The Best Thing You Will Read Today (via Jill Filipovic)

So apparently Bic has come out with new pens especially for women! At last! Now with pens made especially for me in soft pastel colors to indicate my gender, I don’t ever have to worry about being mistaken for male and–God forbid–taken seriously! After all, colors like blue and black were far too strong for my gentle feminine nature, and I could hardly finish a sentence without bursting into tears. Really, it was like I was on my period ALL THE TIME. But now–!

Or, as Amazon reviewer Tracy Hamilton writes, FINALLY!

Someone has answered my gentle prayers and FINALLY designed a pen that I can use all month long! I use it when I’m swimming, riding a horse, walking on the beach and doing yoga. It’s comfortable, leak-proof, non-slip and it makes me feel so feminine and pretty! Since I’ve begun using these pens, men have found me more attractive and approchable. It has given me soft skin and manageable hair and it has really given me the self-esteem I needed to start a book club and flirt with the bag-boy at my local market. My drawings of kittens and ponies have improved, and now that I’m writing my last name hyphenated with the Robert Pattinson’s last name, I really believe he may some day marry me! I’m positively giddy. Those smart men in marketing have come up with a pen that my lady parts can really identify with.

Where has this pen been all my life???

But the pens weren’t met with every woman’s enthusiasm, especially not every REAL woman. Sensitive, ladylike reviewer Better Draper is not so thrilled. “Please stop trying to get women into the workplace!” she wisely implores.

Dear Mr. Bic,

My husband just informed me that I am appalled by this new line of pens you are offering. I am not sure what that means, but I don’t think it’s nice, because his face turned all red, and he sounded very angry. He then told me that I had better not start getting any ideas about going to work. How awful that what was once a respectable company would come out with an office supply line for women. A real lady would never work. I am convinced that you have lesbian feminists on staff. Those bra burners are to be feared, dear men. Please beware. I will let you know, that I will not be buying your product, and I will not be using these pens to balance my cheque book. (As my husband provides me with a weekly allowance in cash.) I sure do hope you poor souls are not devoured by the mean ugly women you work with.


Better Draper,
in a fictional world based in 1950, where your product belongs.

Indeed, Better Draper’s husband is not the only man concerned about the scary implications in this step toward women’s liberation. E. Skaggs from Ohio, a middle class white male, expresses alarm at this feminine intrusion upon masculinity,

I’m a middle class white married male. This pen is just another example of how I’m seeing my power slowly being taken away from me. It started right after the honeymoon when my commemorative Elvis beer steins disappeared. Now I’m sure my wife of over 20 years will start buying these “lady pens” and throw away all of my crayons while I’m off working at the quarry.
No doubt I’ll be eating Caesar salads and going to wine tasting seminars next.
Thanks, but no thanks, bic.

A chorus of male agreement! But A. Mack, a ball-busting feminist and dominatrix, relentlessly praises this incredible advancement,

Kudos to you, BIC! I can honestly say that this product uplifts and serves ALL women. As a domme and Mistress, I have never felt so empowered as when I pulled out one of My new BIC Cristal For Her pens when signing My contract with My new slave. His eyes widened and immediately averted, for he knew that he was in the presence of a True Woman and, indeed, a new world – a world where he is not even worthy enough to touch the pen I write My name with unless I deign to allow it. He saw My firm grip, My unwavering script, and he immediately understood how the harsh black lines echoed the treat I had in store for him that night, as I wielded the pen with the same confidence and skill with which I wield My flogger. You just can’t encompass that kind of subtlety and mind-play with any old pen. I was so pleased that I retired My favorite gold-plated fountain pen and resolved to only use BIC Cristal For Her from now on!

Even better, this doesn’t mean you have to leave the kitchen ladies! breemeup demonstrates as she pens a review from hers,

Finally! For years I’ve had to rely on pencils, or at worst, a twig and some drops of my feminine blood to write down recipes (the only thing a lady should be writing ever). I had despaired of ever being able to write down said recipes in a permanent manner, though my men-folk assured me that I “shouldn’t worry yer pretty little head”. But, AT LAST! Bic, the great liberator, has released a womanly pen that my gentle baby hands can use without fear of unlady-like callouses and bruises. Thank you, Bic!

But all these five-star reviews are misleading, complains bicGirl, whose beauty regime has been rudely interrupted.

I don’t understand all the 5 star reviews- this is the WORST eyeliner I have ever used! I can’t get it off for the life of me.

I am so excited, everyone! I was wondering how on earth I would ever make it as a writer if I’m forced to use colors people can actually read. But now every time I see the page I can smile at my work and remember that I am a woman writer, and pretty colors are the MOST important thing I have to offer!

Abortion is a right. At any and all times. (or, American Principles 101)

This post is brought to you by some schmuck who took it upon himself during an abortion debate, in which he was distressed that I would legalize late-term abortions, to inform me that there is no such thing as inalienable rights, and that rights are “whatever humans decide they are” and therefore I cannot assert that a mother has rights to a fetus over the fetus itself and over the would-be father. Resisting the urge to tell him to get the hell out of the country, I instead redirected my horror to suggesting that he read the Declaration of Independence.

Let’s get some things straightened out first:

  1. Fetuses are not aborted. Pregnancies are aborted. [will be explained]
  2. Giving birth is a method of abortion. The pregnancy is aborted.
  3. When a woman who is 8 to 9 months pregnant arrives at a doctor’s office and says, “I don’t want to be pregnant anymore. Make me not pregnant anymore,” the doctor who agrees to abort the pregnancy, whether by triggering an early birth or by surgically removing the baby from the mother, is obligated to abort the pregnancy in such a way that does not interfere with the inalienable right to life of this (newly) independent life-form. The baby can be placed in an incubator and may survive. If it does not, the woman is even less responsible for its death than the doctor. She merely separated the fetus from her body, the same way a doctor can decide not to provide resources to sustain the child’s life if, for example, finances are inadequate.
  4. That is why it matters whether a life-form is independent: the method of abortion comes into question. When the life cannot survive outside the womb, the doctor may abort the pregnancy in any fashion. When the life can survive outside the womb, the doctor is obligated to abort the pregnancy by removing the life without harming it. As medical advancements are introduced, this window will become smaller and smaller. The question of whether the life can survive outside the mother does not interfere with a woman’s right to separate a fetus from herself.
  5. If you can’t identify the difference between a woman arrested for not feeding her child and a woman not providing for her child by aborting her pregnancy, you’re an idiot. In the former scenario the enforcement of the law does not result in forcing the woman to feed her child—it results in taking the child away and providing it with a guardian who consents to sustaining its life. Likewise in the latter, the child is separated from the woman and cared for by someone—or something—else, like an incubator.

Speaking of consent, its involvement is the definition of an inalienable right. There are two types of rights: inalienable rights and civil rights. Inalienable rights include but are not limited to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Sound familiar?) You are screwing over your own argument by denying the existence of inalienable rights, like the right of the fetus to live independently. Inalienable rights do not come from government. Civil rights are protected by government.

The right to life is inalienable, but the definition of an inalienable right is one that does not require the consent of another. If it requires consent, it’s not a right. You have the right to live–you do not have the right to survive at the expenses of someone else. Once you are enforcing a right by encroaching on another person, you are no longer practicing an inalienable right but infringing on the rights of that other individual. A civil right may require consent on the most fundamental level, but does not remove the right of the person from whom it requires consent to deny that consent without consequence. (You don’t want to count someone’s vote [civil right] on the basis of sex, race, class, or religion, then [consequently] find another job.)

When the fetus is living off the body of a woman, it is not protected by its inalienable right to life because it is DEPENDING on the woman and on her consent. *Removing* it from her is not *killing* it; it dies on its own because it cannot live. That is why pregnancies are aborted, not fetuses.

And no, having sex is not consenting to being pregnant for nine months. That is not a contract. (You asshat.)

The rights of the father begin at delivery, not conception.

Who’s to say that woman is any more responsible of a fetus dying once she separates it from herself than the person who neglected to invent an incubator that can sustain it? Or refuses to provide it?

Anti-choicers are, because as far as they are concerned, women ARE incubators. Anti-choicers are so sexist that they have INFUSED a woman’s ability sustain life to her person and reduced her to that ability. It is an essentialization of feminine capabilities. Men on the other hand are not reduced to their ability to sustain life—whether monetarily or through organ donations or by providing medical expertise—because anti-choicers are bigots who can only distinguish between a man and his “functions.”

The right to life does not mean someone else sustaining that life. The distinction is only made when the human in question is of the male variety. No one is ever like, “That guy refused his ability to give his organs and totally aborted that patient!” No one ever collapses a man’s abilities with his person.

Just because someone has the ability do so something does NOT mean you can FORCE her to do it and USE that ability for your own purposes. This is true regardless of sex.

Do American women understand the *fundamental level* at which their rights are being violated when the right to an abortion is attacked? If the bodily resources of men were redistributed for the sustenance of others it would be recognized at once as communism.

Anti-choicers are communists, traitors, and a threat to this nation at the most fundamental level–but none of it is viewed truthfully because they only enslave women to the government.

At any stage of a pregnancy it is okay to remove the fetus (or baby) from the womb. That means at nine months, that is *still* okay. The child is likely to survive outside, or it may die, but either outcome is irrelevant: at no stage of a pregnancy is the child *entitled* to the bodily provisions of the mother. You need a person’s consent to live off of them, and when you need consent that means it’s not an inalienable right.

Whether or not you believe it is moral or immoral for a woman to abort a pregnancy at nine months is irrelevant to the foundational principle that she has that right. But I guess no woman ever had her rights recognized without some schmuck crying about how it was right or wrong as if the entire sex with the ability to give birth were long overdue that lecture and it’s his good grace to present it to them. (“Don’t get me wrong he shouldn’t have raped you but it was totally immoral to lead him on like that…”)

The fact that I believe it’s immoral to abort a pregnancy after 120 days when the life of the mother is not in danger (and if the mother is not providing an incubator for the life to continue) is IRRELEVANT to her right to abort the pregnancy or *separate the child from herself* and to whether the government can interfere with that inalienable right.

The next time you are giving birth announce to the medical staff, “I am aborting the pregnancy now.” Because you are.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

^Look at that; I guess they have an excuse.

Also this.

“White atheists are the WORST!”: Discrepancies in Identifying Racism

I am writing this post despite the sense that the last three posts I wrote unrelated to Islam are about race and I am kind of eyeing how it throws off my usual variation here.

Before I introduce all the twitter drama, let me recount the incident to which it refers—infamously christened EG, or ElevatorGate.

Rebecca Watson, an atheist feminist and the well-known writer of Skepchick, delivered a lecture on hostility toward women in the atheist community. As she entered an elevator at a very late hour following the presentation a man asked her whether she’d come up to his room for coffee, an invitation Watson declined. Watson casually mentioned the incident in passing, denouncing that a man would advance right after she disclosed such behavior as a source of discomfort for her and advising guys to get a clue.

For this Watson was accused of hating men and received a number of death threats.

Then Richard Dawkins took it upon himself to criticize her—since she is a Western woman—for complaining about misogyny, because there are Muslim women in the world who are having their genitals cut dammit. Thus the old tactic of silencing a woman by telling her she should be grateful she isn’t being stoned to death was employed. Not only was Watson accused of misandry, but of cultural insensitivity and racism—for talking about how she didn’t go out with some schmuck. Insert gif that reads, “I turned down someone for coffee–therefore I hate Muslims” here.

That is Dawkins’s logic. Of course, Dawkins and his supporters, as racially sensitive and globally aware as they are, failed to notice that the only people making this claim were white. They also failed to notice how extremely offensive this comment was to the Muslim women (some of whom are also Western women) that these men supposedly care so much about, women who can save our damn selves and don’t need white knights like Richard Dawkins conveniently using our oppression to silence white women thank you very much.

Yesterday on twitter, as I was speaking to Ozy, one of my awesomeful friends, some douchebag decided to introduce himself to the conversation, and this happened: (he parades in at the 5th tweet)

“Primitive.” Your language isn’t suggestive of racism at all. (I take it though that he was referring to religiosity.) Opening with condescendingly informing me Islam and feminism are incompatible (thanks XY)* and that believing in God is like believing in mermaids is totally logic and not proselytizing. Geez, you’d think calling Dawkins a racist ass is equivalent to criticizing a religious leader.

Then, unable to resist, he unblocked me to tell me

in reference to my telling Ozy that I don’t need a man to lecture me about my feminism. And then he blocked me again. Because he is so in control. The best part is when he re-tweeted my tweet denouncing white atheists to his followers as an example of hypocrisy. Dude thought he struck gold. He must have pissed himself in excitement when I said that. In fact not only did he re-tweet it, he then linked it.

Awwwe, he wants to marry my tweeeeet!

The guy has class:

Oh the virgins. Yay. No Islamophobia here–move along!

Let me stop here to say that I acknowledge atheists, who are at an immense systematic disadvantage, have a lot to be pissed off about. I know I disparaged the strong reaction to my criticizing Dawkins and likened him to a religious leader, but religious leaders who mock other religions in an equally belittling manner as Dawkins aren’t met with nearly the same level of hatred as atheists who mock religions. Unlike the presumptions of this jackass, this is not about atheism. This is about racism and people not knowing what the hell that is—and not understanding the underpinnings that classify something as racist and thus perpetuate racism. And how these people are usually white. Another atheist had taken the time to ask me to clarify this allegation against Dawkins—and he had been of color; naturally the concern was understood.

It annoys me to no end when people can’t identify racism unless it’s overt. Dawkins doesn’t even know he’s racist because he’s “obscured” the essential message of inferiority behind the sentiment that Muslim women need to be saved from the heinous crimes of Muslim men, which has a thousand different oppressive implications–and this guy was doing the same racist thing. Then I blatantly state “white atheists are the WORST” and there’s outrage because that’s the only thing they can recognize as a generalization! Even when Dawkins’s and others’ wordy prejudice actively illustrates racism as a contextualized function rather than being a simple declarative. They don’t register it until it’s made frank for them and put in the simplest terms–which means they don’t understand racism at all. They just look for a formulaic sentence.

It reminds me of advice I read on tumblr. “One of the worst ways to stop someone from telling sexist jokes is to tell him the joke isn’t funny. He’ll assume that you’re humorless and that he needs to save the good stuff for the right audience. If you really want someone to stop telling sexist jokes, you need to tell him, ‘I don’t get it’ and then step back as he tries not to say, ‘It’s funny because women are stupid.’ ”

That’s just it. They can’t tell unless it’s in the simpest terms. Because they don’t really understand racism or sexism, don’t understand the dynamics of the systematic functions of oppression. They just know a formula of a sentence. They don’t understand racism is systematic, not a sentence, and therefore something like a sentence is racist when it contributes to that racist system.

I don’t know how long I’ll leave this up–it feels lowly like gossip, but I’ll keep it for at least a while to get the point across. Or edit it somehow to take out that stuff… somehow, since that’s the reference.


Disadvantaged Men? Blame the Patriarchy.

If you all remember from years ago, the Atlantic published a terrible article titled “The End of Men” which was basically a total bitchfest run rampant with blame-shifting—about three quarters of it consisted of complaining that men can’t get laid anymore because women have restored too many rights, including our right to refuse. Remembering this, along with recent ripples in the feminist blogosphere in response to a similar article by a concerned anti-feminist and previous events involving myself that occurred elsewhere incorporating the myth that sexual harassment accusations are unfair to men, I typed up possibly the most furious and ramble-y piece, and am displaying it here.

When a woman is sexually harassed and undergoes severe character defamation, made more than possible by patriarchal slut-shaming (regardless of whether these sex partners are real or imaginary or whether it’s anyone else’s business) there is nothing she can say to the man harassing her that would be equally damaging… except perhaps to accuse him of sexual harassment, which ideally would destroy his character to the same extent. Feminism leveled the playing field, and that’s where these men have an issue.

So instead of recognizing that they are not entitled to a woman’s consent, that they are not entitled to her attention, and that according to the feminist ideology men may also enjoy the benefits of full autonomy when they decide to consent to the sexual or romantic advances of some women over others according to their own personal preferences, men insist that women—thanks to feminists—are unfair to men when women are receptive of the advances of men they find attractive and not receptive to the men they don’t; sometimes even, if the undesired advances persist despite a woman’s clear indication that they are unwanted, may accuse the men of sexual harassment. So unfair, men whine and complain, that it’s only sexual harassment when the man is unattractive—utterly neglecting to acknowledge that the deciding factor is the woman’s consent, not the man’s attractiveness, because unlike what men believe, the world doesn’t revolve around them and how attractive they are! And especially not feminism.

There are no double standards that privilege women. When you are an honored member of the sex that has been dominant since the beginning of time and sporadically you find yourself NOT on the top–because, let’s say, you’re conventionally unattractive–that is not oppression, it is BACKFIRING. Because you set the standard for conventional attractiveness for both men and women. When you say that attractive men are physically strong, or stoic, or violent and you happen to be none of those things, that is a fault of the patriarchal system you set up yourself, not feminism. You’ve screwed yourself over with your own damn system, and you still insist on playing by its rules. If I can find men attractive whom the patriarchy deems unattractive, and you can’t do the same with women and instead insist on dating conventionally attractive women—well, you want to have your cake and eat it too. Which is very interesting, because that’s what you accuse feminists of doing.

There are no double standards that privilege women. Men die at war because THAT’S how YOU made it. They commit suicide because they failed to achieve the rigorous standards of masculinity that YOU established. (And women attempt suicide just as frequently.) They get their kids taken away in divorce because YOU don’t value nurturing parenting skills in men and they end up completely unaware of the extent of their abuse. They pay alimony, because YOU promote the idea that men have to earn a higher salary, and you fix the system so they do. And they fair poorly in school because YOU hate femininity so much, that once women integrate themselves into “male territories” like the classroom it immediately becomes uncool. This happens in every area. Men used to dominant literature, music, and poetry, until they had competition and they were too disgusted to even try… and so they labeled those areas as “inferior.” And at the professional level? Men STILL dominate those areas. And the system STILL disadvantages women. Seriously, every author I read in high school in English class was MALE. Except the author of The Awakening, which is a TERRIBLE book. Don’t give me bullshit about how boys aren’t interested because the classroom has evolved to cater to the learning styles of girls. Boys and girls do not learn differently: all individuals learn differently regardless of sex. There are both lectures and labs in science courses, roughhousing may not be allowed in the classroom but it is allowed in the grass on the field, and as I said practically EVERY “great American” novel we read in English was written by a MAN. What the hell more do you want? You know what the problem is? You SUCK at raising boys. You set impossible standards for masculinity, and you’re just bitter that feminists have had the audacity to try and free themselves from their assigned roles while the system you created yourself is forcing you to stay in yours.

Feminism is meant to achieve equality by liberating women, and out of its good graces it encourages men to liberate themselves by expanding the definition of male roles along with female roles. Don’t come bitching to us when you don’t want to do the work. Your problem is with patriarchy.

Men complain that when women abuse them and they call a shelter, the woman who answers the phone assumes they are the abuser. Well that sucks–but that’s because YOUR patriarchy promotes male violence. You want women to stop assuming you’re rapists and murderers? Stop raping and murdering.

28 women in the US are raped every hour. Every hour. THIRTY-FIVE PERCENT of men report that if they could get away with it, there’s a likelihood they would commit rape. Eight percent admit to committing the legal definition of rape (when the word rape itself wasn’t used in the study, just described) and out of that eight percent, 84% insist it definitely isn’t rape.

Men don’t know what sexual harassment is. They don’t even know what rape is. 70% of victims don’t just say ‘no’ but STRUGGLE and fight back. And the men still continue. 20% of men say that they’ve become so sexually aroused before that they could not stop themselves from having sex even if the woman didn’t consent.

And out of all of those, between 62% and 84% of survivors are FRIENDS with their attackers. There’s a lot of hype about being raped by strangers, but you’re way more likely to be raped by a man you know. And that’s partly why only 5% are ever reported. It’s nearly always a man the woman cares about—or, if they share the same circle of friends, the friends will evitably side with him and sexually harass her until she is too fearful to take legal action and too convinced that it was her own fault because maybe she is just a slut like they said. And so maybe she deserved it; maybe she was asking for it. That’s what we live in. A rape culture.

Most women NEVER report sexual harassment. And when they do? It fucking serves you right. And when there’s a false allegation (0.2—0.8% of the time) there is outrage and it explodes into national news the way other crimes never will. Supposedly because an innocent man’s life has been ruined. Your life is not ruined because of feminism, it is ruined because YOUR system SIMULTANEOUSLY promotes life-destroying violence like rape through male culture and ruthlessly pursues severe justice for criminals who don’t treat women as preciously dainty. But only the right women. The right victims. Not women who sleep around, not prostitutes (shoplifting! not rape, amirite?), the women who comply with patriarchy. Delicate women in pretty white dresses who don’t drink or fight or anything else that’s only allowed for enjoyment by men and instead just HAPPEN to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Well here’s the reality: every fucking woman is always in the wrong place at the wrong time. There is nothing you can do to prevent rape. Except stop raping.

Chris Brown punched Rihanna in the face and the joke was on her. Can you IMAGINE if he had done that to Taylor Swift? Taylor Swift, perpetually virginal, white, singing about fairytales instead of cheating and bdsm. But men concerned with men’s rights hardly occupy themselves with confronting the patriarchal constructs that enable them to oppress each other, like racism or heterosexism; instead, they blame feminism.

When men are the victims of violence, they are also nearly always the perpetrators. Men rape other men, and whose fault is that? The rapist’s—and patriarchy’s. Not feminism. If a man rapes another man to impose his masculinity, that has its derivation in patriarchy because masculinity is a patriarchal construct. It is patriarchy that contributes to the circumstances which led to his rape so that he would be rendered “feminine” and thus “inferior.” Feminists can liberate women because we are women; we can encourage men to do the same, but we cannot force you to build your own shelters, to dismantle an impossible standard of masculinity that devastates and destroys, or to uphold the values of respecting life and autonomy. When you don’t, blame yourselves. Not feminism. Feminism takes nothing from you except what you never deserved in the first place.

Liberate your own damn selves. Whether or not you can get laid is the LEAST of my problems—and it should be the least of yours. You are reactionary. You’re so paranoid of losing power you never even deserved to have in the first place, you don’t even recognize how exclusively you are still the first sex. The fact that you can’t sexually harass women anymore is not undeserved oppression, it is a loss of UNEARNED privilege. Don’t worry though, you still have more left than you deserve or apparently can even comprehend.

The Catholic Church Says Mother Theresa Should Have Been More Busy Speaking Out Against Abortion Instead of Ensuring Actual, Living Children Survive

Charity, it’s so overrated. Washington Post, via Feministe

A prominent U.S. Catholic nuns group said Thursday that it was “stunned” that the Vatican reprimanded it for spending too much time on poverty and social-justice concerns and not enough on condemning abortion and gay marriage.

In a stinging report on Wednesday, the Vatican said the Leadership Conference of Women Religious had been “silent on the right to life” and had failed to make the “Biblical view of family life and human sexuality” a central plank in its agenda.

It also reprimanded American nuns for expressing positions on political issues that differed, at times, from views held by U.S. bishops. Public disagreement with the bishops — “who are the church’s authentic teachers of faith and morals” — is unacceptable, the report said.

How dare women disagree with bishops and other self-appointed gatekeepers! IN PUBLIC.

I can’t believe they have the AUDACITY to actually work to engender and espouse all the inherent goodness in religion like charity and hard work in very difficult conditions instead of being submissive to men and stuff! UNACCEPTABLE. Nuns should stop helping the sick, poor, orphaned, and dying so much and instead focus more on how women shouldn’t have rights. Let’s humiliate them more than we do our child molesters.

Why I don’t give a damn that you have a linguistic issue with ‘FEMinist’





firemen policemen mailmen


You got a problem with ‘feminist’ because the word inherently excludes you? Check your privilege and get the hell over it.

You can treat women equally as much as you like but as long as you’re saying shit like this the truth is that you don’t CONSIDER us equal. If you can’t associate yourself with femaleness or femininity even in a word that is historically significant and integral to the liberation of women because that makes you uncomfortable, you are a sexist seeking to employ the patriarchal practice of denying women credit where credit is due and disassociating yourself with femininity.

Rejecting Your Sense of Justice is Rejecting a Device of God

This post is brought to you by a bewildering conversation I had a while ago in which an XY tried to mansplain to me that his interpretation of a specific verse pertaining to women is not unjust because it is from God, and therefore [what is from God] cannot unjust. (Read: His interpretation is from God. That’s the blasphemous, sinful basis of his claim. Says Qur’an 3:78–79: and who say, “This is from God,” the while it is not from God: and thus do they tell a lie about God.)

After explaining where he had erred in his fallacious argument and how it had caused his misinterpretation of the verse, he naturally pulled one of these, and then declared my interpretation “interesting.”

What I found mind-blowing, and what I continuously find mind-blowing, is that men will argue that something is just and impartial “because it is from God” despite the fact that they really don’t believe it is just.

This is obvious, because on several occasions when I’ve debated over exegesis, they’ve attempted to ravel their losing argument into a pretty bow with something like “See? You used the Qur’an itself to liberate women! So we don’t need feminism.”

LOL so you knew your interpretation was oppressive this whole time, while you were trying to convince me it was “just” because the words are from God. I will decide what women need, and whether we need feminism, so please stfu. I don’t need a man to convince me that God’s words are just.

This mentality—in which men define what is just not by the reason that God has given them to employ, but through what they mistake as faith, while simultaneously confusing their own interpretations with the dictations of God—is blasphemous. We were created with reason specifically for this purpose.

Have We not given xir two eyes,
and a tongue and a pair of lips,
and shown xir the two highways (of good and evil)?
But xie would not try to ascend the steep uphill road.
(Qur’an 90:8)

Denying yourself the use of reason is to reject a device of God. We are commanded over and over not to proceed without knowledge or reason. Failing to employ our reason is a sin:

“The things that my Lord
hath indeed forbidden are:
shameful deeds,
whether open or secret; sins
and trespasses against truth or reason:..”
(Qur’an 7:33)

So when you truly feel that an interpretation is oppressive, and yet you continue to assert that it is not because you incorrectly believe that it’s a valid interpretation ordained by God, and then you sigh in relief when you realize it doesn’t say what you thought it said because surprise! you actually thought your interpretation was oppressive the whole time! it’s a dead giveaway that you’re (1) full of shit (2) attributing your own interpretation to God and (3) being entirely disingenuous about how oppressive an interpretation is / not employing reason in deciphering justice.

Say (O Prophet): “This is my way:
Resting upon conscious insight
accessible to reason,
I am calling (you all) unto God –
I and they who follow me.”
(Qur’an 12:108)

Behold, God enjoins justice,
and the doing of good and
generosity towards (one’s) fellow-humans,
and God forbids all that is shameful
and all that runs counter to reason,
as well as envy; (and) God exhorts you
(repeatedly) so that you might
bear (all this) in mind.
(Qur’an 16:90)

A sinner in Hell-fire will
say: “Had we but listened
or used our intelligence,
we should not (now) be among
the Companions of the Blazing Fire!”
(Qur’an 67:10)

Rant over.