Thomas Dalrymple’s brief article (via Instapundit) explaining the murder of Theo Van Gogh as a reaction by Muslim men at their must vulnerable point – the abuse of women – is correct as far as it goes, but it tells only part of the story. Writes Dalrymple:
The majority of Muslims in Europe, particularly the young, have a weak and tenuous connection to their ancestral religion. Their level and intensity of belief is low; pop music interests them more. Far from being fanatics, they are lukewarm believers at best. Were it not for the abuse of women, Islam would go the way of the Church of England.
Well, maybe. But religious traditions run deep and on the most primitive levels, even, perhaps especially, when they are tenuous. As a Jew who has been more or less an atheist since his Bar Mitzvah, I still think something is amiss if I don’t celebrate Passover.
And women have been held in low esteem, even as second class citizens, to one degree or another in the Judeo-Christian tradition as well, but these beliefs have been under constant attack for some time. Huge portions of that tradition and its secular off-spring now reject that position. And as I am sure Dalrymple is aware (I have no real quarrel with him. He is quite brilliant), the very foundation of these religions (Islam included), it has been argued, has been ascribed in part to patriarchy’s struggle for ascendancy over matriarchy. I don’t have the knowledge to debate these theories, but it is clear modern life is going in a different direction. Many studies have related the financial success of society to the contribution of women in the work place. We are at a place now where women may even be becoming the dominant force there, since they may be more suited for the information age.
This leaves the Islamic world in a rage, clinging to traditions from a time when the world was thought flat. A woman named Monir Kazemi wrote tellingly of this dilemma in this email exchange quoted on Power Line:
Dear Jana, I was born in the Middle East and went to Islamic school and at one time I memorized parts of the Koran. I am from a neighboring country to Iraq.
The Koran says Sureh 4, Verse 35: Men have authority over women (not just the wife but sisters, daughters, maids, etc.). If they disobey, “first admonish them, then refuse to sleep with them, and then beat them”. You can read it for yourself at http://www.light-of-life.com/eng/reveal/ or other sites. Also try http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/index.html to see the 2nd class citizenship of women in Islam (for example they are counted as half of one witness, or receive inheritance half of a man).
Now Jana you are wrong that this is a matter of interpretation. When the Koran says women receive half the inheritance of a man, then this is not an issue of interpretation. It says Sureh 4:11 – “A male shall inherit twice as much as a female”. Now how can you interpret mathematics in multiple ways?
You say that I am “not allowed” (by whom may I ask?) – that I am not allowed to say that the Koran has recommended to beat women or to disinherit women because of their gender.
Of course we can find similar, though probably not as extreme, comments about women in the Bible, they have been largely discredited. How to discredit the reactionary parts of the Koran? That is problem of our time. Monir Kazemi, in that same email to Jana, puts it as well as anyone I have ever read:
What stops me and other open minded people to say that the Koran contains nonsense of this sort? If it offends you that I say this, well then take a cold shower, and if you are a moslem (by the sound of it) then change your religion instead of being so embarrassed about it, as I am just repeating what is in there complete with verse numbers and am exercising my right to free speech, and I can say all I wish about Islam, including facts about the Koran – and this is exactly why the Marines are in Fallujah beating the hell out of these Islamofascists – because they want to stop me from saying the facts, and no Jana, you cannot stop me as those Marines are protecting me, the Iraqis, and ultimately America, and neither can you stop the good Marines who are risking their lives, to bring out the truth about this decrepit religion. You should be ashamed of yourself to undermine our men and women in danger in the battlezone who are fighting tyranny, while people like you suck up to it.
Yes, we are in a long struggle and, yes, women’s rights are the very center of it.
The classic response is that in the ‘times of ignorance’ before the revelation of the Koran to Big Mo, women could not bear witness, so making them half a witness was a huge step in the right direction; woman could not inherit, so letting them inherit half as much was a huge step in the right direction; men used to beat their women as a first resort, so making it the last resort was a huge step in the right direction.
The problem is failing to take the next step, to adopt a policy of equality and reject violence against women. Jewish and Christian scriptures also include passages that, while perhaps progressive at the time they were written, denigrate the equality of women. But so many sects have been willing to go the next step that the larger societies now treat women, for the most part, equally. This being the case, even those marginalized groups that formally restrict women integrate a high degree of equality: A Catholic man who opposes womens’ ordination probably attends services largely conducted by a female lay leader and makes decisions in partnership with his wife. This seems less likely in the Muslim world.
Matriarchy is quite rare historically, so I have a hard time accepting the patriarchy vs. matriarchy theory. I find it more plausible that ancient prophets softened rather than hardened restrictions on women, exploiting the informal influence woman have always had on their families and turning it into wider support for their cause.
I, for one, am no longer interested in rationalizing, minimizing or excusing an ideology that is as oppressive and controlling as any of the other totalitarian ‘isms that plagued the 20th century.
When tribalism, custom, and religion get wrapped-up in an Arab/Muslim package the results are not pretty. That’s not an off-handed remark. I’ve seen and read way too much these past few years to trump common-sense with some giddy concept of tolerance.
As far as I was concerned, the feminist movement in the USA thoroughly discredited itself when it remained silent about President Clinton’s shenanigans in office. I believed that a movement which was so enraged over far lesser accusations against Clarence Thomas yet remained silent when more serious accusations were leveled against President Clinton had shown itself to be a highly partisan organization not interested in the ideals it professed to be advancing.
Now, that same group has done nothing but reinforce my earlier opinion. They have been critical of President Bush, who has done more to free women the world over than his predecessor ever did. They have remained silent in the face of true brutality against women by the Islamofascists and have not spoken out in favor of the liberation of millions of women in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Why should we ever listen to “feminists” again?
I cringed upon reading Dalrymple’s screed, plain and simple, cringed. Why? Because it attempts to reinvigorate a stupid (albeit unfinished) battle between cultural relativists, for whom gender roles in Arab and Arab-European society are between the men and women of that community, and universalist feminists who are not willing to remain within their own racial/cultural/religious ghetto in critiquing what they see as grotesque injustices.
Interestingly, both groups are generally presumed to be vaguely leftish. Thus President Bush can come under attack (practically at once) for both championing the rights of Afghan women (who is this white western man to presume to speak, blah, blah, blah?) against Islamofascism, and for attempting to “impose” democracy on a Middle East culture that has supposedly “rejected” such reform as suspiciously “western.”
Dalrymple elides over this whole mess to give us a simple story: van Gogh was killed by Muslim men who don’t want to stop beating Muslim women. It may feel good to say, but it’s only partially true and it gets us nowhere fast.
What those of us on the new right–pro-human rights AND hawkish–need to do is put a fresh spin on this whole issue. We would do well not to make van Gogh into a saintly martyr, but to acknowledge that he deliberately antagonized European Muslims, who predictably took the bait and inexcusably murdered him to silence him.
To my mind, Europeans have done an abysmal job of setting tough standards for female equality within their minority and immigrant communities. That is among their chief failings, and to the extent that it is due to the squeamish and ill-advised effects of cultural relativism, the left needs desperately to examine its own complicity in the oppression of women within western Europe. Western European politicians have essentially ceded control over immigrant women to the men in their communities. Dalrymple hints at this, but does not make it explicit. One major exception is the French ban on head scarves: it is a consistent policy across all cultural/religious lines, and for that reason came under attack by those who would speak on behalf of “their” women. France said, in essence, “sod off,” and good for them.
In short, if Europeans want to integrate Muslims fully into their national fabric, they need to set the same sort of firm (implacable) tone of defending universal human/female rights within their borders. The message should be respectful, but unyielding: each individual speaks for him/herself in our country. One law applies to all equally. We will go to any lengths to apply the law to all within our borders. No exception.
Then let us see how much peaceful change is possible within immigrant communities, and between them and the host societies. I think if westerners stood together with the many women and men who arrive on their shores hoping for such change, anything is possible. However, if they leave the immigrant ghettoes under the control of crypto-fascist and anti-feminist elements, they will get exactly what they deserve.
“Of course we can find similar, though probably not as extreme, comments about women in the Bible, they have been largely discredited. How to discredit the reactionary parts of the Koran?”
It’s much easier for Christians to reinterpret the Bible than for Muslims to reinterpret the Koran, since Islam is so much more legalistic. With social progress, there will be more Muslims who don’t take the legalisms seriously, but I think there are real limits to how much change one can expect within fundamentalist/mainstream Islam.
I think we’re conflating two distinct things: Islam and traditional tribal societies. The abuse of women is an artifact of traditional tribal societies that have survived to the present day largely due to isolation and xenophobia i.e. isolation both external and self-imposed. These socieities just can’t survive modern technology, trade, and communications. Nor should their traditional practices be tolerated.
I’ve been struck by the way that Judaism and Islam, Jews and Arabs, related religions and related ethnicities have taken divergent approaches to a whole raft of issues.
They are both cultures of the Middle East. Hospitality is important. Covered heads are the norm. Gender roles and some sexual segregation are accepted as a fact of life.
Yet with their similarities, Islam seems to take Middle Eastern cultural traditions and codify them in a way that rigidly resists change while Judaism, no friend to radical change itself, seems to mitigate those Middle Eastern traditions that grate on modern sensitivities. The imams seem to be looking for ways to say “off with his head” while the rabbis jump through hoops looking for loopholes so they don’t have to execute someone.
A couple examples. I once asked one of the world’s most prominent Orthodox rabbis if it was permissible, in this day and age, to kill a renegade Jew who was proselytizing other Jews to an idolatrous religion, as is the strict letter of Jewish law. His answer was no and he explained why not. Islamic web sites providing guidance to modern day Muslims, on the other hand, explain why killing an apostate Muslim (just someone who has left Islam, not someone missionizing for another faith) is doing that ex-Muslim a great kindness.
More to the point about women, both Judaism and Islam require women (and in Judaism men as well) to dress modestly. In Islamic shaaria, the most liberal covering requires virtually all females to have their limbs covered to the wrists and ankles as well as their necks. Their entire head is covered, leaving only the face exposed. In the most conservative covering, only the eyes are exposed and the rest of the body is completely covered. In Jewish halacha, though there are some who go beyond the letter of the law and wear longer hems and sleeves, the most conservative opinion in Jewish law says that a woman must cover her collarbone, elbows and knees. Married women cover their hair, leaving their neck and ears exposed. And while clothes that are revealing because they are tight are discouraged in Judaism, there are no burkas or chadors, you can tell the most strictly Orthodox woman is a woman, with a bust and hips.
As a neoconservative I am generally suspicious of advocates of radical change, whether it’s gay marriage or abolition of the electoral college or cafeteria-style religion (picking and choosing the parts of your religion that you obey). Feminism has not been an unalloyed benefit to the West (or to women, for that matter). To be honest, I think groups like Promise Keepers are doing more for women (as individuals) than NOW (and no, I am not kidding).
I doubt very strongly Dalrymple’s premise that young Muslim men are mainly attracted to Islam because of religious sanction for the oppression of women. Would every man like to be King of his castle? Probably. Would they turn to a religion they otherwise weren’t interested in because it offered that “benefit”? That seems dubious at best.
The different roles for men and women in society evolved over time. It is quite possible that men and women themselves evolved in reaction to the evolution of the roles (that is, that independent women were less likely to procreate and thus pass on their independent gene to the next generation).
I am not saying that Islam does not need to change. Neoconservatives are not anti-change. They just recognize that change is not always beneficial and that there will be unintended side-effects that may be equal and opposite to the intended ones.
Clio
Great analysis!
My wife has long held that the whole Islamist house of cards will quickly fall when the Islamic women realize they don’t have to take s**t from their men any more.
Slightly OT, though it refers to the battle in Fallujah that Monir Kazemi cites, an excellent article De-Jihadification, by David Warren.
Jamie Irons
I had already read Dalrymple’s article. His observations are always interesting. And I think this one is to the point. I ceased to believe we’ll ever find a single cause for such complex phenomena as Islamic Fundamentalism or anti-Semitism. But we can surely find some core causes that are more important than the others. And I myself have for a long time though that one (though not, by far, the only) thing that must make the neighboring Arabs mad about the Jews is the role women play in Israeli society. Imagine what a bad example Israeli women are for the Arab women of the region. In a way, Israel’s gender equality may be seen as even more subversive in the Middle East than her affluence or democracy.
I’m with Peter Boston and Clio. Too much navel gazing will only get us killed. Cultural relativism be damned. There is a significant cadre of Muslim sociopaths who abuse their women in the crudest way, and who want us dead.
The global war on terror as prosecuted by this administration is addressing the latter by making as many of them dead as we can.
Clio’s point addresses the former. Western nations must prosecute abusers to the full extent of the law. Culture and religion are beside the point. We make reasonable accomodations for both, but those accomdations do not extend to clitorectomies and murder.
Enough hand wringing. The perps must be caught, prosecuted and punished at home. The good guys in khaki are doing their part, now let’s do ours. If the west does not move immediately to contain these amimals, then stick a fork in the slackers and grab a burqah.
The thing most people think they know about the Mormons is that they practiced polygamy. What hardly any seem to know is that one of the things that kept states like Wyoming and Utah out of the Union for so long was their practice of allowing their women to vote. It occurs to me now to wonder if some of the persecution of the Saints by the mainline churches of the time was related to the freedoms that LDS women had that others didn’t.
Conversations I have had with friends who are descended from polygamous LDS marriages indicate that the plural wives of the early LDS Church, in most cases, considered themselves to be highly favored. As a convert, I have no direct experience, but forty-plus years of living with and among Mormons have given me plenty of opportunity to learn. My favorite remark, by a friend whose uncle had four wives, was, “Each thought she was the favorite.”
For the benefit of the underinformed, the LDS church banned polygamy on 1890. The current practice of polygamy, which is basically identical to Muslim-style female slavery, is not sanctioned nor approved by the Church, and is prosecuted vigorously by the State of Utah. Utah is one of the eleven states which recently adopted a constitutional ammendment defining mariage as between one man and one woman.
What is it with the jihadists? Rage against modernity? Islamist doctrine? Hatred of women? Self-hatred and cultural despair? How much of their violence and nihilism should we attribute to each factor?
I’ve no idea, and neither does anyone else. I agree that we can psycho-analyze this issue to death without gaining any further insight into this sociopathology. I propose that, rather than debating this ad nauseam, we simply recognize the enormous parallels between this tendency and a movement that we in the West know and understand best: fascism.
Rather than trying to get inside the mind of the jhihadists– after all, we really can’t do so– it’s more useful to apply a fairly simple model that transcends cultures and that we can use with reasonable accuracy to predict future behavior. We know what fascists are like, whether they’re Japanese, Italian, German or Arab. We know how they behave. Here are the key points:
1) the cult of death. See “Viva El Muerte!” (Spanish Loyalists/Fascists cry in 1930s) and Hitler’s SS and Totenkopf units.
2) closely related to #1, the warrior cult and with it the glorification of even pointless acts of violence– including, or even especially, suicide– as the highest achievement of the jihadist. See Mishima, Mussolini, etc etc.
3) the cult of the elect, defined in tribalistic terms, and the denigration of the jews as the ultimate enemy tribe.
4) the lack of any serious interest in economic systems or economic theory; in art or philosophy; in complex social relations or modern political arrangements beyond the overlay of a simplified political party structure onto an essentially tribal/kinship authority structure. Warriors don’t need elections or political debate. Orders are given by the leaders, the hard men, and are executed by the devoted, the true and holy.
The point of the above is that “dialogue” is pointless. As is endless psychoanalyzing. We need to state clearly that we in the West have zero tolerance for fascism, FULL STOP. And we know from our own experience that only overwhelming military victory can eliminate fascism as a serious political force. So let’s get on with it.
The treatment of woman in Islam is appalling, and it presents an openning to start cracking the mideavalism of the jihadists, but it is not the folcrum of the lever that needs to be applied.
The punishment for Apostasy is what it all turns on. When Moslems can leave the faith safetly — then it will collapse like a house of cards.
In the US we should address that issue loudly, belligerently, and through enactment of laws.
I’ve mentioned in here before that the Mormon Church had its “divine revelation” the polygamy was illegal because several states outlawed the practice and disenfranchised Mormons who wouldn’t sign an oath recognizing that fact.
The same should be done to Moslems. Make one of their Five Pillars illegal and watch them squirm between accepting tolerance or trying to explain why they should be able to kill Apostates.
As a psychiatrist trained in both neurophysiological-biological and psychoanalytic traditions, one who has respect for both the uses and the limitations (!) of psychoanalytic thinking, and one who believes that psychoanalysis used in an effort to predict or explain historical, political or cultural phenomena has a track record of abject failure, I think what thibaud writes above is exactly correct.
It is also most interesting that those on the left who talk about the Iraqi or Jihadist “resistance” refuse to characterize these phenomena correctly as the fascist movements that they so clearly are.
Jamie Irons
clio, bkochba and ambisinistral,
Well said.
This is at the same time a religious, social, political, cultural and economic issue.
Regarding Islam and violence, it appears to me that Islam has often used violence or the threat of violence to control its subjects in lieu of ideas. People don’t leave Islam as a faith because they are threatened. Women are subject to abuse because the Koran says it is okay if women disobey (which is probably loosely defined in most cases). The jihadists use violence in the name of Islam to gain and maintain power via oppression and intimidation.
Islam is legalistic, leaving little room for interpretation despite cultural and intellectual development. This is one of many reasons (including tribal and ineffective leadership) that explain the widening gap between the West and Islam.
If Islam canot adapt, then it will collapse under its own weight once people can choose to reject Islam without the threat of retribution.
What truly requires psychological analysis is why so many in the West refuse to apply the label of fascism to a tendency that mirrors almost exactly the death-cult/warrior-cult/tribalism of earlier fascist movements. Hell, they won’t even utter the word the fascists themselves use, jihadists.
Instead we hear: “Militants.” “Insurgents.” “Extremists.” All nonsense, and all beside the point. These are political labels applied to movements espousing a specific political cause. What exactly is the purpose of the jihadi-fascists’ violent struggle? What issues are there to be discussed, or negotiated, or subjected to therapeutic social intervention?
The answer that our confused fellow westerners refuse to give is, Nothing. There is no political vision beneath the jihadi-fascist violence. No economic program. No social theory or ideology. No view on globalization, or capitalism, or trade vs aid, or the environment. All that unites and motivates this movement is the glorification of death. Which is why the only way to stifle this movement is to kill it.
oops, I repeated Jamie’s point, above. One could surmise that it’s a deep PC fear of offending non-whites by applying the ultimate progressive slur to them, but then again we had no qualms in the 1930s about recognizing Japanese fascism for what it was.
What is it about the arabs that makes us so reluctant to call fascism by its true name? Is it just that a liberal version of racism, the implicit notion that one can expect nothing more of such a backward race? Or is there some kind of Che-style romanticization of nonwhite “struggle” which by definition must be anti-colonial and “liberationist”?
I’d bet the latter. Arafat’s decades of agitprop succeeded beyond all expectations.
The only concrete, specific political demand that Bin Laden made– prior to his discovery of Fahrenheit 911′s uses as propaganda sound bites– was for US troops to leave sacred Saudi soil. Which happened before the Iraq War. And yet no cease in jihad.
And what of the Moroccans who bombed the Spanish into delivering the desired election result? Why are they and their group still actively plotting to slaughter more Europeans?
Because this movement has nothing to do with politics, or social grievances, or for that matter women. As the torturer tells Winston in 1984, The purpose of power is power. The purpose of torture is torture.
And the purpose of jihadi-fascist slaughter is slaughter.
Wow, you guys read a lot into (or out of) that ittey-bittey Dalrymple article?
When all is said and done it will take a healthy dose of a lot of different poisons to finally kill off the Islamomurdering beast.
Getting the moonbats among us who are not actually dedicated and willful fascists to recognize that the Islamomurderers are soldiers fighting for the spread of fascism will help.
Killing the Islamomurderers in large numbers will help (drawing them into battle at the time and places of our choosing to fight at the pace we choose is a big plus).
Giving them and their leaders no rest and no safe haven will help. Making it ever harder for them to arm and supply themselves, and keeping the nastier weapons in the modern arsenal, out of their hands will help.
Squeezing their sources of income and making it clear to their wealthy benefactors that we will do everything we can to reduce either the benefactor’s wealth or contributions to Islamomurder will help.
Giving increasing numbers of them a healthy wiff of the benefits and attractions of 21st century freedoms and conveniences will help. This will allow ever more to leave the religion and encourage greater numbers to fight internally against the purveyors of the destructive death cult.
Encouraging freedom among their women will, eventually, be a big help. Other than killing the Islamomurderers outright nothing will crimp their style worse than having their mothers, wives, daughters and sisters finally giving them The Look and telling them things like, “It’s the maid’s day off!”, “I you think this veil is so great, YOU WEAR IT!”, “Put down that AK, Mr. Jihadi, and help me with these dishes!”, “If you think I’m sending MY child out the door dressed in THAT suicide vest you’ve got another thing coming!”, “No! Achmed does not need 70 hours per week in Koran classes. You are not sending MY son to that vile hate factory. WE are sending OUR son to a regular school where he can learn something that will get him a job someday!”
Then, someday, they’ll find themselves suddenly living in the world of direct deposit where the Better-Half has all the cash. About that time they’ll find that they don’t have enough energy left to amuse themselves tearing at the carcasses of slain infidels and will settle for the occassional joke with a buddy, “Hey, Omar, how come husbands die before their wives?”.
It will also help when Islamic moms start slapping little Islamic faces and threatening to wash mouths out with soap every time little Mohammed starts spouting vile bigotries about Jews and other infidels. It just doesn’t work when dad has to pass down the important bigotry lessons in secret outside the home ’cause mom goes bonkers about expressing such vile things in her home.
None of these things is sufficient, all are necessary. None will be quick or cheap or easy. No lightning bolts are going to come down and zap the entire Muslim population and make them realize its time to change. No Islamic Reformation is going to turn things around in 90 days. It will be slow, bloody, and painful. There is no alternative.
It seems to me that this war is about sex as much as it is about anything else. What is really being threatened in Islam is the chauvinistic control of their women.
The West has ìlost controlî of their women, so it seems to them, and they arenít going to let that happen in Islam. They are aghast at the notion of women having the power to choose whether they bear children, to choose careers, to become powerful the way women in the West are powerful and having much more personal choice in how they live their lives.
And the most terrifying power of all, I would guess, is the power of women to enjoy sex and even, gasp, prefer one lover to another for their skill at pleasuring them. This might mean that their women will leave them for a better lover, a humiliation that is way too much for any chauvinistic fascist to handle.
I believe that if they thought that the West would have no effect on their control over their women, there would be no Islamofascist movement to destroy the West.
Umm… suggesting that anyone who could find that little vignette humiliating must be a “chauvanistic fascist” seems a bit of a stretch to me. I mean, like, what man, woman, or other finds that sort of thing “no problemo, sweetheart, I understand. I can’t figure skate worth shit either.”
Yes, I agree that anyone would be upset by that. I guess my point is that men in the West live with womenís power to choose and men in Islam are killing everyone they can find to keep their women from having the power to choose.
thibaud,
You make some very good points. I think what you have to realize though is that the opposition to the war is not about the Arabs or the Muslims. It’s about us, the Westerners, and about who we think we are. We are fighting an internal war. It’s not yet a violent war but it’s a very real war nonetheless. And it is the internal war which really matters in the long run.
WWII was a fight to the death between the universalists (United States, Britain, Soviet Union) and the ueber-tribalists (Nazis, Fascists, Japanese). The universalists won and I’ve always believed that the underlying religious belief system of universalism must have had something to do with that. If you were French, for example, would you prefer to fight with the Germans who told you you were an inferior breed, or with the hated Anglo-Saxons who at least claimed you were their equal?
But the ancient Greeks cautioned us: “Moderation in all things.” Every philosophy can be carried too far, even universalism. The defense of the Islamofascists which we observe daily in the MSM has nothing to do with the Islamofascists per se and everything to do with the extension of the very ideas of universalism to the point of absurdity. If it is our religious/ideological tenet that everyone is “equal” then it is but a small step to say that every group is “equal” and thence to say that every action, be it clitorectomy or polygamy, is “equal”. From which it follows that anyone who opposes these policies (George Bush) is ipso facto the real enemy, the real fascist.
What we are viewing then is a worm eating at the heart of the Western soul. A united Western world could swat the Islamofascists like a bug, but we are far from such a condition. We all agree on the basic universalist goals but we radically diverge in our view of how they should apply. Are the Islamists the fascists for the reasons you outlined or are we the fascists (well not “we” really, but those damned red-staters of course) for seeking to impose our universalist values on another culture?
And it is far from clear that our universalist system of values is the correct one. We live in a society where people are pushing for equality for animals, even for sharks and rats. I personally live in a community where I am not allowed to “own” my pets but can only be their caretaker. It may be that our universalist values have been pushed to such a point of absurdity that their Darwinian time has come and they will be replaced by new values coming from an alien society.
Let me carry this in one specific, usually assiduously avoided, direction: birthrates. If you follow one of the links Roger gives you learn about women in Quebec who in their newfound “equality” are becoming vastly better educated than their male counterparts. These female doctors and lawyers and engineers of the future are, on the whole, failing to have children. Meanwhile, the vastly different Muslim societies seem to be turning their women into baby machines. Because of their extremely low birthrates both Canada and Europe are increasingly relying on immigrants, mainly Muslim immigrants, to work and pay for their old-age benefits. Palestine likewise has a much higher birthrate than Israel. It is just a matter of time before all three societies are swamped by the Muslims. The main response of the Europeans and Canadians so far is to hope for some sort of magical “assimilation” which, even if it is occurring–which is arguable–cannot possibly occur fast enough to compensate for the rapidly shrinking Canadian and European populations. The United States will survive but it will become almost entirely Mexicans and Mormons. Even a cursory examination of Univision should convince anybody that the Mexican view of the proper relation between the sexes is markedly different from the neo-Puritan universalist one which prevails in the northern United States.
I think Roger has it exactly right that much of what will happen between us and the Islamists will turn on the attitude toward the role of women. But it seems unavoidable that “equality” for women tends to lead to low birthrates, and that low birthrates in the long run are a losing proposition for any society that wishes to survive and propagate its values. It may be that we are the dinosaurs here.
WitchitaBoy:
No doubt the concept of universalism has been maliciously interpreted, certainly in America. The founders posited “equality” as a political creation, the logical result of the essential dignity granted humans by a benevolent creator. Our humanity gives us dignity that must be respected, and attendant rights and responsibilities. Our founding documents do not mention animals, nor were our founders so stupid as to presume that we are all the same. Of all the rights that attend to human beings, personal liberty is the greatest, and thus the most feared by fascists of every stripe. Freedom unleashes human potential and creativity. That’s one reason why America so far outstrips the rest of the world in creative activity, our economy being only one example.
The Isalmofascists hate us for our freedom, as do many on the left. The left fears freedom because the left depends on the myth of control–if only we were smart enough (read that smart as them), we could control our economy, stop smoking, end poverty. They’re nannies at heart, and fascist in the end.
At the end of the day, it’s liberty and a free people that will defeat the fascists at home and abroad. Thank God we have great Americans who are succeeding for us in Iraq. I wonder if we’re good enough and free enough to defeat the enemies at home?
WichitaBoy,
Excellent points, much to think about. However I’d disagree re. our civilization’s view of WWII. My parents can recall a certain Father Coughlin, whose radio rants urged Americans to stay out of the “limeys’ and reds’” war. His spiritual son, Pat Buchanan, is hardly a universalist; Pat also seems to have made a minor career in touting the white man’s falling birthrate around the world– right diagnosis; wrong prescription. Mikey Boy’s a universalist only in his eagerness to whore.
But you’re bang on concerning most of the educated blue state and college town pseudo-sophisticates. I think another way to describe this ideological blinder is as a PC refusal to grasp that history is cyclical, that civilizations wax and wane, and that the strength of a civilization depends not least upon its adherents’ willingness to take up arms and defend it by force.
Which is why, having left the social ranks of PC libs and spending much more time among red state jacksonian types, I’m actually more confident than you of our ability to triumph. Two reasons:
1) in the suburbs and small towns where most Americans live, a positive disposition toward the hard work of bearing and raising children. It’s not just mormons and mexican-americans but millions of ordinary decent families who resist ironic embarrassment from concepts of patriotism, duty, honor, and the dignity and great worth of bearing and raising children. Not everyone’s willing to trade family life for the thin gruel of banal, childless urban yuppie sophistication.
2)The culture of the military– dedicated, honorable, superbly disciplined and extraordinarily competent– inspires hope for us all. Our professional military is IMHO the most effective, coherent and durable by far of our institutions.
Think about it: which major professional institution is more progressive in adapting to change, to new pressures and new sources of competition? Journalism is a disgrace, as is the Catholic Church. Academe is a garden of silliness. Doctors are beleagured and in retreat. The American Bar is rotten.
But our professional military goes from strength to strength, effortlessly training millions and absorbing and promoting minorities without favoritism, accomplishing astonishing feats that are the envy of every military on the planet. A huge source of hope.
3) finally, I think you underrate the future influence of the asian immigrants, most of whom, I believe, also see clearly the fascist menace and the need to crush it militarily, having survived similar forces in their own homelands. Certainly the russian immigrants that I know best (I married one) see this.
In short, the silent majority that tipped this election to Bush were, I think, signalling a basic rejection of the foolish universalism that you identify, rightly, with so many blue staters.
So take courage. Things today are not worse than they were in the late 1930s. College towns don’t represent this country’s soul. We’ll triumph over this new fascism, just as we did over previous fascisms.
best,
thibaud
thibaud (at 2:22 PM):
I share your optimism, and for similar reasons. Not only have I been spending more time among, and listening more to, Jacksonian types — I have discovered I am one!
Speaking of college towns, I read lately someone describing, correctly I think, my Bay Area, where we Jacksonians are under seige, as “one enormous college town.”
Jamie Irons
Jamie: fwiw, you are not alone as a Bay Area nouveau-Jacksonian under siege!
Clio,
There are several difficulties in the host nations of Europe imposing their culture on many groups of immigrant.One is that of the four great pillars of Political Correctness,Race,Gender,Sexual Orientation and Disabilities,Race trumps all,any observation is regarded as criticism and howled down.It is thus that fourteen year old British born Muslim girls disappear back to their parents country of origin to return with a husband chosen for them,without comment.They are below the age of consent and by law required to attend school.
Secondly it is not clear that a large number are immigrants as such and are in fact colonists,there are now many areas where numbers are sufficient to obviate the need to integrate. Multiculturalism positively discouraged assimilation, there is no incentive for many women for example to even learn the language since they do not got far from their homes.
Many of the disaffected young men in France are working to earn money for their families in North Africa,they too have little interest in integrating as there is an intention to return home a some point in the future.
It might have been true that at one time people came to be British or French etc but that is no longer the case,I suspect that this is something you will eventually find in your country as well.
The problem is to achieve assimilation before the immigrants reach a critical mass where the host culture is irrelevant.Before somebody asks the question “Who is We?”,perhaps?
Witchitaboy:
What you say about immigration is, IMHO, correct for Europe but, fortunately, not for Canada. The vast bulk of our immigrants are East-Asian (Chinese / Chinese-Diaspora, Korea and Phillipines) and South Asian (Hindu, Sikh, Tamil and Muslim). While there are certainly problems with integration and some quasi-ghetoization, it’s nothing like the the situation in France, Holland etc. Canada may be a haven of mush-minded multiculturalism, but the immigrants are diverse enough that to cushion the impact of any one culture or religion.
Perhaps is just about subjegation.
Subjegation of women to men and of all people to Islam.
Don’t complicate this, there is something freeing in total submission. That might sound strange, but it is true.
Jamie,
You forget, we have the Bay Area surrounded. We’re still deciding whether or not to offer terms of surrender.
This is veering OT, but…
What are women in for over the next century? The Information Age link Roger pointed to tells us that women in Quebec are moving forward into the information age faster than men; i.e, they will be prepared for the future, men won’t, men will resent female economic superiority and things will get, well, testy between the sexes. I suspect this applies to western nations in general. Women are going to school more an longer. The article seems to suggest that this will have some “negative” impact in the satisfaction both genders derive from personal relationships.
In China, supposedly, male births are outpacing female births by a substantial margin, perhaps as much as 2:1. This suggests that within a half-generation or so there will be a whole lot of frustrated men and overworked (or incredibly abused or spoiled) women.
I seem to recall that India has a similar, but not nearly as pronounced, disparity in male:female birth ratios.
In the Islamic world there is clearly what we in the west view as a massibe disparity in the social staus between the sexes.
Should women, in general, be happy or deeply concerned?
Rick Ballard,
If y’all decide to offer terms, please do the world a favor and make them turn in their sprouts and tofu, willya?
Thanks for all the good comments, everyone.
Some specific responses.
PeterUK,
You make the point that as immigration to Western Europe has accelerated, the tendency towards semi-autonous enclaves has as well. I agree. The point I wished to make was that there cannot be a “gentlemen’s agreement” between the host country and the immigrant community that the law will not be strictly applied, especially when it comes to the following: mandatory schooling, age of consent, rape, murder, polygyny, genital mutilation.
I would argue that it is imperative at this point for western nations to learn more about the beliefs and practices of their primary immigration pools–not the glossy “contributions of x group” sort of thing. A hard-headed look at the divisions within these societies, and how they are likely to take shape in their new homes.
It would be helpful, for instance, if immigration officials, school officials, police agencies, etc. could distinguish between Hispanic immigrants with a decent Spanish-language education and those who may be straight off a mountainside in rural Guatemala, who never learned to write in their own minority language and speak not a word of Spanish or English. They will adapt to life in the US in utterly different and largely predictable ways.
I think you misunderstand the fundamental differences between Europe and America in terms of absorbing and, yes, assimilating immigrants. We are so used to this, and you are now entering a period when you appear to have lost control over who and how many newcomers arrive on your shore, let alone how to deal with them once they have arrived. I think we also have to disaggregate the UK from the Continent, as you lot have a better record altogether than most of the continent.
I would also point out, that I have left aside altogether the question of what (if anything) can be done for the vast majority of women who never make it to the West, where they have a fighting chance of assuming full human rights. My sense is that it is actually counterproductive for all the do-gooder organizations to try to remake these societies, however fitfully and piecemeal. We would be wiser to focus instead on transforming the lives and opportunities of those who come to live amongst us. Over time THEY will transmit change back to the home society, and gradual transformation will be peaceful and popular.
Case in point: Indian women today have opportunities for education and self-expression they mothers and grandmothers would drop dead in shock at. Whence did this change come? In part, from a progressive social class that took power after independence. But much more important, from the constant flow of large numbers of NRIs (men and women) over the past 20 years, who have pulled India solidly into the Anglo-American cultural sphere. This is a very good thing, IMO, and should serve as a model for every society that wants to modernize while maintaining its distinctive cultural soul.