I don't know what to say about the article, besides "Feminists are not a hive vagina!"

Other than that, though, yes Muslim women in general, and feminism in particular, is important, but so is feminist activism to help American military women. It'd be nice if the world let us concentrate on one problem at a time, but people like Ms. Sommers aren't helping matters any; maybe she should get up and do something about Muslim women right now if she's so concerned about the immediate future, in addition to writing about it.

Is it my imagination or do people who make these " feminists-don't-care-about-Muslim-women" arguments not know a whiff about the internal dynamics of Muslim societies?

Not that much of the Arab world isn't in need of a good dose of feminism, but sometimes who is "better for women" and who is "worse for women" isn't so obvious as it appears on the surface to Westerners unfamiliar with local, pre-Muslim mores.

For instance, oftentimes Islamic fundamentalism is encouraged by women who figure they'll get a fairer shake under Sharia than under tribal law. When Western powers go into a region and get rid of admittedly thuggish fundies, they might leave a power vacuum that results in even worse conditions for women.

So how is it feminist to support such actions without a full understanding of what the consequences might be to the women about whom you're (correctly) arguing feminists ought to care?

And feminists have and do care -- back when nobody else gave a rats ass about the Taliban, feminists (and other moonbats) were saying "we gotta watch these people". Yet the same people who dismissed our concerns and yelled "tail wagging the dog" when Clinton did something militarilistic about terrorism pre-9/11 are now saying we don't care about the condition of women? that we are soft on terror? Etc.? Look ... we got it then, and we get it now. Y'all are the ones late to the party and should be lauding our perspacuity, not calling us "unserious" and "unconcerned" simply because we, already aware of what the threats really are and are not, didn't totally flip out (just as terrorists, by definition want us to do) and give the terrorists their ultimate victory on 9/11 by flipping out ...

I'll be the first person to criticize hypocrisy on the left (y'all have seen it before ... heck, I'll admit I can be such a Niebelung it's no wonder some people think I might be a troll even though trolls and Niebelungs are certainly different mythical beasts ;) ) ... but the arguments of Sommers, et al., are just ridiculous -- there is no hypocrisy on the part of feminists here ... only ignorance on the part of the likes of Sommers ...

It's really cute that Christina Hoff Summers thinks that she's still relevant. Maybe she should throw a pity party for herself, Kate Roiphe & Camille Paglia.

I cannot help but to giggle at being called a "vagina warrior."

Otherwise, I know a hell of a lot of feminist who are family-oriented (does she think that being pro-choice means anti-family?), even have a few kids of their own, are religious and/or spiritual in some way, and who work hard for the equality of women all over the world, not just here in the U.S. I think Sommers is more than a little out-of-touch.

Carolina girl, so many people think feminists are anti-family. I'm not sure where that comes from.
I'm a radical feminist so I know that a lot of people won't agree with me, but I get a lot of my ideas & thoughts about child-rearing & family from Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Emma Goldman & Shulamith Firestone.
It just seems like a lot of people who think that feminists are anti-family have a hard time conceiving (Heh) that there are lots of different kinds of families. Hell, my parents divorced when I was little & remarried other people so I had twice as many people telling me (sometimes conflicting) things to do, but that doesn't make us any less of a family than a mom+dad+2.5 children family.

It's a shame Christina Hoff Sommers is now forgoing the rational ideals of cultural relativity in favor of trying to play some sort of ridiculous, fictitious moral superiority game.

However, I think Sommers has written some excellent books, and I would recommend The War Against Boys to anybody: male, female, feminist, misogynist. It's one of the most important social books to come out in the last few years- sadly, a lot of feminists aren't too keen on hopping into anybody's shoes but their own.

-a

See, that's the problem, Moxie, so many people, including Sommers it seems, refuse to see a family as anything other than, I dunno, "Leave It To Beaver." Meanwhile, I know some awesome feminist mommies raising some awesome feminist girls and boys (some in the more traditional home, some in less traditional homes, but all families without a doubt).

sadly, a lot of feminists aren't too keen on hopping into anybody's shoes but their own.
Wow Alex, thanks for that enthralling assesment.
I think that Kathleen Hanna said that men are hurt by the patriarchy, not to the same degree as women, but it does damage them. That pretty much sums it up for me. But seriously, your patronizing tone really makes me want to read another book about the feminist conspiracy against the menz.
Hey, did anyone else enjoy the Big Feminist Conspiracy Meeting Against the Men last week? They always have such good sugar cookies, baked by the man-slaves we keep.

Carolina girl: Seriously. Some of the people I know in "perfect nuclear families" have the sickest secrets. I think they're compensating for the nasty things that they do.
What I hate is when people rag on single mothers. My mum left my dad & was a single mother for awhile. She worked really hard & was on welfare & it was a generally tough time. But sometimes, it's better to be a single parent than to expose your children to a bad parent.
I don't have children, I don't know if I ever will (What with being a hairy-legged man hater & whatnot), but if I do have children, I would like to get my willing friends involved in raising them. I think that children need to be exposed to a variety of people & see lots of different families. Otherwise, they end up sheltered & strange like that weird woman, Tonya, from The Real World.

Didn't the same person publish basicly the same article not long ago? Is this the same article? Doesn't she get tired of being proved wrong?

Starting to remind me of the teacher from Charlie Brown. "Wha wha wha wha wha wha wha wa"

The whole idea of attacking US feminists for supposedly not caring about the violations of women's human rights in other parts of the world reminds me of a line from an editorial back during the first major Indonesian genocidal campaign against East Timor (which also happened to be during the Pol Pot period in Cambodia). Responding to the (obviously absurd) notion that the US press should be covering a genocide committed by a state armed and supported by the US, the author noted that covering East Timor "would not help a single Cambodian".

There is nothing unusual, and certainly nothing reprehensible, about focusing on those violations of women's human rights — or human rights more generally — that occur within our sphere of greatest influence. There is little we can do about the acts of an official enemy half a world away, but we can certainly have some influence over those violations that are committed where we live.

Of course, for those whose attitude toward such violations is indifference or intentional ignorance, it makes perfect sense to chastise those who do care about them for not focussing on the officially condemned crimes about which we can do little or nothing.

wait - is it really that irrelevant to take a hard look at whether american feminists are taking global feminist issues seriously? i don't like this article, or the fact that she makes light of or illegitimizes many very real problems in our own country - but, in general, i don't think people are involved enough in global human rights issues. not just human rights for women - human rights issues, period.

and i hate it when people build this up as a false dichotomy, like i can't be active in women's rights in my own country, and be active in women's rights internationally. sure, maybe people have to put their priorities somewhere, but how does that mean that it's either one or the other.

Katha Pollitt's recent column on the "solipsistic-feminists-ignore-Muslim-women" theory, "'Feckless? No Way!", can be found at The Nation.

Katha Pollitt's recent column on the "solipsistic-feminists-ignore-Muslim-women" theory, "'Feckless? No Way!", can be found at The Nation.

There’s nothing better after a long day then coming home to the hive vagina and a warm plate of sugar cookies baked by the men-slaves. And people wonder why I’m a “vagina warrior�…it’s the benefits, baby!

wait - is it really that irrelevant to take a hard look at whether american feminists are taking global feminist issues seriously? i don't like this article, or the fact that she makes light of or illegitimizes many very real problems in our own country - but, in general, i don't think people are involved enough in global human rights issues. not just human rights for women - human rights issues, period.

and i hate it when people build this up as a false dichotomy, like i can't be active in women's rights in my own country, and be active in women's rights internationally. sure, maybe people have to put their priorities somewhere, but how does that mean that it's either one or the other.

I agree, though even in the global context, there are things one has some potential influence over and some things one has little or no potential influence over. While it's certainly essential to draw attention to human rights violations wherever they occur, all too often there is a tendency — especially in the mainstream media and commentary — to focus on the crimes of official enemies and anyone else suitably far away, while deriding or condemning violations for which responsibility falls closer to home.

Reports on the detestable state of women's rights in Iran, for example, will generally be lauded in the mainstream, and Christina Hoff Summers is sure to add her applause. On the other hand, reports on the even worse (and worsening) situation of women in US-occupied Iraq and Afghanistan are likely to have a much cooler reception.

It's like the old Stalin-era Soviet joke: a bunch of US academic types come to Moscow for a conference, and ask pointed questions about the GULag system, to which their Soviet colleagues indignantly respond: "But you people lynch Blacks!"

This kind of thing is just so ridiculous. One of my biggest problems with people who make this sort of argument is that they assume Western feminism is a perfect fit for the Islamic world. Beyond the fact that this is an incredibly arrogant and condescending assumption, it reveals a great deal of ignorance about Islamic cultures.

Gender reform movements exist throughout the Islamic world, and what differentiates them from gender reform in the Western world is that many of them find their grounding within religion and faith. There are women all over the world who are reclaiming the Qu'ran and Islam for themselves, who are wrestling with fundies to take control of their faith, and are finding that the Qu'ran contains a very real and moral spirit of gender equity. Virtually everything-- from educating women about how to get what they want out of a marriage via prenups to campaigning for female leadership within the mosque-- is being tackled by these women.

That's not the kind of thing people like Sommers would understand, though-- instead, she'd prefer to victimize Muslim women, deprive them of their agency, and declare the Western world as their saviour.

[I]in the global context, there are things one has some potential influence over and some things one has little or no potential influence over

Agreed, though should we not acknowledge advances in women's rights wherever they're found, irrespective of the impetus?

It's fine to dislike (or even hate) the President, but can it reasonably be denied that young women are better off now in, say, Afghanistan than they were under the Taliban?

Blacksheep, from what I understand, they're not better off. Tribal warlords and political instability have created a situation where many women still can't go outside due to fear. Remember, just recently, a female Afghani minister was murdered because the government refused to provide her with protection after she received death threats.

swatfeminist, I'm glad you understand. One of the other issues is that people in the region are understandably wary of anything "Western" right now, and a feminist movement dominated by "Western" thought would seem even more threatening than one that works within the framework of their own culture. It also wouldn't fit properly - for instance, going to college is more important for many of these women than not wearing a headscarf. One is a symbol of their culture and religion, and the other is quantifiable progress and opportunities for education.

prairielily,

Those are all good points. I would add, however, that while the situation is still very bad (in fact, just as bad, if only in a different way than before) in some parts of Afghanistan, tremendous improvements in women's rights have been made in the areas closer to Kabul. I think a fair reading of NGO and human rights groups' reports will bear that out. Voting, secular education, participation in government, etc., were all unthinkable before the fall of the Talibal, but are now the norm in some places, especially the capital. Cheers for that anyway!

When I talk to people who identify as femminists the things they talk to me about generally have nothing to do with the condition of Muslim women. Why is this?

"tremendous improvements in women's rights have been made in the areas closer to Kabul. I think a fair reading of NGO and human rights groups' reports will bear that out."
Links please?

soujourner,

I have no idea what sites you'll consider persuasive, but here's my Google search result for "improvements for women in afghanistan":

http://www.google.com/search?q=improvements+for+women+in+afghanistan&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8

Take a look, and let me know what you think if you have time. I think my assessment was pretty accurate, but I'd be interested in reading links to the contrary if you find HRW or UN links unreliable or whatever.

somewhat OT but...

are the ads on this site random? I see one says sponsored by google so maybe it is? From other sites I go to that are pro-veg, there are sometimes google-sponsored meat ads...

It's a little confusing to read an article related to feminism when on the right hand side of the screen there's a woman who obviously has breast implants wearing a skimpy 2-piece. She can wear what she wants, I'm just saying I think it's a little odd for a feminist site.

Blacksheep, I'd love to say that while perusing your Google links I found a lot to support your assertation that things in Afghanistan are better for women now, but I didn't. For one thing, it was hard for me to find recent--like within the last year or two--reports, and we know that the Taliban has been regaining power in Afghanistan since then (in fact, they just took a district in the Kandahar province several days ago). So we have to rely on information that's several years old, which is problematic.

In any case, The Human Rights Watch DOES think things things have improved for women, but funnily enough the women there don't seem to be any less scared.

NOW sort of supports your statement that things for women in Kabul have improved--but that's only because there's a peacekeeping force watching over things (of course improvement because of watchfulness are better than no improvements at all, but it's kind of obvious that once that watchfulness is taken away, things will make their return to shittier). Elsewhere, however, the "Southeast Afghanistan army and police practice of kidnapping, robbing and raping is so prevalent" that women won't even leave their homes.

:\

With CHS's recent spat of concern for women around the world, I have come to the conclusion that either a) she's been totally out of the loop for at least the past ten years (when I can calculate first learning about the situation in Afghanistan from the Feminist Majority Foundation), or b) she knows damn well what major feminist organizations have done and she's lying for her own gain. I'm inclined to go with the latter.

I'd recommend you guys check out RAWA.org. RAWA stands for the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan -- they've been opposing fundamentalism/the Taliban and campaigning for secular democracy in for the past 30 years. According to this group, things have really not changed much since the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, and has created a lot of instability.

The Bush administration and their cheering section in the media settled early on on a narrative that condemned the Taliban's treatment of women while implying that the warlords of the Northern Alliance (which included such figures as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, infamous in the 80s for throwing sulphuric acid on the faces of women who did not wear veils) treated women better.

Of course, this is not remotely true. In fact, many factions of the Northern Alliance treated women so badly that the Taliban were initially welcomed when they took over.

The Northern Alliance were particularly notorious for their custom of forming gangs and raping all of the women in the territories they took, as a way of demonstrating their control of the area. The Taliban made a point of opposing the rape gangs when they began to drive the Northern Alliance out of power. This gave them some initial popular support, including amongst women, which ultimately allowed them to pursue their maximum programme.

Clearly this woman knows nothing about either feminism or Islam. So how does anyone consider her opinions on these topics relevant enough to print? It's blatantly obvious that some of the posters on this thread are better qualified to write this article (swatfeminist, Elise, I'm looking at you).

ShelbyWoo- I totally agree with you about the benefits of being a vagina warrior. My man-slaves clean the hive vagina bathroom in addition to the whole sugar cookie thing. Pretty freakin' sweet if you ask me!

It's blatantly obvious that some of the posters on this thread are better qualified to write this article (swatfeminist, Elise, I'm looking at you).

To the extent that it applies to me, at least, that's more of a commentary on Sommers than anything else. While I make a point to read what I happen to run across, my focus is on matters closer to home, where the chances of anything I do or say having a positive effect are much greater.

The fact is that all of this supposed concern for the women of Afghanistan on the part of the likes of the Bush Administration and Christina Hoff Sommers is self-discrediting. We needn't tarry on the Bush administration's respect for women's rights (nor on Sommers', come to that).

In any case, if the concern were sincere, one would expect equal, if not greater, energy to be expended for the same goal here in the US, where there is certainly plenty to be done, and where there is a greater likelihood of having a positive effect. When, as here, the reverse is the case, we know all we need to.

Hey, did anyone else enjoy the Big Feminist Conspiracy Meeting Against the Men last week? They always have such good sugar cookies, baked by the man-slaves we keep.

That's how you can tell that our Conspiracy is nowhere near as influential as the Pat Robertsons and Christina Hoff Sommers of the world would have us think. Sugar cookies? Hell, even the Scaife conspiracy gets at least oatmeal raisin!