A little history lesson is in order.
For a long time, American women had been outspoken leaders in the fight to abolish slavery. However, between 1838-1840, their efforts were increasingly restricted to that of “silent” partners in Ladies Auxiliaries. In 1840, a World Anti-Slavery convention was held in London. American women, including Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott, both ardent abolitionists, were not allowed to publicly speak out against slavery because they were women. Instead, they were condemned to sit behind a partition and remain silent. Cady Stanton returned home and composed a Declaration of Sentiments, modeled upon the Declaration of Independence. In 1848, three hundred American women and men, including former slave and abolitionist, Frederick Douglass, attended the Seneca Falls Womens’ Rights Convention; about a third voted for the Declaration which resolved that women should have the right to vote, control property, sign legal documents, serve on juries, and enjoy equal access to education and employment. This vote and this Convention began the long, slow march towards American female suffrage. See what former NOW-NYS President, Marilyn Fitterman, had to say about this very subject.
African-American men obtained the vote in 1865. It was fifty five years before American women of any race, color, religion, or ethnicity did. These First Wave feminists and suffragists decided to put womens’ rights first. They refused to “sit silently at the back of the (abolitionist) bus,” and were sometimes willing to work with anyone, including those who were opposed to abolition, to further their cause. This meant that some of our suffragist foremothers were routinely called “racists.” They were also mocked as unnatural, selfish, and man-hating women.
On the other hand, those men and women who chose abolition over womens’ rights were rarely ever condemned as sexists, misogynists, or woman-haters.
Fast forward to the American 1960s when many white women, (Jews, too), joined the bravest African-American men and women in a struggle for civil rights. This was a movement against southern and northern segregation, against Jim Crow and for the integration of public places, including lunch counters, buses, and schools. The African-American right to vote–free of intimidation or violence– was also at issue. Women of many races were also involved in the anti-Vietnam war and in various left-tilted black liberation movements which opposed racism, both here and abroad. But, once again, American women were expected to do the secretarial work, and provide food and sex for the “real” leaders who were always men. In the mid-to late 1960s, one of us left all that, driven out by Marxist, hippie, and black liberationist sexism. Betty Friedan published the Feminine Mystique in 1963 and NOW began organizing in 1966.
Second Wave feminism put women’s’ rights first and for about fifteen years, we achieved tremendous, dazzling progress. However, by the end of the 1970s, with the rise of the anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti-Western academy, the ideas of academics like Edward Said, the author of Orientalism, took precedence over many feminist ideas. Suddenly, in terms of symbols, women were no longer seen as the most “wretched of the earth,” oppressed by both poverty and violence. Now, Arab men of color, Palestinians, Muslims, took stage center as the world’s most noble and oppressed victims.
Caucasian feminists and academics were expected to “atone” for their country’s history of slavery, racism, and imperialism by refusing to analyze or protest the fate of non-white women at the hands of their fathers, brothers, husbands, and leaders. To do so would be “racist.” Only women of color, (or academics who were women of color), could comment on the fates of women of color. Control of this academic “discourse” was viewed as too valuable a resource–one which should not be plundered by those whose ancestors had been racists, crusaders, colonialists, and imperialists.
In the 1970s, feminism had embraced a universalist philosophy which believed in one standard of human rights for all. By the 1980s, feminism began to devolve into a politically correct “culturally relativist” philosophy in which one standard applied to the West and another standard to the formerly colonized Third World. Because Third World countries suffered from many serious problems, they were seen as blameless innocents who did not deserve to be harshly judged.
Meanwhile, just as left-influenced Western, Caucasian feminists began to view themselves as suspect, and their culture as guilty, they simultaneously began to view Third World barbarians of color as misunderstood innocents. Feminists did not defend the values of the West to which most intellectuals, especially dissidents from Third World cultures, aspired. Just as dissidents abroad cited Enlightenment values against the Third World tyrants who impoverished, tortured, and silenced them at home, western academics, including feminists, refused to “judge” such tyrants and insisted on viewing them sympathetically.
When forced to, western feminists usually condemned the United States and Europe for having contributed to the rise of such tyrants. They absolutely could not imagine that Third World barbarism, including corruption, including misogyny, might also be indigenous. Nor could they see that they, too, were collaborating with evil tyrants.
Thus, despite great interest in connecting with western-style feminists in Third World countries, and despite genuine interest in the plight of women around the world, by the end of the 1980s, American feminists, especially if they were Caucasian, were highly reluctant to condemn barbarism against women of color, Arabs, Palestinians, Muslims by men of color, Arabs, Palestinians, Muslims, since such condemnations were, by definition, “racist,” or could potentially be used against men of color by white racists.
In 1848, American suffragists decided to focus on the rights of American women only. That struggle was hard enough; indeed, it is still ongoing. However, Second and Third Wave feminists in the latter part of the twentieth century, began to focus on the rights of women globally. To the detriment of feminist movements everywhere, American feminist activists and academics have now recanted, pulled back, apologized, because they have decided that, once again, racism trumps sexism as a feminist concern.
Just as men and women once stood together as abolitionists, we now call upon men and women of all races and religions, including secularists, to stand with us against the subordination of and violence towards women in the name of religion, beginning with Islam or Islamism.
This is the first of two articles. In our next piece, we will give specific examples of the ways in which mainstream feminists, including NOW, have been sacrificing womens rights in order to be perceived as politically correct in terms of racism.
Dr. Phyllis Chesler is a well known author, an Emerita Professor of Psychology, and the co-founder of the Association for Women in Psychology, and the National Women’s Health Network. She may be reached through her website: www.phyllis-chesler.com. Marcia Pappas is a feminist/activist, holds a Bachelor of Science in Cultural Studies, and is currently the President of the National Organization for Women-New York State. Pappas may be reached through her website: NewYorkStateNOW@aol.com.
Bravo, ladies.
This is a cogent, historically framed, articulate and very powerful piece. Long overdue, I congratulate your bravery, and applaud your efforts. It is even-handed, well supported and highly analytical. I read no pettiness or mean-spiritedness in it what so ever. I say this as a free thinking individual (male) raised by a strong mother who had to and continues to fight for what is a given for a man.
I never understood, growing up, nor to this day, why when so much was won for minority rights and the anti-war effort, why it was such a big deal to NOT pass an equal rights amendment for the female majority in our county. The two of you have brilliantly shone the light to me. Racism is the card in play, sexism be damned!
A brother in arms.
Is it because feminists fear being called racists? I think many feminists sincerely believe that the cause of anti-Zionism is more important than the needs of women.
Today’s New York Times has an op-ed telling the story of Sara Jane Olson, nee Kathleen Soliah. She committed murder, and also kicked a pregnant woman in the belly, leading to a miscarriage, because she thought it was virtuous to do so while fighting for the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA). People on the Left, nowadays, are as crazy—albeit less violent—than they were during the days of the SLA. They KNOW that nothing is a greater threat to the world than Israel, and so they subordinate all other issue to that cause.
The reason some feminists support the misogynists in the middle east is the same reason groups like Queers for Palestine support the Muslims (who hang gays) over Israel (which hosts annual gay pride parades) is simple:They’re so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
“The issue is also whether American feminists really support an American foreign policy, which both President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have indicated can or should be tied to womens’ rights.”
I have not seen or heard this from either of those two, Clinton or BO. The Office on International Womens Issues in the State Dept has been gutted, the couragious staff of feminists is gone; the new female press person calls herself a spokesMAN on press releases- proudly. I called and talked to her about it — she thinks the issue of sexist language is nonsense.
Obama is reaching out to Iran’s establishment and still calls the opposition inside Iran terrorists.
Where is there any sign that this administration is connecting foreign policy to women’s rights?
I am aware of the greatness of Biden’s IVAWA but it has not been implemented to any fraction of a degree within this administration.
Less than 500 names on the petition, please reach out to your friends to sign.
http://www.petitiononline.com/savenow/
This article is very good, especially as it involves Marcia Pappas, who now courageously deviates from the trend of the left-lib feminists that want to dictate their agenda to others in the US.
For me the key here is the statement: “The issue is also whether American feminists really support an American foreign policy, which both President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have indicated can or should be tied to womens’ rights. Feminists viewed President Bush’s post 9/11 invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq as morally outrageous and as far more hurtful to Afghan and Iraqi women than was their pre-existing subjugation. Some feminists believed that women had been better off, at least, in Iraq, before the American invasion. We may disagree with this analysis but, nevertheless, why would American feminists hesitate to condemn crimes against women which are being committed on American soil by immigrants, including Muslims, from Third World countries?”
Since I do not need to be careful, I say: The majority of American feminists support a far-left liberal approach to feminism that is 100% slanted, and has shown its ugly face when confronted with cases like honor killings, Muslim female genital mutilation, now rampant even in many parts of the West, and many other brutalities against women in Islamic societies. However, they are ready to point out right away, yell and rant, about what they see as discrimination against women in the US, which pales when compared to the Islamic barbarism. Talk about double standards. Are these liberals’ dichotomies under the feminism movement the result of a mental problem or malady in the subject as Ann Coulter states? Definitely so. This malady is described masterfully in Jamie Glasov’s recently-published book “United in Hate”, and was also described by Eric Hoffer in his 1951 masterpiece “The True Believer”. Make not mistake, many American feminists are FRUSTRATED women, and this feminist movement a mass movement with all the characteristics of the frustrated follower. The level of self-deceit is incredible. The roots of denial soon take the form of justification.
A note: This American feminist movement is not different in their approach to Islamic violence against women than the indifference and silence shown by so-called African-American leaders to the illegal incarceration and torture of African-Cuban-Black dissident Dr. Bricet by the Castro regime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_El%C3%ADas_Biscet
I don’t believe that I would be racist if I decried the treatment of women by some muslims. These sexists men need to be prosecuted. But aren’t they extremists. I’m trying to understand. I know some Islams that abhor such acts as honor killings. And the Hamas in the Giza strip are doing as much of an injustice to the civilian population there as well as Israel. I want to dialogue on this site for the sake of clarifying these things for myself. After all, I don’t see exterminating any religion or culture. But there needs to be international rules of human rights that ignore the fanatic acclamations to killing anyone!
The “proverb” which assures us that “Three things are better when you beat them: your drum, your dog and your wife” is a muslim saying. It is not racist to say that all muslims seek the extermination of all Jews, the subjugation of all women and the total annulations of anyone who will not proclaim that “there is no god but allah and muhammad is prophet.” It is merely truth, the same truth that muslims have been proclaiming for nearly 1400 years, in public and in their “holy book,” the koran. The people who refuse to hear their very public proclamations/warnings about what they will do if they ever attain a majority in America are the spiritual decedents of those who heard and read Hitler’s proclamations and dismissed him as nothing more than a member of Germany’s lunatic fringe. Amazing how quickly lunatic fringes can grow into “thousand year” Reich’s, isn’t it?
I might agree with those who insist that “some muslims” do not believe in jihad, honor killings and the destruction of Israel; but, only in the sense that there are some people who, while still defining themselves as Jews, Christians, Buddhists, etc., don’t actually practice their faith or — sometimes — even believe in God. Jihad, the subjugation of women and the destruction of Israel (and, following that, every other nation and people that is not muslim), are tenants of Islam — not “radical Islam,” but Islam, period. ALL Islam is radical and all who practice that faith believe in its tenants. Those who say they don’t are lying, and the koran says it’s okay to lie to infidels.
I never thought I would hear myself saying or thinking something like this, but I have come to believe that there IS a religion and culture that must be exterminated in order for the rest of us to live in some semblance of peace. At the very least, we need to mount an active campaign to end all muslim immigration to the US, and change the laws to allow deportation of entire families following the conviction of a family member on charges of advocating, plotting or carrying out terrorist attacks.
If this sounds like a hysterical rant, consider what has already heappened in Eurabia.
The “proverb” which assures us that “Three things are better when you beat them: your drum, your dog and your wife” is a muslim saying. It is not racist to say that all muslims seek the extermination of all Jews, the subjugation of all women and the total annulations of anyone who will not proclaim that “there is no god but allah and muhammad is prophet.” It is merely truth, the same truth that muslims have been proclaiming for nearly 1400 years, in public and in their “holy book,” the koran. The people who refuse to hear their very public proclamations/warnings about what they will do if they ever attain a majority in America are the spiritual decedents of those who heard and read Hitler’s proclamations and dismissed him as nothing more than a member of Germany’s lunatic fringe. Amazing how quickly lunatic fringes can grow into “thousand year” Reich’s, isn’t it?
I might agree with those who insist that “some muslims” do not believe in jihad, honor killings and the destruction of Israel; but, only in the sense that there are some people who, while still defining themselves as Jews, Christians, Buddhists, etc., don’t actually practice their faith or — sometimes — even believe in God. Jihad, the subjugation of women and the destruction of Israel (and, following that, every other nation and people that is not muslim), are tenants of Islam — not “radical Islam,” but Islam, period. ALL Islam is radical and all who practice that faith believe in its tenants. Those who say they don’t are lying, and the koran says it’s okay to lie to infidels.
I never thought I would hear myself saying or thinking something like this, but I have come to believe that there IS a religion and culture that must be exterminated in order for the rest of us to live in some semblance of peace. At the very least, we need to mount an active campaign to end all muslim immigration to the US, and change the laws to allow deportation of entire families following the conviction of a family member on charges of advocating, plotting or carrying out terrorist attacks.
If this seems like a hysterical rant, consider what has happened in Euabia.
“…and the koran says it’s okay to lie to infidels.”
It’s far worse than that. Many interpreters of the Koran strongly argue that a Muslim has a serious moral obligation to lie to outsiders! This is not an option.
There is no reason to explicitly single out Muslims per se. We merely need to enforce existing laws and traditions of the West to combat Islamic extremism. Our politically correct legal institutions only have to do their jobs.
An incredibly important article. Thank you. The unwillingness on the part of national N.O.W to publicly engage in any discussion of this matter is shameful — I suppose their silence must speak for itself.
Many, many women and men live by and believe in genuinely feminist principles but refuse to align themselves with organizations like the National N.O.W. (state branches are a different story). Feminism is far larger than the corrupt leaders and academicians who speak for it.
AMEN, Phyllis & Marcia! Sing it sisters!
Great teamwork on TRUTH that NEEDS to be TOLD.
Live by newspeak, die by newspeak. This is how the feminist vanguard describes terrorism:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509597,00.html
We’re dealing with this absurdity because people chose not to be honest and straightforward. Note the subtle misandry in that phrase, as well. If you’re going to play word games, don’t be surprised if you end up with all of language being not only worthless, but used for evil (yes, I said the “e” word!).
Many feminists fear that, were they to tie the subordination of women to a particular religion or culture, especially to Islam, that they would be perceived as “racists,” or “Islamophobes.”>>>
Islam is not a race it is a religion whose members come from many races.
To Louis Santacrose, thank you, for when I see that I am not alone, at least I draw some comfort.
My friends, we are at a crossroad here with our new President Barack Hussein Obama, what is happening in Great Britain, and mainly in Londonistan, will accelerate here beyond your wildest dream under this new naive president who now says we are a Christian nation, Muslim nation, so on and so forth.
Stopped he has just now ICE’s raids on workplaces, and illegal Arabs, many of the virulent Islamic type if not Al Qaeda operatives, which are coming about 100 monthly through Mexico, will accelerat their comings.
I visited London in 2003, will not go there again as a tourist. Hundreds of women with Burkas everywhere.
Chamberlain-Obama wants to negotiate with Iran, but he gets a rebuke. Russian Medvedev/Putin put him in place when he sent that naive letter about quid pro quo on the missile shield in Poland and Czech republic, leaving our friend on the lurch. Israel better ties his belt, even his generals are not received well in Washington nowadays. Even Carter’s presidency naivete will pale with what I am afraid will be the damage from Obama’s.
It is proof that actions against certain woman by certain people are fine.
Either you are for what’s right, or you are a lying sack of sh*t.
Answers that, doesn’t it?
“Are these liberals’ dichotomies under the feminism movement the result of a mental problem or malady in the subject as Ann Coulter states? Definitely so.”
No, the answer is far more obvious than that. Just because someone says that they’re a feminist it doesn’t mean that they are one.
“could potentially be used against men of color by white racists.”
This last phrase says it all. Putting the interest of men before women. Misogyny is so deeply entrenched in our culture that even the feminist movement, the sole purpose and existence of which is defending women’s rights, put men’s interests before women. Without even realizing it. Incredible.
Bravo to Marcia and Phyllis for laying it out on the table. Now, let’s deal.
once upon a time, York University in Toronto provided space for a display of feminist thought. It is shocking to me. There were piles of position papers, sheaves of essays, tabletops covered with pamphlets… a display of clerical bureaucracy and nothing else.
No wonder those women, who could hardly wait to get cushy jobs overseeing (sorry, “positions”)’affirmative action’ and ‘human resources’ and ‘equal pay for equal work.’ Quite the scholastic times they have had, with very nice pay, extremely professional all of them.
And why would this so called ‘feminist establishment’ do anything substantial anyway? Their most shocking edgy activities are ‘taking back the night’ marches, debates on whether lesbianism is the purest form of feminism, and attending yet another showing of the “Vagina Monologues.”
They are, Phyllis, totally trivial and absolutely disgusting.
Why would this so-called ‘establishment’ be in the slightest bit interested in the desolate fate of those brown-skinned foreign women of the desert? THOSE women are of interest only to feminist anthrology students, working towards their PhD.
I tell you, the hope of the women who suffer from Islamic thuggery is in the Christian missionary. Also, that old time Christian evangelical Wilberforce Anti Slavery Society.
(And given the history of lefty politics, I think it is not a coincidence that most American abortions are performed on African American women.)
Leftists are disgraceful. It’s one of the main reasons why I left that ideology and became a conservative. They talk a good game and will say they care about advancing human rights and the rights of women until they run out of breath their face turns blue. But when it comes to islamist oppression of women they suddenly get politically correct and even start to DEFEND disgusting female repression by islamists. Why? Because if someone is considered to be our enemy like the Soviets in the Cold War, the Vietcong in the Vietnam War, and now the islamists, they almost ALWAYS side with whoever our enemy is. They always make excuses for them, apologize for them and defend them. They’re disgusting hypocrites. They always try to undermind our efforts to win a conflict. Especially when a conservative administration is in power.
…”Suddenly, in terms of symbols, women were no longer seen as the most “wretched of the earth,” oppressed by both poverty and violence. Now, Arab men of color, Palestinians, Muslims, took stage center as the world’s most noble and oppressed victims…..”
Feminists decided to oppose the evil White Man by hopping into bed with uncivilised barbarians on the simple and deluded basis that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
Feminists helped develop the “politically correct” chains that strangle rational debate and now you are reaping what you yourselves have sown. Sympathy for the feminist cause is going to be in short supply as everyone tries to keep up with the current league tables of the “most noble and oppressed victims”.
Astounding that the feminist movement can be SOOOOOO silent on common Muslim practice, when they are SOOOOOO loud on Christian practice. I am pro-choice, pro-equal pay, and pro whatever will make men and women “generally” common, but then again I will never believe we are the same. Dear gawd I had a wonderful conversation with my wife this afternoon and she way out-distances me constantly with her intuitive knowledge of how it all works. And that is fine. Still I have a solid, even profound place in our union. What about you? What about THAT? Thanks.
The first purpose of official feminism is to serve leftist men.
Historically framed but inaccurately so.
I think the question we should ask women is the question they want us to ask – WHAT CAN WE DO TO HELP YOU. Otherwise our actions are like the war in Iraq, founded only on us, for us, and by us. Muslim women need help from us they will tell us what they need us to do. They are asking and telling us all over the world as a matter of fact and many people are heavily involved in their cause, at their direction, not ours.
We can start in the United States.
U.S. Muslim Women Fight for Power
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/livewire/politics_society/muslim_women_fi/
I assign a higher priority to the rights of oppressed men in my Western countries than to those of women in Islamic countries. Let’s fix the sexist family laws in the Anglosphere before we worry about the Third World.
My wife is a university professor. Frequently, one observes young university women wearing Muslim headscarves, apparently in solidarity with something or other. Most of these students(?) do not appear to be ethnically Muslim. It boggles the mind, unless they’re just the local contingent of the DeSade society or something. But then, today’s politics are an exercise in constant bogglement.
I admire the two of you in your efforts to forge ahead with the truth that dispels lies. So how do we get something like you have written to all of the people who would support your efforts. I have tried talking to as many people as possible exactly on this issue and sadly the nativity is so great as it seems this is the first time they are hearing this and or processing what really is going on.
Thank-You for making my life easier with composing all of this information as this frees me up to pass it on instead of having to write actually with the same information you are exposing. I also love the fact that even if we do not agree with everything, we are good enough people to come together on the things that count. Good job ladies.
I look forward to hearing more solid excellent and direct collaboration toward waking up others out of their slumber with facts that have the kind of backing you have found. As a female, I surely will never understand any female turning the other way to these atrocities which is tragically only growing in our West.
This is a brilliant piece. Forced veiling, arranged marriages, separatism and honor related violence are crimes against women perpetrated by Islamists. It is time for American feminists to join Chesler and Pappas in saying so.
Thank you for this informative article. i have been wondering for some time why the silence of Western feminist groups about the treatment of women under the Taliban and as you have described all over the world. How can we in Australia help get the message out that this is just not acceptable? Another thing, with all the Human Rights Organisations around the world this issue appears to have no status at all!
the feminist establishment here remains tragically ambivalent about how to deal with forced veiling, arranged marriage, separatism, and honor-related violence, including honor killings.
~~~~~~~~~~~
I would call is coldly callous.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Many feminists fear that, were they to tie the subordination of women to a particular religion or culture, especially to Islam, that they would be perceived as “racists,” or “Islamophobes.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Or perhaps, more like their paint wielding PETA brethren ignoring Hell’s Angel’s penchant for leather (but little old ladies in fur are fair game), they’re afraid for their rear-ends well being (re: CYA) by pointing out bad behavior from a group known for violence at the *mere mention* of badness and would just as gladly as take it out on them.
Thank you both for keeping this issue front and center. It’s interesting that those who supported Hillary Clinton were also called racist for not automatically falling into line to support the African-American candidate.
My own hypothesis about why more women are not too concerned about women’s rights is that it’s not perceived to be “cool” and may turn off men. Which just proves that in modern America “the second sex” is a self-fulfilling prophecy. For obvious reasons men will never be as threatened by radical Islam’s treatment of women and, therefore, don’t see it as the primary threat. Women must see it that way though and fight against this threat to our liberty.
livia #25:
Sorry, but you’re wrong. This is a terrible mistake that white progressives always make. This idea that our own notion of right and wrong needs to be mediated by ‘official representation’ from the affected minority group. This is itself a form of soft bigotry where we stop treating individual victims like individuals and imagine that the opinions from a small subset of this minority group somehow represents the interests of all of these people, just because of their ethnicity or the religion they were born into.
It is not wrong to be intolerant of the mistreatment of these women and to hold others to our good standards regarding equality for women. It is not wrong for American feminist groups to firmly denounce the legitimacy of beating or killing your wife on the basis of religious belief. This does not need to be carried out under careful consultation with ‘official Muslims’ under the premise that our intolerance needs to be mediated through better understand of cultural differences.
And the war in Iraq was carried out according to America’s terms. Of course we weren’t expecting Iraqis under Saddam Hussein to tell you to invade the country (except for the many Iraqis who were exiled before the time of Iraq’s liberation). Many Iraqis were certainly satisfied to be given Saddam’s head. And today, despite relentless propaganda here and abroad in trying to discredit the intentions of George Bush and the American military, the majority of Iraqis see America as an ally against those who wish to murder women and children in Iraq and see the US as an ally toward the betterment of Iraq.
Iraq has come at a huge cost to the American people in blood and treasure. But don’t apologize for it. Those soldiers are far better ambassadors for America than any politician ever could be.
Three errors: (1) The ex-slave abolitionist was Frederick Douglass (two “s”).
(2) Fifteen states had given women the vote before Amendment XIX to the constitution in 1920 giving women the vote in all the states. Several had done so, I believe, in the nineteenth century.
(3) (Arithmetic: 1865 + 50 = 1915)
However, by the end of the 1970s, with the rise of the anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti-Western academy, the ideas of academics like Edward Said, the author of Orientalism, took precedence over many feminist ideas. Suddenly, in terms of symbols, women were no longer seen as the most “wretched of the earth,” oppressed by both poverty and violence. Now, Arab men of color, Palestinians, Muslims, took stage center as the world’s most noble and oppressed victims.
Geez. You mean, if I get my ass mangled by the Divorce Machine, my kids could end up in custody of an Arab?
Enjoy your burkas, ladies.
There is no doubt a great deal of interest in this material for people who are studying western or American political history.
For my own part, I could not possibly be more bored with the entire pile of baggage.
The facts of the matter, as I see them, is that the left (for lack of a better term) specializes above all in exploiting the dissatisfactions of the people around them to build up the numeric strength of their power base.
It is a psychological process, well and thoroughly documented by Eric Hoffer and others, of establishing and reinforcing feelings of helplessness and victimhood, murderous envy and submergence of the self in a collective identity. (All phenomena which are entirely harmonious, we discover, with the general tenor of mohammedan culture).
At precisely the point in western history when the importance of the individual female mind was coming to the forefront of practical social possibilities and cultural awareness, the left attacked with almost unmixed success. The “feminists” were, as near as I can see, completely subsumed into the anti-individual and ultimately anti-human left.
They have proven themselves to be almost completely helpless against the irrationalities of leftist mass-man double-think.
I’m convinced that most of what the noble Ms. Chesler is confronting here is simply part of what Jamie Glazov is writing about — covered in another posting by her on this blog at: “The Battle for Liberty, The Struggle Against Despotism.” An Interview with Author Jamie Glazov
The thing that most desiccates the subject for me is my moral revulsion against people who claim to be concerned with humanity and then can find it in themselves to hesitate in the face of the sort of obvious brutalities practiced by the mohammedan societies against, among other people, their own women.
I have absolutely no use for “good Germans”.
I have absolutely no interest in “good Germans”.
Evil, on a grand mass murdering scale, is strapping on its weapons and setting out unashamedly to conquer the world, again.
Whole modern economies are teetering at the edge of disaster. Whole populations are being enslaved and slaughtered in Africa. And all too many of the familiar signs and symptoms that we have seen before major international slaughters are making themselves visible around the world again.
Moral choices are becoming simpler, and more pressing.
On this particular site, we are discussing much of this matter from the point of view of how the lives of women are affected.
I have no time for anyone whose moral emptiness is so radical as to motivate them to split prissy hairs over points of etiquette when someone murders their daughter for acting a bit immodest.
I might have some interest in how to hold such a person up for public ridicule, shaming, condemnation and social exile.
On reread, I rather regret the know-it-all tone. Especially writing in a context where there are real experts present.
That said, I stand by the thrust of my remarks.
Thank you, ladies! Thank you for speaking the truth and for standing up for what you know is right. Thank you for speaking up for Aasiya Z. Hassan when no one else would because it was politically incorrect.
Marcia Pappas is to be commended, and Kim Gandy should be fired for scolding her for telling the truth about Aasiya Z. Hassan’s death by honor killing.
The problem is that the threat of being called a racist or an Islamophobe is used as a tool to further control women, and to keep discourse about the abuses committed against women in the name of religion around the world to a minimum. Its time women like Kim Gandy and other so-called feminists stopped allowing this agenda to control the women’s rights agenda in this country.
You’re either for the cause or you’re against it. There are no compromises to be made, no concessions to be considered, and no bullying by threats of being called racist or Islamophobic should be silencing us. If you want women to be treated equally, you fight the good fight, and you tell the truth no matter who out there doesn’t want you to say it.
Kudos to Phyllis & Marcia for saying what so many of us have been thinking. NOW needs to step aside and let the real feminists take up the cause, because they haven’t been championing women’s rights for years. They have simply become an arm of the pandering Democratic Party, and protectors of their own positions within the DC social scene.
I look forward to the next article in the series.
Islam is not a race. It’s a religion. Therefore, it’s not racist to disagree with it. Just imagine what the outrage would be if Christians were to impose such conditions on women. The leftists would have no problem speaking out against it in that case.
More than 10 years ago, I wrote articles and fulminated against cliteridectomies and honor rapes, killings and family violence sanctioned by males in Islamic societies. I was ostracized for even bringing up the barbaric mistreatment of more than 100 million such women, primarily in Africa, but widely too in the Muslim Middle East. The PC brigades tried to shush those of us outraged over the deliberate muting of voices in protest. We were regarded with the leeriness of lepers before medicine was available for cure.
The hypocrisy now extends to parallel issues involved in the illegal alien debate, with all violence, rape and mistreatment of women and girls behind the intractable wall of subsuming tiptoeing now deplorably but dependably yammered by the dim bulb of Nancy Pelosi. The extravehiculation of “Mo” Hassan’s sterling wife is sadly symptomatic of the still-vicious silence dished up by so-called champions of feminism–the news penetrated to only a very superficial level of media consciousness. The death from a blow to the head of poor Natasha Richardson merited blanket coverage for a week or more. Not the beheading of a Muslim woman savaged by her aberrant criminal beast of a husband. She had filed for divorce–apparently an offense punishable by death in the “minds” of Islamist men without an ethical conscience.
Her death dipped below the event horizon, and has yet to be exhumed for careful discussion and criminal charges against the vicious perp, her unregenerate “husband,” who thought it his “right” to defenestrate his lovely wife because “Allah told him to.”
I want to thank both Marcia Pappas and Phyllis Chesler for fighting this battle. What you are doing is not easy, and it deserves recognition.
I believe that what we are seeing in the Oval Office is evidence of “post Feminist” or “post Progressive” thought patterns. They are dangerous and, if left unchecked, will destroy us.
heathermc, YOU SAID ABOUT 3RD WAVE FEMINISTS,
“Their most shocking edgy activities are ‘taking back the night’ marches, debates on whether lesbianism is the purest form of feminism, and attending yet another showing of the “Vagina Monologues.”
You forgot legalizing prostitution for pimps and clients funded by the male left and the pimp/porn industry. For instance, the Soros funded “Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs” on behalf of the “Desiree Alliance” (Sex workers “rights” to be exploited).
This is what the male left fronts as feminism instead of the Swedish model which arrests pimps and escort management, educated clients, rehabilitates willing prostitutes and hopefully will one day remove children born into the lifestyle.
It is important to understand that much of what is called feminism is a front for the money men of the male left. These feminist are bought just as prostitutes are bought, Ms magazine being the premier example. The need for a paycheck does not excuse the women Mary Daily calls Aunt Toms who front for these males whose idea of women’s rights is the right to grovel on their knees before a “client” for their rent money.
But it is important to understand that what commenter Mike Blackadder said is true: Just because someone is paid to say they are a feminist and they are espousing feminism does not make it true.
It is important not to allow the betrayal of feminism by paid provocateurs to discredit feminism. There are many who will seek to do this; the patriarchal right will condemn feminism while they seek to eliminate the right of women to control their own reproduction even as they claim to support rights for Islamic women. The patriarchal left will condemn feminists who refuse to accept their exploitation of women’s sexuality. The US Islamic organizations will condemn feminists as racists while encouraging university women to cover their hair and faces “in solidarity with Islam”. And the patriarchal men who support black Muslims, encourage burka wearing, condone the battery of women and children while supporting animal abuse in their dog and cock fights will condemn feminists.
Yet, remember who first spoke out about female genital mutilation in 1973, and the oppression of women globally. It was the feminist movement. Just because the movement has been co-opted and infiltrated those of you who do not have private agendas must say proudly: “I am a feminist and I do not accept the treatment of women by the Islamic states”>
And you start by signing the petition.
http://www.petitiononline.com/savenow/
And tonight Maria Pappas will be on blog talk radio — call in:
Event: Free Us Now Radio Show
What: Live Call-In Talk Show
Host: BettyJean Kling
Start Time: Monday, March 23 at 10:00pm
End Time: Monday, March 23 at 11:00pm
Where: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/FreeMeNow
That Maria Pappas radio show is eastern standard time so if you are in a different time zone go to the website now and you will learn how to make the adjustments
I think a big part of the picture is being missed here. Western society has made tremendous (and necessary) progress in women’s rights. So much so that western feminism now focusses primarily on one issue – abortion. In this regard, feminists view the right wing as the enemy and are strongly in the left wing’s camp politically. The left wing portrays itself as the champion of the oppressed coloured people against the imperial western whites and allows next to no internal dissention on this theme. As a result, modern feminism finds itself in the uncomfortable position of having to remain almost silent on the obvious abuse of women in many non-western societies. The cognitive dissonance required to hold these positions results in the awkward silence or obviously irrational explanations from feminists on this issue.
I’m speechless. Can’t wait to read more.
Tell me where to join. I for one, am willing to make a stand.
Not only is Islam not a race, Arabs are not people of colour – that is, they come in the same variety of skin tones as all Mediterranean peoples – including most of the world’s Jews – with the exception of the Beta Israel.
If one dislikes Muslims, one is prejudiced – not racist. If one dislikes Arabs one is still prejudiced – not racist. In fact, there are no races but the human race. What race is President Obama, for example?
Consequently,to be truly non-prejudiced members of the human race, we must stand united “against the subordination of and violence towards women in the name of religion, beginning with Islam or Islamism.”
Excellent points, which can’t be made often enough.
Too many Western feminists care less about helping women than they do about attacking Western men. In doing so they leave Muslim women, in particular, out in the cold.
Islam has one this battle even before it has begun. We have allowed our defeat by agreeing with the muslim claim that islam is a religion. Well, fellow westerners, when are we going to realize that Islam is not a religion, that it is a political system? The hesitation we see in others is due to the “religion” disguise that muslims have stuck onto Islam. The dead giveaway is that muslims are encouraged to lie to non-muslims in order to win. That single characteristic is what makes Islam a political system first – not a religion.
Uh, pardon my spelling: “Islam has won this battle . . .”
The main reason Moslem women haven’t embraced the ideas of Western Feminists is that they would be killed if they did. Western Feminists also realize this fact. Being that is the case, they are in a position of forced silence. If they could ever spread their ideas in the world of Islam, it would topple its entire structure. Our best tactic would be to encourage our Feminist sisters into channeling their energies in that direction. It is the biggest danger Moslem world faces.
I’ve heard this mantra before “Islam is just disguised as a religion. It only serves to subjugate women.”
WOW! I’m speechless! Do people actually want the whole Muslim race to be wiped out? Isn’t that what Hitler wanted for all Jews? What ignorant hysterical rant! I can’t believe there’s such haters out there! What a shame!
Amber
Be a good girl and go and protect those poor Moslems from the likes of us. You will make a good dhimmy. (If you don’t know what a dhimmy is, please look it up. It will be very educational.}
I don’t think this article was about killing Moslems. I think it was about lifting Moslem women from a place of forced servitude to be equals in their own world. That would be the elimination of beatings, beheadings, and stonings. If you don’t think that would be a good idea, please let us know.
have a good night
–The main reason Moslem women haven’t embraced the ideas of Western Feminists–
And society would be doomed if the Western Feminist ideas are blindly adopted to eastern or any other culture.
Islam does exploit women, but western feminist solution (Individualism,Unfettered Sexual “Freedom”, Glorification of career as a elixir, Obsession with romantic love) is not a whit safer.
I am sure this Allah is verily Satan, as there is no peace with him. Only blood, mayhem, beatings. This Allah is definitely an Asura.
Could it be that Mr. Mohammed used hashish during that “enlightenment” in the cave and the “trip” through the air with Mr. Gabriel on the Heavenly Horse Harak?
The Great Swami Vivekananda warned about the mixed effects of the claims of “enlightenment” by the feeble minded, as in the case of the desultory “prophet” Mohammed. Check out “Raja Yoga”, 1897, page 81, Swami Vivekananda. Let me quote a little for you:
“…They opened themselves to hallucinations. Mohammed claimed that the Angel Gabriel came to him in the cave one day and took him on the heavenly horse Harak to visits the heavens…Think of the good Mohammed did to the word, and think of the great evil that has been done through his fanaticism! Thinks of the millions massacred through his teachings – mothers bereft of their children, children made orphans, whole countries destroyed, millions upon millions of people killed!
Do people actually want the whole Muslim race to be wiped out?
Muslims aren’t a race, unless Pakistanis, Chinese and Arabs are all considered to be the same race. And nobody wants them “wiped out”. However, it would be a good thing for Muslims if Islam were wiped out. Assuming it can’t be reformed, and that’s unlikely.
If there were no Islam, Muslims would be better off – they could be Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, Zoroastrians or Jedi Knights and be the happier for it.
See the essay in THE DESTRUCTIVE GENERATION, by Peter Collier and David Horowitz, “Death of a Radical.” It is about a woman, a Communist, who went from supporting “Black Liberation” to NOW, the National Organization of Women. So at least one of the founders of NOW was a Communist, as was Betty Friedan, author of THE FEMININE MYSTIQUE. NOW is certainly Marxist and uses the Marxist equation: men:women = owner of the means of production:worker = oppressor:oppressed, which is biologically idiotic.
The reply of the President of NOW to Marcia Pappas, President of the New York chapter of NOW, is called “changing the subject.” The issue of violence against women generally (as distinct from violence generally, which is usually men vs. men) is general, and certainly not unique to North America. The President of NOW is dodging the issue of violence to women by Muslim men, including “honor killings.” She just continues her communist attack on the United States as being unique in mistreatment of women.
Women of the left are allowing mistreatment of women in third world countries because it is part of their anti western agenda. If they ever had to admit that our system (of laws, government, tradition, etc.) was superior to that in the “oppressed” countries, they would loose their reason for living.
So, what about the non-caucasian feminists? Surely actual Muslim women can drive this change. You know, all those people who read lolita in tehran and stuff?
Oh wait, they are too busy emigrating to the west and penning best-selling novels that new yorkers go send their nannies to buy.
Only way you are going to change this is organically by the inside. All the white liberal women in the world will only be seen as meddling and imposing from the outside.