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……

> 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…

> 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 …

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!!

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.

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?

Women being seen as second class citizens will lead to various reprissive policies, according to the culture and place where they occur.

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”.

March 14th, 2007 at 7:52 am

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!

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.

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.

domajot Says:

March 14th, 2007 at 7:55 am
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.

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?

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.

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…..?

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.

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.

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.

– “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.

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.

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….