Radical feminists and Islamists are a lot alike.
Oh, come now. Don’t look so shocked. You know you’ve thought so too.
I verbalize this because someone must. It’s said with the same mix of trepidation and embarrassment you might feel seeing your friend come out of the washroom at a bar with a toilet paper tail. It’s awkward but isn’t it better to let them know?
And before anyone’s knickers get any knottier, note I’m comparing feminists to Islamists, not Jihadists. Both factions want to establish a world-wide caliphate but differ in their tactics. Islamists engage in “political discourse,” while Jihadists engage in “physical dismemberment.” More hands on (or off, if you will.)
Jihadis are impatient vigilantes who will use guns, grenades, bombs, rusty knives, machetes, whatever is at hand to eliminate dirty kuffars but Islamists use their words and feign hurt feelings, just like feminists.
Now that it’s clear that I’m not saying radical feminists are like bloodthirsty ISIS jihadis, let’s talk about how they are like Islamists.
Both share an intense narcissism of the kind that makes them arrogant and weak at the same time.
Both employ passive/aggressive techniques to disguise themselves as vulnerable victims as opposed to the cut throat psychological warriors they are.
Both will use their ostensible victim status either as a shield or a sword, depending on what gets results.
To remain a member in good standing of either group requires strict adherence to a rigid orthodoxy. No deviating here or there!
They both dress funny.
Both hate Christian, white, males with equal vehemence and Islamists totally agree with feminists that women in the west should be permitted to abort their babies as easily and often as possible.
Both have a strong “end justifies the means” attitude thus allowing them to work together. This bizarre coupling is a real head scratcher and shows the limitations of the term “Politics makes strange bedfellows” for capturing how twisted some politically convenient alignments can be. They’ll collaborate to destroy their common enemy and leave the pesky details of what to do with each other for later.
They think they’re right about everything, an easy claim since neither group accepts the idea of an “objective truth” from which to judge rightness. In the face of irrefutable evidence that might suggest continuing to believe something would make one delusional, they’ll maintain the lie.
And now that everything can be made “fluid” simply by putting the word “trans” in front of it, as in “transgender” and “transracial”, soon we’ll be able to add “species” to the list. Oh wait, South Park already did that ten years ago when Kyle’s dad got a dolphinoplasty so he’d resemble on the outside the dolphin he felt he was on the inside, this after Kyle got a “negroplasty” so he’d resemble the tall, black basketball player he wanted to be, both were inspired to alter themselves cosmetically after Mr. Garrison got a fancy new vagina. Sound familiar? That slope is as slippery as a dolphin’s skin or a woman’s, well, never mind.
Both also lack a sense of humour. Irony? Satire? Lampooning? Sarcasm? NOT FUNNY! If you’re looking for someone to have a few yuk’s with, look elsewhere unless you can follow this simple rule about acceptable humour; as long as you’re “punching up”, (i.e. target is either a white man and/or a conservative of any race or gender) you can say whatever you want and they’ll think it’s hilarious. See incestuous, child molester Lena Dunham, for example.
Their motivation for activism begins with a grievance which they’ll cling to at all costs.
Not content to suffer their identity crises alone, all must suffer with them in a “mi crisis es su crisis” kind of way.
Complain, complain, complain. Statistics from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission show more complaints filed by Muslims than any other religious group and I suspect we’d see the same propensity for complaints from women as compared to men.
Both tread a fine line between using victimhood to gain political advantage while simultaneously asserting their superiority. Some might be tempted to ask, “Which is it ladies and gents? Are you oppressed, delicate flowers or superior human beings?” Don’t bother asking.
Both prey on and use damaged people when recruiting soldiers for the cause. Well-balanced, functioning individuals can’t be turned into screaming banshees or murderous jihadists.
Both are capable of using similar situations to point to opposite conclusions as required for a political win. For Marc Lepine - aka Gamil Gharbi - it was useful that he be considered sane and lucid rather than a disordered loser. His murderous rampage stood as evidence of widespread misogyny, thus impugning half the population for over 25 years and counting, whereas with Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, the opposite was required. His murderous behavior did NOT stem from the violent ideology he followed but was due to mental illness, paving the way for the useful “Lone Wolf” nomenclature.
Both know how to use guilt to immobilize their opposition. Having successfully convinced us of our white and/or male privilege, we self-censor and take ourselves out for them after being conditioned to take the high road so they could claim the low road unchallenged and come out ahead.
We’ve been had, folks. In a condescending gesture of showing kindness to emotional retards, we’ve allowed the bar of acceptable behavior to sink ever lower so that the lunatics are indeed running the asylum.
If you’re an otherwise sane person finding yourself the least bit tempted to buy the narrative of historical oppression, find your backbone before it’s too late and remember how often the bullied become the bullies, because in the case of feminists and Islamists, the transformation is nearly complete.
Follow The Megaphone on Twitter.
JOIN TheRebel.media for more news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.