i asked him if he was anti feminist and he said depends

anonymous asked:

I'm going to make it clear that I'm not with any ship I prefer independent Kara, but you really like what they're doing on the show with her snatching her feminist stance from the first season, it would not be better if they waited for Mon-El to be at same level as Kara and make a relationship of equals instead of this so anti-feminist? Maybe you ignore me but I had to ask

Hello anon,

Thanks for your ask. 

I think you’re confusing independent and single. Being in a relationship doesn’t exclude being independent, as it means making your own decisions and owning up to your opinion. To me, in retrospect, Kara was less independent in season 1 than she is now in season 2.

She spent a whole season secretly pining for a man who was committed to a romantic relationship without ever really moving on. Kara kept gravitating around him, and he let her; and ke kept gravitating around her in a way that she could never really move on.

Also, romances aside, Kara was very much dependent to Alex and Cat. Remember all those times Kara sought advice or even support from either or one of them. After Cat left, Kara lost her mentor, and as such, had to learn to trust her own judgment and make choices without waiting on anybody’s input first.

Kara is now in a relationship with Mon-El but she is more independent that she ever was in season 1 and this is what their bickering/arguments let on. Even after just getting together with him, she didn’t let herself influenced by Mon-El’s suspicions towards Jeremiah, and when she eventually did, it wasnt because she wanted to please her boyfriend but because she realized that her father’s behavior was off. 

As for Mon-El not being at her level, I will skip the part about how love looks beyond flaws and prejudices because it’s cheesy and I will go straight to the message that the writers want to relay. It is about acceptance: accepting that people with their differences can offer as much as anybody else. Mon-El is far from perfect but he’s still a good person who just needed a little push to reveal it. That is how we, as an audience, have watched Kara transition from mentoree to mentor. She made some mistakes along the way (2x05 for example) and achieved successes (2x09 when she inspired him to want to become a superhero) and this new role has been a whole journey to developing a new side of Kara. 

This is when you realize, that by ‘changing’ Mon-El, she changed too; she became this strong, independent and determined woman who cannot be stopped. And see what happened in the last episode: when Snapper fired her, she didn’t turn to James or Cat to get her job back -like she had at the beginning of the season- because she has become this confident woman who is aware that making difficult decisions can often come with severe consequences. And this was one of them. Sure she was sad but she wasn’t unsettled like her world had just crumbled, which is why she said “being Supergirl and having you is enough”, not because her life revolves around her boyfriend but because she’s thinking like an adult who looks at things clearly and with emotional distance and that is because she’s gained so much confidence that she knows she will find another job, eventually. In this season, Kara has built herself solid bearings (and yes, Mon-El is her romantic one just like Alex is another one of them) that she can keep sight of whenever a situation goes rocky. 

Mon-El isn’t her everything (as the word dependent would suggest), he is one of the things that matter in her life and that she can turn to when she needs it. And that is what being in a relationship means, it means choosing to lean on another person, to listen to their opinion and trust their judgment or choosing not to follow it if you disagree.

Which is exactly what Kara has been doing with Mon-El and even more than when she was that single (indeed), unconfident girl who ran to Cat, James or Alex every time she felt things diverted from their normal/usual path.

Sorry for the rant, but I hope it will help you get a glimpse of my perspective. :)

David Shariatmadari meets the evil Maajid Nawaz

Controversial controversialist, the so-called Maajid Nawaz, says things many people disagree with. So how can he be allowed to say things? David Shariatmadari investigates the enigma of a former extremist who now believes things he didn’t used to, and what this means for people already being persecuted by what he says.

(moustache imported from Nepal)

Unexpectedly, for someone who claims to be the greatest man who ever lived, the choice of venue for our interview isn’t authentic for someone who is supposedly an expert in things which community activists and leaders disagree with. He greets me with a ‘hello’, his handshake simultaneously shifty and dishonest. His reptilian eyes remind me of a snake I once saw in a dream, its sibilant hiss warning me of the destruction of the universe, if it were ever to be trusted.

(a representation of how Maajid Nawaz, on the left, entices innocent Mowgli’s with his arguments)

“Can I buy you a coffee? An esspressino perregrino perhaps? I highly recommend it with an effulgence of Perugian cream. The trick behind its exquisite flavour is that Italian milkmaids massage the udders of the cow for three days before extracting it. Lick a spoon of Tuscan truffle-teat sugar with it. Sensational.”

(Unbelievable. Who does he think he is, inviting me here?)

I watch him suspiciously, amazed that a man who claims to be opposed to religious extremism could ever drink such ostentatious coffee. I accept his offer, full of disgust that a man like this, who offends so many community leaders, drinks so-called coffee with Perugian cream, alienating so many extremists. The coffee is delicious.

(King Herod had babies killed. Maajid Nawaz offends community activists and leaders. Same thing.)

Before interviewing Nawaz, I speak to some anonymous people who know him. One of them, an anonymous source who wants to be anonymous, says 'Maajid thinks he’s amazing, but he’s not. Instead of writing and debating things in order to confront bad ideas, he should be sticking his head in the sand, which is the only way the extremists won’t be offended’.

I ask him about his pompous opinions, and whether expressing them actually increases extremism by increasing it. Predictably, he is dismissive of my brilliant, amazing point, disagreeing with it arrogantly in a manner that would alienate people and thus increase the chances of innocent people being harmed by extremists, probably.

(anonymous source spoke only on condition of being represented as a silhouette against a moody, artistic city light skyline)

Another person I spoke to, who wanted to remain anonymous, but knew Nawaz years ago, and coincidentally happened to have the exact view of the shifty collaborator as I do, said 'Maajid claims to be a normal human being who believes in liberalism and secularism. But how can he go from one extreme, believing in a supremacist caliphate, with most of humanity inferior to him, to the other extreme, believing in equality, secularism and liberal ideals? It just doesn’t make any sense. Both these positions are as extreme as the other. I hate him.“

We sip our coffees. I look around the fashionable hotel we are in. I feel disgust. Authentic people who claim to be against extremism whilst also pointing out that its all relative so don’t worry about it, would be meeting me in authentic places that are edgy and in touch with the people on the streets. For example, in the Guardian newspaper office in swish north London. 


As he is talking narcissistically about what his views are, as if his views are correct, I recall someone I spoke to, anonymously, about him. A Muslim woman who wanted to stay anonymous, for anonymous reasons.

"Maajid thinks he’s so special. But he’s really not. He thinks he’s so amazing. But he’s not. He’s so arrogant, with his opinions. But they’re not his opinions. They’re the opinions of white people who he just wants to entertain by saying things. I know so many people who say he doesn’t even grow his own moustache. He has moustache hair imported from Nepal, and he has a butler apply it every morning, to try and make himself look like he’s something special. But he’s not. And he’s just alienating everyone to become extremist, even though there’s no problem of extremism’.

(the root cause of all extremism – this face)

I look at Maajid’s face, and I want to puke. It reminds me of something else someone else said about him, who wants to remain anonymous.

"Maajid Nawaz smells. He smells of poo. He looks like he smells. Really, really badly.”

I’m reminded of a comment someone made to me about him. Someone who is really authentic, and whose opinion really, really counts. Because they are amazing authentic and great, unlike the supposed Maajid Nawaz.

“He wears nice clothes. Tweed jackets, for example. And he looks like he wears shoes from a shop on Savile Row. What is he trying to hide, by wearing suits and ties? How can authentic people relate to him, and not be alienated, when he wears natty clothes? What a coconut bastard.”

(a picture of Maajid Nawaz when he is at home and has removed his mask)

I feel like vomiting again as I look at the face of this nemesis of decency and multiculturalism, and I pray to the heavens that Jeremy Corbyn should one day reign and squat over him and dissolve him with the spirit of anti-Uncle Tom disinfectant.

I return to the office needing to take a shower. Aisha Ghani asks me if I need to see a doctor. Nesrine Malik suggests I may have to go into quarantine, in case I am carrying any parasitical spores from 'Maajid Nawaz’, which are more deadly than ebola. But I tell them I’m OK. I commission some articles on how sharia law is like being tickled with a feather, and why ISIS are innocent victims of British society. 

(Abdul Khalifa, moderate leader of ‘extremist’ group  Caliphate-über-Alles, indicates how many times Maajid Nawaz should be whipped, every hour)

I speak to some authentic people. Peter Trombone puts me in touch with his friend Abdul Khalifa, of the supposedly 'extreme’ group Caliphate-über-Alles". I ask him about 'Maajid Nawaz’, and he replies, amazingly authentically and truthfully,

“Yes, he was once a member of our organisation. So of course he shouldn’t be trusted. But please trust us anyway. If you don’t, people may become alienated and extreme.”

As a journalist with great integrity, I have to be objective, and I ask him about scurrilous allegations that Caliphate-über-Alles believes in a racist, supremacist, violent ideal Islamic state that would put to death Maajid Nawaz and millions of others in a theocratic theocracy. Is that true, I ask him?

“Yes. But we would do so peacefully, in a moderate way, fully in line with principles of diversity.”

I am relieved. He does believe in peaceful supremacist fascism, after all, which is an authentic cry of the oppressed. He deserves a column in the Guardian. Clearly his values are synonymous with those of the true liberal-left in Britain, unlike some people who think they’re so smart and clever.

(true progressives)

As I get ready to leave the office to chair a discussion on how Islamism is an anti-capitalist anti-austerity movement, and how forced marriage is a feminist statement, I speak to Mozarella Bogg and Youseem Crazy of the progressive beheading rights group DECAP. They confirm to me that Maajid Nawaz is responsible for everything bad, and I believe them, because they are so misunderstood and peaceful.

“One day someone is going to behead Maajid Nawaz, and it will be his own fault for provoking it. In fact he wants to be beheaded, so that he can claim that those who do so are beheaders. And then we will be the true victims of this extremism caused by those who oppose extremism without permission of community leaders, community activists, and journalists from the Guardian.”

(also Maajid Nawaz’s fault)

I look out of the window towards the lights of north London and fear for the future, where extremist anti-extremists cause extremism and alienation, and then make things worse, by opposing ideas that we don’t want to be talked about. Because we are progressives, and we must progress by embracing the regressive and not the aggressive who say things that may offend and alienate. The future of Britain as a peaceful society depends on not upsetting anyone, or else.

Above the sky the moon is full and shining. As dark clouds cover it, I see the face of 'Maajid Nawaz’ in them, turning light into darkness, and making people cry.

pauldierden  asked:

may i ask you a question about communism? my dad always told me that communism can't function in real life and that it leads to human rights abuses, but he also thinks free market capitalism is the solution to all the world's problems. he also says

that under communism, no individuality is allowed, that you get no freedom, no opportunity to express yourself. i don’t really believe him, but at the same time the belief is hard to shake bc i learned it at such a young age.

Every current capitalist society has lead to human rights abuses. He can’t name one capitalist society that hasn’t. Capitalism  allows people to die by underpaying them and then not giving them healthcare, by letting more unowned, unrented, unlived in houses stand there, unused than homeless people on the streets, by operating on oppression, racism, sexism, etc. Capitalism requires there be poor people who suffer. The system is also built to fail. Every few years we’ve had a recession in the US. The longest time of economic prosperity we had was ten years during the 90s. Marx foresaw this in his Communist Manifesto: he foresaw that capitalist societies would have recessions every ten years—he was actually generous with that prediction.

Capitalism is called capitalism because our society runs on the value of capital that is produced by the working class/proletariat and appropriated by the capitalist. A capitalist is defined as a person who hires wage laborers they pay an hourly wage or salary, but who makes money off the profits of their business. The capitalist profits off the labors of other people. The capitalist does not need to work nearly so hard as the working class, but the capitalist is the one who earns the profits: the working class does not. This is why you have fat cat ceos making millions or billions of dollars by barely working, and people who work 9-5 nearly their whole lives making barely a liveable wage (if liveable). The capitalist system is built on exploitation. Businesses care most about growing profits and about keeping their workers underpaid, underpowered, struggling and dependent on them, even when their CEO’s are rich and self-sustaining. Further, this obsession with ceaseless growth will result in the end of resources on our planet because we continue to grow our GDP and businesses exponentially and every president within recent memory has stated this express purpose. This also results in globalization and imperialism: American businesses wish to consume and invade other cultures—they can never be big enough or have enough profits. They exploit workers in other countries to save money, which deprives american workers of jobs, but much, much worse, they underpay and abuse and exploit workers overseas.

There’s a lot more to be said about why capitalism is a broken system and why it depends on racism, sexism, heteronormativity, classism and other oppressive forces. I’ve brought up Eve Sedgwick in the past who is a q***r scholar and feminist who has written about heteronormativity and sexism under capitalist society (often in it’s relationship to bourgeois family structure and gender roles). I briefly mentioned imperialism: capitalism has been a driving force behind colonialism and warfare as well. Our economy has flourished during times of war: the military industrial complex and prison industrial complex are key aspects to our capitalist society. But I could go on forever about these things—I encourage you to study them.

I would ask your father what about communism would prevent people from expressing themselves or prevent individuality? Socialism and communism are economic systems, they are not system of governance. There’s no reason you couldn’t have a democratic socialist society. Although, under Marx’s theory eventually, there would be no government and everything would be owned and run by the people (not all socialists operate under those beliefs, but yeah). The USSR and The People’s Republic of China are the examples pro-capitalists/anti-communists like to give, but currently China is not communist, and the USSR did not fit the profile for Marx’s ideas re communism. It was an agricultural society, not an industrialized one, so it arguably did not have the means of production necessary to create a successful communist society. Further, the USSR had prominent members in power who abused their power and were totalitarian and deprived others of rights, that’s not how a socialist or communist society is supposed to work at all.

There’s also the fact, as I’ve addressed earlier, that communism can operate in an authoritarian state or libertarian state (libertarian meaning socially liberal state), as this political compass site explains. Although, it’s important to understand that a libertarian capitalist state is not an equal or free society because gaps in power and ability to survive are integral to capitalism. A free market has never provided equality for any society in the world in the history of humanity (that we know of). Without economic equality there can be no real social equality or freedom.

Also, your father (and possibly you as well) probably are mixing up private property with personal property. In a communist system, individuals don’t own land but they own books, clothes, etc and can buy things. The difference is people’s basic needs would be provided for (homes, food, etc), and everyone would be paid fairly, and the system would not be based on class. You wouldn’t have any grossly wealthy people anymore, you wouldn’t have financial gaps between people, but everyone would be able to live and work.

I would argue dismantling kierarchy is impossible with capitalism in place. The capitalism system depends on inequality and the exploitation and/or oppression of people of color, women, people of low socio-economic status, lgbtqa people, disabled people, etc.

I would read Marx. His Communist Manifesto is advanced, but it’s short. He’s written a lot of other stuff, too, that I’ve yet to read. You can also follow some communist and socialist bloggers on tumblr to learn more about it. I’m also still learning about communism and capitalism, so if anyone more knowledgeable than me wants to add anything/correct me, let me know.