Wednesday, December 9, 2015

Anti-Semitic Feminists

You would think that good feminists would have serious objections to the way women are treated in the Palestinian territories.

You would also think that good feminists would be marching to protest the way women are treated in many Islamic countries.

Shouldn’t feminists naturally oppose cultures that practice honor killings, that allow men to beat their wives, that jail rape victims for having sex outside of marriage, that force girls into arranged marriages, that refuse to allow women to drive cars or to go shopping by themselves?

Being political leftists and fierce supporters of gay rights, feminists should naturally oppose cultures where homosexuality is a capital crime, and where anyone who is caught being a homosexual is hanged.

You would also think that feminists would cheer the advanced democracy of Israel, a country that guarantees women’s rights, freedoms and opportunities.

If those were your thoughts, disabuse yourself of your ignorance and naiveté. If those were your thoughts you do not understand America’s radical left.

Ready for a wake-up call?

Emily Shire has the story:

Last week, a group considered the largest academic feminist organization in North America approved a measure to cut all ties with the state of Israel, including the researchers, teachers, and academics who work in its universities, museums, and cultural centers.

The National Women’s Studies Association (NWSA) voted to endorse “the 2005 call by Palestinian civil society for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) of economic, military and cultural entities and projects sponsored by the state of Israel.”

You read that right. The leading group of feminist academics has chosen leftist politics over women’s lives. They have signed on to a blatantly anti-Semitic cause because they believe that it represents the politically correct thing to do. Women be damned; it’s only the ideas that matter.

Islamic cultures count among the worst practitioners of misogyny on the planet. What do these feminists find so attractive about that?

If they know, they do not care. Having long suspected that an important strain of contemporary feminism merely uses women as pawns to advance the revolution, I am not surprised to find feminists openly embracing misogyny. Because that is what happened here.

Shire also quotes what the BDS movement stands for:

Refrain from participation in any form of academic and cultural cooperation, collaboration or joint projects with Israeli institutions.

Advocate a comprehensive boycott of Israeli institutions at the national and international levels, including suspension of all forms of funding and subsidies to these institutions

The movement goal is perfectly consonant with the goal of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah: to eradicate the state of Israel and to send the Jews back to the Ukraine. Why? Among other reasons Israel is a liberal democracy that respects human rights. And it has been a successful nation surrounded by civilizational failure.

The only difference is that BDS wants to destroy Israel non-violently while Hamas is happy to resort to violence. That is why noted feminist academic and dimwit Judith Butler sees Hamas as a progressive force but refuses to support it wholeheartedly because it resorts to violence. She too supports BDS.

Feminist supporters of BDS naturally cloak their madness, stupidity and misogyny in feminist terms:

As feminist activists, scholars, teachers, and public intellectuals who recognize the interconnectedness of systemic forms of oppression, we cannot overlook the injustice and violence, including sexual and gender-based violence, perpetrated against Palestinians.

Don’t be too surprised. Last week an anti-rape group on the Columbia campus aligned itself with the Students for Justice in Palestine. I repeat again, if a woman is raped in a strictly Muslim culture she will be jailed for having sex outside of marriage. If a teenage girl is caught holding hands with a boy she will be murdered by her father and brothers. And some Muslims believe that they have a right to rape infidel women. Therefore, women who are militating against rape culture actively embrace a culture that allows men to commit acts of violence against women.

If you think that these activists care about women, think again.

Naturally, the Columbia feminist anti-rape group has aligned itself with Palestinian culture. Shire quotes her colleague Lizzie Crocker:

My colleague Lizzie Crocker pointed out the problem with conflating matters pertaining to Israel and campus rape last week when she wrote about how No Red Tape, a Columbia University anti-sexual assault group, had aligned itself with Students for Justice in Palestine.

“No Red Tape has lost the plot. In trying to be inclusive of other oppressed groups, they’ve alienated victims that their group is dedicated to advocating for,” Crocker wrote.

One is tempted to say that these are merely useful idiots. After all, their abject stupidity is striking. And yet, that is too easy. They are suffering from an ideological depravity that ought to be exposed for what it is and rejected by all rational feminists. Certainly, it ought to be rejected by anyone who respects women. Increasingly, that does not seem to include feminists.


Ares Olympus said...

Stuart: I repeat again, if a woman is raped in a strictly Muslim culture she will be jailed for having sex outside of marriage. If a teenage girl is caught holding hands with a boy she will be murdered by her father and brothers. And some Muslims believe that they have a right to rape infidel women.

These statements seems intentionally manipulative, designed to broadly paint all Muslims by the most extreme subset of Muslims, as if all Christians or Jews should also be judged by their most extreme representatives.

However if you bring up a specific country, Saudi Arabia, with holy Mecca, is the most "strictly Muslim culture" there is, and the most oppressive towards women or individual rights. There are plenty of articles about this, but somehow Saudi Arabia is our ally while Iran is our enemy, because they are the Saudi enemy.
Why do the Saudis proselytize?
To combat the spread of Shiite Islam and ensure that the Islamic world is primarily Sunni. In recent years, the ancient Sunni-Shiite conflict in Iraq, Yemen, and throughout the Middle East has grown more overt, bitter, and violent. Now that Iran has agreed to rein in its nuclear program in return for the lifting of international economic sanctions, ...
What is Wahhabism?
Founded in the 18th century by Muslims seeking a return to Koranic literalism, Wahhabism is one of the strictest sects of Islam. The founder, Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab, sought the protection of an emir, Muhammad ibn Saud, and the two joined forces to spread the doctrine throughout the Arabian Peninsula. The cleric's daughter married the emir's son, which means the entire House of Saud is directly descended from Wahhab. The purist sect requires adherents to abstain from alcohol and drugs. The sexes are segregated, with women fully covered in public. Even other Muslims who stray from these medieval practices — such as Shiites and moderate Sunni sects — are considered infidels. Prescribed punishments for crimes — among them apostasy and blasphemy — include flogging, stoning, and beheading.

Where has Wahhabism reached?
Nearly everywhere in the Muslim world except where Iran holds sway. In the 1980s, Saudi money and fighters poured into Afghanistan to help the mujahedeen fight the Soviets, an effort that gave rise to the Taliban and eventually to al Qaeda. In the 1990s, Saudi aid to the Bosnian Muslims struggling in the wars that broke up Yugoslavia brought the Wahhabi strain of Islam to Europe. That same decade, Saudi money helped to further radicalize Chechnya's Muslims. One of the cables released by WikiLeaks quotes then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: "Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide." Most members of al Qaeda were Saudi, including Osama bin Laden, and 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis.

Where does ISIS fit into this picture?
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria sees itself as purer than the Saudi regime, but its fundamentalist Sunni doctrine has its roots in Wahhabism. Bob Graham, a former Democratic senator from Florida who has called for declassification of the portion of the 9/11 Commission report dealing with Saudi Arabian links to the hijackers, says ISIS "is a product of Saudi ideals, Saudi money, and Saudi organizational support." In effect, Graham says, ISIS represents a form of Wahhabi ideology that the Saudis can't control — a cancer that now threatens the kingdom. "Who serves as fuel for ISIS? Our own youth," said Saudi dissident writer Turki Al-Hamad this year. "In order to stop ISIS, you must first dry up this ideology at the source."

So whatever else is true, it seems reasonable to say that our own support of Saudi Arabia is responsible for the rise of extremist Wahhabism. And its our collective addiction to oil that funds this madness, just like ISIS.

David Foster said...

Ares Olympus...while I agree with you that we have been far too suck-up-ish toward Saudi Arabia, I'm not fond of the phrase "addiction to oil." All living creatures need to employ some form of energy. Were people in northern medieval Europe addicted to wood? Were to Plains Indians addicted to buffalo?

Oil represented a great step forward over coal and wood as fuels, eliminating for example the horrible jobs of stokers at power plants and onboard ships.

We could have become much less dependent on the Saudis with a more intelligent energy policy decades ago, and today we really can break the chains with a combination of extended fracking and revived nuclear power, together with niche use of solar and wind. We should consider a specific import tariff on oil from Saudi and other especially malevolent states;not clear how much difference it would really make since oil is a global commodity market with relatively low transportation costs--but it would sure send a message.

Sam L. said...

Those were never my thought, for I know these "womyn" are leftists toeing the Party Line with the biggest, heaviest toes they can cram into their boots.

David, don't forget all that oil we are supposed to have stolen and are thought to be currently stealing from Iraq!

priss rules said...

"Islamic cultures count among the worst practitioners of misogyny on the planet. What do these feminists find so attractive about that?"

But US raises girls to act like Sulkowicz, Dunham, and Miley Cyrus.

I would say both modern Liberalism and medievalist Islam are degrading to women.

As for feminists, they think in terms of priorities.
They don't like Muslim treatment of women, but they see western imperialism as the bigger crime.
Because many Zionists are of European origin, they are seen as 'bad whites' by the left.

During the Vietnam War, many western liberals understood that North Vietnam was repressive and illiberal. But they still supported the North Vietnamese because US was seen as the imperialist power.

It's just how the leftist mind works.

And homosexuals? While I find Muslim attitude to homosexuals to be wrong, what we have in the west is gayria. Anyone who won't bend over to the 'gay' agenda is fined, destroyed, or even jailed.

I have no sympathy for homosexuals because they, having gained power, force everyone to praise and celebrate them. You better or else.

priss rules said...

US foreign policy has never been consistent.

In Russia, homosexuality is legal and there are gay bars.
But homosexuals are not allowed to march in parades or spread propaganda to kids.

In contrast, homosexuals are in big trouble in Saudi Arabia just for being homosexual.

But US condemns Russia while being mum on the Saudis.

Israel as a secular state should be friendlier with secular Assad of Syria than with arch-reactionary Saudis. But Israel is much closer to the Saudis and even gave medical treatment to ISIS fighters.

As the old adage goes, 'enemy of your enemy is your friend.'

Anonymous said...

Some on the Left are hostile to Israel itself.

But some support BDS only on the issue of West Bank settlement.

They want the occupation to end. They also see the occupation as a form of colonization because not only is West Bank militarily dominated but has systemically been settled(permanently) by Jewish arrivals. That is problematic in the long run.

When US occupied Japan after WWII, it didn't allow masses of Americans to grab territory for permanent settlement. The occupation was merely military and ended in 1952.

But the occupation still goes on in the West Bank, and Jews have taken whole swaths of land for permanent settlement.

Regardless of whether Palestinians are misogynist or not, this is seen by the international community as colonization.

Consider the following scenario:

We know Saudi Arabia isn't democratic or liberal. So, does that mean that a western liberal nation has the right to take a chunk of Saudi land and settle it with Europeans? Would it be justified on grounds that the settlers are more 'progressive' than the native Saudis who are 'misogynist'?

International community would disagree and would remind the world that western imperialism was justified on grounds of 'greater progress' and 'white man's burden'.

Suppose Israel were theocratic and reactionary while Arabs were modern and liberal. Would that mean Arabs have the moral right to occupy Jewish land and settle it with modern and liberal Arabs?

Does liberalism justify imperialism?