"The New Feminism: Breaking the Multicultural Relativism Taboo"

[Captain_Nemo]

http://thenewagenda.net/2009/03/03/the-new-feminism-breaking-the-multicultural-relativism-taboo/

The New Feminism: Breaking the Multicultural Relativism Taboo
March 3, 2009
by Artemis March PhD

"When American feminists have broken their silence about the beheading of Aasiya Hassan, their reactions have tended to emphasize the commonalities in male violence against women across cultures and caution that it not distract our focus from this bigger picture. But in dismissing the importance of making distinctions among the cultural contexts in which such violence take place, are they playing into the hands of the politically correct crowd who don’t want us to talk about this subject at all?"

[Captain Hilts]

1. A lot of issues overlapping in this incident. nt

[AnnieBW]

2. Domestic Violence isn't just a religious issue

Granted, Islam and some more Fundamentalist denominations of Christianity are more prone to it than others. But domestic violence can happen to anyone, regardless of faith or lack of faith. It's about having power over someone, and thinking that hitting or verbally abusing someone is normal.

[Colobo]

3. Yes, but some religious cultures kind of... condone domestic violence

and they need to be fought against.

[eridani]

37. Until about 150 years ago, condoning domestic violence was a universal human cultural norm

More secular countries were the first to break away, but there is still quite a bit of lag time for the others. The good news is that there are many, many indigenous feminist movements fighting it in the holdout areas of the world. The rest of us should seek them out and support them. That would be far more helpful than just making righteous rants about it from our own comparatively safe perches.

[terisan]

39. Agree that women in other countries need support; don't agree that that the

post was a self-righteous rant. Universal rights of women include American women too.

The fact that no woman in the US has ever held elective office in the executive branch of our government, holds only about 17% of of seats in our Congress, and only 1 seat on our Supreme Court is some indication of the limits of equality in the US.

[vaberella]

44. That's not domestic violence.

I get a bit annoyed when people marginalize this atrocious act with domestic violence. Ditto when I see women who are murdered and at times pre-meditated by their spouses equated to domestic violence. This goes above and beyond to plain old murder in the first degree and beyond. Not to mention most cases of domestic violence is just unmitigated violence going on in the house. I just have the feeling there's a lot of marginalization of violence against women as something almost fitting into a "natural"/"semi-natural" role because it's just automatically defined as domestic violence. If anyone of this happened on the street it would be murder/assault depending on severity.

[AnnieBW]

63. Sorry that I came across as being self-righteous

THe point that I was trying to make is that religion is ONE aspect of a complex problem. In Prince Georges County, MD, a woman was doused with gasoline and set on fire by her estranged husband. They were both Christians. This is just as horrendous as the beheading. Nobody is jumping up and saying that this is an example of all Christianity because a husband burned his wife to death.

[vaberella]

65. That's true.

I've noticed in the states that when people act in what they consider to be unlawful ways they get a pass with religion. At this point if you're living in the US you need to live by US laws not your own and the law of the land doesn't allow or shouldn't allow for the communion (excuse the pun) of Church/Faith and State.

[Starry Messenger]

4. The "New Agenda" links to "The Confluence"

The Confluence is a PUMA site. I like to think I'm a feminist, but I don't think that sites that advocated for voting for McCain in the name of feminism are really suitable here. My .02.

[Captain_Nemo]

5. But, they just link to it and the article is a feminist article.

[Starry Messenger]

7. I think the article itself could use some balance.

There is so much sexism and homophobia in Western religions that is needs more than a brief pass that this article gives to the issue. I'm thinking of "Under the Banner of Heaven", an account of the vicious murders of a mother and her young daughter by FLDS members. That's just off the top of my head.

[Hello_Kitty]

9. Yeah, it's our own version of cultural relativism.

We are shocked by the systemic violence toward and degradation of women in Muslim cultures (as we should be) but are inclined to ignore cultural context and focus on individuals here.

[Starry Messenger]

12. I agree.

We have a lot to work on here.

[Captain_Nemo]

19. Polygamy is another issue that needs to be addressed in a religious way....

[Starry Messenger]

21. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. n/t

[Captain_Nemo]

26. We have freedom of religion in our country but.....

that doesn't mean that one can practice a religion that enslaves its members.

In polygamist areas of the country the women are basically slaves, in a sense. They can't leave, they are beaten, etc.

They are not living under our laws - they believe (or at least the men)believe that God is their only law.

The same mentality that plagues radical christian right and allows them to bomb clinics and kill doctors.

Now, if a man murders his daughter because she wants out of an arranged marriage (Jonesboro, Georgia 2008, Sandeela: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99616128

Morning Edition, January 26, 2009 · Police in Atlanta have been investigating the death of a 25-year-old Pakistani woman, who was allegedly murdered by her father in the name of family honor.

She wanted out of an arranged marriage, but her father thought a divorce would bring shame to the family.

Honor killings are old rites of murder within families, committed because of some perceived dishonor or shame. The United Nations estimates around 5,000 deaths occur each year — mostly of women, mostly in South Asia and the Middle East."





So, we're not supposed to talk about his religion??

[Starry Messenger]

43. Again, we have that here, too.

There was a huge raid here that was very controversial just a little while ago--

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695270818,00.html

Fallout from FLDS raid is intense


Meisner said that of the 57 women who were transported to the San Angelo Coliseum, six women accepted the agency's offer to move into "a safe place," while others requested to return to the ranch.

Meisner said Monday's decision did not come easily.

"It was a difficult thing to do," she said. "Children like to be with their parents, and parents like to be with their children. There was some sadness as well as some tears. "The children who have been separated have indoor and outdoor play areas, and are being provided three meals a day plus snacks. "They are happy, they are playing," she said, adding children have been allowed to freely worship. "We are certainly very respectful of that."

Meisner also outlined other agency action, including the transfer of two dozen adolescent boys. They were moved Monday afternoon and placed in temporary foster custody. After the press conference, Meisner rejected some critics' comparison of the state's action to that of Nazis during wartime Germany.

"I respectfully disagree with that," she said. "I feel very good about the job we are doing in Texas. I understand there are going to be those who disagree with us."

The patriarchal oppression fostered in several religions needs to be addressed.

edit: arg, typo. Starry needs coffee.

[Hello_Kitty]

60. Who is telling you you can't talk about his religion?

No one. Except for neocons who co-opt feminist language to advance their poltical agenda.

[Hello_Kitty]

6. I googled Artemis March and she appears to be some kind of right winger

The use of the phrase "politically correct crowd" and the overall concern-trolly tone of the paragraph you posted tipped me off to it. It troubles me that Hassan's murder is being turned into neocon agitprop when her assailant shared the same motive of every other man in the U.S. who kills his partner when she ends the relationship. How come when Joe Bob American kills his wife or girlfriend for leaving it isn't described as an "honor killing"? How come there's little to no dissection of the religion or culture that might have produced his attitude? Mind you, I'm not an apologist for Islamic extremism and don't truck with any kind of "multiculturalism" to cover for and excuse misogyny and violence against women. If anything, I think Dr. March and her ilk are the ones who are guilty of cultural relativism, since they choose to ignore the commonality of male violence and focus on the "Islamic" kind.

On edit: I read the article and Dr. March does indeed address the commonality of male violence against women. But why does she insist that Hassan's murder must still have some special cultural context? I frankly don't understand what her point is.

[Starry Messenger]

11. Oh yikes.

I just googled her too.

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/11/19/anatomy-of-a-divider-part-ib-why-obama-cannot-unify/


Articles like the OP really muddy the waters around here. But NoQuarter and The Confluence are clearly quite prejudiced. I don't think we need the Sarah Palin brand of "feminism" bruited here.

[sfbabe3]

13. March--a right winger? No Way!!

Artemis March is not a right winger by any means. I think March wants to look at different types of violence against women and see what
defines them, not just lump them into one heap.

[Starry Messenger]

15. Why?

And keep in mind that I'm reading an article by her right now where she describes Obama as someone with NPD. That's a very serious charge with no basis in fact except a very Fristian level of armchair diagnosis. I would like GDP here on DU be a safe place for discussion and dissent, but people like Artemis March do not do any favors to this cause, IMO.

[Hello_Kitty]

36. Well some of us have learned to see it as eminating from the same fetid swamp

Known as the Patriarchy. YMMV. And if you choose to partition misogyny along cultural and religious lines, I guess you'll never see the commonality. It's your choice, but please don't accuse me of being an apologist for oppression of women under Islam because I don't embrace the neocon agenda.

[Captain_Nemo]

18. Phyllis Chesler (second wave feminist) writes about Artemis here....

A Civilized Dialogue Between Feminists Who Disagree About Islamic Gender Apartheid. Part Two.

Last night I posted the first part of a dialogue between myself and my esteemed colleague, Dorchen Leithold, who is a dedicated and brilliant lawyer and feminist activist. Unsurprisingly, tragically, we disagree about Islam and the nature of its relationship to domestic violence and honor killings, including the recent horrific beheading of Aasiya Z. Hassan in Buffalo.

From Dorchen’s point of view, she has seen “racism” in action against Muslims in America, and among her Muslim victims of domestic violence. She might view what happens when a Muslim approaches the criminal justice system as similar to what happens when an African American does so. I agree that this is a real concern. However, focusing only, or even mainly on this injustice, may also blind feminists to the fact that the majority of Muslim and/or African-American domestic violence victims are women who have been beaten, sometimes killed, by intimate partners who are often also Muslim or African-American men.

I write about how Islamic gender apartheid has penetrated the West in The Death of Feminism. At issue, is the relationship between multi-cultural relativism and universal human rights, including womens’ rights. Secular feminists either lump all religions together as either dangerous or inconsequential or they theoretically view all religions as equally capable of doing good or evil on earth. In doing so, they fail to contemplate the ways in which Islam is different from other religions in the West. They genuinely, really, actually, amazingly, unbelievably, do not want to understand the ways in which Islam is different. (Pretty paradoxical for such good multi-cultural relativists).

Last evening, another feminist joined this debate: Artemis March, in the pages of The New Agenda in a piece titled: “The New Feminism: Breaking the Multicultural Relativism Taboo.” In her wonderful article, March discusses the ways in which such multi-cultural relativism is harmful to women, Muslim women especially. She writes:

“Despite commonalities among all forms of male violence against women, we ought not simply disappear honor killings into the general Violence Against Women (VAW) category by dismissing the importance of making distinctions that derive from their cultural or religious context… If we lump honor killings in with all VAW, we beg the question of the exportation of Sharia Law to non-Muslim countries… Not only are honor killings migrating to many parts of the world, but so also are demands for a dual legal system that accepts and glorifies rather than punishes the perpetrators. As we observe this process in Europe, we can be sure that these demands for a double standard in our laws are coming to a neighborhood near you. ”

Mary Jackson, at the New English Review, is another feminist who has also been criticizing politically correct feminists for their failure to truly understand the nature of Islamic gender apartheid. Read her excellent work HERE and HERE.

And now: For the conclusion of my dialogue with Dorchen.

http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2009/03/03/a-civilized-dialogue-between-feminists-who-disagree-about-islamic-gender-apartheid/

[Starry Messenger]

22. Well, pajamas media is totally right-wing.

I really don't think this helps. PJmedia was started by the folks at Little Green Footballs.

[Captain_Nemo]

25. But Phyllis Chesler wrote the germinal piece on feminism in the 1970s - Women and Madness and

She has taken this issue on and not many liberal places will carry her because they accuse her of racism even though she is looking at violence against women through religion - as we do when there are attacks on women's health clinics. Do we ignore that those attacks are christian based? No, we hammer that one home and rightfully so - the attackers to those clinics feel justified by god.
Why is it different for honor killers or even polygamist rapes of children?

This is the crux of the piece. Instead of shunning it perhaps we have to look at al violence against women at the core of its roots - religion and male supremacy.

Liberals are so focused on not being racist (as we should) that we are neglecting truly seeing the causes of these instances of violence against women.

Pajamas is right wing - what does that say? They are not as afraid to confront the issue, and explore the issue as we are. In the meantime women's lives are in the balance.
Think about it - most religions (and our language) sees God as man.

Well, that's sexist and it implies male supremacy.....

Let's start there.

[Hello_Kitty]

29. Ah jeez.

Since when is Pajamas Media the champion of feminism? Name me one prominent liberal feminist who has ever excused misogynistic violence out of a concern of being seen as racist or opposed to a certain religion. No, Camille Paglia doesn't count.

[Starry Messenger]

42. Well, she wrote this rather redolent piece just last year...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1480090.ece

How my eyes were opened to the barbarity of Islam

"Individual Afghans were enchantingly courteous — but the Afghanistan I knew was a bastion of illiteracy, poverty, treachery and preventable diseases. It was also a police state, a feudal monarchy and a theocracy, rank with fear and paranoia. Afghanistan had never been colonised. My relatives said: “Not even the British could occupy us.” Thus I was forced to conclude that Afghan barbarism was of their own making and could not be attributed to Western imperialism.

Long before the rise of the Taleban, I learnt not to romanticise Third World countries or to confuse their hideous tyrants with liberators. I also learnt that sexual and religious apartheid in Muslim countries is indigenous and not the result of Western crimes — and that such “colourful tribal customs” are absolutely, not relatively, evil. Long before al-Qaeda beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan and Nicholas Berg in Iraq, I understood that it was dangerous for a Westerner, especially a woman, to live in a Muslim country. In retrospect, I believe my so-called Western feminism was forged in that most beautiful and treacherous of Eastern countries.

Nevertheless, Western intellectual-ideologues, including feminists, have demonised me as a reactionary and racist “Islamophobe” for arguing that Islam, not Israel, is the largest practitioner of both sexual and religious apartheid in the world and that if Westerners do not stand up to this apartheid, morally, economically and militarily, we will not only have the blood of innocents on our hands; we will also be overrun by Sharia in the West. I have been heckled, menaced, never-invited, or disinvited for such heretical ideas — and for denouncing the epidemic of Muslim-on-Muslim violence for which tiny Israel is routinely, unbelievably scapegoated."

I'm sure the Neocons just ate it up with a spoon. I've never seen an "argument" so based in an appeal to emotion.

edit: bolded headline

[Hello_Kitty]

50. It's a total fucking strawman and I can't believe people here are calling it a "great article"

"I'm calling attention to the barbarity of Islam. I'm the only feminist talking about the treatment of women in Muslim cultures (bullshit) and other feminists are attacking me and calling me an Islamophobe (possibly because you only want to talk about misogyny in Muslim cultures and not anywhere else)."

Yeah, I'm sure the neocons are eating it with a spoon. I get in arguments with them online all the time and they invariably trot out the "you liberals don't care about the oppression of women in the Middle East!" canard. To which I respond, "uh, actually we were the only people saying anything about it way back before you even heard of the Taliban.

[Starry Messenger]

52. I alerted.

This stuff doesn't belong here. It's right-wing disingenuous bullshit. I hate it when neocons try to co-opt progressive language to further their agenda. (GRRR. Hulk smash. It's a huge peeve of mine)

[Hello_Kitty]

24. More bullshit strawman arguments

These people act like progressive feminists in the U.S. weren't decrying the brutal oppression of women in Islamic cultures because we were so "politically correct" and "culturally relativist" when that is a load of crap! On the contrary, we were the ONLY people saying anything about it before the neocons needed to use it as an excuse to wage war. WE were writing letters, donating money, and screaming at the top of our lungs about it to anyone who would listen. WE were the ones who were told "But..but..it's their culture. Nothing we can do. And besides, the women there CHOOSE it! Who are you to denigrate their choice?" Now we have dipshits like Artemis March, PhD, spouting revisionist lies and strawmen, as if she's the first person to discover that OMG MUSLIM EXTREMISTS ARE MISOGYNISTS!!1! Keen observation there, Dr. Obvious. :eyes:

[sfbabe3]

8. Very important article

I read this article. IT is an important article and reframes how we view issues that have been stagnating since the 70s.
A change in the way we think. We need to find new frameworks. We need to get out of the relativism and political correctness
which become convenient excuses not to take a stand or do something. March is a well-known feminist.

[Hello_Kitty]

10. "Political Correctness" is a right wing strawman.

As is the notion that liberal American feminists were not concerned about the oppression of women in other countries. Shit, we were the only ones saying anything about it until the neocons decided they needed justification to wage war in the Middle East.

[burning rain]

34. Good point, it was liberal Democratic congresswomen...

and few others who protested when W deigned to have Afghan Taliban officials down to Texas for to do some horse-tradin' (I think that's what they call it) before 9/11.

It's also worse noting that there are right-wing enthusiasts for conservative Islam, notably the very creepy Dinesh d'Souza.

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. This is nonsense

Feminist theory has long dealt head on with this very issue, and there is research in numerous fields that would fill a library. What is this shit, greatest hits of the late-80's culture war? Who "doesn't want to talk about this subject?" It is the most talked about subject in academic feminist research.

Notice that the author doesn't cite ONE instance of somebody promoting the "multicultural relativist taboo." Not one. That's a helluva taboo, if she can't even find one citation to support its existence. Or maybe not one citation post-1994. Total nonsense. This wouldn't pass the smell test at a graduate student conference. Correction: first-year master's student seminar.

[Captain_Nemo]

17. I would like to know the other research - I am interested in it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

27. Jeez...basically look up anything published

in Third World Feminism, Global Feminism, Transnational Feminism, or Postcolonial Feminism since the early 1990's. The notion that there is some "taboo" against pegging honor killings as specifically Islamic forms of patriarchy is so ignorant and ludicrous that one barely knows where to begin. It simply has no relationship to the scholarship whatsoever. It's like me saying that there's a Grand Taboo on DU against me posting pictures of my cat, but being unable to demonstrate that with any evidence whatsoever, or maybe a post or two saying I should post fewer pictures of my cat, and more of my dog. Needless to say, only ignorant people who already have been hoodwinked into believing that there's some alcibiades_mystery cat posting taboo would believe such a thing. Surely nobody with any knowledge of DU or even the slightest inclination toward critical reading would find it a plausible claim.

[Captain_Nemo]

28. Kim Gandy from Now:

Aasiya and Muzzammil

Since I started working on this column last week, countless more women have been beaten and killed. Just in the last week: A Virginia woman was fatally shot in an apparent domestic dispute that also injured her husband. A woman in Washington state was killed by her boyfriend. A man was charged with killing his wife and two stepchildren in their Virginia home. And on and on.

But after Rihanna and Chris, the one that got the most media attention was the most gruesome. The co-owner of an Islamic television station in Buffalo, New York -- prepare yourself -- cut off the head of his wife, Aasiya Hassan. She had filed for divorce from her husband, Muzzammil, and he was enraged.

Indeed, we know that the most dangerous time for the woman is not during a violent relationship, but after she leaves. The loss of control infuriates an already violent man. This pattern has been observed for many years, and is true regardless of the race, religion or nationality of the man. We also know that unemployment and business reversals increase the likelihood of violence, and reports indicated that the Hassans' television station wasn't doing well.

Despite these patterns that are typical of spouse abuse and murder (only the manner of killing was atypical), most of the conservative commentary has focused not on male violence toward women (surprise, surprise), nor on the importance of protecting women who have separated from a violent relationship (another surprise) but has focused instead on attacking the Muslim community. Although the crime was quickly decried by Muslim groups, many talk shows and blogs used the horror of Muzzammil's act to indict an entire community -- in a way that they would never have accused the entire Christian religion because a Methodist man murdered his estranged wife in a horrible way. Three weeks ago, a Chinese graduate student at Virginia Tech cut off a female friend's head with a knife. Not a single news outlet referred to his religion.

Is a Muslim man in Buffalo more likely to kill his wife than a Catholic man in Buffalo? A Jewish man in Buffalo? I don't know the answer to that, but I know that there is plenty of violence to go around -- and that the long and sordid history of oppressing women in the name of religion surely includes Islam, but is not limited to Islam. We need to call out the repression of women whenever and wherever we see it, while recognizing that the roots of violence are long and deep, and require a concerted response from every community.http://www.now.org/news/note/022009.htm




I think we need to look at the religious aspects when we discuss why there is violence against women. l

[alcibiades_mystery]

31. Nothing in that piece implies a "multicultural relativist taboo"

Nice try, though. There is no taboo, and if you knew the slightest thing about feminist scholarship and discourse you'd know that. The author made it up out of whole cloth.

"I think we need to look at the religious aspects when we discuss why there is violence against women" Can you point me to anything in the piece you're citing that would dispute that? She says "the long and sordid history of oppressing women in the name of religion surely includes Islam, but is not limited to Islam." What's the problem?

[Hello_Kitty]

35. You're basically proving our point.

Gandy is pointing out how the horrific murder of a woman is being used to advance the neocon anti-Muslim agenda, while similar murders in the U.S. are explained away as personal tragedies.

[terisan]

40. Kim Gandy seems to be saying "everyone does it so we must not talk about religion-supported violence

Fortunately their are Muslim women who are raisng the issue.

[Hello_Kitty]

59. No, she isn't

She is saying "everyone does it so let's address ALL of it instead of focusing on its occurence within the context of a particular religious culture." Somehow that gets morphed into "OMGZ we can't talk about it!!1! It's a taboo!1!"

If anyone is pushing cultural relativism, it's these stealth neocons like Artemis March.

[terisan]

66. Gandy can focus on all and let others focus on specific-no problem there.

There is enough horror to go around.

[Hello_Kitty]

67. And those others can stop accusing feminists of silencing and intimidating them

There's enough lying bullshit and phony posturing to go around.

[roughsatori]

23. She "doesn't cite ONE instance of somebody promoting the "multicultural relativist taboo."

Her opinion piece displays a flagrant lack of scruples (compositionally speaking).

[Hello_Kitty]

33. Thank you! It's a strawman.

I've yet to see them produce a single prominent feminist author who has ever argued on behalf of accepting violence against women on "multicultural" grounds.

[biopowertoday]

45. I believe this commenter does site a good example of the taboo............

I can see this happening a lot---and unfortunately in myself also.


from the comments section:

Ali on March 3rd, 2009 2:57 pm

Does anyone remember the movie “Not Without My Daughter”? I used to work in an adult ed program where most of our students were women and many were involved in abusive relationships. I remember another teacher from Armenia wanted to play this movie for our students and I hesitated. Totally PC was I, I was afraid that the movie would offend our arabic students and would also stereotype arabs for our latina students. My fellow-teacher insisted, I gulped and we watched the movie.

Well, after the viewing a woman from Morocco spoke up and thanked us for showing this. She said this is exactly what it is like, being a woman in a muslim society. She said it is what she has experienced and what her sisters and friends have experienced and rarely did she have the chance to talk about it.

This changed me and I realized that my PC-ness was actually working to shut up women like my student from Morocco. By not allowing for any sense of critical reflection on her culture/ religion I was suppressing her. Fortunately, my older and wiser colleague changed this dynamic in my classroom and I will never forget this.

[alcibiades_mystery]

54. That's an example of a taboo?

That the teacher thought through the possible issues, and showed the film?

Are you serious?

There is no taboo against discussing these issues in feminist theory or scholarship. Both are inundated with articles and books that address these very issues, and have been for the last twenty years.

The problem for peddlers of right wing nonsense is that most commentary insists on interrogating the relationship between Western cultural forms and economic and political imperialism at the same time that it examines the patriarchal structures in those local contexts. What right wing propagandists and other ignorant purveyors of the PC-myth want is pure examination of local contexts and pure celebration of Western cultural forms. Because most decent scholarship requires interrogation of both, right wing propagandists shout that it is "a cultural relativist taboo." Let's take an example like Persepolis, the famous graphic novel about a girl growing up in revolutionary Iran. The right wing wants us to see only the patriarchal depredations of the radical Islamic regime, which were, of course, very real. Contemporary feminist scholarship wants us to see BOTH the patriarchal depredations of the radical Islamic regime AND the effects of Western cultural, economic, and political imperialism. Because the latter insists on a complete analysis, the propagandists of the right call it a taboo, claiming that they are "not allowed" to speak about radical Islam. The point, rather, is that overdetermining radical Islam relative to the complete configuration of factors is just piss poor analysis. You never speak from a position outside power relations. As a reader of Foucault (as your name suggests), you should understand at least this. There is no taboo or prohibition. There is, rather, a need for responsible and comprehensive analysis rather than half-cocked propaganda.

[Hello_Kitty]

57. And March had the nerve to accuse her critics of being "either/or" thinkers. eom

[Lilith Velkor]

16. The Muslims are comin to git us! O noes!

:wank: :eyes:

[terisan]

41. " we cannot be intimidated and silenced by the fear of being called “racist” or "anti-islamic" nt

As the article states: we cannot be intimidated and silenced by the fear of being called “racist” or “anti-Islamic.” Being pro-women is not anti-anything-else. We must break multicultural relativism’s silencing taboo or it will break us.

[biopowertoday]

47. You are so right. I posted

this to anther but I think it is a good example of the relativism. It makes us afraid.

I have seen it myself in my classroom--and unfortunately I too engage in it.

from the comment section.


edit to add link:
http://thenewagenda.net/2009/03/03/the-new-feminism-breaking-the-multicultural-relativism-taboo/


Ali on March 3rd, 2009 2:57 pm

Does anyone remember the movie “Not Without My Daughter”? I used to work in an adult ed program where most of our students were women and many were involved in abusive relationships. I remember another teacher from Armenia wanted to play this movie for our students and I hesitated. Totally PC was I, I was afraid that the movie would offend our arabic students and would also stereotype arabs for our latina students. My fellow-teacher insisted, I gulped and we watched the movie.

Well, after the viewing a woman from Morocco spoke up and thanked us for showing this. She said this is exactly what it is like, being a woman in a muslim society. She said it is what she has experienced and what her sisters and friends have experienced and rarely did she have the chance to talk about it.

This changed me and I realized that my PC-ness was actually working to shut up women like my student from Morocco. By not allowing for any sense of critical reflection on her culture/ religion I was suppressing her. Fortunately, my older and wiser colleague changed this dynamic in my classroom and I will never forget this.

[Lilith Velkor]

55. So now we have to pretend that Muslims are conspiring to rewrite our laws?

Or else we look "intimidated and silenced?"

I don't know if you've noticed yet, but plenty of men in our own culture get away with killing women, provided they were fucking them at some point prior to the murder.

I'm not about to go on a wild Muslim chase at the behest of some fucking neocon masquerading as a feminist - they already have plenty of company what with the psycho-Christians masquerading as feminists - but you have fun now.

[Hello_Kitty]

62. I want to see one of them come up with one example of a prominent progressive feminist

Who has ever "intimidated and silenced" critics of Islam and accused them of "racism" for decrying violence against and oppression of women in Muslim cultures. The best evidence anyone could come up with on this thread was an article by Kim Gandy where she does nothing of the sort. And I seem to recall, prior to the neocons needing justification for their military crusades, that when feminists called attention to the treatment of women under Islam WE were the ones silenced, told that "it's their culture", "it's their choice, who are you to judge?".

[roughsatori]

20. Poorly written, horribly reasoned right-wing screed. NT

[Ceela]

30. Great Article!

I think we have to be able to talk about the roots of domestic violence in different cultures to figure out how to address it. The article makes some legitimate points and I don't care what "wing" it comes from. I read the whole article and found it very interesting.

[pnwmom]

32. Well written and well-reasoned. Thank you. n/t

[terisan]

38. Great article!

[Hello_Kitty]

46. Here's the latest posting from that site:

A woman who says she will vote for women, no matter what. Which means if Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin or Phyllis Schlafly is on the ballot, that's who gets her vote.

http://thenewagenda.net/2009/03/04/musings-on-hyperpartisanship-and-gender-voting/

This New Agenda smells like a stealth RW outfit.

[Starry Messenger]

49. Here is a press release they sent out in August 2008:

http://thestilettoblog.com/2008/08/13/on-the-cutting-edge-new-nonpartisan-group-to-promote-womens-agenda.aspx

""There was enough brain power in that room to do just about anything. We are looking to help the women of our country, who often have no voice. We are hoping to make life better for women in all walks of life."

The New Agenda has already contacted representatives of the McCain and Obama campaigns to press its concerns.

"While we have had a much better dialogue with the McCain campaign, I believe both sides increasingly understand that the votes of women over the age of 40 will determine this race," says Siskind."

I smell boolsheet.

They also take choice out of their "agenda" because it's too controversial? Yikes.

[Hello_Kitty]

51. You noticed that too?

Yeah. :eyes:

Reminds me of the so-called "Feminists For Life", who don't oppose contraception outright but make their disapproval of it pretty obvious.

[Starry Messenger]

53. "Feminists for Life"

I know. Talk about Orwellian. I'll never understand that.

[Adelante]

58. PUMA trash

Like the rest.

[Blue_Tires]

61. +1

[Teaser]

48. she uses the word "pornified"

sorry, lost me on that one.

[NashVegas]

56. So F-ing What?

American feminists have gotten attacked every time we brought up the subject of female submission in Islam for the same reason we get attacked when we call submission in D/s relationships, unhealthy.

"A grown woman can do what she wants, THAT's feminism. Stop being so patriarchal."

About the only time feminists are encouraged to go after Islam is when someone with a Middle East political agenda jumps in. You don't hear much about RAWA these days, though, do you?

[Lilith Velkor]

64. RAWA is awesome

Every International Women's Day, the local Pinkies send them money. (I, personally, would prefer they take up arms, but it ain't my call.) Those with imperialist agendas like to pretend RAWA doesn't exist.

Your conflation of radical Islamism with kink is total bullshit, BTW. :thumbsdown: