About these ads

Woman-hating Internet losers attack Malala Yousafzai for … not being a good enough advocate for girls and women

malala

Return of Kings contributor “Billy Chubbs,” whose previous contributions to the wisdom of the ages include posts titled Men Should Not Help Sluts, Bangable Women Can Still Be Gross, and Unmarried Older Women Need To Go Away, has outdone himself in the awfulness department with a post this week attacking 17-year-old Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala Yousafzai as “A Coward And A Hypocrite.”

Apparently inspired by Chubbs’ bold move, the Sarkeesian-hating, Anton LaVey-looking far-right nitwit Davis Aurini has junped on the bandwagon with his own blog post dissing Malala.

We’ll get to him in a minute. But first, Chubbs.

It’s hardly surprising that a writer for a site that portrays women as emotionally immature, intellectually inferior, and “inherently terrible people” would have a problem with a young woman known around the world for her courageous advocacy on behalf of education for girls.

But Chubbs attempts to portray himself as a true defender of “oppressed girls in crappy countries” and an enemy to “anti-female extremists.” Yes, that’s right: a man who has described young women as “society’s mobile sperm banks” and single women over 30 as “unappealing and repulsive … hoebags” is trying to pretend that he’s better advocate for girls’ and women’s rights than Malala Yousafzai.

His evidence that Malala is a “coward and a hypocrite?” The fact that she has not returned to Pakistan since being literally shot in the face by a Taliban assassin.

The reason the Taliban shot Malala in the head was to send a message that they would attack girls who wanted to get a western-style education. …

Getting shot in the head is pretty extreme, and I could respect Malala if she took it and continued to live in Pakistan. But she ran. She gave up. The extremists won unequivocally …

Malala has done more harm than good to oppressed girls in crappy countries. She says books and education are what we need to change the world, then proved that completely untrue after she ran away when a man with a gun fired a bullet into her.

Yes, what a coward for “running away” after a guy shot her in the face, say Billy Chubbs, a dude who claim to fame in the world is writing clickbait blog posts attacking women, under what I assume is a pseudonym, on a website run by a professional pickup guru who feels resentful that he has to wipe his own ass in order to appeal to women.

Malala has been an activist for education and against the Taliban since the age of 11, when she started writing a blog for the BBC on life in the Swat district of Pakistan, then under the control of the Taliban. A tireless advocate for girls while still a girl herself, she started receiving death threats, some slipped under her door, after her identity was publicly revealed. In 2012 she was shot in the face in an assassination attempt.

And Chubbs — who lives in Canada, and who is unwilling to even post a real picture of himself on the internet — thinks she’s a coward for not returning to Pakistan — where she was shot in the face, and where bookstores won’t even stock her book because of threats from the Taliban.

And he also seems to think that she’s “lucky” for being able to move to England.

Malala was lucky that she was co-opted for an agenda and was given a great place to live in the western world, because while she is touring the globe, advocating girls rights to education, those same girls are the ones forced to continue to live in places where they can be hurt and killed for trying to attend school.

And what were the “lucky” circumstances that led to her relocation to England? Oh yeah, she was shot in the face in a country without the medical infrastructure necessary to treat the injuries she received from being shot in the face.

Chubbs also throws in some old-fashioned imperialist arrogance and racism into the mix:

While Malala was laughing, playing and enjoying the safety of receiving an education in a predominantly white country found upon Christian morals, school girls in Africa were being kidnapped. …

So yes, never fear you ladies of the 2nd and 3rd world. You, too, can brave all those bad men and receive an education: so long as there are prosperous countries founded upon and still more or less exercising European Christian morals that still exist for you to run to (and which you can afford to run off to in the first place), and that you’re willing to be a hollow mascot for the powers that be in those countries.

At one point, Chubbs actually belittles her for … reading books:

Instead of reading text books and trying to fill her head with words, Malala would have been better served to take that textbook and hold it in front of her head to try and stop the bullet.

That doesn’t even make a tiny bit of sense.

Davis Aurini, meanwhile, has weighed in with an equally ridiculous, if not quite as outrageously offensive, attack on Malala for her … alleged unoriginality.

In Aurini’s view, Malala is a mere “youngling,” and a copycat of “Civilized” Western ideas. who doesn’t deserve the Nobel Prize or the money that comes with it.

[F]or the most part, love ‘em or hate ‘em, the past recipients have at least made their mark on history. With few exceptions, they’ve all walked a dangerous path and stayed committed to their cause, and they’ve brought forth intellectual and political blossomings that were unprecedented. They’ve all been inventors.

You cannot say the same for Malala Yousafzai.

Thus far in her life, she’s been little more than a poster child for the prevailing superstitions of our times.  Arguing that women should be allowed to read books is not revolutionary when you live in Britain, and while it may be brave for a girl in Pakistan to make such statements, they’re still not creative in nature; she’s merely channelling the culture of the Civilized West, repeating words that were written by others.

This from a guy whose main claim to, er, creativity consists of this “film.”

So brave, dudes. So brave.

 

About these ads

Posted on October 17, 2014, in a new woman to hate, actual activism, antifeminism, attention seeking, dark enlightenment, davis aurini, dudes who look like anton lavey, empathy deficit, entitled babies, grandiosity, mansplaining, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, patronizing as heck, PUA, racism, reactionary bullshit, red pill and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 244 Comments.

  1. (Pops in)

    You rang? I think laughing George Takei pretty much sums up my reaction to Mr “I am a prize that she must fight for”, except I’m not sure he’s laughing hard enough. A prize? Oh honey no. In the great game of life, you’re not the glittering reward that everyone secretly hopes they’ll find some day, you’re the fruitcake that keeps getting regifted,

  2. Laughing George Takei is so stolen. I can think of sooooo many uses for him…unlike our would-be human prize here.

  3. No, there is not something wrong with me because my experience doesn’t match your model thank you very much! Grumble grumble grumble. However, more objectively, I can see that if you want to make a set of clear guidelines that limit harassment for everyone else, throwing demis under the bus is probably a pretty good option.

    Yea, I’m not saying he’s great, but as a free self-improvement option (especially one who labels the people who don’t text him back flakes??) for a RPer? Better than nothing and clearly better than whatever BS he’s spouting about alpha males and feeeeemales and whatever the fuck. Also more likely to be listened to, unfortunately, as he’s obviously not a vocally self-identifying feminist, and a white (I’m assuming here) cishet dude.

    kitteh T.T Before I left I’d never been blockquote monster prey. I’m really sad about doing it on my first blockquote back lol.

  4. I think laughing George Takei pretty much sums up my reaction to Mr “I am a prize that she must fight for”, except I’m not sure he’s laughing hard enough. A prize? Oh honey no. In the great game of life, you’re not the glittering reward that everyone secretly hopes they’ll find some day, you’re the fruitcake that keeps getting regifted,

    Yuck! I hate fruitcake. As much as I love my grandmas…

    As for George Takei, he should be rolling on the floor laughing his ass off at Mr. “I am a prize that she must fight for”. The first thing I did when I saw him call himself “a prize” was roll my eyes, chuckle in pity, and say, “What a prize.”

  5. Re fruitcake: I always loved it when I was a kid. Then the meme about the continuously regifted fruitcake — or even the boat-anchor meme — became pervasive, and pretty soon I couldn’t find an edible fruitcake. It’s as if fruitcake makers decided that if everyone thinks fruitcakes are meant to be inedible, then why bother making them edible. Thus, once again, life imitates art.

  6. My granny’s fruitcake is actually great, not sure what sort of magic she’s using to make that happen.

  7. It’s as if fruitcake makers decided that if everyone thinks fruitcakes are meant to be inedible, then why bother making them edible. Thus, once again, life imitates art.

    And I had to come along after the companies gave in to the meme. Or maybe they were just cutting corners on the ingredients and labor. Ah, capitalism…

    Meanwhile, Sam Harris mansplains to feminists, “Dear Muslima” style…

  8. “And I had to come along after the companies gave in to the meme.”
    They seem to have figured out how to make it rock-hard stale before it’s even in the package. Or maybe they’re still trying to sell the leftovers from when I was a kid, 50+ years ago.

  9. It’s definitely better when it’s fresh-ish. And has sauce. Hot, buttery, apple-brandy sauce.

  10. kitteh T.T Before I left I’d never been blockquote monster prey. I’m really sad about doing it on my first blockquote back lol.

    But it shows the Blockquote Mammoth missed you!

    I like fruitcake. Woolworths make a very nice dark fruit cake, surprisingly enough.

    Oy, bloody Sam Harris. He’s as big a turd as Dawkins, I swear. Possibly bigger, since I don’t think Dawkins was all rah-rah profiling and torture.

  11. It’s as if fruitcake makers decided that if everyone thinks fruitcakes are meant to be inedible, then why bother making them edible. Thus, once again, life imitates art.

    I think it’s just that making a good fruitcake is e.x.p.e.n.s.i.v.e. Any method that companies use to cut down costs is going to affect quality to some extent. Once they’ve gone so far, any further step suddenly takes them into inedible territory.

  12. I seriously sometimes don’t know if it’s hate or pity that I feel for these d00ds, the lack of self awareness you must have to be able to accuse someone who’s faced up to the fucking Taliban in person as an unarmed child, of being cowardly is just mind boggling.

  13. It’s definitely better when it’s fresh-ish. And has sauce. Hot, buttery, apple-brandy sauce.

    Not necessarily. There’s a fantastic recipe that one ‘natural living’ author proposes for fruitcake – as a means of preserving the seasonal oversupply of eggs from your own chooks. Once it’s baked and wrapped for storage, the keeping method consists of regularly opening the package and adding Yet Moar Brandy to soak into the cake. Though the conventional method usually uses a cloth soaked in brandy wrapped around the cake, then foil, then an airtight tin. But you have to inspect every month even if you don’t add more brandy. Should keep for a year or more, and get better with every month that passes.

    But when you have to pay the full costs of all the ingredients it can be pretty expensive. Having your own eggs and some of the dried fruit/candied peel and a few kilos of almonds/ hazelnuts/ walnuts you grew yourself makes it more doable, if not economical.

  14. I like fruitcake. Woolworths make a very nice dark fruit cake, surprisingly enough.

    There used to be a Woolworths in my hometown near Seattle from World War II until the US division went out of business. I still miss it. Booth’s drugstore too.
    Oy, bloody Sam Harris. He’s as big a turd as Dawkins, I swear. Possibly bigger, since I don’t think Dawkins was all rah-rah profiling and torture.
    I don’t remember wanting to throw any of Dawkins’ books. Harris’ first book, The End of Islam? I got sorely tempted to throw that. I wasn’t surprised when he and Kit Hitchens became Darth Cheney’s useful idiots.

    I seriously sometimes don’t know if it’s hate or pity that I feel for these d00ds, the lack of self awareness you must have to be able to accuse someone who’s faced up to the fucking Taliban in person as an unarmed child, of being cowardly is just mind boggling.

    I have no such uncertainty. What I feel for them is contempt. Them calling Malala a coward while hiding behind faraway screens and nyms strikes me as pure projection; it reminds me of an old playground taunt, in fact: “Don’t call me what you are!”

  15. Ow! Blockquote monster bit again. What I was supposed to be quoting when I commented about Darth Cheney and my temptation to throw Harris’ book was this:

    Oy, bloody Sam Harris. He’s as big a turd as Dawkins, I swear. Possibly bigger, since I don’t think Dawkins was all rah-rah profiling and torture.

  16. Blockquote monster must’ve used all its energy on SittyKitty. :P

    I’ve never read any of those dudes’ books, so can’t comment there. I’m thinking of their online gasbagdouchery.

  17. Michael

    I seriously sometimes don’t know if it’s hate or pity that I feel for these d00ds, the lack of self awareness you must have to be able to accuse someone who’s faced up to the fucking Taliban in person as an unarmed child, of being cowardly is just mind boggling.

    Yes. I know that stand between a child and an oncoming car/tiger/whatever feeling.

    But I don’t know how she could, first, go along with her group that no one would “admit” to being her. Then in the face of an explicit threat that it was either her alone or all of them would be killed, to stand up and say “It’s me”.

    That these armchair heroes can sneer and snicker that she’s cowardly is beyond despicable. It might mean that they have pitifully underdeveloped moral sense, but I feel no pity for them. I’m just sad that people like them _seem_ to exist in far greater numbers than people like Malala.

    (Though we have no way of knowing that. The ones like her who are killed long before they’ve had a chance to be noticed by the world. How many of those have there been?)

  18. I make an excellent Xmas fruitcake, from a Canadian recipe. One must really like almonds to like it. I’ve given up putting the half-brandy, half-Amaretto mix in it, so now all 1c of booze is Amaretto. Yum!

    I love fruitcake, I consider it to be one of humanity’s best inventions.

    And Sam Harris, pfft. Terrorist + ticking clock scenario = torture is always fine so long as it’s “us” doing it to “them”. Great philosopher there.

  19. @Dennis, thanks for the link to the post critiquing Sam Harris. I went into the comments. Lo and behold, what I imagine (from the content of the comments and the nums) to be atheist dudebros are all in there defending Sam, along the lines of “you misrepresented what he said” and “no his arguments are more nuanced”. And then they proceed to not demonstrate the misrepresentations they allege.

    Feck, if these are society’s “brights”, we’re all doomed.

  20. When I was in college I gave Sam Harris the honorary title “Wrong About Everything.” It seems to be holding.

  21. My mother makes fruitcake every year. Apparently it’s amazing. I’ve never cared for fruitcake because of the texture differences – I don’t do well when there is different textures in different bites of food; crunchy, soft, chewy, different flavours, MAKE UP YOUR MIND FOOD WHAT AM I EATING??? This applies to veggies on pizza and on sandwiches too.

  22. Feck, if these are society’s “brights”, we’re all doomed.

    BWAHAHHHA

  23. Years ago I heard Harris give an interesting talk on PBS. It prompted me to buy his book. May I just say that if you pose a question and then blather on for a few hundred pages and never actually address the effing question you posed that you claimed the effing book would be about you are an asshats sir and I fart in your general direction.

  24. I am so glad I was never tempted to buy any of the Four Horseapples’ books. I really don’t have the bookshelf space to spare for that stuff, and as for lining their pockets – erk no.

  25. For someone who wants to bring science to bear on philosophical questions – and his book The Moral Landscape is a compelling and I think persuasive argument for how to begin in the field of ethics – Harris’ torture argument, while logically valid, is completely logically unsound. Yes, IF there is a bomb about to go off in a major city, and IF torture is an effective and swift means of extracting accurate information from a person, and IF you have the bomb-maker in custody, and IF the only way of getting the information on the bomb’s location in time is in fact to torture this individual, then it logically follows that torture is justified in that scenario. But at least one and probably two of those premises are completely without basis. People will admit to being witches under torture; it’s a piss-poor way to get to the truth. If you build the argument with the conclusion in mind, voila, your conclusion will follow. I’m all for interesting philosophical conundrums leading to counter-intuitive results, but that argument is bad philosophy and bad ethics.

  26. I’m all for interesting philosophical conundrums leading to counter-intuitive results

    I thought that way too, until Dawkins poisoned that well for me with his, frankly offensive, tweets that also were constructed incorrectly from a formal logic perspective.

    Those types of philosophical conundrums seem to be magic just-so stories constructed purposely to lead to a particular conclusion and to show how Dawkins dudebros are the only true rational beings. It’s like the BS about how Hitler was vegetarian, so vegetarians aren’t nice people, or how abortion might get rid of another Mozart.

    The issue is the framing of the conundrum, and rational dudebros frame things a particular way in order to lead people down a particular path. It’s not proper logic, and it’s designed to show that they’re smarter than us. Smarts don’t work that way, and it’s amazing that so many rational dudebros who sniff at the social sciences are so concerned with other people knowing just how intelligent they are when intelligence is a social science construct, psychology to be precise.

    /gets off hobby horse

  27. ::gives hobby horse a nice sugar cube::

  28. As much as I get not wanting to line the pockets of Dawkins, Harris and Hitch, Daniel Dennett is lovely.

  29. I read something on Pharyngula the other day that suggested Dennett is part of the problem, though not as egregiously as those three windbags – now I’m racking my brain trying to remember it and find a citation!

  30. Found it. Dennett defending Dawkins’s loathesome rape tweets.

    Of course, Dawkins still has legions of supporters. Among his biggest is Dennett, one of his fellow “Four Horsemen” and a philosopher at Tufts University.

    “I thought Richard’s responses were right on target. If some radical feminists (and others) think that all rape is equally bad, do they think it is not quite as bad as murder? If so, are THEY condoning rape? And if they think rape and murder are always equally bad, they really have lost their bearings and do not deserve our attention. Richard has been immensely important.”

    Source

  31. I don’t do well when there is different textures in different bites of food; crunchy, soft, chewy, different flavours, MAKE UP YOUR MIND FOOD WHAT AM I EATING???

    My boyfriend has the same issue. I thought he was the only one.

  32. Policy of Madness

    @theapostropherroyal

    then it logically follows that torture is justified in that scenario. But at least one and probably two of those premises are completely without basis. People will admit to being witches under torture; it’s a piss-poor way to get to the truth.

    I would actually disagree that torture would be justified if it were effective. That’s a purely consequentialist argument: that the ends justify the means, and if the ends are of sufficient magnitude on the “goodness” scale, then that balances out using really despicable means to get there. I am not a believer in consequentialism – that the ends justify the means, and that good ends of sufficient magnitude can justify practically any means to get there. This is the line of reasoning that leads to human sacrifice. I can’t get behind any moral system that permits human sacrifice.

    Even if torture were totally effective, I would still find it morally unacceptable, just like human sacrifice is morally unacceptable to me no matter what benefits it brings to the non-sacrificed persons.

  33. Policy of Madness

    Wat, I got a little redundant there, didn’t I?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,478 other followers

%d bloggers like this: