@ joeu

Let's agree to disgree.  As long as we understand why....

1) Both misogyny and misandry are bad.  The first is a genuine problem around the world.  The second is mostly absent. In my opinion, the first still remains a much bigger problem in the West than the latter, although I will not deny that there are problems with 'feminisation'.  There are certainly no signs of any "misandry" on this website for instance, which is of course not a representative western sample.  There are however, occasional signs of misogyny from commenters.  

2) Regarding the UN, the Muslim world, etc...I repeat, please make a distinction between islamist propaganda and fact.

3) I do not believe for a second that the 'Swedish lion case' reflects proof of any significant "misandry" in Swedish society.  It is simply not representative in any significant way. But, I would agree with you that there is a lot of 'injustice' resulting from naive-left legislation and jurisprudence.

@ Joeu

Yes, we do live in different "parallel universes".  And yours is largely "make-believe", because you are not making an effort to read accurately what is in front of you.

1) I did NOT question your complaints or observations about feminisation in the West.  To some extent I agree with them.  But that is besides the point.

I DID attack your ridiculous claim that islamists were fighting feminisation in the Muslim world.  And I tried to explain that you were indirectly advancing a false argument or 'justification' for male dominance in that world.

2) You have no clue how the Muslim World, and most of the Third World, functions.  You see this through 'western' (media-induced) eyes.   I am no more a fan of the United Nations than you are.  But the notion that the UN could "impose feminisation" on the Muslim World is absurd.  The UN only influences (not exactly imposes on) naive-left western governments and media, mainly in Europe (and of course including the Jimmy Carter's, Al Gore's and Mike Huckabee's of the World). The UN bureaucracy feeds the Western 'guilt complex' (in order to get more money for itself), and its political organs likes to pass anti-American and anti-Israeli resolutions, amidst a whole host of other resolutions which in practice are not enforcable and thus rarely enforced. But, the UN certainly cannot impose anything in the Third  World.  Sure, when some 'aid' gets delivered, the proper words will be said.  Or, in a particular crisis, temporary 'accomodations' wil be made. But, Third World ruling elites and dictators do not 'follow' dictates from international civil servants!  They rule as they see fit.  And feminisation certainly does NOT 'fit' in that respect.

I think your argument to joeu is spot on. However, to clarify, It was I that introduced the 'feminisation' concept and I will try humbly to explain myself, although I admit I have a difficult time articulating what I mean.

Along with all the PC-speak and avoid-offence-at-all-costs culture that has blossomed in recent years - we in the West seem to be losing our identity and, yes, our balls.

The nadir for me was the British Navy episode in the Straits of Hormuz earlier in the year. But this latest nonsense comes very close.

Or let me try and put it another way. If I'd have told you not even twenty years ago, that a group of Swedish soldiers (of whatever gender) had sought and obtained permission from the highest court in Europe for the removal of a penis from the Lion Rampant of their regimental emblem; you would probably have called the local institution to advise them of an escape.

And actually - although going off in a slightly tangential direction, I think joeu is not that far away from either yours or my way of thinking on this matter.

Hope that clears things up ;)

U:d

@ Joeu

Your obsession with "feminisation" (whatever that exactly means) continues to blind you to the reality of the situation, which is the absence of individual freedom in much of the Muslim world or, in other words, the intimidation of 'group think' there.  

There is no "imposition of feminisation" in Muslim lands.  So, how could islamists be fighting against feminisation?   Who could be imposing feminisation?  Women in that world have no power whatsoever (and most men either).   Before there could be possibly feminisation, there must first be some kind of 'democracy' which allows individuals sufficient 'freedom' to sink into cultural degradations like 'feminisation'. 

By the way, there is no "occupation of Muslim lands" either, at least not in contemporary times.  So, islamists are not fighting "occupation" either.    You have to try to separate islamist propaganda from fact.       

joeu

You either completely misunderstood my statement or were deliberately attempting to derail my argument with troll-ish nonsense.

I wasn't talking about Muslims I was talking about 'us'. We in the West have become so feminised, so 'touchy-feely', that we hold back from criticism and retaliatory action even against the most blatant abuse of our tolerance; and thus allow those who would destroy us (yes, Muslims) to flourish.

I'm very very far from anti-female. I just think we have completely lost the balance.

But still, I doubt I'd want any of these Swedish leonine emasculators watching MY back in a firefight.

@ Joeu

1) I do not have "the answer for all human relationships in the world".  But I do know what my basic values are, and also do have my own opinions about "relationships" in the world, judged in light of these values.  For example, I think that the (moral) 'equality' of all human beings is a basic human value.  From this, I derive that the legal equality of all human individuals is an absolute requirement for any decent (moral) legal system of any polity.  I do realise (as I hope you do too) that 'equality' is a difficult concept (when applied to real world situations) with lots of room for differences of interpretation. 

2)  I think that you DO implicitly (or indirectly) "justify" something when you claim that islamists are "fighting against western feminisation of their culture".  You did not make that statement in a vacuum.  You made it IN THE CONTEXT of some people here complaining about feminisation of western culture.  The term "feminisation" is highly subjective and questionable.  It can meen very different things to different people.  So it is a very 'vague' (undefined) charge.  But it was unquestionably used here in the sense of a BAD thing.

By contrast, the oppression of women in the muslim world generally is very clear and beyond serious question.  Traveller has given you some specific examples of that, but the list is really endless.  It can be objectively documented and observed all the time. In a way the oppression of women by men in the muslim world can be seen as a 'byproduct' of the lack of respect (in a cultural and political sense) for individual freedom for all (including men) in that world, but that doesn't make it any more 'right'.  

3)

So, IN THIS CONTEXT, and given the manifest oppression of women in the muslim world (something bad), your observation about islamists possibly fighting against "feminisation" (something else purportedly bad) is IRRELEVANT.  If it is irrelevant then it can only be viewed as an indirect 'justification' (in the sense of 'after all they are only fighting bad feminisation').

The truth is that they are NOT fighting feminisation.  How could they?  Feminisation PRESUPPOSES a certain degree of equality which is manifestly not there.  Oppressed people can not sink into cultural decadence (including 'feminisation').  Only fairly wealthy and politically- and legally-'emancipated' people can do that.

4)

A more accurate observation, than "islamists are fighting against feminisation", would be to state that "islamists are fighting for the continuation of male control over women as well as etc...). 

In recent times, Islamists generally have shown great savvy in exploiting all sorts of western 'vices'.  For example they have become masterful at exploiting anti-American sentiments and resentments in Europe, as well as recurring bouts of racism among certain westerners, or certain (western) male resentments about 'feminisation', etc... Most of all, they exploit the extreme moral relativism of many westerners (which enables them often to get islam put beyond public criticism).  And, saddest of all, they have actully managed to reduce many so-called western feminists into 'silence' about islam's oppression of women, by playing on the acquired selfhatred for their own civilisation by these feminists.  You better call a cat "a cat".  Islamists fight for many things, and the oppression of women by men is one of them. Feminisation of their societies is the least of their worries, because it simply isn't even observable on the horizon. You will have to wait first for genuine democracy to emerge, i.e. freedom of political speech, so....it is going to be a very long wait.

You appear to be an 'internationalist', ie. believe you have the answer for all human relationships throughout  the world.  Maybe you have the right answer. Maybe you do not. I think it is arrogrant to believe you do.

"The cultural depredations in the West can NOT be used as an argument to justify oppression of women in the muslim world." Not to justify anything, just to explain why there is  logical resentment against those who wish to impose   their cultural norms (and more importantly 'law', though  international organizations) on others.

This is racist? I think not. Now, that's a card that rapidly loses its value when  casually bandied about. 

The obvious question to me is what women are doing in a rapid reaction force?  That might work in Hollywood, but I've never heard of it in real life.

@ joeu

You either believe in human equality and human freedom, for all human individuals, or you do not.  The cultural depredations in the West can NOT be used as an argument to justify oppression of women in the muslim world.   The real 'fight' should be about the CONTENT of the law, not about whether it should be applied selectively to some and not to others (or differently to others).

While there are commentators here who regularly manifest their racism, I would hope that you are not going to join the few that clearly manifest misogynist tendencies as well.  

People, i.e. individuals, should always be judged on the basis of their behavior, not on the basis of physical characteristics (like race, gender, height, etc...) over which they have no control.

No - they're fighting because it is written in the Qur'an and drummed into them again every Friday.

'We' have patently failed to feminise them to any extent whatsoever.

The over-feminisation of society is a major contributing factor to the fact that we now can't deal with Islam as we should, either.

They knew the lion had a dick when they joined up. Ad Omnia Castratus?

Those women must have a serious mental problem and should not be let out of an asylum, not to say given a weapon! Since when does an obviously male lion not have any genitalia? I wish women like that stayed at home in the kitchen, as their mental capacity is insufficient for any social contact. They only embarrass women like me.

If these girls are so easily perturbed, perhaps the military is NOT such a good place for them. After all, they might be called upon to do decidedly unpleasant things some day  - such as fighting, killing, being killed ...

Has anybody bothered to ask 'Lenny' what he thinks?

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/s292/Mtravisf/MeMyLion.jpg

May be the Flemish should add this into their flag.. We might have a solution in Belgium ..."pretty fast"..

sorry couldn't resist...

"The King of the Jungle who..."

http://www.whirligig-tv.co.uk/tv/children/other/lennythelion.htm

Now a pussycat.

Perhaps they should replace the male genitalia with its female counterpart.

I think the really interesting part was missed when the excerpt was posted:

" 'A heraldic lion is a powerful and stately figure with its genitalia
intact and I cannot approve an edited image,' Vladimir A Sagerlund from
the National Archives told Göteborgs-Posten.

Sagerlund blasted the army for making changes to the coat of arms without his permission.

'The army lacks knowledge about heraldry. Once upon a time coats of
arms containing lions without genitalia were given to those who
betrayed the Crown,' said Sagerlund."

It is rather appropriate that a state institution has taken for itself a traitors' symbol.  In the emasculation, in the thoughtless embrace of betrayal, and the lack of regard for the opinion of its creator, it is a microcosm of the EU.  Perhaps a similar design could be found for the EU as a whole. 

Quite right, Atheling.

They are officially eunuchs now.

"The armed forces agreed to emasculate the lion after a group of women from the rapid reaction force lodged a complaint to the European Court of Justice"

Perfect metaphor for what postmodern feminism has done for society... emasculated men... constantly offended by something... Another reason why I think women have no business in the military. Next thing, they'll demand that all men remove one testicle in order to bring peace to the world.