Guest post by Josh Spokes.

“Liberal elites”. “Liberal elites.”

Who are they, New York Times and mainstream media? Who are these horrible super rich people who want women to have birth control, who want poor people to have food stamps and medical care (even poor people who super HATE them some “elites” but still want health care)?

Who are these villains that you say, again, are responsible for Trump’s victory? What ever did they do to make the people actually effected by Republican policies—no job stability, promises to take away their healthcare—hate them?

About three hours of sleep.

President Grabthembythepussy.

We have a president who calls a US Senator “Pocahontas.”

Who calls women pigs.

Who has an upcoming rape trial on his schedule.

I have a few articles open, that I haven’t read yet –

Meghan Murphy: America really, really hates women.

David Remnick in the New Yorker: An American Tragedy.

Sarah Ditum in the Independent: Donald Trump is President of the United States – so tell me again how rape allegations ruin a man’s life.

We (Americans) will never live this down. Never.

Here’s something to take our minds off the election for a few minutes – or maybe just my mind: an article by Ellen Granfield posted at Everyday Feminism that recycles some so 1990s ideas about science. Some bad so 1990s ideas about science.

It’s posted at Everyday Feminism, so Twitter trolls are screeching that this kills feminism dead. (Yo, Everyday Feminism isn’t even feminist, let alone representative of all feminism. Feminism has an anti-science irrationalist wing, but that’s far from all of feminism.) But it was reposted from The Establishment. The Establishment is that site where Aaron Kappel wrote that appalling piece bashing feminism because one woman asked him clumsy questions about his “identity as non-binary.” Publishing the piece discredits The Establishment and Everyday Feminism, but it doesn’t leave a mark on feminism in general.

So let’s see Ellen Granfield’s so last century thoughts on science:

Modern, mainstream science finds itself deeply embedded in a supposedly objective, quantifiable worldview – one that is at best faulty, and at worst, is a form of scientism which denies new findings.

There was the idea of continental drift, you see, which was ridiculed and then later accepted, which is

a stark reminder that the course of human history is not governed by objective truth of any kind, especially in the history of science; the truth is always shifting.

Emphasis hers.

Right. People are wrong about one thing for a short period of time, and it turns out they’re wrong – and that demonstrates that ALL IS RANDOM AND SHIFTING.

I kid. No it doesn’t.

Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince discuss this phenomenon vis a vis paranormal discoveries in their book The Forbidden Universe, which contends that “the view of the universe emerging from the latest scientific discoveries, particularly of quantum physics and cosmology, can be seen to vindicate the ancient Hermetic belief in an evolving, living, conscious universe.”

Seriously, it’s not 1993 any more.

One of the most obvious examples of scientism today is the theory of evolution, which is still upheld as the dominant explanation of how life generates itself. The problem is that biologists still can’t answer the most basic of questions involved, including the origin of life itself, sexual reproduction, or how species originate.

Oops.

The political fight over curriculum between religious Fundamentalists and neo-Darwinists has pushed any meaningful discussion of this topic off the table, as mainstream science remains stubbornly fearful of giving up ground if they admit that there are serious controversies raging around the theory of evolution as the catch-all explanation for our current existence.

It leaves no room for the possibility of Intelligent Design Theory, which posits “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause.” IDT is often made synonymous with creationism – neo-Darwinists argue that it’s just Creationism in disguise – but there are many scientists and philosophers alike that believe IDT is just as compelling a theory as evolution for “the way things are.”

This doesn’t discredit all of feminism, because it’s not all of feminism what wrote it or published it, but it sure as hell does discredit Everyday Feminism and The Establishment – if they had any credit to dis, which in my book they didn’t. In short, boo on them for publishing that garbage.

There’s a lot more, and it’s even worse. There’s some ranting about science’s rude insistence that the heart is a pump and only the brain has intelligence, and the importance of intelligence in the cosmos as a whole, and similar profundities. (Nothing about brain cells in the gut, though. Is she gutphobic?) Very distracting stuff.

H/t Helen Dale

A Facebook friend posted some very useful information that needs to be widely known, and gave me permission to share it here. Guest post by EP.

Dear local friends – there was a letter sent home with the kids today about Operation Christmas Child shoeboxes. Please, PLEASE do not participate. Although the info presented seems lovely, this is deliberate and cynical marketing ploy. The scheme is run by Samaritan’s Purse, one of the most criticised religious charities in the world. The founder, Franklin Graham is one of Donald Trump’s biggest supporters and donators. His Twitter feed just spews racism, homophobia, misogyny and plain old madness constantly. He is a vocal supporter of the idea of building a wall between Mexico and America and of the idea of not allowing Muslims into the USA. Other delightful things Samaritan’s Purse do or have done:

• Was involved in the training of contra rebels in Nicaragua.
• Was involved in the training of Israeli groups which invaded Lebanon.
• Is one of the biggest opponents of gay marriage and LGBT rights in the USA and was (is) one of the biggest financial backers of the anti-gay marriage campaign.
• Openly and continually describes Islam as an evil, satanic religion.
• Describes Hindus as ‘bound by Satan’s power’ in its literature.
• Claims that domestic violence is caused by women not submitting to the will of men.
• Is indicated (although not yet proven) in the illegal removal of children in disaster zones to be trafficked to the States and elsewhere to be adopted by rich white Western Christians.
• Spent every cent/penny they raised to help the crisis in Haiti on holding a huge evangelical event that locals were co-erced into attending on the false promise of aid. They also did the same with the Nicaraguan hurricane in 1999, and used money for prayer meeting in El Salvador that had been earmarked to build homes for desperately poor locals.
• Many organisations, including Christian ones, will have nothing to do with them. This includes Save The Children and the major teaching unions of the U.K. (The NASUWT is particularly worried about the scheme being run in schools). DHL refuses to deliver any of their leaflets or shoeboxes.

And apart from all of that, it’s racist and deluded to think this scheme helps. It’s incredibly offensive to decide that people in other cultures need to change their religious beliefs to yours. In fact, converting someone to Christianity could put their life at risk in other countries. Most of the contents of the shoeboxes are culturally irrelevant or inappropriate: children do not need winter accessories in countries where there has never been snow. Little girls do not need hair accessories and cheap toy make-up sets in cultures where all children have very short hair or hair types where hair clips made for Caucasian hair won’t work, and where cosmetics are frowned upon. It also takes away work from local people who make or sell many of the items included, such as toothbrushes or school supplies. These sellers and makers are often widows, single mothers or older women, and the shoeboxes take away their chances of making what little money they can. And the idea of trying to bribe children to believe things they wouldn’t otherwise with conditional gift-giving is abusive in any language and any culture.

Pliny the In Between:

Well this is like a cool drink of water in a wide desert – Samantha Rea rebuking Juno Dawson in the Independent.

There were furrowed brows last week, in response to a column by author Juno Dawson in Glamour magazine. Dawson identifies as a transgender woman. In a column entitled, “Call yourself a feminist?”, she refers to feminist academic Germaine Greer as a “TERF” explaining that the acronym means, “trans-exclusionary radical feminist.”

Dawson tells readers that TERFs are: “A subgroup of feminists who steadfastly believe me – and other trans women – are not women.” Explaining how this is an issue, Dawson says: “The key battle ground between TERFs and trans women is the issue of toilets. Yes, my right to do a little wee or poo is, apparently, major political battleground.”

Notice that she politely ignores the syntactical trainwreck of “who steadfastly believe me – and other trans women – are not women.” I didn’t ignore it. It chaps my hide that editors let that pass, and then called Dawson an excellent writer in Twitter discussions. Come on.

The term [TERF] is actually an exonym – a term used to describe a third party that the third party neither recognises, nor uses itself. It’s generally seen as a slur, and since the publication of Dawson’s column, women have objected to the label via social media, and in personal blogs. The controversy should be no surprise to Dawson or Glamour, as the term has been contentious since it was coined.

Yes, but the people who like to use it pretend that it’s already normalized, and contentious only to the evil.

The negative connotations mean that those with similar views and concerns to those labelled “TERF” will be reluctant to speak up, for fear of being similarly tarnished. Women who are maligned by this label are also then isolated by it.

Dawson’s description of TERFs as a “subgroup” of feminists compounds the idea that these are the views of a few hardline zealots, and therefore unrepresentative of women generally. In reality, many women are afraid of men following them into women’s toilets. There’s no way of knowing if the man identifies as a woman, and just needs a wee – or if he’s about to sexually assault them.

That’s because such assaults do in fact happen, and voyeurism is downright common.

But it’s not just about toilets. Expanding the entry criteria so those who identify as women can access women’s rape crisis centres, domestic abuse shelters, and other spaces where women may be vulnerable, means an increased risk of assault, because men – not just transgender women – will have easier access, being able to walk into these spaces unchallenged.

And it’s not only that. It’s also seeing those who identify as women explaining both feminism and womanhood to those who were simply born women and left to deal with it however they could.

Getting too aggressive with the term “TERF” can inhibit personal conversations between women about subjects such as periods, pregnancy, childbirth, the menopause, miscarriages and stillbirth. Already, women are finding themselves censored and corrected when recounting their own experiences. Breastfeeding becomes “chest feeding,” vaginas become “front holes,” and there are no pregnant women, but “pregnant people.” Instead of talking freely among themselves, women’s language can sometimes end up policed, even though the source of women’s oppression often has everything to do with their bodies and their reproductive systems.

“Can sometimes end up policed” is quite an understatement.

Suggesting that such concerns are exclusive to a subgroup of feminist fanatics is disingenuous and shuts down the potential for open conversation and understanding. Dawson’s assertion that women are simply upset about “my right to do a little wee or poo” deliberately undermines the validity of women’s concerns, mocking their genuine fears.

In writing this column, Dawson continues the age-old tradition of dismissing women’s fears as hysteria. The title even questions women’s credibility as feminists. “Call yourself a feminist?” it asks. I’d like to ask the same question of her.

I’d like to tell her to sit down and be quiet.

Ah the joys of religious state schools in the UK. The Daily Mail (sorry) reports that the government ordered four Islamic schools to shut down after bad Ofsted reports, but they appealed to the courts so pending the outcome they remain open. Oh well, it’s only students.

One allegedly taught girls that men can beat their wives. Another distributed leaflets saying music is an ‘act of the devil’.

They could continue operating for months, if not years, after launching legal appeals against closure. The four fee-paying independent establishments include a girls’ boarding school, Jamia al-Hudaa in Nottingham, that was ordered to close last month after Ofsted found books in the library by individuals banned from entering Britain.

Ministers told the 237-pupil school it must close its boarding facilities immediately and stop accepting new pupils.

But the school said “shan’t” and is fund-raising for a legal appeal. But this is a state school, not a private school. But religious schools can be state schools in the UK, and this is the dog’s breakfast that results.

One former student says she is disgusted that it can continue to operate, saying it was ‘like a prison’ where girls were isolated from the outside world. She says girls were taught they can be beaten and raped by their husbands, in order ‘to make Allah happy’ and that music is the voice of the devil.

…

Several Islamic schools were ordered to close by the Department for Education after a series of critical Ofsted reports. But the four appealed to the courts, which allows them to continue operating until a ruling is made.

At Darul Uloom in Birmingham, inspectors found a large number of leaflets ‘containing highly concerning and extremist views’. It remains open five years after concerns were first raised, when a preacher was filmed making racist remarks about Hindus and ranting that ‘disbelievers are the worst creatures’.

They provide a first-person account of life at one school:

A Former pupil at Jamia al-Hudaa school in Nottingham says she was taught that women can be raped and beaten by their husbands and that music is the voice of the devil.

Sara Adam – not her real name – says the girls’ boarding school was ‘like a prison’ where girls are ‘entirely isolated from the outside world’ and simply ‘trained to become subservient housewives’.

She said: ‘We were not taught geography, history or music and in art we just did knitting. We were banned from drawing anything with eyes.’

It might as well be a school for slaves.

‘There was no sex education and we were taught that evolution was a belief of devil worshippers and atheists. Most of our day was spent doing Islamic studies.’

Miss Adam, who does not want her face pictured for fear of retribution from within her community, left Jamia al-Hudaa more than a decade ago. But the school, which has 237 pupils, continues to operate under the same leadership, despite whistleblowers repeatedly raising concerns.

Last month Aliyah Saleem, now 27, told the Mail how she was expelled from the school for owning a disposable camera.

She said she was taught that Jews and Christians ‘make God angry’.

Miss Adam recalled how when she was a pupil, two girls aged 14 and 16 were put into solitary confinement for three weeks after teachers suspected they were lesbians.

…

Teachers would carry out regular spot-checks of the girls’ dormitories, and ‘lift up our mattresses and look underneath like they do in prisons’.

‘They found my personal diary,’ Miss Adam said. ‘I was told off by teachers because in the summer holidays before I joined the school, I wrote that I fancied a boy I saw on the Disney Channel.

‘The teacher said it was forbidden to like boys at my age – especially if they are “kuffars” [a derogatory term to describe non-Muslims].’

Her diary was eventually returned with a third of the pages torn out.

Miss Adam said: ‘We were basically trained to be mindless zombies who submit to their husbands. I was lucky because, after calling my parents every night in tears, they eventually pulled me out of the school.

‘It is disgusting that a school like this is still open – and my fear is there are many more.’