it is no wonder, then, to hear the male adepts often apologizing for their “privileged” status of heterosexual male; or even worse, “white heterosexual male”. It is the initiation ritual male adepts play to be recognized by the sisterhood; and it has to be periodically renewed, to confirm their belonging, to exorcise their demon inside.

This is a war on women in gaming waged by a group of sexist monsters. If you are not a horrible being, get out of #gamergate now

It is the reply by a SJW to a gamer. It is a war between monsters, or horrible beings, against humans. It is an ethical battle against the evil, a crusade; “either you are with us or you are the enemy”.  At least to me, it reminds the words of Obama (and Bush before) sanctifying the crusade against ISIS for the sake of “our common humanity”. An epic battle between humans and not humans.

Feminism’s adepts have being operating for decades, unchallenged, in the academia, in the media establishment and even in many national and extra national organizations, such the UN.

As the group identity of feminism developed, masculinity became an enemy far beyond the battlefield of games. The “idealization” process of the “masculine” evil has grown hyperbolically; it is worth to quote a statement form an EU research on Social Science and Humanities dated 2004, a work realized by feminist scholars and financed by the EU commission, titled “The Social Problem of Men“:

The EU can be understood as a project devised to reduce men’s historical tendency to nationalistic conflict and war, and so achieve relative stability in Europe. There is indeed increasing recognition of the central place of men and masculinity in the collective violence of war.

Masculinity is not an enemy, it is THE final enemy.

This crusade is beyond insanity. It is megalomania. It is about a pervasive social conditioning of men and boys. It is about psychic manipulation of infants with the introduction of the “gender ideology” during the early stages of education. It is about manipulating minds and criminalizing natural tendencies, in order to stimulate a self-inhibition. Brainwashing children outside the reach of the family; a family already framed as an adverse institution that poses the risk of replicating gender roles, and facilitating the contagion of the “toxic” masculinity.

At the root of sick forms of social engineering is the natural tendency of people in position of power, to project own personality and experience into others; it is egomania. When these people with high decisional (financial, academic, political) power endorse an ethical doctrine, chances are that their egomania will translate into megalomania.

The megalomaniac process of social engineering follows four stages; it starts with social profiling of adults; then it moves to indoctrinating young people, thus to brainwashing children, and finally to the non-yet born people, with adoption of bio-genetics or selective reproduction.arancia-meccanica-scene-1

It is a path which, ultimately, leads to eugenics.

History repeats itself, cyclically, in different yet similar forms, simply because the engine that moves individuals and groups, at the core, does not change. Eugenics was widely adopted in Europe and USA, less than a century ago (abolished in Sweden in 1974). It was legal because it had both “ethical” and “scientific” support. The road of “ethics” idealizing a society with “better people” crossed the road of science busy in defining relations between “unwelcome social traits” and biological factors; at the crossroad, it was “selection of the species”. Minorities and people affected by hereditary diseases were profiled and brainwashed to lead them on the way of “spontaneous” sterilization; a “compassionate” way of preventing the sufferings of unwelcome new-borns. The “evil” was not intentional; to eugenicists it was all about avoiding the suffering of “inferior” beings in a society designed for others. It was sincere kindness, in sick minds.

If we cannot modify society, maybe we can modify the people; why not? Quoting once again a passage of the EU research mentioned above, “The Social Problem of Men“:

Changing and improving gender relations and reducing gender inequality involves changing men as well as changing the position of women.

A very telling mission statement, aiming to change the position of women and, emblematically, assuming the possibility of changing men; “beings” reduced to disposable matter, to be customized in order to fit a society tailored on a gynocentric order.16328_012eugenicsexhibit

Eugenics is on the horizon.

Most likely you do not see this horizon approaching. We are all good people, we do not do such kind of things, except we already did them and we do them, and always for apparently good reasons, because we are good people.

Let’s go back 20 years ago, and imagine someone making the prediction that in 20 years schools would being teaching little kids that young males are not necessarily “boys” and young females are not necessarily “girls”; and family members opposing to this, threatened with allegations of “hate speech”. Would have you bet on this prediction?

Now let’s fast forward a couple of decades, and let’s imagine that “science” should tell us that the “gene” of violence has been identified and we have enough knowledge and technical means to intervene on that. How many will stand against it?

Scan the horizon.

Does gamergate itself deal with eugenics? No, of course not.

Do the Social Justice Warriors advocate for eugenics? No, of course not.

Do the feminists at the EU parliament, believing that masculinity is correlated to Climate Change, advocate for eugenics? No, of course not.

Do the feminist scholars aiming at “changing men”, advocate for eugenics? No, of course not.

Do the radical feminists dreaming of a reduction of male population, advocate for eugenics? Well, maybe they do.

Psychopaths apart, most of them are just “good people” who want to “manifacture” even better people. Some are stuck at social profiling, others proceeded to the next stages of social engineering; brainwashing and indoctrination. But they all, in good faith, do not realize the misandry of their argumentations. Not even the megalomania implied by their intents.

In a way, they just manifest a radical expression of a wider social trend; our “western” enlightened society is gradually shifting towards a new idolatry, based on the projection of a human kind gifted with “superior” ethical values.

It is the old recurring dream of a life in Eden. Except that the new “all mighty” to be worshipped, to many, has the appearance of a Goddess.

Dear gamers

welcome to the club. The warmest hugs to you, gamergaters, welcome to the club. What do you mean with “which club”? The women haters’ one, dudes, the Misogynist Club.

What? You did not apply for the admission? Well it does not work that way. You do not apply for the admission. You become part of the Club when the Sisterhood say so. It is an award, it marks an accomplishment.

Admittedly, there are pros and contras in being part of the club. Obviously the mysogynist label is not a pro; do not worry you’ll quickly get used to it. But there are pros, yes, there are pros; especially if you are male. You privileged male, you are “entitled” to benefits you’ll appreciate ever more, day after day; you can finally get rid of your “mantle” along with the armour, the sword, the horse, and even the ribbon. Put everything in the closet, and lock it. And get rid of the key, you won’t need it anymore.

Who am I to welcome you? I’m a gamer, and I’ve also been an amateur game developer in my adolescence; at that time the gaming platforms had different names; ZX80, ZX Spectrum, Commodore64, but you are likely too young, to be these names meaningful to you. Not just a gamer, by the way; I’m a white heterosexual male, a antifeminist one. I’m also a Men’s Rights Advocate, and I fully back Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW). I’m the scum of the scum.

gamer_logo_finalI’ll stop there with my dignities, I do not want to put myself on a pedestal. We are all equal in this club, and diverse. Men, women, heterosexual and homosexual, transgender, gamers and not gamers. Some of us gained the award with commendable accomplishments, others, the entitled ones, gained it at birth.

Our ranks get huger and huger, day by day. The veterans, are here since a while. We were the misogynists you might have read about on the mainstream outlets for some times.

The evil MRAs (or MHRAs) in particular, the scummiest ones, those who appear, time by time, on the columns of magazines amid allegations of terrorism, extremism, and misogyny, obviously. You might have spotted the “MRA” acronym mentioned in articles dealing with Elliot Rodger, it was a scoop for us as well. And someone even linked Men’s Rights Movement to Andrew Beverik, yes, really, the man that killed dozens of boys and girls in Norway few years ago.

We have to thank feminism for this. The Sisterhood takes care of our brand.

We have been dealing with fatherhood, genital integrity, discriminations, misandry for a long time; it was just smoke in the eyes, naturally, a cover up for spreading misogyny. And we dealt also with the gamergate, even before the #gamergate hashtag even existed. It was months ago, when some feminist detected obsucre signs of misogyny in games, and in gamers, obviously. Actually, it was not about the games themselves; the issue became soon pretty clear and resided in the dominating demographic of gamers, and specifically in what this demographic think and feel, while having fun far from the scrutiny of the good people. It is not about games and gamers, anymore; it is about masculinity and the proper medical treatment. The game is not a game, not anymore, it is the environment where the disease develops. And gamers have no stake in medication. Patients have.

Before the gamergate, If you happened to incurr in the “Men’s Rights Movement and gaming” saga, there are good chances you got in the brainwashing machine: “MRAs are a bunch of misogynists adverse to female participation in the gaming industry”, or something like that. And maybe you felt some contempt for us.

SONY DSC

Do not worry, we understand it. It is just the way it goes. In a way, it is a sort of initiation rite, before entering the Club.

We have observed, with sincere interest, the recent developments of gamergate. And, believe it or not, what happened is no wonder to us, at all. We noticed, with compassion, your struggle to deal with the hijacking of gaming, while trying to keep feminism outside the gamergate issue. Did you succeed? And what about the recent unilateral debate on gamergate? Did you enjoy it? Gamergaters, did you really expect to have a voice in it? Do you think that games are about gamers? Really? A big hug to you, we love ingenuity.

A tip from the veterans of the Club; there is no need to look for feminism, nor to keep it away from you, because feminism will find you anyway, wherever you are, whatever you do; at school, at the gym, on the bus, at work, at home, while mastering a console, while having fun in your bed. When it will become the very same air you breath, you won’t notice it anymore.

Pac_Man_Wallpaper

Gamers, let’s celebrate. Finally the Sisterhood has spotted you. By resisting, you are officially enlisted in the ranks of extremism, terrorism. You are profiled, you are part of the Club.

Be sincere, how does it feel?

Welcome fellow misogynists. Take a seat and enjoy the show.

The Guardian and the forgotten White Knights

It is getting harder and harder to grasp the excellence of insanity in fields crowded by seeds of politically correct nonsense. Nevertheless The Guardian succeeded.

Harriet Sherwood, on The Guardian “columns”, has published another enlightened article, with the following title: “Israeli airline urged to stop ‘bullying’ of women by ultra-orthodox passengers”.

In short, the news is:

Israel’s national airline, El Al, has been criticised for allowing ultra-orthodox Jewish men to disrupt flights by refusing to be seated next to women. A petition on change.org is demanding that the carrier “stop the bullying, intimidation and discrimination against women on your flights.

Uhm, men refusing to seat close to women, interesting. And this translates in discrimination against women. Let’s dig it.

l_haredim150713EN

One flight last week, from New York’s JFK airport to Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion airport, descended into chaos according to passengers, after a large group of haredim, or ultra-orthodox Jews, refused to take their seats next to women, in accordance with strict religious customs.

Honestly, I do not share the beliefs of these orthodox Jewish men, due to my atheism. Nevertheless, I find their requests hardly objectionable.

According to Amit Ben-Natan, (a passenger) “People stood in the aisles and refused to go forward. Although everyone had tickets with seat numbers that they purchased in advance, they asked us to trade seats with them, and even offered to pay money, since they cannot sit next to a woman. It was obvious that the plane won’t take off as long as they keep standing in the aisles.”

Saddly airplanes do not take off with people standing, It’s due to gravitational implication of flying. When patriarchy will be defeated, we’ll be dealing with the gravity. One enemy at a time. By the way, one thing appears clear; to insist for switching places is now “bullying”. If you dare to offer money you add objectification to bullying, pretty clear.

Another passenger added: “I ended up sitting next to a haredi man who jumped out of his seat the moment we had finished taking off and proceeded to stand in the aisle.”

Patriarchy vs gravity, what a dilemma for that man. To harass standing close to her, or to harass moving away from her?

On a different flight, Elana Sztokman, executive director of the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance: “What happened to me on this flight isn’t that different from what happens on almost every flight. You get on a plane, and the plane is about to take off but a whole bunch of ultra-orthodox men start playing around, moving around, whispering, moving back and forth trying to find different seats … Anyone who’s ever travelled on El Al has experienced this.”

Said Emma, a Jewish Orthodox Feminist witness. It’s religion inside religion … religion nesting.

Sztokman’s flight came at the end of a US speaking tour on her new book, The War on Women in Israel: A Story of Religious Radicalisation and Women Fighting for Freedom

What a fortunate coincidence, isn’t it?

Sharon Shapiro (BA in Women’s Studies), from Chicago, the organiser of the online petition said it was “not right that female passengers are being intimidated or harassed. It’s one thing to ask nicely, but if someone says no, they should not be put under pressure”

I agree Sharon; it is not ok to harass people, or just women? Details. Just a clarification: who is put under pressure? The women asked to exchange seat, or the Jewish Orthodox men prescribed not to sit close to a female? Can you figure out where the belief  of those men comes from? Come on Sharon, you can do it, yes you can…

Myla Kaplan of Haifa said: “I no longer feel comfortable flying on El Al due to the bullying and delays and general humiliation of being asked to move out of a seat I reserved in advance.”

The humiliation of moving out of seat for complying, pragmatically, with harmless religious beliefs? Disappointing maybe, but humiliating? Come on. I believed humiliation was something else. Like, for instance, when you are made to feel as “owning the seed of evil”. Such as when you cannot access a train compartment in order to secure, with your absence, a safer place for women; or when you are kindly reminded not to masturbate in public; or when you are asked to move out from a seat close to a minor boy or girl in order to reduce the risk of sexual abuse.

The author then continues:

The outcry over flights comes against a backdrop of moves by hardline ultra-orthodox communities in Israel to impose dress codes on women, restrictions on where they can sit on public buses, segregated checkout queues in supermarkets and the removal of women’s images from advertising hoardings.

This is an ever increasing dilemma: objectification vs segregation, a hard choice. And I imagine the “dress code” applies only to women, am I right?

Satmar_community_Williamsburg_brooklyn_new_york

Dear The Guardian, let’s be clear, I do understand that the “fligh situation” can be disappointing. But terms like “bullying”, “humiliation” are just non sense. And the whole article seems to be … what it is, a pretext, another occasion to promote the sisterhood and present another volume of feminist literature. The never ending enciclopedia of the never existed “War on Women”.

Well, I’ll do the same because my article is a pretext as well, because this stuff of “orthodox Jewish beliefs” and public transport, recalls something in my memory.

The She Taxi She Rides!

It is not HeForShe in this case, it is the SheForShe. The prefix is a variable, the suffix is the constant.

Indeed, just a couple of weeks ago I encountered this article: “New Service Offers Taxis Exclusively for Women”, dealing with a taxi company in NY where the only drivers and clients allowed were women. Apartheid? Of course not, don’t be silly, please.

In this article, one paragraph attracted my attention:

Miriam Malave, 54, a livery driver in Brooklyn for three decades, said she gets more requests than she can handle, often from Hasidic women in Williamsburg who will only ride with women

Interesting, isn’t it? Apparently, for orthodox Jewish women, not only a male passenger to split the bill is not an option, but not even a male driver is. It must be male oppression, patriarchal subjugation, what else? Why Jewish women freely moving in the USA should ever take a “no man allowed” taxi, if not for the fear of a severe patriarchal punishment is case they disobey?

So, let’s combine the two situations now:

  • men, in a public space, under the scrutiny of other people, asking for seats not close to females;
  • women, in a private situation, asking for a taxi without male presence.

Two options are on the table.

  1. Either the root of such behaviours resides in men considering women a disgrace and inferior beings to keep at reasonable distance,
  2. or alternatively, it stems form a beliefs system where a man close to a woman represents a potential threat, or at least a form of “lack of respect”

One of the two.

Apparently the behaviour of the males seems compatible with both the two options. On the contrary, the behaviour of the females fits only with the second option, don’t you think so?

Just a guess, but could it be the case that the strict moral doctrine of that orthodox branch of the Jewish religion puts women so high on a pedestal, that boys, and then men, interiorize the sense of shame so deeply to refuse to put at risk the dignity and safety of women, simply by sitting close to them? Does still anyone remember the old chivalry code?

And on the contrary, in case you’d consider the first “patriarcal” option more suitable to justify the self segregation of the ortodox Jewish people, how did you frame to the nowadays cultural development, under the flag of feminism? Why do the battle for “women rights”, the crusade against “gender violence”, etcetera, overlap so nicely with the ever increasing initiatives for women only spaces, for women safe spaces, and sex segregations that span “pink train carriages”, “pink taxis” and surreal proposals for “pink lanes in highways”? Should I mention the policies of “western” airline companies dealing with adult male passengers and unattended minors (make a web search of “Johnny McGirr “or “Mirko Fischer”)? Wouldn’t it sound weird that feminims and patriarchy stemming from opposite positions, get to the same concluson: “keep” women safe from men? Indeed, it is not possible.

The first option, is not an option.  I’m pretty sure you will agree.

The point is that feminims is pretty much a religion. And all religions, I would say almost all moral codes, stem from the same “antropological” root: the sacredness of women. A belief that lead also to some form of mutual “segregation”. It is, simply put, gynocentrism, a deeply rooted driving force of our civilization, of which current feminism recognizes only half of the implications.

My dear Guardian, these poor men deserved a better deal. They just expressed a chivalry code thas has been forgotten, behaviours that will soon be regretted by the very same people that now deprecate them.

Those men just wanted to play a role passed down by previous generations; to be “white knights” deidcated to guard the fortress of blind and ever more entitled princesses; knights wielding swords against themselves and expecting a moral reward that will never come.