June 18, 2015

Feminists and Islamists: Strange bedfellows or natural allies?

Mary Lou AmbrogioRebel Blogger

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.

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-12-22 11:35:36 -0500
Secular radical feminism is not Feminism…it is a radical group that does fit this picture above but it is not the majority of Feminists. It is sad when there are feminists out there who bear NO resemblance to these women at all who are categorically denied a hearing by conservatives (while belonging to the conservative ideology, by the way) because of bigoted reports like this that dump all women into a pot and burn them alive…sorry…especially sorry that conservatives have so little DISCERNMENT about the continuing need for feminist ideology that simply seeks equal treatment for women. Sad also that many here are willing to use radical SECULAR feminists as an excuse to vent their anti-woman feelings of disgust and hatred on any woman who has experienced discrimination and ill-treatment.
“redefining Feminism to describe only radical secular feminists will backfire on Conservatism”…to borrow from Elizabeth King…
commented 2015-08-22 15:25:34 -0400
Joan Abernethy said: “The core value of feminism is gender equity”
Right! How many first-wave (or second-wave) feminists protested gender inequities in nursing? coal mining? military conscription?
While I agree that it is unjust to conflate first-wave feminism with third-wave feminism, neither has ever been a movement devoted to equity. At its best it was concerned with equality where women are disadvantaged and unconcerned where women are advantaged.
commented 2015-07-08 19:04:56 -0400
Great article Mary Lou! I know when the Jihadapocalypse comes and it’s dangerous to go out my wife will go hunting for our food in her burka like a good wife should. After all I believe in equality for the sexes. I can just dress up in my islamic pajaymas and lie around doing nothing in particular like the rest of the lazy islamists. Who knows maybe I’d help butcher the neighbor like a good jihadi would do. I certainly hope my wife could carry back that carcass of that big fat guy down the street. If she does there’d be some good eatin for us men as we allow our burka clad women to feel the same rights we had when we were an intolerant white society. As for the feminists I’d have them fixing up the old car or cleaning out the stables. If they’re not married, they have to pull their weight like a good man used to do.
commented 2015-06-28 05:33:29 -0400
Bill, Liza, Deborah, and everyone else who liked Mary Lou’s article, your voices are invaluable. Joan, thank you for your views, but most especially for holding back on the name-calling. It’s refreshing.
commented 2015-06-28 05:28:23 -0400
Mary Lou, nice to see you again, and fantastic article!!! I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Joan… ugh. I really didn’t appreciate being blindly guided to a gore/snuff video site by innocently clicking on the link you posted. I usually click on such links because I want to try to understand the point other commenters are making, but this just goes too far. I’ve flagged the your comment containing the link, and I trust therebel.media moderators will remove it in due course. This isn’t like showing the Danish Mohammed cartoons, this is real life, sick, twisted shit, and doesn’t make any point or serve any interest other than your own, obviously sociopathic need to disturb people for your own enjoyment.
I believe we’ve been down this road before, Joan. Do you really think Mary Lou “conflated feminists with ‘radical feminists’ […] Kind of like confusing Islamists with jihadis”? She clearly distinguished between Islamists and Jihadists before proceeding with her comparison, and I think her argument is valid. You insist on believing that feminism as it exists today is still some sort of pure, egalitarian philosophy, but it’s not. If anything, “radical” feminists, as you call them, are merely one of many iterations that exist today, borne of an ideology that was solely concerned with female-supremacism right from the start. You may not ascribe to the supremacy bit, but that’s what the term feminism means.
Dictionary definitions of feminism that focus on equality belie the fact that “feminism” is at its core a sexist ideology. If it’s even addressed at all, the sexist element is justified — as we are told — because of our inherently “patriarchal” society, in which men are — even today — automatically afforded a superior position. Self-described feminists like you just love to use this bit of flawed logic to dismiss the obvious of sexism and male discrimination.
I believe you, to the extent that I think feminism has been co-opted and hijacked by other groups with their own agendas. But if you are prepared to acknowledge that, you should also be able to admit that feminism does not mean the same thing to everyone else that you think it does, or that you think it should mean.
I can at least agree with your final statement: “I abhor violence. I abhor Islamism. I love equity. I love freedom. I love men”, right up until you said “I am a feminist”, and posted that disgusting link. I’m already well aware of how women are mistreated by Islamist and Jihadist males, thank you, but just because women have few if any rights in such societies, doesn’t mean that western women are still similarly situated, as you constantly imply.
That said, I suspect it won’t be long before some Muslim group or association in Canada files a human rights complaint against the “slut walk”, for example. Aside from using religion to claim victim status as a means of limiting the rights of others on the basis of gender, an Islamist tactic Mary Lou describes which I vehemently oppose, getting rid of “slut walk” might actually be a boon for the cause of so-called “real” feminism, as defined by Joan.

Come on. All you women out there… Are we really no more than victims of a male-dominated society, incapable of personal agency and self-definition, or are we WOMEN?

P.S. “Hear us roar” can only be true if we women acknowledge that they have a choice in what defines them, and accept responsibility for our own actions instead of letting “feminists” cast us in the role of perpetual victim, by making us feel guilty for going against “our own”.
commented 2015-06-24 09:56:00 -0400
“They both dress funny.” Ha! That they do.

And I agree about the seemingly obvious hatred for men, at least white men, that characterizes both groups. Additionally, I believe it to be fairly evident that Islam is misogynist (under sharia, for example, four male witnesses are required to prove rape, a woman’s testimony counts for half that of a male’s in court, etc.) but I wonder too sometimes how much some of the more … extreme … feminists actually care about women in general. They don’t seem to give a hoot for those Muslim women forced to enter into (often incestuous/ cousin) marriages or to undergo FGM. They consider the suffering of Muslim women a sacrifice to a higher purpose, I suppose.
commented 2015-06-22 11:38:19 -0400
Joan – Really! And your point is???

Mary Lou – Excellent summarization of feminist comparity to Islamist ideology! I couldn’t agree more.
Bill Elder – You are bang on!
commented 2015-06-22 09:32:13 -0400
Clear and real, no bobbly gook! Truth takes few words, deceit takes volumes.
commented 2015-06-21 04:25:17 -0400
Notice how each- according to their ability will dissect you at their leisure .
commented 2015-06-21 03:54:20 -0400
You are indeed a LADY—-Mary Lou Enjoy the wisdom of the comments Below——
commented 2015-06-20 20:36:36 -0400
Just to be clear, I’m talking about Joan Abernathy’s attempt to shock ( below)
commented 2015-06-20 17:49:58 -0400
I didn’t need to watch any of the ‘beheading" YouTubes to to be horrified, just knowing of its existence is enough for most people. Anyone who willingly watches beheadings and other atrocities taking place on videos who doesn’t have to, say for reporting purposes , is sick. That’s some passive, aggressive convoluted bullying tactic right there.
commented 2015-06-20 16:35:55 -0400
Be aware. Jihadists and Islamists are one and the same. Jihad is just a, bloodthirsty show, organized by Islam, designed to scare you. They want you to think, Good Guy, Bad Guy. Do not let them fool you. Any Muslim will do what His/Her Imam says, or loose an arm or a leg. They can become an instant Jihadist at the whim of some, so called, religious leader.
commented 2015-06-19 12:19:44 -0400
Bill Elder – Excellent summary of feminism! Your description of modern day feminism is bang on. I am so glad that my daughter is not one of these narcissistic psychopaths! My daughter wants to be a mother and raise a family and have the white picket fence, etc. These modern feminists want women to throw away our sexuality, and trash anything that is of traditional value to every day normal women.
commented 2015-06-19 07:58:54 -0400
For the most part so called “Feminism”, as practiced on campus, has devolved into pathologically maladjusted foul mouthed brats taking tantrums in public over issues of no benefit or social relevance to women or society. Simply a way for neurotic damaged individuals to vent personal rage at their arrested development and blame society for their personal stagnancy – a neurotic outgrowth of the millennial “selfie” movement.

At a leadership and political level Feminism has been high jacked by cultural Marxists who run gender identity pogroms and make alliances with any faction which will destabilize or damage western culture and its institutions. They are relatively transparent, their motives base, their ideology anti-intellectual. There is no redeeming social value here and the only reason they even attract media exposure at all is due to ideological symbiosis with the cultural Marxist makeup of the MSM editorial cadre.
commented 2015-06-19 05:26:30 -0400
Hello Mary Lou, goodbye heart.
Joan: if what you say is true, feminists should change their name to equitists. The bargain between men and women has been equitable throughout history, as alluded to by LLRFU. When the Islamists come to cover your femininity from head to toe, you will be defended by men who will accept the risk as part of their tacit bargain with women, as Bravo Zulu suggested. If contraception, machines and cheap energy disappeared overnight, the current bargain between the sexes would revert to yesteryear’s, in short order, and you would be glad it does. You’ve got a brand new pair of roller skates. I’ve got a brand new key. That’s equity, too. Some people confuse reasoning with remembering the talking points of political rhetoric.
commented 2015-06-19 00:28:05 -0400
You’ve conflated feminists with “radical feminists”. Kind of like confusing Islamists with jihadis.

Feminists do not hate men of any colour. The core value of feminism is gender equity. You know, equality under the law like the Constitution Act of Canada guarantees.

But I know, I know. You meant to say " radical feminists", right? Or, as they call themselves, “third wave feminists”. Except that, by definition, this small and marginal group of men and women is not at all feminist. They are crows, feminist snatchers, if you will. Imposters.

And they just love it when misogynists take up their cause and conflate their fraud with feminism.

Third wave or tadical feminists value not equity but the supremacy of gay rights and of brown rights. Think about that. How can feminism be about race? That’s right, it can’t. And it isn’t.

And it sure as hell isn’t about supremacy. Figure it out. Feminism is defined by its core vslue of gender equity. Therefore any group, regardless what they csll themselves, that has as its core value supremacy of any kind is not, by definition, feminism.

These imposters love it when misogynists take up their cause of supremacy and use it to condemn all women who fight for gender equity. Kind of like how Islamists love it when leftists defend them.

But I know I’m addressing an audience that won’t listen to reason. Elsewhere on this site, one person said the ISIS atrocities are acceptable if they silence reasoned views like the one I posted here. Actually, the view this person wanted to silence with a knife/fire/a gun/a bomb was a protest of how Islamists and jihadis (they do overlap) treat women and how that threatens gender equity in the west. And none of the other posters disagreed. So, as this story will be read by most of the same people, I expect my reasoned points to fall on deaf ears and illicit nothing but hateful condemnation.

But that doesn’t bother me. I no longer read what other people write in response to these stories. I would only do that if I felt therebel.media could offer me some society, you know, as in social media. But I want nothing to do with rebel jihadis who think wielding knives to slice the throats of those with whom they disagree is just tickedy boo.

I abhor violence. I abhor Islamism. I love equity. I love freedom. I love men. I am a feminist.
commented 2015-06-18 23:45:47 -0400
We all noticed it, but Mary Lou has done a great job wrapping it in a tidy bow for us. It simply boggles the mind that feminists would be so short-sighted. So they actually think, that getting rid of all White Males will solve all their problems, with zero thought as to what they’d be facing should they ever succeed. This all stems for “women’s studies” in school. The question becomes, what to do about it? How do you stop it? Some will say it’s a Freedom of Speech issue and there’s nothing you can do. I disagree. Professors are in a position of trust, and as such, they have a Fiduciary Duty, a Duty of Care. They have an obligation to the truth, and the truth is, if it wasn’t for men, women wouldn’t have any rights at all. It was men that brought about Human Rights. Men, contrary to what feminists teach, did not “have rights all along”. If you read the book; Why Nations Fail, the authors teach us, that once you start an institution, it spreads, and speeds up. Men had to fight for rights too. It started with a few Noblemen, then landowners only, then sons of landowners, then all men. And they didn’t have “full rights” from the get go either. Rights increased over time. Where it took men 1,000 yrs to gain full rights, it only took women 150 yrs, gays 25yrs, and trans will be 10-15yrs. It was male judges that upheld women’s rights when they finally got to court, not women. For the uni’s to teach anything else, is a Breach of Trust, and it’s time we the public started laying private charges (societies safety valve) against those that mislead.
commented 2015-06-18 23:26:10 -0400
Allah is married to Gaia the man hating Earth Goddess just as the Liberal Party is married to radical feminism. Good article. It is about time this sort of writing stopped being something you had to search for in obscure places.
commented 2015-06-18 23:08:20 -0400
Feminazis and ’slamics.

When the ’slamics come calling the feminazis will be looking for men to protect them.

Unfortunately most of those modern men will be getting their nails done and their hair coloured.

When you see what a ’slamic stoning looks like (I did two clean ups and if we had arrived in time I think – know – there would have been some shooting) you can truly appreciate what they think of women.

Your nice, friendly, quiet and well dressed ’slamic neighbour will be happy to introduce the feminazis to ’slam once the population numbers are high enough.

You will definitely NOT like the way he does it – as the population grows, the waiting is almost over – and he can hardly wait to do it.

It is coming.
commented 2015-06-18 21:25:14 -0400
And then address this article. Do you agree with Mary lou? Or are third wave fems your masters.
commented 2015-06-18 21:23:55 -0400
wow, it looks like this troll is going to be a carbon copy of the last one, and the last one, and the last one. Do you actually have anything to contribute Bob Dewey? Can you tell us what would be good about Justin or Tom getting into power? Be specific, please.
commented 2015-06-18 21:04:36 -0400
wow this new site is just like the old Sun News Network … sadly they failed …
commented 2015-06-18 19:21:28 -0400
One of the best articles I had read in a long time, will be looking for more
commented 2015-06-18 18:17:54 -0400
All of the lefties are united in hate against anything that isn’t a collective with some manufactured reason for whining about their lot.
commented 2015-06-18 15:58:00 -0400
Both bullies.
commented 2015-06-18 15:47:31 -0400
Mary Lou, you hit the nail on the head. Well done! And yes, the parallels were becoming ever apparent. You have made sense of it for me, laid it out on the table. I could not agree with you more. Let the outrage begin!
commented 2015-06-18 15:15:22 -0400
“Maybe if the feminists opened there eyes the would see the atrocities that are committed against women.” They ain’t seen nothing until Shariah gets hold, and then it will be too late. “Religion of Peace” Peace of the grave,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,