Feminism, recent, Religion

Feminism’s Blind Spot: the Abuse of Women by Non-White Men, Particularly Muslims

Nusrat Jahan Rafi was a young woman who attended a madrassa in the rural town of Feni in Bangladesh. In late March of this year, she attended the local police station to report a crime. Nusrat alleged that the headmaster at her madrassa had called her into his office several days before and sexually assaulted her. After the assault, Nusrat told her family what had happened and decided to make a report to the police, no doubt trusting that they would treat her with some decency. The officer who took her statement did no such thing. He videotaped it on his camera phone and can be heard on the footage telling her that the assault was “not a big deal.” The headmaster was arrested, but someone within the police leaked the fact that Nusrat had made allegations against him and the footage of her statement ended up on social media. She was soon receiving threats from students at the madrassa as well as other people in the community. Influential local politicians expressed their support for the headmaster and crowds gathered in the streets of Feni demanding his release. Defiant, Nusrat insisted on going into the madrassa to sit her exams, but while there she was tricked into going up onto the roof of the building with a fellow female student. She was then set upon by a group of people who tried to persuade her to withdraw her allegations. When she refused, they doused her with kerosene and set her alight. Some of the men arrested have since told police that the attack had been planned and ordered by the headmaster from prison. Nusrat survived long enough to describe what had happened, but died in hospital on 10th April. She was 19.

It’s difficult to imagine a more tragic example of the terrible dangers that women can face in speaking out about sexual violence, nor the lengths that some people will go to in order to protect perpetrators from exposure. In Bangladesh there has been a huge response to Nusrat’s murder. Tens of thousands of people attended her funeral prayers, and there have been protests in the capital Dhaka. Bangladeshi feminists have used the case to draw attention to the high rates of sexual abuse in the country and the mistreatment of victims by police.

The news has recently started filtering through to the Western media, but thus far prominent feminists have been noticeably silent. At the time of writing, there has been no mention of Nusrat’s murder in the major third wave feminist websites Jezebel, Feministing, and Everyday Feminism. Notably, the radical feminist platform Feminist Current has reported on the case—this is the site edited by Canadian journalist Meghan Murphy, considered so reprehensible by Twitter that she has been banned. Although there have been reports on the murder in the international sections of most newspapers, Nusrat’s name has not appeared on the comment pages of any of the major Left-leaning anglophone newspapers: the New York Times, the Guardian, the Huffington Post, the Independent, or the Sydney Morning Herald.

This is partly because news outlets tend to be rather parochial. There’s a reason that following the Easter Sunday terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka most U.K. newspapers led with stories about U.K. nationals who had been killed or lost loved ones, and it’s not because journalists are indifferent to the suffering of people overseas—or, at least, no more than anyone else. Readers set the agenda, and in the age of online news, editors know precisely and to-the-minute which stories are attracting the most eyeballs. The harsh reality is that events that take place in non-Western countries are less interesting to Western readers, and so get less coverage. This applies to all stories, not just those that involve violence against women.

So to some extent the failure of Western feminists to comment on Nusrat’s murder is due to a more general lack of interest in international news. Nevetherless, it does play into a longstanding criticism of Western feminists: that they focus exclusively on issues affecting women in their own countries and ignore abuses that take place overseas. Sometimes this criticism is simply a transparent attempt to trivialise the sexism women experience in the West and this is a rhetorical ploy I have little time for. Despite the huge strides made in the last century, women continue to face sexual violence and intimate partner abuse at far higher rates than men, regardless of which part of the world they happen to live in. Western women are also disproportionately affected by other forms of mistreatment that cause terrible suffering, as are women in the non-Western world. Yes, no matter how bad one woman’s situation is, there will always be another woman worse off. But it helps no one to descend into a game of oneupmanship in the style of Monty Python’s four Yorkshiremen.

But still, there is something to the claim that Western feminists neglect the suffering of women overseas. I know that many feminists simply roll their eyes at those who make this criticism, but refusing to address the most obvious criticisms of your ideology leaves gaping holes that undermine the movement as a whole, and a reluctance to take part in debate produces campaigners who are incapable of composing a cogent response when faced with even the weakest arguments.

And this is not a weak argument. There are forces at play within feminism that lead to tragedies like Nusrat’s being overlooked, and we should think seriously about the effect this has on women in places like Bangladesh. I have written previously in Quillette about why the most severe forms of sexist abuse are often neglected in mainstream feminism. There are several factors that contribute to this phenomenon: the tendency on the part of feminist campaigners to prioritise forms of sexism that they have personally experienced; a media appetite for controversy paired with a reluctance to report on distressing cases; and also a competitive culture within feminism that encourages activists to ‘out woke’ each other in condemning increasingly mild forms of sexist behaviour, while ignoring outright horrors.

There is another factor at play in this particular case, and it pokes at a particularly sore spot for the Regressive Left. It’s impossible to ignore the fact that Nusrat’s murderers were partially motivated by a particularly conservative strain of Islam that seeks to impose brutal restrictions on women. Yes, it is common for victims of sexual violence to be punished for speaking out, whether or not they live in Muslim-majority countries. But the ferocity of the response to Nusrat’s disclosure went well beyond what we see in the West. This provokes discomfort among Western feminists who are so eager to prove that they are not racist that they are prepared to ignore all manner of abuses perpetrated against Muslim women by Muslim men.

For instance, in response to the Christchurch attacks in March, some non-Muslim New Zealand women, including Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, chose to wear a hijab to demonstrate their solidarity with the victims of the atrocity and their families. The act was clearly well intentioned, and may have provided some comfort to Muslim New Zealanders. But it was also tone deaf because, at the same time that New Zealand women were choosing to wear the hijab, Iranian feminists were desperately fighting to be free of it. Dozens of Iranian women have been arrested over the last two years for their involvement in a campaign to remove the legal requirement for women to wear headscarves in public. Some of these women have been tortured in prison. Did the New Zealand women who donned the hijab know about this brave campaign? I’m guessing not.

Some feminists in the West insist that the veil—not just the hijab, but also more restrictive coverings such as the burka—should be seen as not only benign, but actually empowering. Meanwhile, campaigners like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who draw attention to the suffering of Muslim women, are turned into pariahs. There is a shocking double standard: forms of oppression that Western women would never accept for themselves are excused when they are imposed on women in the Muslim world.

It’s not as though Western feminism is not interested in the effects of race, religion, and nationality on women’s experiences of sexism. Criticism of Christianity is par for the course, particularly when it comes to the Catholic church. And many contemporary feminists are highly agitated about racism within the movement, disowning feminists who have now become associated with racist ideas—for instance, the American suffragist Susan B. Anthony. Given this, you might think that the suffering of women of colour under theocratic regimes would consistently be given precedence in feminist campaigning.

But the sticky issue for feminists who are also part of the Regressive Left is that the perpetrators of abuse against non-white women are mostly non-white men. Standing up against these misogynists leaves one open to accusations of racism, and most Western feminists are not willing to take that risk. Even ex-Muslims like Hirsi Ali can’t escape accusations of Islamophobia. She’s courageous enough to withstand these attacks, but most people aren’t.

And God help you if it’s a case in which white women have been victimised by non-white men. Swedish journalist Paulina Neuding has written in Quillette about the dramatic rise in sex crimes in Sweden over the last decade. Swedish authorities have been unwilling to recognise this trend, in large part because the evidence suggests that immigrant men from North Africa and the Middle East are overrepresented among the perpetrators. Sweden is one of many European countries that have seen a huge rise in a particular form of sex crime in which large gangs of men surround women in order to sexually assault and sometimes rob them. This phenomenon first gained widespread attention following attacks in Cologne on New Year’s Eve 2015. The Left across Europe has been reluctant to acknowledge the scale of this phenomenon because the perpetrators are mostly young Muslim men and the victims are mostly white women. Following the incident in Cologne, Gaby Hinsliff asked in the Guardian whether the attackers might have been motivated by resentment of German women who “with their expensive smartphones” were so noticeably wealthier than the men who assaulted them. The suggestion being, presumably, that levelling the economic playing field would persuade rapists not to rape. Try to imagine a Guardian columnist explaining away white men’s sexual violence in similar terms.

Leftist commentators may think that by underplaying the abuses perpetrated by men of colour they are striking a blow against racism, but in fact they are more likely to be unwittingly acting as recruiters for the Far Right. In the U.K., the revelations about child sex abuse rings operating in cities including Rotherham, Rochdale, and Oxford have been a particular point of tension. The perpetrators of this type of abuse are disproportionately from Pakistani and Bangladeshi backgrounds, and the victims are disproportionately white. It seems that part of the reason these crimes went unpunished for so long was because the authorities were afraid that they would be accused of racism if they drew attention to what was happening. Yes, men of all races can and do abuse. Yes, the existence of these sex abuse rings has been exploited by Far Right activists like Tommy Robinson who are noticeably silent on other forms of sexual violence. But Robinson, who is now standing as an independent in the forthcoming European Parliament elections, has profited from the fact that there is a grain of truth in his position: the Regressive Left really does ignore forms of abuse that are politically inconvenient.

The effect of this wilful blindness is that the victims of violence are abandoned. Given that most abuse takes place within racial groups, when the Left refuses to recognise the crimes of Muslim men it also refuses to recognise the victimisation of Muslim women. Think of the funding, publicity, and diplomatic pressure that could be brought to bear on the oppressors of women in the Muslim world if only there was the political will. But lending support to such an effort would be considered by many on the Left to be an act of neo-colonialism, even outright racism.

I once heard an interview with a Muslim feminist who had been imprisoned in her home country for activism during the height of the Second Wave. While in prison, she received letters from many feminists in Europe and America who assured her that she had not been forgotten. She said that when she read these letters she felt “the warm waves of Western feminism lapping at my feet.” Would she experience the same level of support now? I’m not sure. Too many Western feminists have turned away from the suffering of Muslim women, preferring to protect themselves from accusations of bigotry levelled by other Westerners. There are real costs to being monstered by the Regressive Left, but they’re nothing to the risks run by feminists in the Muslim world, where women are suffering the sort of violent subjugation that is now a thing of the past here. Nusrat Jahan Rafi paid the ultimate price for refusing to bow down to this oppression. If only the Western feminists who refuse to stand up for women like Nusrat had an ounce of her bravery.


Louise Perry is a freelance writer based in the U.K.

Feature photo by Sk Hasan Ali / Shutterstock.


  1. peanut gallery says

    It’s not a blind spot. They don’t actually care about women, they just resent whiteness, men, and western civilization more than they care about anything. They will stop at nothing to tear every pillar of society down. They are using Rules for Radicals.

    • peterschaeffer says

      PG, A guy by the name of Brendan O’Neill has written a rather good article about this. See “Who will speak for the Huddersfield girls? – The political class’s silence on Muslim grooming gangs is shameful”. Quote

      “Britain is a country where a politician putting his hand on a middle-class woman’s knee causes more outrage than the sexual abuse of scores of working-class girls by men from Pakistani backgrounds.”

      Is the U.S. any better? Note that frenzied hysteria that the UVA Fake Rape (see Rolling Stone) produced.

      • And, UK Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, persuaded Sarah Champion, UK Labour Rotherham MP, to ‘resign’ from the front bench, because she pointe out some truths about these abuses.

      • bumble bee says

        The reason is that everyone is being cockblocked due to intersectionality. That “lovely” liberal concept puts them into a conundrum as to what to do.

        On one hand we have non white males scoring 2 points, we have a minority group at 3 points, we have muslim beliefs at 1point, we have culturally disadvantaged group living in a foreign land at 4 points. Who is righteous enough to call out their bad behavior without apology? Who is going to cause cultural impropriety and risk getting mobbed by their own to stand up for these women? They are all thinking but cannot find the answer because their own progressive identity will not allow them. How can they point out a cultural wrong on a culture they have no business criticizing. They can’t. That is the conundrum, that is the enigma that will forever stymie their ability and it is all due to their own faulty logic they have swallowed whole. Unless their house of cards finally falls.

        • peterschaeffer says

          BB, The girls had only 3 points (female, underage, poor). Their attackers had 4. The outcome was never really in doubt.

      • I was hoping someone would mention the Huddersfield grooming ring. For years social services didn’t report they were seeing young White girls being groomed and raped, traded at parties, specifically because it was Pakistani men and that would be politically incorrect. So these girls suffered to protect the almost 150 men who were ultimately arrested. And many more are still out there probably still exploiting.

    • David Evans says

      Do you actually know any feminists? And which pillars of society are you talking about – would they be white and male by any chance?

      • Auntie Freesia says

        One needn’t know any feminists to note that there are no feminist marches on Washington or anywhere else to protest female genital mutilation and honor killings. As a woman, I find that strangely anti- woman. Then again, I don’t believe that even the most feminists care about any thing beyond emasculating the men and boys in my family thst I love.

        • Jeremy Ashford says

          Auntie Freesia, I don’t know whether your intention is figurative or literal when you speak of emasculating.
          Feminists lead the charge to literally emasculate boys and men, so their speaking against it is out of the question.
          Such activity commenced with the vivisection of boy children at the hands of Dr John Money in the 1950s. The results of Money’s experimentation were negative but the research was hijacked and sixty years on we have the situation where the American government will take your child from you and castrate him on the basis of someone else’s feelings.
          Islam is just one area of intersectional feminist cognitive dissonance.

  2. Graham says

    ‘Despite the huge strides made in the last century, women continue to face sexual violence and intimate partner abuse at far higher rates than men, regardless of which part of the world they happen to live in.’ Eh…no. Clearly not done any research into female violence, eh? This is only half a story, the now-canonical, accepted view, constantly propagated by the domestic violence industry in the Western world. I am not talking about other areas of the world here. Women by no means have their hands clean in the domestic violence – and other violent – arenas. And I know you can argue that ‘far higher rates’ covers a multitude of arse-covering sins, but…not really. It barely even touches upon female violence, which is epidemic too. It’s just far less reported on, because extremist feminists hate it and can’t use it to further their power-grabbing, manhating agenda.

    ‘Western women are also disproportionately affected by other forms of mistreatment that cause terrible suffering, as are women in the non-Western world.’ ‘Other forms of mistreatment’? Nebulous, meaningless. And a clumsy sentence to boot. This reads like a university dissertation from a first-year student.

    • Stephanie says

      Graham, I was hoping someone would point this out. A recent Quillette article pointed to statistics that demonstrated that domestic violence is carried out by women as often as men.

      Isn’t it also true that men are actually raped more, if you count prison and the military? Since these are part of society, it doesn’t make sense to exclude them.

      I get the impression the author was more eager to distance herself from the Right than to present a factual case. Shouldn’t the editors at least have pointed out to the author that there was an article about this just recently? Shouldn’t we expect regular contributors to actually read this magazine?

      • People can write and think what they like, Stephanie. That is basically the point of Quillette. Disappointing to see them print such cliched feminist drivel, mind you. If they are genuinely supposed to be opposed to mainstream schools of thought, knocking over the vile, hateful, deranged misandry ingraining itself into Western civilisation these days should definitely be a priority, not regurgitating sub-teenage feminist propaganda-speak. But this article tried to have its cake and eat it too – to be right wing and right on at the same time. Definitely showed the English author doesn’t really understand the field she is writing and trying to play in.

        • Nosh Itsherlock says

          @Graham the author recounted an assault and subsequent murder of a muslima. Perhaps you are just like her attackers? Or are you just another defender of a Medieval political system that has denigrated women since 632? Pointing out the systematic subjugation and enslavement of women by Mohammedans is “sub-teenage feminist propaganda”? You are a grotesque.

    • MacDuff says

      You can’t count the statistics for what isn’t reported, and men don’t tend to report it, and quite often end up with the domestic violence order even when it was the woman who couldn’t control her temper.

      • neoteny says

        You can’t count the statistics for what isn’t reported

        If I had a dollar for every instance when the phrase “estimates of unreported sexual assault” was printed in North America in the last three decades I would be sitting pretty — on a Bermuda beach.

      • Heike says

        @MacDuff Men going to jail when attacked by women is by design. It isn’t some kind of mistake. It is the Duluth Model.

        “The feminist theory underlying the Duluth Model is that men use violence within relationships to exercise power and control. This is illustrated by the “Power and Control Wheel,” a graphic typically displayed as a poster in participating locations.[5][6] According to the Duluth Model, “women and children are vulnerable to violence because of their unequal social, economic, and political status in society.”[7] Treatment of abusive men is focused on re-education, as “we do not see men’s violence against women as stemming from individual pathology, but rather from a socially reinforced sense of entitlement.”

        Criticism of the Duluth Model has centered on the program’s insistence that men are perpetrators who are violent because they have been socialized in a patriarchy that condones male violence, and that women are victims who are violent only in self-defense.”


        Feminists have caused the Duluth Model to be written into law in many jurisdictions. The effects are clear: no matter what happens, the man goes to jail. This was a great victory for feminists and they celebrated far and wide.

      • Johnny Appleseed says

        Research on DV is mainly done by just straight up surveying people, and when survyed men report dramatically more abuse from female partners than is commonly believed and more importantly women themselves admit to abusing male partners at pretty similiar rates to what the men report.

      • Johnny Appleseed says

        So the huge rates of intimate partner violence SJW feminists types usually cite are actually the same methodologies that find that men expierence pretty similiar rates of intimate partner violence. So the SJW type feminists are actually shooting themselves in the foot by citing these studies that find huge rates of intimate partner violence. One interesting tidbit is using these broad methodologies actually finds that lesbian couples have significantly higher rates of abuse than straight couples.

        Now when you look at actual extreme intimate partner violence it actually is much more dominated by male attackers and female victims. Feminists dont want to just cite these numbers though because then they couldn’t vastly inflate the number of women who expeirence intimate partner violence.

        Another uncomfortable reality for SJW feminists is that women who are married to the biological father of their children experience almost exponentially lower rates of abuse than other women. On top of that their kids also expierence almost exponentially lower rates of both sexual and physical abuse than mothers who arent married to and living with the biological father of their kids.

      • Jairo Melchor says

        @MacDuff You are right, there are some self-walls made by men themselves. However, that doesn’t excuse the fact that domestic violence is indeed done by similar rates by both, men and women.

        The key part to understand this is what we mean by “domestic violence”. People aren’t going to report situations like these if the constant meaning of violence is only “X physically hit X”.

        Women do harm by physicological, emotional and mental ways. Sometimes they even do it unaware of it and most people just brush it off by blaming the man for making a woman “angry”. Things are not gonna change if we keep pretending that half of the issue doesn’t exist, and if it does, then it probably doesn’t matter (as many people claim).

        • It seems to be a fact that men and women commit (or rather attempt) domestic violence at similar rates.

          It is also a fact that women suffer much greater physical injuries than men in such cases. This is due not to moral superiority of the women, but to the third fact: men are much, much effective at physical violence than women.

          For instance, if my wife hits me as hard as she can, the most likely physical consequence is that she breaks bones in her hand.

          If I hit her as hard as I can, she’s probably going to the hospital, and there’s a distinct possibility the blow would kill her.

      • nonCountedStatistic says

        I had a girlfriend once who on one occasion stuck me in the jaw with the heel of her hand that I saw stars — literally — it was like an explosion of bright lights. I did not defend myself or strike back and I never reported it.

        On a different occasion, she started choking me. At first I thought it was just dramatic but then I got close to passing out. Again, no defense but by the time I was about to lose consciousness, it would have been too late. Never reported that either.

        In both cases she had reason to be angry with me but not because I had been violent. Her favorite line to me: “I wouldn’t fall asleep tonight if I was you.”

  3. Morgan Foster says

    “The perpetrators of this type of abuse are disproportionately from Pakistani and Bangladeshi backgrounds, and the victims are disproportionately white. It seems that part of the reason these crimes went unpunished for so long was because the authorities were afraid that they would be accused of racism if they drew attention to what was happening.”

    Not just the authorities. Prominent white middle-class feminists, too.

    • @morgan foster. That is the sickening thing about it. Statistics in the Huddersfield grooming ring case were ignored selectively in the service of a perverted sense of justice.

  4. Matt says

    There are two ways to look at this. First, think of feminists as Bolshevik revolutionaries. The revolution is more important than specific individuals. Second, there is a spiritual component that connects the two movements. Both the religion of equality and religion of Islam are demonic religions. Ultimately, the religion of equality will be replaced by Islam. All religions will be replaced by Islam.

  5. EB says

    If by “feminists” you mean ideological, intersectional, social-media-using extremists, then maybe so. But that description does not cover the millions of feminists who are open-eyed about the subjugation of women in traditional Muslim cultures.

    • Then where the fuck are they? Where’s the outrage, where’s the indignation? From where I stand it is nowhere to be found. Same goes for the supposedly hundreds of million of moderate Muslims, why can’t they form a “moderate muslim league” or some such and put effort into bringing the radicals into the 21st century? Again, nowhere to be found.

      If those group of people do exist and they do nothing then what the fuck is the point?

      • Stephanie says

        Feminists who speak up about the plight of Muslim women get kicked out of the movement.

        There are a few real Muslim reformers (Tarek Fatah, Imam Tahwidi), but sadly they are lone figures. In most Muslim countries, “extremists” make up a majority or a strong minority. You can quantify this by looking at opinion polls on Sharia, suicide bombings, apostacy, ect. There simply aren’t enough moderate Muslims willing to risk the fate Nusrat endured for the moderating influence of these people to be felt.

        • I get you Stephanie but time and again we hear Muslims (and the PC West) proclaim that terrorists and radical Islamist are but a tiny minority and that the moderates are “legions”. If this is so then why aren’t they policing themselves?

          As for the first part of your comment, who cares? With today’s technology, a feminist can start her own Youtube channel and can probably reach a bigger audionec that way. I look at Hoffman, Paglia, Satel, MacDonald and others and they are all thriving. It doesn’t look to me like they miss the “movement”….come to think, we can almost say that those feminists have started their own movement, so to speak.

          • Stephanie says

            Phil, it is in the interest of the Left to believe that “extremists” represent a tiny minority, because it makes mass immigration more justifiable. Sadly this is not the case, and little effort is made by immigration officials to identify the few Muslims that are unlikely to cause problems. Recently a French immigration official came under fire for denying a visa to a woman who wouldn’t shake his hand. Of course he was right that she would not integrate, but that doesn’t matter to the woke Left.

            Yea, some small percentage of exiled feminists can build their own movements, but for most the brand becomes too toxic for maintaining the label to be worth it. Only a small proportion of women identify as feminists.

        • Nosh Itsherlock says

          @Stephanie precisely. There are some on this thread who attack this author and this article as “feminist propaganda”. Want to bet they are men making these attacks?

      • Jacqui says

        Just to say that many caring people act quietly to try to put things right, without adding more drama to terrible events.

    • Heike says

      Who are these feminists? Nobody literally ever sees them. They do a good job staying hidden. Hillary should have put them in charge of hiding her email server.

    • Harrison Bergeron says

      Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a feminist who criticizes the subjugation of women in traditional Muslim cultures and has now been labelled an anti Muslim extremist by the Southern Poverty Law Center for doing so. She is regularly protested against by the left and has to have a bodyguard. That is how the left treats a real feminist.

      • Amin says

        @ Harrison Bergeron

        Oh initially she was a Atheist superstar… until she joined a right wing thinktank and implied Muslims should be forced into Christianity. And then there is her ridiculous support of Zionism – which makes little to no sense for an atheist. And then there is her hatred of anything Islam and Muslim, which is quite OTT.

        There is no one else quite like for wanting a war with Muslims where so many will die… in short she is a self-confessed war monger.

        • Nosh Itsherlock says

          @Amin that’s an outright lie. She protests the subjugation and enslavement of women by a political creed invented by a pedophile warlord. The entire world can see the second class status of women in every single mohammedan majority country. Every single one. And you try to attack those who speak out. You’re just another wannabe gangster.

  6. Outraged says

    Check your privilege and knock off the Western cultural imperialism. And don’t whitesplain to those in the Middle East what they should think and do regarding things like the hijab.

    Despite the huge strides made in the last century, women continue to face sexual violence and intimate partner abuse at far higher rates than men, regardless of which part of the world they happen to live in. Western women are also disproportionately affected by other forms of mistreatment that cause terrible suffering, as are women in the non-Western world.

    The preceding sentences are false, as a simple Google search would show, and demonstrate your cisgenderist, heteronormative and gender essentialist bias for all to see.

    Perhaps this

    refusing to address the most obvious criticisms of your ideology leaves gaping holes that undermine the movement as a whole, and a reluctance to take part in debate produces campaigners who are incapable of composing a cogent response when faced with even the weakest arguments.

    needs to be addressed to yourself.

    • Jim Gorman says

      Outrage –> Check your victimhood at the door. I am an old, white, hetero, male and do you really think that makes any difference in what my thoughts are?

      Real feminists like my granddaughter want one thing, freedom. Freedom to do anything and everything with no one telling her that she can’t. And, she doesn’t whine and complain and ask for others to give her something other than a chance. You want to be free, quit whining about how people at other intersections are holding you back. Go get what you want. Freedom means working by yourself for what you want every moment of every day. Do you think that the statement “freedom isn’t free” is only for soldiers? It isn’t. Freedom is what you, personally make of it.

      My granddaughter just can’t stand people like you. My wife and I have raised her as our daughter and she is the most goal oriented, go getter you can imagine. Lest you go off on an intersectional rant about white privilege, she is a Native American tribal member who is proud of her heritage and participates in her tribes affairs. She also has Graves Disease (and has lost her thyroid), Cushing Syndrome, and is a pre-diabetic yet she has not let any of this slow her down. She obtained her Certified Nurse Assistant and Certified Medical Assistant certificates while in high school. She was selected to participate in a medical school internship this summer as a sophomore in college. She wants to be a medical doctor and there ain’t no one who is going to stop her!

      Your reference to “don’t whitesplain to those in the Middle East what they should think and do regarding things like the hijab.” is an argumentative fallacy used to try and shut down any debate. It just won’t work. Ask yourself this, “Are women in the middle east both free to wear the hijab and free to not wear the hijab”? If your answer is yes, then you are simply a troll. If your answer is no, then the author obviously has a valid point.

      • E. Olson says

        Jim – there you go again with your outdated deplorable type thinking that in today’s intersectional world is considered a form of severe child abuse as you have not properly instilled in your grand-daughter her deserved legacy of victimhood. The sad thing is that it is probably already too late to change the “can do” brainwashing that you and your wife have immersed her in, and she will therefore needlessly be forced to suffer as a well-adjusted medical professional and positive contributor to the health and wealth of society. What a waste of her potential – congratulations.

        • Jim Gorman says

          Thank you! We have done our best, but she deserves most of the credit. We have been pleasantly surprised at her doggedness and lack of sympathy for complainers.

      • Outraged says

        You are just mindlessly repeating the dogmas and slogans of the right in the same way that others mindlessly repeat the dogmas of the left. (And you won’t actually defeat the left this way; you might want to consider making them actually practice what they preach, just like the left does regarding the right. Just saying. Unless all this is just virtue- and status-signalling, rightward style, as it now seems to be all the rage to brag about one’s daughters, or in this case, granddaughters.) You look JUST as ridiculous to the left as the left looks to you. And to me. A pox on both your houses.

        It is an argumentative fallacy designed to try and shut down any debate to label any complaint of social injustice as “victimhood” or “whining”. (The left isn’t the ONLY side resorting to “argument by slur”, and some of YOUR “reality” is also socially constructed.)

        We’re all individuals. Yes but. We exist as individuals in society. So yes, I do think that being an “old, white, hetero male” does make a difference in what your thoughts are, insofar as it is very likely they would be different if you were different. Thoughts don’t just arise in a vacuum; they are due, in large part, to experience, and your experiences as an old, white, hetero male are going to be different than one who is young, non-white, homosexual, or female. (A principle clearly recognized when it comes to Islam and Islamic terrorism but quickly forgotten when it doesn’t, in fact, support desired right wing political aims.)

        Glad to hear your granddaughter ticks off so many diversity boxes and gets so many diversity points. But did it ever occur to you that had she lived 100 or 150 years ago, there would have been something stopping her from becoming a doctor? That being, systemic exclusion of non-whites and women from medical schools and the medical profession? It’s clear society can artificially help some and hinder others.

        And then there is the obligatory nod to “freedom” – who could be against “freedom”? Except, as you say, “freedom isn’t free” which means someone has to pay for it and if they refuse, you either have to coerce them (impinging on their freedom) or give up on the first freedom. Tell me, who is going to pay for your granddaughter’s medical school? What, you mean to tell me she is going to get a well-into-six-figure federally-backed student loan, backed with tax money “taken at gunpoint” from the “makers and producers and job creators”?

        • Andrew Roddy says


          Well said. More please.

        • Jim Gorman says

          Outrage –> First, my granddaughter will end up owing about $16,000 dollars in loans after 4 years. I told you she is goal oriented and determined. She took every college course she could in high school and studied instead of partying (her choice). She has academic scholarships that basically cover all of her college costs. Med school may be different, but we will see.

          Second, had she lived 100 years ago, she still would have been Native. Does that now entitle her to reparations now? I’ll tell what she has said, “It’s not 100 years ago. I have access to fine schools in this day and age and you get out of school what you put into it.”

          Lastly, you don’t know me nor do you know how I grew up. I will say this. We were Irish-Catholic in a 99% protestant town. How do you think that worked? We were also poor as church mice. We hunted trash and the dump for things to fix. My first bike was put together from about 10 different trashed ones, and it was a girl’s frame! We cut up tires for shoe heels and put cardboard in our yearly shoes. Yet you know what, my parents would not let us cry about what other people had and we didn’t. I started work at 12 years old mucking out farmer’s cow and horse stalls. And, I haven’t quit work yet!

          I put no truck with complainers. If someone won’t make a same-sex cake, get another baker. If someone won’t associate with you because your gay, tougho shitto! Find other friends. I don’t associate with golfers because I think they’re boring. I’m sure some of them don’t associate with me because they don’t like my hobbies. So what? No skin off anybody’s ass other than what they take off themselves. This country was made and prospered by people who struck out on their own with no help from anyone but themselves.

          Most of the complainers I see are those who have degrees that are worthless. Most science and engineering grads have no problem finding jobs and succeeding. I tell you what, you want to complain, tell everyone what your degree is and why you have been dissed by white patriarchy.

        • Charlie says

          150 years tens of thousands of men each year died at work- mining, forestry, commercial fishing , construction, etc, etc. In fact legislation got women out of the mines. The vast majority of the populace was glad to be able to afford one decent meal for the family once a week. Machines developed by the West has meant that people no longer die at 40 years of age due to overwork.

          Western cultural imperialism stopped the slave trade . The RN Amarillo Patrol was still supressing slavery in 1968 in the Persian Gulf. Cannibalism was still taking place in the Congo and PNG in the 1970s: perhaps you consider these practices should still occur? What about Muti and killing children for body parts, especially albinos: hould these practices still occur?

          The fact that people can expect to live to their mid 70s , if not 80 is due to advances made by the West.

          cisgenderist, heteronormative and gender essentialist bias is pretentious drivel written by someone who does not have to undertake arduous exhausting and dangerous work due to technical advances by the West..

        • Fuzzy Headed Mang says

          That is funny, Mr. or Ms. Outraged. Indeed, a half Russian half African transgender murderer and current British pensioner who grew up as a Princess in Mauritania would have a different perspective on sexual harassment than a half Hispanic half Chinese lesbian extortionist raised in Tajikistan by Wolves and now farming cannabis in Colorado.

      • @ Jim Gorman. Thanks for that. Good on your granddaughter, doing everything right to make a satisfying life and be responsible for herself.

        Outrage’s victimhood must be such a twisted burden to bear. That kind of victimhood is eating time that otherwise might help them build a life like your granddaughter is doing.

        Bottomline, just a hater troll.

    • peterschaeffer says

      Only “cisgenderist, heteronormative and gender essentialist” bigots could possibly object to

      “they doused her with kerosene and set her alight”

      Anyone who thinks that is wrong is just whitesplaining.

    • Scooter says

      OK then, keep lighting victims on fire. You and your kind excuse all immoral behaviour with your BS morality. We’re on to you. You are a child. I don’t blame you – I blame your parents.

    • Stephanie says

      Great satire, Outraged, impossible to detect except that you called the author’s ignorance of rape and domestic violence out.

    • Denny Sinnoh says

      I’m reminded that “Outrage” is a problematic move. It gives your Pokémon a good attack that does a lot of damage, but it also gives the user a “confusion” status problem.

    • Graham says

      ‘Check your privilege and knock off the Western cultural imperialism. And don’t whitesplain…’

      ‘…cisgenderist, heteronormative and gender essentialist bias…’

      You HAVE to be a first year college student, right? Nobody else could be so stupid, racist and hilarious as to speak in first year sociology text terms in absolute serious sincerity. I am laughing out loud here. Your braindead regurgitated drivel is almost like a SATIRE of horrible American extremist SJW crap.

      Still laughing.

      • Perhaps it would be advisable for everyone but qualified humourists to desist from these piss-poor attempts at satire/irony or whatever it is supposed to be. 99.9999% of the time it is neither witty, funny, clever, or well constructed and just leaves some poor folk very confused. See above.

    • peterschaeffer says

      “they doused her with kerosene and set her alight”

      What a blow to the “cisgenderist, heteronormative and gender essentialist” patriarchy. We should all be so proud. Can we find a better response to ‘whitesplaining’ and “Western cultural imperialism”.

      Probably not.

      “they doused her with kerosene and set her alight”

      I am sure the victim felt completely liberated from white, racist, Christian, Western imperialism.

      I propose a new slogan for the Left, “attack privilege with kerosene”.

    • scribblerg says

      Were those women in Iran protesting the hijab and getting locked up for it “whitesplaining”? Is Ayaan Hirsi Ali whitesplaing about the hijab? You seem to be blithely unaware that many women from Muslim nations who come to the West do so because they are fleeing the tyranny of Islamic states.

      As for the meat of the argument made, you chose not to deal with it. He’s not dishing right wing tropes, he was discussing the cultural imperatives of the Enlightenment, Christendom and valued of Classical Liberalism. A focus on the individual and his agency, an innate humility, the importance of education, resilience, hard work and goal setting. These are all artifacts of Western individualism. He’s lamenting, via the story of his granddaughter, the lack of agency he sees in the victimology mythology you pedal. Those tropes you dismiss are what the entire modern world was built upon.

      It’s better than the pre-modern world. It’s better than Islamic civilization for women by an order of magnitude. That’s not debatable among people basing their views on facts and reason. I know, I’m not very postmodern, if only more people were so.

    • Johnny Appleseed says

      This is parody… Right?

    • Rational Number says

      Check your own privilege, Outer. You dont have the power to order.

      Unfortunately you have been listening to the screamers on the left, the Social Media Lynch Mob, and youve learnt how to scream slurs and insults to get what you want. Good luck. The tide is turning, tghe hideous sight of your ilk naked will soon be clear to all.

    • paul Burrows says

      Dear Outraged;

      I am not quite sure what your point is, but maybe that is because you are probably not a person but an ill-designed piece of software that outputs abuse terms when activated by certain key words. The comments are obviously not about conveying information, just about being insulting.

  7. Aylwin says

    Good article. Well said.

    The abandonment of abused Muslim women by most modern Western feminists is a symptom of the daisy-chaining of causes, promoted by intersectionality. The human mind is an associations machine, driven under the power of emotions. Intellect allows us to disentangle. I’m reminded of a simple phrase from the great observer of human nature, Howard Jacobson – one thing is not another thing. Criticism of mysogony perpetrated by those under the influence of Islam is not “Islamophobia” (and certainly not the more correct term muslimophobia). Let’s stop this lumping together of causes. One thing is not another thing. (Here’s his interesting piece from which that phrase comes… http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/howard-jacobson/this-march-is-about-iraq-not-palestine-119047.html%3famp)

  8. AJ says

    Despite the huge strides made in the last century, women continue to face sexual violence and intimate partner abuse at far higher rates than men, regardless of which part of the world they happen to live in. Western women are also disproportionately affected by other forms of mistreatment that cause terrible suffering, as are women in the non-Western world

    Well no they dont. There is a wealth of research which shows domestic violence is committed by women at similar rates to men and quite a lot that shows that women commit the majority of unreciprocated violence. I am struggling to think of any mistreatment which women suffer disproportionately compared to men but what is clear is there is no concern whatsoever for mistreatment disproportionately affecting men.

    Feminism with a few honorable exceptions is not about equality, it is not even about better treatment for women. It is about gain as many advantages as possiblr for rich well educated western women. Nobody else matters.

  9. BrainFireBob says

    You know, I had not considered it before, but I think I actually disagree.

    It is not that they don’t want to be seen as racist and imperialist, I think- I used to believe that.


    One of my beliefs is that people fundamentally function rationally given their experiences, etc. It is fallacious assumptions, mis-structured value hierarchies, or traumatic experiences that introduce programming glitches.

    Instinctively, we avoid trying to create glitches; in other words, people will bend over backwards to avoid confronting cognitive dissonance.

    It is the following:


    Western culture is white patriarchal culture


    Nothing is as horrible or as worthy of scorn and change as white patriarchal culture.


    If you admit the existence of regressive Islam, you are inherently admitting that Western White Male culture is not absolute crap.

    You are conceding that the Imperialism of late 19th/early 20th century Western nations may actually not have been 100% talking out of its ass when it claimed to be civilizing places.

    And they can’t internally process it. So they ignore it.

    • GSW says

      “You are conceding that the Imperialism of late 19th/early 20th century Western nations may actually not have been 100% talking out of its ass when it claimed to be civilizing places. And they can’t internally process it. So they ignore it.” @BrainFireBob

      Yes, and that’s because they are ignorant of anything on the subject not directly derivative of Lenin’s Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism and Franz Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth.

    • @BrainFireBob… yes, we cannot tolerate for long the friction that results when conflicting ideas start to grate against one another under the same lamppost. Unless distracted or moved to violence, egoic collapse must occur. Well said.

  10. BrainFireBob says

    I’m posting again.

    I’ve been waiting for a Quillette article on this, but there’s been a change in how rhetorical devices are used by the younger generation. They utilize a dogmatic denial tactic- the use is so widespread I am confident there has been a sea change in education to encourage it.

    Said device is to take the position that acknowledging even a shred of broad conceptual validity on the other side is a lie, and instead focuses on a purely offensive rhetorical style.


    Opponent: The sky is pink
    Traditional response: The sky is blue
    Current response: Not only is the sky not colored, but the sky doesn’t even exist.

    Hence the current “hot” trend to do things like consider Hoffman “White nationalist adjacent” for even being willing to debate someone they have decided is a white nationalist and therefore racist.

    It reminds one of Futurama’s Santa:

    “Beating someone for not paying protection money? NAUGHTY!”
    “Not paying agreed-on protection money? JUST AS NAUGHTY!”

    • d says

      “The use is so widespread I am confident there has been a sea change in education to encourage it..”

      I’m a teacher. No, there isn’t a sea change in education, at least as far as I’m aware. We are constantly telling the kids to analyze, think, create, defend their views.IT’s true the standardized tests are garbage, but they also do not encourage students to deny or shout down; in fact their entire test is scored on how well you support your argument with facts from the passage.

      What there is a sea change in is in social media and the overall media/social media culture, which is very tribal and doesn’t care about facts.

      I’ve had kids argue with me – or try to; it’s more like shouting – that x or y is true because “they read it online or on FB or on Instragram.” Often it’s patently false things like “Trump wants to send all Black people to Africa.”

      When you say, “That’s not true,” they say, “Yes it IS!” You say, “No. Tell me how you know this.” “It’s TRUE. I read it ONLINE!” (they are indeed screaming in the all-caps) When you ask them for one supporting fact, just one, they pause for a second, with a blank look, then regroup rapidly and just repeat themselves. I had a student argue wtih me just last week that marijuana wasn’t a drug because it was a plant. I tried everything–every fact I could think of. He refused to change his mind. He just repeated his assertion over and over.

      Again this is not for lack of teaching. But I do think social media is seriously harmful to their reasoning skills. At least, that’s my theory; all teachers have noticed an enormous change in the past 10 years, particularly the last 5 years. Very marked.

      • jakesbrain says

        When you say, “That’s not true,” they say, “Yes it IS!” You say, “No. Tell me how you know this.” “It’s TRUE. I read it ONLINE!” (they are indeed screaming in the all-caps) When you ask them for one supporting fact, just one, they pause for a second, with a blank look, then regroup rapidly and just repeat themselves.

        Lived experience, their own or someone else’s, outweighs logic in their minds. Demanding a rational, considered response to that experience is, in their perception, an unbearable insult — they hate the idea that their feelings don’t matter.

      • Hamelin says

        Sometimes I wish the Pied Piper would lead all those little monsters you begat in the last twenty years or so off a cliff. Start with a fresh new batch, if you”re still fertile.

      • TarsTarkas says

        Then I guess natural heroin isn’t a drug because it came from a plant. Or cocaine. Or nicotine, etcetera, etcetera. By that same reasoning tomatoes and other vegetables and fruits don’t come from plants because they are never attached to a plant when one sees them in the supermarket.

        This is the problem of the ‘collective’ on-line memory bank called Google – instead of learning facts for oneself, learning why they are facts, they simply assume that everything on-line must be true because it’s on-line. Because NOBODY would post a LIE on line ever!

  11. E. Olson says

    “But the sticky issue for feminists who are also part of the Regressive Left is that the perpetrators of abuse against non-white women are mostly non-white men.”

    Are there ANY feminists who are not part of the Regressive Left? Or to put it another way, are there any women who are from the center or Right who are allowed to be members of the feminist sisterhood?

    • the gardner says

      E Olson—I am a conservative woman. I have no interest in the feminist movement of today or before. I never needed it. I lived by this saying—- Ginger Rogers could dance as well as Fred Astaire, and she did it in high heels and backwards. Fortunately, for her it wasn’t difficult. If you have that attitude, who needs Gloria Steinem?

      • Morgan Foster says

        @the gardner

        Sorry, but you’ve waved an off-topic flag that I simply cannot ignore. Ginger Rogers could dance well, yes. In high heels and backwards, yes.

        But just as well as Fred Astaire? No. Absolutely not.

        You can view movie scenes where Rogers danced solo and compare them to Astaire’s.

        • the gardner says

          @Morgan Foster— you’re being a bit too literal. Appreciate the message.

        • Miss Creant says

          Donald O’Connor was better than either of them…

          • BrainFireBob says

            Check out Fosse in Kiss Me Kate in his solo…

    • Feminist Centrists just call themselves humanists. Feminism is another form of tribalism that should be abolished.

    • Jay Salhi says

      Well, there are true feminists like AHA but she is persona non grata in the sisterhood.

  12. Jim Gorman says

    They are out there. They just don’t have time for the whining and complaining about not getting respect. They keep their nose to the grindstone and their eye on their goal. The whining and complaining SJW’s will one day run out of classes of people to beat on, They don’t know it yet, but the cruel old world will just keep turning and run over them given more time. Succeeding requires hard work and most of these folks have no idea what that is.

  13. the gardner says

    I wonder what Tlaib and Omar would have to say about this.

    Could the not so subtle racism of low expectations be working here? Do white feminists privately believe Muslim men have inferior morals and so cannot be expected to treat women with respect? Do they look down on Muslim women and so not care about their assaults?

    • Morgan Foster says

      @the gardner

      All white progressives and leftists – not just white feminists – believe that people of color are not capable of living up to the standards of ethics and moral behavior that everyone expects of white people.

      They explain this by saying white people have oppressed people of color for so long that it will take a long time for them to recover and reach an equivalent level of ethics and moral behavior. And we know how this game plays out.

      Even with a full, world-wide program of progressive social programs, and no backsliding, it will take hundreds of years, they say.

      in the meantime: White people, shut up.

      • GrumpyBear says

        “White people, shut up.”

        You forgot, “and give us money”

      • Graham says

        ‘White people, shut up.’ You’re probably white yourself, one of those vile, pathetic, self-loathing specimens that America is bent on destroying itself with now, the ones who love being insulted and spat upon by every other race because they are masochists and it makes them feel good to feel so bad. I am laughing here.

        • Kencathedrus says

          @Graham: Morgan is arguing an SJW viewpoint, not her own.

  14. Farris says

    The Left is no longer about ideals but rather about identities.

  15. Bill Haywood says

    “Standing up against these misogynists leaves one open to accusations of racism, and most Western feminists are not willing to take that risk.”

    I’d like to see an example of such accusations.

    • Morgan Foster says

      @Bill Haywood

      Touching a hot stove will burn your fingers. Would you like to see links for that?

  16. dirk says

    Calm down, calm down, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is working on the subject, her book PREY is coming out next year. She said, in a recent interview, being highly surprised that women in the NLs, after a party, just went home alone by bike trhough a desolate and forested area near Wageningen (where I had so many walks), without any fear, impossible in her home land. But, she warned, this is ending soon now that so many immigrants with quite other ideas and less respect for women are having more and more influence in Europe. In Cologne, but also Sweden, it looks like this is going to be the new reality. Is the burqa, the niquab, and male protection like in Saudi Arabia maybe a good idea even for European women??

    • Kencathedrus says

      @dirk: it’s sad what is going on in Holland. The Dutch elite are giving away and selling off their culture to the detriment of their people. I was in Amsterdam recently and was saddened by how changed it was.

  17. Elton H says

    Feminists also ignore sex selection abortions which is a grave threat to women everywhere. You would think feminists would speak out against a practice that reduces their numbers.

    • TarsTarkas says

      They were utterly silent during the one-child genocide of girls in Han China.

  18. psg82 says

    “Standing up against these misogynists leaves one open to accusations of racism, and most Western feminists are not willing to take that risk”

    How ironic. Intersectionality eating it self.

  19. psg82 says

    “Standing up against these misogynists leaves one open to accusations of racism, and most Western feminists are not willing to take that risk”

    How ironic. Intersectionality stopping it self from being intersectional LOL

  20. Patricia says

    Thank you for a brave and carefully argued article.

  21. Sydney says

    As a second-wave feminist, longtime Hirsi Ali follower, White Wednesday-supporter, and supporter of bans on face- and body coverings…I was with the author UNTIL this:

    “…exploited by Far Right activists like Tommy Robinson…”

    Tommy Robinson WAS on the far right as a youngster. He has LONG-since apologized for, and cut ties with, the actual far right. To call him ‘far right’ today is to cut off your own nose to spite your face.

    TODAY (not 10 years ago) Robinson counts activists of all nationalities, creeds, colours, and faiths among his colleagues, peers, friends, and supporters. And HE’S in the heart of the important fights in the UK where others are absent out of their own fear/opportunism.

    The author shows her own ‘blind spot’ (and is drinking the Kool-Aid served by the regressive left) by tarring Tommy Robinson as ‘far right.’ I hope she’ll do a deep dive online into today’s Tommy Robinson (many interviews with a multicultural band of civic-minded centrists and conservatives around the West) and discover that he’s a present-day ally, not a far-right enemy.

    • Stephanie says

      Yea, the petty and unnecessary smack at Tommy Robinson was a big turn-off for me too. How silly that in an article complaining about how people don’t take Muslim abuse of women seriously, one of the most prominent people taking Muslim abuse of women seriously is tarred as the bad guy!

      I’m not aware of Tommy Robinson saying that other forms of sex abuse should be ignored by police or dismissed by the courts, so it’s not clear what point the author is making. Surely it is appropriate for him to be advocating for consistent enforcement and policies to curb the growth of the most salient threat to young British girls in working class neighbourhoods.

      The author seems desperate to maintain the appearance of being on the Left. Perhaps being British, she feels doing otherwise would be unsafe. Or perhaps she just hasn’t completely deprogramed from the indoctrination she was subjected to all her life in school and the media. Wishing her the best of luck, and hoping the necessary information can still be accessed from the UK.

      • Closed Range says


        I agree with you, but in fairness to the author, it is definitely a risk in Britain today to write this kind of article – most certainly she will lose a lot of friends in this way and will never get a job at many of the mainstream media like the Guardian or the BBC. However, it is indeed sad that she does not see how easily she could be demonised and made a pariah just in the same way that Tommy Robinson has been. It could happen to any of us. Give it a few more years for some additional hate speech laws to be passed, and maybe she will be thrown in jail for a month for writing this.

    • Harland says

      You know the ones who broke the Rotherham rape story? The media? Whistleblowers in the police? Trustworthy authority figures?

      Nope. Tommy Robinson broke the story. The media, police, and government all knew what was going on and allowed girls to be raped. Let that sink in for a moment.

    • John says

      Want to see something funny? Ask anyone in the British media or political establishment to define far right. They will never give a straight answer.

      Why? Because what it really means to them is the same thing deplorable’s meant in the US, which is working class. The people they most look down on and despise.

  22. Hey, western Feminists are busy. They have to deal with real issues, like which Hollywood actress got paid less than her co-star, whether female superheroes are powerful enough, or whether a person of color can be played by a person of a slightly different color on a TV series.

    • And the Most Important Issue Of All! The oppression of imaginary women in ‘Game Of Thrones’!

  23. Vox says

    Louise: It’s not a blind spot. It’s a feature of modern feminism. The movement is not about “women’s rights or equality” but about acquisition of power through the creation of a mythic enemy that can be railed against as the source of all female discontent: white western patriarchy. The white man represents the great oppressor class. There are no oppressors but the white (straight) man and his patriarchy. To acknowledge the brutal oppression of women in other cultures would make our western world simply shine sterling in comparison. And that cannot be allowed. The modern third-wave feminist movement is deeply cynical, hypocritical, and disingenuous.

    • Peter from Oz says

      And underneath it all they despise the male cucks who have rolled over to them.

  24. Many thanks for this! Though I would have omitted the link to Emma Brocke’s rather patronising 2010 Guardian interview of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

  25. Carl Geier says

    I try to learn something every day on the internet and as an elderly man I am amazed by how easy that is. Most days I learn many things. Today I learned that the Regressive Left was a term that everyone at Quillette was either familiar with or accepted as a given. It is a new term for me but it seems to describe a great many annoying people that I encounter on the internet.

    • Just Me says

      I rather prefer the term The Ctrl-Left myself.

  26. Peter from Oz says

    I really do wish that so many authors on Quilette wouldn’t give passing nods to leftist cant. I’m pretty sure that the writer of this article doesn’t really believe all that rubbish about western women being in great danger from western men, or thatTommy Robinson is ”far right” because he figts for the old fashioned moral view that at least 80% of us all believe in. But she feels she has to pay obeisance to the house gods of leftism, even if she doesn’t really believe in them.
    It is like the infuriating habit that many conservative politicians have in Australia of at the commencement of every speech of acknowledging the traditional aboroginal owners of the land upon which the speech is being made. They don’t believe in any of it, but they have been sucked into the idea that somehow this will make them more acceptable to the left. But it won’t. Appeasing them is futile.
    I was at a lunch at NSW Parliament House a few years back, in the dining room of the President of the Legislative Coumcil. The President was hosting. He is a jovial, interesting gay fellow who is probably on the left of the Liberal Party (the conservative party in Oz). He opened the lunch by acknowledging the traditional owners. Before I could help it, I blurted out ”and God save the Queen.” The President and everyone else in the room laughed with pleasure. It was clear that we all knew that the aboriginal acknowlegment is a load of cant.

  27. d says

    This isn’t a blind spot. It’s that “progressives” or “the left” don’t care about racism, anti-semitism, misogyny or homophobia – even if people are murdered or tortured or raped – when someone ‘higher’ on their fictional intersectional hierarchy is the aggressor.

    Their intersectional hierarchy is random and very very Western centered – not defined by victims or individuals but solely by upper class (usually white) intellectuals and political elite and others with power – and is opaque and shape shifting as Facebook’s rules–but it goes something like this:

    At the top are African Americans and Muslim (somehow Muslims got themselves at the top even though they are 1.5 billion strong and control multiple wealthy countries). Next are probably trans. Trans might be higher than AA at times. No one is ever higher than Muslims though. Next are “brown” people, defined entirely by how poor/dysfunctional their country or culture is; the poorer/more dysfunctional, the higher they are. Thus, Indians and Japanese are lower than South Americans.

    This is because the Left/Progressives believe that all cultures and peoples are identical and therefore if a culture is markedly superior in results (not talking about individual people), it is the fault of the West – not Asia, the Middle East, or other strong vibrant cultures with 1000s of years of history – no, just the West. This is their way of maintaining power, for power as Supreme Bad Guy is just as powerful as Supreme Good Guy.

    And because they define these differences as innate – eg, as Obama said,our ‘Original Sin” – there is nothing they can do to change things, except pound their chests and post Tweets. This is very convenient for them because they can continue doing whatever they want, while feeling virtuous–they can send their kids to all-white Manhattan $40K/year schools, have their kids land top internships and job via cronyism, and avoid literally all the consequences of their policies, by segregating themselves. To keep themselves feeling virtuous, they invent racist events (literally), whereby they are the superheroes who, through their virtuous Tweets, must save the world from the villainous people low down on the hierarchy they’ve invented, eg villainous straight white men, and, a little higher up, white women. Jews are at the way bottom unless they serve a purpose to help attack the Woke crowd’s enemies, invented or otherwise. Otherwise, Jews are dirt and deserve to be killed; if only they didn’t exist, Muslims wouldn’t have to murder them. Something like that. (But if a ‘white supremicist kills them, then they shed their crocodile tears.)

    All in the service of their ideology. The acts themselves are irrelevant to them.
    The thing that really matters is a) the woke crowd’s own power and b) allegiance to intersectional hierarchy.

    They are not in support of women, gays, Jews, black, and so on. They are in support of their own ideology and power. If the women, gays, etc stray from their anointed slots – eg a Black person who supports Trump – they literally lose their Blackness (according to them), and their spot on the hierarchy, and are cast out as Scum and Others. They are ‘porch monkeys’ or ‘Uncle Toms.” Ditto for women.

    Women who are raped by those low down on the hierarchy and/or political enemies (Republicans) are victims who need support no matter what the facts are; even if there are no facts they must be ‘believed.’

    Whereas women who are raped by a Muslim, say, are invisible, not believed, and actually victim-blamed.

    Gays who are refused a wedding cake by a white christian are supreme victims; gays who are murdered by Muslims are invisible.

    As I say, it’s not at all about protecting women, or loving Blacks or gays. It’s about their dogma. To them, these groups are tools to be used to maintain their own power and their intersectional worldview.

    They are like the old aristrocracy only 1000 times more smug and without any self awareness of their hypocrisy.

    • TarsTarkas says

      I agree with your intersectionality rankings, especially at the top. I would split out trans men to women and put them above the reverse.

      It’s BS, it’s always been BS, it’s just they gotta have some BS reason to ‘splain why they are taking the positions they are, no matter how thin or non-existent the justification.

      Tommy Robinson is evil because (1) he is a white normal male and (2) he had the bravery to break the Rotherdam story when no feminist had the courage to do so. How dare he!

  28. Daeshma says

    “Readers set the agenda, and in the age of online news” – Yes I’m sure that it’s the readers that wanted immigrants rebranded as newcomers, that’s why there is so much censorship of actual readers when they write something that contradicts the narrative the news presents.

    “the failure of Western feminists to comment on Nusrat’s murder is due to a more general lack of interest in international news.” – Western femenists also decline to comment on honor killings and other abuses against women within this country too. What about the grooming gangs, that was western.

    “the media has a reluctance to report on distressing cases” – Oh come on, why did we have a full three weeks of that migrant boy’s body on the beach? Wait, that’s foreign news as well. I couldn’t finish this article, not sure if the author believes this shite (about the media, not Nusrat’s case) I feel they are making excuses for inexcusable behaviour and are trying to put the blame somewhere it doesn’t belong.

  29. Closed Range says

    I think the main thrust of the article was good and I admire the bravery of the author to write the truth so bluntly.

    My only snag is that it was unnecessary to throw in the usual smear of bogeyman Tommy Robinson. Was it done so the author can evade any criticism of being far right herself? I’ve yet to hear any cogent and convincing argument as to why he should be considered far right. His only crime as far as I can tell is to try to take part in politics whilst having a working class accent. Maybe, as with Trump, putting him in every article will only give him more publicity?

    Other than that, thanks for writing the kind of article that deserves to be read.

    • DBruce says

      Robinson has had to come to terms with the possibility of being murdered. The article fails to mention fear as a reason for feminism’s silence on these matters.

    • JWJ says

      Here, here. Good comment. Also don’t understand the hating on Tommy Robinson by the author.

  30. Closed Range says

    “Sometimes this criticism is simply a transparent attempt to trivialise the sexism women experience in the West and this is a rhetorical ploy I have little time for. ”

    I actually think the author is making a strawman here and in fact there is some genuine merit to discussing relative levels of sexism between societies in order to gain perspective. Since the author has not given any specific references, I’m going off my general experience which has been that most people do not trivialise any individual experience of violence towards women (e.g. anyone would be outraged if their friend or family was sexually assaulted – quite unlike the story at the beginning of the article). However, at the same time, when looking at the hard data, people see clearly that the West gathers the least sexist and most egalitarian societies to have existed at any time, ever. It certainly puts the lie to the widespread claims that we are a uniquely evil and sexist society of “rape culture”, and that “men oppress women”, that we must tear down “the patriarchy”, which accounts for the major part of today’s feminist spiel, which forms the ideological core of a moral panic that fuels the witch hunts that destroy innocent people’s lives for being misunderstood or misquoted.

    The nuance here is that the statistical frequency of things does matter, and that we can have firm condemnation of individual instances without needing to generalise and demonise all men which is the current agenda. Similar to Steven Pinker’s Better Angels of our Nature, despite the fact that there are still wars and violence, we in fact do not inhabit a particularly violent or pugilistic society today. There is a common fallacy at work here which is that people try to portray the West and other countries as morally equivalent since both have some cases of rape, violence, etc, where in actual fact the rates per capita at which these happen probably differs by at least an order of magnitude. The point is then that one can indeed say that the West is not a sexist society, without trivialising any individual’s experience of sexism. I’ve tried my best to explain this nuance. There is substance to this idea and it is not a rhetorical ploy as the author says.

  31. Goody Two Shoes - White as White says

    It seems to me that this essay is a classic example of a common right-wing trope namely: blame everything, or every aspect of the disintegration of Western culture on the dreaded feminists.
    One of the regular opinion writers for the Australian “news”-paper specializes in this trope.

    • Peter from Oz says

      Goody two etc

      This article is not blaming feminism for disintegration of western culture. So your straw man has no stuffing.

    • Jim Gorman says

      Dreaded feminists may not be totally to blame, but they are certainly partly responsible. The radical left, pro-abortion feminists have driven reproductive rights to the point of Democrats agreeing that infanticide (killing a born child) is a moral thing to do. That is how far we have sunk.

      Radical left, intersectional feminists decry female genital mutilation by a white doctor on a white woman, but if (a big if) and when they say anything about black or brown Muslims practicing it is ok because that is their belief.

      In essence, intersectional philosophy is nothing more than moral relativism. It is up to each individual to decide what is and isn’t moral. Radical left feminists have obviously decided that white males are immoral scum. This is simply defining a group characteristic and the last I knew that is how bigoted is defined.

    • Harland says

      CBS reporter Logan was covering the “Arab Spring” in Tahrir Square in Egypt when a bunch of elated Muslim Brotherhood thugs sexually assaulted her. The Brotherhood’s beloved “mufti,” Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, was a well-known advocate of rape (I mean literally, he was in favor of rape). So after Logan’s rape at the hands of al-Qaradawi’s goons, one would think the blame would fall first on the rapists, and second on their rape-happy spiritual leader. But no! Suzi Parker, a self-proclaimed “anti-redneck” white writing for AOL/HuffPost, put the blame squarely where it really belonged: on Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter! See, within the previous year, Palin had popularized the term “lamestream media,” and Coulter had recently mocked the press during her appearance at CPAC. So of course the rape was the fault of Palin and Coulter, and not the actual rapists or their pro-rape guru.


      Amanda Kijera was on a humanitarian trip to Haiti, when she was violently raped by a black man. The act was both coincidental and devastating, as Kijera was actually in Haiti to dispel the “myths” that violence against women on the island was overstated by women’s rights organizations. The intention of Kijera’s trip was to push back on the portrayal of black men as “savages” in the media. Her hope was that she would eliminate misconceptions and push back against common views imposed by “the man.” However, Kijera’s trip took a turn for the worse when one of the men she had worked to protect cornered her on the rooftop, and raped her numerous times.

      “The experience was almost more than I could bear,” Kijera wrote about the incident, “I pleaded with him to honor my commitment to Haiti, to him as a brother in the mutual struggle for an end to our common oppression, but to no avail. He didn’t care.”

      According to Kijera, she eventually stopped fighting him, claiming that there was nothing she could do to stop him from raping her repeatedly. After the tragic experience, she placed the blame on a very unexpected course. Women are not the source of their oppression; oppressive policies and the as-yet unaddressed white patriarchy which still dominates the global stage are,” she explained.

      She also went on to argue that it is up to the United Nations to support people who are forced to bear the brunt of black male aggression. Kijera makes the outrageous claim that dependency on white people causes them to act out against them. She alludes that this was the reason for her attack.


  32. Daniel V says

    So let’s say the entire feminist movement changed their focus to what’s happening to women in the Muslim world. What next? Do we look to invade those countries? Do we try to wipe Islam off the map? Do we try to force some type of reformation of the religion?

    I’ve run into this very same trope coming from the right in relation to religion too where it’s argued left leaning secularist avoid criticizing Islam because they fear racism. Again even if the focus shifted to Islam there is little to nothing a westerner could do to make an impact.

    That being said there is some truth to the desire to avoid appear racist–or more accurately to avoid feeding racists. The fact is a large amount of people can’t grasp that Islam, or any religion, is never a single homogeneous collective. Every religion has a left that wants to move the faith forward and a right that wants to maintain tradition. Every religion is influenced by the culture it exists in and in a horribly reductive sense there are as many version of a religion as there are followers. Ironically some of the worst Islamic countries are examples of what happens when the right has such a secure hold on power that they can eliminate their left wing critics completely.

    There really isn’t a big gotcha here or any inconsistency when western activists don’t focus their attention on more severe problems elsewhere that they can do nothing whatsoever about. One would think the right, with their close relationship with Christianity, would understand you don’t focus on the things in the world you cannot change.

    • Peter from Oz says

      Daniel V
      And yet the left is very keen on foreign aid which usually does more harm than good. The left wants to boycott Israel. Trying to help people in foreign lands is something that people of all political viewpoints want to do.
      As for Islam, haven’t you noticed that there are a lot of them in the West. Where do you think Rotherham is? Near Jordan?
      In order to crack down on the Muslim left (I.e. the totalitarians or hardliners, not the moderates who are the right) in our own countries our people have to condemn bad behaviour in all Muslim countries. If we do not do so, then the primitives who treat western women like dirt are going o think we don’t care about protecting women at all.

    • Heike says

      The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The real enemy is Western civilization and specifically white people. The feminists and Islamists don’t agree on much, but they both agree that the enemy must be destroyed.

      Why is this? Because the Western Right’s outgroup is people who aren’t Westerners. BUT the Western Left’s outgroup is the Right. This is the best explanation I’ve ever heard at this link. A bit long but worth reading every word because it answers SO many questions.


    • Closed Range says

      Daniel V

      Again a strawman argument – the trope you talk about is a figment of your imagination. Nobody here is advocating invading those countries – where did anyone say this?

      Instead, if the movement changed its focus on what is happening elsewhere, it would help people here get a grip on reality, realise that caucasian males aren’t to be blamed for everything bad in the world, and start thinking about what is worth preserving in our society. It would help bring back a sense of peace and harmony in society that has been lost.

      • Andrew Roddy says

        @Daniel V
        I agree and wonder why the author does not anticipate this begged question. An agenda driven blind spot?

  33. “Sometimes this criticism is simply a transparent attempt to trivialise the sexism women experience in the West and this is a rhetorical ploy I have little time for”.

    This “I have little time for” seems a common form of arrogance display from feminists.

    • jakesbrain says

      “Educate yourself, I’m not going to enact all that labor for you.”

  34. Just Me says

    A very recent example of this kind of thinking is in this NYtT article by Nicholas Kristof about Melinda Gates:

    “Of course her challenges are nothing compared with those of victims of sex trafficking, acid attacks or obstetric fistula around the world. Just this month, a heroic Bangladeshi teenager named Nusrat was burned to death after she reported her headmaster for groping her. Such gross injustices must be our priority. But we lack moral authority to protest abroad when we shrug at inequities here at home.

    One of Melinda’s first challenges came in the harsh, male-dominated techie culture at Microsoft. “It was just so brash, so argumentative and competitive, with people fighting to the end on every point,” she writes. She began thinking about quitting.

    Then she found a woman colleague, Charlotte Guyman, who felt the same. “It’s not O.K. for women to cry at work, but it’s O.K. for men to yell at work?” Guyman once asked. With other women employees, they began to create oases in Microsoft where courtesy was not seen as a sign of weakness. A critical mass of women employees helped civilize the company.

    “We’re quick to criticize gender injustice when we see it around the world,” Melinda observes. “We also need to see it where most of us feel it and can do something about it — in the places where we work.”

    So there you have it – we have “no moral authority” to criticize sex trafficking, acid attacks, women burned to death for reporting groping, etc., …while there are still argumentative and competitive work cultures here, or men don’t drive their kids to school, etc.


    And that’s Melinda Gates, not some loony academic.

    Would she say we have no moral authority to try and prevent wars and genocide elsewhere, until no one ever screams at each other in their homes?

    Or we shouldn’t try to cure cancer or malaria until we have cured the common cold first?

    • jakesbrain says

      Or we shouldn’t bother going to outer space until all our problems down on Earth are solved. Never mind that, for all we know, possible solutions to our problems may lie out in the solar system.

  35. Lyk2Bike says

    “…Western feminists who are so eager to prove that they are not racist that they are prepared to ignore all manner of abuses perpetrated against Muslim women by Muslim men.”

    “Muslim” is not a race. And if one who points out the shortcomings of Muslims is called racist, rebut with that statement and call your accuser out for their ignorance.

  36. TheSnark says

    Feminism, like any other movement, will concern itself with the issues that affect its “customers”, who are primarily well-off white women (remember your Business 101: customers are those pay for the product). They are the ones keep the movement in business by going to academic meetings, writing for the press, and, most important, donating to the cause. And the day-to-day issues affecting its well-off white women are not the same as the issues affecting poor brown or black women in far-off countries. These poor women do not go to academic meetings, they don’t donate to the cause, and they don’t write for the press. They are not the customers.

    This is similar to the environmentalists decrying the decay of the Great Barrier reef, (next to a popular, well-off, white country where people will donate to the cause), while ignoring the intentional, massive environmental destruction of the South China Sea (by the Chinese military, mostly affecting the local non-white fishermen, neither of whom are good targets for fund raising).

    While the Great Barrier Reef and discrimination against women in the West are both issues worth addressing, please spare me the holier-than-thou attitude.

  37. Strawberry Girl says

    In all fairness to Tommy Robinson, most First World Problems Feminists don’t really talk about violence against women either or thinks it means “saying something I don’t like on the internet.” I read in Vogue about a “millennial feminist,” a wealthy well-connected young woman with celebrity friends, who set up a women-only networking club with a hefty $2500 a month membership fee. Yeah, fight the power!

  38. Strategy King says

    You all have missed the point.

    What passes for feminism at the sites mentioned in the article is a giant shit test set up waspy-jewish white women for white men.

    What does a Bangladeshi woman have to do with this shit test? Nothing and so she is not noticed.

  39. Saw file says

    TY for this article.
    To anybody following such, none of this is surprising. And the “blind spot” is simply willfull ideological myopathy.

  40. This is a intersectionality contradiction. In the intersectional world, all persons of color are oppressed by white people. Women are oppressed, so women of color get 2 oppression badges. The difficulty comes in when an oppression badge is cancelled by another oppression badge. Identity SJWs cannot think, and they have great difficulty reconciling that situation. Someone is being oppressed, but who? There are no moral pillars in SJW thinking, just the logic of oppression. So they are paralyzed with indecision. Pathetic, really.

  41. Sydney says

    Case in point: ‘Daily Mail’ contributor and liberal, Piers Morgan, pens column on 9 May wherein he’s ‘deeply offended’ on behalf of ‘Muslim women everywhere’ after pop star Madonna wears a burka in an airport.


    Nobody in the West should be defending burkas or face coverings as sacred symbols, or as anything but the oppressive tools of misogyny that they are. Misguided numbskull Piers Morgan falls into the trap of every SJW feminist by his pearl-clutching.

  42. Jacqueline says

    Tommy Robinson did not exploit the situation with the grooming gangs. He brought it to light despite being persecuted for it. Aside from that, this is an excellent article.

    • Amin says

      @ Jacqueline

      How did he bring it to light? He had nothing to do with that at all… he is a well known thug. He has been a thug all your life.

  43. Pingback: Feminism’s Blind Spot: the Abuse of Women by Non-White Men, Particularly Muslims | 3 Quarks Daily

  44. Pingback: Pakistan: where the daily slaughter of women barely makes the news | 3 Quarks Daily

  45. harrison wintergreen says

    One of MANY blind spots in feminism. They tend to start with their preconceptions and reject any evidence that contradicts the model.

    Other blind spots include:

    Blind to the fact that most child abuse and neglect is committed by women, even after adjusting for the greater number of female caretakers and single mothers.
    Blind to the roughly equal amounts of domestic violence committed by women. (about a quarter of men in India report being victims of their wife/parter’s abuse; Kumar, A. (2012). Domestic violence against men in India: A Perspective. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 22, 290-296.)
    Blind to the roughly equal amounts of psychological aggression or emotional abuse committed by women.
    Blind to the reasons behind the gender pay gap (different choices by men and women)

  46. Alan says

    Dear Louise
    There is more than “a grain of truth” in Tommy Robinson’s position. The absolute disgrace that what mainstream media call “reporting” needs to be recognized and called out, so that abuse against women can be recognized and dealt with, with integrity and UK laws.

  47. Dori Orwig Fisher says

    OUTSTANDING article! Thank you.

  48. Jeremy Ashford says

    As a New Zealander I have had difficulty with Jacinda Ardern wearing the hijab and have spoken against it. (As an aside, my very mild comments have left me with a grafittied house, which the police have no interest in investigating, even though I consider the act to be a hate crime.)
    The situation is made more interesting by how Ardern wore her hijab. It is my understanding that the pupose of the hijab is to conceal the hair of a woman, which should only be seen by her husband. Why then did Ardern expose her hair at the front in an obvious manner?
    Is this hijab as fashion accessory?
    Then I spotted a photograph of women wearing their hijab in the same manner as Ardern. On reading the accompanying text I saw that the women were in Iran.
    Is this manner of hijab-wearing a subversive act?

  49. Hestia says

    Thank you for this article! I did find that the vagina hat demonstration was the most hypocritical and stupid affair ever to take place in America. American women only know how to recite their anti-Trump platitudes.

  50. Allison says

    Feminism also celebrates indigenous cultures unquestionably. They are able to ignore the abuse of women in the middle east by saying this is part of their ancient cultural heritage. These traditions are sacred and can’t be touched. Modern feminism only strives to take down white European patriarchy. That’s a much safer target to attack yet still be called heroic and brave. There was an excellent article about this many years ago in a New York City newspaper not too long after Jay Leno’s wife, Mavis, started protesting the treatment of women in Afghanistan. She got very little support from feminists compared to say, the support they gave the “me too” movement.

  51. Feminists want to help women who are abused by Islam by making them feel welcome in our society. These women are abused either by forcing them to wear a hijab or burka or niqab, or by brainwashing them into thinking that it’s good for them, it makes them pure in the eyes of their imaginary god.

    By doing so, feminists are siding with the abusers, facilitating their task of forcing a hijab/burka/niqab on these women.

  52. It is pretty damn sad that there is such a white man colonial mindset in Quillette, including from Louise Perry; that they can’t seem to grasp a simple reality: That maybe a lot of the feminists in the middle East don’t want help from Western Feminists. To paraphrase someone on Reddit: “As someone who lives in an African country I’d really prefer it if Western feminists who don’t understand the culture would stay home and fix their own issues instead of coming in and trying to tell us how to do things.

    I work with a feminist organisation and some of our programmes suffered severe backlash when an American feminist came over and started pushing an agenda of her own. I am very sure that she wanted to help – but she didn’t listen! It has taken us 3 years get to the men in this specific community to listen to us again.”

    This also reeks of gaslighting; your effectively telling Western women to shut up because they don’t do anything to help women in other countries, in particular Muslim majority countries, which, A) Feminism is not a religion, and aren’t misisonaries. B) Do you even realize how asinine this concept is? It’s like telling Libertarians to basically stop whining about the government because people in other nations have it much worse. And C) To paraphrase with the Reddit comment I showed: Do you even realize how unwelcome Western Feminists would be in the Middle East? If they can even get in, they are likely going to receive so much harrassment and much more threats of violence.

    It’s also a sad display of ignorance, as if it implies there is little to no feminists in the Middle East, which is remotely untrue.

  53. Malek al Kuffar says

    What’s this crap about Mohammedans not being white? Gimme a break! Look at the portrait of Mohammed Ali, the Khedive of Egypt, and tell me if he doesn’t have the same milky complexion as Robert E. Lee. Had the same attitude toward black slaves, too.
    This whole “people of color” construct is phony like hell. It’s a transparent gambit designed so that Muslims can masquerade as being non-white regardless of the color of their respective skins, and consequently pretend to be downtrodden victims of western imperialism. Of course they WERE downtrodden victims of western imperialism, but just for a century or two, whereas for many centuries vast swathes of southern and eastern Europe were colonies of Mohammedan empires. Furthermore the Arabs were running their own slave trade in Africa for centuries before the Europeans cottoned onto the idea. And they enslaved Europeans too. In 1627 Algerian corsairs swooped down on Iceland and sailed off with a coupla hundred Icelandic captives that they flogged on the Algiers slave market.

  54. Scott Bolland says

    I never get tired of reading learned articles about ‘strains’ of Islam, which let’s the actual ideology off the hook, along with smearing disagreement with it with the label ‘far-right. Useful idiots everywhere.

  55. Jokuvaan says

    Its simple.
    Intersectional feminists consider any damage caused by muslim men to be acceptable acceptable collateral damage.
    Heck feminists literally were more upset by a sexist T-shirt than women being sold as sex slaves on a market.

    Defending women’s rights is no longer the primary objective of feminism.

Comments are closed.