The level of pro-Iranian indoctrination I have read in part here in the comments is truly mind-boggling. There are a few things such people should know, if they hsd the wherewithal to give themselves the trouble. The Shi’ite branch of Islam, which has flourished as the official religion of the Islamic Republic of Iran under the various ayatollahs for the last half century, believes in the return of the so-called Twelfth Imam, who is descended from Mohammed’s son-in-law Ali ibn Abni Talib. Talib was the fourth caliph assassinated in 661 in a succession war, after which the split between Sunnis and Shi’ites eventually became permanent. According to the traditions of Twelver Shi’ism, the twelfth of these Imams, a boy of five years old, disappeared under mysterious and disputed circumstances in the year 874 – but remained alive. Though communicating with the world through various agents, he entered the state of “occultation” in 941, promising to return when the time would be propitious.
The reigning authority on Twelver Shi’ism is the historian Emmanuel Sivan, who in his magisterial volume on the subject, Radical Islam: Medieval Theology and Modern Politics, warned that an integral part of Shi’a Islam’s belief and thought involves the initiating of a planetary conflagration. This belief system posits that Allah’s kingdom will be established on earth by the Twelfth or Hidden Imam, also known as the Mahdi, whose advent can be hastened by creating the right set of circumstances: friction and misunderstanding among the nations and violent upheavals in a welter of blood and fire. The nuclear option is Iran’s favored methodology to bring this about.
Incredulous westerners who would pass this off as merely a quaint belief to be taken with a grain of salt, or indeed with a whole salt shaker, should reconsider. Sivan spends many pages describing and analyzing the Shi’ite vision of an “ideal, legitimate state to be instituted by its leader, the Hidden Imam.” Over the course of history, he writes, a “minority of Shi’ites, quite substantial and dangerous at times, would move from pessimistic idealism to an optimistic brand of the same approach—the imam’s arrival is imminent, Allah’s kingdom is bound to be brought upon earth by this messiah (mahdi), and one should help precipitate its descent by armed revolt.” The Mahdi’s arrival has, indeed, been eagerly anticipated. Ahmadinejad even widened a street in Tehran to celebrate his arrival. Westerners who do not understand this are part of a naïve and uniformed multitude who have failed to meet the challenge of both a comparatively free society—their own—and a despotic and violent society like Twelver Iran. Their myopia is a stunning as their self-righteousness. If they won’t read Sivan, they should at least try Azar Nafisi’s Reading Lolita in Tehran. They might actually learn something.
Well speech that would fit better in a thological study.
But you pick the cherries you like best.
Meanwhile Israeli and US officials don´t mind talking openly about Armagedon and that they´re the chosen people that have the right to take everything from the Nile to Euphrates...you guys make up your own mind
Please don't be an imbecile. I have my information as well from several of my Iranian students, one of whom is a serious scholar targeted by the Guard that have already killed three Iranian professors in Canada and the U.S. Read Lesley Hazelton's After the Prophet: The Epic Story of the Shia-Sunni Split. She is not a Jewess or a Zionist, but a reputable historian and journalist. For a general overview, try Joan Peters From Time Immemorial and the Reverend James Parkes' rwo books on the subject. They re not Zionists. Even novelist James Parker's The 12th Imam is chock full of historical facts. He is nnot a Zionist. I could mrention another half dozen magisterial scholars. Judging from your preposterous remark, I would consider you a shameful person and a historical deadbolt.
The irony of feminism hating the West is that it is a hothouse flower that can only exist in the conditions of material prosperity, the rule of law and domestic tranquillity created by the ideas of the West. In a third world country, or a war zone, no one gives a fuck about women’s “unpaid emotional labor” or whateverthefuck.
most of the countries attacked by illiberal, regressive America's government and her allies in crime are culturally conservative, which I had not though about until the illegal invasion of Venezuela
it is a genius, brilliant, diabolical operation that America & other 1st World societies were inverted from beacons of liberty, law & order, & prosperity to purveyors of cultural & moral anarchy, like Wiemar, to be used as a different kind of weapon in the war for globalism
No one gives a fuck about women’s “unpaid emotional labor” or whateverthefuck, in countries where people still have a higher then room temperature IQ, because exactly as you note, this hothouse "flower" (more like fucking hogweed) can only exist in favorable conditions not only of material, legal and domestic matters, but in an ecosystem where people (men) are dumb enough to agree with it, put up with it, and accept this shit. Other countries don't put up with it and kill this hogweed as soon as it pops up, because feminism is exactly like hogweed. Once the seeds spread, by air, land or water, it is over. Not even burning it to the ground will help. You have to shovel the whole plant out, with all the roots. Hogweed is a plant that contaminates the ground and attacks other plants in the area, so even the left over dirt needs to be sanitized. And it seems that is (so far) exclusively the westernized dum-dumbs that don't get it. They have just accepted it and have thrown the towel in the ring, or even worse, take pride in the fact that they are "man enough" to take the abuse and BS.
This is all sadly very true....but misses one important point that motivates individual Western feminists. Western Feminists have contrived a great lie about the level of oppression and harm that Western men and society impose on them. This lie cannot stand when women who are ACTUALLY truly oppressed by societies such as Sharia law Iran are brought to light because they demonstrate that the complaints of Western feminists are mostly much ado about nothing. Western feminists cannot risk losing their throne atop the pyramid of victimhood by having to acknowledge that others actually experience REAL harms unlike the micro aggressions that women imagine they experience as part of their feminist narrative. This is why they stand against the West and in favor of the mullahs. They cannot admit that the mullahs ARE the misogynists they claim to oppose without revealing that they aren't oppressed at all.
On a different note, while it is true that men are very much victims of the Islamic Republic's policies, violations of sexual norms by men are not always punished with the same vigor as those ascribed to women. Here is an actual example from my Iranian father's life. After my mother took us children and fled to her parents home and later got a divorce, full custody of the children and restraining orders preventing our father from taking us out of New York State (he lived in Virginia) my father began searching for new wives. He had been looking for the remaining 3 wives he desired while still married to my mother, but faced the set back of losing his existing wife before successfully recruiting wives 2-4. He spent decades traveling the world trying to get the diverse portfolio of wives he sought including using mail order bride catalogs and direct solicitation of the virgin girls in his 12 to 15 preferred demographic.
While in Iran visiting he somehow met a girl in the 12-15 age group and tried to convince her to come to America as a wife using the mail order bride catalog to illustrate that "everyone" does this. The girl asked if she could keep the magazine...which she then showed to her father...who happened to be a mullah. My father was soon arrested by the religious police who had his passport and taken behind the wood shed. They were most displeased with him. He was chastised for acting like this was not "America" where our daughters are on the shelf like products in the grocery store for anyone to just pick up and take home at will. No, no....one must go the matchmaker for such transactions. My 60+ year old father was not chastised for trying to convince junior high age girls to come to America to be his wife...but for cutting out the Yenta the middle woman with the commission she no doubt would share with the religious police. Having been "corrected" by referral to the matchmaker, his actions were forgiven and he got his passport back. If you doubt that the status of women in Iran under Sharia is terrible...consider this example of how violations of Sharia law are actually enforced.
Agree 100% with your first point. I would add that, contrary to being oppressed, Western women are treated so well that they have developed clinical levels of narcissism. Narcissists go crazy when you expose them, which, to your point, is a likely reason why Western feminists avoid any comparisons with the women of Iran or such places. That would expose them as frauds.
Exactly. The irony is that Western Women...in many ways have demonstrated that some of the restrictions placed on women by Sharia law are actually based on antisocial behaviors that over-empowered feminist women tend to demonstrate rather broadly. While that does NOT justify the abuses of Sharia law, it does raise relevant points on the need for the behavior of women also to be subject to social scrutiny, censure and regulation for the good of all!
Yes! This is like a Vulcan mind-meld here. Women need patriarchy to some extent, they need the framework of a male hierarchy to contain their emotional impulses and direct them toward natural, healthy things, e.g. motherhood. We can still culturally encourage and guide women while still remaining classical liberals who recognize that some women have a male nature and really do thrive in a high-powered career.
Both men and women need social guidance to direct them away from their worst impulses. Feminists are quite willing to use that system to bully men into "behaving" but object when one suggests that the reverse may also be necessary. Indeed, the worst behavior of feminists are actually innate to women who are not restrained by civilization's influence.
Agreed, but I would go one step further and say that women are the oppressors in Western society. They are the ones intent on stripping males of rights, monopolising resources for females, and awarding themselves a privileged legal status.
Jeez, what a perfect example of the rot of cultural relativism. Your father sounds like a truly awful man, clearly grown from his culture roots. Very good points you make--
He was indeed quite awful. He was terrible as a practicing Muslim as he was more than willing to eat pork, drink alcohol and never in all his travels did he even consider going to Mecca and did not pray 5 times a day or go to the mosque for prayer. He was extremely antisemitic however, saying repeatedly that Hitler was a great man but sadly "failed" to finish the job of eliminating the Jews. As such, he loved the regime of the Ayatollahs. When asked how he could claim to be a Muslim because of his behaviors, he said because of all the religions only Islam understands the proper status of women. He was in it for the misogyny.
He was also very selfish. In another of his forays abroad seeking wives he met an Iranian woman who was already 18 (almost beyond marriageable age in his mind) and brought her to Switzerland (one could not travel directly to Iran at that time). While there they fooled around and the woman seemed too experienced to be the virgin he wanted. When he confronted her about her virginity she refused to answer him. So...he sent her back to her family. Under the regime of the Mullahs such a rejection is a huge insult to the woman's family and could easily have resulted in her death. When I asked him what happened to the woman, he said her family was in the military and very liberal so they just took her back. I hope that is the case as otherwise he would have to be considered complicity with murder!
It should be noted that virginity is so important under the mullahs that hymen restoration surgery is a big practice in Iran. Western feminists should really be required to spend a year living in such a place before speaking about the status of women in the West. Those that survived the year would be far less likely to make fools of themselves as most feminists do.
My sister was married to an Iranian. He was charming but totally untrustworthy and a liar. She managed to get away from him and he then took their children out of the country with a plan to bring them back to Iran with his latest woman. My sister managed to steal them back. He has since returned to Iran and is hopefully dead. He had many children and wives. He broke one wife's leg. Also at 70 married a teenager.
Women here in Australia and every western country take father's children away from them every day and they have the full support of our government and judiciary while doing it.
What you describe is terrible but you write about his action in attempting to take the kids back to Iran as proof of his evil character and I wonder how often you have considered the thousands of women in Australia or America who routinely take children away from their dads who eventually lose all contact.
And it seems your sister was still able to "steal" them back, Clearly he has no contact with his own kids. Regardless of his failures as a husband, I'm sure if he had succeeded in removing the children from your sister's life you would view such an act as cruel and selfish, yet no such labels are ever applied to women who do this routinely in our society.
Women often move to far off locations and even other countries and when they take the children with them they are presented as feminine superheroes rather than evil kidnappers and the dads who try to track their children and win them back are considered to be the evil ones for daring to believe a child needs a father in his or her life.
I was responding to the post by Sandredin. This happened over 50 years ago. At that time, in Ireland where we were all living, the father was the legal guardian and could take his children abroad without the consent of their mother. My sister's children did track down their father and actually helped him financially. They developed relationships with some of his (many) other children and assisted them in leaving Iran. He never supported his family and I have zero sympathy for him. Yes, I am very aware that some women abuse the court system and make false claims of abuse etc to get their own way.
I don't doubt that this individual was an arsehole. I do question the word "some" when referring to women who make false allegations in custody disputes. I would suggest the majority of women use this allegation as a weapon as they are advised to do so by their lawyers. They are already certain to get the majority of time with their kids but most want more.
In Australia, women can lie with impunity and face zero consequences even when they are proven to have lied in court. This is due to our one female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who scrapped the notion of even mild consequences for perjury as soon as she took power.
I have male friends who have had angry girlfriends take out an intervention order simply by saying they don't feel safe in the presence of X and he is immediately handed the intervention order and told if he breaks any aspect of the order by ringing his kids or attempting to see them even briefly after school he will be arrested and jailed for breaching the intervention order even when the veracity of the allegations have not even been proven.
So, men can be kept away from their biological kids on the basis of an unsubstantiated allegation. The woman is in no way obligated to prove her allegation before a court appearance which may not take place for months.
It is simply disgusting and just one of countless issues which see men repeatedly screwed by women and the legal system.
Both my sister and I do live with the scars. What is ironic is how many of those same Western feminists Janice is discussing actually aided and abetted his conduct to our, and our mother's, detriment over the years. One social worker tried to argue that we should be turned over to his custody because the children were being raised to disregard the father's culture. This social worker as not defending the rights of men...but protecting the father's "culture" from being judged....the perfect example of what Janice is talking about. Fortunately, we got a crusty old Italian judge who saw through her bullshit and rejected her recommendations!
Ironically, the greatest harm done to me results not from my father's direct influence, but from feminists who cannot accept or tolerate the perspective dealing with my father brought to how I see relations between men and women. Because I don't buy the bullshit that Western feminist peddle given my experience, I am seen as a threat to the feminist narrative and must thus be bullied and silenced to protect that narrative from the truth!
It's the old 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' thing.
The question is why a lot of women (especially white and educated) have such hatred for their own countries and culture, especially considering the West gave them what no other society in all of human history ever did.
And the West was built by white men, full stop, so they gotta hate them the most. Must be a way to feel special and superior, better than the average Joe or Jackie. Unchecked ego does have a way of distorting one's reality.
"And the West was built by white men, full stop, so they gotta hate them the most. Must be a way to feel special and superior...Unchecked ego does have a way of distorting one's reality."
That's exactly right, and it has a name. It's called ressentiment. Nietzsche wrote about it in The Genealogy of Morality. It's a psychological defense mechanism against one's own sense of weakness/inferiority/failure. The ego creates an enemy ("The Patriarchy") to insulate itself from responsibility/accountability/culpability. Everything about feminists and feminism can be understood as arising from ressentiment. It's worth studying for that reason.
Good point. Resentment is at the root of nearly every anti-Western, third-worldist, feminist, marxist, minority-racialist, omnicause, queer-alphabet, etc. etc. faction. Just listing all the permutations of resentment is exhausting.
Somehow, resentment of this kind must be disarmed. There are just too many run by it to keep a society whole.
Yes, it's always ressentiment which motivates and energizes these social justice warriors. They don't actually care about the particular groups they identify as oppressed, they only care about striking a blow against the identified common oppressor. That's why Western feminists don't care about oppressed Iranian women - the Ayatollah is not their identified oppressor. Janice puts it perfectly in her title: The Feminists Who Hate MAGA More than They Hate the Mullahs - A movement in thrall to anti-western animus.
We had a solid preview of this when the response to rape, mangling and murder of Jewish Women on 7/10 was met with doubt deferment and deafening silence from women’s groups worldwide but particularly in NA.
Feminists for Islamofascism, Gays for Gaza, Chickens for KFC: there’s only one destiny for useful idiots, once their revolution arrives. And it’s never the one they expected.
In another chapter of "you can't make this up": during the raging 1978-79 protests against the Shah the Mullahs had convinced other alienated groups to join forces- mainly the feminists and the communists, who were then "left disappointed". Chickens for KFC indeed.
A domestic example is the recent success of the Green Party in a Parliamentary election. It was the site of a lot of "family voting" https://news.sky.com/story/gorton-and-denton-by-election-cheating-claim-explained-13512738 Which is usually where the male family members instruct their female family members how to vote. It has become a thing in the UK mainly in constituencies with a large "Muslim block vote" where voting behaviour reflects what happens in Pakistan and Bangladesh. The point is the candidate was an impeccable Green feminist "she established her own business, Hannah's Household Plumbing, "after years of struggling to go self-employed". In February 2026, she also qualified as a plasterer, having been the only woman on her course."yet she and her Party Courted the Muslim and particularly anti Israeli vote. A voting block whose position on women's rights , Gay rights etc is completely the reverse of the Green Party! Even printing leaflets in Urdu that included pictures of Keir Starmer visiting Indian Prime Minister Mohdi as evidence of favouritism to Hindus and India.
Ignoring the fact that "family voting" is just one aspect of a strictly and indeed proudly "Patriarchal" culture the Greens were perfectly happy to exploit it for their gain and used sectarian divides Gaza and the Indian subcontinent to get Hannah feminist poster girl elected.
Years ago I noticed that any Guardian (lefty MSM here) concern about Girls schooling in Afghanistan or FGM in Kenya always posited things like more female CEOs in Companies in London as the solution and other such almost comical links. Clearly indicating that their chief reason for apparent concern is in fact as an excuse to go on about their "first world" issues.
Yet again, we can not avoid the conclusion that feminism has little or nothing to do with advancing womens' status; it has as its goal only the denigration of men. Feminists hatred of men is what undergirds their so-called philosophy. Just as islamic jihadis are only too ready to blow up the house they live in if it only kills some infidels who happen to also live there, feminists are ready to destroy their civilization as long as it destroys the hated men who inhabit it as well.
The hatred conjured up for an ex-husband or disappointing father figure is a hatred that burns for a lifetime. It warms the feminist's soul like a fusion reactor. I have a pet theory about Trump - and Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) around an obviously moderate/flexible Republican, but one with a sharp tongue - that goes like this: Trump is wealthy, happy, scathingly funny and with a 3rd wife; just think of how enraged, motivated, and distant his first and second wives must be; the worst TDS sufferers in the US seem to be white, liberal divorcées or old maids, women who were either wronged by an ex-husband or dumped by ex-boyfriends. They burn with the resentment of angry, deranged ex-wives of "happily liberated" ex-husbands everywhere. They are all, in a sense, "Trump's bitter ex-wives."
Agreed. "I hate my daddy" is the singularly most significant and universally shared feature of the pathology that calls itself "feminism." Your theory about the reaction of these shrieking harridans to Donald Trump is undeniably true. I will posthumously add it to Rush Limbaugh's list of "Thirty-five Undeniable Truths of Life."
Not so far away here in the UK. I won't bore Canadians with the detail but in the UK there are towns and boroughs where the the mullahs hold sway. See my comment above. We have 5 "independent" Members of Parliament voted in by "family voting" on a Gaza/Islam ticket and many other constituencies where the Muslim block vote is vital to the incumbent Labour MP.
Watching Western feminists praise the Iranian mullahs (over Trump and Israel) is like watching little lambs praise the man behind the counter at the butcher shop. If they took two steps through the swinging doors behind that counter, they'd be cut to pieces.
The sexual torture of boys and men has been a staple of conflicts throughout history and pederasty is one of the world's dirtiest little secrets. Nobody is innocent.
Soon it became forbidden for feminists to admit that white men had created freer and better societies, including better for women, than existed in other parts of the world.
It's always amusing to watch women gather and scream out against the American government and white men, when if they were doing their protest anywhere in Africa or the Middle East, they'd be arrested and beaten. Gay people would be gathered up and thrown from the tops of buildings.
Right. White men are the worst evil in the world.
I'd like to see them try to live in the middle east without losing their minds.
Aside from being the worst evil in the world white men also seem to be the most preferred mates in interracial coupling. And white societies are the preferred destinations for immigrants. The uncomfortable truths of revealed preference.
Perhaps the title should read, "The Feminists Who Hate MAGA More than They Love the Mullahs"
Are you familiar with the old joke regarding the difference between like and love?
People don't kill people they like.
The level of pro-Iranian indoctrination I have read in part here in the comments is truly mind-boggling. There are a few things such people should know, if they hsd the wherewithal to give themselves the trouble. The Shi’ite branch of Islam, which has flourished as the official religion of the Islamic Republic of Iran under the various ayatollahs for the last half century, believes in the return of the so-called Twelfth Imam, who is descended from Mohammed’s son-in-law Ali ibn Abni Talib. Talib was the fourth caliph assassinated in 661 in a succession war, after which the split between Sunnis and Shi’ites eventually became permanent. According to the traditions of Twelver Shi’ism, the twelfth of these Imams, a boy of five years old, disappeared under mysterious and disputed circumstances in the year 874 – but remained alive. Though communicating with the world through various agents, he entered the state of “occultation” in 941, promising to return when the time would be propitious.
The reigning authority on Twelver Shi’ism is the historian Emmanuel Sivan, who in his magisterial volume on the subject, Radical Islam: Medieval Theology and Modern Politics, warned that an integral part of Shi’a Islam’s belief and thought involves the initiating of a planetary conflagration. This belief system posits that Allah’s kingdom will be established on earth by the Twelfth or Hidden Imam, also known as the Mahdi, whose advent can be hastened by creating the right set of circumstances: friction and misunderstanding among the nations and violent upheavals in a welter of blood and fire. The nuclear option is Iran’s favored methodology to bring this about.
Incredulous westerners who would pass this off as merely a quaint belief to be taken with a grain of salt, or indeed with a whole salt shaker, should reconsider. Sivan spends many pages describing and analyzing the Shi’ite vision of an “ideal, legitimate state to be instituted by its leader, the Hidden Imam.” Over the course of history, he writes, a “minority of Shi’ites, quite substantial and dangerous at times, would move from pessimistic idealism to an optimistic brand of the same approach—the imam’s arrival is imminent, Allah’s kingdom is bound to be brought upon earth by this messiah (mahdi), and one should help precipitate its descent by armed revolt.” The Mahdi’s arrival has, indeed, been eagerly anticipated. Ahmadinejad even widened a street in Tehran to celebrate his arrival. Westerners who do not understand this are part of a naïve and uniformed multitude who have failed to meet the challenge of both a comparatively free society—their own—and a despotic and violent society like Twelver Iran. Their myopia is a stunning as their self-righteousness. If they won’t read Sivan, they should at least try Azar Nafisi’s Reading Lolita in Tehran. They might actually learn something.
Well speech that would fit better in a thological study.
But you pick the cherries you like best.
Meanwhile Israeli and US officials don´t mind talking openly about Armagedon and that they´re the chosen people that have the right to take everything from the Nile to Euphrates...you guys make up your own mind
As a truth-seeking academic, you might welcome this overview on Iran by an academic author of some twenty books on Iran ...
https://forumgeopolitica.com/download/why-has-iran-already-won-the-war
...and then compare and contrast, as there is much in his article that stands in contrast to the claims in you post.
You are a Zionist and so you take your Islamic history from a Zionist Jew. Please leave your tawdry projections and polemics at home next time.
Please don't be an imbecile. I have my information as well from several of my Iranian students, one of whom is a serious scholar targeted by the Guard that have already killed three Iranian professors in Canada and the U.S. Read Lesley Hazelton's After the Prophet: The Epic Story of the Shia-Sunni Split. She is not a Jewess or a Zionist, but a reputable historian and journalist. For a general overview, try Joan Peters From Time Immemorial and the Reverend James Parkes' rwo books on the subject. They re not Zionists. Even novelist James Parker's The 12th Imam is chock full of historical facts. He is nnot a Zionist. I could mrention another half dozen magisterial scholars. Judging from your preposterous remark, I would consider you a shameful person and a historical deadbolt.
Here's some literature for you in turn: https://www.harvard.com/book/9781250043535
The irony of feminism hating the West is that it is a hothouse flower that can only exist in the conditions of material prosperity, the rule of law and domestic tranquillity created by the ideas of the West. In a third world country, or a war zone, no one gives a fuck about women’s “unpaid emotional labor” or whateverthefuck.
💯 the supremacist feminist insurrection can only exist where it is heavily subsidized ... mostly by resources taken from / given by men
it may not have been the case in the mid 1800s, but the feminist insurrection was co-opted & redirected in the 1900s towards lethal cultural marxism (e.g., Herbert Marcuse, https://platypus1917.org/wp-content/uploads/archive/rgroups/2006-chicago/marcuse_marxismfeminism.pdf) and became pure subversion, along with other subversive tools (cia), only meant to be applied to 1st World societies
most of the countries attacked by illiberal, regressive America's government and her allies in crime are culturally conservative, which I had not though about until the illegal invasion of Venezuela
it is a genius, brilliant, diabolical operation that America & other 1st World societies were inverted from beacons of liberty, law & order, & prosperity to purveyors of cultural & moral anarchy, like Wiemar, to be used as a different kind of weapon in the war for globalism
The problem with no name: entitlement.
No one gives a fuck about women’s “unpaid emotional labor” or whateverthefuck, in countries where people still have a higher then room temperature IQ, because exactly as you note, this hothouse "flower" (more like fucking hogweed) can only exist in favorable conditions not only of material, legal and domestic matters, but in an ecosystem where people (men) are dumb enough to agree with it, put up with it, and accept this shit. Other countries don't put up with it and kill this hogweed as soon as it pops up, because feminism is exactly like hogweed. Once the seeds spread, by air, land or water, it is over. Not even burning it to the ground will help. You have to shovel the whole plant out, with all the roots. Hogweed is a plant that contaminates the ground and attacks other plants in the area, so even the left over dirt needs to be sanitized. And it seems that is (so far) exclusively the westernized dum-dumbs that don't get it. They have just accepted it and have thrown the towel in the ring, or even worse, take pride in the fact that they are "man enough" to take the abuse and BS.
Thank you
Well put!
Misogynists the lot of you.
Let's hope that James is trolling and not really brain-damaged.
Or hes gay. And stands with the feminazis.
Would you like to expand on your comment and explain why you hold this belief? This was an intelligent discourse until you turned up.
Faggots the lot of you.
Well said.
Precisely.
Amen.
This is what I am constantly trying to explain to my peers: Feminism is siphoning energy out of those who listen to them.
Excuse my French, but there is a well known saying:
'Tout flatteur vit aux dépens de celui qui l'écoute' from Jean de la Fontaine.
which translates to
'Every flatterer lives at the expense of his listener'.
Or more appropriately:
'Every Feminist siphons money out of the society that still listen to him'
'Him' being apposite.
This is all sadly very true....but misses one important point that motivates individual Western feminists. Western Feminists have contrived a great lie about the level of oppression and harm that Western men and society impose on them. This lie cannot stand when women who are ACTUALLY truly oppressed by societies such as Sharia law Iran are brought to light because they demonstrate that the complaints of Western feminists are mostly much ado about nothing. Western feminists cannot risk losing their throne atop the pyramid of victimhood by having to acknowledge that others actually experience REAL harms unlike the micro aggressions that women imagine they experience as part of their feminist narrative. This is why they stand against the West and in favor of the mullahs. They cannot admit that the mullahs ARE the misogynists they claim to oppose without revealing that they aren't oppressed at all.
On a different note, while it is true that men are very much victims of the Islamic Republic's policies, violations of sexual norms by men are not always punished with the same vigor as those ascribed to women. Here is an actual example from my Iranian father's life. After my mother took us children and fled to her parents home and later got a divorce, full custody of the children and restraining orders preventing our father from taking us out of New York State (he lived in Virginia) my father began searching for new wives. He had been looking for the remaining 3 wives he desired while still married to my mother, but faced the set back of losing his existing wife before successfully recruiting wives 2-4. He spent decades traveling the world trying to get the diverse portfolio of wives he sought including using mail order bride catalogs and direct solicitation of the virgin girls in his 12 to 15 preferred demographic.
While in Iran visiting he somehow met a girl in the 12-15 age group and tried to convince her to come to America as a wife using the mail order bride catalog to illustrate that "everyone" does this. The girl asked if she could keep the magazine...which she then showed to her father...who happened to be a mullah. My father was soon arrested by the religious police who had his passport and taken behind the wood shed. They were most displeased with him. He was chastised for acting like this was not "America" where our daughters are on the shelf like products in the grocery store for anyone to just pick up and take home at will. No, no....one must go the matchmaker for such transactions. My 60+ year old father was not chastised for trying to convince junior high age girls to come to America to be his wife...but for cutting out the Yenta the middle woman with the commission she no doubt would share with the religious police. Having been "corrected" by referral to the matchmaker, his actions were forgiven and he got his passport back. If you doubt that the status of women in Iran under Sharia is terrible...consider this example of how violations of Sharia law are actually enforced.
Agree 100% with your first point. I would add that, contrary to being oppressed, Western women are treated so well that they have developed clinical levels of narcissism. Narcissists go crazy when you expose them, which, to your point, is a likely reason why Western feminists avoid any comparisons with the women of Iran or such places. That would expose them as frauds.
Exactly. The irony is that Western Women...in many ways have demonstrated that some of the restrictions placed on women by Sharia law are actually based on antisocial behaviors that over-empowered feminist women tend to demonstrate rather broadly. While that does NOT justify the abuses of Sharia law, it does raise relevant points on the need for the behavior of women also to be subject to social scrutiny, censure and regulation for the good of all!
Yes! This is like a Vulcan mind-meld here. Women need patriarchy to some extent, they need the framework of a male hierarchy to contain their emotional impulses and direct them toward natural, healthy things, e.g. motherhood. We can still culturally encourage and guide women while still remaining classical liberals who recognize that some women have a male nature and really do thrive in a high-powered career.
Both men and women need social guidance to direct them away from their worst impulses. Feminists are quite willing to use that system to bully men into "behaving" but object when one suggests that the reverse may also be necessary. Indeed, the worst behavior of feminists are actually innate to women who are not restrained by civilization's influence.
Agreed, but I would go one step further and say that women are the oppressors in Western society. They are the ones intent on stripping males of rights, monopolising resources for females, and awarding themselves a privileged legal status.
Jeez, what a perfect example of the rot of cultural relativism. Your father sounds like a truly awful man, clearly grown from his culture roots. Very good points you make--
He was indeed quite awful. He was terrible as a practicing Muslim as he was more than willing to eat pork, drink alcohol and never in all his travels did he even consider going to Mecca and did not pray 5 times a day or go to the mosque for prayer. He was extremely antisemitic however, saying repeatedly that Hitler was a great man but sadly "failed" to finish the job of eliminating the Jews. As such, he loved the regime of the Ayatollahs. When asked how he could claim to be a Muslim because of his behaviors, he said because of all the religions only Islam understands the proper status of women. He was in it for the misogyny.
He was also very selfish. In another of his forays abroad seeking wives he met an Iranian woman who was already 18 (almost beyond marriageable age in his mind) and brought her to Switzerland (one could not travel directly to Iran at that time). While there they fooled around and the woman seemed too experienced to be the virgin he wanted. When he confronted her about her virginity she refused to answer him. So...he sent her back to her family. Under the regime of the Mullahs such a rejection is a huge insult to the woman's family and could easily have resulted in her death. When I asked him what happened to the woman, he said her family was in the military and very liberal so they just took her back. I hope that is the case as otherwise he would have to be considered complicity with murder!
It should be noted that virginity is so important under the mullahs that hymen restoration surgery is a big practice in Iran. Western feminists should really be required to spend a year living in such a place before speaking about the status of women in the West. Those that survived the year would be far less likely to make fools of themselves as most feminists do.
My sister was married to an Iranian. He was charming but totally untrustworthy and a liar. She managed to get away from him and he then took their children out of the country with a plan to bring them back to Iran with his latest woman. My sister managed to steal them back. He has since returned to Iran and is hopefully dead. He had many children and wives. He broke one wife's leg. Also at 70 married a teenager.
Women here in Australia and every western country take father's children away from them every day and they have the full support of our government and judiciary while doing it.
What you describe is terrible but you write about his action in attempting to take the kids back to Iran as proof of his evil character and I wonder how often you have considered the thousands of women in Australia or America who routinely take children away from their dads who eventually lose all contact.
And it seems your sister was still able to "steal" them back, Clearly he has no contact with his own kids. Regardless of his failures as a husband, I'm sure if he had succeeded in removing the children from your sister's life you would view such an act as cruel and selfish, yet no such labels are ever applied to women who do this routinely in our society.
Women often move to far off locations and even other countries and when they take the children with them they are presented as feminine superheroes rather than evil kidnappers and the dads who try to track their children and win them back are considered to be the evil ones for daring to believe a child needs a father in his or her life.
I was responding to the post by Sandredin. This happened over 50 years ago. At that time, in Ireland where we were all living, the father was the legal guardian and could take his children abroad without the consent of their mother. My sister's children did track down their father and actually helped him financially. They developed relationships with some of his (many) other children and assisted them in leaving Iran. He never supported his family and I have zero sympathy for him. Yes, I am very aware that some women abuse the court system and make false claims of abuse etc to get their own way.
I don't doubt that this individual was an arsehole. I do question the word "some" when referring to women who make false allegations in custody disputes. I would suggest the majority of women use this allegation as a weapon as they are advised to do so by their lawyers. They are already certain to get the majority of time with their kids but most want more.
In Australia, women can lie with impunity and face zero consequences even when they are proven to have lied in court. This is due to our one female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who scrapped the notion of even mild consequences for perjury as soon as she took power.
I have male friends who have had angry girlfriends take out an intervention order simply by saying they don't feel safe in the presence of X and he is immediately handed the intervention order and told if he breaks any aspect of the order by ringing his kids or attempting to see them even briefly after school he will be arrested and jailed for breaching the intervention order even when the veracity of the allegations have not even been proven.
So, men can be kept away from their biological kids on the basis of an unsubstantiated allegation. The woman is in no way obligated to prove her allegation before a court appearance which may not take place for months.
It is simply disgusting and just one of countless issues which see men repeatedly screwed by women and the legal system.
Unbelievable. I hope your life got out from under the shadow he's cast, as best as one could.
Both my sister and I do live with the scars. What is ironic is how many of those same Western feminists Janice is discussing actually aided and abetted his conduct to our, and our mother's, detriment over the years. One social worker tried to argue that we should be turned over to his custody because the children were being raised to disregard the father's culture. This social worker as not defending the rights of men...but protecting the father's "culture" from being judged....the perfect example of what Janice is talking about. Fortunately, we got a crusty old Italian judge who saw through her bullshit and rejected her recommendations!
Ironically, the greatest harm done to me results not from my father's direct influence, but from feminists who cannot accept or tolerate the perspective dealing with my father brought to how I see relations between men and women. Because I don't buy the bullshit that Western feminist peddle given my experience, I am seen as a threat to the feminist narrative and must thus be bullied and silenced to protect that narrative from the truth!
I ignore most MSM and feminist crap. Don't read anything written by them. I can't as it makes me so angry.
I think we all knew where feminism stood with regard to actual women's rights violations the moment the term "Islamophobia" was coined.
Yup. This term is "the gift that keeps on giving" for them!
I totally agree.
It's the old 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' thing.
The question is why a lot of women (especially white and educated) have such hatred for their own countries and culture, especially considering the West gave them what no other society in all of human history ever did.
And the West was built by white men, full stop, so they gotta hate them the most. Must be a way to feel special and superior, better than the average Joe or Jackie. Unchecked ego does have a way of distorting one's reality.
They are not educated but indoctrinated.
"And the West was built by white men, full stop, so they gotta hate them the most. Must be a way to feel special and superior...Unchecked ego does have a way of distorting one's reality."
That's exactly right, and it has a name. It's called ressentiment. Nietzsche wrote about it in The Genealogy of Morality. It's a psychological defense mechanism against one's own sense of weakness/inferiority/failure. The ego creates an enemy ("The Patriarchy") to insulate itself from responsibility/accountability/culpability. Everything about feminists and feminism can be understood as arising from ressentiment. It's worth studying for that reason.
Good point. Resentment is at the root of nearly every anti-Western, third-worldist, feminist, marxist, minority-racialist, omnicause, queer-alphabet, etc. etc. faction. Just listing all the permutations of resentment is exhausting.
Somehow, resentment of this kind must be disarmed. There are just too many run by it to keep a society whole.
Yes, it's always ressentiment which motivates and energizes these social justice warriors. They don't actually care about the particular groups they identify as oppressed, they only care about striking a blow against the identified common oppressor. That's why Western feminists don't care about oppressed Iranian women - the Ayatollah is not their identified oppressor. Janice puts it perfectly in her title: The Feminists Who Hate MAGA More than They Hate the Mullahs - A movement in thrall to anti-western animus.
Great stuff Janice. Thank you. You have solidified my belief that feminists are not only liars, they are cowards.
You forgot to mention irrational and hypocrites.
We had a solid preview of this when the response to rape, mangling and murder of Jewish Women on 7/10 was met with doubt deferment and deafening silence from women’s groups worldwide but particularly in NA.
Much of which turned out to be a hoax. The skepticism was warranted.
Ok Kewel Guy… we’ll be sure to check in on your rabies every now and then
Feminists for Islamofascism, Gays for Gaza, Chickens for KFC: there’s only one destiny for useful idiots, once their revolution arrives. And it’s never the one they expected.
In another chapter of "you can't make this up": during the raging 1978-79 protests against the Shah the Mullahs had convinced other alienated groups to join forces- mainly the feminists and the communists, who were then "left disappointed". Chickens for KFC indeed.
A domestic example is the recent success of the Green Party in a Parliamentary election. It was the site of a lot of "family voting" https://news.sky.com/story/gorton-and-denton-by-election-cheating-claim-explained-13512738 Which is usually where the male family members instruct their female family members how to vote. It has become a thing in the UK mainly in constituencies with a large "Muslim block vote" where voting behaviour reflects what happens in Pakistan and Bangladesh. The point is the candidate was an impeccable Green feminist "she established her own business, Hannah's Household Plumbing, "after years of struggling to go self-employed". In February 2026, she also qualified as a plasterer, having been the only woman on her course."yet she and her Party Courted the Muslim and particularly anti Israeli vote. A voting block whose position on women's rights , Gay rights etc is completely the reverse of the Green Party! Even printing leaflets in Urdu that included pictures of Keir Starmer visiting Indian Prime Minister Mohdi as evidence of favouritism to Hindus and India.
Ignoring the fact that "family voting" is just one aspect of a strictly and indeed proudly "Patriarchal" culture the Greens were perfectly happy to exploit it for their gain and used sectarian divides Gaza and the Indian subcontinent to get Hannah feminist poster girl elected.
Years ago I noticed that any Guardian (lefty MSM here) concern about Girls schooling in Afghanistan or FGM in Kenya always posited things like more female CEOs in Companies in London as the solution and other such almost comical links. Clearly indicating that their chief reason for apparent concern is in fact as an excuse to go on about their "first world" issues.
For anyone interested in "family voting" more detail here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yqpr28jrwo
Yet again, we can not avoid the conclusion that feminism has little or nothing to do with advancing womens' status; it has as its goal only the denigration of men. Feminists hatred of men is what undergirds their so-called philosophy. Just as islamic jihadis are only too ready to blow up the house they live in if it only kills some infidels who happen to also live there, feminists are ready to destroy their civilization as long as it destroys the hated men who inhabit it as well.
The hatred conjured up for an ex-husband or disappointing father figure is a hatred that burns for a lifetime. It warms the feminist's soul like a fusion reactor. I have a pet theory about Trump - and Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) around an obviously moderate/flexible Republican, but one with a sharp tongue - that goes like this: Trump is wealthy, happy, scathingly funny and with a 3rd wife; just think of how enraged, motivated, and distant his first and second wives must be; the worst TDS sufferers in the US seem to be white, liberal divorcées or old maids, women who were either wronged by an ex-husband or dumped by ex-boyfriends. They burn with the resentment of angry, deranged ex-wives of "happily liberated" ex-husbands everywhere. They are all, in a sense, "Trump's bitter ex-wives."
Agreed. "I hate my daddy" is the singularly most significant and universally shared feature of the pathology that calls itself "feminism." Your theory about the reaction of these shrieking harridans to Donald Trump is undeniably true. I will posthumously add it to Rush Limbaugh's list of "Thirty-five Undeniable Truths of Life."
I am honored, thank you!
All leftists including feminists will rally to Iran because opposition to Trump is their top priority and the mullahs are far away.
Not so far away here in the UK. I won't bore Canadians with the detail but in the UK there are towns and boroughs where the the mullahs hold sway. See my comment above. We have 5 "independent" Members of Parliament voted in by "family voting" on a Gaza/Islam ticket and many other constituencies where the Muslim block vote is vital to the incumbent Labour MP.
Yes, it's not just feminists supporting Iran, it's all leftys as you say. It's just another manifestation of TDS.
Western feminists submit to non-Western authoritarians while hating non-western women. These are serious daddy issues.
Their support for mass immigration and sharia law shows they hate Western women too.
Do any of them have daughters? Would this change the attitude, or would they inculate the next generation with their self-loathing?
Watching Western feminists praise the Iranian mullahs (over Trump and Israel) is like watching little lambs praise the man behind the counter at the butcher shop. If they took two steps through the swinging doors behind that counter, they'd be cut to pieces.
Israel uses rape as torture against men.
https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/just-call-it-rape/
The sexual torture of boys and men has been a staple of conflicts throughout history and pederasty is one of the world's dirtiest little secrets. Nobody is innocent.
Soon it became forbidden for feminists to admit that white men had created freer and better societies, including better for women, than existed in other parts of the world.
It's always amusing to watch women gather and scream out against the American government and white men, when if they were doing their protest anywhere in Africa or the Middle East, they'd be arrested and beaten. Gay people would be gathered up and thrown from the tops of buildings.
Right. White men are the worst evil in the world.
I'd like to see them try to live in the middle east without losing their minds.
One sometimes wonder if they would prefer to be beaten. They do love to put on their handmaid's outfits, don't they?
(Camille Paglia has entered the chat.)
Aside from being the worst evil in the world white men also seem to be the most preferred mates in interracial coupling. And white societies are the preferred destinations for immigrants. The uncomfortable truths of revealed preference.
A movement that defines itself by its enemies will eventually forget the people it was created to defend.