Hey, Feminists! I Got The Message -- And I'm Not Impressed
There's a letter going around, signed by 700 feminists, mewling that “columnists and opinion writers from The Weekly Standard to the Washington Post to Slate have recently accused American feminists of focusing obsessively on minor or even nonexistent injustices in the United States while ignoring atrocities against women in other countries, especially the Muslim world.”
David Horowitz writes:
The signers of this Letter claim that, “contrary to the accusations of pundits,” they support Muslim feminists in “their struggle against female genital mutilation, ‘honor’ murder, forced marriage, child marriage, compulsory Islamic dress codes, the criminalization of sex outside marriage, brutal punishments like lashing and stoning, family laws that favor men and that place adult women under the legal power of fathers, brothers, and husbands, and laws that discount legal testimony made by women.”Well, we welcome these avowals of support for the rights of Muslim women. However, forgive us for doubting their sincerity. As one of us pointed out in a speech given at the University of Wisconsin during Islamo-Fascism Week:
“One of our concerns … is the failure of the Women’s Studies Movement to educate students about these atrocities. There are probably 600 Women’s Studies programs on American campuses, which focus on the unequal treatment of women in society. We have had a very hard time locating a single class which focuses on the oppression of women under Islamic law.”
What was true last October is still true today. As recently as December 10, a Muslim teenager was strangled by her father for refusing to wear a hijab without a protest from the American feminist movement. And that is only one of many crimes committed in the name of Islam against Muslim women over which the feminist movement continues to be silent.
On New Year’s Day, Amina Said, 18, and her sister Sarah, 17, were shot dead in Irving, Texas. Police are searching for their father, Yaser Abdel Said, on a warrant for capital murder. The girls’ great aunt, Gail Gartrell, told reporters, “This was an honor killing.” Apparently Yaser Said murdered his daughters because they had non-Muslim boyfriends.
The signers of the Open Letter say that they are against honor killing. Here is an honor killing in the United States. Where are these feminists on this issue? Why are they not supporting the hunt for Amina’s and Sarah’s killers and organizing a campaign in the Muslim community to stop such practices?
Why not indeed? Here are a few Google searches: "Amina Said + Pandagon": zero. "Amina Said" +feministing: zero. "Amina Said" +thenation: zero. Yes, the roar of the feminists is just deafening.
As I wrote to somebody who e-mailed it to me:
Thanks for sending this. I do have to say, I see it as a reaction against those of us who have come out saying they aren't addressing these issues. I don't see them being so vocal about these things -- they focus on ads that say something's "skinny" and other stuff I find completely dippy and invented as a problem.
Here's one of the ads from the NOW link just above:
And here, for a nibble of the feminist approach to the oppression of Muslim women, vile feminist darling Amanda Marcotte posted "How headscarves, pantyhose, and push-up bras are all the same thing":
On the provocative post title, that’s a reference to the theory of compulsory femininity. The idea is that women have all these onerous tasks to prove we’re feminine and submissive enough, and these tasks are enforced through social pressure, institutions, and sometimes even government force. Fashion provides a pretty clear-cut example of how this works, because feminine fashions are routinely enforced in every way imaginable. The theory of compulsory femininity also explains exactly why a hijab is no different than a push-up bra, since both items of clothing are worn to demonstrate alliance with patriarchal dictates and are hardly worn just for the hell of it.Taking that into account, it’s hard to deny that the hysteria over headscarves is racist in nature. Faux feminist outrage over women wearing a simple headscarf, which is comfortable and doesn’t physically restrain you, unlike a lot of compulsory feminine fashions, sounds really rich coming from people who will then enforce their own version of compulsory femininity on women. (So, yes, Violet gets a pass, because I’d bet she’d condemn pantyhose, which are an invention of the devil, just as quickly.) From my point of view, the struggle between the demands on Western women to display their hair versus the demands on Muslim women to cover their hair is nothing but a couple of patriarchies bickering over who has the better displays of control over their women. I no more would feel comfortable tying my hair into a scarf to go to work or out to dinner than a lot of women would feel comfortable having their hair out in those circumstances. I do tie my hair into a scarf a lot, but it’s a casual thing, for shopping and housework. In more formal situations, compulsory femininity dictates that I display my hair, and for most women, they also feel they have to dye it, straighten it, curl it, blow dry it, wear it long, sex it up somehow. The common theme between the Western fashion and the Muslim fashion is that women’s hair is too damn sexually appealing to allow women’s personal feelings about the matter dictate how they wear it.
Truth told, there’s a lot of compulsory femininity in America that is just as much a pain in the ass as tying your hair into a scarf. I remember when it seemed like the only bras you could find were push-up bras. (Amy: Oh, please.) Now, by no means is that as oppressive as any situation where the law mandates you have to wear something, which is certainly true of head coverings in some countries, but if you’re just comparing the two items of clothing as legally voluntary symbols of willful female subservience, the headscarf at least is more comfortable.
Uh, am I just out of it? I have yet to hear of anybody in America killing women for not wearing push-up bras.
P.S. Here's how Pandagon respects the rights of others.
From a different thread: “Moderation” is demonstrated by our prophet who did not remain more than three months in Medina without raiding or sending a raiding party into the lands of the infidels to beat down their strongholds and seize their possessions, their lives, and their women” (from The Al-Qaeda Reader).
In fact, based on both the Koran and Muhammad’s Sunna, pillaging and plundering infidels, enslaving their children, and placing their women in concubinage is well founded (e.g. 4:24, 4:92, 8:69, 24:33, 33:50, etc.).
The thing that leaps out at me from a quote like that is the phrase "their women." The women are not themselves infidels, they are merely the possessions of the infidels. You get the same attitude in modern quotes about how we in the west "treat our women." The idea that women might be capable of any kind of self-determination appears to be quite foreign. Unfortunately that attitude is widespread, even in the west, even among women. Boy, it makes me mad.
Norman at January 25, 2008 1:28 AM
Outrageous that she'd even dare compare headscarves to pantyhose and push-up bras. I wear bras but have never in my life worn a push-up bra and I haven't worn pantyhose in about 15 years. Yeah, I guess I'm feeling really, really forced to. That was bad enough but then in the next breath, she acts like social pressure is somehow worse than laws forcing you to wear a headscarf just because she personally feels a headscarf is more comfortable than pantyhose.
This chick is crazy. How the hell can anyone take a woman afraid to put her hair in a scarf in a country with far more liberal freedoms than that seriously. I'll have to echo your oh please, Amy. Oh, and I clicked on the link. She sure made sure to use a woman's boobs as an attention getter on that post, didn't she? The hypocrite!
As for those ads, if you read the captions, man, their reasons for considering them sexist were really stretching it. And the one for Winston? I don't smoke so it won't sell me but I thought it was really cute and liberated. Can't find a man to your pleasing? Well, there's other things in life to enjoy. I thought if anything it sent the message that you don't need a man to be happy. They should be getting cudos for empowering women.
Donna at January 25, 2008 5:14 AM
So lets see, 700 out of 300,000,000 american citizens disagree with the assesment of hundereds of newspapers that forsed subserviance, beatings, rape, gential mutilation, and murder are more important than magazine ads
Seriously who the fuck do these 700 feminists think they are?
PS Amanda is a fucking tool, crazy woman is all for women making their own decisions until a woman has the termerity to make a she doesnt like.
And as for Violet that woman is bat shit crazy, goes on and on about how the entire duke lacrsse team got away wih murder; DNA, the victim own constntly changing statements, and video footage from ATM machines not withstanding - but not a word about muslim women anywhere
lujlp at January 25, 2008 5:18 AM
You roused me to some small action, Amy. I went back to the ad site and commented on how ridiculous they were being. Now I think I'll go see if that crazy bitch allows comments on her blog.
Donna at January 25, 2008 5:24 AM
Nope, damn it, I can't. And I copied my post several times. Conformed to regs and still just kept getting error messages. It was great too (if someone can post, please feel free to use it):
What are you crazy? You dare compare the Muslim forced wearing of a headscarf to social pressure to wear nylons and enhance your boobies? Honor killings are perhaps akin to daddy grilling your date? You are a sick, sick woman to even dismiss what women under sharia law are going through. Either that or you just don't have the chutzpah to speak up to real injustice rather than imagined.
I live in America. I am 50 years old. There is gray in my hair. I do not dye it out, wear skirts, high heels, make-up, tight clothing and have never in my life ever worn a push-up bra. (Please note I am 50 and have never had a time when that was all I could find.) Lady, even though I am a 50 year old overweight grandma with streaks of gray in my hair that doesn't dress "sexy" and am not exactly wealthy, I am treated with respect by most and still turn male heads. How can this be if your theory is true? Could it be that men are more turned off by snarling than they are by so called lack of dressing to appeal? I am extremely feminist so that can't be it. I think men respect a woman who respects herself but they don't respect a woman who doesn't also respect him nor should they. There is a difference between respecting and being subservient and perhaps you should start treating men the same way you expect them to treat you.
Donna at January 25, 2008 6:05 AM
Does anyone have an opinion as to why American "feminists" babble on about push-bras, but refuse to even address, let alone tackle, instances of depravity and violence against women?
I think the Bill Clinton mess may have something to do with it. Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick, Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky, Kathy Willard, etc., ad nauseum. As these women were being vilified by the democrats defending Clinton, NOW and other feminists looked the other way or even piled on. Hillary tried to destroy these women.
Remember the pressure feminist organizations put on Clarence Thomas? Even if Anita Hill's accusations were 100% true, they pale in comparison to what Clinton was accused of doing. Yet, these ladies looked the other way. Why? I'm guessing because Bill "was good on the issues". For those of you who don't know what the "issues" are - they are abortion, abortion and abortion.
Maybe part of their silence is that they blew their credibility during the Clinton scandals and they know it. Maybe they they really believe that "paternalistic" America is a bigger threat than Islam? (idiotic, I know.) Or perhaps feminists are just afraid to criticize Islam because they fear being attacked or killed?
Anyone have any other explanations?
Tom at January 25, 2008 6:07 AM
I think it's simpler than that. I think the only way Amanda Marcotte can get attention is by creating victims and then making the most ridiculously outrageous claims about their "victimization," which are then seconded by the like-minded on her site. (And I'm using "mind" in "minded" very loosely.)
Amy Alkon at January 25, 2008 6:12 AM
Comparing a headscarf to a bra? Uhm, don't the girls need a little "support"? I don't have any myself, but I've heard tell from women who are well endowed that the proper bra is essential to a pain-free life.
No, what you see with Amanda and the rest of the NOW gang is proof of Rush's Undeniable Truth of Life
#24: Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society.
Look at Amanda. Look at Amy. Which one would you rather be around?
brian at January 25, 2008 6:13 AM
See! Look what happens when you give your women some independence, they make sh!t up.
Seriously though - that lady should tie a scarf, very tightly, around her mouth and one around her hands so she cannot type anymore.
What is with the bra issue? Didn't that get enough attention in the 60's? Let'em bounce then...it seems only women are concerned about holding them in place, cause you know I don't.
If you are naturally gorgeous enough to forgo "compulsory femininity" then blessed you are, otherwise - perk it up a bit. I dated the #1 male fantasy girl, a flight attendant, and she could not even go outside without spending at least an hour at the mirror, no matter how many times I professed her natural beauty, and damn - she was incredibly beautiful.
So, what gives? Did I completely miss the scarf lady's point?
kbling at January 25, 2008 6:30 AM
And what's wrong with push-up bras, anyway? Not that they make them in my size. Wear what works for you. Personally, I love men, and I like to attract them, and I dress accordingly. It makes Gregg very happy. We went out to dinner last week before he left for Detroit and he called me up the next morning after he got there and told me I looked really beautiful the night before. This is a bad thing?
Amy Alkon at January 25, 2008 6:35 AM
Feminism looks like another movement that was corrupted by politics and went off the rails. If the original premise was to identify and correct inequities to enable women to fully utilize their abilities then the current effort to create an endless spate of victims who can't achieve because "they're women" is a bit off the mark. I say "if" because standard Marxism involves identifying a group, allegedly advancing that groups' interests, and then forever controlling the members of the group by playing that group off against all other groups. I don't know if Feminism was founded in Marxism or if Marxists assumed control at a later date.
But, this article makes clear the current political "thinking" of the Feminist Movement:
Ms. Assailed for Rejecting Israel Ad
"NEW YORK — The American Jewish Congress is assailing Ms. magazine as hostile toward Israel for refusing to run an ad submitted by the AJC which heralds the fact that women now hold three of Israel's most powerful positions."
It seems to me that a Feminist Magazine would champion women in power in a region where women have no power regardless of their political affiliations. Then again, I'm not a Feminist, I don't hate women.
Curly Smith at January 25, 2008 6:40 AM
Tom said it, and hit it - these are the same so-called "feminists" who looked the other way at Bill Clinton's way with women because they supported his progressive views; and Gloria Steinham, their High Priestess, defended his "relationship" with Ms. Lewinsky because it was "completely consensual." (Nothing about the "balance of power" issue that feminists like Ms. Steinham are normally so concerned about.) (Funny that her op-ed can't be found on the NYTimes website, though it is available elsewhere online.)
They're more concerned with their multi-culti nonsense then the rights of actual women. "For the greater good!" - if a few women have to be oppressed to advance their overall goals, they don't mind. In the meantime, look over there - is that a vagina on a target?
Jennifer at January 25, 2008 6:45 AM
I thought feminists burned the bra more than 30 years ago. Why is Amanda wearing a bra? Why is she blaming men for her wearing a bra? What job does she have that demands she wears a bra?
The comments to Amanda's post are also very telling. There is almost no discussion of Muslim restrictions on women's clothing, and Amanda blows the entire patriarchy blaming when she says:
I’m a sucker for a cute high heel.
Huh? She likes high heels? How did that happen? I thought high heels were tools of the patriarchy, but it turns out she likes them all by herself.
Anyway, Amanda's post definitely proves your point. I never saw Music Man, but I came across this video that has enlightened me as to the similarity between many modern feminists and Church Ladies and, well, watch the video.
jerry at January 25, 2008 6:53 AM
Push-up bras and pantyhose are the same as a headscarf? Excuse me while I choke down the bile that has just risen in my throat.
The "faux-feminist" outrage is because people are killed or beaten for not wearing them. She sounds ENVIOUS of women FORCED to wear headscarves and tents - because they're "comfortable and doesn’t physically restrain you." Bitch, you have the choice to wear a headscarf or a push-up bra. No one will kill you if you chose either or none. Why aren't these hypocrites screaming about women choosing to be into B&D/S&M, since that's all about "physical restraint" and other things they should be deeply offended by?
She's trying to make them equivalent to justify her being so lazy as to pick the easy - relatively unimportant - targets rather than those that matter. It actually makes me sicker than the "we're all terrorists" argument that someone on HuffPo posted a while back. Didn't think that was possible. (sigh)
Jamie at January 25, 2008 7:08 AM
There actually were no bra burnings. Bras are expensive! If I want to light something on fire, it'll be some nice post-modernist feminist theory, thanks.
Amy Alkon at January 25, 2008 7:11 AM
A little something for the fireplace:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_feminism
If this woman weren't dead, I'd mail her a vibrator.
Amy Alkon at January 25, 2008 7:15 AM
"Does anyone have an opinion as to why American 'feminists' babble on about push-bras, but refuse to even address, let alone tackle, instances of depravity and violence against women?"
Pure self-centered selfishness. They are only interested in issues put them into the center as the abused ones. Focus on the issues of muslim women, and it's the muslim women getting the attention - can't have that...
bradley13 at January 25, 2008 7:16 AM
I'll concede that women have a better chance of snagging a guy is she dresses sexily than if she dresses like slob. That's a fact. But it's hardly something to scream about and compare to the state of women's rights in Islamic-ruled nations.
1) Men have their own "unfair standards" to live up to. My bf has an amazing body - I didn't see it until after we knew each other a while, but it certainly helps maintain my attraction and I think it's sexy. I couldn't date a fat guy as I'm pretty healthy and like to be somewhat active. That might be very superficial of me but if I'm going to take care of my body I want my man to as well. This is one example of "unfair standards" women have for men. Men ruled over women for a long time in our part of the world and in some ways they still do...so the feminists should pick their battles better. Advertisements and pantyhose might play a role in the expectations of women sexually but if we work on the big things the small things will follow. Not tomorrow, but maybe in a hundred years.
2) Perhaps some men won't look at a "butch" woman. I love skirts - they show off my long legs, but I can still attract my guy w/o a skirt. It's more about confidence and being sweet to him (note: not submissive just NICE as in NOT A RAGING LUNATIC). Men are visual, sorry. Maybe the fems should sue Mr. Evolution instead.
3) The big one: The difference b/w ACTUALLY MANDATING and then "mandating" via advertisements which studies have shown don't actually reach my generation b/w we tune them out TOTALLY.
The difference is as clear as a Waterford highball full of Greygoose. In the U.S if you forgo the traditional routes of looking sexy you reduce the pool of men to fuck and marry. That's not a bad thing b/c if a guy can't look beyond your breasts then who wants him anyway? Eventually women will get sick of them and stop dating them. Those men will have to slowly readjust what they like in women (to a point, let's not forget biology). As Donna said not all women give into "society's demands" and they can still get guys. Just not, like, Brad fucking Pitt.
Then there's the world of Islamic/Fascist/Totalitarianism. If you don't wear the hijab you die. You just fucking die. The end. As in, it's ok to murder you b/c you're dissing allah. You impure, hair-showing cunt. Go put your "comfortable," harmless hijab on. It will cover you up so men don't stare at you and lust after you which you obviously feel is wrong. I'm being mean but I don't care. I think the feminists have a problem with themselves and their sexuality and their genitalia, not men.
So recap: In the U.S it's beneficial to be sexy but the worst you'll suffer is that you don't get laid. In Islamic ruled areas you're murdered. That's a small but noticeable difference in my opinion.
Gretchen at January 25, 2008 7:51 AM
How about the hypocrisy of feminists being based on the idea that feminism is just liberalism? That feminists simply use their status as members of an alleged "disenfranchised" group (women) to seize the high ground when advocating liberal positions. That is, if you are against the feminists, and their liberal agenda, you are a misogynist.
Its like a pre-emptive ad hominen personal attack. That way they don't have to address the opposing views of "women haters". They attack the person not the position. Its liberalism 101.
Tom at January 25, 2008 7:56 AM
Headscarves? THAT is what is being concentrated on? If a muslim woman wants to wear a headscarf, or if their society wants to make is a requirement...who cares??!!! There is a much bigger issue with the oppression of women in Islam!! Honestly - if that was the only "injustice" being perpetrated against Muslim women, I wouldn't give a crap!! I work with a muslim woman who wears only a headscarf. I asked if she had to and she said she never really thought of it - she is more comfortable with herself when she has it on. Fair enough. I am more comfortable with a skirt that goes to my knees than a micro mini.
Violence against muslim women is the issue to be addressed. NOT how they dress!!
Karen at January 25, 2008 8:17 AM
So Amy has discovered the 'NEW 700 Club'. Now with more unexplicably stupid inane wierd shit than before!
Does anyone else get the idaa that these are the same women who send love letters to serial killers on death row?
Bikerken at January 25, 2008 8:36 AM
"Does anyone else get the idaa that these are the same women who send love letters to serial killers on death row?" Yes but only if they killed men or women who wore pantyhose and push-up bras.
vlad at January 25, 2008 8:39 AM
So, we're mad at the feminists because they don't post on their blogs about the issues we think they should post about on their blogs. Awesome! I mean, that seriously, how dare they make their own determinations about what they think is important and waste time on things likeChild Marriage female genital mutilationfemale genital mutilation or responding to attacks.
I mean after all there are just so few things going on in the world today that suck, how could the feminists not manage to post with great outrage about every single one of them? Especially the ones other people tell them to post about.
Speaking of which, Amy, where is your post on Jamie Leigh Jones? I searched, but couldn't find it.
Shinobi at January 25, 2008 8:50 AM
Shinobi: They compared wearing a hijab to wearing pantyhose. That's shit. They complain about advertisements and how push up bras symbolize the sexual oppression and expected subservience of women. That's also shit. There might be some truth in there somewhere, lost among the muck - there ARE social "expectations" of women that might be uncool. But 1) we don't have to give into them. We have brains and we can use them. I'm wearing pants today and my bra isn't pushing anything up. My choice. And I guarantee that if I walked over to bf's office and said "let's get a room" he'd go. 2) the attempt to draw a parallel is insulting as a person w/ a brain. As a woman, it made me sick.
They can write about whateverthefuck they want. But we're going to have opinions about their opinions. If they write about female genital mutilation that's a great topic to cover b/c it's important that people be informed of such things. But when they make STUPID, SWEEPING comments comparing the "suffering" women like myself face every day living in the U.S with the women living in Islamic-ruled nations that's worth discussing and disagreeing w/ them over.
Oh, and then they pulled the Racism Card. Give me a BREAK. It's a RELIGION not a RACE, that's the first absurdity. The second is that it's not somehow unfairly judgmental to say "hey, there's a difference b/w being murdered for not wearing a hijab and not getting laid if you're a fat nasty cow."
Gretchen at January 25, 2008 9:15 AM
In all fairness, here's the letter from Katha Pollitt, which lists some of the feminist orgs and blogs who are speaking out about treatment of women in fundamentalist Muslim cultures: (yes, Amy, it is a reaction to the criticism, which IMO is off-base, and no, it does not list Pandagon, nor is Pandagon the only feminist blog out there)
An Open Letter from American Feminists
Columnists and opinion writers from The Weekly Standard to the Washington Post to Slate have recently accused American feminists of focusing obsessively on minor or even nonexistent injustices in the United States while ignoring atrocities against women in other countries, especially the Muslim world. A number of reasons are given for this supposed neglect: narcissism, ideological rigidity, reflexive anti-Americanism, fear of seeming insensitive or even racist. Yet what is the evidence for this apparently now broadly accepted claim that feminists don't support the struggles of women around the globe? It usually comes down to a quick scan of the home page of the National Organization for Women's website, observing that a particular writer hasn't covered a particular outrage, plus a handful of quotes wrenched out of context.
In fact, as a bit of research would easily show, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of US feminist organizations involved in promoting women's rights and well-being around the globe — V-Day, Equality Now, MADRE, the Global Fund for Women, the International Women's Health Coalition and Feminist Majority, to name some of the most prominent. (The National Organization for Women itself has a section on its website devoted to global feminism, on which it denounces a wide array of practices including female genital mutilation (FGM), "honor" murder, trafficking, dowry deaths and domestic violence). Feminists at Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the United Nations have moved those organizations to add the rights of women and girls to their agenda. Feminist magazines and blogs– Ms, Feministing.com, Salon.com's Broadsheet feature, womensenews,com (which has an edition in Arabic) — as well as feminist reporters and commentators in the mainstream media, regularly report on and condemn outrages against women wherever they occur, from rape, battery and murder in the US to the denial of women's human rights in the developing or Muslim world.
As feminists, we call on journalists and opinion writers to report the true position of our movement. We believe that women's rights are human rights, and stand in solidarity with our sisters who are fighting for equal political, economic, social and reproductive rights around the globe. Specifically, contrary to the accusations of pundits, we support their struggle against female genital mutilation, "honor" murder, forced marriage, child marriage, compulsory Islamic dress codes, the criminalization of sex outside marriage, brutal punishments like lashing and stoning, family laws that favor men and that place adult women under the legal power of fathers, brothers, and husbands, and laws that discount legal testimony made by women. We strongly oppose the denial of education, health care and equal political and economic rights to women.
We reject the use of women's rights language to justify invading foreign countries. Instead, we call on the United States government to live up to its expressed commitment to women's rights through peaceful means. Specifically, we call upon it to:
* offer asylum to women and girls fleeing gender-based persecution, including female genital mutilation, domestic violence, and forced marriage;
* promote women's rights and well-being in all their foreign policy and foreign aid decisions;
* use its diplomatic powers to pressure its allies — especially Saudi Arabia, one of the most oppressive countries in the world for women — to embrace women's rights;
* drop the Mexico City policy–aka the 'gag rule'–which bars funds for AIDS- related and contraception-related health services abroad if they provide abortions, abortion information, or advocate for legalizing abortion;
* generously support the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), which supports women's reproductive health including safe maternity around the globe, and whose funding is vetoed every year by President Bush;
* become a signatory to The Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the basic UN women's human rights document, now signed by 185 nations. The US is one of a handful of holdouts, along with Iran, Sudan, and Somalia.
deja pseu at January 25, 2008 9:39 AM
Why do US Feminists care about US social fashions, to the exclusion of action against the formal, legally supported persecution of women in (say) Iran?
Because, political movements relate primarily to the society in which they want to gain power. The ideas and complaints of most Feminists are a means to power, not a movement to help the most neeedy of women.
Politicians respect votes, not "humanity". Feminists (along with all political groups) want the response of their local or national politicians and the money they can distribute. Spending resources on Iranian women doesn't increase US Feminist power in the US. So, complaints about minor US feminist issues are always more important than even the most horrible feminist issues in Iran.
Everyone wants to be a "good guy" (or gal), so US politicians sometimes decry the treatment of women in Iran, but do almost nothing. And the US Feminists do the same.
FrankBoston at January 25, 2008 9:43 AM
"An Open Letter from American Feminists" Um, shouldn't this read An open letter from AN American Feminist. Note capital AN. Yes there are groups within the movement (feminism) that actually get into harms way for their beliefs. I just feel that comparing pantyhose and push up bras to burkas and gender based subservience is offensive. Think about those women who are in danger and getting killed or injured for fellow women who are in real danger. Now how do you think they would feel about being killed or injured for something as offensive as pantyhose advertising. Amanda Marcotte just stated that is what they are doing in her letter.
vlad at January 25, 2008 9:53 AM
First of all, the letter is from Katha Pollitt, not Amanda Marcotte. It was Amy who brought Marcotte into the discussion.
Secondly, Marcotte does not speak for all feminists. You can take any movement, and there will be those who are on the fringe, but may not necessarily represent the mainstream.
deja pseu at January 25, 2008 10:07 AM
Why are they not supporting the hunt for Amina’s and Sarah’s killers and organizing a campaign in the Muslim community to stop such practices?
Yeah, imagine the hope for repressed women resulting from hundreds of courageous and assertive feminists marching through a Muslim community...
Oh well, so much for pipe dreams. Everyone knows it ain't going to happen.
adrian at January 25, 2008 10:10 AM
Gretchen, I don't really agree with the Marcotte post you are discussing. But that is one post, out of THOUSANDS in the feminist blogosphere. It is from May of last year and I hardly think that it is representative of anything but what Amanda Marcotte thinks. It is especially not representitive of what is currently going on on the blogs. (There was just a whole Blog for Choice day earlier this week and there are a lot if interesting posts about abortion up right now.)
Anyway, I was addressing the overall point that feminists should be posting about what other people think they should be posting about. I think the comparison of head scarves to pantyhose is extreme and one of the worst posts ever. So I didn't really think it was worth addressing.
Shinobi at January 25, 2008 10:27 AM
Thanks to Deja for posting that.
> As feminists, we call on journalists
> and opinion writers to report the
> true position of our movement.
Is there something robotic and crosseyed about that? The first person plural, the "call on", and the implicit whine that someone in the high school social network is telling lies about what happened at that party anyway?
Also, I was struck by the third bullet point. The "United States government" is directed to
> * use its diplomatic powers to
> pressure its allies — especially
> Saudi Arabia, one of the most
> oppressive countries in the world
> for women — to embrace women's rights
I suppose the government should do that. But I think it's kinda neat that a lot of us --at least on this blog. and apparently elsewhere-- are demanding that these political organizations get serious about their moral charters. The women's movement in the United States could regain a lot of respect (and power!) if it dealt seriously with the conditions of women in Islam.
But whining to the United Nations doesn't help! See my comment here for more about feminists who expect authority figures to do their heavy lifting.
Friends, truly: If the feminist movement had the respect of modern American women (never mind the men), and could arouse their intellectual, financial and political firepower, we wouldn't need to petition the fucking United Nations. This would be handled.
Crid at January 25, 2008 10:53 AM
"This would be handled."
Shades of the Roosevelt Corollary, eh Crid?
Jody Tresidder at January 25, 2008 11:33 AM
Well, I want the UN to stay out of it because they're pestiferous and incompetent. I want the UN to stay out of everything.
Crid at January 25, 2008 12:01 PM
I have achieved popularity with heterosexual men neither through flaunting my sexuality nor by acting 'butch'. I am equally popular with women, I have achieved this by treating them as intellectual equals and enjoying typical female discussions.
Even the more rational side that Shinobi has linked to doesnt seem to know how to advice its women on how to achieve the ability to relate to people. That's why I'm not a member.
PurplePen at January 25, 2008 12:26 PM
Faux feminist outrage over women wearing a simple headscarf, which is comfortable and doesn’t physically restrain you, unlike a lot of compulsory feminine fashions, sounds really rich coming from people who will then enforce their own version of compulsory femininity on women.
Wow. Just...wow. Y'know, I had a girlfriend who didn't wear a pushup bra and was beaten to death in the streets by Amy Aklon- true story. Are we really really sure Amanda isn't just a very clever parodist? I mean, seriously, I don't think it would be possible to parody that post without just repeating it as is.
Nick at January 25, 2008 2:08 PM
Regarding Amanda Marcotte and feministing.com, there is a very clever spoof site that was created in mid-2005. The satirist creator is no longer posting new posts, but the old ones and their comments are hilarious.
It's at http://www.feministing.org
Tom Fullery
Thomas Fullery at January 25, 2008 3:45 PM
Looks like the site is down. Drat.
Amy Alkon at January 25, 2008 4:10 PM
You're right, maybe it was taken down recently. There have been no posts since the debacle where John Edwards hired and fired her a year ago, but I was able to still access the site for some time for a good laugh.
Well, you can always stop by "The Patriarchy" to kick back with a root beer with the Knights of the Patriarchal Order:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ThePatriarchy
[It's just] Tom Fullery
Thomas Fullery at January 25, 2008 7:43 PM
Lemme try: John Edwards 4 prezidentz
John Edwards 4 prezidentz
John Edwards 4 prezidentz
John Edwards 4 prezidentz
John Edwards 4 prezidentz
Dang. It no work 4 me.
Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg at January 25, 2008 10:28 PM
Should I hope that Mrs. Bill Clinton gets elected so all of the feminist whining and moaning will then stop? After all, the feminists are fond of determining the status of all members of a group based on whether a member of that group is the "top dog." (or "top bitch", not to be sexist). If they can utilize the "front man fallacy", then it's fair to use the "front woman" in the same way, right?
Jay R at January 26, 2008 2:55 PM
What was said to you, Amy, is her standard manner of dealing with anyone who dares disagree with her. the word "troll" is the first to fly out of her mouth, and then what I find interesting is that she accuses whoever is disagreeing with her of being a man posting as a woman. And then of course, banning...
She's got a lot of problems.
crella at January 28, 2008 5:47 AM
Clearly!
Amy Alkon at January 28, 2008 5:51 AM
Leave a comment