GirlWritesWhat: Were women historically oppressed? Are they now, in developing countries?

Yet another outstanding video from GWW:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/video/when-female-privilege-backfires/

In the course of the piece, GWW refers to a young British Muslim woman, Zara Faris. We put up a post about this admirable woman some months ago:

http://j4mb.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/zara-faris-debunks-feminism/

About these ads

About mikebuchanan1957

I'm a British writer, publisher, and men's human rights advocate ('MHRA'). Formerly a business executive (1979-2010), my primary focus is leading a political party, Justice for men & boys (and the women who love them) http://j4mb.wordpress.com. We've launched a consultation exercise to help us develop a manifesto for the 2015 general election, at which we plan to contest a number of seats. I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business http://c4mb.wordpress.com and Anti-Feminism League http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to GirlWritesWhat: Were women historically oppressed? Are they now, in developing countries?

  1. Nick diPerna says:

    Insightful presentation, GirlWritesWhat says:

    “What feminism seems to be about, is expanding women’s rights without applying any obligations. And expanding women’s entitlements while freeing them from the restrictions and obligations that used to be necessary (on women’s part), for men to be able to fulfil them.

    They are about giving women the advantages of being a man, without any of the costs. And about removing the costs of being a woman, without giving up any of the advantages.”

  2. Pingback: Good news. Saudi Arabia outlaws physical and sexual abuse of women. Physical and sexual abuse of men remains legally acceptable. |

  3. Pingback: Are female converts to Islam part of a new wave of feminism? |

  4. nrjnigel says:

    Taking a historical view. Mary Wolstancroft like her contemporaries expected equity to be both in opportunity and obligation. Rights and Responsibilities were seen as completely linked. Mary W. had little patience for “silly creatures” her descriptions being much the same as “entitlement princesses” and “genetic celebrity” . Of course in a way the rot set in with mid Victorian ideas of female fragility with laws against women working and having debt actually being lobbied for by women’s groups appaled by the idea of women doing dangerous jobs or going to debtors prison. A century later women’s groups lobbied for their repeal and ” women’s” rights but now infected with a heresy of Marxism the rights weren’t now linked to responsibility. The paradox is of course that Mary would find a legion of her silly creatures . Certainly she’d have been aghast at educated doctors leaving practice or being part time having taken the privilege of training and education.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s