Feminists in UN sympathise with terrorist muslims - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Any other minor ideologies.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
I want you to take a look at this video. At first glance, it seems like an ordinary video documentary about a conflict zone in Africa. But when you really start paying attention, it becomes rather shocking. Pay attention to the underlying theme of the video and how the narrator continues to frame the conflict.
This video is put out and paid for by the United Nations, consider that!

I believe this demonstrates how much of an ideological alliance has formed between activists on the Left, on the one hand, and Muslims on the other.

First, a little bit of background.

The Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram raped and ravished these women.

The Nigerian government has been waging a war. The government mainly controls the South and Boko Haram effectively controls vast swaths in the Northern region of the country. (Any surprise it's the North part of the country that is dry and desert-like with lots of sand? Seeing a global pattern here?)

Tell me if you disagree, but these narrators who put together this documentary video almost seem to sympathising with Boko Haram.

Video in link:
https://www.crisisgroup.org/africa/west ... boko-haram

Let's go over all the narrations in the video, one by one, where these UN-types who made that video sympathize with the terrorist muslims:

"For 10 years, clashes between the rebel group, Boko Haram, have killed several thousand people, and displaced more than 2 million in Nigeria alone"

First they almost make it sound like it's just a war between two factions, in a rather non-judgemental way, almost as if Boko Haram was not really any less legitimate than the Nigerian government. Laying the blame on the conflict, rather than Boko Haram.

"The Nigerian army's advance prompted many women affiliated with Boko Haram to flee the group. Others were captured or rescued by the soldiers. They are slowly being reintegrated back into community life, but they suffer ostracism, higher risks of sexual abuse and economic hardship."

Oh those poor women, we are told. They're trying to make us feel sympathetic to those women who were part of Boko Haram.
Boko Haram was the group that raped women on a massive scale, but now these narrators seem to be trying to turn the tables and see these women former members of Boko Haram reintroduced into Nigerian society are somehow the ones more likely to suffer rape?
Hardly makes much sense if you stop to think about it.

"The lack of protection from these women, along with the state's failure to address legitimate grievances sufficiently, are sowing the seeds of future conflict in this already devastated region"

Oh, so this terrorist group has legitimate grievances, we are told. They're putting blame on the Nigerian government for Boko Haram's attacks. And if there are future attacks from Boko Haram, it's the fault of the Nigerian government's war they are waging against the terrorist group. Next they call it an 'already devastated region', more pity party for these muslims. That evil Nigerian government, just making things worse for the muslims!

"But at the same time, ending the conflict and the violence requires ensuring that women, formerly associated with the group, who come out, want to stay out."

So she lays the blame on 'conflict and violence' itself rather than the terrorist group that's committing all these atrocities. And then she implies the Nigerian government has some sort of obligation to help women if they don't want them to support the terrorist group.

"Women's experiences leaving the group will be watched closely by the men, because of course ultimately it's the men who form the fighting core of the group. And it is their disarmament, their belief in an exit pathway that's safe and viable that will bring an end to the conflict."

So now she talks about disarmament and peace. If only everyone could just lay down their arms and stop fighting! Sounds very hyper-liberal.

"The narrative around women and Boko Haram is very much dominated by the abduction of the Chibok school girls ... It's certainly a narrative that the government itself upholds, that women primarily associate with Boko Haram through victimhood, that women are abducted, they are coerced, that the story of women in Boko Haram is one of kidnapped victims. That's certainly a strand of women's experiences, and we know that to be true, but it's certainly not the only experience"

More 'female empowerment' talk. Women are not victims, they have power, etc.
She completely brushes away and sidelines all the women who were abused, which is about half of them.
And she is talking about women who voluntarily join a militant Islamic terrorist group of their own accord. Trying to give a flair of female empowerment to that!

"I think there's a tendency in gender-sensitive research about the Northeast and Boko Haram to portray women as rebelling against patriarchy, by joining this group. Um, I think that misses out the intensity of inequality and state neglect and corruption. You walk through the streets of Maiduguri, you see these mansions, with flowering palm trees and manicured lawns..."

I don't know what type of hyper-Liberal world she lives in. First she comes out and reveals there's a field of thought among her colleagues that sees women joining the terrorist group Boko Haram as some sort of female empowerment. How does that even make sense? We know how women are treated in these radical Islamic groups.
But then she goes and says that's not really the main point (not even denying that perspective) and puts the blame on inequality.
Yes, it's because of rampant inequality, she tells us, that these women feel like they have to join a terrorist group. Economic unfairness all around them, lots of corruption in government, so why not join Boko Haram?

I think this really demonstrates the intellectual alliance that exists between radical progressive feminism and defending radical Islam.
Maybe these activists in the UN are taking Leftist Liberation Ideology too far? I mean, if your mind has been trained and conditioned to always view the government as the oppressor, maybe it's not really that surprising?
I'm glad that some other people have started to notice something that I've been trying to draw attention to some time. The deep misogyny of the left. Most so called feminism is totally phony. Its just cultural Marxism. Whether consciously or unconsciously the real goal of ,so feminism is not to liberate women but to dis-empower and psychologically destroy so called White men.

There's this false idea that the left hates men, at the very least that they hate rapists. The left loves rapists as long as they're Black or Muslim. Lefties have been pushing Black Rap(e) music for decades. Progressives constantly push Black gang culture as cool, as superior, despite the fact that its thoroughly violent and misogynistic. Where as they try and portray East Asian men's culture as uncool boring, that East Asian men lack personality so should have their university admissions limited by quota. Once you seen this, you realise its every where. How the left cared about Apartheid South Africa, but they couldn't care less about gender Apartheid Saudi Arabia, the most you'll get is a bit of passing rhetoric.
While I would acknowledge and decry the [url=[https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Regressive_left]regressive left[/url] that seeks to show solidarity with radical Islamists, in the common cause of anti-imperialism , in the example that @Puffer Fish gave , I think that the report is simply concerning itself with those who have fallen under the undue influence of such a violently dangerous terrorist cult as Boko Haram. Such persons are victims of cult mind control , and should be treated with compassionate consideration. https://freedomofmind.com/cult-survivors-need-compassion-and-help-to-recover/ , https://freedomofmind.com/why-calling-daesh-isis-a-mind-control-cult-is-of-strategic-and-practical-importance/
Tainari88 wrote:Is @Puffer Fish back on another rape topic?

What is that fetish?

Puffer man obsessed with rape themes starts out with:

Regardless of the truth of the events he makes threads about, the fixation does suggest something concerning that one would hope isn’t based on some pathological problem with women.
In the same way a husbands suspicion of a woman’s infidelity can be pathological regardless of the possibility of it being true if their fixation on it is so intense and overwhelming it is some psychological symptom of a larger issue.

And when it comes to feminist criticisms on the international scale, I do think any nuanced is missed for a lack of understanding of feminist perspectives and often a lack of suspicion of how even true facts are pushed based on motives of power of a foreign nation and can be critique without denying the validity of a claim.
Like the fixation on sexual violence abroad but absence domestically. Women and supposed concern for them can be amplified, similarly for violence by minorities but again against an noted absence of its perpetuation domestically by other men.

On the other hand I do sympathize with the criticism of some liberals in the west as being dopey who often do either fall for propaganda that flattens another culture to cultural violence or over turns this without adequate analysis by simply dismissing it. But the critique of such inadequacy isn’t to serve for a greater analysis but dismiss and attack the feminist project of antisexism which shows the real motives not being the problem of violence against women but using the partial success of feminist vulgarized ideology of being antisexist in benevolently sexist norms against an other.

@FiveofSwords Adaptive traits do not define r[…]

It's been addressed already, no need to address t[…]

Teacher questions appropriateness of pow-wow

I don't think any race is superior @Pants-of-do[…]

Picassos hung in toilet cubicle at Mona in respons[…]