David Aaronovitch on Islamist misogyny

Or rather not. His article "Woman-hating isn't just brutal, it's dangerous" in today's pay-walled Times very damned carefully does not link the mutilation, whipping, stoning, shooting and hanging of women in Afghanistan and Iran with the fact that all these acts are done in the name of Islam.

Aaronovitch was born to a Camden-dwelling Jewish communist and was a member of the Manchester team in the TV programme University Challenge who made complete arses of themselves by answering all questions with "Trotsky", "Lenin", "Karl Marx" and "Che Guevara"; but nobody chooses their parents, and boys will be boys. Since leaving the Guardian he has attracted sufficient bitchiness from his erstwhile comrades to suggest he has turned his back on the more ridiculous extremes of British leftism.

However, he appears unable to emancipate himself entirely from his Marxist indoctrination, so he still looks to poverty as the explanation for social pathology. Something else he cannot emancipate himself from may explain why he doesn't mention the revolting custom of female genital mutilation. Thus, as far as he is concerned the disgusting acts perpetrated against women in some societies is worse than a crime:

Far more than that, the oppression - oppression is what it is [and who the hell, apart from some of his old Guardian comrades, questions it?] - of women holds back social and economic development in societies that practise legal misogyny, making them poorer and more violent. . . . And where there are more young men than young women, as a result of polygamy and early death [he does mention female infanticide earlier], there I bet there is also more violence, more psycho-sexual dysfunction, more substitution of the bomb for the girlfriend. And we all get it in the neck.

Ah, so we should be concerned about the brutalisation of women not because it is a barbaric offense against humanity, but because the primitive cultures that permit it will also produce young men who will express their sexual frustration by blowing themselves up, possibly in our vicinity?

How morally abject is that? But in addition there is no link whatever between poverty and Islamist suicide bombing. Further, our suicide bombers have been home-grown in a society where sexual frustration can only be the product of choice. Even a strangulated Marxhorroid ought to be able to see that.