<< DON'T MOAB THE MOOLAHS ~ MAIN ~ ONE GRAND ON THE LINE >>
MISOGYNY, HOMOPHOBIA, CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, SUPPRESSION
Darlene Taylor has lately been e-harrassing me about feminism and the Iraq elections, an issue of particular interest to her. I haven’t linked to enough articles about this—not that many are available—so here’s The Age’s Pamela Bone:
The great silence by left-leaning Western feminists, and other large parts of the left, to human rights abuses carried out in the name of Islam is, to see it as its kindest, caused by an overdeveloped sense of tolerance or cultural relativism. But it is also part of the new anti-Americanism. Look at American Christian fundamentalism, they say.
Dislike of George Bush’s foreign policy has led to an automatic support of those perceived to be his enemies. Paradoxically, this leaves the left defending people who hold beliefs that condone what the left has long fought against: misogyny, homophobia, capital punishment, suppression of freedom of speech. The recent reaffirmation by Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie has been met by virtual silence; as has the torture and murder in Iraq of a man who would be presumed to be one of the left’s own - Hadi Salih, the international officer of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions. The hard left these days is soft on fascism, or at least Islamofascism.
The religious right in America would, if it could, wind back access to abortion and some other women’s rights. But as far as I am aware, no Christian fundamentalist in the US has suggested banning women from driving cars, or travelling without their husbands’ permission, or forcing them to cover their faces. Contrary to popular opinion, one is not the same as the other.
Read whole thing.
An excellent essay. But I couldn’t get past this sentence:
The religious right in America would, if it could, wind back access to abortion and some other women’s rights.
I missed Sunday school last week so I didn’t get this week’s agenda; which women’s rights am I supposed to be winding back this week?
Tongueboy — Well, Hillary told NARAL in 2002 that the Republicans want to take back women’s right to vote, and in the ‘04 Dem primaries, John Edwards told NARAL that the Republicans wanted to ban teaching women to read.
I’m still in favor of letting them have the right to go braless, tho. How we got them to fall for that one in the 70’s is a mystery to me, but I’m not complaining…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 02 04 at 11:26 AM • permalinkkinda like Maxine McKew admitting publically on SBS’s Fine Line (good place to hide it) that she and all other media barring one print journo(male) deliberately and calculatedly kept quiet horrendous indigenous domestic violence. They had toured some outback settlements and decided that self determination was more important than the safety of their indigenous sisters.The public, she commented, would not have been aware as they were often “no go” areas for us ordinary mortals. Criminal.
You had to ask, Darlene. Now the lunatic fringe is going to tee off on us for daring to question their “values.”
Expect many changes of subject as you naively ask your leftie pals for an explanation of the stuff you’ll posted find above.
Posted by Gary from Jersey on 2005 02 04 at 02:32 PM • permalinkYou know what’s going to happen to poor Pamela - her Talosian fellows will lambast her for noticing the blinding flash of the obvious. “Wrong thinking is punishable! Right thinking shall be just as quickly rewarded!”
She will either retreat from her original point under this browbeating, or insist that someone try to intelligently rebut her: at which point she’ll be tossed overboard.
Does anyone else wonder why it’s increasingly hard to find sane Lefties? It’s because the remaining few either hide it to stay in good standing, or get drummed from the herd and stay sane elsewhere.
“I missed Sunday school last week so I didn’t get this week’s agenda; which women’s rights am I supposed to be winding back this week?”
Yeah, rolling back women’s rights is a bit of a stretch. But I think what people key on is things like the fundie view of women having to be submissive. That’s bad times. And I don’t doubt that if fundies were in charge they’d be putting through some interesting laws (look at places where they are in control, like Christian colleges - you’ll see rules like skirts for women, and no interracial dating, crap like that). But the chances of them getting real political power is close to nil, so they’re a nuisance at best. Except when they’re getting evolution taught in schools, but that won’t go too far, I predict.
C’mon, Tim, admit it, you lurved being e-harrassed you minx.
Enough of that untoward talk, Bone’s article is very good.
The “left” practice cultural relativism only in certain contexts.
They will jump up and done about “American cultural imperialism” (for example, Everybody Loves Raymond being screened more than once a week), but stay silent on abuses happening in Third World countries or indigenous communities (see Adrian the Cabbie’s site for more about that).
The fear of being perceived to be racist seems to be a strong motivator for this silence.
Of course, not criticising people because of their race is pretty racist, isn’t it?
Any kind of fundamentalism is rank, but Christian fundamentalism in western countries has to be carried out within a liberal democratic framework.
Thus the comparison doesn’t apply.
Actually Gary from Jersey (how is the weather in Jersey, by the way), a recent discussion with a “leftie mate” about an article in Bust magazine about why women in America are choosing to convert to Islam was met with a “any religious fundamentalism is bad” on her part and that was pretty much the end of our dialogue.
Sigh! She also said I used to be cool, but I dispute that.
By the way, feminist fundamentalism is pretty crud too. No, it is actually fun to be yelled at by some “sister” that you are a “middle-class white reformist blah blah blah”.
Another sigh from me and no more harrassment.
Adrian the Cabbie’s site can be found here. Sorry, couldn’t get the link to work further up in the text.
Posted by Major Anya on 2005 02 04 at 04:39 PM • permalinkWhat the feminist fundamentalists don’t seem to know, but both christian and islamic ones do, is that after you have destroyed the cohesiveness of the family unit you may as well vacate the country - because a stronger force is going to outbreed you, to the point of numerical irrelevance. Take your pick.
Dave S.,
Hey, if I’m going to be an ***hole, might as well make the bigs doing it. :)
Seriously, though, I think you have a distorted view of Christian fundamentalists. And I would define myself as one through my affiliation with a church belonging to the Southern Baptist Convention.
But I think what people key on is things like the fundie view of women having to be submissive. That’s bad times.
I’m guessing here but I think you’re referring to Galatians 5 and Colossians 3. While there are wildly varying interpretations of these scriptures, the consensus that emerged in a recent Sunday school class (heh, I wasn’t just being funny earlier)is that “submissiveness” is only rendered in the broader context of a man’s submission to Christ and his love for his wife. That is, there is a broader context for this scripture of which you may not be aware. I’m no theologian and don’t play one on TV, either, so I will leave it to you to conduct further research if the mood strikes you.
And I don’t doubt that if fundies were in charge they’d be putting through some interesting laws (look at places where they are in control, like Christian colleges - you’ll see rules like skirts for women, and no interracial dating, crap like that).
Conceding for the sake of argument your point about Christian colleges (and leaving aside your rather stereotypical, dated view of such institutions), what makes you think that the average Christian fundamentalist legislator agreeing with such antiquated views would waste a moment of their precious time codifying such items into law?
But the chances of them getting real political power is close to nil, so they’re a nuisance at best.
The governor of my state and about 1/3 of our legislature would qualify as “fundamentalists” and the nuisance they cause stems from an effort to reform such mundane items as education funding, workers compensation and the foster care system for children. Not exactly Torquemadian stuff.
Except when they’re getting evolution taught in schools, but that won’t go too far, I predict.
Perhaps you meant to say “not” taught in schools but I think I get your drift. I suppose the level of attention would depend on which theory was being taught. For instance, it would be hard to imagine opposition to the teaching of micro-evolution, as we have scientific evidence establishing its existence. I’ve seen little opposition to the teaching of macro-evolution as long as it is labeled as a theory since there is some evidence, though none reproducible, of such a phenomenon. We fundies have a problem, however, when macro-evolution is taught as fact; we know religious faith when we see it and to teach macro-evolution as incontrovertible fact to the exclusion of all other possibilities of the development of life certainly borders on religious zealotry. The same can be said of the teaching of evolution as the origin of life.
Tongueboy - thanks for the thoughtful reply. Let me hit the highlights (complete with formatting, which I’ll probably screw up):
“Hey, if I’m going to be an ***hole, might as well make the bigs doing it. :)”
OK, so there are exceptions to every rule. ;-)
“Seriously, though, I think you have a distorted view of Christian fundamentalists.”
Well, I can only judge from my own experiences.
[on “submissiveness” of women]“I’m guessing here but I think you’re referring to Galatians 5 and Colossians 3.”
No, I’m referring to my Baptist co-workers, male and female, who believe that wives are to be submissive to their husbands. Their word. They do not believe the reverse. They also use the word “willful” to describe women who are not properly submissive. I asked a 25-y.o. female if she thought that it was appropriate to descibe an adult woman with a word normally used for naughty children, and she had no problem with it.
”[ME](look at places where they are in control, like Christian colleges - you’ll see rules like skirts for women, and no interracial dating, crap like that).”
“[Tongueboy]Conceding for the sake of argument your point about Christian colleges (and leaving aside your rather stereotypical, dated view of such institutions)...
Well, according to aforementioned young fundie girl, skirts were required at Cedarville College when she went. And Bob Jones University only dumped their interracial dating ban about 5 years ago after the bad publicity.
what makes you think that the average Christian fundamentalist legislator agreeing with such antiquated views would waste a moment of their precious time codifying such items into law?
Because the most important thing to a religious “enthusiast” (I’m avoiding the word “fanatic”)is his religion, yes?
The governor of my state and about 1/3 of our legislature would qualify as “fundamentalists� and the nuisance they cause stems from an effort to reform such mundane items as education funding, workers compensation and the foster care system for children. Not exactly Torquemadian stuff.
1/3 doesn’t worry me. 2/3, I fear, would be a serious problem. Not as bad as 2/3 left-wing feminists, mind you, but a problem.
We fundies have a problem, however, when macro-evolution is taught as fact; we know religious faith when we see it and to teach macro-evolution as incontrovertible fact to the exclusion of all other possibilities of the development of life certainly borders on religious zealotry.I certainly don’t want to get into this debate, and I’m sure Andrea won’t tolerate it. I’ll simply say that science is concerned with the theories that best fit the evidence and observation. That there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence supporting evolution, and only junk “science” supporting creationism, evolution gets the nod. What you see as “religoius zealotry” on the part of scientists is more like a zealous fight against antiscientific thought that, if allowed to win in this sphere and spread, would damage science to the detriment of our civilization and progress (as religious prohibition against anatomical studies retarded progress in medicine). It’s not that scientists have a “religious belief” in evolution; they just don’t want to see religion trump science. Nor should anyone else who enjoys our civilization and standard of living.
If you’d like to reply to any of this, I’d be happy to give you the last word and spare Andrea having to tell us to knock it off. ;-)
You’re damn right I won’t tolerate it.
I also won’t tolerate someone tarring a religion with over 2 billion members, and one whose members contributed pretty much everything we know of today as “Western Civilization” (you know, that thing we are trying to protect from Islamic terrorists?) as being nothing more than the simplistic, stereotyped, cartoonish, and outdated crude travesty you have dreamed up because you’re a busybody who can’t stand the fact that your coworkers don’t think like you do. I mean what, do these people follow you home preaching, or tell you you’re going to hell every day, or make you pray at work or something? By the way, your personal anecdotes don’t mean diddly; every Christian—yes, even every Christian fundamentalist—isn’t like the people you’ve met in your personal life.
And Jesus Christ excuse me but what the hell is that bullshit about Christian colleges banning interracial dating followed by a “well, Bob Jones University dropped the ban five years ago.” Fuck, man, it dropped the fucking interracial dating ban. Not to mention it was one—one—college, not “Christian colleges.” And it’s been five—five—years. Why don’t we all just be like the sort of people who squeal about Prescott Bush and the Nazis whenever his descendant does something they don’t like? And who the fuck cares if some Christian colleges have a fucking dress code? No one is forced to go there at goddamn gunpoint, are they? They aren’t making them wear a black wool sack over their entire bodies, are they? And they aren’t forcing their skirt-wearing, submissive-wimmin ways on any non-Christians, are they? And by the way, very few Christian colleges and universities have any dress code whatsoever, and are in fact nearly undistinguishable in the dress of its student body and faculty from most state and secular private universities, which is a fact that you could have found out by a simple internet search or asking someone other than the Baptist fundie punching bags in the next cubicle over.
Christ, stupid shit like this really pisses me off.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 02 04 at 08:00 PM • permalinkWhew - lucky I refreshed when I logged in - I was going to answer you, Dave S, but now I daren’t! But my opening line would have been appropriate, anyway: “I’ll go, I wanna die!”
Andrea didn’t mention your evolution v. religion bit; I would like to step in there (cautiously).
There shouldn’t be any “versus” about it, which is the silly thing about nine-tenths of the “debate” - it’s like asking whether apples are better at being fruits than cats are at being animals. It’s malarky.
I laugh at those “Darwin” bumper decals - the fishes with the stubby little legs - not just because they’re clever but because they try to set evolution up as an alternative to faith, when no such tension should exist. (St. Augustine theorized all the way back in the fourth century that Genesis may not be literal history, and that God may have planted the seeds of life, from which man slowly emerged. The name of the essay escapes me.)
Christians, of course, were semi-forced into taking up a defense rather than surrendering the field, leading to intelligent design theory and a bunch of other stuff that isn’t really scientific at all. Instead of scientists giving us good natural knowledge and theologians giving us good spiritual knowledge, we have hunks of each group giving us half-assed junk science or faux-learned skepticism. Predictably, into the gap comes dippy feel-goodism and a host of vague sentiment. It’s no real replacement for mature, grown-up faith of any sort, but it’s nice when you want to feel better on a rainy day.
I laugh at those “Darwin� bumper decals - the fishes with the stubby little legs - not just because they’re clever but because they try to set evolution up as an alternative to faith, when no such tension should exist.
Nightfly, have you read Stephen J Gould? Because that was his opinion as well.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2005 02 04 at 08:45 PM • permalinkOne mob which is never afraid to tackle Islamic states over women’s rights is Human Rights Watch - are they lefties?
Abuses against women are relentless, systematic, and widely tolerated, if not explicitly condoned. Violence and discrimination against women are global social epidemics, notwithstanding the very real progress of the international women’s human rights movement in identifying, raising awareness about, and challenging impunity for women’s human rights violations.
Have a look at their website. They aren’t shy about naming the countries responsible – try looking up countries by name.
One of the most radical women’s rights groups with an Islamic focus is RAWA, and Afghanistan-based group of activists, academics, and social workers, primarily from the South.
Other left-leaning or Christian human rights NGOs are very vocal about the crimes of Islamic states, too, and they often attract members of the left to act as their spokespeople (like Fr Frank Brennan).
Sadly, for someone dedicated to these issues, I have to agree with Pamela Bone that there is a lack of pubic discussion of these issues among prominent women in the North. I can only put this down to a lack of interest in any social issues in the developing world. Why is Bob Geldoff saying he’s “sick of this crap”? I don’t reckon that the story of an abused woman from Iran would make the news anywhere - left, centre, or right - unless there was a political motivation for it.
Yes, the oppressed everywhere are pinning all their hopes on the so-called ‘progressive’ ‘bleeding-heart’ Left!
If it were up to the Left Slobodan Milosevic would still be in power, as would the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. And Libya would still have its WMD! The tens of millions…if not hundreds of millions…lifted out of poverty through the innovations of globalisation, would still be hungry, and the promises offered by genetically modified crops would have been snuffed out long ago. Remember the only science these ‘progressives’ like is that which promises armageddon, like that offered by greenhouse computer-model prophets. In this way the Left are a lot like the Evangelicals they like to ridicule…“believe what I do or you’re doomed or immoral!” Or “the end is nigh” kinda stuff.
The Islamofascists they’re in bed with are basically Nazis, so one hardly needs to speculate whose side the new Left would’ve have been on in the lead up to WWll!As has been pointed out not ALL groups have been silent, but MOST have.
It’s because for many in those groups, the ‘causes’ they profess to champion have become a means to an end. The end is power, prestige, and influence on the various stages of our countries to preach their anti-West ideology.
They can’t speak up about what’s happening in the Islamic world because that doesn’t fit their anti-West ideology. They can’t blame the West, so where is the value in it for them? Why should they risk being placed onto some jihadist’s hit list?
(I wonder how much money those groups, and individuals in them, rake in each year via donations, speakers’ fees, professorships, book and literature fees? I wouldn’t be surprised if some are making a pretty good sum of money.)
Posted by CJosephson on 2005 02 04 at 11:13 PM • permalinkParadoxically, this leaves the left defending people who hold beliefs that condone what the left has long fought against: misogyny, homophobia, capital punishment, suppression of freedom of speech.
To that list you could add snobbery, hypocrisy, middle class parasitism, totalitarianism, war crimes against civilians, racism, nationalism, imperialism, the spread of poverty, and a hostility to science & technology coupled with a fondness for superstition and pseudo-science.
Pamela can also drop the “paradoxically”. The hypocrisy and backflipping shown by leftists is too consistent and holistic for it not to be part and parcel of their world view. As Chris noted above, all the beliefs professed by leftists are a means to an end, ready to be junked if they get in the way of attaining power which they could never attain on genuine merit. They have the moral scruple of Guy Sebastian’s publicist and the usefulness of Guy Sebastian’s hairdresser.
I also need to correct a rather obvious typo that Pamela’s editor somehow let slip through:
Contrary to
popularleftist opinion, one is not the same as the other.Posted by Jim Geones on 2005 02 05 at 12:39 AM • permalinkI’m still in favor of letting them have the right to go braless, tho. How we got them to fall for that one in the 70’s is a mystery to me, but I’m not complaining.
Maybe it’s only in Bondi Junction, but there appears to be revivial lately of women who could poke your eyes out with the front of their T-shirts. However their nipples seem suspiciously protuberant, and I can’t help wondering if this was all sparked by the “Sex and the City” plastic nipples episode.
Posted by Jim Geones on 2005 02 05 at 01:43 AM • permalinkI also have PMS and cramps, so I am primed to kill!
I have one of those Darwin fish stickers. I never put it on any of my cars though. I just think it’s cute, a fish with feet. I’d like to get the alien one.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 02 05 at 02:44 AM • permalinkbanning women from driving cars, or travelling without their husbands’ permission, or forcing them to cover their faces.
And that’s not the half of it. But, nstead of outrage about how women are treated in those societies (from women with a paid media job & often some profile that goes with it) we get people like Margaret Pomeranz being outraged and tearful about Australian “adults” like her not being allowed to watch some crap movie.Habib was later heard to be making the Sound of Ultimate Suffering.
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2005 02 05 at 02:05 PM • permalinkHabib is lucky if he doesn’t pour himself home from the pub to find his sheila reading “The Life and Times of Lorena Bobbitt”.
Posted by Michael Lonie on 2005 02 05 at 08:18 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
If you wish to avoid abortion, abstain from its precursors.
Simple.
?????????