(Untitled)
American feminists at fault for Sudanese prosecution of British schoolteacher for naming teddy bear "Mohammad" Of course. It's the *feminists* fault! *Feminists* are the ones driving radical Islam! It's so obvious! Why didn't I realize it before?
Actually, it was a much more personal vendetta against the teacher herself.
Actually, it was a much more personal vendetta against the teacher herself.
The problem also comes when people start generalizing. These muslims want X, so all muslims must want X. Radical Muslims strap bombs to their body and blow people up, so all Muslims must be implicated in this, and so forth. Even in Muslim countries radical muslims are the minority. Even when they managed to take over the government they're still not in the majority (they just have the power, which is scary to us, but scarier to their countrymen and women). Assuming that "they're all alike" gets us in trouble, regardless of who "they" are.
And people don't generalize across the board. Some groups are okay to generalize. Women -- It's okay to pay women less because some women get pregnant and have kids (I've had *liberals* argue this to me recently) and thus can't devote 100% of their effort to their job. Since we can't tell which women will get pregnant or have kids, all women can be financially penalized. Racial and ethnic and religious minorities : african americans, latinos, muslims, etc. Some groups aren't. For some reason the same people who claim that racial profiling is necessary because it's not the swedes attacking us get huffy when one says "Well, most rapists are white males. Should we thus assume that all white males are planning rape until proven differently? Should we check them on occasion to make sure they aren't raping or carrying anything that could be used in rape?" We don't condemn the entire pro-life movement for the actions of a few people who bomb abortion clinics and shoot doctors.
(And I'll say here that the non-Christian-Liberal tendency to lump all Christians together is messed up for the exact same reasons)
And finally (but not least) the problem comes when we get paternalistic about it all. When we decide that we know what's best for other countries and cultures. Forcibly "helping" people causes more problems long term than it solves. This is true when helping individuals (i.e. forced psychiatric treatment outside of "danger to one's self or others" -- the international analog is "attacking neighboring countries" -- then it's not paternalism, but self defense/defense of others) and this is true when helping countries. People and countries ultimately have to solve their problems for themselves. Forced help teaches helplessness and fails to allow people and countries to learn how to care for/govern themselves. When "helping" people and countries against their will their resistance (overt or covert) will drain resources (yours and theirs) and distract from any possible useful learning on their part. Truly helping people change their country from inside (i.e. offering funds and/or useful information, etc to local secular or feminist or whatever groups inside Sudan or elsewhere) can be useful, but trying to forcibly change people or countries from outside doesn't tend to work well at all and often makes things worse. Even when not actively trying to change things, a Paternalistic attitude causes one to underestimate and alienate those who one theoretically wishes to help.
It's this last that keeps many feminists mum on this. Obviously, American feminists are not enamored of a systems that obviously oppress women. But perpetrating a greater wrong of trying to force change via a paternalistic intervention (the way the right would *like* feminists to act) is not the answer.
Reply
Leave a comment