Thread to discuss the reality of parts of the UK absorbing large numbers of men from other cultures

[BernardBlacksMolluscs]

This thread is to replace the one that got deleted earlier today, and the TAATs that came after it.

As per MNHQ in site stuff, we're OK to have this conversatrion

www.mumsnet.com/talk/site_stuff/4687254-how-do-we-discuss-the-reality-of-parts-of-the-uk-absorbing-large-numbers-of-men-from-other-cultures?reply=121883255

Apologies, have only read to page 21 but the "be kind to Islamists - they are just like us " brigade lost me with 3 things.
The shooting of 2 Australians in Bali over drug offences but the release of many of the Muslim people who planned and carried out the Bali Bombings - killing well over 240 people ( including 88 Australians)
Being in a lift with a woman in full Burqa in Western Sydney. I was horrified ( and don't tell me she chose that )
The comment that caused outrage here that " an uncovered woman is like leaving meat out and wondering why the cat eats it". Not a direct quote . I don't want to give it traffic - and NO not said by a random , it was said by the local Imam in Sydney.
Well you can just feck right off with all that. No being kind from me now.
I truly think there will be at some stage, probably not for decades, a war between "the West" and " Islam". The two societies are basically diametrically opposed.
I realise that makes me sound like a weirdo conspiracy theorist but it is just my view .

Sickening and horrifying that women are seen as mere meat which can be claimed by anyone who happens to be passing by, that's what men will reduce us to if we let them.
Imo one of the overarching reasons the government allows this immigration to continue is that it keeps the population permanently stressed and angry and that makes it harder for people to think about things in a nuanced and rational way, thus it is easier for the government to control us and pursue its preferred agenda.

I truly think there will be at some stage, probably not for decades, a war between "the West" and " Islam". The two societies are basically diametrically opposed.
I think the other options are 1/ the religion is reformed from within or 2/ Western women are supposed to 'be kind' and assimilate into Islamic culture as it becomes more dominant in the West, accepting that they should dress more modestly because it's 'empowering', not go walking around unaccompanied, that a woman's place really is to be constantly pregnant and taking care of home, that 'women's jobs' are working with children etc. Option 2 seems to be what is pushed by 'liberal feminists', who at the same time push contradictory ideas of sex work as work, sex positivity, doing slutwalks etc. There's a refusal to recognise that these are opposite ways of life that are incompatible, yet as someone else pointed out, two sides of the same coin: women as service humans for men.

I think men will ultimately weave the narrative to suit their interests. I can imagine a retelling of the virgin/whore mythology will take place: it will become expected that women in relationships/married to men show the same kind of 'modesty' as Religious women - modest clothes, no drinking etc or else they will be considered 'sluts' not worthy of a serious relationship. But this is OK! It's OK to be a slut, because you can have as much sex as you want! You don't have to be ashamed of being a slut, just know that you are doomed to forever be one if you dare to have sex before marriage. These will be the two limited options for women, both dehumanising, limiting women's choices and ultimately both in the service of men.

They will sell it to us as though we have options, but really both options are dire. Meanwhile I imagine men will get to carry on as per usual, no religious restrictions for them.

women as service humans for men
That's what they will always do if we let them get away with it, we have to examine and recognise what's going on and find ways to stop letting them get away with it
They will always stitch us up if they can

I think there's already a war on the west. (Isn't that the title of Douglas Murray's latest book?) When you have beheadings of teachers (Samuel Paty) and other terrorist attacks, I don't think it's okay to keep pretending that nothing's going on.

The problem is that Islamists know they're at war with us, but we don't seem to understand that we're at war with them.

I agree, but I suppose it’s the same as it was with the IRA. They declared war against us, and the official line was to just call them terrorists and not accept their declaration.

But at least we called it terrorism. We're not doing that with Islamists. In Batley, the teacher is still in hiding and even his school doesn't support him.

We need to at least call it what it is.

Yes

Anyway… I don’t want to become despondent.

We need to pull on our big girl pants, find our ovaries and show a bit of pride in our feminist gains in the West.

Enough of this mugsie self-abnegation of accepting the unacceptable in the name of #bekind, ‘cultural sensitivity’ bs.

Yes, pornographers, pimps and plastic surgeons jumped straight into the void left behind by the religious patriarchs to make mugs of women all over again, but it is still better. We have more rights.

No need for despondency women are clever and better at collaborating, now that we can see what they are doing now that we understand the power structures the mechanics of it all all we can easily make strategies
men waste a lot of energy in pissing contests, find it harder to collaborate and share power it's easy to use their strength against them

And if you look back - all the feminist gains were made in spite of apparently overwhelming opposition.

Thinking about it now, it really pisses me off, the way so many feminists use the ‘Muslim woman needing to adjust her hair covering’ argument for single sex spaces. Why, become some patriarch will declare her a tart if a bloke sees her hair?
My own needs, my own dislike of sharing with men should be enough.

*Why, because some patriarch

I think that no one cedes power willingly, I think this is a deep animal instinct, a Predator will never willingly relinquish its prey otherwise it won't survive
We should always anticipate opposition and look for ways to nip it in the bud

This conversation is ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT and covers so much of what we've discussed on this thread. Going to buy her book.

open.spotify.com/episode/4yNPedvPGE2lZ4uPtYViot

EndlessTea
Thinking about it now, it really pisses me off, the way so many feminists use the ‘Muslim woman needing to adjust her hair covering’ argument for single sex spaces.

I keep seeing people post this, as if women have said that's the only reason for needing single sex spaces.
My argument has always been that if we want women to be able to participate in society then we need to make space for them.
I'm not going to stop making that argument. Find a way to deal with your anger.

I think both of you are right. Of course we should advocate for all women to have access to single sex spaces and public life in general. But also, we shouldn't use Muslim women as a kind of 'gotcha' to make the idea of single sex spaces palatable to the idpol left. All women need single sex spaces for their dignity.

I don’t necessarily think gotcha is the right word, but I know what you mean. I think it often belies a lack of confidence in the feminist justification and is often the first or only example of women’s need for single sex facilities.

There’s a belief that people who argue that women aren’t entitled to single sex space might be more willing to consider it if it has a patriarchal basis.

The subtext is: “oh I see what you mean about needing single sex space now - you don’t want her imam, dad, future husband, etc, thinking she’s unclean/damaged goods, because a bloke has seen her hair, maybe in those cases single sex spaces should be allowed”.

It’s a case of using the ‘masters tools’.

I know it is always couched in the language of inclusion, but I get the strong instinct that its over-emphasis is coming from the same place as people beginning every criticism of gender identity ideology with “first I’d like to say, I believe in trans rights” or by amplifying the voices of male transsexuals over women. It’s feminists pre-emptively conceding to misogynist opposition to deflect potential criticism.

Are you discussing examples from this board? If not, why are you using examples from the US as a stick to beat UK feminists?
On threads where people have asked for lists of examples, the first poster doesn't list all the possibilities. People chip in. You've singled out one example, and your justification feels convoluted.

The feminist position is that feminism advocates for the rights of all women, even if they don't agree with us, even if they are not active feminists.

Yeah, something like that! Although I don't have a problem with using "the master's tools" - I don't see that we have to create entirely new structures in order to deal with structural problems. But I think it's language that plays into identity politics and it's meant to be placatory to identitarians. OR it's meant to purity shame your opponent, like "oh so you don't care about Muslim women then?"

I mean, the fact is that anyone advocating for the abolition of single sex spaces clearly doesn't care (or hasn't thought about) Muslim women and girls. And pointing that out probably does rupture the cognitive dissonance somewhat. But there's an uncomfortable feeling sometimes that Muslim women are being used like a kind of human shield in these exchanges! And could backfire in a horrible way, with concessions to Muslim women meaning there are sex and race-segregated spaces.

Plus it avoids getting to the point that the reason most women want single sex spaces is for our privacy and dignity, not for religious or ideological reasons. That's important too.

Lists of examples of what?

there's an uncomfortable feeling sometimes that Muslim women are being used like a kind of human shield in these exchanges!

Yes. That’s the feeling. Why isn’t enough to state what the basic needs for all women and girls are? Privacy, safety, dignity, etc.

By the masters tools, I meant in this case, the patriarchal policing of women’s behaviour and social engagement.