Stanek weekend Q: Is feminism losing to multiculturalism?
The hypocrisy of feminists when it comes to the true war on women in Muslim cultures is on flagrant display.
On a daily basis we hear of atrocities committed against women, or shocking prejudices displayed against women, to utter silence on the Left.
Meanwhile, feminists find ghost sexism in every nook and cranny of the West.
I had chalked their hypocrisy up to abhorrence of Judeo-Christian values to the point of absurdly supporting Islamic values.
But an April 30 article by M. G. Oprea at The Federalist entitled, “Feminism is losing its cage fight with multiculturalism,” points to something much more obvious:
No American bands cancelled concert dates after an Imam in southern Francepreached that women are fundamentally selfish. Nor have there been calls to divest ourselves from Saudi Arabia over the recent sentencing of a woman to 70 lashes over “insulting” her husband on WhatsApp.
There is a disturbing resistance on the Left to criticizing Islamic societies for their treatment of women. In fact, it’s barely up for discussion. This stubborn denial of women’s rights in Islamic societies reveals a cognitive dissonance on the left, where two of their most closely held beliefs come into conflict: feminism and multiculturalism.
The multicultural project, which came out of our universities in the 1950s and ’60s, seeks a world where there is no right or wrong, only different. Believing that all religions and cultures are absolutely equal means reserving judgment. No society is better or worse than the next. Out of fear of seeming critical of other cultures, or worse, seeming to echo the rhetoric of colonialism, the Left falls over itself to avoid even a trace of criticism….
The dedication to the multicultural project clashes most regrettably with feminism. The Left, which everywhere sees gender inequality and a war on women in the West, has a blind spot when it comes to Islam. Whether it’s about pay inequality, nursing in public, or the latest FX series, “Fargo,” there is always somewhere an outcry of sexism in America. Gender inequality, while certainly still existent in America, has become an obsession.
Take the Hobby Lobby decision last year, which exempts some businesses from having to provide certain kinds of contraceptives. It provoked accusations that the ruling was going to send us back to the biblical times of stoning and genital mutilation. But what about Islamic societies, where stoning and genital mutilation still occasionally happens today?…
Two strongly held progressive ideals, multiculturalism and feminism, are in conflict when the topic of women’s rights in Islamic societies comes up. The Left cannot reconcile its need to accept all cultures as equal with its “fierce” defense of gender equality. They have to choose one over the other. Sadly, they have chosen the appearance of pious multiculturalism over the rights, health, and freedom of many Muslim women.
Multiculturalism, it seems, trumps women’s rights.
The hypocrisy is also playing out politically.
The Left’s goddess shrine, Hillary Clinton, has recently come under fire for revelations that the Clinton Foundation took money from Muslim countries that grossly mistreat women.
In answer to my own question, I think it’s obvious feminism has ceded to multiculturalism.
So, do you see this hypocrisy as a growing problem for the the feminist brand?
How would liberalism be impacted were feminists to decide to take on Islam’s treatment of women?
Do you think feminist/Clinton hypocrisy on the true “war on women” will hurt her chances of becoming president?
[HT: Susie]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Women have it really hard in North America too though. A woman can’t even walk back and forth on the same street in America’s rudest city without a bunch of black guys telling her she looks nice or to have a nice evening (or, for all we know, paying them to do it). And The Mindy Project still didn’t do an episode promoting abortion!
Jill, the left doesn’t care about lies or hypocrisy. What drives them is political expediency.
Left, right, whatever – it’s really all the same thing – women get a raw deal in most of the world, often due to religion. No different in the US – there are some areas where women are treated as property and/or expected to be “submissive,” etc.
The Koran, wonder of wonders, was written by men (either exclusively or mostly, I’m not sure) just like the Bible. Multiculturalism or not, there is no questioning that great suffering is inflicted upon many women in islamic cultures.
Koran 4:34 “”Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient.”
[eyeroll]
The Feminist Left has no problem pushing contraception, abortion, and sterilization on women of other cultures in the name of “equality”.
I do think there is somewhat of a disconnect in the US about Islam – seems to me it’s been getting a pass, based on the desire for multiculturalism – or for other reasons where I’d be even more cynical, likely.
“Very few Muslims are radical” – this is true, but it does not take very many to potentially create huge trouble, and my gut feeling is that a blind eye is turned toward more radical people in many mosques, places that are usually quite ‘opaque’ to US authorities, places where more radical sub-organizations can grow unfettered.
Sharia law will be coming to localized areas of the US. This, one would think, would create severe conflicts. For now, the social mood of the US is still fairly “good” or “benign,” but – my opinion – as deflation, resulting from the liquidation of some of the massive debt now in existence, takes effect, the mood will turn decidedly darker, provoking much more strife than we now see.
Feminists have always been concerned first and foremost with protecting their political agenda…not protecting women.
They long turned a blind eye to the antics of Ted Kennedy, space and good taste doesn’t allow me to elaborate, and fell all over themselves to excuse Bill Clinton. Feminists said nothing when the women accusing Bill of sexual abuse and assault were reviled as liars, trailer trash, bimbos, and psychotics. Oh sure, there is likely some truth to their accusations, but that’s beside the point. Paula Jones actually believed feminists would support her! Little did she know. One ardent feminist even told me they never convicted Bill of anything. Unable to contain my laughter I asked if she honestly thought Bill Clinton would ever be convicted of anything? Sorry my friend, but money and power talk.
One would also think Hillary represents everything feminists would find abhorrent. A woman who stays married to a tomcat of a husband so as to have the benefit of his name and power, endures public humiliation time and again, and even enables her husband by silencing the women who accuse him with intimidation and threats. This is a feminist heroine? Seriously, would she be where she is today if her name was Hillary Rodham Schultz?
No this isn’t about feminists ceding to multiculturalism, this is just feminists being feminists. Will this hurt Hillary? Why should it? Feminists have made it plain that the abuse of women is not the issue, its their political agenda.
Mary: They long turned a blind eye to the antics of Ted Kennedy
He was big, pink, hairy and drunk, chasing women around on a beach.
???????
Doug,
LOL.
Clinton actually spoke at length against global prejudice toward women in her “Women in the World” address.
On first blush, “progressivism” sounds great. But it falls apart once critically examined. This is just another example.
All of this makes more sense when you realize the next step deeper in analysis: these are varied manifestations of a communist political point of view. For the communists, it is this simple: the prevailing society is bad, and a revolution is eventual. what should supercede our oppressive cultural hegemony is communism.
They are against any institution that sustains the prevailing culture. They are against Christianity, hence the blind eye turned to these nations and religions where women suffer horribly. They are against the police, who sustain our society by keeping the rule of law in place. They are against the military, who sustain our society against foreign threats.
They are against capitalism which generates the wealth we need to sustain society. They are against the nukelar family, the recognized building block of society.
Now, you can predict what they will hate, and love. And you can see how they can be hypocrites – they have a further political goal.
“Multiculturalism” did not emerge from our universities like Athena out of Zeus’ head; the communists developed their ideas, then figured out how to get their ideas broadcast in society. So, they got positions in the universities.
None of this is any big secret. You can go study at marxists.org
Or Wikipedia – here is how: put your topic in the Wikipedia search bar. If you put in “multiculturalism,” you will find the entry. If you read down the page at “As a philosophy, multiculturalism began…” you will begin to catch the inevitable smell of the communists. There, you find John Dewey, a self-avowed socialist, and a note about “pragmatism.” Pragmatism comes from utilitarianism – what policies or behaviors ought to prevail are those which yields the most good for the most people. This is compelling, but ultimately is diametrically opposed to decisions based on morality: inherent rights.
This is the crux of the abortion issue.
Educated people ought to know this obvious, widely documented history.
But on the liberal side, there is a taboo against pointing this out honestly and frankly – this is a well-crafted taboo to keep everyone off-guard as the communists promote the various pieces of their philosophy surrepticiously.
This taboo is ending – the democratic party is advancing the presidential candidacy of Bernie Sanders. He is listed as “I” – an independent, but he is clearly a socialist. The dem party has already sent me emails about this “democratic socialist” running in the dem party – not that his socialist party is hijacking the dem party apparatus, but favorably as the dem party being able to tolerate a gentle socialism.
so, do not be afraid to consider that I am correct, that communism is behind all of these counter-culture movements – feminism, multiculturalism, etc. They DO NOT add up because they are merely fronts for weakening our prevailing “cultural hegemony,” and moving to the eventual communist revolution.
TheLastDemocrat: If you read down the page at “As a philosophy, multiculturalism began…” you will begin to catch the inevitable smell of the communists. There, you find John Dewey, a self-avowed socialist, and a note about “pragmatism.” Pragmatism comes from utilitarianism – what policies or behaviors ought to prevail are those which yields the most good for the most people.
When there are slow vehicles blocking the fast lane, I often say, with irritation,”This is communism!”
This is compelling, but ultimately is diametrically opposed to decisions based on morality: inherent rights.
While we all have our feelings about morality, rights are not inherent – they are constructs of the mind, status that gets accorded or attributed (often by societies).
When there are slow vehicles blocking the fast lane, I often say, with irritation,”This is communism!”
I must say, I’m probably the only person in the world that doesn’t have that problem! Leave for work a bit earlier, drive the speed limit, don’t tailgate, and enjoy the ride (turn some music on if necessary). You’ll be happier, safer, healthier, and probably live longer.
(and no, I don’t do it. Defensive driving says that you’re better off without all the maniacs on your tail)
“While we all have our feelings about morality, rights are not inherent – they are constructs of the mind, status that gets accorded or attributed (often by societies).”
God created justice. If there are no rights or wrongs, there is no justice to be violated.
If “justice” is merely a socially bound construct, and varies across cultures, then there really is no such thing as justice.
“No justice” is a great concept since it allows us to escape judgment from God.
I have been endowed by my Creator with inalienable rights.
Navi: Leave for work a bit earlier, drive the speed limit, don’t tailgate, and enjoy the ride (turn some music on if necessary). You’ll be happier, safer, healthier, and probably live longer.
You are right, Navi. Yet it’s not always possible – one might be driving across a good portion of the country, and/or one might be a “Type A” personality, at least behind the wheel, and then whaddayagunnado?
TheLastDemocrat: God created justice. If there are no rights or wrongs, there is no justice to be violated.
You have no proof of that.
If “justice” is merely a socially bound construct, and varies across cultures, then there really is no such thing as justice.
Sure there is, basically – it’s what we say should be, what we say is equitable, right. And this covers everything, really – even when we might ascribe it to external sources.
Yes, it varies to some extent in different cultures, but people are very much the same, the world, over, and so laws and “justice” tend to be quite similar.
“No justice” is a great concept since it allows us to escape judgment from God.
It’s only you saying that, though, TLD. Every place has its laws. We tend to legislate against that which we fear. We don’t want to be killed, and we don’t want to have our stuff stolen – so right off the bat those two area get big treatment as far as laws and ‘justice.’