I lose more faith in the Post with each passing day.

Also, I think you can tell all you need to know about this woman from this sentence:

Unlike American blacks, American women have not had to grapple with issues as basic as the right to study or vote for a long time.

Apparently Applebaum thinks all American women are white.

Not making excuses, but not everyone runs in the same circles that we do.

Just sounds like she is disconnected from the movement, which maybe means that she shouldn't have written about it.

issues as basic as the right to study

I guess she considers 1983, which was when Columbia College finally admitted women, as a long time ago? Which must mean that the 1950s, when women were routinely discouraged from completing their educations were in the Middle Ages.

And the right not to be raped? The right not be blamed for being raped? The right to own property even when married? These are...what? Frivolous luxuries, not basic rights?

Nicholas Kristof in the NYTimes pulls this crap also. He'll discuss some international issue, and then cite feminist groups focusing on DOMESTIC issues to claim that American feminists don't care about women in other countries, conveniently ignoring the feminist organizations that specifically focus on international issues, sometimes the exact issue he's writing about. Applebaum seems to be doing the same thing here.
Once I saw a piece by, or maybe it was an interview with, a woman who was the head of one of the organizations he cited as doing nothing about whatever issue it was. She listed all the work her organization was doing on that issue; and then stated that she had spend a hour on the phone with him telling him about all the work her org was doing on that issue (he had called her as part of his research about said topic so he didn't have the excuse that he didn't know).

"...some American feminists, self-focused and reluctant to criticize non-Western cultures, have convinced themselves that "sexual terror" in America (a phrase from a real women's studies textbook) is more dangerous than actual terrorism."

WTF?? Not that there couldn't be more outrage for this kind of thing among the general US population, but how can this woman be so out of touch?

She even quotes the Sommers article out of context in order to back her assertion that "some feminists" are too "self-focused" to care.

Sommers, at least, clarifies her stance, which isn't all that off the mark:

"It is not that American feminists are indifferent to the predicament of Muslim women. Nor do they completely ignore it. For a brief period before September 11, 2001, many women's groups protested the brutalities of the Taliban. But they have never organized a full-scale mobilization against gender oppression in the Muslim world."

We get fired up. We blog about it. But have you heard of any demonstrations or anything? I haven't.

We get fired up. We blog about it. But have you heard of any demonstrations or anything? I haven't.

The countless V-Day performances of The Vagina Monologues, whose proceeds have often gone to support feminists struggling against gender oppression in the Muslim world? The fundraising we did for RAWA? I actually think these things are far more effective than going on marches thousands of miles away from where the protests are happening.

For a brief period before September 11, 2001, many women's groups protested the brutalities of the Taliban.

Bite me, Sommers. Feminists did sustained consciousness-raising about the Taliban for years prior to 9/11. It's just that nobody in power in a government gave a rat's ass about Afghani women until they could use it for their own purposes.

Also, man, I live in NYC, and even I suspect that sexual violence is far more a clear and present danger to me than terrorism is. Just a hunch, but I bet the stats would back me up.

"have convinced themselves that "sexual terror" in America (a phrase from a real women's studies textbook) is more dangerous than actual terrorism"
*sigh*

Feminists did sustained consciousness-raising about the Taliban for years prior to 9/11.

I actually didn't know that. I'm pretty new to the movement. I really wish there was a way to make these issues more mainstream, in front of people who just don't read a lot or spend a lot of time on the web -- and not just when major news coverage erupts because an issue happens to cross paths with something topical.

You'd think there would be a place for a cable news show on feminist issues. Or hell, a segment on a news show. There's specialty news programs about plenty else.

To me it seems like a glaring void exists in the media that's left entirely untouched by nauseating "for women" channels like Lifetime.

Or is there something else out there I don't know about?

Sexual violence is a larger threat than terrorism. Are 1 in 4 Americans the victim of a terrorist attack?

"Bite me, Sommers. Feminists did sustained consciousness-raising about the Taliban for years prior to 9/11. It's just that nobody in power in a government gave a rat's ass about Afghani women until they could use it for their own purposes."

Exactly, EG. Just because it isn't included in our national memory/discourses, doesn't mean it did not happen.

"...some American feminists, self-focused and reluctant to criticize non-Western cultures, have convinced themselves that "sexual terror" in America (a phrase from a real women's studies textbook) is more dangerous than actual terrorism."

Well, this is a pretty easy one. In America, one in three women are sexually assaulted. One in three American women are not subject to terrorism in the U.S., so yes, in fact, sexual terrorism IS a more dangerous threat than "actual terrorism" in the U.S. I am not implying that feminists are not focused on international issues, rather I am pointing out how fucked up it is of her to trivialize the vast extent of sexual violence that occurs (everywhere) and the enormous impact it has, primarily on women, again an overwhelming issue not included in the national discourse.

Fuck you, Anne Applebaum. First of all, many of us "self-focused feminists" are actually very active in international feminism. Second of all, how dare you trivialize the sexual violence that occurs in your own goddamn country? What, do American women have less of a right to be safe than women in other countries? Would you be willing to read your article in front of a group of rape or domestic violence survivors? It is clear you have no understanding of feminism, or you would know that it is not about ranking oppression but about uniting in the face of it. You should keep your mouth shut unless you actually know what you are talking about.

I suppose Applebaum is completely disconnected from the "third wave" feminist movement or the theory that comes along with it. It is obvious she is completely blind to the emphasis on "thinking globally". Her language addressing women's studies books is degrading. As a womens studies student i can honestly say that we are taught to think globally everyday, and to not apply our concept of feminism to any other country. Instead we should be familiar with the country and culture and then act to help the women.

Apparently Applbaum overlooked this.

While I agree with Ann and the majority of the posters here who seem to be saying that Applebaum missed the mark and overlooked the (considerable) feminist attention paid to the gang rape case, there are some big points raised in her article that I have thought about many times myself.

Specifically what I'm referring to is the fear (that I believe a lot of people have) of condemning religion or cultures... no matter how odious they may be. (like, say, sentencing a gang rape victim to lashes. or, you know, even having a law on the books which would ALLOW that to be done)

I'm not an expert on Islam and I can't comment on how closely the law in Saudi Arabia follows the principles of the religion, but more and more I feel like religion (not just Islam, but others as well)is being used as trump card to effectively combat just about any criticism... particularly when women-haters think they can use it to good effect against women. I know that a religion as a whole can't be blamed for the actions of some of its followers but you'd have to be blind not to see the trend. Predominantly Muslim countries are hell for women in much more open and accepted ways than most other countries and I think there's something to be said for the idea of banning countries which treat human beings that way from the Olympics and other international events. It certainly wouldn't be the first time. (Afghanistan, anyone?)

Ayla, you are certainly right that religion is often used as the trump card when justifying human rights abuses and anti-feminist thought and action. I just wanted to point out that there are women of most religions (I have heard at least Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist feminists speak; I imagine there are women from other religions as well) who identify as feminists and condemn those practices as against the teachings of their religion.

I am, theologically speaking, an atheist, and don't practice a religion right now myself. But I believe that religions can speak truth to power in, well, powerful ways. Many religions have a strong track record on social justice (along side their histories of abusive power).

The response, as a feminist, to situations such as the conditions for women in Afghanistan, is to speak out for women's rights within the framework of Afghani history and culture. There are women in countries and cultures all over the world who are doing feminist work, and we can support them. Being conscious of cultural difference doesn't mean feminists have to shut up an accept misogyny.

On the Applebaum piece generally: I must have missed the era of feminism when feminist justified gang rape, genital mutilation, stoning for adultery, abandonment of female children, etc., as just a different cultural practice. If anything, Western feminists have a history/reputation of being too insensitive to situations on the ground, trying to apply our own framework to situations elsewhere in the world where it doesn't always make sense. We're currently trying to understand how to support feminist women worldwide bring about the change THEY want to bring to the world. Sure we screw it up sometimes. And sure we can always do more. (When are there ever enough resources and human power to go around?) But I really don't know how this translates for Applebaum, et. al. into apathy and self-centeredness.

thanks for responding Anna. I guess what I've really been thinking about recently is whether or not some religions are inherently anti-feminist. For example, I've read actual passages that would certainly seem to frame both the Christian and Jewish faith as anti-feminist to some degree. (for example passages in the bible which dictate how to pay off the father of a woman you've raped... and then marry her)

I've always been one to call a spade a spade. If the religion itself is sexist then how can I excuse it or accept it? More and more my answer is, "I can't"

Does anyone have a link or some suggested further reading for the actual status of women in the major religions?

I was totally torqued by this article, too. WTF? No such thing as sexual terrorism in the good ol' US of A?

And if Summers is a "philosopher," as Appelbaum referred to her, then I'm a WNBA star. I think I'd refer to her as a "self-loathing supporter of the rape culture," myself. All that hand-wringing she does over how awful American boys have it now that teh girlz soak up all the teachers' attention, good jobs, etc.

And it's not only 3rd wave feminists who act/think globally. Just defending us oldsters.

Finally, I believe ALL religions are misogynist at the core. Ayla, you may be interested in Sue Monk Kidd's The Dance of the Dissident Daughter; Rosalind Miles's Who Cooked the Last Supper? Women's History of the World, and The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris.

I left Christianity as I became a feminist - the more information I found about the history of sexism and the Bible itself, the less Christian and the more feminist I became. So the way I interpret the Bible, the way that I feel to be the most honest way, yes, it's sexist. But there are as many ways of interpreting the Bible as there are people who have bothered to interpret it, and I truly believe that it is possible for a person to consider themselves a faithful Christian and yet to not find sexism in their religion or act in sexist ways because of it. So I don't think we can just write off Christianity as a sexist religion, and I suspect the same is true of any religion, because for a non-follower of a given religion, the religion only exists in the minds of its followers. So you have to judge each follower rather than the religion itself. In other words, I don't care if people disagree with my understanding of the Bible and consider themselves Christian feminists. Good for them. But then you're left with the problem of people who DO interpret their religion in sexist ways and follow it anyway, and use their religion as a shield from criticism. I don't have the answer to that issue, but I think it's good for us to talk about it.

PS - my name comes from the book of Judges, chapter 19. Speaking of sexism in the Bible.

Thanks for the book suggestions tinfoil hattie.

judgesnineteen, I understand what you mean about different interpretations and that certainly makes sense in a lot of cases. But some of the most misogynist passages I've read seem quite literal and I'm just not sure that I can believe that a rational person could interpret them any other way.

For example, Deuteronomy 22 says:

But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

If there's any logical, non-misogynist interpretation of this, I'd love to hear it.

Ayla, I'm an atheist, but I do have feminist friends who are religious, and my understanding of how they live with their religion is that since they are not fundamentalists, they do not believe that accepting one part of their doctrines means accepting all of it. It's similar to the way I approach various theories: I find psychoanalytic theory fascinating, and I think that Freud was a genius who had many helpful and important insights. Nonetheless, his concept of penis envy is arrant nonsense and based in his own sexism. Since I'm not a Freudian fundamentalist, this doesn't present a problem for me--I use my judgment, taking what is generative and helpful and leaving the rest. My understanding is that feminist Christians, Jews, and Muslims draw on certain aspects of their scriptures and not others.

Now, conservative, anti-feminist religious people do this too (i.e. you rarely find the Christian right in the US citing the bits in the Bible when Jesus spent his time ministering to the needs of the poor, prostitutes, and other such degenerates, which my Christian friends assure me are in the scriptures), but they don't admit it. Almost nobody follows everything to the letter.

EG... I understand what you mean about people following only certain doctrines, but at what point does it stop? I mean, it's hard to quantify I guess, but if you believe or follow only 90% of the bible, are you still Christian? what about 80 percent? 50 percent? 5 percent? At what point does picking and choosing create something else entirely, something that isn't even Christianity? Wouldn't making your own rules and exceptions go directly against the whole point of things?

*sigh*

It is, of course, not just the media that does this (shocking, I know). I'll have friends on LJ who will go "WHERE, OH WHERE! is the Feminist outrage over this!", I'll link them to four or five different posts about that topic, point out that just because they're not reading such things doesn't mean they aren't out there, and then... sudden silence until next time. Lather rinse repeat.

Well, sure, Ayla. But the history of Christianity is the history of schisms over different interpretations and emphases. I mean, look at all the different denominations--if Christianity can encompass all those different sects, why not feminist interpretations as well?

My quick, dirty, and flip answer is that if you believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, you're a Christian. But honestly? Usually with those kinds of questions, I shrug my shoulders and say, "Hey, not my problem!" I mean, I'm an atheist. I've never felt any inclination to be anything else, so I don't really feel qualified to judge conflicts about how much you have to believe to be Christian. But if righteous feminist allies and friends of mine want to be Christians, who am I to tell them that they don't meet the threshold?

" I mean, it's hard to quantify I guess, but if you believe or follow only 90% of the bible, are you still Christian? what about 80 percent? 50 percent? 5 percent? At what point does picking and choosing create something else entirely, something that isn't even Christianity?"

Then there are the people who are cultural Christian (it's like being secular Jewish), such as Richard Dawkins:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7136682.stm

"Scientist Richard Dawkins, an atheist known worldwide for arguing against the existence of God, has described himself as a 'cultural Christian'...

"Prof Dawkins, who has frequently spoken out against creationism and religious fundamentalism, replied: 'I'm not one of those who wants to stop Christian traditions.

"'This [the UK] is historically a Christian country. I'm a cultural Christian in the same way many of my friends call themselves cultural Jews or cultural Muslims.

"'So, yes, I like singing carols along with everybody else. I'm not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history.

"'If there's any threat these sorts of things, I think you will find it comes from rival religions and not from atheists...'"

Meanwhile, what about secular misogynist customs? As Applebaum said in the article in question:

"...Recently the journalist Mona Eltahawy argued that while oil is a factor, the real reason Saudi teams aren't kicked out of the Olympics is that the 'Saudis have succeeded in pulling a fast one on the world by claiming their religion is the reason they treat women so badly.' Islam, she points out, does take other forms in Turkey, Morocco, Indonesia and elsewhere. But Saudi propaganda, plus our own timidity about foreign customs, has blinded us to the fact that the systematic, wholesale Saudi oppression of women isn't dictated by religion at all but rather by the culture of the Saudi ruling class..."

Hey-- I'm a practicing Christian and a feminist-- so here's my 2 cents.

There are parts of the Bible that are unbelievably awful-- women were treated so badly, especially in Deuteronomy, Judges, etc. But, if you read the gospels, Jesus was *very* progressive. He stopped the stoning of an adulterous woman, he encouraged women to follow him and included them in important roles in his life. Paul, on the other hand, is responsible for the "women don't speak in church" thing and a lot of the other awful stuff in the New Testament. So it's not that I only believe 80% of the Bible, but I take into account who says what, what the overall message is, I pray about things that bother me, I talk with feminists in ministry, and I go to a liberal church.

The Bible is a history of our (as humans) relationship with God. Since people wrote it, it is tainted with our ideas, including sexism, bloodlust, etc. My disgust at the horrible things in the Bible and in the history of Christians has never weakened my faith in God or my belief that God loves us.

Does that help?

Applebaum is married to one of the ministers in the former Polish government--the government was right wing and "pro-family" (read: women in the kitchen, and they even tried to introduce some projects to that effect). I kept wondering what that says about her. Now I know. How sad...

Emily, I agree so strontly with you. I consider myself Christian, but have not been to curch in years, mostly because it's hard to find a church open minded and progressive enough to not make me sick. I loved the Methodist Church I grew up in, hated the fundamentalist ones my dad went to.

I remember when I was 12, hearing my dad say that the man was the head of the household and the wife had to "submit" to him, only men could preach, etc., "A woman was good enough to give birth to the son of God, but not to preach his teachings?" What a load of crap. I think humans have tainted religions - ALL religions - with their own personal biases and judgements. The important part is to take that into account and realize that those people were human too and made mistakes, so we don't have to take every word that is attributed to them as 100% gold.

Ayla,

I posted some suggestions last night for reading, but the post got hung up in moderation (too many links I guess). Hopefully it'll appear soon, but in the meantime . . .

The main suggestion I had was a book by my former professor from undergrad, Lynn Japinga, Feminism and Christianity. It's meant to be an introductory text and is quite short. It's geared toward Christian audiences, but provides a good overview of the main thinkers in feminist theology and the ways in which feminists critique the church and find ways to live within it.

It amazes me when educated, intelligent women can be so ignorant about sexual terrorism, and say that the American feminist is self-focused and otherwise selfish. She demonstrates in her article that her intelligence doesn't expand in to feminism, because from what I have learned about feminism is that it is anything BUT self-centered.

Applebaum: way to pick on one organization (NOW) out of, gee, I don't know, the hundreds of thousands of women's organizations that exist! And congratulations on belittling an issue such as sexual assault. You should feel priviledged that while you mock such an issue that there are still millions of self-focused feminists who continue to fight on the issue so that YOU will never have to be blamed if (God forbid) you were a victim of a sexual crime.

Ayla, I think Emily really said it best, but just to reiterate, a Christian is a follower of Christ. Not of the prophets. Not of Mary. Not of Paul. Of Christ. Which, for me, means the only parts of the Bible I put real stock in, are the parts that talk about what Jesus did and said. Give me the Sermon on the Mount, and I'm fine. Jesus was a political revolutionary, and definitely a feminist.

Ayla, you're awesome for bringing up Deuteronomy 22. That was the last straw for me, right there. But some Christians have never in their lives seen Deuteronomy 22. And I can say that that's hypocritical of them, to talk about how the Bible is so wonderful and not even read all of it, but in the end it doesn't really matter to me how good they are at being Christians, just whether they're promoting sexism or not. And then you have people who believe that the OT doesn't matter in light of Jesus. I happen to think Jesus perpetuated patriarchy by calling God the Father, but it's true that he did some pro-woman things, too, like saying women could and should learn from rabbis instead of just cooking dinner. So, obviously, I believe in my own interpretation, which is why I hold it, but if other people don't, I can't prove them wrong, and even if I could, it doesn't matter. It's a fact, for whatever reason, that there are non-sexist Christians. And even though I would probably find almost every religion to be sexist if I read its scriptures, I think there are probably unsexist followers of nearly every religion. The people and their actions are all that matter to me, because Deuteronomy 22, awful as it is, can't do anything to me on its own.

What we need to be doing is pressuring the Washington Post and others to get it right. Even in Op-Eds, their writers should not be allowed to get things wrong. The whole "I wish people outside the community knew what was going on" problem cannot be addressed without addressing the mainstream media's refusal to do its job. Will they issue a retraction when they get something wrong? Will they fact check? Will they avoid sweeping generalizations and baseless claims? Recently the answer to all of the above seems to be 'no.'

You know, with all due respect to my Christian feminist colleagues here, I want to register my discomfort with the implications of certain of the comments here.

I am an atheist, definitely. I'm also Jewish. And as a Jew, ethnically, culturally, by heritage, I'm very, very unhappy with the tendency of some well-meaning feminist Christains to say something that sounds to me an awful lot like "Well, none of the Old Testament misogyny really matters, because Christ's words are the only ones that count." On the one hand, I certainly understand that from a Christian perspective, Christ's words are paramount. On the other hand...

Christianity began as splinter-sect of Judaism. And its holy scriptures still include the Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim--known to Christians and others as the Old Testament. But to Jews, those scriptures aren't the "old" anything. They haven't been surpassed or undone, and when well-meaning Christians come to terms with or explain their faith by laying the blame for misogyny at the feet of the Old Testament, it feels an awful lot like they're saying "It's the Jews who did it! The Jews are the misogynists! Our Christ has shown us the way of peace and love and feminism."

If all other things were equal, well, who cares? But all other things aren't equal. Christians have long used Jews as scapegoats for their own failings, have long insisted on trying to convert us, and it wasn't that long ago that Ann Coulter claimed that she wanted Jews to be "perfected" by accepting Christ; it was explained on one of the boards that this was not an uncommon idea among evangelicals. They understand Christianity to be the "perfected" or "completed" form of Judaism, and therefore Jews, in order to be perfected or completed, need to convert. It's obviously obnoxious, offensive, and anti-semitic.

Just to be clear: I'm not claiming that anybody who's posted here is intentionally trying to imply any of this, and I'm certainly not trying to claim that the Jewish scriptures aren't permeated with misogyny. Just that, given the history of how Christian-Jewish relations, I'd be more comfortable with a little more Christian ownership of the objectionable elements of the scriptures Christians and Jews share, and a little less "That was the OT, thank goodness we don't have to care about those barbaric (Hebrew) texts anymore."

I'd also like to hear from some Jewish feminists, if there are any who read Feministing?

I'm from a Christian background, EG, so I can't speak as a Jewish person, but I would affirm what you're saying about taking ownership of ALL parts of scripture (whatever your religion) and dealing with them. I have a friend in seminary right now who talks a lot about the Sophia tradition which, as I understand it, comes straight out of Judaism and the OT. And there are some wonderful, fierce, feminine images of God in the OT too.

And on the flip side, some quite troubling bits in the NT. So Christians certainly shouldn't be calling the feminist moral high ground.

judgesnineteen, and others who have brought up specific Biblical scriptures. These shouldn't be discounted, obviously, and a lot of people wrestle with how to interpret them. But the authority of scriptures depends a lot on whether you're a Biblical literalist--whether you think scripture was dictated by God and inerrant--whether you believe it's a powerful human-created mythology, or something in between. Acknowledging misogyny in scriptures (Christian and otherwise) doesn't mean you are bound by them, unless you're a fundamentalist who believes in a literal interpretation of scripture.

Isn't that what I said, that I interpret it as sexist but other people don't and that's ok? Well, if it wasn't, that's what I meant anyway.