What independent woman when she is pressurized to look good for society?

Violence against women – Feminists should start with US military

This has got to be an irony. The US, the self-proclaimed liberator propagating Human Rights, invading “rogue” nations to liberate people from oppressive regimes, has the Number One Women Abuser Institution in the world. The US Military.

Many rapes and sexual assaults in the US military go unreported. And when victims do report, they face a mountain of obstacles.

Here is the story of a US military woman. Raped and killed. The US military tried to cover it up. But they were caught.

U.S. Covers Up Womans Murder and gets Caught!!!

This is not an isolated case. Rape in US military is widespread enough to cause concern. Another article here.

Rape in the US military: America’s dirty little secret

A female soldier in Iraq is more likely to be attacked by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire

“It was eight years before I was able to say the word that describes what happened to me,” says Maricella Guzman. “I hadn’t even been in the Navy a month. I was so young. I tried to report it. But instead of being taken seriously, I was forced to do push-ups.”

“I can’t sleep without drugs,” says Kate Weber. “But even then, I often wake up in the middle of the night, crying, my mind racing. And I lie there awake in the dark, reliving the rape, looking for a second chance for it to end with a different outcome, but he always wins.”

Rape within the US military has become so widespread that it is estimated that a female soldier in Iraq is more likely to be attacked by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire. So great is the issue that a group of veterans are suing the Pentagon to force reform. The lawsuit, which includes three men and 25 women (the suit initially involved 17 plaintiffs but grew to 28) who claim to have been subjected to sexual assaults while serving in the armed forces, blames former defence secretaries Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates for a culture of punishment against the women and men who report sex crimes and a failure to prosecute the offenders.

Irony is that many Feminists from America and Europe believe that women in countries US has invaded or intend to invade are oppressed. Little do these Feminists realise that it is the very hypocritical liberators who are treating their women worse.

Shallowness of Feminist writing exposed – The Egyptian Blue Bra

Many issues in the world are intertwined such that you cannot separate one from another. As an example, you cannot separate Human Rights from oppression or even global hypocrisy.

Take the issue of Egypt. Is it about human rights and liberation? Or is it about Egyptians fighting against Western control, and hence, opening up the issue of hypocrisy of the West?

So when a Feminist slant is given to the Egypt issue, I am really beginning to feel that Feminists are just simple-minded one-track people. They see only from one angle – the misogyny angle. To them, something is either liberating for women, or oppressing women. Never mind that there are bigger issues that are tied to it.

Before I link you the Feminist-slanted article, here is the incident that sparked the one-track, one-minded, shallowness of the article.

Shocking Video: ‘Blue bra’ girl brutally beaten by Egypt military

So what do you make out of it? As a human being, isn’t it wrong to kick and stomp on someone who is already down? Yes, the issue is Human Rights. But it can also be about hypocrisy. Because all over the world, this happens. Be it in America, Canada, Australia, UK, Europe, Israel etc.

In the West, the protests and police brutality is about Occupying Wall Street and anti-war demos. No one ties it to Feminist issues although women have been beaten like slave dogs. Likewise, the issue linked to this short video is about about liberty, oppression and hypocrisy. Not about Feminism and not about defiance against Islamic rule.

But Feminists being feminists, see issues only from one angle. The narrow, simplistic misogynistic angle. Here’s that article.

Amid the misogyny and violence, one thing stood out: the blue bra

The blue bra. That’s what did it for me.

Yes, I know. There have been jillions of atrocities against women all over the world, many much worse than what happened to the young Egyptian woman who was beaten, stomped on and nearly stripped by the military during a demonstration. Aside from the sheer brutality, I think what got to me was that she was wearing this gorgeous, sexy bright blue bra. Under her abaya.

There was something so shocking about it, so unexpected. This person covered from head to toe demonstrated her beliefs through her choice of underwear. The blue bra said what I imagine her to be feeling: “I may be oppressed. I may not have rights. I may have to cover up my body and face. But you cannot destroy my womanhood. You can’t rob me of my femininity. You can’t take away my power.”

That blue bra, to me, was the ultimate symbol of women’s power, the one thing that threatens men above all. It makes them so crazy that over the centuries they have encoded it into their religions that women are kept down and denied the same freedoms that men have. There are very few religions where women have not been oppressed.

Men know that women’s sexuality is something they cannot live without; it is something that renders them powerless. Women can have babies, women can breastfeed, women are the lifegivers. The blue bra is a bold statement of that.

The blue bra resonated with demonstrators in Egypt. Some have replaced the eagle in the center of the Egyptian flag with a blue bra. When the incident incited a protest by women two weeks ago, the hashtag #BlueBra was used on Twitter to help organize it. More and more there are blue bra moments, not just in Egypt but around the world.

A young woman in Egypt who was given a “virginity test” when she was arrested last March has courageously filed a criminal case against the military. This week the Egyptian court banned virginity tests in jail. That woman should wear a blue bra.

A woman is running for president of Egypt. She should wear a blue bra.

In Israel there have been protests after a young woman was asked to sit in the back of the bus in an ultra-orthodox neighborhood. She refused and has become a heroine among moderate Israelis. She should wear a blue bra.

In the United States, a report out this week says that the number of sexual assaults in the military academies rose from 41 last year to 65 this year. All women in the service academies should wear blue bras.

In Iran, women can be arrested if they are not totally covered. Even President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, seeing the writing on the wall, is trying to promote attractive government-approved fashions for women. “Again we face a situation in which a small group will decide for all women what is allowed and what is not,” one Egyptian designer told The Washington Post. Iranian women should all wear blue bras.

The Egyptian woman in the blue bra has not come forward. She has been criticized for protesting in public and for not wearing more clothes under her abaya. (She was also wearing jeans.)

See how this Feminist writer missed the whole big picture and saw just a one off-the-point angle?

Some quick pointers about the article above -

The writer tries to allude a blue bra as liberation from “Islamic oppression”. Frankly, I don’t see the link. What a Muslim woman wears under her burka or whatever is none of society’s business. This appears to be a lame attempt to link the Egypt issue as a Feminist one.

Then out of the blue, the writer brings up virginity tests, women in Israel, US military and Iran. Whatever happened to the horrific scenes of helpless citizens being stomped on by armed policemen? See the shallowness of a Feminist writer?

This is so typical of Feminist writing not just in blogs, but in journalism too. A tiny issue within a bigger issue made into a central point, then suddenly the discussion is all about oppression of women, societal patriarchy, and what not, linked to all over the place, that has nothing to do with the original issue at hand.

The “Blue Bra”, which is the central emphasis of the writer, happens only for a few seconds. It was not like she had her clothes torn deliberately to be humiliated. It just happened. It could have been an old man who had his clothes torn, showing a green underwear. Furthermore, one policeman even had the sense to try to cover her modesty by pulling her clothes back on. Yet this Feminist see it as a Feminist issue?

So how did this end up as a Feminist issue in the first place? An opportunistic attempt by a feminist who can’t break out from the box?

Biggest Issue is Islamization and protest against Western Hypocrisy -

Those of you who have followed the news on Egypt will know that this is not the first demo. The first was to remove Mubarak. However, following that, the army took control.

The Egyptian Army is not well liked by Egyptians either. They see the army as an extension of Mubarak, who himself is seen as an extension of US. There lies the real issue which the Feminist writer missed totally.

The issue is not about Feminism or oppression of women. It is about liberty. Liberty from the hypocrisy of the West which has been controlling Mubarak and Egypt’s Army.

I have written a few articles about the first demo in Egypt. Here are two of them.

- Fellow Sporeans, I told you that you won’t wanna walk like an Egyptian
- Singapore political scene is nowhere near Egypt’s

The first demos last year was to campaign for the removal of Mubarak. After he was removed, the army took over. But the citizens don’t like the army either. So they elect an Islamic govt. However, the army refuses to allow the Islamic Parties to form the govt. Hence, that’s what the demos today are about.

The Egyptian demos are about liberty. It’s about Islamization. It’s about the protest against the Army, which is a Western stooge. It’s about hypocrisy that the West does not condemn the refusal of the Egyptian Army to recognize that the people of Egypt want an Islamic Govt!

Here’s the post I made about how even after the people of Egypt elected an Islamic Govt, the Army simply refuses to accept the results – and the hypocritical West World, who has been calling for democrazy, er I mean democracy, stands idly.

Hypocrisy of Democrazy Elections

How many times have we seen that whenever the people of the land were to vote in the “wrong govt”, these hypocrites from the West either brand the new govt as terror groups, or stand idly if the newly elected govt is blocked by the incumbent powers that are aligned to the West? The latest example is Egypt.

Egypt’s rulers: Parliament won’t be representative

Egypt’s military rulers said Wednesday the next parliament will not be representative enough to independently oversee the drafting of a constitution, and they will appoint a council to check the influence of religious extremists on the process.

The announcement followed a surprisingly strong showing by Islamist groups who took the overwhelming majority in the first round of parliamentary elections. The outcome caused concern among the liberals who drove Egypt’s uprising and the military, which took power from ousted leader Hosni Mubarak.

“We are in the early stages of democracy,” said Gen. Mukhtar Mulla, a member of the ruling military council. “The parliament is not representing all sectors of society.”

Ha ha. The people voted and they overwhelmingly ditched the liberal western lackey govt into the drain. And the current interim govt (another Western lackey) says this is not representative?

Not first time Western Hypocrisy blatantly exhibited -

This is not the first time Western Hypocrisy is displayed in such unashamed manner. Currently, Hamas is the democratically elected govt in Gaza. But the US and its warmongering allies consider it a “terror group”. Wazzat again?

In the 1990s, when Algeria went to the polls, an Islamic Party (FIS), was heading for a landslide victory. The incumbent govt however hijacked the elections and deployed military tanks to literally mow down FIS supporters. The West World stood idly.

After the Arab Spring and overthrow of Arab leaders, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt and now even Libya are heading towards Islamic governance. The West, self-proclaimed saviours of the world and propagators of democracy, are slow to welcome the change.

Why? Because the change is towards an Islamic governance. Not towards Western style secularism.

My Views -

The Egypt demos is about the Arab Spring. The Arab Spring is about a people in the Mid East and N African states, finally putting their feet down and taking control of their own future.

It is about liberty. It is about the fight against Western oppression, using stooges to control their country. It is about hypocrisy of the West, blaring their horns they support democracy. But when that democracy means a govt that they do not like, their support stops. That is the big issue.

What blue bra?

Unfortunately, one Feminist sees it from a tiny, simplistic viewpoint. Why do Feminists always do things that reinforce the idea Feminists can’t think outside the Feminist box?

Truly confused – even Feminists confuse each other

As if it is not bad enough to confuse men. As if it is not bad enough to confuse women. Feminists are now confusing each other. Can’t feminists agree on anything? Yep, they agree to disagree.

No means no means maybe means yes means it better be no. What’s that again?

Sexually confused – when no is a game

As a follow up to an earlier piece “Sexual Consent: When no is really no“, I would like to discuss when the act of saying no is actually a game women play; or, when no is actually a heavily coded yes.

When I first read this piece “No” Means “No.” So Why Do Some Women Teach Men It Means “Maybe?” written by Roland Hulme, it resonated with me. Women are quick to pounce on men who do not take no for an answer – surely one no should suffice, and women should not need to repeat themselves. But what if men are confused about the no women are saying?

In his article, Hulme shared how, many years ago, he backed off when a woman he was expecting to have sex with said no. He stopped what he was doing, thinking the no was an actual no, and then the young woman promptly went to another room and had sex with someone else. She had apparently meant “yes” with her “no”. The experience bothered him for years – as it would for most people if they could not figure out what they did wrong.

Things fell in place for Hulme when he came across the concept of LMR, or Last Minute Resistance by MTV’s Pick-Up Artist Erik von Markovik. Also known as ASD, or Anti-Slut Defense, it appears to be an interrupt mechanism to help her avoid being perceived as a slut, or feeling like she is one to herself. I might even call it part of the game of playing hard-to-get.

Because this was such a timely article in view of recent happenings in Singapore – SlutWalk Singapore, the launch of AWARE’s Sexual Assault Befrienders Service, and legal discussions about sexual consent – I reposted Hulme’s article with the comment on Facebook: “While men should get no means no, this man highlights how some women have been encouraging men to do the opposite for decades. Lets get better in speaking our truth!”

I did not expect the kind of ferocity that lay behind a comment by a friend:

“Sure! Let’s put the blame back on women! Come on… as a woman it’s fun (and an important part of foreplay!) to feel ‘conquered’ by desire. Your own and his. Only a moron can’t tell the difference between a real “no” (as in ‘f*** off you a***** and get off of me already’ kind of “no”) and a playful ‘no’ (usually accompanied by some tantalizingly seductive body language ;-)”

Here is a friend whom I have long thought of as an empowered individual, and she is calling men who can’t read body language (when accompanied by negative actual language) morons? She is talking about putting up a LMR or ASD. To her, that’s a core erotic theme, but she is indignant that I would suggest that women should speak their truth about their sexual desires?

I responded:

“Nobody was blaming anyone here. Sure I understand what you are saying, but it is not fun or funny when women are getting raped for men who (these women) really meant no. It is about being congruent verbally and physically, and sometimes sending mixed signals only leads to frustration for the men, or dire consequences.”

I am no prude. I can imagine that perceived resistance or a playful no can add to a woman’s allure. But, surely, there is merit in communicating your sexual intentions not just physically but also verbally, so there is no confusion or room for misinterpretation. What of the women who are raped because men are taking their no as a big fat joke? Do they deserve to be violated? What of the men who are not good in non-verbal communication, who end up confused like Hulme, or worse, commit a (non-violent) violation simply through the lack of communication from the woman?

Her reply:

“Hmmm … It still sounds to me like you’re implying that it’s the women who are sending mixed signals … not the men who don’t know how to read them as something other than what they want to read. I doubt that any woman who felt raped and protested during the act would feel it’s fair on her to say she sent mixed signals when she told him to stop.”

Me:

“I did not imply anything. I was saying we need to be clear about what we want and communicate it so there is no misunderstanding. To call men who can’t read your body language signals morons is to assume that all men are made equally. Discernment is needed in each situation. You are choosing to read my words in a way that seems convenient to your purpose of engaging in some kind of debate. Sorry I am stepping on your toes. Please go post elsewhere and leave me alone.”

I was angry. Women who persist in saying no verbally and communicating yes physically are indeed, by definition, sending mixed signals. Of course they do not deserve to be raped (no one does) but they certainly could do better at speaking up – speaking their truth. I found myself now siding with all the confused men out there who don’t know how to read such signals – the men this friend called morons.

Her reply:

“Whoa … where did that reaction come from??? If you don’t want people to engage in meaningful discussions with you on interesting topics you post, what’s the point in posting them? No reason to make things personal, Martha. Relax.”

My last response was:

“Didn’t seem as though you wanted to discuss anything but focused on interpreting my words your way. I could say ditto to you.”

Was I taking it personal? Was I unfair? Should women stop putting up LMR or ASD or playing hard-to-get? Discuss. And remember, there’s nothing wrong in being genuine.

In the first place, these young women should simply heed their grandmas’ advice. When good old grams says no, you shouldn’t dress sleazily or get drunk, she means never ever do it, and not just no for the moment. No means never, not just no

Why are women lagging behind men? Because Feminists want you to follow men!

You can’t be ahead or even equal, if you keep following behind, can you?

To me the answer to the big question “Why do women lag behind men in politics, corporate world, social status etc”, is so obvious. They lag behind men because Feminists have since Day One, used men as the benchmark to measure women’s progress.

What Feminists should do is to set standards for women where no man has yet ventured. But Feminists being Feminists, must always use men so that they can say they have achieved equality, if not superiority.

That’s why women always lag behind men. When you follow someone, that someone’s always ahead. Don’t you know that, ladies?

Women should concentrate on areas of their strengths instead of trying to compete with men, yet Feminists want women to ditch those strengths. But if women were to exploit those strengths, they can succeed in doing things even men can’t.

Areas where women have succeeded more than men -

No, no, no. I’m not gonna talk about how women have their own domain in some third world countries. I am gonna talk about the likes of America, UK etc.

1. Campaign against Drunk Driving -

Here is one fine example where women took the initiative and impacted American society – Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).

MADD was founded by a woman. A mother lost her daughter when she was killed by a drunk driver. Her efforts brought other mothers together and now it is an influential non-govt organisation society respects. Read her moving story here.

Note the feminine and motherly tone the organisation carries. Yet no sign of the usual Feminist chest-thumping howl that you need to match their recognition with men!

Think for a moment. If a father had named it “Fathers against Drunk Driving”, would it have the same emotional appeal and pull of society’s heartstrings? Somehow the feminine bias that mothers are close to children is working well in this case.

Why do Feminists then want to ditch this motherly bias which is shown to be working so well for instances like MADD, for some areas they have not succeeded in breaking through like the corporate world?

2. Campaign against wars that kill sons (and daughters) in unjustified wars -

This one has to go to Cindy Sheehan. Now I know that many of you will say that anti-war campaigns have been around since the Viet Days. But this one’s different. She is not just saying wars are bad. She is saying it as a MOTHER.

Note that once again, mothers have this emotional pull on society. And again, this bias bestowed upon mothers by society, is seen by Feminists as a “weakness” that must be removed, so that wimmin can be more like men.

Gawd, aren’t Feminists st-p-d. They want you to be independent and break away from pigeon-holing yourselves due to men’s thinking, only to tell you to be more like men!

Back to Cindy Sheehan. Here is her blog. Do you think fathers would have more clout than mothers? Why are Feminists not capitalizing this bias skewed towards women, but instead try to undo it and compete with men instead?

Incidentally, Sheehan was the woman who shamed George W Bush when she camped at his luxurious Texan home in protest against the war. That got worldwide coverage. Yeah, Mighty Emperor Bush with the Country’s Machinery behind him vs Lone Mother who lost her son. Could any man or father have impacted the news and invoked the world’s sympathy as effectively?

3. Campaign against genocide of Palestinians by Zionists -

A Singapore doctor gave up her lucrative medical career to work in the war zone of Lebanon in the 1980s. Since then, she has dedicated her life for the Palestinian cause. She is Dr Ang Swee Chai.

Dr Ang, with her husband the late Mr Francis Khoo, helped to form the Medical Aid for Palestinians, a non-profit organisation recognised worldwide.

Dr Ang made headline news more than twenty years ago when she testified in an Inquiry called the Kahan Inquiry in Jerusalem and told the world of the atrocities and genocide committed against Lebanese Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila. Unfortunately, when you fight for the Palestinian cause, you become a political target of the Zionists.

Another lady worth mentioning is Rachel Corrie. She was an activist who bravely stood in front of an IDF bulldozer to stop it from demolishing a Palestinian home. The bulldozer driver mowed her down TWICE. Once moving forward over her, and another time reversing over her motionless body – to make sure she was well and truly dead. One of the flotilla ships that was sent to Gaza to deliver aid was named the “Rachel Corrie” in her honour.

Here’s a video about Rachel Corrie. Rachel Corrie – American Hero! Yes, a hero – and a woman at that too!

I have mentioned four women who have dedicated their lives for causes they have passion for. Unlike the usual “let’s compete with men”, these pioneering women ventured into areas where men have not fully exploited. Aren’t these the kind of women Feminists should be proud of?

For women to succeed, it is Feminists, not society that needs to break their own stereotypes -

It is strange that Feminists tell you women lag behind men because of societal’s stereotyping of women. But when Feminists tell you that, they are actually saying that you should be more like men. Here is a video which is so typical of telling the world why women are, well, behind men.

Miss Representation Extended Trailer

Heck, why do you need to be like men to be a “successful” woman? Don’t women have their OWN characteristics and strengths which are DIFFERENT from men?

Why do you need to listen to those Feminists that you need to be like a man to succeed? Why can’t you just be what you are – ie a woman?

My Summary and Concluding Words -

Once again, I have to say that when Feminists tell you that you need to be equal, what they mean is that you have to follow men and do what they do. They have in other words, expected you to be more like men. In the process, they have also asked you to ditch where your strengths are.

But real women don’t compare themselves to men. They know that they are good, even superior to men in areas where men cannot match them.

MADD and Cindy Sheehan have proven to the world that mothers are able to draw attention to family emotions better than fathers. Cindy humiliated GW Bush with her protest at his luxurious ranch, while many young Americans die in Afghanistan and Iraq. Dr Ang showed that even a soft-spoken petite less than five-footer woman can shame the Goliath Zionist machinery, when she testified at the Kahan Inquiry.

And finally, Rachel Corrie was brave enough to stand in the way of a giant machine to stop it from demolishing a Palestinian home – something no male activist dared even do. Because of her brave action, many Americans are now more sympathetic towards the Palestinian cause. She may have been killed, but with that selfless act, she created awareness of the genocide many Americans were blind to earlier.

Finally, wisecracks who say that I have quoted only four examples, namely MADD, Sheehan, Dr Ang and Rachel Corrie, would do well to be reminded that this means there’s many more areas for women who want to be leaders to work on.

Stop being negative. Start being a real woman instead.

LGBT, Feminism out to deconstruct and destroy the Family

One of the issues I have discussed in this blog is that there has been covert and stealth attempts by LGBT and Feminist groups out to deconstruct, or even destroy the family.

Here are the articles I put up in 2009 and 2010.

1. Family Busters on the loose again
This discussion is about the No to Rape campaign, which lobbies to make it illegal for husband to have sex with wife if she simply says no. Isn’t this a misnomer? Isn’t marriage itself a blanket consent to sex?

However, if husband violently forces himself on wife, that itself is a crime. What need for “no to rape in marriage law”? This campaign actually attacks the very fundamental principle of bonding between husband and wife – which is the backbone of the Family structure.

Note that the campaigners of this No to Rape are feminists.

2. The Dark Side of Feminism – A platform used to destroy traditional family values
This article discusses the Gay Agenda propagated in Feminism – again, with the intention to deconstruct the Family Structure. In fact, even to destroy the Family Structure!

3. Stunning Similarity Between Aware’s CSE and Girl Guide Literature
This article is about how the Girl Guides group (not in Singapore…yet) teaches young girls about… well…. sex, sex, sex, the way AWARE taught our young schoolgirls. The point in this article is that this covert and stealth move to liberalize sex among the underage is worldwide. Somewhere in the middle of the post, you will note that the UN is also involved in de-sensitizing the topic of sex among the underage!

The Deconstruction and Destruction of the Family has begun in Europe -

Here is a report on how lobby groups (ie the Feminists and LGBTs) have persuaded the govts of Europe to (unwittingly) introduce laws and/or policies that supposedly remove gender and sexual orientation discrimination. But in fact, it is all about deconstructing and destroying the concept of the Family. Isn’t this so like the No to Rape from Feminist groups and call by LGBT’s to end S377A due to sexual orientation discrimination?

A pretty long article. Hope you bear with me, but if you read it through, you will realise the gravity and seriousness of the issue we have at hand.

Europe to destroy traditional family and sexual identity

Traditional words ‘father’ and ‘mother’ will be replaced with official terms Parent 1 and Parent 2 in Britain. The terms will be used in official documents. The authorities decided to make such a “politically correct” move to accommodate same-sex couples. Experts are sure, though, that the matter is not about the requirements of certain social groups. The decision is another step towards the destruction of traditional families.

The words ‘father’ and ‘mother’ will be removed from British passport applications before December 2011. This became an achievement of Stonewall group, which defends the rights of sex minorities. The US State Department tried to do the same before, but it was eventually decided not to remove the two words from US passport applications.

Note this practice (above) makes it gender neutral for either parent. It plays directly into the hands of the LGBTs, who have either two male parents or two female parents. But why must this be so? Can’t they just have Dad 1 and Dad 2 or Mom 1 and Mom 2 for gay marriages? Why must we bend backwards, deconstructing the Family for just some minority wishes?

The subject about novelties in the field of gender relations has been getting more and more popular recently. Not so long ago, Pravda.Ru wrote about the kindergarten in Sweden, which became world-famous after its administration decided to simply abolish the use of ‘he’ and ‘she’ pronouns.

Last year, the European Parliament published the brochure, which recommended not to use the words ‘Missus’ and ‘Miss’, ‘Mademoiselle’, ‘Seniora’ and ‘Seniorita’. From the point of view of the European parliament, the use of such words was discriminating against women because they directly indicated their sexual identity.

This one (above) plays to the Feminist agenda to make “he” and “she” gender neutral. Again, why must we bend backwards to appease a minority? Languages have been around for thousands of years. It is our history and culture. And they want to change it just like that?

One does not have to be an expert to realize that such novelties in various countries are not just a coincidence. It is a trend, the goal of which is to change the public perception of the role of the sexes in the society.

Pavel Parfentyev, the chairman of the inter-regional public organization “For Family Rights” also shares this point of view.

“Indeed, this is a serious international trend. It started back in the seventies and the eighties as a powerful movement to defend the rights of sexual minorities. There were organizations that tried to defend even the rights of pedophiles, who, as they believed, also had the rights for their own sexual preferences.

I told you that if you want to argue that homosexuality is a sexual orientation, there would be groups who would argue that so is pedophilia.

“The organizations publicly said that their goal was to destroy family. Afterwards, under the pressure of public opinion, many activists decided to refuse from the openly sexual bias in their activities. They proceeded towards the protection of human rights. This is how they approach children’s rights today. They think that children must be protected from the despotism of their parents – from any forms of traditional upbringing, that is to say. In order to accomplish that, one has to destroy the traditional family first and to make the family become a form that enslaves and binds children,” the expert said.

Remember the laws in these “First World” countries that disallow parents to beat their children? If I did not show this article, or the articles I wrote earlier, and if I said that this stooperd law (preventing parents beating their own children as punishment) is actually an attempt to deconstruct and destroy the Family, you wouldn’t have believed me, would you?

In order to be more efficient, representatives of such movements began to cooperate with large international organizations such as the UN and the Council of Europe. This led to the creation of a small, albeit a very strong lobby for the protection of the rights of sexual minorities on the international level, Pavel Parfentyev believes. The lobby intends to distort the perception of traditional family in the modern society.

As a result, European officials already try to avoid the use of the word ‘family’ in top-level international documents. Instead, they use “family in all of its forms” expression, which implies all forms of cohabitation. As a matter of fact, they deliberately erode and expand the notion of family. The family as we know it has virtually disappeared from the new term.

“The lobby prefers to move in small steps. At first they say that one should not discriminate human beings on their gender rights and sexual orientation. It is hard to argue with this indeed. In Russia, there is no discrimination of real human rights on the base of sexual preferences. At the same time, they create special, previously unseen “rights” and preferences for homosexuals on the international level. As a result, they attach special importance to sexual orientation, which distinguishes a person and makes them stand higher than others,” Pavel Parfentyev said.

The words indicating the sexual identity of people gradually disappear from official speech and documents. If they abolish ‘he’, ‘she’, ‘father’ and ‘mother’ they will not be able to abolish the gender per se. However, it can be possible to undermine the traditional perception of gender.

“A family is much more than a marital union of two people. It is a reproduction mechanism for the whole society. The movements for the protection of rights of sexual minorities are trying to undermine the traditional or natural family, as we call it. They want to take it beyond the scope of public values. More importantly, they want to separate the process of procreation and childcare from marriage and family. According to them, children and parents are two different things that must exist separately from each other. They cast doubts on the special role of parents in raising children,” the expert added.

Many people in Britain claimed that the above-mentioned novelties undermine family grounds in the country.

Isn’t that the deconstruction and destruction of the Family Unit? Isn’t this what Feminists and LGBTs are looking towards, as what I have written in my articles in 2009 and 2010?

The above was about the Europe context. Here’s the American context on LGBT. Not much difference, when it comes to playing the “victim” role, expecting society and/or the govt to back them up. STRATEGIES OF THE HOMOSEXUAL MOVEMENT: “The Overhauling of Straight America”. Note the very aggressive style and approach that is recommended. Just like what happened at AWARE’s EGM, no? Here’s my first hand account how boorish and gangster-like LGBTs can behave, just like what has been recommended! – Sectarian Christians replaced by Sectarian Gays – So what’s the difference?

LGBTs and Feminists have an agenda to remove the Family Structure permanently -

Like I said, if I had not written about this and shown you these various links, you would not have believed me. But is it true that these groups, although a minority, have a world agenda to make the Family Unit extinct. This agenda is backed up by international institutions like the Girl Guides and even has the endorsement from the UN!

One of the biggest stumbling block to these LGBTs and Feminists’ agenda is religion. All religions teach about the basic Family Unit. The religion Americans and Europeans come in contact most is Christianity. Hmmm…isn’t this the reason why so many gays like to bash Christianity?

My Concluding Words -

On one hand I feel that some individual gays are having a raw deal. Employers discriminate them. Society discriminate them. But on the other hand, there’s a hostile group within them who appear to have an agenda to dominate society.

I am OK if gays just wanna be gays. You go your way, I go mine. However, if you push your agenda and expect me to bow down to you, I won’t take it lying down.

This covert and stealthy way of getting policies introduced by govts is not going to help the image of LGBTs – just like what AWARE did when they stealthily introduced such ideals to young underage girls in schools.

As for Feminism, it truly has been hijacked. The early days of Feminism was about fighting for the rights of women. Now it appears that the LGBTs have hijacked their plans and instead, make Feminism a platform for advancing the LGBT agenda.

Finally, it is not all gloom. So far it is America and Europe who are heading for the dumps. The majority of mankind living in other parts of the hemisphere still have very strong family cultural roots to hold society together. That includes many Thirld World countries in parts of Asia, Africa and South America. These societies still believe that there has to be respect within the Family.

So who are the civilised and who are not?

Feminists willingly accept the term slut, then blame society for stereotyping them

Sigh. Many men (and non-feminist women too) wonder how some Feminists try to push their cause. They want to claim they have a right to (un)dress as they please. The most amazing part is that they are implicitly telling society that they are even willing to be called sluts, the very derogatory term earlier day Feminists have been trying to delink between women who (un)dress and the term “slut” society has been giving to such women!

From (un)AWARE:

SlutWalk Singapore: Happening this December

2011 has been an exciting year so far, and it looks set to end with yet another ground-breaking event – Singapore’s first SlutWalk.

If all goes according to plan, the local version of this international anti-slut-shaming movement will take place in December.

Workshops on relevant issues are being planned for Dec 3, with the SlutWalk itself slated for Dec 4.

It all began in January, when these words left the lips of Canadian police officer Michael Sanguinetti during a safety forum: “Women should avoid dressing like sluts in order to not be victimized.”

Outraged by the suggestion the way women chose to dress were to blame for the sexual violence inflicted on them, thousands gathered for the first SlutWalk march in Toronto in April.

The movement caught on swiftly, resulting in what some commentators have termed the “summer of slut”. More than 50 SlutWalk marches have since been held around the world, making it one of the most high-profile instances of feminist activism in recent memory.

So it all started in Canada. It then spread to other parts of the world. Now it is coming to Singapore in December. Merry Christmas! Santa(rina) Slut is coming to town!

Wait a minute. Are these Feminists serious? You want the world to remember you as sluts? Huh?

Highly irresponsible message -

In condoning Slutwalk, AWARE has given out some very confusing and irresponsible message. Firstly, it appears that the term slut is OK, at least if it is for lobbying a socio-political message, ie is society should accept how women choose to (un)dress.

Secondly, to deny that a scantily dressed woman has nothing to do with sexual crimes like rape or molest, is akin to saying that leaving your valuables out in the open has nothing to do with the criminal’s decision to make a quick swipe on your valuables.

Thirdly, Feminists who claim that women have a right to (un)dress as they wish have completely no regard for other societies or cultures, which places women’s modesty high up on the scale. Many societies in the world value a woman’s modesty and dignity. In trying to push for the argument that women be allowed to (un)dress the way she pleases, are they not being insensitive to such societies, forcing their own values on others? Yep, talking about how Feminists bark at others how women are forced to dress and cover up by some societies!

Let’s test it out, shall we? -

To hardcore Feminists who have young teenage daughters, I suggest we do the Sincerity Test. Here it is:

Would you allow your 16 year old daughter to dress skimpily and walk around Orchard Road with her other skimpily dressed friends around midnight on a weekend?

To Feminists who have no teenage daughters, find a fellow Feminist friend who has. Then ask her the question above.

On the other hand, if you can’t even find one Feminist friend who has a teenage daughter, that about sums up how many women you know have the same line of thought about allowing their daughters to (un)dress themselves, not to mention women who are willing to (un)dress themselves, no?

In other words, have you not as a Feminist, been isolating yourself from the rest of society, mixing only with the type of your kind, such that you believe in your false notion that a woman should be allowed to (un)dress as she likes, as an accepted norm, when in reality, most women don’t even agree with you to start with?

Feminism is just an extension of Western influence, does not cut across all cultures, in fact it conflicts with some cultures -

Let’s face the hard truth. Feminism is not an ideal shared by many societies and cultures in the world. Feminism is a minority thought. It is a sectarian thought.

Feminists who are pushing ideals of Feminism around the world are no different from extremists from some religious groups, pushing their brand of bizarre religious beliefs around the world. Both are delusional that the world revolves around them and their ideals, unwilling to accept that they are a minority, and they believe they are the chosen ones who are appointed to change the world to reform and convert others to their way of life.

Even today, many societies around the world treasure the true feminine nature of the female gender. Many societies prefer to see the conservative lady, prim and proper, rather than the brash woman who shamelessly displays her boobs and more, and expect society to respect them for their lack of shame and modesty.

My Concluding Words -

Slutwalk is no smartwalk. In fact, it is telling the world you are willing to accept the term “slut” to be used on you. Haven’t past Feminists fought hard to “de-stereotype” women who dress shabbily are to be called sluts in the first place?

Telling the world that a woman has a right to (un)dress as she pleases is highly irresponsible. It is giving young girls the wrong idea that the way a woman (un)dresses has nothing to do with sexual crimes.

Feminists should stop living in their own delusional, isolated world, believing that their ideals are a majority school of thought, and they have the moral right to teach, even condemn, other societies who do not conform to their way of thinking.

Finally, if Feminists want to be taken seriously, they should act seriously. Stop giving yourselves a bad name, trying to elevate the term slut to a noble level. It is an irony that the last sentence in AWARE’s article above states:

“We demand respect.”

Huh? You want respect, yet you call yourselves sluts and go round showing off your boobs and more, shamelessly? As if you know no modesty?

Nobody takes sluts seriously. Don’t these Feminists realise that? Or are they truly out of touch with society?

=========

Related Link:

Slutwalk ain’t no smartwalk

Feminist opinion on gender issues can be so inherently gender-bias to start with

I am having a quiet laugh at some Feminists who keep saying that we must end gender-bias in some men’s opinions. That is because whenever they bring such issues up, their own narrow view is inherently gender-bias to start with.

From who else but (un)AWARE:

What women want (in a President)

But I can tell you what many women do not want in a President. We do not want our political leaders to perpetuate sexist stereotypes, because words from the top carry weight, and through the media, these words can reverberate through society, influencing and perpetuating certain attitudes.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: On wives getting permission from husbands

During The Online Citizen’s Face 2 Face forum (Part 2, 00:58), adjunct lecturer Ms Hani Mohamed asked the Presidential candidates what they would do to encourage women to enter politics or take on higher decision-making roles. Dr Tan Cheng Bock replied that “some of our top CEOs are women” but “the political arena is a difficult area for women in Singapore because the commitment is really very heavy. So you got to get the permission of your husband.”

There was a loud, collective ‘OH!’ from the shocked audience. Everyone seemed to realise how sexist that sounded, but rather than realise his faux pas, Dr Tan Cheng Bock merely smiled broadly.

But isn’t the view by Feminists that “asking permission from husband” sexist, is constructed to be sexist by Feminists themselves?

Cheng Bok is a Christian. In Christian Literature, the husband is the head of the household. The wife (and children) needs to seek the permission of the head of the household.

Can’t it be argued that due to his Christian upbringing, he on the spur of the moment, gave his opinion as such? Why must it be seen as a “gender-bias” opinion, and not some other reason, like Christian upbringing? Has not Feminists constructed a gender-bias situation, when it could have been something else?

Mr Tan Jee Say: Giving women the choice to be housewives

During the same forum (Part 2, 1:04), AWARE President Ms Nicole Tan asked the candidates for their views on the Baby Bonus – whether it was still necessary, and whether it had been effective.

Mr Tan Jee Say replied: “I would like to go back to the days when women can afford to be housewives… I’m not discriminating against women working, it’s just that women would like to have the choice of not working. After a certain stage in life, they (women) want to really look after their family. And the present circumstances do not allow such choice, because of cost.”

I agree that people should have this choice, but by focusing specifically on women instead of making a gender-neutral point, Mr Tan is merely reinforcing the attitude that women should be the ones to have “the choice” to “really look after their family”. Does he realise that this unequal burden placed on women, including those who work by choice, is precisely why some cannot cope with having more babies?

Again, a Feminist constructed opinion that if we give women a choice to be housewives, it is due to “gender bias”. The idea of woman as homemaker again, like the idea of husband and father is the head of the household, has long been entrenched in many traditions. It is a worldwide phenomenon.

So isn’t making this opinion (as mentioned by Jee Say) a gender issue, actually a recent construct by Feminists?

My Personal Opinion

Feminists seem to be pushing everything that concerns women as gender issues, and if they find it is “disadvantageous” to them (but not necessarily to women), they will say it is gender bias.

But Feminism is an ideology in itself. Like beliefs, which has traditions that has certain practices, Feminism has its own ideology that purports to propagate practices that are “fair to women”, never mind those practices may not really be fair to women, but just practices that seek Feminists to tell women what to do. I have discussed that in this article – I told you Feminism is about Feminist Tyranny replacing Patriarchy

The ideology of Feminism started from the Western hemisphere. But to many other parts of the world, the ideals of Feminism is foreign or even alien. Pushing the Feminist agenda on societies that are not too familiar with Feminist ideals is no different from the missionaries of the past, pushing their ideological beliefs on the natives of the lands.

Back to the opinions given by Cheng Bok and Jee Say on Women Issues. The former gave his opinion that the wife has to ask permission from the husband. The latter gave his opinion that women be given a choice to be housewives.

The above opinions are backed up by centuries of tradition, which is the practice of the norm in many societies around the world even today. It is based on a mixture of religion and other Family Structure type practices, long before anyone heard the term “Feminism”.

So the next time a Feminist argues that a certain opinion is sexist or gender bias, ask her (or him) if that opinion itself is a gender bias constructed opinion, when that opinion could be a host of other reasons that has nothing to do with Feminism.

>Feminists just can’t handle the truth

>It really doesn’t matter which part of the Earth you are from. It doesn’t matter if you are in Singapore, or in the Western part of the hemisphere. Whenever you discuss Feminism with feminists, there will come to a time where you are shut off because your views don’t match theirs.

Keep up the good work gals, you are doing a fine job what the world has always suspected.

That is, feminists are pushing their agenda to the world, forcing it down our throats. Be it

- breaking up families like telling women to abandon their motherly roles;

- promoting gay ideals and marriage, which threatens the traditional family structure;

- or even promoting the bastardization of the sanctity of marriage, by introducing an alien concept of “rape in marriage” to the world, where when the wife simply says “no” and if they have sex anyway, that is rape!

Background of the case I am discussing -

Below is a link to a feminist website that appears to take the “soft approach”. Initially, at least. It was because of the “soft appearance” that I decided to have a discussion with the ladies there. Here is the topic of discussion -
Banning the Burqa

The topic discussed is about the burka ban in France. The ladies who discussed the topic appear to be in a state of two minds. Do they support against the ban because the ban is against a woman’s right to dress as she pleases? Or do they support the ban because the burka is “oppressive to women”?

I came into the discussion late. My point is that this burka ban is mishandled by France. If France had cited security reasons for the ban instead of the idea that it is about secularism and hence religious symbols not be allowed, this ban issue would not be blown out of proportion.

To cut a long story short, after some exchange of views, I was cut off. Why? My views were too far apart from theirs.

Here is my post in the thread that started the “furore”.

Solo Bear says
April 17, 2011 at 4:14 am

I see this burqa issue more of a feminist issue than a religious one. It is even more of a cultural practice than a religious practice. After all, it is not required of Muslims to have it on.

What I find difficult is that many feminists who purport to fight for women’s rights to dress as they wish, immediately become weak-kneed and wobble whenever it comes to the topic of dress for Muslim women.

France should have used a more politically correct reason if the want to ban the veil – security. To say that burqa is “oppressive” is hypocritical because when they force it off women, it is just as oppressive!

Consider this. Which is more humiliating to a woman? Forcing her to cover up a part of her body she wishes to expose, or forcing her to reveal a part of her body she wishes to conceal?

I feel that why feminists (actually, it is women with western ideals bcos not all women in the world share feminist ideals) are unable to handle the niqab, burka or hijab issue is due to their inability to decipher if these issues are truly about feminism, religion, individual rights to dress, or even political symbols.

A feminist will stand by a woman who insists to dress in a miniskirt. But she sways when the woman wants to have the burka or even hijab on.

The feminist will scream patriarchy when she sees women are forced to cover their heads in Saudi or their faces in Afghanistan. But they sway when women are forced to uncover their faces and heads in France and other parts of Europe.

In all, I never really believe that Feminism is about the rights of women, or for that matter freeing women from the chains of patriarchy. I feel Feminism is about feminists telling women what to do.

In other words, Feminism is simply replacing patriarchy. Feminism does not free women. It enchains women immediately with its own brand of oppression, telling women what to do, right after freeing them from patriarchy, which they claim enchains women!

Here is an article I wrote about Feminism, pertaining to the transfer of the control of women from a patriarchal controlled society, to a feminist controlled society.

Modern Woman’s Dilemma – which is worse, Patriarchal Domination or Feminist Oppression

I mentioned about the hijab halfway down the article.

Here is my full list of topics on Feminism.

That post I made was followed up by some exchange between the admin and myself, as well as with another netizen with the handle “Maureen” and myself.

Then all of a sudden, the chop from the admin! O.O

feministletters says:
April 20, 2011 at 7:30 am

Solo Bear, I have removed your last comment. Under no circumstances will I have any type of rape condoned or approved of on my site.

To which I replied

Solo Bear says:
April 20, 2011 at 9:16 am

I think it is very dishonest of you to have portrayed that I have portrayed to have condoned rape.

Tsk tsk.

Let’s hope the admin doesn’t censor that last post of mine, which I made on April 20, 2001 at 9:16 am too.

And what was the post that she dishonestly claims I have put up that condones rape? Here is the reproduction of that. See for yourself if there’s anything in there that I have written that indicates I have condoned or approved rape.

Solo Bear says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
April 20, 2011 at 1:37 am

Maureen,

Before I continue, let me say a few things.

I am from Singapore. Make that The Republic of Singapore. I am NOT from Indonesia, which is another country. A much bigger country.

SE Asia consists of the above two countries, plus Malaysia, Philippines, Brunei, Timor Leste, Thailand, Vietnam, Burma, Laos and Cambodia.

The majority are Muslims. The rest are Buddhists, Taoists, Christians and Hindus. A small percentage are atheists or agnostics. That is how diverse SE Asia is.

Unlike Europe, where Europeans are almost homogenous, or Americans, where they hardly have any neighbours to interact, unless you are up north or down south – in SE Asia, the countries are so close to each other, and their cultures are so diverse, we get to see each different cultural practice almost on an everyday day basis.

Hence, a mosque’s minaret doesn’t scare us – unlike Europeans or Americans. We see it everyday.

Neither does the Quran or a veiled woman scare us. But these things do seem alien to many Europeans and Americans, such that when they see such in droves, Islamophobia sets in.

Please take note of the different cultural backgrounds you and I come from.

You posted
>>Let me see if I get this right: Indonesian women think that feminism is irrelevant because marital rape is legal in their country?
>>

Many Indonesian women don’t even know that Feminism exists! Those who do know are the ones living in the big cities, like Jakarta. In the far out provinces, they know only one culture – Islam.

The majority of the 200+ million Indonesians live in the far out provinces. How can they even think feminism is irrelevant, when they have not even heard of it?

>>Once again, authoritarianism vs. autonomy. I know if I felt oppressed in a country where my legal rights were extremely limited, I wouldn’t be talking to men about my feminism.
>>

Once again, you use YOUR background to judge! Indonesia is not a good example to discuss Islam and Feminism. In Indonesia, many Muslim women have never even heard of the term Feminism.

A better example would be Malaysia. This country has about 20 million population and 55% of them are Muslims. Many of these Muslims have heard about Feminism.

I mentioned that Marina Mahathir, daughter of an ex-PM of Msia is one of them. Another party I can refer you to is Sisters in Islam (SIS).
http://www.sistersinislam.org.my/

While SIS claims to be BOTH a Muslim AND Feminist organization, many Malaysian Muslims are not convinced. To Msian Muslims, this group is just made up of Muslim women who are feminists.

In order to be classified as a religious group, there has to be religious clerics who are able to advise on religious matters. None of the members of SIS has that qualification.

In Malaysia, Islam and Feminisms are seen to be opposing each other. You can’t be both a Muslim woman and a feminist at the same time. I did tell you that Islamic Laws pertaining to women, family and inheritance are in contradiction to feminist ideals. Muslim women who are feminists are seen as deviants.

In Singapore, Feminism DOES NOT have any religious flavour. Islam is COMPLETELY OUT of the picture. Hence, Singaporean Muslim Women have less of a problem identifying themselves as a Muslim feminist, than a Malaysian Muslim woman.

I have talked about how feminism is like in three different countries in SE Asia. All three countries see feminism differently. You, on the other hand, see Feminism as homogeneous.

Have I not shown you that the culture I come from is very different from where you come from?

As for “no to rape”, shouldn’t it be no to VIOLENT sexual relationship?

Which culture in the world, other than your western ideal, does not see marriage means there will be CONSENSUAL SEX between the couple?

Marriage itself is the consensus. To say that there is “rape” in marriage is akin to say that there is theft after you purchased a good.

Doesn’t the purchase give you the right to the good? Likewise, doesn’t marriage give you the right to have sex?

What we should be concerned about is (sexual) VIOLENCE against the wife.

But that is taken care of, be it in Spore, Msia or Indonesia. There are laws to protect the wife.

No to rape is again a Western idea. I accept if you have it as laws in YOUR LAND.

But if you try to export it to land of others, why should we accept?

Yes, there is rape in marriage. When the wife says no and the husband VIOLENTLY forces on her. But if the wife says no and husband has sex with her and she just “goes along with it”, that ain’t no rape!

And again, if the husband VIOLENTLY sets on her against her will, the law will come down hard on him. For violence, not rape.

Note that it was dishonest for the admin of the site to have portrayed that I condone rape. She was just giving an excuse to bar me because I came in strongly against her views and other feminists’ views, wasn’t it?

Here is a link that I have saved and put up in my website – with the moderated and censored post veiwable to everyone. My unapproved post is right at the bottom of the webpage, Post #27.

Saved webpage of “Banning the Burqa”

Here is the screenshot of my moderated post from Feminist Letter’s website, which I am able to see, because I posted the comment under my account.

So that about confirms it. Feminists have an agenda to FORCE their ideas onto the world, such that if you disagree with them strongly, you are shut out.

Isn’t Feminism about chaining and telling women (and the world) what to do, after purportedly freeing women from the chains of patriarchy?

>Child Prostitution in US – and feminists do nothing about it

>Feminist issues has never been my cup of tea. For a long time in my life, issues on feminism took a backseat in my personal portfolio of interests. Just like my other “backseat issues” like Animal Rights or Green Earth.

My “hot issues” have always centred on religion, family, anti-war and of course, the hypocritical western style “democracy” which these nations want to export to others. However, since the Aware Saga, I have taken special interest in Feminist Issues globally.

Here is one issue I have come across, which I feel that Western feminists, who always cry abuse of women in Third World countries, have missed out totally. In fact, this abuse happens right at the door of the law makers of the USA!

US kids sold into prostitution

Anti-child prostitution organisers fight an uphill task cleaning up this pedophile crime. The reason is because American society is such that if you are 18, you are considered adult and hence, you control your own life. But the average age when the girls start prostitution is 13 or 14, and some start as young as 11!

The problem appears to be the law enforcement part. Yes, this is the USA!

While the activist (above in the video clip) who is trying to push for the law to have a “pedophile register” for suspects, the issue appears that it may also incriminate an 18 year old guy who has sex with his 16 year old girlfriend. She may initially consent, but later claim there was no consent and have him put on the suspect list.

It appears that in America, pedophiles who stalk young girls and groom them as sex slaves are being saved by the rights of men who have casual sex with their underage girlfriends!

What a farcical and hypocritical way to protect “freedom of choice” – USA style!

Didn’t I mention the hypocritical western “democracy” (in this case freedom of choice) earlier?

But then, isn’t this syndicate crime that affects women one area that feminists should address?

Yesterday (8 Mar 2011) was International Womens’ Day. Feminists decry that they are still a long way off from being “equal to men”. They use stats like how much women earn, how many top positions in MNCs or govt positions they hold etc and use those as benchmark to measure their progress.

But the real issue that needs to be addressed immediately – child prostitution, which deprives the woman of her honour, dignity and womanhood at a young age – is ignored by these feminists.

Sometimes I wonder if feminists deserve all the flak they get from society for getting their priorities wrong.

If these feminists themselves see nothing wrong in prostitution let alone child prostitution, how do you expect society to pressure the law makers to make sure those criminal pedophiles who entrap young girls are put behind bars?

Hey, wait a minute. Wasn’t it mentioned in the video clip above that the law makers themselves are clients of the child prostitutes?

Oh my, America, Land of the Free Everything!