IceMountainFire

Woke hypocrites are fuelling a terrifying rise in anti-Semitism

An obsessive, singular demonisation of Israel is at the heart of a new wave of anti-Jewish hatred

Allistair Heath, 2 June 2021 • 9:30pm

J’accuse: anti-Semitism, that oldest of hatreds, the othering of Jews, is making a terrifying comeback across the West, fuelled by a toxic confluence of the intelligentsia’s embrace of woke ideology, a resurgence of Islamist extremism and the sewer that is social media.

Boris Johnson, Priti Patel, Robert Jenrick: I know you care, but now is the time for action, a genuine crackdown, a policy of zero tolerance to ensure that Britain is free of this despicable poison once again. Mere words are not enough.

Everywhere one looks, in Britain, Europe and America, anti-Jewish hatred is surging. The UK’s Community Security Trust recorded its highest ever number of anti-Semitic incidents in May. A rabbi was assaulted. There have been inflammatory anti-Semitic slogans on marches purporting to support Palestinians. A Jewish hospital nurse was told by strangers in a lift: “I want to kill all your people”. One Jewish teacher in North London explains that pupils tried to stick “Free Palestine” stickers in her hair. Teachers and actors have been forced to resign from their unions, and anti-Semitic tweets and posts have proliferated.

All forms of racism are evil and must be fought, including the endemic hatred of Muslims that is rife in many European countries. I make no apology for focusing on just anti-Semitism for this column, however. Why? Virtually all intelligent people are rightly committed to eradicating all other forms of racism, but some who should know better are inadvertently fuelling or turning a blind eye to anti-Jewish racism, an ominous development.

The old anti-Semitism – the fascist, far-Right variety, the middle class “golf club” prejudices, the ancient tropes about banking, the lies about who killed Christ, the deranged Blood Libel, invented in Norwich in 1144, all remain socially unacceptable. But anti-Semitism keeps on reinventing itself to suit the ages, inevitably finding useful idiots to promulgate it.

The new, toxic, more acceptable variety is an obsessive, singular hatred of Israel, demonised as the prototype oppressor, racist, “apartheid” state, the only country that doesn’t deserve to exist, an approach pushed relentlessly by the radical woke storm-troopers who have captured Western academic, cultural and commercial institutions. Even seemingly moderate people now parrot extreme, one-sided, ignorant claims on the subject, believing that they are signalling their virtue.

This is going hand-in-hand with Jews being pressurised across the West to disavow Israel, something that no other group would ever be asked to do in relation to any other country. All of this has made it easier for a resurgent Islamist movement that the British state has done too little to control since David Cameron left office to propagate its own propaganda. Here, traditional anti-Semitism butresses the anti-Zionist narrative: Israel, we are told, engages in conspiracies and controls the media.

Such implacable hatred mustn’t be confused with legitimate disagreements with, or robust criticism of, Israeli policy or politicians – the Israelis themselves specialise in this – or a desire to help Palestinians (and Jews) trapped in a never-ending cycle of pain. A two-state solution with a sustainable regional deal to allow Jews and Arabs to live in peace is surely the only answer to end this barbaric conflict. But any analysis of a fiendishly complex, long-lasting and nuanced situation must be rational, fact-based, historically and theologically informed, contextualised and non-utopian. It shouldn’t be based on lies or deliberate distortions aimed at triggering more hate.

Those distortions are everywhere. When was the last time Left-wing celebrities tweeted in support of a peace deal for the Tigray war involving Eritrea, Ethiopia and Sudan, which has cost thousands of lives this year? Or the 13,000 Muslim deaths in Afghanistan this year? Or the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which claimed 7,687 lives last year? Or the insurgency in the Maghreb and the 7,000 lives lost there? Where are the protests, the demos, the flags in football stadiums? The usual “activists” are only concerned by wars that involve Israel. Is that not just a little suspicious?

One argument is that Israel is a democracy, so should be held to a higher standard. But so is Turkey, and I can’t recall the tweets defending the Kurds or speaking out against Erdogan. Context matters: Israel is the only democracy under constant attack by neighbours that keep threatening to annihilate it.

The relentless attacks on Zionism, the movement dedicated to creating and maintaining a Jewish state, is in practice equally anti-Semitic. Virtually all Jews – and most other religious minorities – have been ethnically cleansed from the Middle East in recent decades. Jews have nowhere else to go but Israel; the Zionist project is their only chance. Anti-Zionism – or fashionable calls for a one-state solution that would turn Israeli Jews into a minority again, now amplified by some media outlets – is irresponsible.

A central claim of woke critical theorists and social justice warriors is that “white supremacy,” oppression and colonialism explain the world’s problems; but while they are obsessed with identity politics, one minority, namely Jews, doesn’t count, as David Baddiel has put it. The wokerati are especially exercised by Israel, a proud nation-state which has no time for self-hatred. Yet it is absurd to describe Israelis as “white” colonialists: it negates the unbroken connection between the diaspora (the clue is in the name) and the land of Israel. The majority of Israelis are refugees, or the children of refugees, from North Africa and the Middle East. Some 2-3 per cent of Israeli Jews are black Africans, primarily Ethiopians.

The woke concept of white supremacy is catastrophically flawed. It cannot comprehend the most monstrous crime, the Holocaust, which saw one group of white people – the Nazis – exterminate another – European Jews. “White privilege” didn’t stop the gas chambers.

Well, first of all, I’m use they/them, but thanks so much for misgendering me!

You wanna talk about how Muslim women and and woman-aligned people are treated? Fine, we can talk about that.

We can talk about how the Quran was revealed in 632 AD, saying how women are equal to men. (“And their Lord responded to them: ’…be you male or female - you are equal to one another.’” [Quran 3:195])

We can talk about how in the 16th century, western men were still debating if women had souls.

We can talk about how in 632, the 1st century, Muslim women had the rights to choose who to marry, to divorce, to work, to educate and be educated, to have their won inheritance, to their own land and property, to have their own businesses, to participate in combat, to half their husband’s wealth, to have their own opinions, to have custody of their children, and on and on and on.

We can talk about Muslim women’s right to have a voice in government. Tell me, when did the USA give (white) women “equal participation in the political process,” or voting? 1920. Muslim women have had that since 632.

We can talk about how Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Turkey, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, and Senegal have all had female Presidents or Prime Ministers. How 1/3rd of Egypt’s parliament is female. How in the lovely USA, we haven’t even had a women vice-president yet.

We can talk about the hijab, niqab, abaya, and burqa, how they’re mainly worn to protect women from leering men, and to allow women to interact freely in public without people being able to judge their bodies or looks and only having their minds and personalities to make judgements off of.

We can talk a out how the Western world has twisted our clothing into “women have to cover up because they’re indecent!” and women and feminine-presenting people get attacked and have their coverings yanked off, either because of Islamophobic hatred or misguided attempts at saving us.

We can talk about how I’ve had my hijab ripped off twice, both times by white men, once outside my community’s masjid (the Muslim place of worship.) And oddly enough, my clothing didn’t stop me from breaking one of those men’s noses when he went after my sister. Just like it’s never stopped me from going to school, or playing sports, or doing anything a white woman or woman aligned person could do.

We can talk about how outside of the masjid, where men and women are required to cover their heads, I’ve never once been made to wear a hijab.

We can talk about how the only people who have lectured me about dressing modestly were non-Muslim teachers and other educators.

We can talk about how people want to preach about how Muslims think women are indecent, when western schools freak out when a girl shows her shoulders.

We can talk about my cousin who once made a joke about women belonging in the kitchen and how out of thirty people in the room, the only person who laughed was his white friend. How his father immediately corrected him.

We can talk about how the first university ever, the University of al-Qarawiyyin, was founded in 858 by Fatima al-Fihri, a Muslim woman. How despite that, the summer I was thirteen and taking extra courses at the community college, an instructor praised me for joining even though “I know Muslim parents don’t let girls have higher education.” I had to look her in the eyes and ask who she thought was paying for my classes.

We can talk about the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.a.w.) who denounced all forms of enslavement of women, and assisted women in issuing their rights to exist freely.

We can talk about people who rush to condemn Muslim men for hurting the “defenseless” girls, then turning around and making jokes about raping and hitting women.

We can talk about the “saviors of Muslim women,” talking about how they’re so oppressed, they don’t get to make their own choices.

We can talk about how these people completely ignore anyone who says they’re wrong and call them brainwashed. Because of course millions of women have been coerced into believing in a tradition that views them as subservient, what other explanation is there?

We can talk about how patronizing and infantalizing this is, how it denies Muslim women and woman aligned people agency and puts our “saviors” on a pedestal. “We need to be their heroes! Because obviously they can’t fix their problems without the aid of white people!”

We can talk about how it’s true that Muslim women suffer from misogyny. How there are Muslim men who think of women as lesser, how some Muslim women are forced to cover themselves and marry. Because guess what? There is no culture that is exempt from misogyny and sexism, gender discrimination is a problem everywhere. But you cannot call an entire culture and religion inherently misogynistic, that is in no way true. 

We can talk about how somehow there’s this incredibly untrue idea that Western cultures have “progressed forward, and sexism doesn’t exist here, only in other countries and cultures.”

We can talk about how if people want to help Muslim women, all that is needed is for them to listen to us and follow our lead.

We can talk about how Muslim women and woman aligned people do not need white people to save them. We have always been capable of helping ourselves.

There are a lot of conversations to be had about the treatment of Muslim women, if it’s something you want to discuss.

But the thing is? People who talk about how oppressed Muslim women are generally don’t.

You want a deflection from your misogyny, “You think I’m bad! You should see how Muslim girls are treated.” You want an excuse for your Islamophobia, “We need to criticize Islam, they treat women awfully!” You want justification for western imperialism, “These wars are necessary! We need to save the poor girls!”

You don’t care about Muslim women and women aligned people.

Stop pretending like you do.

Like, where the fuck do I even begin? How do you respond to something so removed from reality? Mohammed denounced all forms of female enslavement? He owned sex slaves. And raped them, unless y’all feminists want to argue that slaves gifted to a foreign warlord can consent to sex with him. Slaves such as Maria the Copt, who bore Mohammed’s last child, Ibrahim, who died in infancy. But hey, let’s be fair to the guy, he was just practicing what he preached. The Quran explicitly allows men to rape their slaves, regardless of whether they are married or not (more than once). Not that it’s a big deal. I mean, there are no Islamists today who keep sex slaves and rape them, right?

But Mohammed’s era was a long time ago. Muslims in the modern era are far less misogynistic, as OP kindly points out. For example, Egypt, a fucking military dictatorship, has women (15% not 1/3) in its pointless parliament, which exists solely for show. And, like, hello? Benazir Bhutto? Who succeeded her father Zulfikar as Pakistan’s PM before being murdered? Clear proof of Islam’s long history of female rulers. (All… nine… of them?) Only a fool would describe the feminist paradise of Pakistan as in any way oppressive to women. Why, it is practically Scandinavia. OP has a solid point here. Kind of weird how the presence of female rulers = feminism for those countries, though, but women being queens ruling entire empires in Europe gets reduced to “in the 16th century, western men were still debating if women had souls” (that’s actually a myth and not even from the right time period but thanx 4 playing)

OP has an even more solid point when they say that Muslim women have had the right to vote since the 7th century, because the expansionist (dare I say imperialistic?) caliphate was obviously known for its universal suffrage and female leadership. (I mean… is this a serious post? Is this something that OP truly believes? Really?) And as OP suggests, Islam gave women many rights that they didn’t have before, like the ability to own businesses and inherit money. What’s that, you say? Mohammed’s first wife, who was his boss before Islam, was able to do all that in pre-Islamic Arabia with no apparent issue? Well, uh, she doesn’t count. Life was very terrible for women before Islam. Islam fixed great oppression. Just, uh… just trust me on that. I mean, doesn’t a religion that explicitly states that a woman is worth half a man in both legal and monetary terms speak for itself? It’s called feminism, Brenda, look it up.

And the Quran. The Holy Quran. OP says that 3:195 states that women and men are equal. It does not. It simply says that one comes from the other. In fact the Quran specifically says that men are above women and that men are in charge of women and women deserve to be beaten if they are disobedient, an ayah that I will now quote word for word from fucking quran.com:

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

But remember, kids, you can’t call an entire religion sexist! Why? I don’t know, OP makes the rules, not me.

And you have to appreciate OP’s desperate attempt to turn criticism of Islam into a guilt-inducing rant about imperialism. Because there are no white Muslims, of course. And because all critics of Islam are white, and because there are no critics of Islam from Muslim countries. All criticism of Islam is due to Western imperialism. There are no ex-Muslims. And there is certainly no history of Islamic imperialism. Listen and repeat. Feel that guilt? Good. Now reblog this defense of a religion you know nothing about. Ahh… much better. Guilt: relieved.

But hey, let’s chill out for a second and back up here. OP says that they’re free to do whatever they want and so there is no misogyny in Islam and any women or girls suffering under Islamic rule are just the victims of random guys being awful, it has nothing to do with Islam itself. I mean, women are literally forced to wear hijab in a theocracy based entirely on Islamic law, but it has nothing to do with Islam. Just listen to OP’s soothing words and let the guilt flow over you, then press the reblog button.

Italy. One of the most visible effects of last year’s lockdown? The number of women murdered by their partners went up by 300%. So far in 2021, 13 women have been killed. Yesterday a man went to see his ex girlfriend, a special needs teacher who’d spent 20 years helping vulnerable children, and killed her with ‘unprecedented brutality’ in front of their 4-yo son.

UK. On March 3rd, a woman was walking home through a park. Three days later, her unrecognizable body was found in the back of a van. A male police offer has been charged with kidnap and murder. Since that day, six other women and a little girl have been killed by men.

Spain. Fourteen women have been killed so far in 2021. The latest victims are from last Monday: a man murdered his wife and their 11-yo daughter, then killed himself. Six days later, a man stabbed his ex wife seven times and left her to die in the building where she worked.

Germany. On Friday, a man killed his 4-yo daughter in Bavaria, and an 84-yo man killed his 89-yo wife in Saxony. The day before, there were two other murders and three attempted murders. In total, 37 women and seven children have been killed by men since January.

In Europe, men represent 49% of the population, and yet account for 95% of prison inmates. Worldwide, 96% of homicide perpetrators and 79% of victims are men (more than 90% of male homicide victims die in drug-related or gang-related crimes). In the United States, 99% of rapists, 88% of robbers, 85% of burglars, 83% of arsonists, 81% of vandals, 80% of perpetrators of domestic violence, and 78% of people arrested for aggravated assault are men. Young men are particularly at risk in every category. 

Osteomyeltis of the femur, as a result of scarlet fever

Osteomyelitis is an intensely painful, often disastrous infection of the bone, which can have grave consequences. This case was the sequelae of a case of scarlet fever (a body-wide rash caused by strep throat), and resulted in amputation of the limb. This patient survived, but a large percentage of patients did not. Prior to antibiotics, many who contracted osteomyelitis (due to scarlet fever or other reasons) developed severe bacteremia (bacteria in the bloodstream), which often progressed to sepsis and death.

Think you have strep throat? See a doctor!

Charlotte Brontë eschewed marriage longer than most (writing to Ellen Nussey that she wished they could just set up a little cottage and live together) but she finally married at 38, became pregnant, and died before her 39th birthday. If she had married younger would Jane Eyre exist? I was reading that biography of Charity & Sylvia last month and comparing their life together in their little cottage to the life of their married female relatives, which was honestly hell on earth. One of Charity’s sisters had 18 children. Charity’s mother had 10 living ones, and probably some additional stillbirths. She gave birth to her first child age 19, in 1758, then to a pair of twins in 1760, then another child in 1761, another in 1763, another in 1765, another in 1767, another in 1769, another in 1771, another in 1774, another in 1777. Charity was the last child and her mother had been sick with tuberculosis for months when she became pregnant with her, and she died soon after giving birth.

I wish people would call this murder—this woman was murdered by her husband, like countless other women who do not ‘count’ as victims of male violence because straight sex is natural, pregnancy is natural, childbirth is natural. But when after 20 years of nonstop pregnancies this woman had tuberculosis and suffered from severe respiratory distress, severe weight loss, fever and exhaustion, and her husband impregnated her again, her death was expected. He must have known; he just didn’t care. This woman’s sister—Charity’s aunt—remained a spinster and outlived all of her married sisters by several decades, living well into her eighties. (Ironically, male doctors in her century asserted that sex with men was necessary for women’s health. The biographer quoted from a popular home health guide which said that old maids incurred grievous physical harm from a lack of sex with men.) And this aunt had the time and liberty to develop her skill for embroidery to such an extent that two museums still preserve her embroidered bed drapes. She accomplished something, she nurtured her talent and self. Her name was also Charity, and I find it interesting that Charity’s mother named her last daughter, whose pregnancy & birth killed her, after her childless, unmarried sister.

This post is heartbreaking. Those poor, poor women. There are still women across the world being pressured into unsafe and unwanted pregnancies and it is an atrocity. I agree with much of what this post says.

That said, the thing that makes me uncomfortable with posts like this is the underlying attitude of ‘men can’t change’. It’s defeatist; worse, it upholds the patriarchy. I know there are women who are tired, and frustrated, and beaten down by a fight we shouldn’t have to have to begin with. I get it, it’s okay to rest. But once you buy into ‘men can’t change, society won’t change’, you give up trying to change it. Ask yourself who that benefits.

Some people can’t or won’t change. Heterosexual women: expect better. Make sure you know who you are marrying, even if you love him. Make sure you grill him on his thoughts and expectations about contraception, housework, childcare before he proposes. Talk about what constitutes enthusiastic consent. Expect better than your grandmothers and mothers and aunts did. Then either the men we love rise to the challenge, or they get left behind. And then, one marriage at a time, things change.

Dustmann, Ku and Kwak (2017, p. 28) found that the “the net effect of having single-sex peers for three years is strongly positive for girls”. When classes were converted from 100% female to 50% female, girls’ achievement in languages (Korean and English) fell by 8-15% of a standard deviation (pp. 4, 27). (Also see, Dustmann et al., 2017, Why single-sex schools are more successful.)

A 2017 study of Year 3, 5 and 7 numeracy and literacy (NAPLAN) data by Dr Katherine Dix of the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) found that even when socio-economic status was taken into account, Year 7 girls at single-sex schools were 4.2 terms ahead of co-ed students in reading and 2.8 terms ahead in mathematics (Dix, 2017).

A 2016 survey by the South Australian Association of State School Organisations found that 61.45% of participants wanted more all-girl public schools offered in South Australia and that 82.88% of supporters of more all-girl school options were educators (p. 1). Participants reported on several advantages of all-girl schooling including academic performance (94%), Science, Technology, Engineering, Maths (STEM) participation (92%), sport participation (78%), reduced stereotyping (63%), confidence/ assertiveness (54%), teaching methods for girls (22%), improved body image (19%), better support (14%), safety (12%) and less bullying (9%) (p. 2).

In 2014, Professor Alison Booth of the Australian National University wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald that “the evidence is gathering that women in single-gender classes benefit, and they benefit significantly”. In fact, just one hour a week of single-sex education benefits girls (Booth, 2014). Booth et al.’s 2013 study found that female students at Essex University who were randomly assigned to all-female classes in their first year were 7% more likely to pass their introductory economics course than girls in co-ed classes. They also scored 8% higher on their final grade and 10% higher in their required second-year courses, despite only attending single-sex classes in their first year (Booth, Cardona-Sosa & Nolen, 2013, p. 3).

An Australian study has found that girls gain confidence in Information Technology (IT) in single-sex classes. The four-year study, which ran in seven co-ed and three girls-only schools, found that 45% of girls made an unprompted positive comment about their experiences in single-sex IT classes. Feedback from the girls included that girls-only classes were more conducive to learning because boys disrupt classes; they were more willing to ask for help without boys being present; they were more confident and not afraid to try things out; and that in co-ed classes, boys put them down when they were trying to do something or express an idea (Fisher, Lang & Forgasz, 2015).

In 2015, Andrew Hill of the University of South California found that opposite gender friends have a negative impact on the academic achievement of students at co-ed schools. Students aged 16 and over with higher numbers of opposite gender friends had lower grades across all subjects (p. 148); were less likely to graduate from high school or attend college (p. 173); had more difficulties getting along with their teachers (p. 148); and were more likely to be in a romantic relationship, which “may reduce both the quality and quantity of homework and studying”, as well as being “distracting in the classroom” (p. 171). Hill also found that in students aged under 16, grades in mathematics and science were negatively impacted by the effect of opposite gender friends, and that girls may benefit from single-sex classes in these subjects (p. 168).

A 2015 study by Eisenkopft et al. identified a “very robust” positive effect on mathematics proficiency for girls randomly assigned to single-sex classes in a Swiss high school (p. 137). The effect was greater for students with high ability in maths and in classes taught by a male teacher, but “the effect also holds for less talented students and for classes taught by a female teacher”. Girls in single-sex classes also “evaluate their mathematics skills more positively and are more likely to attribute their performance in mathematics to their own efforts rather than to exogenous talent or luck” (p. 125).

A SchoolDash analysis of GCSE results for 2015 found that 75% of girls attending England’s 271 government girls’ secondary schools achieved five good GCSEs compared with 55% of girls attending government co-ed schools, even after adjusting for socioeconomic background and selective intake. SchoolDash founder Timo Hannay wrote that these results are consistent with previous research, including a 2009 study of the Key Stage 2 and GCSE results of 700,000 girls by the Good Schools Guide which found that girls in all-girl comprehensive schools achieved better results than those who attended co-educational secondary schools, and a 2007 government-backed review which recommended that girls and boys should be taught separately to avoid girls being pushed aside in mixed-sex classrooms (Hannay, 2016; also see, Paton & Moore, 2009).

Park, Behrman and Choi’s 2012 study of South Korean students — who were randomly assigned to single-sex and co-ed high schools until 2009 — found that “high school female seniors who attend all-girls schools show significantly higher mean scores than their peers who attend coeducational schools” (p. 19). In addition, college attendance data demonstrated that “the four-year college attendance rate for female graduates is 3.1 percentage points higher for all-girls schools than for coeducational schools” (p. 20). The advantage of “all-girls schools over coeducational schools in sending female students to four-year colleges is fairly substantial”, with the study showing that “female students from all-girls schools are less likely to attend two-year junior colleges” (p. 21).

A 2012 PhD thesis by Dana Diaconu concluded that girls from Hong Kong and New Zealand “seemed to have benefited more from single-sex education than coeducation” (p. 248). Diaconu examined the Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) databases for 1995, 1999 and 2003, finding that the advantage of Hong Kong girls from single-sex schools in TIMSS 2003 in science scores “remained statistically significant … even after accounting for differences in student background and school characteristics” (p. 248).

Suzanne Link’s 2012 study of the 1999 Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) data for South Korean middle schools found “positive effects of single-sex schooling for girls” in mathematics. The effects “are not only highly statistically significant and non-negligible in their magnitude, but also highly relevant since math[s] performance is consistently linked to future earnings” (p. 2).

An Australian study reporting on a year-long trial of single-sex Year 7 classes at a Queensland primary school found that girls in mixed-sex classes reported significantly reduced scores on emotional and behavioural engagement by the end of Year 7 (Gilmore, Patton, McCrindle & Callum, 2002, p. 1). The study authors write that is possible that the girls in mixed-sex classes were “negatively affected” by the “presence of boys in the classroom” or perhaps they “felt disadvantaged” by not being in the single-sex class for girls (p. 5).

Belfi et al.’s review of the literature on class composition by gender and ability in secondary school found that “single-sex classes are advantageous for girls’ school well-being and academic self-concept” (Belfi, Goos, De Fraine & Van Damme, 2011, p. 2).

Veronica Cabezas found that: “Girls in single-sex schools perform better academically than their counterparts in coeducational schools, after holding constant measures of selection, background, peers and school factors” (Cabezas, 2010, p. 227).

Katherine Bradley investigated single-sex education and its impact on academic achievement, concluding that “the single-sex environment provides females with the best opportunity for academic achievement” (Bradley, 2009, p. 119).

“[I]t is actually more expensive to be poor than not poor. If you can’t afford the first month’s rent and security deposit you need in order to rent an apartment, you may get stuck in an overpriced residential motel. If you don’t have a kitchen or even a refrigerator and microwave, you will find yourself falling back on convenience store food, which — in addition to its nutritional deficits — is also alarmingly overpriced. If you need a loan, as most poor people eventually do, you will end up paying an interest rate many times more than what a more affluent borrower would be charged. To be poor — especially with children to support and care for — is a perpetual high-wire act.”

Dolomites italy

I left after a couple months, I stayed just long enough to see that they explicitly believe women are inferior to men, and of course, that homosexuality is a sin on par with murder.

The whole missionary door to door thing is NOT how Jehovah's Witnesses recruit. That is how they convince their members that the world is out to get them. One of the first things they teach is that Jesus requires you to try to convert non Christians to the faith. (They say non Christian but mean non JW.)

Then they say, "look how people treat us, just for the crime of wanting to save their soul"

They have long time church members tutor the incoming members to smooth the process over. They're trained to smooth away any doubts you may have about the church.

SORRY FOR THE VERY PERSONAL COMIC!!

This is my half of “Unhealthy”, an essay comic double header with the lovely and talented Sarah Winifred Searle. She and I both wrote about our personal experiences as overweight ladies with eating disorders, and her story is breathtaking! You can buy a physical copy of the book here: https://topatoco.com/collections/abby-howard/products/ah-unhealthy