Excellent article, written by a female, which shows both the relevance of feminism for the Islamic world, and why the movement has been so reluctant to engage that prospect (The quote below comes from the end of the article):

________________________________________-

http://www.city-journal.org/ht..._1_why_feminism.html


"That this combination of sentimental victimhood, postcolonial relativism, and utopian overreaching has caused feminism to suffer so profound a loss of moral and political imagination that it cannot speak against the brutalization of Islamic women is an incalculable loss to women and to men. The great contribution of Western feminism was to expand the definition of human dignity and freedom. It insisted that all human beings were worthy of liberty. Feminists now have the opportunity to make that claim on behalf of women who in their oppression have not so much as imagined that its promise could include them, too. At its best, feminism has stood for a rich idea of personal choice in shaping a meaningful life, one that respects not only the woman who wants to crash through glass ceilings but also the one who wants to stay home with her children and bake cookies or to wear a veil and fast on Ramadan. Why shouldn�t feminists want to shout out their own profound discovery for the world to hear?

Perhaps, finally, because to do so would be to acknowledge the freedom they themselves enjoy, thanks to Western ideals and institutions. Not only would such an admission force them to give up their own simmering resentments; it would be bad for business. The truth is that the free institutions�an independent judiciary, a free press, open elections�that protect the rights of women are the same ones that protect the rights of men. The separation of church and state that would allow women to escape the burqa would also free men from having their hands amputated for theft. The education system that would teach girls to read would also empower millions of illiterate boys. The capitalist economies that bring clean water, cheap clothes, and washing machines that change the lives of women are the same ones that lead to healthier, freer men. In other words, to address the problems of Muslim women honestly, feminists would have to recognize that free men and women need the same things�and that those are things that they themselves already have. And recognizing that would mean an end to feminism as we know it.

There are signs that, outside the academy, middlebrow literary circles, and the United Nations, feminism has indeed met its Waterloo. Most Americans seem to realize that September 11 turned self-indulgent sentimental illusions, including those about the sexes, into an unaffordable luxury. Consider, for instance, women�s attitudes toward war, a topic on which politicians have learned to take for granted a gender gap. But according to the Pew Research Center, in January 2002, 57 percent of women versus 46 percent of men cited national security as the country�s top priority. There has been a �seismic gender shift on matters of war,� according to pollster Kellyanne Conway. In 1991, 45 percent of U.S. women supported the use of ground troops in the Gulf War, a substantially smaller number than the 67 percent of men. But as of November, a CNN survey found women were more likely than men to support the use of ground troops against Iraq, 58 percent to 56 percent. The numbers for younger women were especially dramatic. Sixty-five percent of women between 18 and 49 support ground troops, as opposed to 48 percent of women 50 and over. Women are also changing their attitudes toward military spending: before September 11, only 24 percent of women supported increased funds; after the attacks, that number climbed to 47 percent. An evolutionary psychologist might speculate that, if females tend to be less aggressively territorial than males, there�s little to compare to the ferocity of the lioness when she believes her young are threatened.

Even among some who consider themselves feminists, there is some grudging recognition that Western, and specifically American, men are sometimes a force for the good. The Feminist Majority is sending around urgent messages asking for President Bush to increase American security forces in Afghanistan. The influential left-wing British columnist Polly Toynbee, who just 18 months ago coined the phrase �America the Horrible,� went to Afghanistan to figure out whether the war �was worth it.� Her answer was not what she might have expected. Though she found nine out of ten women still wearing burqas, partly out of fear of lingering fundamentalist hostility, she was convinced their lives had greatly improved. Women say they can go out alone now.

As we sink more deeply into what is likely to be a protracted struggle with radical Islam, American feminists have a moral responsibility to give up their resentments and speak up for women who actually need their support. Feminists have the moral authority to say that their call for the rights of women is a universal demand�that the rights of women are the Rights of Man."

_________________________________________

quote:

In other words, to address the problems of Muslim women honestly, feminists would have to recognize that free men and women need the same things�and that those are things that they themselves already have. And recognizing that would mean an end to feminism as we know it.

I don�t disagree, it�s just surprising to hear someone say it. In my view the principles that should be behind feminism, if feminism is to stand for anything worthy, should be universal. They should apply equally to men as to women, to Muslims as to Christians, to blacks as to whites. One of these principles is surely that all human beings have the same God-given rights. One can see just how far modern feminism has strayed from being a proponent of sound universal principles (graciously supposing this was so) to being little more than a greedy (and in this case) quite bitter and angry hoarder of power. The goals of the institution shift and morph until they become not about the equality of women but their supremacy; in conjunction with a simmering hatred of men, of course. It�s the glue that binds such a prejudice together. And so we view yet another institution or cause falling prey to the temptations of power and prestige and the rot of wandering too far from its founding principles. That�s a human foible not unique to women. But it�s one we all have to watch out for. The Democratic Party and the many satellite victim causes surrounding its seem to all have been severely infected with this malady.

Interesting, and alarming, isn't it? . . . .

Feminists who hate men, and Islamists who hate women.

"One can see just how far modern feminism has strayed from being a proponent of sound universal principles (graciously supposing this was so) to being little more than a greedy (and in this case) quite bitter and angry hoarder of power. The goals of the institution shift and morph until they become not about the equality of women but their supremacy; in conjunction with a simmering hatred of men, of course."

Amen! I couldn't have worded that better myself.

Maybe it started out with the best of intentions but once the left gets a hold of anything it becomes a "hors d'oeuvres" for a whole lot of other political agendas.

My biggest problem is that they want their cake and eat it too. They claim equality but practice supremacy. Then they turn around and expect the man to play his "traditional" roles when required.

What another pile of stench from the liberal trash-can of political motives.

Here�s another category of feminism:

"Female Chauvinist Pigs"
The pornification of feminism
By Rich Lowry

quote:

In her Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture, Levy asks how it is that if feminism won, so many unenlightened, bimbo-loving guys are so happy. She reports from the front lines, traveling with the crew of Girls Gone Wild, which films young women flashing the camera for videos sold on late-night TV. They are eager to perform. "It sounds like a fantasy world dreamed up by teenage boys," she writes. "Any hot girl you see will peel off her bikini top, lift up her skirt � all you have to do is ask."

quote:

This isn�t quite the liberation feminism promised. "Raunch culture is not essentially progressive," Levy writes, "it is essentially commercial. By going to strip clubs and flashing on spring break and ogling our Olympians in Playboy, it�s not as though we are embracing something liberal � this isn�t Free Love. Raunch culture isn�t about opening our minds to the possibilities and mysteries of sexuality. It�s about endlessly reiterating one particular � and particularly commercial � shorthand for sexiness."

Here�s an excerpt of a quite thoughtful Amazon.com review of that book by Levy:

quote:

Finally, Levy tells us that "raunch culture isn't about opening our minds to the possibilities and mysteries of sexuality." But neither is Brownmilleresque feminism, as Levy would have us believe. She writes that "what Brownmiller and her radical sisters really wanted was a total transfiguration of society - politics, business, child-rearing, sex, romance, housework, entertainment, academics." Levy and Brownmiller thus reveal what is, in truth, at the very heart of radical feminism: a will to power. Radical feminism's particular will to power may be clothed in the benign language of "liberation," "justice," and "equal protection" (of which, as a lawyer, I know something about), but make no mistake about it, a tree is known by its fruit. Radical feminism's fruit, ironically, is the very raunch culture that Levy rightly decries. Since she is clearly genuinely concerned about this decay, I suggest that she look far more deeply into it by studying John Paul II's Theology of the Body, along with his epochal encyclicals Evangelium Vitae and Veritatis Splendor, which are highly illuminating for all, regardless of one's religious affiliation. This suggestion may, in a fit of cognitive dissonance resolution, give Levy and others a convenient excuse for dismissing my review entirely, but I'll risk it. It doesn't get any deeper than these works, but don't take my word for it. Study them for yourselves, as all honest truth-seekers must.

"Girls Gone Wild," or "JP II's Theology of the Body . . . "

What to do? Uh, can we get that second one in a video?

Ok Brad . . . . time to break-out the weekend planner!

quote:

"Girls Gone Wild," or "JP II's Theology of the Body . . . "

What to do?

According to what I understand of the philosophy of Camille Paglia, WC, there may be fundamental similarities between the two. In a way, both approaches can be said to giving due respect to the body and holding it in awe, although I have neither been to a strip club nor read JP II�s Theology of Body. I have seen one of the "Girls Gone Wild" videos and many of the males I come across lament, only half jokingly, that such standards were not in place when they went to high school.

This woman�s thinking strikes me as, well, thoughtful. I think that if she is provocative it is because she asks some tough questions, not because she is simply trying to pass off what is little more than a personal-rage-gone-public as something more substantial simply because her blatant provocateuring is controversial. (This is the Michael Moore phenomenon and you�ll see people in public and on the web trying to build respectability for what amounts to little more than rage by saying outlandish things or simply throwing on a couple layers of self-righteous indignation. Couldn�t make this observation if I hadn�t already "been there, done that". Hope I�m still not doing it too much.)

I think many of her theme�s (like Freud�s), although perhaps giving glimpses of some truths, are a bit too "Wagnerian", too big and too bold. Believe it or not, everything in this world is NOT about sex. I take somewhat the opposite view, or at least suggest the possibility for an equally valid reading. Sex can be thought of as the means to get to all this other stuff we do in our lives (reading, skiing, swimming, bicycling, gardening, eating, watching TV, enjoying other aspects of human relationships, whatever). And all this others stuff (even in the case of sex maniacs) takes up at least 90% of our lives. So sex, similar to Rico�s criticism of what causes ice dams to break, is only the Main Event if we say it is so. It�s certainly part of the process but is it the end or a means to an end? It�s, of course, both. You can say the same thing about eating. Or breathing. One might even say that ALL processes exist simply to serve human consciousness. One might also say the consciousness exists at all only as a means to connect to the Divine. Take your pick, I guess.

A Brilliant Reading of Western Culture's Lurid Evolution

quote:

Camille Paglia's impressive study of the development of Western Culture manages to piss off a lot of intellectuals. Feminist scholars detest Paglia's essentialist argument that women are biologically bound to "nature" by their reproductive powers. Leftists detest her support of capitalism (a la Ayn Rand), which she sees as having freed women from bondage to men. Queer theorists disdain her aligning homosexual aestheticism with some of the most tyrannical eras and arguing that gay men's idolatry of things masculine goes "against nature." Traditional conservatives hrrmmph at her trashing of the most sacred Western institutions--including Church and State--as male attempts to repress and extinguish powerful female forces.

Cause and effect. Chicks and chickens come home to roost. Every action produces and equal and opposite reaction. My prediction: a rise in fundamentalism as a reaction, and a very clear line between who is for
Christ and who is all sleazy, tattoed and pierced.

I also foresee more Lazarus generation people rising from those ashes. The fool who persists in his folly becomes wise.

So, when they come into your church with mohawks and purple and green and orange hair and they are confused and seeking answers, try to be nice!

Yes, I am preaching to myself, but if anyone is listening, so be it!

As Katy is fond of saying:

breathe...

Yes, I am preaching to myself, but if anyone is listening, so be it!

Okay.

I�m sympathetic with woman. This man's world is a tough world. It's even tough for men. In many ways men are built for toughness in regards to certain things, and woman are built for toughness in regards to certain other things. Yes, there is a lot of crossover but we should look at the bargain we have made regarding feminism and accept it for what it is�or perhaps modify it. But I think the main component or bargain of feminism is that, despite real differences between the sexes, we will proceed as if there are none. This is, for the most part, rationally based on two significant factors: 1) The principle of equal opportunity, and 2) Despite our innate abilities, particularly in the case of humans, our abilities are very much defined by what we believe we can do.

So, yes, we will find that woman can become fighter pilots, and quite good ones. And we will find that men can be stay-at-home dads, and perhaps quite good ones. And concerning those real-world incidents that pop up that expose this somewhat fanciful bargain that we've made (like an underpowered woman police officer being responsible for restraining 6'7" behemoths), we will just write is off as the price we pay�a price perhaps equal to or less than the price previously paid by woman for being shut out of certain opportunities.

So, gals, welcome to the man's world. Many of you are more than able to handle it�even better than many men. One only need read accounts of who survived the Donner party to know that women aren't weak. But the odd thing seems to be that women, instead of humanizing and softening the harsh male-dominated workplace with their nurturing habits and wise intuition, have simply joined in on the slaughter. They've joined this meat grinder world without changing it much. Perhaps that's just the nature of this capitalist beast. And not that raising children and keeping a home was ever stress-free, but now women too get to partake in those unique stresses of the dog-eat-dog workplace. Again, anyone familiar with the fierce competition amongst females that has existed almost forever will not doubt that females can make it in this other part of the world that was started by and arguably made for men. Humans of both sexes are quite flexible. That is almost the very definition of human and why we are so successful. But one last thing that we need to deny in order to keep this arrangement working is that it is good and natural for women to eat as much raw stress as men traditionally have. And the question is not if they can but if they should have to. Will there be anything left, from either the emotional makeup of men or women, to properly nurture the children? I wonder.

I saw a Star Trek, the Next Generation episode where
a planet had women who were physically larger and dominated the men. I really hated that episode!

We may need a special category for Japanese feminism:

http://leatherspinsters.com/japanese_women.html

http://timeinc.net/asiaweek/ma...519/cover.women.html

http://premium.europe.cnn.com/...519/cover.women.html

http://www.time.com/time/asia/.../koizumi_postal.html

Could these be the new Samurai?

I saw a Star Trek, the Next Generation episode where a planet had women who were physically larger and dominated the men. I really hated that episode!

A couple of those type of PC episodes made me chuckle. But they still usually managed to weave an intriguing story around that stuff, at least in the Next Generation, so you weren't left so much with that "gag me with a spoon" feelin' � something they were almost never able to accomplish in the Voyager series, in my opinion.

Star Trek feminism may have reached its peak in Uhura who was both highly skilled and feminine. Tasha Yar, of the Next Generation, was butched up a bit but I think she and the writers pulled it off because we pretty much forget that she is a female head of security and just accept her as a every bit as kick-ass as her second in command, Worf. And she has her feminine moments as well. And if she was good enough for Worf�

No doubt some future version of Star Trek will have the women safely and snuggly ensconced on the Home planet enjoying the many benefits of a leisure culture while the men do the risky, but boring, work of space mining, the only real work left out in space, the galaxy having become a completely peaceful place since the reign of Queen Hillary XXXIV.

Every idea can get carried away to a ridiculous extreme, and should be. After the ridicule, perhaps balance shall be achieved:

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/62005mc.asp

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/62005c.asp

God is a radical feminist. Hhhmmm....

Every idea can get carried away to a ridiculous extreme, and should be. After the ridicule, perhaps balance shall be achieved:

That�s refrigerator hangin� material, MM. You struck gold again, I think. Wish JB was here to argue for the moderate middle. But that�s an old, unfinished issue.

quote:

+ Supports the universal "right" of women to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand at any stage of pregnancy and for any reason.

+ Opposes welfare reform and the privatization of Social Security

Ouch. But see if you can find the thread that ties those two together. You would think that if one staunchly supports the idea of "choice" then one would support the choice of people to diversify their retirement fund and get a better return. Why in the world would a radical abortion-choicer support the right of people to kill babies (surely an 8-1/2 week old fetus is unambiguously a baby) yet be opposed to having choice regarding something much more inanimate such as money?

The tie that binds and the explanation that joins these seemingly disparate beliefs is:

A) I�m not quite sure
B) Nothing obvious occurs to me
C) I�m still thinking

Okay, then let�s add this element and see if it helps clarify the situation: Supports race- and sex-based preferences in employment and education. You would think that anyone who has been discriminated against would deplore discrimination in any way, shape or form. Now, does that help?

A) I�m still not sure
B) That still doesn�t seem to make any sense at all
C) Could I have one more example?

Okay. Views the United States as a nation where discrimination and exploitation targeting women has been a longstanding tradition.

Oh! Now I get it. All current power disparities are the result of a power imbalance between while males and women (and other minorities). Therefore any existing institution is suspect and must be re-made to conform to the current leftist paradigm. That means that because abortion was once illegal (and thus had nothing to do with saving babies but with oppressing minorities, in this case, women) that this policy needs to be reversed. And because white males used to oppress minorities (including women) via employment and education discrimination, it�s not really discrimination if we engage in discrimination ourselves. It�s simply justice.

Okay, but how do you account for the fact that those white males alive today had nothing to do with discrimination of minorities? Why, then, should they be discriminated against? And if all existing institutions have to be re-made via the leftist lens, then why would they defend Social Security as is (a program devised by white males)?

Good points. I don�t know. So what�s the answer?

I haven�t a clue. I thought perhaps you would know.