Wednesday, December 12, 2007

A sane person’s guide to the crazy.

Looks like Five Feet of Crazy has herself in full-blown ragegasm mode over the tragic Aqsa Parvez murder. And since she never misses an opportunity to make this all about her, she’s turned it into another one of her patented anti-anyone-who-doesn’t-think-just-like-me, me, ME!!!!!! cheeto-fueled diatribes.

For your further edification, I’ve provided a helpful translation to what she’s really saying ...

We used to be rude to every immigrant that came to Canada, with the result that most of them got their acts together and assimilated.

And we called them super funny names like wop and gook and paki but nobody got mad.

Only recently have we begun telling immigrants to maintain their own traditions, and the result is a dead Muslim girl.

Happy now? This is what happens when the scary brown people move in. I told you but did you listen? Nooooooooo. Well don’t come crying to me now.

If Muslims feel "torn between their new home and their old one", they should go back to the old one. Am I stopping them?

I’ll help pack! Anything to get you to go back to Crapistan ...

If they are wearing "traditional garb" but "don't necessarily want to do so" -- their "masters" will soon come around when we start shunning them everywhere they go. Or they'll go back where they came from (see above). It's a win-win. Especially if it means I can get an English speaking cabbie who actually knows his way around Toronto.

And they play really weird music in their cabs and they smell funny and they get all pissed off when I call them “Akbar” - what? That's not their name? Did I mention this all about me? I did? Good.

What really drives Muslims to radicalism are the weekly Saudi-sponsored sermons they get at their Canadian and US mosques, not me refusing to take a cab driven by a Muslim once a year or giving someone a dirty look.

Because I give people dirty looks all the time and no one has strangled me yet.

I really don't care about anybody's hurt feelings, let alone those of a bunch of unassimilated troublemakers.

The assimilated ones – well, that’s a different story all together.

My feelings have been hurt since around 10:30 AM, September 11, 2001 and they haven't knocked themselves out to make me feel any damn better.

Me, me, me ... I, I, I ...

Shunning is a nice old fashioned conservative idea. The trouble with Canadian conservatives is how many of them are really liberals.

And that makes them worse than the scary brown people ... If there's one thing I really hate, it's liberals. And scary brown people.

As for the real progressives around the blogosphere, and their 12 readers: could you at least have the decency to be more furious about the murder of a local 16-year-old girl for wearing the wrong clothes, than about my reaction to same? Your priorities are as warped as ever, dudes. And your shopworn moral exhibitionism just as unsightly.

You know – like me? Because I know from furious. But enough about you, let's talk about me for a while. Did I mention there’s too many scary brown people around? Oh ... I did? Well, hooray for ME!

You're welcome, I'm sure. Now, I need to go bleach my brain to get the crazy out. The things I do for you people ...


Ti-Guy said...

What an ignorant rant. There hasn't been a cabbie in Toronto since the 40's (long before I was born) who knew his way around the city.

She really is white trash.

Crabgräss said...

Does she actually think that her position is better informed or more carefully considered than the average bigoted racist redneck fuckup?

Red Tory said...

Last time I checked you had approx. 750 readers. On good days, 1,200 or so. How many does the Angry White Midget® have?

Funny how she's just so brazen about being a complete asshole who really doesn't give a flying you-know-what about anyone or anything. Conservative nihilism at its finest!

Anyway... great deconstructing.

Now you need to chill. Take deep breaths. Go for a walk... shake it off. Exhale.

lenny said...

"Shunning is a nice old fashioned conservative idea. "

Ah, the good old days. I get weepy with nostalgia just thinking about them. We really do need a return to 'old-fashioned' conservative values. Brown people, nature and fags were all taught there place.

E in MD said...

I really don't care about anybody's hurt feelings, let alone those of a bunch of unassimilated troublemakers.

OMG! Brrraaawwwk! Wanda Watkins! Wanda Watki... oh wait...

Shunning is a nice old fashioned conservative idea.

So is stoning people to death, drowning people, and burning them alive so you can steal their cattle and lands.

Can we start doing that next? Please? There's a nice house up the street that I really like, but the owner's too much of a dick to sell it to me for $10.

The trouble with Canadian conservatives is how many of them are really liberals.

Wow, paranoid much?

Actually I think the problem with conservatives in general is that they want to decide what everyone is permitted to do, say, wear, and so forth, based on their own twisted vision of the future and the problem with everyone else is that we refuse to let them do it. The audacity!

Another problem is that they think they have the solutions to all the world's problems in the palm of their hand but they don't have but twelve brain cells and maybe 3 cardiac cells between the whole lot of them. So not only do they not really want to fix anything, they don't have the intellectual prowess to do it either. All you have to do is ask them what's the solution to global warming - "Ignore it and it'll go away!", or how to fix social security - "Give all the money to the rich people!" or how to solve the drug problem "Make the drug lords richer!" or how to fix the economy - "Outsource all the jobs to India and build a chainlink fence on the Mexican border!"

Then one day when all the the very rich Corporate and Religious types have tired of their wingnutty supporters they will take a big dump in their faces and bury them upside down in toxic waste barrels and laugh about what a huge prank they played on them and the untold billions of dollars they stole from them.

What a cervical lesion.

LuLu said...

Now you need to chill. Take deep breaths. Go for a walk... shake it off. Exhale.

My assistant actually came into my office and asked who had pissed me off because I was "pounding really loud" on my keyboard ...

Apparently, the volume of my typing rises in direct correlation to my level of pissed-offedness. Who knew?

ALW said...

Um. I'm with you folks on this one.

Although I would point out that after all the foaming about the lack of BT commentary on the DMCA, how come I'm not seeing any traction about the Parvez murder in progblogosphere? Intellectual property more exciting than cultural wars?

Niles said...

It's good she doesn't equate HER conservative values with the conservative values of someone who would actually be so violently outraged at the non-conforming behaviors of a familial or society member they would ostracize (shun/beat), exile (disown/throw out), or kill them in a more direct manner.

Until she does.

Niles said...

ALW: Aside from the obvious falsity of your assertion that the Parvez murder is being ignored, at present, there are allegations being made in the press as to motive, but the upshot is this: father and brother taken into custody for dead sister/daughter, alleged confession on 911 call. Matter in hands of police doing their job. Don't make this all about teh Islam.

Should a plea for clemency on religious grounds, say the religious equivalent of 'gay panic'(honor killing - which could be argued as more regional culture rather than religion - no excuse, just a differentiation), be raised in the trial, then I expect there will be solar flares all over the 'liberal' sphere.

CC said...


If I might make a personal observation, the reason you don't hear proggies going apeshit over the Parvez murder is that most of us refuse to treat this atrocity any differently from all the other murders that are committed, many of them for senseless and appalling reasons.

Niles is exactly correct -- the police are on it, the suspects are in custody and the wheels of justice turn. And the progress-o-sphere is being entirely consistent by treating this as another crime, no less or more acceptable than other murders.

The Wingnut-o-sphere, on the other hand, having utterly ignored lots and lots of other victims, have decided to jump all over this one because it has such adorable political value.

So who's being the hypocrites now, Aaron?

Ti-Guy said...

Although I've asked many times, I've never gotten an answer from Conservatives on what benefit there would be for me (and others) to join in on the hysterics about so-called culture wars or belief systems that are anti-democratic and illiberal.

Never. Not once. OK, maybe once. Richard Evans (in the case of his favourite explained that it would be to stigmatise certain lifestyles; to make them intolerable and unacceptable. Of course, what comes after that, other than persecution, wasn't explained.

There is no benefit to myself to react in the way Conservatives do, that's for sure. It always becomes an analysis of all such systems of values and beliefs and how they are all compelled to deal with the reality of Canadian law, which is the only thing that counts.

What motivation do Conservatives have for making other people want to agree with them and to react in the way they do?

I suspect the only ones who can answer that thoughtfully are the Conservatives who are silent.

Scotian said...

Isn't it amazing how this "person" is all up in arms over the allegations that a fundamentalist conservative religious father placed his religion over his daughter's life when it is a Muslim, yet I'd be willing to bet that she has not got posts about such outrageous religious intolerance when it involves fundamentalist conservative Christians forcing their religious views upon their children to the point of killing them if they will not comply.

The problem here is not that the religion was Islam, and it most certainly isn't multiculturalism that is to blame; no it is the unwillingness of fundamentalist religious zealots to accept that they cannot place their religious imperatives above the rule of law. Christian zealots are no better than Jewish zealots who are no better than Islamic zealots, the problem is the zealotry itself and not the focus, extremism/zealotry in God's name is still extremism, and therefore it is the extremism that is the threat and not the focus/religion. Yet those most loudly proclaiming the threat from the imposition of Islamic religious values into our society/legal structure tend to also insist that their religious values must be incorporated into the legal code and accepted regardless of the wishes of anyone that might not share that religious zealotry for that particular sect.

There is a reason why I am such a proponent of religion being separated from government, it was one of the few things in the US Constitution that I have always approved of wholeheartedly and would be more than happy to see it instilled in our system even more strongly than it already has become.

ALW said...


the reason you don't hear proggies going apeshit over the Parvez murder is that most of us refuse to treat this atrocity any differently from all the other murders that are committed, many of them for senseless and appalling reasons.

Oh, I agree completely. And I assume you'd agree with me that make hay out of hate crimes based on, say, gender or sexual orientation are no less and no more deserving of attention than this one?

LuLu said...

And I assume you'd agree with me that make hay out of hate crimes based on, say, gender or sexual orientation are no less and no more deserving of attention than this one?

Your argument is just too, too precious for words.

I'm sure the average Harper Conservative was horrified, just horrified over the Matthew Shepard killing. And weren't we lucky enough to witness NAMBLA-Dick's "celebration" of the Ecole Polytechnique massacre just a few days ago?

I'm sorry, where were you going with this again?

counter-coulter said...

ALW said...
Intellectual property more exciting than cultural wars?

What a perfectly wonderful construct the conservatives have with the term "cultural wars". Nevermind the fact that this was a case of family on family violence, nope it's just further proof of how those mean ole "muslims" are coming here to impose Sharia Law on the rest of us.

So would all Protestant on Protestant or Catholic on Catholic murders count as part of the "culture war" as well? Isn't there a War on Christmas that you should be concerning yourself with?

Ti-Guy said...

I guess, fundamentally, Aaron only reacts to accusations of inconsistency and hypocrisy and can only issue the same accusations as a defense.

At some point, Aaron, you really should understand that you're not saying anything useful.

CC said...

I was just about to write that it's getting boring and tedious chasing Aaron while he keeps changing the parameters of the discussion.

Man, what I wouldn't pay to watch his first courtroom performance. The hilarity would be indescribable.

Ti-Guy said...

I was more fun when the Liberals in power. Attacking adults on their poor governance is a lot more rewarding than arguing with adolescents.

ALW said...

What a perfectly wonderful construct the conservatives have with the term "cultural wars". Nevermind the fact that this was a case of family on family violence, nope it's just further proof of how those mean ole "muslims" are coming here to impose Sharia Law on the rest of us.

Thanks for making up an opinon for me

I swear, I should pay more attention to the fact no one here is remotely interested in any sort of dissent about anything. I can’t even say something benign without everybody piling on. What precisely are you people trying to achieve? Does no one see the irony about bitching all day about how conservatives are all a bunch of closed-minded foul-mouth idiots - and then carrying on like you do here?

Cue someone to call me out for being a hypocrite. Because that never gets old. For you guys, anyways.

Honestly, don't any of you ever stop and say "this is fun, but really, what's the point?"

Somena Woman said...


I disagree wuth CC about lots of stuff. But for some reason -- our disagreements don't result in poo flinging shreiking.. ahem.. "debate".

Why do you suppose that is?

Perhaps because I respect that he is a reasonable person with opinions that differ from mine, but in my mind that this does not make him a "left-ard", "moonbat", with "Bush derangement syndrome" etc...

Indeed, I think it's entirely possible to disagree with people and still have respect for them or hold them in esteem.

This is a mode of being that has somehow long long long been lost by the echo-chamber of the BT right wing herd. 99% of them take any kind of disagreement of their point of view as some kind of unconscionable moral failing on the part of those whom they disagree with who must be brow-beaten into submission.

They believe they must scold, cajole, nag and shriek at anybody who disagrees with the herd mentality.

Sorry, there is something of a similar thing in the progressive blog -- but oddly the lefties are not as collectivist in action as they are in ideology.

Ti-Guy said...

Aaron, you didn't say anything benign when you said this when you entered the thread:

Although I would point out that after all the foaming about the lack of BT commentary on the DMCA, how come I'm not seeing any traction about the Parvez murder in progblogosphere?

This was unnecessary and confrontational.

ALW said...


I often come here in good faith, but here’s what I feel happened, for example, on this thread:

Me: I’m with you guys on this one. But I think it’s fair to observe sometimes you guys do this sort of thing too

CC: Ha! Never! We would never engage in such things! That’s what you guys do!

Me: Well, surely the Left sometimes sensationalizes the murder of gays and women...

Lulu: Yeah right - as if any conservative would care about a gay guy being murdered!

Counter-culture: You’re blaming Islam!

Ti-guy: You’re a hypocrite!

CC: You’re so boring!

Would it have killed anyone to say "yeah, sometimes we’re not proud of some progressives too". I mean, is that too much to ask? Is that such a crazy idea?

Are there idiots on the BT blogroll? Do they say idiotic things? Yes and yes. But the behaviour here certainly doesn’t raise the bar in terms of expectations, and it'd go a long ways admitting your side is fallible too.

Ti-guy - you’re leaving out the first part of what I wrote, which was that I agreed. But because I dared to suggest maybe you guys weren’t the epitome of human perfection itself, I get excoriated.

This may shock you all, but I don’t come here because I’m sadistic. I come to try and learn and understand your arguments, some of which, as a libertarian, I agree with. But it seems I always have to agree with every single fucking thing that’s said, otherwise I’m dismissed as one of the herd.

If you're trying to get me to fuck off, then just say so, and I'll stop commenting.

counter-coulter said...

ALW said...
Thanks for making up an opinon for me

You're the one throwing around the "culture wars" line right there with all the neo-cons. How about defining what is meant by this supposed war and answering the questions that I posed and a little less of the tu quoque?

Scotian said...


You get "piled on" not because you are a conservative, but because you make weak and unsupported arguments and expect them to be treated as proven fact. What you fail to recognize is that the vast majority of anger in the progressive community regarding modern conservatives is that they have decided to be entitled to not just their own opinions (which is fine) but their own facts (which is not) especially when it comes to characterizing the motives of progressives, what they write/say, and in terms of believing unsupported myths like liberal media bias, liberal conspiracies in the judiciary and bureaucracy out to get Harper/Conservatives.

Start making intellectually honest arguments based on actual facts and you may still get argued with but you will get argued with on the substance instead of simply being dismissed as you currently are. Not to mention this fixation of the BTs to police the language and principles of progressives yet refuse to apply the same standards to their own side. If you are going to claim the moral right to police others like this you had first better have your own house in order first, which is especially true where language and civility use is concerned.

Sorry Aaron, you are comparing apples and shrimp when you try to make this argument. Incidentally, it is not an echo chamber here or on most progressive blogs, I have seen and been a part of myself many disagreements with the substance of other progressives, yet we manage to disagree in a respectful manner instead of with loving comments like leftards, moonbats, etc. I do not see the same sort of dissent on Conservative blogs (those that allow comments to begin with) and more than a few times when I have seen dissent it has been subsequently edited/deleted by the blog owner instead of simply replied to. So your arguments here fail yet again.

Deal with it honestly or expect more of the same, it really is that simple. BTW, I used to be far more Conservative politically, it took the Harper CPC to drive me this far over to the "left", and I know I am far from the only one in this country. Your CPC is doing to the Canadian political spectrum what the GOP has done to the American one, moved so far to the right that it has caused center right to now be center left, and that isn't because we have moved it is because the CPC has.

BTW Aaron, this particular blog has gone out of its way to make clear that this is a blog for ridiculing and mockery of Conservatives that are unwilling/unable to argue honestly, so coming here and then complaining of such treatment being the norm here and that this is representative of progressive blogs generally despite that stated position of the blog owner is exceptionally disingenuous.

Ti-Guy said...

Ti-guy: You’re a hypocrite!

How so? I'm not over at your blog trying to start fights with you.

...gave that up long ago. As I've said, I can handle BT bloggers, but I can't handle swimming in the fetid swamps of their comment sections. Last time I did, I got a candida infection.

counter-coulter said...

ALW: Although I did find it funny that Joanne showed up to "scold" you about painting with a broad brush:

Joanne (True Blue) said...

As is painting all Conservative bloggers for the actions of one, but you seem to have bought into it. ;)

(She's no longer on the blogroll anyway, right?)

Crabgräss said...

Holy crap. I finally found a photo of her (heh, heh). It's posted at my place. Alas, I can't remember how to post a link.

pretty shaved ape said...

for alw and any other tut- tutter, the reason that you don't see the outrage that you want is because the violent response you seek is part of what you claim to be angry about. another reason is that for a serious discussion of this sort of matter you need to be serious. 5 feet of bile is not that.

however if you crave a progressive response, then go here and read. that is the response of a progressive to the tragic fate of the young woman whose abusive father took her life. we will not celebrate any wrongful death but neither will we make a villain of every member of every culture that generates a criminal. because then we are all condemned.

pale has some words you should read aaron, you want a progressive response, there it is. invite the bitter and scabrous hate gnome to go along with you. when you finish reading you can roll up your sanctimony and insert it.

Frank Frink said...

psa gave you the long form, and it was spot on.

Here's the easier to digest sound bite version:
It's about gender, not religion.

Niles said...

ALW said "'d go a long ways admitting your side is fallible too."

There's the funny thing. You believe there are *two* sides. Yours (the ideologically conservative?) and er..ours. Except the 'liberals' are notorious for not having a solid 'side'. There are commonalities, of which maybe the most basic is 'hey, is that fair to the most people most of the time - and what about them shoved off to the side there?' (and that will likely be argued), but maybe you've missed spitballs aimed at each other on this 'side' over alleged liberal language, personages, and politics. *People* are fallible, ideologies trebly so.

So, what sides are you speaking on? And what sensationalizing of murders of 'gays and women' are you saying should be considered equivalently fallible compared to the tirade offered by FFOF (is that backwards)? Easy words to cast, but what prompted them?

KEvron said...

"how come I'm not seeing any traction about the Parvez murder in progblogosphere?"

why am i not seeing posts from you righties about every single murder ever committed? bashing muzzies more interesting than intellectual honesty?


KEvron said...


ti-guy. red tory. pretty shaved ape. i've had dust ups with them and plenty of other like-minded fellows. i don't care how much lipstick you slather on that pig, aaron; your sanctimonious observation is bullshit.


LuLu said...

Well, this has turned out to be quite the fun comment thread. I might have to do a few more posts like this ... just as soon as my haz-mat suit comes back from the cleaners.

Phyl said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Phyl said...

Aaron, I've written my own reaction to Aqsa Pervez's murder: Peas in a Pod.

I didn't realize, as I was writing it, though, that PSA's link would say it so much better.

Wayne said...

Why do feminists, MSM and progs try to explain away honour killings as domestic violence against women or a gender issue?

When the the murderers defend their murder by referring to Islam and the Koran and cultural tradition. Why don't you take what they say at face value?

Are we as a society not justifing the murders of these women under the guise of respecting the religion and culture of others?

Human rights should be universal and not being killed because of a archic tribal rule should be considered a basic human right.

KEvron said...

"Human rights should be universal and not being killed because of a archic tribal rule should be considered a basic human right."

yer talkin' crazy!


pretty shaved ape said...

wayne. listen up. when some puffed up, self righteous prude waves a bible and declares that an abortion doctor's murder is the will of Jehovah, when a devout church going young man raises his fist and smashes it into the face of his gay victim, when a god fearing father declares that his daughter is his property and that she must submit to his will because to her he is to be considered as god, it does not mean that every christian is a murderous, violent and sexist monster.

you are deluded and you have been misled wayne. it is increasingly apparent that you are a simpleton. you parrot what ever pretty line of garbage you are fed, that seems earnest and pleases those you admire. yes wayne there are terrible people that worship allah. just as there are terrible people that worship at every altar of every god and there terrible people that worship no god. wayne, get this into your head. there are terrible people in the world. all of the three major western religions have inspired acts of savagery and each of their major texts can be used to justify some form of vile, crude brutality.

evil does not care what hat you wear. evil is not partisan, nor is it secular. but wayne, until you can show evidence of having thought for yourself, analyzing a situation and making a statement that is not cribbed from some sean hannity radio melodrama. i'd personally appreciate it if you would just stop making a fool of yourself.

Red Tory said...

In many respects isn't religion a "gender issue" as Wayne puts it?

Frank Frink said...

And along comes Wayne, another shining example of pea-brained, pants-wetting, spittle-inflected conservative 'intellect'.

I swear, none of these assholes has ever met a Muslim, or actually ever spoken with one without nearly crapping in their pants wih 'fear'.

Tell ya' what, Wayne. Here's your homework assignment. When it's complete you can come back and give us your report.

a) Identify the passages in the Qu'uran and
b) Identify the provisions in Sharia law

that say it's OK to kil your daughter (or anyone else for that matter) for refusing to wear a hijab.

Knock yerself out kid. And while you're at it, please also give us a report on why and how 'Teh Muzzies' and their book are responsible for the murder of this BC girl by her father, or these white American men who murdered their daughters.

I'm almost positive, too, that Islam must also be somehow be responsible for men (of all races and religions) who murder their wives for 'insubordination' and 'defiance'. I'm sure Wayne could explain it for us.

Go ahead, knock yerself out.

Ti-Guy said...

I can't bear discussing this stuff with stupid Conservatives anymore.

Go to hell, Connies.

Frank Frink said...

I can certainly appreciate the notion, RT, as religion is by and large, though not exclusively, patriarchal.

But I am fairly certain that filicide and matricide transcends religious beliefs.

Red Tory said...

Frank — I'm just not willing to invest a lot of thought into the twisted rationale of nutjobs whatever the motivation might be for their madness. One day it's "Darwinism"... the next day it's nihilistic anarchism, or Nazism... then it's Islam or... whatever.

How about we just say these people are unhinged sociopaths and no one needs to give their "thoughts" any serious consideration whatsoever.

ALW said...


Sorry, but everything you’ve said goes both ways - especially ascribing the sins of the entire conservative movement onto my shoulders. If my facts are weak, that doesn’t explain why I get called an asshole, or told to get laid, or have my profession mocked. That’s just for the fun of it, apparently. And if I dare say anything, I’m lambasted for hypocrisy or not being able to take a joke.

Forgive me for needing a chair to steady myself when you say conservatives are characterizing the motives of progressives. Are you fucking kidding me? I have been called, inter alia, a racist, bigot, sexist, selfish, stooge of large corporations, dick sucker of George Bush, not to mention being accused of not giving a flying fuck about any group or person for whom I don’t 100% support a fully-funded government-run solution to their plight. None of these things ever addresses the substance or logical argument that underlies what I say. Thery're simply the automatic response generated by my self-identification as a conservative (or to a lesser extent, libertarian) So, if I suggest, for example, generous welfare rates is bad idea because it may actually hurt the poor in the long run, no one stops to say “well actually, here’s why that’s not true”. Rather, I just get called a puppet of the Fraser Institute, and told I’m a selfish asshole who wants to see single moms rot in the gutter. Gee, thanks.

Speaking of policing others, how can you reconcile your argument that conservatives have foul mouths with this blog and its attendant commenters? Is it okay for conservatives to blame progressives, and for progressives to blame conservatives, and on we go until the end of time? I fully admit the reason I get angry and blow my stack at progressives sometimes is because I’m stick of being insulted. To which they respond: too bad, you guys started it. It’s the chicken and the egg. And maybe it’s the perverse incentives involved - on either side, blowing off steam is easier and more instantly rewarding that less exciting but more substantive serious discussion - but the fact is, it’s not all the shoulders of conservatives to fix.

We must be reading different blogs, because I would have the same argument you did about echo chambers on progressive blogs (and to be fair, I don’t read a lot of conservative blogs.)

As for this blog in particular, point taken. But if this blog isn’t supposed to be taken as “representative’ of the entire progressive community, I certainly hope the same rule is applied to conservative bloggers who purport to do the same thing.

Phyl said...

I don't care about the foul mouths (they are on either side and cancel each other out). So for goodness' sake, all of you, shut up about it and quit pretending any of you hold the high ground there. This is politics, and you just need to read political writings for the past 200 years to know that this is normal for politics. End of story.

Wayne, meanwhile -- you can not, not, NOT portray the murder of Aqsa Pervez as a "Muslim issue" rather than a gender issue.

The Muslim situation got ADDED ON in this case, sure. It got added on to what men have been doing to women for millenia. MILLENIA, Wayne. Are you completely unaware of that??

Religious and secular men have been murdering uppity women for not letting the men control their bodies for MIL.LEN.I.A.

What religions do -- Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism -- is give these men the excuse they're looking for. Not only does the divinity condone men controlling women's lives, it DEMANDS that they do.

And by god, if those uppity women who require that they be in charge of their own lives and bodies won't bend the knee to their self-appointed male masters -- kill the fuckin' bitches.

If this were merely a "Muslim problem" or even, as the CBC is trying to portray it, a "gender gap parent-child culture problem" -- we'd have just as many stories about fathers killing their SONS.


counter-coulter said...

* cross-posted at ALW's blog *


I believe that I was too quick to judge based on a single term you used in describing your position. After re-reading your post and your follow-up comments there, I was mistaken about your position and apologize. While I may not agree with the vast majority of what you write, in this instance, I was wrong to try to take you to task for something you did not imply.

Crabgräss said...

Counter-Coulter: "I was wrong to try to take you to task for something you did not imply."

Now there's some civil discourse. Bravo.