Plum Crazy

"...that so-called gender feminists believe that men are the cause of all things evil and women the source of all things good. I'd like to see one quote to back this up."

"These Afghan women proved what women prove again and again -- that because our interests are not primarily focused on gaining and maintaining power, we are in the profound position of being able to create peace and insure a humane, civil society." -- Eve Ensler, "Afghanistan is Everywhere, Report from the Afghan Women's Summit", Dec. 6, 2001.

That's really not saying that men are the source of all things evil and women the source of all things good. Ensler has also been quoted as saying that "We all have the capacity for great goodness and love, and we all have the capacity for terrible deeds. I've seen the best people behave terribly in the worst situations, and the worst people behave well. Who knows why? There are a lot of things that govern us." She is not saying there that men are the cause of those terrible deeds. She is saying it is a very complex equation governed by many factors. You could make the claim that Hymowitz was using hyperbole in her description of Ensler's views, but it does not mean what Hymowitz claimed.

However, I thank you for the citation, because it further goes to show how ridiculous Hymowitz's claim regarding gender feminists ignoring the plight of Muslim women is. Eve Ensler herself went to Afghanistan last year specifically to bring the world's attention to the plight of Afghan women, and yet she is one of those Hymowitz specifically cites as not wanting to draw attention to their plight.

Well, to split that hair even further, you asked for one quote in support of it, not for one to define it.

Another quote would be, "[t]errorism is on a continuum that starts with violence within the family, battery against women, violence against women in the society, all the way up to organized militaries that are supported by taxpayer money," by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz. I believe that was on Fox's O'Reilly Factor but I'm not certain of that. I've seen that quote a couple of places (one of which was another Hymowitz article) and neither place was the quote attributed very well.

My impression is that what has people like Hymowitz up in arms the most was the feminist condemnation of the war on Afghanistan -- I seem to remember Steinem and a couple of others on this, but (I apologize) it's not in front of me right now. As you point out, feminism hasn't completely disappeared from the scene, but it does seem to be rather low-key.

Are things as dire as Hymowitz proclaims? Probably not.

Okay, you got me. Bad writing on my part.

You are right that many feminists were against the bombing of Afghanistan. Which is not to say that they were against getting the Taliban out of power. It was the methods they objected to. Especially since our goal in bombing Afghanistan was not to oust the Taliban. That was a pleasant side-effect, although if we're not careful the Taliban could end up back in power. You'd be hard-pressed to find a feminist who was not in favor of getting the Taliban out of power, though.

That may have been an oversight on your part, but I think you have caught Hymowitz in an even greater one. After all, the only way I found the Ensler quote was by going through Hymowitz' prior stuff. Not only does she seem to be incorrect, as you have asserted, she also seems to implicitly contradict herself.

I think the problem a lot of people have with the objection the feminist leaders made to our effort to remove the Taliban is that no one is willing to say that such an important, necessary and worthwhile movement requires (at least) a modicum of sacrifice. The feminist leadership, on the other hand does not seem to be willing to trade the life of even one person for the well-being and freedom of millions. And it's not that they wouldn't be willing to make sacrifice on their own, but they cannot stomach informing other people that a sacrifice may ultimately be required of them.

I guess that's my 2¢.

Among the feminists who opposed the invasion of Afghanistan, as it was undertaken in the real world, were the women who comprise RAWA - an organization comprised of Afghan women who were literally risking execution to fight the Taliban back when Kay Hymowitz was attempting to prove that Sesame Street doesn't much affect how well kids read. (For all that Hymowitz criticizes feminists for having "astonishingly trivial" concerns, she doesn't subject her own work to the same criteria).

Chad, maybe the folks at RAWA are, as you say, unable to think of sacrificing anyone but themselves (a shortcoming that the draft-dodgers and chickenhawks currently in the White House currently don't share). I think, however, that RAWA women are enourmously better-informed and smarter about Afghani affairs than you or Hymowitz, and concluded that the invasion of Afghanistan, as conducted by the US, was unlikely to bring about the substantial long-term changes needed by the women of Afghanistan.

It's not that they opposed all sacrifice; it's that they opposed pointless sacrifice, sacrifice that won't do enough to create substantial change.

Given how things look in Afghanistan today, I'm not at all convinced that RAWA was mistaken. The US did depose the Taliban's leadership, which is wonderful. But we did it by empowering some of the worse, most misogynistic "warlords" - people who burn down women's schools, and people who the US is still arming today. There was, to be sure, some improvement for women in Kabul, and that's something to celebrate. But in Afghanistan as a whole, George Bush's invasion has not been a solution - because it so utterly lacked any real commitment to helping the women of Afghanistan, or any desire to follow through on the brief invasion with a commitment to improving the nation over the long term.

Here's a newsflash for you: Schools for girls are still being burned down. Women are still covering themselves with burquas out of fear of being beaten (or worse) if they don't. Women are still afraid to particpate in public life for fear of violent retaliation.

The utter conviction of right-wingers that the invasion of Afghanistan solved all women's problems in Afghanistan shows how utterly shallow right-wingers are; and how little they've ever given a shit about women in the middle east. All they want is to say "see, our war solved the problems, that proves the democrats/liberals/feminists were wrong." If any of them pulled their head out of their ass for a precious two seconds and learned about what's actually going on in Afghanistan today, they could find out that things aren't that simple; and that the women of RAWA weren't idiots deserving only to be condesended to (or ignored), but in fact had a far better assessment of women's needs in Afghanistan than think-tank Republicans in Washington, DC did. But if they did that, they might have to admit that in fact war isn't a cure-all, and sending in the Air Force to do bombing runs while arming and empowering some of the worse, most misogynistic, violent warlords in the world isn't a good way to free women. And we all know Republicans will never admit that.

Here's another newsflash: two years from now, Republicans will care just as much about women in the middle east as they cared three years ago: not at all. Ms. Hymowitz will go on to her next great cause and return to never, ever writing about the problems of women abroad - just as she did before 9/11. But three years from now (and ten years from now and twenty years from now), feminists will still be concerned about what's going on in Afghanistan - because our concern isn't just a partisan political ploy, or a flash in the pan in response to new political events. It's genuine concern. Maybe someday Ms. Hymowitz and her fans will learn to tell the difference, but I doubt it.

It's what Ampersand said, Chad. It's not that feminists object to making sacrifices. It's a question of what sacrifices and if the sacrifices are worth it. With respect to Afghanistan, it was never our goal to oust the Taliban when we started bombing. We were trying to convince them to give up Al Qaeda. Had they done that, we'd have stopped bombing and left them in power. Nor has their ouster suddenly made life wonderful for Afghan women. If our true concern is the lives of the Afghans, we need to be doing more now, because the warlords aren't peace- and democracy-loving kinds of guys. They are brutal and oppressive in their own right. The country is in chaos, and it was that chaos that allowed the Taliban to come to power in the first place.

When it comes to Iraq, be you for or against the possible war, we are not planning to attack to liberate the Iraqis. I'm sorry, but we're just not. Even the government isn't really saying that is the primary reason. The government says we're attacking because Saddam has WMDs that he may either use against us or sell to terrorists to use against us. If that were not the case, we wouldn't be considering an attack. Let's at least be honest with ourselves that we are not considering attacking to free the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator. It sounds very nice, but it's simply not true.

And if we are really going to go around attacking countries because they have brutal dictators who oppress their people, there's a long list of countries we should be attacking. Why are sanctions good enough for the likes of the brutal and oppressive Robert Mugabe, but not for Saddam Hussein? Because we perceive no threat to ourselves from Mugabe. I don't think anti-war feminists would object to us freezing Saddam Hussein's assets as we are doing with Mugabe.

There is also concern about what happens in Iraq if we are successful in ousting Saddam. Do we simply leave the country in chaos a la Afghanistan? What are the after-effects of that for the Iraqis? Realistically, doesn't that simply leave the door open for another brutal dictator to arise? One of the things I have always thought Colin Powell and others were right on the money about was we have to have a plan for afterwards. If we don't, I think what we are considering is highly irresponsible. Not only is it bad for the Iraqis, but if there are, indeed, WMDs in Iraq, a chaotic situation makes it that much easier for them to fall into the wrong hands. Look what happened with Soviet nukes after the fall of the Soviet Union. Except that you can't look, because so many of them have gone missing and probably wound up in unfriendly hands. That is the precise opposite of what we say we are trying to accomplish.

Articles of this ilk just piss me off. If these people who are so quick to put down feminists are so interested in women's oppression, why aren't they spending their energy on victims of dowry murders in India, or the estimated 25 million abortions that have taken place because Indians can't afford dowries for their girl children?

And what about the women living under Wahabbi law in Saudi Arabia? I'd be interested in knowing if the author wrote about the 14 girls forced back into a burning building by the religious police...I'd bet not.

Oppression didn't begin or end with the Taliban, and we feminists know that.

Well, that's a heck of a reaction to get after essentially saying Lesley was right about Hymowitz. You've all brought up some interesting points, unfortunately I feel compelled to answer some (well, most) of them.
Starting with the easy one, Hymowitz does mention the fifteen (not fourteen) girls in Saudi Arabia in a piece here. Specifically, "And in Saudi Arabia, education can be harmful to female health. Last spring in Mecca, members of the mutaween, the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue, pushed fleeing students back into their burning school because they were not properly covered in abaya. Fifteen girls died." I'm not going to claim her article has any merit, I just wanted to show you all that she has indeed addressed the issue at some point.
Ampersand:
"Among the feminists who opposed the invasion of Afghanistan, as it was undertaken in the real world, were the women who comprise RAWA - an organization comprised of Afghan women who were literally risking execution to fight the Taliban back when Kay Hymowitz was attempting to prove that Sesame Street doesn't much affect how well kids read. (For all that Hymowitz criticizes feminists for having "astonishingly trivial" concerns, she doesn't subject her own work to the same criteria).
Chad, maybe the folks at RAWA are, as you say, unable to think of sacrificing anyone but themselves (a shortcoming that the draft-dodgers and chickenhawks currently in the White House currently don't share). I think, however, that RAWA women are enourmously better-informed and smarter about Afghani affairs than you or Hymowitz, and concluded that the invasion of Afghanistan, as conducted by the US, was unlikely to bring about the substantial long-term changes needed by the women of Afghanistan."
I think RAWA provides a very vital voice in the process that is the rebuilding of Afghanistan. But it's important to remember that RAWA is (and for all I know always has been) among other things an inherently anti-American organization. And that's not saying that their opinion on the United States is not without merit. On the other hand, as well-organized and vocal as they are, they are not the only viewpoint of Afghani women -- or for all we know, the majority of Afgani women. It's not hard to find cautious opinions of hope expressed by Afghani women in the days where we were completely focused on Afghanistan. From what I've read of the things released by RAWA, I cannot easily see that if the liberation of Afghanistan -- tentative as it is at this point -- were led by someone else, they would necessarily object out of hand. Unless of course they had a reason to be upset with that country as well, which given the hypotheticalness (is that a word?) of this scenario, is fully possible.
Regarding draft-dodgers and chickenhawks, I only really see draft-dodging as a problem. People that complain about others who would send forces into battle without themselves having military experience are barking up the wrong tree, I think. It would seem that the people that would complain about such things either wish for all of our civilian leaders to have some modicum of military experience or (even worse) would rather there not be civilian control of the military. I'm sorry, but I'm for neither.
"It's not that they opposed all sacrifice; it's that they opposed pointless sacrifice, sacrifice that won't do enough to create substantial change."
We may have to just agree to disagree here. I think that even if Afghanistan had bloomed into a fairy-tale land overnight, and that it was guaranteed that this was what was going to happen, RAWA would have been against it because it was led by the US. Again, I'm not not familiar with everything RAWA has ever written regarding their opinion of the US, but in what I have read along these lines I have never seen them say anything nice about America. And again, I'll mention that this anti-Americanism is not without (at least some) merit.
"Given how things look in Afghanistan today, I'm not at all convinced that RAWA was mistaken. The US did depose the Taliban's leadership, which is wonderful. But we did it by empowering some of the worse, most misogynistic "warlords" - people who burn down women's schools, and people who the US is still arming today. There was, to be sure, some improvement for women in Kabul, and that's something to celebrate. But in Afghanistan as a whole, George Bush's invasion has not been a solution - because it so utterly lacked any real commitment to helping the women of Afghanistan, or any desire to follow through on the brief invasion with a commitment to improving the nation over the long term."
None of this is news to me (which may be news to you). I have to tell you, though, your opinions leave me confused. Either you do want us to remove of the oppressive rulers by force, or you don't. By advocating the removal of the warlords, you effectively scuttle your own arguments regarding RAWA's opposition to our removal of the Taliban.
"Here's a newsflash for you: Schools for girls are still being burned down. Women are still covering themselves with burquas out of fear of being beaten (or worse) if they don't. Women are still afraid to particpate in public life for fear of violent retaliation."
Again, this is not news to me. I don't know who told anyone that Afghanistan was going to wake up and shake off all of its oppressive bonds overnight. Everything I remember reading on the subject said that it was going to take time and be a long process. Looking past your complaint, what would you have us do differently? Keep replacing the government in Afghanistan until we get one that we feel mirrors American mores and concerns? Open cultural redoctrination camps?
"The utter conviction of right-wingers that the invasion of Afghanistan solved all women's problems in Afghanistan shows how utterly shallow right-wingers are; and how little they've ever given a shit about women in the middle east. All they want is to say "see, our war solved the problems, that proves the democrats/liberals/feminists were wrong." If any of them pulled their head out of their ass for a precious two seconds and learned about what's actually going on in Afghanistan today, they could find out that things aren't that simple; and that the women of RAWA weren't idiots deserving only to be condesended to (or ignored), but in fact had a far better assessment of women's needs in Afghanistan than think-tank Republicans in Washington, DC did. But if they did that, they might have to admit that in fact war isn't a cure-all, and sending in the Air Force to do bombing runs while arming and empowering some of the worse, most misogynistic, violent warlords in the world isn't a good way to free women. And we all know Republicans will never admit that."
Okay, fine. Show me where the Republicans have said this. I can show you examples of where they say that the reconstruction isn't going fast enough, or that more security is needed. I can find no one claiming that we're done there. Do I like the fact that we're empowering the warlords you mention? Absolutely not, but I suspect I know why we do it. Tell me, is it better to destabilize a region by removing its ruler and imposing a ruler of your choice by force or by convincing him that he should be our friend and attempt to affect changes that way? Is the way of persuasion, not abject killing, not what the liberals have been trying to teach for the last several decades? Did it change? Where was the memo? In this paragraph, as in the other I previously addressed, you effectively say that RAWA was right, we shouldn't have removed the Taliban but we should do something about the warlords other than attempt to convince or coerce them into working within the framework for a better Afghanistan. Which is it? You don't get it both ways.
"Here's another newsflash: two years from now, Republicans will care just as much about women in the middle east as they cared three years ago: not at all. Ms. Hymowitz will go on to her next great cause and return to never, ever writing about the problems of women abroad - just as she did before 9/11. But three years from now (and ten years from now and twenty years from now), feminists will still be concerned about what's going on in Afghanistan - because our concern isn't just a partisan political ploy, or a flash in the pan in response to new political events. It's genuine concern. Maybe someday Ms. Hymowitz and her fans will learn to tell the difference, but I doubt it."
That very well may be, but if feminists cannot decide that an opportunity, any opportunity, is worth seizing to make women's lives better because they happen to disagree with the people that provide them with the opportunity, then they will not do women anywhere any service whatsoever.
Lesley:
"It's what Ampersand said, Chad. It's not that feminists object to making sacrifices. It's a question of what sacrifices and if the sacrifices are worth it. With respect to Afghanistan, it was never our goal to oust the Taliban when we started bombing. We were trying to convince them to give up Al Qaeda. Had they done that, we'd have stopped bombing and left them in power."
Refresh my memory. How many times, exactly, has the US ever started a war exclusively on behalf of an oppressed people? I can think of one, and that was the war we had with ourselves. Oppression, rightly or wrongly, is not a suitable enough reason to go to war in the minds of most governments. Hell, all governments for that matter. I suspect that were we to decide to follow a policy of liberating oppressed people exclusively because they were oppressed the howls from the international community would be incessant. I'm sorry about that. Welcome to the real world.
"Nor has their ouster suddenly made life wonderful for Afghan women. If our true concern is the lives of the Afghans, we need to be doing more now, because the warlords aren't peace- and democracy-loving kinds of guys. They are brutal and oppressive in their own right. The country is in chaos, and it was that chaos that allowed the Taliban to come to power in the first place."
Again, our government's true concern was never the lives of the Afghanis. And I think you're right in that we should also remove the warlords. But keep in mind, removing the warlords will not instantly solve Afghanistan's problems overnight, and in fact would probably only exacerbate the plight of the Afghanis in the areas the warlords control.
"When it comes to Iraq, be you for or against the possible war, we are not planning to attack to liberate the Iraqis. I'm sorry, but we're just not. Even the government isn't really saying that is the primary reason. The government says we're attacking because Saddam has WMDs that he may either use against us or sell to terrorists to use against us. If that were not the case, we wouldn't be considering an attack. Let's at least be honest with ourselves that we are not considering attacking to free the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator. It sounds very nice, but it's simply not true."
You're right, we're not. And as I pointed out earlier, we never have. And neither has anyone else. Typically wars start for a wide range of reasons. This one is no different, and it certainly does not mean I should be against it simply because we don't have liberation of the people as our primary cause. We didn't enter WWI because of the French or Russians, we didn't enter WWII because of the Jews, we didn't enter the Korean War because of the plight of the Koreans themselves.
"And if we are really going to go around attacking countries because they have brutal dictators who oppress their people, there's a long list of countries we should be attacking. Why are sanctions good enough for the likes of the brutal and oppressive Robert Mugabe, but not for Saddam Hussein? Because we perceive no threat to ourselves from Mugabe. I don't think anti-war feminists would object to us freezing Saddam Hussein's assets as we are doing with Mugabe."
And again, we don't do this (attack countries because they have brutal dictators) and we never have. And I can add many more to that list that I would love to see go.
"There is also concern about what happens in Iraq if we are successful in ousting Saddam. Do we simply leave the country in chaos a la Afghanistan? What are the after-effects of that for the Iraqis? Realistically, doesn't that simply leave the door open for another brutal dictator to arise? One of the things I have always thought Colin Powell and others were right on the money about was we have to have a plan for afterwards. If we don't, I think what we are considering is highly irresponsible. Not only is it bad for the Iraqis, but if there are, indeed, WMDs in Iraq, a chaotic situation makes it that much easier for them to fall into the wrong hands. Look what happened with Soviet nukes after the fall of the Soviet Union. Except that you can't look, because so many of them have gone missing and probably wound up in unfriendly hands. That is the precise opposite of what we say we are trying to accomplish."
Yes, you're right and I certainly would hope that we don't leave the country in chaos.
The administration loves to go around and cite examples of the Marshall Plan to show that we have the experience and know-how to liberate countries and rebuild them out of a horrible situation. The problem is that all of the major rebuilding efforts that we can show were all put in place by Democrats, not Republicans. The one spectacular failure in rebuilding that the Democrats had, after the first World War, probably had more to do with European intransigence towards Germany than anything else.
I would prefer that a Democratic president be in office before we undertook any war and rebuilding effort. But we had eight years where Clinton either did not seize the initiative regarding Iraq or felt that he could not. Even though I really do not like the prospect of the Republicans being in charge of rebuilding either Iraq or Afghanistan, I cannot come to the conclusion that for this reason alone, neither should be or should have been prosecuted. In the meantime, I will continue to inform my lawmakers that while I think what's being done in Afghanistan is a start, they should not lose sight of it. And I will continue to vote Democrat, as I have done for the last ten years.

Chad - I know we don't go to war to liberate peoples. It just seems odd to me that since we're not going to war for those reasons and find other ways to "encourage" other countries not to oppress their peoples, that anti-war feminists are criticized for not wanting to liberate people because they are against the war. If we accept that in general there are other methods to encourage countries to become less oppressive and more democratic, why suddenly do some people insist that to be truly in favor of liberating peoples, one must be pro-war?

Why would anti-feminists back up their diatribes against feminism with facts? That would take all of the fun out of it for them. Anti-feminists can't rant with smug, self-righteous glee if the facts kick them in the shins. Leslie, remember when Jerry Falwell said this shortly after the terrorist attacks? "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America--I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen."'

He and Hymowitz should read this:

"Falwell Should Have Listened to the Feminists" by Robert Scheer for the Los Angeles Times (September 25, 2001).

Scheer wrote: "Well, it's the Feminist Majority, more than any other organization in the U.S., that sounded the alarm that the Taliban's suppression of freedom, led by its harsh treatment of women, posed "a threat to humanity" that extended beyond the borders of Afghanistan and that "the Taliban and [Osama] bin Laden are interdependent and inextricable.""

Hymowitz must also have missed "Terror's first victims" by Janelle Brown for Salon in 2001.

Yeah, it's so clear that feminists have ignored women in Muslim countries so that they could have the freedom to bash men. Just ask any anti-feminist. :)

"...that so-called gender feminists believe that men are the cause of all things evil and women the source of all things good. I'd like to see one quote to back this up."

"These Afghan women proved what women prove again and again -- that because our interests are not primarily focused on gaining and maintaining power, we are in the profound position of being able to create peace and insure a humane, civil society." -- Eve Ensler, "Afghanistan is Everywhere, Report from the Afghan Women's Summit", Dec. 6, 2001.

That quote does not back up the notion that men are the cause of all things evil and women the source of all things good. The quote was taken out of context. Here is the paragraph in which it appears:

"These Afghan women proved what women prove again and again--that because our interests are not primarily focused on gaining and maintaining power, we are in the profound position of being able to create peace and insure a humane, civil society.  Because women have children, because we are connected to the earth, we have the ability to conceive of and insure the future.  These Afghan women suffered the worst atrocities.  Every human right was denied to them--jobs, education, personal freedom, medical care.  They have been violated in every way.  They have lived in the deepest poverty and deprivation.  And yet "defense" was mentioned nowhere in their document, building weapons or instruments for retaliation was not called for in any category.  Instead, they wanted education, health care, and the protection of refugees, culture, and human rights."

Eisler stated that women have a unique point of view in part due to the fact that we have the ability to conceive and bear children. The opposite of that is not that men destroy everything. That is a logic fallacy. To my knowledge, wanting education, health care, and the protection of refugees, culture, and human rights is not an exclusively female domain. There are plenty of men who have recently protested war who do not call for building weapons or instruments for retaliation.

Eisler's speech is here. Nowhere in her speech does she even insinuate that men are the cause of all things evil.

Another school girl killed by burning, for accusing a man of rape.

BHOPAL, India (Reuters) - A lower caste teenager was set ablaze and burned to death on Wednesday by the angry upper-caste father of the man she accused of raping her, police in India's central state of Madhya Pradesh said.
The man forced his way into the home of the 16-year-old Dalit, or lower caste, girl when her parents were away in their fields, poured kerosene on her and set it alight, a police official said.

The man was enraged, the official said, because she had filed a complaint against his son with police in the village of Kachnondha, 290 miles from Bhopal, the state capital.

http://news1.iwon.com/world/article/id/308918|world|03-12-2003::08:10|reuters.html