Real men don’t eat quiche or coddle women
So what matters to the rage boys? Putting women in their place, that’s what. Their place is either slavishly obedient, or dead; those are the choices; and it’s Rage Boy who gets to decide which rules women are required to obey.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said Islamist terror groups were behind one murder, as well as a case where a woman was threatened and is in hiding…Nazir Afzal, the CPS’s national lead on honour crime, told BBC Radio 4’s File on 4 programme the threats to kill a woman known as Miss B, who is now in hiding, came from her family but originated in an Egyptian terrorist group. He said: “They told her husband that if he didn’t put his wife in her place then they would do it themselves.”
Because they don’t want any sissy rage boys in their outfit, the kind who are too wimpy and girly to be willing to murder their wives. What kind of Rage Boy Brotherhood would that be?! Who is frightened of rage boys who won’t even murder their own wives? Get real.
Mr Afzal said honour violence was not confined to fathers and grandfathers, but was carried out by younger relations too….”They get their identity and their ethnicity from these traditions. We know they are bizarre and outdated but they get their identity from those traditions and they feel very strongly that how you treat your women is a demonstration of your commitment to radicalism and extremist thought.”
Oh do they – how inspiring. What an interesting idea of ‘radicalism.’ There was a whiff of that in the sixties, too, but then that whiff is what blew into second-wave feminism; men who wanted to hang onto any idea of ‘radicalism’ dropped the whole ‘barefoot chick in the background’ routine pretty fast.
However, Reefat Draboo of the Muslim Council of Britain told the BBC she disagreed with Mr Afzal’s comments.
And the BBC asked someone from the MCB what she thought why, exactly? The BBC talked to someone at the MCB and no one else why? The BBC felt it had to ‘balance’ what Afzal said with what someone else said so it asked – the MCB and no one else, why? Because it always does? Because it’s so lazy it can’t be bothered to find a different organization or a more informed view? Draboo’s comment is supremely irrelevant, because ‘honour’ murder doesn’t have to be condoned by Islam for Islamist terror groups to approve of it. Why couldn’t the BBC get its feet underneath itself long enough to find someone with something of value to say? Because if it asks the MCB then Rage Boy may get a little peeved but he won’t go into full red alert fury mode? Or is it because it makes people at the BBC feel kind of vaguely sympathetic and diverse and right on to turn to the MCB all the time. Do they all have their heads wrapped in thick bales of attic insulation there or what?
“Cultural practice,” eh? Hmmm … yes. Sounds so anthropological. And we all know that cultural practices must be respected.
“Germans killing 6 million Jews and assorted gays and other riffraff? Nothing to do with religion at all. Just a cultural practice. Hey, who would be so stupid as to think that anti-Semitism has anything to do with religion?”
Oh lordy not the Hitler was a christian straw man again!
“Oh lordy not the Hitler was a christian straw man again!”
Where?
Is it behind the hard data on religious demographics of 1930s Germany, or in front of the Hitler Was An Atheist straw man?
Would be interesting to know what the BBC policy actually is – and where it’s dictated from – in terms of talking to ‘representatives’.
“Do they all have their heads wrapped in thick bales of attic insulation there or what”?
Yeah, I would gather so – as well as also big round bales of ‘straw?.
“What kind of Rage Boy Brotherhood would that be”?
I wonder, maybe the following will give a birds-eye view of the Islam – in – thing.
http://www.snappedshot.com/archives/964-Professional-Protester,-Jihadi-style.html
OK, casting the net out a bit, but wondering if the peculiar appeasement of RageBoy among certain popular commentators in liberal media – who as Hitch says, are ALWAYS there – is partly based in cultural memory of riot & protest movements of 68 (Paris, Berkeley) and the 70s punk era (Anger is an Energy, Pil/Lydon – Toxteth, Brixton, Bristol riots), when people actually did get quite publically angry, rioted, but have *long* since been made apathetic and docile by flexible labour laws and punative mortgages… a misplaced dewey-eyed harkening back then to when stuff actually ‘happened’ in the ‘streets’ ? Just a thought…
many apologies for this, but wouldn’t this make for a fantastic, Alan Moore-penned comic – “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen vs. The RageBoy Brotherhood”…?
:-)
N.B. The AM original was NOTHING like the appalling film version…in t’original, Quartermaine’s a guilt-ridden smack addict, for starters… :-)
Anyway, anyone nostalgic for the Brixton riots is the kind of person who still regards ‘punk’ as a ‘significant’ political movement, or similar twaddle…!
;-)
“No-one has so many foes as RageBoy and the Church of Gangsta!”
Thou shalt not make unto thy protester any graven image . . .
. . . nor publish the same.
This Rageboy caricature demeans all of your arguements. Just another version of dehumanising your enemy, generalisation and providing yourself the luxury of not having to think.