« Cultural Economics | Main | Pelosi as Presidential Stand-In »
April 04, 2007
Opportunistic Feminists
Pelosi's donning of culturally appropriate apparel for a mosque visit is being painted as anti-feminist. This leads Matt to wonder whether "any actual examples of Reynolds taking a feminist stance on anything for any reason other than to find a pretext for attacking liberals?" Yes. Reynolds, along with so many others on the right, takes feminist stances to attack Islam.
Indeed, there's little as repellent as the right's opportunistic appropriation of feminism in support of foreign aggression. Post-9/11, the Taliban's misogyny became a high profile concern among Republicans, head scarves and and burkas became instantly offensive to the very movement that tended to lament bikinis and immodest adolescent fashions, and, in general, every example of Islamic sexism became another example in the brief against the East, even as these very same folks were hinting that Nancy Pelosi is a shrew and calling Hillary Clinton a bitch. And I'm rather sure that if you looked into it, the rightwing blogosphere has spent a lot more time attacking Pelosi's headscarf for its anti-feminist implications than lauding the historic elevation of a woman to Speaker of the House.
April 4, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
i laud nancy pelosi for taking this trip...
and what could be more appropriate than wearing a headscarf under those circumstances?
...it certainly appears that she is conducting herself in a dignified and respectful way.....
being respectful of the customs of others is a wonderful place to begin.
..and i think what she said a few days ago was very heartening and eloquent...to paraphrase...
"we dont come with any illusions, but with a great deal of hope."
.....hurray for you, nancy!!!
Posted by: jacqueline | Apr 4, 2007 3:36:26 PM
Actually, I think what's being underlined here is that you don't see Republican women leaders donning respectful headgear... because there aren't many Republican female leaders. Rice has donned headgear when needed, as has Laura Bush... as one, naturally, would have to in protocol situations... but who else do they have? Which is to say, yes, this is about the GOP's problem with women... but the problem is more twisted than it appears at first blush - they want to appeal to women... but they can't resist trying to bring down powerful women on the other side for being women. They are concerned about mistreatment of women in Muslim culture... but can't acknwledge that the changes required to free women are so fundamental that they'd have to admit that women are equal to men in all ways to get there. And so you get teasing Pelosi for headgear that any woman in power would wear to be respectful in that situation, and Laura Bush mouthing platitudes about freeing Afghani women from the burqa, only to see that, in the years since, such garments have retained almost every bit of the hold they have over their culture. It's the worst of all worlds... bringing up issues that matter to women only to let them languish, and trying to be the "party of women" while systematically denigrating other women for being successful. Nice work. And they wonder why Democrats have the wind at their backs. Here's a suggestion: Ask a woman.
Posted by: weboy | Apr 4, 2007 3:49:28 PM
another interesting post, weboy.
here are some related thoughts i would like to share.
a woman should have the absolute right of free choice in the decision of how to dress ... but i personally refrain from making any value judgements about wearing a burkah or headscarf...
after all, the burkah and headscarf are a lot more than fashion statements, which is the heartbreaking disease of our culture for women.
...in fact, in some ways, the rules of modesty and matrimony in more orthodox religious traditions offer some legitimate considerations for why some women continue to their adherence as a way of life.
and in some ways, i find the reasons far more meaningful and substantive than what we see in our culture.
....our culture for women,though we see it as being very "free" by comparison, seems very oppressive and punishing to me.
in some ways, even worse.
...the mutilations, risk and pain of breast implants,plastic surgeries, liposuctions, botox injections, eating disorders that begin in elementary school, decades of hair coloring with unhealthy dyes, toxic makeup applied day after day for decades, chemicals for hairstraightening and curling, body waxing, the permanent dying of eyelashes, paychecks spent on cosmetics and age-defying promises, exquisitely high stilettos that wreak havoc over the years on a woman's whole skeletal structure, seems anything but liberating.
...the investment in time, energy, money and deep psychological dissatisfaction in pursuit of unattainable ideals is sickly pervasive and heartbreakingly damaging in this culture, and few women escape at least a part of it.
...our culture exacts a heartbreaking and cruel price on women in terms of what is required to be "beautiful".
....when one reads about some of the religious traditions of modesty, restraint and those laws pertaining to marriage...some of it makes more sense than we presently are seeing in our culture.
......just roam around the cosmetic department of nordstrom and look at the consumers....burkahs start to make more sense.
look at what goes into making a woman look beautiful in our society after the age of twenty-five,(with good genes)and imagine the price exacted on that over a lifetime.
...as women live longer, the inexorable fear of looking older and less beautiful starts earlier and last longer.
it is not good.
there has been little progress since venetial times when women colored their hair red with dog-urine and poisoned themselves with toxic powders to get lovely skin and strangulated themselves in corsets.
...at least, if a woman is somewhat covered, it leaves time to explore the inner beauty of the soul and not just the body.
.....again, this is not a discussion of a woman's right to make these choices..just pointing out aspects of "women's freedom" in our society.
Posted by: jacqueline | Apr 4, 2007 4:50:27 PM
see weboy...all of that was because of your suggestion to "ask a woman".....
Posted by: jacqueline | Apr 4, 2007 4:53:03 PM
Rice has donned headgear when needed, as has Laura Bush... as one, naturally, would have to in protocol situations...
True, but they aren't of the party that whines and complains so much about 'Wimmins Rights', either. It seems so much more hypcritical for Nancy than Condi.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 4, 2007 4:55:37 PM
The piece of apparel is not the problem, it may be the issue but is not actually the problem. If a woman wants to wear a burqa because she feels that she is closer to her faith when she is doing so, then that is appropriate for her. Pelosi puts on a headscarf to show respect of a culture. She is not being denied anything by putting it on, she is gaining something. In more conservative Christian churches and Jewish synagogues women cover their hair to show respect, men wear specific garments as well. If I went to one of these institutions then I would wear the culturally appropriate garments. I would resist being made to wear them on the public street or at work, I would chose clothes appropriate to those venues. It is when garment choice is mandated for inappropriate reasons that we have a problem. I will not let the garment police make inappropriate clothing choices for me and the GOP is hardly an organization that I respect for its garment choices.
Posted by: Hawise | Apr 4, 2007 5:12:47 PM
Indeed. People like Reynolds and Michael Goldfarb have removed any doubt that they're foaming bigots. That something as innocuous as a headscarf would so enrage the right is really very revealing.
Posted by: moo-cow | Apr 4, 2007 5:18:51 PM
Fred, Ms. Rice and Ms. Bush are both self-identified feminists.
Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 4, 2007 5:19:22 PM
Actually Fred since Women's rights is about being able to choose for ourselves then I believe Nancy chooses to be respectful and wear a stylish headscarf. Laura and Condi appear to only do it for the protocol reason which seems a little hypocritical in relation to their party's stance.
Posted by: Hawise | Apr 4, 2007 5:23:03 PM
Indeed, there's little as repellent as the right's opportunistic appropriation of feminism in support of foreign aggression.
Oh, I dunno. These are the same folks who, as soon as the phrase "affirmative action" was coined, suddenly discovered the horrors of preferential treatment. And they're only following the example of their spiritual ancestors, who decades earlier suddenly fell in love with the "Right to Work" after folks like John L. Lewis and Walter Reuther started getting uppity.
Posted by: sglover | Apr 4, 2007 5:24:17 PM
forgive me for interrupting your drunken rant, but where has Reynolds ever lamented bikinis and immodest adolescent fashions?
Posted by: Chris | Apr 4, 2007 5:26:03 PM
"the rules of modesty and matrimony in more orthodox religious traditions offer some legitimate considerations for why some women continue to their adherence as a way of life."
You mean the honor killings, forced clitorisectomies, and stonings for adultery?
Posted by: FoolsMate | Apr 4, 2007 5:31:49 PM
Give unto Roman....
Posted by: George | Apr 4, 2007 5:40:52 PM
well, jacqueline, I asked... :)
Overall, I think we agree... but I think it's also worth noting that in these dress issues is also the question of women enforcing rules for other women at the behest of men - it's the argument that points out that female circumcision, which is what men want to have happen, is performed by women on other women. Similarly, the pressure to cover up in Muslim culture is in no small part the social pressure women put on each other to conform and their shunning can be more powerful than the power of men at keeping one another in line. If I thought this was only about women having the "freedom to choose" to cover themselves, we'd be having a different discussion; but the use of burqas and other garments cannot I think be considered freely chosen in some cultures, like Afghanistan. I'm more persuaded in the more secular countries that some of it is chosen (and I think that's also true for a lot of American and European Muslim women). It's certainly a complex topic, for all the things you point out.
Fred, I'm less concerned with who's "hypocritical" for choosing to wear a headscarf than the double sidedness of the discussion - if Mrs. Bush and Miss Rice need to wear the covering for official functions, why is Mrs. Pelosi's choice to wear it somehow evaluated on a different standard? As a US government official, I expect the choice, to some measure, is really not hers. Even if it is, that she chooses to respect another culture in the same way other women do in their official capacities seems hard to turn into the issue that conservatives want it to be; and as I said, the net result is to remind women - who do see Pelosi as a groundbreaking figure - that conservatives will go after a successful woman for anything using any dubious argument at hand. At the very least that seems to just make things worse for the prospect of winning women's votes, and thus, something of a mistake.
Posted by: weboy | Apr 4, 2007 5:41:34 PM
forgive me for interrupting your drunken rant,
What the poop are you talking about? To whom is this idiotic statement directed?
In a similar vein, since I've never heard of anyone agitating for "Wimmin's" rights, Fred's point is entirely unclear to me.
Posted by: Stephen | Apr 4, 2007 5:44:42 PM
Fred, Ms. Rice and Ms. Bush are both self-identified feminists.
Goes to show you what a stupid term "feminist" really is. By your reasoning they are all of one cloth. Can you imagine laura and Marcotte going to the Baghdad market together?
Mrs. Bush: Amanda, would you like to don this scarf and go with me to the market?
Marcotte: Go fuck yourself you self-serving, sellout, house-N****r. The patriarchy will not force me to wear their symbol of servitude. I will fuck day in and day out without a scarf and you will know it you jealous motherfuckers!
Mrs. Bush: So that's a 'no'?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 4, 2007 5:47:18 PM
no foolsmate, those were not the rules i was referring to...
i find all mutilations and harm that comes to a woman to be ghastly, in this culture and in all cultures.
on the basis of my lengthy post talking about the mutilations that occur for women even in this culture, i cant imagine why you would have directed that comment to me.
....i do think that there are traditions valuing modesty in dressing, married men touching other women after marriage, rules of mikvot and the avoidance of other temptations within the framework of matrimony in orthodox religions that help to honor, protect and create an awareness of the sanctity of a woman and of matrimony.
...there are some traditions that preserve a sense of holiness and awe in marriage that have been discarded in this culture.
....i think it is worth examining some of those traditions and customs, as some were and are intended to serve the purpose of strengthening the bonds in a marriage.
Posted by: jacqueline | Apr 4, 2007 6:00:57 PM
We must colonise the Palestinian arabs until they accept gay marriage.
Posted by: otto | Apr 4, 2007 6:33:35 PM
"i find all mutilations and harm that comes to a woman to be ghastly, in this culture and in all cultures."
I agree wholeheartedly that preserving and strengthening the institution of marriage is worthwhile, as long as the traditions and customs you mention are observed without coercion. Your statement above implies a moral equivalence -- I can't believe it was intentional, but there it is, perhaps you can clarify that -- between fantasied "mutilations" of women in the USA and literal mutilations occurring in many nations observing sharia law. Perhaps you are unaware that plastic surgery, botox, liposuction and breast implants in the USA are elective procedures undertaken freely. I have a daughter and I am well aware of the very real peer and gender assigning pressures that exist here...but girls and women here always have a choice to chart their own path.
It is an outrage to compare on any level the societal pressures on women in the West with the plight of women living under Islamic law.
Posted by: FoolsMate | Apr 4, 2007 6:50:42 PM
FoolsMate, if you would ask women in places where genital mutilation occurs, they would tell you that they do it voluntarily, because it is the right thing to do.
Is the runaway in LA who turned to porn films in order to eat getting implants "freely?" What about the women who do that and get facelifts and the like in order to please their husbands? Are they all choosing "freely" to conform to this society's standards in order to keep their husbands?
jacqueline is quite right about the mutilations that occur in this society, and she is able to recognize them without diminishing what happens to women in other socities. It's not a zero-sum game.
I also need to point out that Sharia law doesn't call for genital mutilation, at least not originally. It's a holdover practice in cultures that converted to Islam. It doesn't make it right, but let's not cast blame where it doesn't belong.
Posted by: Stephen | Apr 4, 2007 7:21:34 PM
Stephen,
Yes, I believe that women that have breast implants and receive face lifts to please their husbands are acting freely. Can you cite even one specific example where a woman was forced to undergo such a procedure?
Can you explain to me how infants and girls age 4-8 consent to genital mutilation? Because those are the most common ages for it to occur. I don't care what the women there say, that doesn't make it right and in my eyes is a basic human rights issue. Thank you for pointing out the holdover practice nature of genital mutilation, which is correct. I can also point out that Muslims that practice this abhorrent ritual justify it with the words of Mohamed in the Koran, who indicates that it is permitted.
This is a description of the procedure excerpted from a human rights organization web page:
"Most times this procedure is done with out the care of medically trained people, due to poverty and lack of medical facilities. The use of anesthesia is rare. The girl is held down by older women to prevent the girl from moving around. The instruments used by the mid-wife will vary and could include any of the following items; broken glass, a tin lid, razor blades, knives, scissors or any other sharp object. These items usually are not sterilized before or after usage. Once the genital area for removal is gone, the child is stitched up and her legs are bound for up to 40 days.
This procedure can cause various side effects on the girls which can include death. Some of the results of this procedure are serious infections, HIV, abscesses and small benign tumors, hemorrhages, shock, clitoral cysts. The long term effects may also include kidney stones, sterility, sexual dysfunction, depression, various urinary tract infections, various gynecological and obstetric problems.
In order to have sexual intercourse the women have to be opened up in some fashion and in some cases cutting is necessary. After child birth some women are re-infibulated to make them (tight) for their husbands."
Posted by: FoolsMate | Apr 4, 2007 8:14:53 PM
The right also failed to mention the progressive nature of a handful of Middle Eastern nations.
To my understanding, Kuwait and Jordan have a higher percentage of female physicians than the United States.
Posted by: Thomas | Apr 4, 2007 8:32:58 PM
I don't care what the women there say, that doesn't make it right and in my eyes is a basic human rights issue.
Nor do I care what you say about the supposed "free choice" that all women who undergo cosmetic surgery have in this country.
You are acting as if I don't think genital mutilation is a terrible thing. Of course I do. But neither do I then assume that in places where it does not occur women are safe from practices similar to it in spirit, if not in physical effect.
Posted by: Stephen | Apr 4, 2007 8:41:10 PM
Stephen said: "Nor do I care what you say about the supposed "free choice" that all women who undergo cosmetic surgery have in this country."
Stephen,
Your failure to recognize basic facts about the elective nature of cosmetic surgery in the U.S indicates willful ignorance. I'm awaiting your specific example of a woman who forcibly and without informed consent underwent plastic surgery, botox, received breast implants etc. If you do find an example, it will be in the criminal case law, because the authorities prosecuted the perpetrators, but then you will have proven my point.
Posted by: FoolsMate | Apr 4, 2007 8:57:56 PM
foolsmate....
there are many different kinds of coercion that women experience in all societies, including this one.
...perhaps there is not a moral equivalence, but there is an equivalence in the pain, risk and suffering that women endure in our society to feel a sense of self-worth in this culture.
....women, and sadly, younger and younger women risk their lives with bulimia and anorexia, breast implants that prevent proper mammograms, diets
that cause colitis, crohn's disease and far worse, weight loss schemes that destroy their metabolism and immune system, hair-dyes that are carcinogenic...and the list could continue endlessly, as we all know.
....and yes, the pervasive pressures on a young woman in this society to be thin and beautiful result in self-loathing, the impairment and destruction of their health and the quality of their life, and it is most definitely a kind of coercion.
...and no, in response to what you wrote, i do not believe that young and impressionable girls in this society feel they have a choice to chart their own path. it is the exceedingly rare teen-age girl who is overweight and not attractive by conventional standards who can feel unpressured and good about herself in this society.
....not with the pervasive, insidious messages denigrating their self-worth screaming from every screen and magazine stand.
....i am sorry to say that there are plenty of women, young ones particularly, who would gladly sacrifice their health, energy and quality of life to be thinner and more beautiful.
...i would say that amounts to some equivalence.
perhaps it is not imposed by the state, but the result is not very much better, especially for young women.
Posted by: jacqueline | Apr 4, 2007 9:07:36 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
