The women who constitute the American feminist establishment today are destined to play little role in the battle for Muslim women's rights. Preoccupied with their own imagined oppression, they can be of little help to others--especially family-centered Islamic feminists. The Katha Pollitts and Eve Enslers, the vagina warriors and university gender theorists--these are women who cannot distinguish between free and unfree societies, between the Taliban and the Promise Keepers, between being forced to wear a veil and being socially pressured to be slender and fit. Their moral obtuseness leads many of them to regard helping Muslim women as "colonialist" or as part of a "hegemonic" "civilizing mission." It disqualifies them as participants in this moral fight.
In reality, of course, it is the Islamic feminists themselves who are on a civilizing mission--one that is vital to their own welfare and to the welfare of an anxious world. A reviewer of Irshad Manji's manifesto celebrating Islamic feminism aptly remarked, "This could be Osama bin Laden's worst nightmare." Ipso facto, it should be our fondest dream.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
QOTD
Christina Hoff Sommers, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, in the May 21, 2007, Weekly Standard:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It has taken me years to realise that feminism is not about women, but about the ascendancy of the Arts & Humanities Tribe, as opposed to the Business or Science & Technology Tribes. What happens to Muslim women simply makes little difference to them.
I do give credit that there are a few feminist groups who get the distinction.
AVI:
I like your metaphor. Embellishing it a bit, I would call it a battle over whether to grant tenure to tribal teachers of Arts & Humanity or to scholars of Business/Science & Technology.
As a college freshman in the goo-goo '70s, I was housed in a small-ish experimental, and co-ed, dorm divided by interest groups. My floor was split between the precise terms you mention: "Science and Technology" and "Arts and Humanities." My room was, literally, in the middle--my roommate was A&H while I was S&C. All were friendly, but over the course of two semesters, the groups trended in opposite directions; the A&H crowd became less grounded in reality while the S&C bunch increasingly demanded facts. This wasn't just a matter of politics: that year, I rejected liberalism, becoming one of only two conservatives on the floor; most of the S&C students were Marxists. Rather, it was the way that A&H students never stopped to assimilate facts that were inconsistent with their pre-conceived notions.
Much of the feminist left retains that freshman-year approach. So I concur in your praise of the rational feminist. Christina Hoff Sommers is one, and isn't shy about highlighting the shortfalls of her logically-challenged peers. I highly recommend you read the entirety of her excellent article.
What the hell happened to feminists?
What the hell happened to liberals?
What the hell happened to Communists?!!!
They are missing the fight against fascism. Their ideology is false.
Carl, interesting story about college. I was at William & Mary in the 70's, and switched majors from Math to Theatre.
I have a long series of posts on the American cultural tribes if you are interested: http://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2007/03/tribes-collection.html
The first entry is "The Influence of Doonesbury."
I do wonder whether the tribal division that I see is more true of my own generation and the ones preceding it. My sons, both thoughtful types, tell me the lines are less distinct now, and I have no reason to doubt them. The strongly Catholic and Evangelical schools have tended to be those which most reliably teach the historical, Western Civ sort of Arts & Humanities, but most other A&H have tied themselves to postmodernist readings and approaches, resulting a sort of intellectual suicide.
Post a Comment