Arab Women and ‘Desperate Housewives’
At the top of my list of political pet peeves is the seeming inability of many liberals to speak out forcefully against the Islamic jihad. You know, the folks who fly jetliners into high-profile targets to kill you, me and our children.
A close second is the seeming inability of many feminists to speak out forcefully over the plight of many Arab women, who happen to include the mothers, sisters and daughters of those jihadists.
A good example of the latter is the muted reaction to the assassination of Zilla Huma Usman (see photo), the social welfare minister for Punjab Province in Pakistan, was who killed because she was not wearing a head scarf in public.
As Donna Baver Rovito notes, the Usman killing was not on the radar of the National Organization for Women, which had nary a peep about it at its website, but did cogitate on the weighty matter of whether the popular “Desperate Housewives” TV series misleads viewers about teen contraception. (Of course it does. It’s TV, for crying out loud!)
Rovito, a women’s rights advocate, notes in a Philadelphia Daily News op-ed piece that NOW also has missed the boat on the saga of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born author who has fled to the U.S. from Holland, whom Michael van der Galien has blogged about here.
Writes Rovito:
There isn’t a single entry about Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the NOW Web site. (But there IS a helpful video about “how advertising effects women’s body image, health and self-esteem.”)
There isn’t a single book about Islamic gender apartheid among the 48 books on the NOW Web site. There are, however, six books bashing George Bush, a book attacking Mormon treatment of women and others advocating gay marriage – but nothing about forced marriages, honor killings, rapes, beatings or other forms of oppression suffered by Muslim women.
Perhaps Rovito is being a bit unfair to NOW, and some of her more general comments about U.S. society are a bit over the top. But in the instances of Usman and Ali, this leading women’s group certainly seems to be playing to form — as well as my second biggest political pet peeve.
40 Responses to “Arab Women and ‘Desperate Housewives’”
NOW is a relic. They’ve been ridiculous for the last 20 years.
Hah, good point m. tak. Perhaps they need to change their name so that the acronym will read “THEN” instead of “NOW”.
The roots of NOW…and Western feminism’s…aversion to criticizing Islam are understandable though.
One of the recent developments in Western feminism is the anxiety over multiculturalism, and the vague guilt over the fact that NOW and western feminist movements have historically been headed by middle class white women. See, for example, bell hooks’ body of writing on this issue.
I have had this debate myself with some well-meaning feminists, who genuinely feel that…as westerners, loaded with western (or white) guilt…it is impossible for us to criticize Islam.
The fact that the hated Bush administration is at war with Islamists adds to their unease at criticizing Islam. The enemy (Islamists) of my enemy (Bush) is my friend, is also clearly in play.
The result…as the above review of the NOW website suggests…is that Western feminism is willing to “write off” the rights of hundreds of millions of Islamic women in order to preserve the purity of their hatred for Bush and the commitment to multiculturalism.
the assassination of Zilla Huma Usman (see photo), the social welfare minister for Punjab Province in Pakistan, was who killed because she was not wearing a head scarf in public.
This is not correct. We do not know the motive of her murder.
Many fundamentalist Muslims apparently feel the same way, if the number of “honor killings” in Pakistan
If you study the lives of people , who have murdered their women folk in the name of ‘honor killings’ in Pakistanis.
You will be surprised to know that they do not know what is Islam. They never followed any injunctions of the Koran.
When I took a cursory (I don’t have much patience for them) look at the NOW websight I saw no links to anything not fairly strictly related to American Women. It is the NATIONAL organization of women, after all. The plight of Muslim women abroad doesn’t seem to be in their ballpark much the way severe bans on abortion in South America aren’t.
Mind you, I would be VERY surprised to see that they were willing to be outspoken about the issue. Critisizing the Islamic world would make them come close to agreeing with Bush on something, which I can only guess that the effect on them would be akin to that of throwing salt on slugs. The fact that we’re talking about non-white people in other countries makes it high taboo to liberal conditioning. Also, condescention comes into play. They’ll never say it out loud, or maybe even to themselves, but you don’t expect as much from the “lesser cultures”. Critisizing the Islamic world is like telling the kid with polio to run faster, you don’t expect much from them, you know they aren’t at your level, so you’re “nicer” to them.
Munaeem:
The assassin was Mohammad Sarwar, who was known for his fantaticism. He had been previously held in 2002 in connection with the killing and mutilation of four prostitutes, but was never convicted due to lack of evidence.
Sarwar himself told a TV reporter after the Usman murder that he had carried out God’s order to kill women who sinned. He stated that “I have no regrets. I just obeyed Allah’s commandment. . . . I will kill all those women who do not follow the right path, if I am freed again.”
Meawhile, I cannot agree more than Sarwar’s actions are not representative of mainstream Islam.
Lynx:
You are correct that it is the NATIONAL Organization for Women, but I was not swayed after my own visit to their website that they should pretty much ignore the plight of many Arab women.
Now, now, pull in your claws, commenters bashing NOW.
As I see it, NOW has always been a narrow focus group, focusing on women’s issues in the western world. Their main themes have been workplace equality and reproductive rights.
Those are not issues easily transferrable to the Islamic world.
Not every organization tackles every topic, nor should they. You wouldn’t expect a gardening magazine to opine about opera singers. Expanding too far afield can dilute effectiveness at the core.
Luckily, women have progressed to the point that they join other focus groups for other specific issues.
The critics of NOW seem to demand that it become something it is not.
And, let’s be honest. It’s all about abortion.
NOW is a domestic political organization with a domestic agenda.
If their lack of an international program is all you can find to bash them with, though, please have at it.
And I suppose to do that, you’d have to invoke the oppressed of the world. How else could you acquire the high moral ground?
After all, don’t you deserve to be up there on the high moral ground, Shaun?
If NOW is strictly a domestic organization, then how do you explain this:
http://www.now.org/issues/global/index.html
I especially like the article about their trip to Venezuala where they praise the reforms that Chavez is making there.
There’s no doubt that their main focus is on women’s rights in the US, but they seem to have no trouble finding time to send delegations and write press releases on international issues that suit their political agenda.
“The roots of NOW…and Western feminism’s…aversion to criticizing Islam are understandable though.”
———————————
No, it is not understandable, it is an outrage, hypocritical, and exposes the feminist movement as irrelevant and out-of-touch. I harbor no such western, white guilt, and have no aversion whatsoever to criticizing islam. NOW is in a 70′s timewarp and has no relevance to current reality. This unwillingness to tackle the issue of islamism is one of the reasons why Tammy Bruce left them.
C Stanley–
Thank you for correcting me.
The most interesting about the link you provided is how many of the articles in that archive deal the problems faced by women in Muslim countries!
Thanks again!
CS-
They go abroad when ‘abroad’ fits their core issues.
Again, no one organization can be all things to all people.
It chooses its issues, just like everyone else.
Those wishing to focus on other issues are free to join other groups, which suit their interests.
This is like a girl complaining that boy scouts don’t focus on
cosmetics advice.
PS-
I have never been much interested in NOW, as I’m not a joiner and prefer to deal on an issue by issue basis, not in blocs.
But, since I find the attacks on NOW for the last several years to be so grossly unfair, I may reconsider.
To a large extent, the attacks seem to be led by anti-abortion activists, and they work by stealth, going after side issues to discredit the organization.
Laura:
Brava!
Laura said: “No, it is not understandable, it is an outrage, hypocritical, and exposes the feminist movement as irrelevant and out-of-touch.”
Laura…by “understandable” I meant there was a logic behind it. Of course, I don’t support their writing off the women of the Islamic world…as my full comment makes clear I think.
But I do see how their political logic works (i.e., Islamists hate Bush, we hate Bush = we are friends with Islamists and will not criticize them).
This is fairly widespread, and not isolated to NOW. Look at the reluctance of the BBC and the British media to cover “honour killings” in the UK.
> I especially like the article about their trip to Venezuala where they praise the
> reforms that Chavez is making there.
NOW is a relic of mid-1960s-onward radicalism. It’s no surprise they would do this, too. Chavez is a far-left love object with plenty of Useful Idiot groupies (not merely fellow travelers) here in the West.
Marlowecan:
“Islamists hate Bush, we hate Bush = we are friends with Islamists”
——
This is Cheney logic: we are fighting terrorists, if you don’t support this particular war, then you are friends of terrorists
It’s very disappointing to see this gobblygook logic applied to any issue.
This kind of approach is best suited to smearing tactics, not an open debate.
You are all just Phyllis Shaffley’s in waiting.
I think being subservient to men and second class citizens and/or chattel is not only in Islam, it is also something that the fundamentalist Christians and the new American Taliban are openly striving for.
Stop being hypocrital of NOW unless you see and admit how this is a multi-faceted product of our own society.
I don’t buy into any of it
My very first knowledge about gender apartheid in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan came from the National Organization for Women. It was about ten years ago, and consisted of an email the organization (or women representing the organization, I honestly can’t remember which) sent out to anyone and everyone, alerting us to the horrific treatment of women under the Taliban and asking for support to end their plight.
In those days, and it wasn’t that long ago, NOW really DID stand up for women’s rights – no matter who those women were or why they were oppressed. It wasn’t a political issue, it was a HUMAN issue. It wasn’t about reproductive rights or gay rights – it was about HUMAN rights.
I support reproductive rights, and I’m glad that NOW has been consistent in its efforts to preserve a woman’s right to choose….but I find it deeply disappointing that so many other issues, including the ones the NOW used to support, have fallen by the wayside as the organization (which only has 500,000 members, a tiny fraction of American women) has become political rather than educational. But it isn’t only NOW which is sadly and curiously silent – it’s feminists all over the world.
Well known British writer Sarah Baxter, who marched with sister European feminists against nuclear proliferation in the 80′s, calls the lack of support “feminism’s blind spot” and writes: “Something has gone badly wrong with a politically correct feminism that prefers to take aim at the United States, a haven of free speech and relative sexual equality, than to tackle the threat posed to women by Islamic fundamentalism. But I am surprised, all the same, by the persistence of the ideological blind spot that has led women who are so quick to condemn the failings of the West to make transparent excuses for the behaviour of some of the world’s most anti-feminist regimes. I don’t agree with Chesler that we are witnessing the death of feminism, but for now it is MIA: missing in action.”
Australian writer Pamela Bone comments on this as well: “A few Western feminists have begun to wonder why women who once marched for women’s rights are marching alongside people who would take away even the most basic of those rights…..The question is why so many Western feminists do not speak out about the cruelty that blights the lives of millions of women in Islamic countries and would do the same to women everywhere else should the Islamists succeed in their stated aim of creating a worldwide caliphate….The reason, as writer Fay Weldon has said, is that these days racism is a much worse sin than sexism: a consequence, perhaps, of the success of the women’s movement in the West. Women who would speak out don’t because of a (justified) fear that they will be branded racists. Neither US foreign policy nor colonialism or imperialism is to blame for a legal system that stipulates women guilty of adultery are to be buried up to their chests and stoned to death, as in Iran. It is their culture, or at least the culture as defined by the old men running the place, that is to blame. Hate Bush if you want, but please understand that your enemy’s enemies are not necessarily your friends.
Most of us 1970s feminists are grandmothers now. Lifelong socialist and humanist that I am, if fighting to prevent the possibility that my granddaughters – our granddaughters – will one day be forced to wear a burka makes me right-wing, then right-wing is the label I’ll have to wear.”
Phyllis Chesler, once imprisoned by her seemingly Westernized Iranian husband in what she calls a “posh purdah” prior to her escape, author of “The Death of Feminism, ” writes: “These days, telling the truth about indigenous Islamic barbarism towards women and men is quickly branded as ‘politically incorrect’ and dismissed as ‘racist’ and ‘imperialist’ arrogance. It requires real courage and clarity to stay this particular course of truth-telling. While some feminists did sound the alarm about the Taliban, they did not rescue Afghan women physically, personally, militarily, or economically. In addition, feminists have not focused on the right to motherhood, but primarily on the right to abortion; they have not focused on creating a strong feminist foreign policy, but primarily on the rights of gays and lesbians. Personal sexual freedom and identity politics have trumped universal human rights.”
Ayaan Hirsi Ali sees it clearly: “In the past two centuries, those in the West have gradually changed the way they treat women. As a result, the West enjoys greater peace and progress. It is my hope that the third world will embark on this effort. Just as we put an end to slavery, we must end the gendercide.”
And to do this, ALL of the world’s women’s rights advocates need to speak up. This is so much more important than didsplays of feminist art or objectionable fashion ads…..
Livie says: I think being subservient to men and second class citizens and/or chattel is not only in Islam, it is also something that the fundamentalist Christians and the new American Taliban are openly striving for. Stop being hypocrital of NOW unless you see and admit how this is a multi-faceted product of our own society. I don’t buy into any of it ”
Oh, MY…..clearly, you are buying into SOMEONE’s propaganda if you seriously believe that there is an “American taliban” and that Christians and Islamic fundamentalists agree on ANYTHING concerning the treatment of women….
But by all means, let us all know when the first Christian “honor killing” takes place, or the first Christian women is stoned for adultery in the public square somewhere in the heartland of America….
Domajot… “It’s very disappointing to see this gobblygook logic applied to any issue. This kind of approach is best suited to smearing tactics, not an open debate.”
In making that equation I was attempting to illustrate the thinking that lies behind many feminists’ reluctance to criticize the treatment of women under Islam.
In my debate with several feminist activists…decent, well-meaning individuals…it was clear that they felt this dilemma very strongly.
Anti-racism is a very important thread in modern feminism, and Islamists understand very well how they can play upon this.
Bush invaded Afghanistan, in the process snuffed out an appalling sexist and homophobic regime. The regime currently in power is far from perfect in these regards…but gays are no longer being executed by having walls toppled on them. For the first time in years, girls can attend schools in Afghanistan.
Has the women’s movement given Bush any credit at all for this?
No.
What has been the response of the women’s movement to honour killings in Islamic communities in Europe?
Some activists will speak out. Most – usually white, middle class women – are silent.
It is much easier to attack Bush than to criticize Islamic culture. In effect, by turning a blind eye…avoiding uncomfortable issues such as “honour killings”…western feminism is enabling Islamism in its oppression of women.
To be fair, the comparison is ridiculous, but since you insisted:
– “But by all means, let us all know when the first Christian “honor killingâ€? takes place”
** http://www-tech.mit.edu/V113/N46/violence.46w.txt.html
– “or the first Christian women is stoned for adultery in the public square somewhere in the heartland of America…”
** http://www.usdoj.gov/ovw/teen_dating_violence.htm
Well, at least we don’t kill them. These probably had it coming.
DBR: “let us all know when the first Christian “honor killingâ€? takes place”
====
This is a false argument, as it skips over all the ground between gender bias and honor killing.
I assume you would not
condone say, being , falsely imprisoned, just because your life was spared.
There is no need to throw everything into two polar positions.
For folks interested in these issues from a Western Feminst Muslim point of view, read Irshad Manji’s “The Trouble with Islam”.
Manji is a VERY controversial figure, a young Canadian feminist of Islamic descent, who has been fiercely critical of Islam’s treatment of women.
There is a massive amount on Google about her. The subject of continual death threats, feminists are highly divided on her and her views — largely because of the anti-racist sentiments noted above and the fear of being labelled by Islamists as being on the same side as Bush.
Marlow-
You have me at a disadvantage in that I don’t circulate in ‘feminist’ circles; I just speak to individual people, including a good number of women.
Your arguments would be valid, if you didn’t address them to a particular group, such as NOW. There are hosts of special interest groups (male, female and mixed) who stick to their core issues and don’t address the crucial, but broader, issues of the day.
Neither political party, for example, has come out with a statement on honor killings. Why not go after them?
About Bush, my guess (emphasizing ‘guess’) is that their antipathy harks back to the differences about reproductive rights.
It’s a shame that we have to spend so much time on debating about potential people when actual people are crying out for help.
Clearly, I didn’t make it obvious enough that I was utilizing an extreme argument to respond to Livie’s extreme comment that there is any resemblance between fundamentalist Muslim repression of women to the beliefs of Christian conservatives…(who aren’t flying planes into buildings or chopping off anyone’s heads in an effort to spread THEIR religion….)
Although I don’t think it’s reasonable to compare thousands of honor killings per year in countries where it is the norm, rather than an aberration, to the criminal action of a handful of murderous zealots who obviously hear voices telling them to kill abortion providers…
Nor is it valid to compare date rape to public stonings…..in America, those who are convicted of date rape are PUNISHED by the legal system, as they should be, to the fullest extent of the law (or maybe even stronger laws are needed). In Iran, those who throw the stones ARE the legal system.
Yes, there’s a lot of skipped ground between gender bias and honor killing….just as there’s a lot of “skipped ground” between Islamic gender apartheid and “fundamentalist Christians.”
So if my comparisons aren’t valid, I’d be interested in hearing your opinion of Livie’s…..?
Domajot said: “Neither political party, for example, has come out with a statement on honor killings. Why not go after them?”
To my knowledge, honour (use Brit. spellings a lot, sorry) killings are not common in the US at all. In large measure, I think this is because the US is an assimilationist culture in its treatment of immigrants.
Europe is multicultural…which means in practice that immigrant groups can largely stay in communities of their own, with no interaction with the mainstream.
As a result, it is widely believed that “honour killings” are widespread in these communities. The evidence of scale is largely anecdotal, however. There was recently a minor scandal in the UK about the police tendency to accept “accidental” stories of the deaths of young women from families where, upon review, it is highly likely that the women were killed for reasons of family “honour”.
There have been a few highly publicized stories of such killings…usually the media notices only when the killings are gruesome. There was one last week, I recall, where the man in question slaughtered his wife and daughters because his daughters were dressing like western “whores” (i.e., without burkha, in jeans etc.) with the support of their mother, and thus damaging his honour and standing in the community.
As you may guess, neither Conservative nor Labour politicians — both seeking the Muslim vote — have been eager promote action on this issue beyond the usual bromides about it being “completely unacceptable”. The women’s movement, which would be the obvious pressure group in this case, is divided.
“It’s a shame that we have to spend so much time on debating about potential people when actual people are crying out for help.”
Very true. But there are political reasons why nothing gets done. The caravan of debate here at TMV will move on, but the people who usually deal with these issues on a daily basis…the women’s movement…are conflicted. Politicians, true to their nature, will avoid this hot potato if at all possible.
Yes, doma, everyone is free to join or not join, and all of us are also free to criticize an organization if we see fit as well. As you point out, NOW’s core agenda is “reproductive rights”, and I criticize them because:
1) As a woman, I feel no threat to my ‘reproductive rights’ whatsoever and I wish for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. I recognize that restrictions on abortion would not force me to become pregnant; a fact of biology simply means that I have to make choices about my sexual behavior if I choose to avoid pregnancy.
2) If the core purpose of NOW is to fight for abortion rights, then a change in their name and their organization’s mission statement are in order. To use a variation of your own example, if the Girl Scouts began making cosmetic advice for girls the centerpiece of their activity, I would find that to be an egregious bait and switch tactic. If they purport to be an organization that helps girls to become well rounded but they decided to focus narrowly on a facet of “girlhood” which isn’t even universally agreed upon as a healthy facet, then people would be within their rights to call them on it.
I don’t doubt that some abortion opponents attack NOW unfairly, but there’s plenty of room for reasonable dissent from their work as well. Do you agree that reasonable pro-life organizations should be able to criticize NOW and oppose what they stand for?
Marlow -
I think you just proved my point.
With all this going on in Europe, why are you focusing your blame on one particular group in the US?
Putting that aside, I agree with you that westerners on both continents are too silent about what is glaringly odious.
I suspect we are all afraid of riots in the streets. I’ve been thinking that it’s an error of all our immigration systems. Rather than accepting all comers and then trying to address culture clashes. The norms or our societies, including our justice systems, should be explained (and a signature of compliance required) before granting residency.
Basic understanding of what freedom of speech means should be lesson #1.
George Sorwell Says:
March 14th, 2007 at 7:52 am
Yes, George, I noticed a few of the links on international issues concerned condemnation of Islamic cultures where women were mistreated. I’m sure it’s purely coincidental that these were instances where the organization didn’t have to appear to be ‘siding’ with Bush; for example, they seem to be able to condemn violence against women in Darfur.
Domajot said: “Marlow – I think you just proved my point.
With all this going on in Europe, why are you focusing your blame on one particular group in the US?”
I’m sorry. I did not intend that my comment be read in that way. NOW was simply the most obvious umbrella group of NA feminism, and its unease with regard to dealing with this issue reflects western feminist attitudes in general. This is much more a European problem…the scale of what goes on in the Muslim world is unknown, but probably appalling.
I am pro-abortion, by the way. I just think, if one is for abortion rights for women, one should also be in the forefront of the battle against such things as honour killings and female circumcision.
“The norms or our societies, including our justice systems, should be explained (and a signature of compliance required) before granting residency.”
Actually, Tony Blair made a speech a couple of weeks back saying EXACTLY the same thing…a speech that was widely reported as a signal of the end of “multiculturalism”. Granted, Blair is a lame duck, but there is a growing admiration for the US model of immigration in many European soceities today…whereas only a few years ago they sneered at the US “melting pot”.
DBR-
I can’t speak for Livie.
As I read her comment, she was addressing a state of mind, not particular actions.
Women being seen as second class citizens will lead to various reprissive policies, according to the culture and place where they occur.
C Stanley said: “I’m sure it’s purely coincidental that these were instances where the organization didn’t have to appear to be ’siding’ with Bush…”
I increasingly wonder what the world will do when Bush is no longer in the White House.
Will the absence of such a polarizing figure free up these cultural “log jams”…or will people find still other excuses to avoid doing the right thing?
CS=
Well, at least it’s out in the open. This isn’t about Arab women at all.
It would be more honest to speak plainly and not hide behind accusations of dubious political alliances or other discreting techniques.
Reproductive rights is one of the main issues of NOW, because women like myself feel we should have the right to CHOOSE. That is not at all the same as advocating for women to choose abortion.
As I understand it, clinics like Planned Parenthood openly lay out all the options, including adoption, keeping the baby herself and so forth.
That you would call offering a choice ‘fascism’ is beyond me to comprehend. I hope we don’t end up with the Hitler analogy.
Pro-life clinics don’t offer choice. And therein lies the crucial difference. It’s ‘we know best’ approach, in complete opposition to what a free society should aspire to.
I have yet to meet a pro-choice woman who promotes abortion per se. It’s always a choice of last resort. But in a bind, at least there is that one last difficult choice.
If I’m a fascist for wanting to exercise the rights of citizenship, then so be it.
Marlow-
I think we might acutally be in agreement more than in opposition.
C. Stanley–
I conceded you were right. But you don’t seem too happy about it.
This is the archive of NOW articles C Stanley linked to.
In your post complaining about my concession, you say they only had “a few” such articles. In case people can’t be bothered to go look at that NOW page, here’s my quick count of the number of articles, per country:
Sudan 2
Iraq 3
Afghanistan 11
Pakistan 1
Nigeria 5
Saudi Arabia 1
Naturally, you’re free to say that’s only a few. But it seems like more than a few to me.
I did not read any of the articles, so I can’t say if there is any “purely coincidential” Bush bashing involved. But if you say so, okay.
PS I hope that html works!!
C. Stanley said:
> If the core purpose of NOW is to fight for abortion rights,
> then a change in their name and their organization’s
> mission statement are in order.
And the ABA’s, and the AFL-CIO’s, and …
[D]omajot wrote:
> Reproductive rights is one of the main issues of NOW,
> because women like myself feel we should have the
> right to CHOOSE.
Do not continue to use evasive weasel words.
The right to choose WHAT?
We make countless choices every day, beginning
with what time we arise each morning and what we
choose to wear, to eat, what schedule we choose to
follow during the day…
hero is to heroine as knitting is to pork!…
While I try to keep track of feminist heroines, I’m afraid I’m not keeping up with the times. Yesterday the feminist heroine was Queen Isabella; today I see that Hillary (who has been considered a “feminist heroine”) is now the……