Almost all points of view have a place in the marketplace of ideas.
Considering how often we discuss feminism on this blog, I think it worthwhile to examine perspectives that differ from mine.
Yesterday, classics professor Bruce Thornton offered some much needed perspective on Margaret Thatcher and feminism.
Thornton believes that feminists should be embracing Thatcher as a true feminist heroine. In fact, some feminist commenters on this blog have done just that. They receive credit for integrity.
If, as I believe, feminism is an ideology, holding the right beliefs counts for far more than achievement, especially when the woman achiever holds the wrong beliefs.
If feminism is about women succeeding in the world, it should embrace Margaret Thatcher. If it doesn't, then perhaps it is more about the ideology than women's success.
Thornton compares Margaret Thatcher with Hillary Clinton, the woman everyone seems to want as our next president. When it comes to accomplishments, there is no comparison
In his words:
Compared to [Thatcher], feminist hero Hillary Clinton is a rebooted version of a Mad-Men haute bourgeois housewife whose success comes not from her own achievements, but from her connection to and dependence on a politically talented man who ended up President, a man who humiliated her publicly with his juvenile, sordid philandering that reinforced every stereotype of the loyal mate who sacrifices herself on the altar of her husband’s career.
But then Thornton makes another, excellent point. Feminists who live in the country that affords women the greatest amount of freedom and opportunity are quick to take offense against the least slight, but they have fallen into abject silence when faced with the raw misogyny of Islamic cultures.
In fact, where have the feminists been the last ten years, when the West has been battling the same illiberal oppressive religion that justifies polygamy, misogyny, and genital mutilation? By invading Afghanistan, George Bush liberated more truly suffering and oppressed women than all the Women’s Studies courses, seminars, books, speeches, sit-ins, demonstrations, and articles put together. Yet the progressive ideology and multicultural delusions that define feminism required Bush to be the villain and warmonger of cartoonish leftism, no matter how many Afghan women benefitted from his war.
The silence of feminism, with some few exceptions, on the oppressive theology of Islam is exhibit number one in the corruption of liberal equity feminism by grievance politics, cultural relativism, and illiberal progressive ideology. While feminist professors and journalists wax hysterical over trivial or even illusory slights against women––Obama complimenting a beautiful state Attorney General, or ex-Harvard president Larry Summers speculating that there just maybe might be inherent differences in men and women when it comes to physics and math––millions of Muslim women across the globe are subject to honor killings, mutilation, polygamy, and sexual abuse by men just because they wanted some say over their lives. But drunk on multiculturalism, these feminists are silent, preferring to attack a Western culture that has made them free and independent, rather than confront the biggest, most lethal misogynist institution on the planet.
The silence is telling.