Intersectional feminism and the social justice movement have a problem. Well, not just one problem really, but one of the biggest and most glaring problems is their obvious inconsistency. Neither intersectional feminists nor supporters of social justice have a clear, consistent standard for what they consider “oppression” or “privilege”, despite these being core concepts of their ideology. For example, when blacks die 4 years younger on average than whites and are more likely to get convicted and get longer sentences for the same crimes, blacks are considered oppressed and whites are considered privileged. But when men die 5 years younger on average than women and men and women have an even bigger disparity in conviction and sentencing than blacks and whites, men are considered privileged and women are considered oppressed despite the fact that men suffer many of the same disadvantages that are used as evidence of black oppression. Similarly, when whites earn more on average and are more likely to hold positions of great wealth, power, and influence than blacks, Hispanics, and Arabs, they’re considered privileged, but when Jews and Orientals have a higher average income than whites and Jews especially are more likely to hold positions of great wealth, power, and influence, Jews and Orientals are still considered oppressed minorities. The suggestion that Jewish nepotism has anything to do with the incredible economic success of the Jewish people is considered anti-Semitic, while the suggestion that each racial and ethnic group’s success is primarily determined by differences in average intelligence, education, family/home life, and other factors that typically affect success is considered racist, leaving no acceptable explanation for how Jews and Orientals are able to achieve great success in spite of white privilege while blacks, Hispanics, and Arabs are not. It’s painfully obvious that, rather than coming up with a clear way to define privilege and oppression, the intersectional feminist and social justice movements simply decided that whites, men, Christians, and straight people who identify with their biological gender are privileged and everyone else is oppressed regardless of what the facts might say. But their most dangerous inconsistency of all, at least to the goals of their movement and the survival of the most egalitarian civilization on Earth, is their claim that white, Christian patriarchy is inherently misogynistic, homophobic, intolerant, and oppressive while seeing Muslims as an unfairly oppressed minority and failing to see how much more oppressive Islam is relative to Christianity.
The idea that Muslims are an oppressed minority falls apart the moment you look at any part of the world where Muslims are the majority. There are 10 countries where homosexuality is punishable by death. Islam is the dominant religion in all 10 of them. There are 13 countries where atheism is punishable by death. Islam is the dominant religion in all 13 of them. Yet, for some reason, many gay atheists subscribe to the social justice mindset that sees Muslims as an oppressed minority, rather than realizing that they would be put to death for their lack of religious belief and their sexual choices in roughly 1/3 of the Muslim world.
Islam’s treatment of women is almost as terrible as their treatment of gays and atheists. The World Economic Forum ranks about 150 countries on gender equality each year, ranking them based on political, legal, economic, and educational equality. The top 50 countries, the most feminist and gender egalitarian third of the world, is made up of 46 Christian majority countries, 3 atheist majority countries (each of which has a large Christian minority and nearly no Muslims), and 1 Jewish majority country (Israel, who many people in the social justice left condemn for their treatment of Palestinians because, despite Jews being seen as underprivileged relative to whites and Christians, they are still seen as privileged compared to Muslims and Arabs). There is not a single Muslim majority country among the 50 most gender equal countries, meaning that there is not a single Muslim majority country on the entire planet that is as gender equal as the US, the 45th most gender equal country on Earth. Meanwhile, 27 of the 36 Muslim majority countries on the list are in the bottom 50. 21 of the bottom 25 countries are Muslim majority countries while only one Christian majority country is in the bottom 25. That Christian majority country is East Timor, a nation on half of an island whose other half belongs to Indonesia, the largest Muslim majority country in the world. Meanwhile, the highest Muslim majority country on the list, Kazakhstan, is 25% Christian and a former Soviet country. So the least equal Christian majority country is surrounded by Muslims and heavily influenced by their culture, while the most equal Muslim majority country has a large Christian population and was heavily influenced by European laws and ideology.
At this point, most intersectional feminists and social justice followers reading this article are probably trying to come up with excuses for why the Islamic world is so oppressive and unequal. One common excuse is the claim that poverty and imperialism are major causes of unequal attitudes towards men and women, as if the Islamic world would become more egalitarian if only the west wasn’t constantly stealing their wealth and resources and invading their countries. But this is demonstrably false. Rwanda, a very poor African country that’s almost 95% Christian, is among the 10 most gender equal countries on Earth, as is Nicaragua, a relatively poor Latin American country that’s about 85% Christian. About a dozen other African and Latin American countries made it into the top 50. Meanwhile, the three Muslim majority countries that have higher average incomes than the US – Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates – are the 17th, 26th, and 21st least equal countries on Earth respectively. Japan and South Korea, two very wealthy non-Christian, non-Muslim majority countries, are more gender equal than the average Muslim country, but both are in the bottom half of the gender equality ranking, well below the US and most other Christian majority countries. It appears wealth has nearly no impact whatsoever on gender equality, while Islam creates gender inequality regardless of wealth and income level, and Christianity leads to more gender equality everywhere from the poorest countries in Africa and Latin America to the richest countries of Europe and North America.
Even historically, Islam has a far worse history of oppression, imperialism, and slavery than Christianity. When Christianity first took over Europe, Rome’s militant expansionism soon ceased, and the western Roman empire lost so much of its military edge that it was eventually overrun by non-Romans and collapsed, and Europeans stopped invading non-European countries for centuries. When Islam was first founded, an age of imperialistic conquest followed where Muslims first conquered the entire Middle East, then North Africa, parts of India and eastern Europe, and eventually Spain, killing and forcibly converting millions of Christians, Hindus, Jews, Zoroastrians, and followers of traditional/pagan religions. The Crusades, which defenders of Islam often point to as an example of Christian aggression, were primarily defensive against the violent spread of Islam. The Muslim slave trade lasted far longer than the Transatlantic Slave Trade and took millions more Africans than the Europeans did, as well as taking millions of Europeans and Indians as slaves. Their slave trade was even more barbaric, as Muslims castrated most of their male slaves and murdered the children of the women they took as sex slaves to keep their slave population from growing too large to control. By the time Christians began colonizing and enslaving people around the world, they’d been subject to centuries of conquest and enslavement from Muslims. And even when Christians did conquer most of the world, they eliminated slavery without being forced to, while the Muslim world continued to practice slavery until they were conquered by Christians and forced to stop, and Christians then ended colonialism and gave up rulership of their former conquered territories while Muslims replaced the people of Turkey and Pakistan (which used to be a part of India) and still hold those territories today.
This makes the Islamic mass migration into western Europe, and attempts by the social justice left to open the US’ borders to the Islamic world, a cause for real concern, especially if you are an intersectional feminist or social justice warrior who ought to be able to see that Islam is worse about every single thing you hate the Christian west for. Some might try to argue that Muslims in the west are becoming more liberal and tolerant as they absorb Western culture, pointing to two recent gay weddings between a Muslim and non-Muslim man, one in the UK and the other in Canada. The UK Muslim’s family refused to attend the wedding, and he has received thousands of death threats from Muslims in the UK and elsewhere, while the Canadian man’s family did attend the wedding and the Muslim community responded by demanding his mother be removed from her position in NASIMCO, a Muslim advocacy organization, as well as sending death threats. And the rape crisis in Europe is getting worse. Rape and sexual assault in public has become so bad in Sweden that multiple music festivals are banning all men from attending, blaming all men in their society for a problem caused almost exclusively by foreign born Muslim immigrant men. The same feminists who become outraged when Muslims are judged as a whole because of the actions of a huge portion of their population have no problem judging all men for the actions of a small portion of their population.
If you are a feminist, a homosexual, an atheist, or a member of any of the many other groups threatened by Islam’s existence, you have every reason to side with Christianity to stop the Islamic tide from flowing into the west. Terrorism will only increase as the Muslim population grows. Pressure for Muslims to conform to western values will only diminish and pressure for the west to accept Islamic values will only increase as the Muslim population grows. Feminists who side with Islam against their own interests are engaged in an incredible act of self-destructive deception and hypocrisy. If you can’t stand Trump or the Republicans because you think they’re too misogynistic, homophobic, and rapey, but you voted for Hillary despite her history of supporting her husband as he coerced his female employees into sex and despite her proud support for a policy of bringing millions of Syrian refugees from the conflict she helped create into our country, you need to learn to put things in perspective. Syria, by the way, is the third least gender equal country on Earth, a land of incredible misogyny even relative to the rest of the Muslim world. If you can’t stand to deal with Trump supporters because you think they’re misogynists, I wonder how you’d feel living next door to Syrian refugees who think consent is something you get from a woman’s father before you marry her and beating your wife is a normal part of a healthy marriage. Canadians recently got a rude wake-up call to this reality when a Syrian refugee beat his wife with a hockey stick for 30 minutes, injuring her so badly she required hospitalization, and told the police he didn’t realize it was illegal or wrong to beat his wife. This wife beater, Mohamad Rafia, had previously starred in a Dateline documentary about Syrian refugees. Once the poster child for left wing generosity to supposedly disadvantaged people, he is now the perfect poster child for the reality of Muslim immigration – a violent misogynist who’s loved and supported by the very people who wouldn’t be able to tolerate his existence if he were white and Christian.