ISNA Thugs

Re: # 174

More specifically she still Doesn`t wear the Hijab.... I know this for a fact... which proves that you don`t know what you are talking about. So you have it all wrong as usual. By the way oh Great Mamujan of Islam don`t you know of the Islamic injunctions against Gheebah and hearsay?

The fact and truth of the matter is that I did not ridicule her for the Hijab (which she did not wear) but merely pointed out her shifting standards of piety aboard and off a plane (and that too several months later in course of her passionate defence of Islamism). Maybe I shouldn`t have... but it doesn`t prove your point... The only person being elusive here is you... who loves to put the truth in a Hijab of lies, deceit and what not.

Feminist Lies and Hypocrisy

``The Violence Against Women Act`s gender-specific title is pejorative: it`s based on the false, unscientific, unjust and blatantly offensive premise that men are innately violent and abusive toward women, making all women victims of men.``



``The president of Harvard University was publicly pilloried for months earlier this year for implying innate differences between men and women. But the act is spending a billion dollars a year to inculcate that very notion in the minds of men and women.Feminists staged tantrums at the suggestion of innate math-aptitude differences between men and women, but the whole premise of the Violence Against Women Act is that men have an innate propensity to violence against women. It`s not because some are bad individuals or drunks or psychologically troubled, but because men want to keep women subservient in an oppressive patriarchal society.``

``The act refuses to provide any help whatsoever for male victims of domestic violence. Let`s hear from professor Martin Fiebert of California State University at Long Beach who compiled a bibliography of 170 scholarly investigations, 134 empirical studies and 36 analyses, which demonstrate that women are almost as physically abusive toward their partners as men.``

``The act encourages women to make false allegations, and then petition for full child custody and a denial of all fathers` rights to see their own children.``

``The act promotes the unrestrained use of restraining orders, which family courts issue on the woman`s say-so. This powerful weapon (according to the Illinois Bar Journal) is ``part of the gamesmanship of divorce`` and virtually guarantees that fathers are expelled from the lives of their own children.``

``A woman seeking help from an act-funded center is not offered any options except to leave her husband, divorce him, accuse him of being a criminal and have her sons targeted as suspects in future crimes. The Violence Against Women Act ideology rejects joint counseling, reconciliation and saving marriages.``

``The act denies that alcohol and illegal drugs are a cause of domestic violence, a peculiar assumption contrary to all human experience. In fact, most domestic violence incidents involve those components.``

``The act uses a definition of domestic violence that blurs the difference between violent action and run-of-the-mill marital tiffs and arguments. Definitions of abuse can even include minor insults and refusing to help with child care or housework. ``

``The act forces Soviet-style psychological re-education on men. The accused men are not given treatment for real problems, but are assigned to classes where feminists teach shame and guilt because of a vast male conspiracy to subjugate women.``

``The Violence Against Women Act-funded centers engage in political advocacy for feminist legislation such as the ``must-arrest`` laws even if there is no sign of violence and even if the woman doesn`t want the man arrested, and political advocacy against non-feminist legislation such as shared parental rights.``

It`s time to stop the act from spending any more taxpayers` money to promote family dissolution and fatherless children.

Mrs. Schlafly is the author of the new book The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It (Spence Publishing Co).

Phyllis Schlafly (born on August 15, 1924, in Saint Louis, Missouri) is an American conservative political activist known for her opposition to feminism in general and the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in particular. Today, she is a widely-published author and commentator. In 1972, she founded the Eagle Forum, a conservative organization, and continues to be president of that organization.

Schlafly was christened Phyllis McAlpine Stewart and raised as a devout Roman Catholic in a relatively poor family, although her younger sister, Odile, left the Roman Catholic church and became a Presbyterian.

Phyllis began college early, earning her B.A. from Washington University in St. Louis in 1944 at the age of 19. She received a M.A. in Government from Harvard University in 1945, and a J.D. from WUSTL Law School in 1978.

In 1952, she unsuccessfully ran for Congress in Illinois as a member of the United States Republican Party.

She first came to national attention as the writer of the best-selling book, A Choice, Not an Echo, written in support of Barry Goldwater`s 1964 presidential campaign, which denounced the corruption and liberalism of other Republicans, especially those in New England. Critics call the book a conspiracy theory about ``secret kingmakers`` controlling the Republican Party.

In 1967, she founded her own political newsletter, the Phyllis Schlafly Report, which is still published.
She became the most visible and effective opponent of the ERA as the organizer of the ``Stop ERA`` movement, widely credited with stopping it from achieving passage by its legislative deadline. Schlafly organized vigorously against the amendment, arguing that it could lead to the drafting of women into the military, expansion of federal power, taxpayer-funded abortions, same-sex marriage, and other matters which she considered to be problems. For her actions, she was widely vilified by feminists. At the time Schlafly began campaigning, the amendment had already been ratified by 30 of the 38 necessary states. Schlafly was successful in organizing a grassroots campaign to oppose further states` ratifications, however, and in 1980, the amendment was narrowly defeated, having only been passed in 35 states. Over 20 years later, Schlafly continued to argue against any revival of the ERA.

Her arguments against ERA included her opposition to including women in the military draft. A highly publicized lawsuit attempted to end the all-male selective service system based on gender discrimination. In the absence of ERA, the Supreme Court held by a 6-3 margin that Congress could register only men for military service. Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981).

She also opposed requiring Congress to fund abortion. In the absence of ERA, it was only by a 5-4 vote that the Supreme Court held that Congress could provide funding for childbirth but not for abortion. Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980).

Supporters of Schlafly argue that some of her claims have been confirmed by later state court rulings. Some state courts have interpreted state equivalents of ERA as requiring government funding of abortions and same-sex marriage. A state court in Massachusetts cited the state ERA to allow a challenge to a punishment system that treated offenses by violent male prisoners more harshly than those by women. DuPont v. Wyzanski, 2004 Mass. Super. LEXIS 462 (Super. Ct. 2004).



A woman who stopped Feminists with their Men Hating agenda in their tracks. Imagine the kind of grass roots support she had to create in a time where her ideas may have been unpopular. And yet, look at her success in stopping the ERA in its tracks, in facing down the Feminist onslaught single handedly. What leg does Saminasha have to stand on to be so dismissive of her????

``Phyllis Schafly means something to anyone besides Newt Gingrich, Stuka and chuhan.``

Oh please, according to the world as per Saminasha, anyone who disagrees with her is marginalized. Anyone except three people? Talk of hyperbole. lol.

dullahbhatti # 155

Just as a woman would never know what it feels like to get kicked in ones nuts, a man would never know what it feels like to be out of the bra at the end of the day. I say let feminists go nuts, as long as they keep their dirty laundry out of my face. I never understand the reason for the meanness in their hearts: well if they want to dance naked then go ahead but why drag other nice women along with them?

I don`t get it; why do feminists want a civil rights movement and against whom. If all that they want is the freedom to be as promiscuous as their male counterparts then they don`t need a civil rights movement; they don`t need a civil rights movement if the want to sleep with ten men before they settle down with one near menupause and they definitely don`t need a civil rights movement if they want the freedom to bear bastard children.; all they need to do is to stand under a lamp post.

manto #159 writes ``and More specifically- knowing both her and her ex-husband- she still doesn`t know poor old Malik99... ``

Even when manto tries to be specific, he cant help but be evasive.

Allow me to be specific here - specifically speaking, she hasnt been on talking terms with you ever since you ridiculed her over her hijab. Given that, how did you managed to learn from her whether she knows me or not?!

Let me be very specific here: You wouldnt know truth (naked or hijabed) even if it walked by you.

#163, {``#163 by Saminasha on September 12, 2005 3:02pm PT
recanting seems to be an occupation with you...``}

No, ma`am, you misunderstand. My occupation on Chowk is to make sure that you tell the truth, cut & paste with accuracy, and not make wide sweeping observations with your eyes closed, your ears congested, and your brain disengaged. Furthermore, I also serve as your personal profanity-guard to remind you to be civilized, polite, and ``lady-like.``

#171,
Once again we have a failure to communicate. :) and you want us to elect a female as President of these United States.:) Thank God the majority of women in the US (and yes, women are in a majority!) will not go for that.

#166 & #167

what ana said was not what YOU understand ana to have said. ana also said that that was not the point samina was making, and as usual you resort to selective omission when you have a specific axe to grind.

#166 was addressed to Saminasha with #167 as a CC for ana. :)

#145, Tahmed Sahib,
I know that Temporal Ji provided you with the details about Lil Rock. :) That man knows his high-altitude institutions of higher learning, and Lil Rock is about as high as one can get without falling off the Rockies. :)

I am having a lot of fun, sir, with how the ladies were responsible for the Civil Rights movement and how Eve manipulated an foolish male God into kicking her out of the Garden of Eden. I am having more fun than a pig in a pen full of sows.

jang: in that case the confusion makes perfect sense. :-)

#162, I thought I made my point with the ``mistress`` issue. Ana agreed that you need to practice objective adulation and not a selective one. :)
If you agree to MLK, JFK, RFK, and Jesse Jackson`s philandering ways then you MUST accept Newt Gingrich, Jimmy Swaggart (UGH!), and Jim Baker as ``good`` morally upright leaders.

#162, I thought I made my point with the ``mistress`` issue. Ana agreed that you need to practice objective adulation and not a selective one. :)
If you agree to MLK, JFK, RFK, and Jesse Jackson`s philandering ways then you MUST accept Newt Gingrich, Jimmy Swaggart (UGH!), and Jim Baker as ``good`` morally upright leaders.

salim #145 yes indeed, little rock is in arizona, not alabama. remind me not to give road directions to anyone - they might end up in san salvador when all they wanted to know was how to get to a grocery store.

and thanks for the appreciation. i was going to do a special effect by showing an animated picture of myself taking a bow, but this is the best i could find at short notice: