MRAs regularly accuse feminists of promoting the idea that all women are “perfect princesses” who can do no wrong. Which is a rather silly accusation, as every feminist I’ve ever met is well aware that women, like men, are capable of vast evil. Jiang Qing, also known as Madame Mao, was one of the ringleaders behind China’s bloody Cultural Revolution. Madame Delphine Lalaurie was a 19th century New Orleans socialite who tortured her slaves and performed bizarre medical experiments on them. And then there were Ilse Koch, the “Witch of Buchenwald,” and her counterpart Irma Grese, the “Bitch of Belsen,” sadistic Nazis who tormented the prisoners under their charge and kept grisly “souveniers.” (For more on them and other truly evil women see here and here.)
But today I’m going to talk about some women who aren’t so much evil as retrograde and wrong: the 800 women who have reportedly joined the newly formed Obedient Wives Club in Malaysia, an offshoot of a fundamentalist Islamic organization called Global Ikhwan, previously known for its Polygamy Club.
If you set aside the whole fundamentalist Islam thing — MRAs by and large don’t seem terribly fond of Islam — these Obedient Wives would pretty much represent the ideal women for manosphere misogynists; much of what they profess sounds like it came straight from discussions on The Spearhead or one of the popular MGTOW forums.
According to the Obedient Wives, for example, “disobedient wives are the cause for upheaval in this world” — including social ills like domestic abuse. As one spokeswoman for the group sees it, “domestic abuse happens because wives don’t obey their husband.” Asked by the newspaper The Star if this meant that a wife was at fault if she was abused, the spokeswoman replied with a “yes,” because “most probably … she didn’t listen to her husband.”
But it’s the group’s pronouncements about sex that have caused the most controversy in Malaysia. Apparently Obedient Wives need to be sexual dynamos as well as submissive helpmeets, eager and willing to “obey, serve and entertain” their husbands “better than a first-class prostitute” can. As one of the group’s founders put it at the event heralding the formation of the Obedient Wives,
Sex is a taboo in Asian society. We have ignored it in our marriages but it’s all down to sex. A good wife is a good sex worker to her husband. What is wrong with being a whore … to your husband?
Several days later, another Obedient Wives Club spokeswoman attempted to “clarify” these remarks in an interview with the Malay Mail:
I believe we have been misunderstood and misinterpreted. When we said that husbands should treat their wives like first-class prostitutes, we were not putting wives on the same level with prostitutes. We are talking about first-class elite types, not street hooker types.
So that’s … good, I guess? Although we should point out that actual prostitutes in Malaysia – even those working at “high end” clubs — are treated like shit.
Before all the “American-Women-Suck” dudes reading this convert to Islam and buy one-way plane tickets to Malaysia, I would like to note that there are feminists in Malaysia who think these women (and the men Involved in starting the group) are full of it. Islamic feminists, even.
I’m gonna point this out because I see it a lot and it bothers me. You don’t need to get defensive about evil women rulers being “singled out” here, because that just happens to be the topic of conversation. Talking about one side without mentioning the other does not equal thinking the other side doesn’t exist. I think you know this, though..
kirb, my point is that Elizabeth and Mary were not exceptionally evil in context (i.e., in terms of world leaders at the time). Obviously, a list of evil women is going to include only women, by definition. I don’t have a problem with that. The female serial killers belong on that list–even Elizabeth Bathory whom, I believe, was a rough contemporary of Elizabeth I. Bathory killed for pleasure and depravity, whereas Elizabeth I killed primarily to keep power. I also agree that Isabella of Spain belongs on the list as the initiator of some of the worst excesses of The Spanish Inquisition…which, of course, nobody expects.
(Cue jarring music; enter Cardinals Ximenez, Biggles, and Fang.)
Because the US is not the only country with sexist politicians:
http://stevensim.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/news-perkasa-chief-tells-why-men-like-him-cheat-wives/
@ David K. Meller,
Have you considered hiring yourself out to do weddings and bar mitzvahs? You have a real gift.
Reading articles like this always depress me, because there’s never any room for the woman’s happiness, desires, or interests. These women have totally bought into the idea that their sole purpose in life is to please their husbands, and that if their husband is not totally satisfied at all times, there is something wrong with them as women. This leaves no room for them to do totally kickass things that might truly enhance the quality of their lives, and make them happier, more fulfilled, and more contented people (which would probably also make them better partners in the long run).
Also, I’m pretty sure that the science came up, a long time ago, that if you want to be in a sexually fulfilling, stable relationship, you should probably pick a feminist:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071015102856.htm
The saddest thing for me about this story is the little girls in the picture. I feel so much anger and sadness over the bs that Quiverful girls are raised to believe and I feel the same for the little girls raised in these “obedient wives club” families. The messages they get are so devaluing, it’s really surprising that the suicide rates aren’t astronomical.
(and No Longer Quivering is a great site. Vyckie is amazing at how she’s been able to nearly completely reevaluate her beliefs and her life)
I’m not even sure how I’m supposed to engage with people who say things like “Little ladies could no longer PRETEND to infest MEN’s work outside the nome, and no harm done!”
It’s just such… how do I argue with that? I mean. My mom goes to work while my dad does the dishes! Oh! What now Meller? WHAT NOW?
Oh man, @Skyal. A world of sympathy for those children.
David Tooboringtoevenrememberhisname’s use of scare quotes around “careers” is hilarious. Men have careers, presumably, but women have “careers” and the difference is, um, I dunno, but anyway women’s careers don’t count as real because shut up.
Ooh, I just saw the “PRETENDING” comment! The hilarity increases. I love how a woman’s pretending to be a – f’rinstance – surgeon, actually consists of being a surgeon. It’s like woah, all meta and philosophical.
@David K. Miller
“I still think that it is less harmful to the larger society than modern women pretending–through affirmative action laws, hostile-workplace legislaion, mandatory hiring and promotion quotas and so on–to be…”
Sooo… Do these places just pluck random off the street saying “You! You’re a surgeon now, we need more women!” You don’t think women go through years and years of medical school to become a surgeon, boot camp to become a soldier? Hell, I go to MIT currently, a school of engineers and mathemeticians and so forth.. You know who’s the president of the college? *Gasp* a woman! this woman to be percise. Is she just “pretending” to be an accomplished neuroscientist? Has she just been faking 16 years of running one of the more prestigious universities in America (one involved in heavily male subjects I might add), does she secretly call her husband for advice behind closed doors?
Everyone profession you mentioned has a very clear indicator of how fit a person is to fill them. And it doesn’t matter how many quotas there are, if a woman isn’t fit for the job, she won’t get it. How long do you think a surgeon, of any gender, will last if they can’t actually operate? It’s that simple. The quotas exist to combat the predjudices, like yours, of how there are “men’s jobs” and “women’s jobs.” At some point in the past, probably not so much today, if you had removed these quotas, women would indeed disappear from the profession because they wouldn’t even be considered for the job.
Peace and Freedom, man.
That should be “male-dominated” rather than simply “male.” Curse you, invisible edit button…
MissPrism, yeah, they don’t let lady surgeons operate on real people. They just give them the game “Operation” and tell them they’re operating on a midget. Those dumb gals are too stupid to even realize it’s not a real person!
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2009/04/18/9153761-sun.html
I suspect personpants wishes he wrote this >_>;;
And this is prolly what he and a lot of other guys rly think too when they talk about this stuff xD
He appears to have been watching too much LOTR too >_>;; (plus lots of phallic imagery o_o)
Ami, I was watching too much LOTR not too long ago — watched the extended versions of the first two films in rapid succession — and it eventually made my eyes hurt, but it didn’t turn me into a douchebag.
Nowhere did any of the critics of my posts suggest doing away with the legislation, perhaps even repealing the XIV Amendment (whose legality is questionable in any event), and overturning the judicial decisions allowing freedom to hire, promote,dismiss, and to DISCRIMINATE! I know (and didn’t deny) that there are SOME women who are going to be superior to some men in their individual working in some properly male-dominated occupation or profession!
“The race goes not always to the swiftest, nor the battle to the strongest, but that is the way to bet!” I consider those who are over-educated, overpromoted, and overpaid to be pretenders and frauds!
Dismissing incompetents–even White males–once the principle of defensive hiring on the basis of sex (or race) quotas or representative participation is accepted becomes enormously difficult and expensive, even if lawsuits can be avoided! There are always women (or nonwhites) who will CLAIM descrimination as a cover for substandard–even dangerously incompetent–work and their claims HAVE BEEN AND ARE taken seriously by the sundry egalitarian Kommisariates–both private like the N.O.W. or NAACP, the SPLC and the ADL–and government “equal opportunity” bureaucracies…The renegade “mainstream” newsmedia don’t help, taking the claims and assertions of plaintiffs no matter how serious the pretence of professionalism happens to be! Standards of competence and professionalism (both public and private) are soon inevitably compromised for everyone to make “grounds’ for such dismissals or demotions less likely.
So, you see, under current law, an employer CAN’T AND MUSTN’T simply dismiss incompetent, lazy, or even hostile employees and remain secure from;
(1) multimillion $$$ lawsuits. and perhaps even more seriously
(2) orchestrated hostile public opinion against so-called “sexists” or “racist” employment policies and the firms which practice them!
(3) shareholder or trustee–i.e. senior management (renegade Male or renegade White)–reaction whose offices are LEGALLY REQUIRED to protect the company, nonprofit, or university from scandal!
I could probably continue. but I think that I have made my point! Come back to me when this meddlesome, destructive, and capricious (unconstitutional) power is removed from the Federal Government–and the governments of the several States, freedom to uphold quality and reliability is once again acknowledged and we see the employment patterns assume their natural forms! Until competition is restored I stand by my impression that the (vast) majority of women–or nonwhites– infesting male postions and professions are there by force of law, and NOT by merit or competence! My abject apologies to any EXCEPTIONS, but that is exactly what you are, VERY RARE exceptions!! The rest of you are LIARS, PRETENDERS, AND legally sanctioned FRAUDS!!
PEACE AND FREEDOMM!!
David K. Meller
Of course you think they are only there because someone made the HR person only consider women or non-whites David. Because otherwise you have to face the fact that you are the one who is incompetent. And you are a white man! How could that possibly be?
@David K. Meller
Well, thanks for the response… I guess… Though I can’t tell whether you’re talking to me or just ranting.
“So, you see, under current law, an employer CAN’T AND MUSTN’T simply dismiss incompetent, lazy, or even hostile employees”
“My abject apologies to any EXCEPTIONS, but that is exactly what you are, VERY RARE exceptions!”
See, heres the problem. You are clamining that only a small minority of women are actually competent, yet you provide no statistics, no evidence, just assertions. And your claim is a tough one, I didn’t only list one exmple because only one exists, I could try to dig up more successful women from the internets. But of course, those would only ever be “EXCEPTIONS,” right? I couldn’t list any number of obviously sucessful women that you couldn’t dismiss as being a “VERY RARE exception.”
So how about this, since you are doing the claiming, provide some stats on the matter. How do you, personally, know that the majority of women are “over-educated, overpromoted, and overpaid,” and is it enough to convince anyone else? If not, then honestly I and others have no reason to lend you any credence. Employers CAN “simply dismiss incompetent, lazy” and especially “hostile” employees, because they are not being forced to higher employees that will be detrimental to their work. (Perhaps government jobs are different in this resepect, but it is very difficult to fire any government employee). You, in dismissing all women as frauds, are dismissing all schooling, training, and whatever else those women went through to get to where they are.
Also, “until competition is restored I stand by my impression that the (vast) majority of women–or nonwhites– infesting male postions and professions are there by force of law, and NOT by merit or competence!” ???
Seriously dude? Only white males are actually hired by merit? Everyone else are being hired only because the law is forcing them? This… there is no response to how utterly vile this is…
kirbywarp–regarding post of 11 June 2011 at 2:54 am
Universities–as a group–have been most thoroughly permeated with egalitarian privileges and policies since at least WW II as a preconditon to getting the Billions of $$$ of government money into their endowments and trusts! It is also possible that your particular alma mater (and her’s) M.I.T. has been even more dominated by those policies, and the bureaucracies that enforce them than others, given the role that their laboratories and specialists played in the War effort, both then and afterward.
It also seems to me that universities, especially their humanities departments and senior management, are even more committed to socialist egalitarianism, especially in its gender-based and race-based forms, than any other major power center in our society! I don’t know if this is the case with MIT, but given its location, both in the USSA–United Socialist States of America–and the People’s Republic of Taxachussetts–it seems likely that even for academia, it would be very friendly to the appointment of a woman for “equal opportunity” purposes!
I’ll certainly be prepared to change my mind if and when she calls for the end of government funding of universities and their laboratories, and an end to the meddlesome and destructive intervention in hiring and promotion policies! I’m NOT holding my breath, and I will continue to believe, for that reason, that there are indeed men who would be vastly more capable as either a scientist, or a university President, than Susan Hockfield! If I am wrong I apologize, but until then I stand by what I said!
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
kirbywarp:
You are STILL not joining me in my demand for repeal of the offending legislation, court rulings and Constitutional Amendment! If I am wrong, you lose nothing, since the people would still be as employable and promotable as ever’ if I am right, the rest of us gain a tremendous amount of liberty, privacy and prosperity, and you, along with your fellow egalitarians, have rotten eggs on your faces!
If women–and nonwhites–are as ‘EQUAL’ as you have maintained throughout the XXth century, they-and you–have lost nothing! How about it?
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
@DKM
Okay… *phew* Way to ignore the post you were responding to at all, and instead more directly respond to my first post…. You may be well wrote, but your timing is kinda faulty.
“Universities–as a group–have been most thoroughly permeated with egalitarian privileges and policies since at least WW II as a preconditon to getting the Billions of $$$ of government money into their endowments and trusts!”
You seem to ignore my point that hiring practices were actually unfair to women and minorities in the recent past, hence the necessities of what you call “egalitarian policies,” and what I call “giving opressed groups a chance in the workplace.” You’re using scarey buzz words to describe policies that are actually rather necessary, and a decent “fix” to the problem of biased hiring. Though given your last post, you seem to think that only white males are ever actually qualified for jobs (with “RARE EXCEPTIONS” of course).
Posture all you like about being willing to change your mind about Hockfield’s competence if only she would have MIT not except any government funding (seriously, how are those two related at all?). You still are asserting a bunch of “facts” about the world without giving anyone listening to you any reason to believe you. So lets stay on topic, if you actually want to converse, and give your evidence for why you believe the way you do, shall we?
@DKM:
“You are STILL not joining me in my demand for repeal of the offending legislation, court rulings and Constitutional Amendment! If I am wrong, you lose nothing, since the people would still be as employable and promotable as ever’ if I am right, the rest of us gain a tremendous amount of liberty, privacy and prosperity, and you, along with your fellow egalitarians, have rotten eggs on your faces!”
Wow, I never thought I’d see the logical absurdity that is Pascal’s Wager here in a discussion of feminism here. Props! But yeah, we would lose something if I’m right, because though I claim different groups are equally competent, I don’t agree that hiring practices would be fair if left on their own. Bias is still present, though it is much better than it has been in the past. I do think AA policies aren’t as relevant as they were in the past, but honestly the existance of people like you (again with the “only white males are actually competant”) makes me think that they are still necessary.
kirbywarp–regarding post of 11 June 2011 at 2:54 am
Universities–as a group–have been most thoroughly permeated with egalitarian privileges and policies since at least WW II as a preconditon to getting the Billions of $$$ of government money into their endowments and trusts! It is also possible that your particular alma mater (and her’s) M.I.T. has been even more dominated by those policies, and the bureaucracies that enforce them than others, given the role that their laboratories and specialists played in the War effort, both then and afterward.
It also seems to me that universities, especially their humanities departments and senior management, are even more committed to socialist egalitarianism, especially in its gender-based and race-based forms, than any other major power center in our society! I don’t know if this is the case with MIT, but given its location, both in the USSA–United Socialist States of America–and the People’s Republic of Taxachussetts–it seems likely that even for academia, it would be very friendly to the appointment of a woman for “equal opportunity” purposes!
Fourteenth Amendment? How dare you socialist harpies write something as offensive as this:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Equal protection of the laws? What do you think you are actually equal human beings deserving of equal rights? Preposterous!!!
(Sidenote: can I admit that as a socialist I am rather fond of this new right wing line that associates equality under the law with socialism? Ever since they started at it big time in the last presidential election, recruitment for socialist parties in the US has dramatically increased, and poll numbers show more people now have positive associations with the term socialism. Implying that a decent health care system, or not being a huge racist, equals socialism actually puts us in a positive light.)
How are they– (government funding and recipients of these funds acting to please polically motivated and empowered bureau(c)rats–related at all???
It is the GOVERNMENT that implemented policies, issued court rulings, and confiscated wealth (through lawsuits settlements) that created the mess in the first place! Without government, we would see if the equality spoken about so extensively here, and elsewhere, even EXISTS, wouldn’t we?
I don’t think that it does! IF the case for so-called “equality” was as self evident as you–and they–seemed to indicate, hiring or promoting us drunken, incompetent white males-as you would have it– would rapidly return North America to the Stone age which characterised it before October 1492, since females and nonwhites could profitably and easily take our places, and White businesses and institutions would rapidly be either bankrupted by superior competion or be taken over by the superior management (womanagement?) of the fair sex (or nonwhite entrpreneurs).
I don’t think realistically that will happen, do you? Again…
REPEAL THE LAWS!! No more excuses.
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
It truly is a shame that these women have absolutely nothing of meaning in their lives and no standards or expectations of men OR of women. They live as absolute animals incapable of controlling base urges…..and then are passing that mindset onto their offspring?? Despicable.
Whomever said that calling themselves “prostitutes for their husbands” is most certainly an insult to all prostitutes everywhere. At least prostitutes are wise businesswomen…while these women are the lowest of the low.