If you think feminists of the Bella Abzug, Gloria Steinem type haven’t been criticizing Muslim mistreatment of women, you haven’t been paying attention. They did it long before it was cool for conservatives to hate Islam, even back in the 1950’s when conservatives were anti Israel and pro Saudi Arabia.

The problem is, they stopped criticizing islam a long time ago.

Nowadays, liberals, including most feminists, essentialize certain characteristics (pigmnent, anatomy, etc.) into irreducible markers of identity that define social being. From this notion springs identity politics.

One important implication of identity politics, and its corollary moral relativism, is that we in the west can’t criticize any other culture for failing to meet our “culture bound” standards.

To progressives, “female genital mutilation, veiling and hijab, purdah, normalized daughter- and wife-beating, arranged (child) marriage, often to first cousins, polygamy, honor murder, the imprisonment, torture, beheading, stoning to death, and hanging of rape victims, suspected prostitutes, and feminist dissidents” are just things that happen in another culture. This way of doing things isn’t wrong, just different.

Liberalism for the liberals, cannibalism for the cannibals.

And that’s what the modern feminist movement is about: choice.

Rusty:

Not really. Read what feminists have written about stay-at-home mothers (hint: they’re “wasting” their time). From an interview with Linda Hirshman (questions in bold):

Are you angry or frustrated with women who stay home with their kids?

I think they’re making a mistake. The most frustrating thing about the whole business is the nonsensical stories that they tell themselves and me about what they think they’re doing. The delusional quality of it is a little weird.

You seem to be saying that a woman who chooses to stay at home with her kids rather than working is harming all women in our society.

Right.

How can that be true?

Because it is: She’s helping to make a zeitgeist in which women are seen as undesirable employees.

So, she’s fulfilling preconceived ideas of women’s limitations?

Right. There’s a law against discriminating, but you can’t get into the head of every employer in America. These women are feeding into the stereotype of women as unreliable employees. …

Are you willing to consider that this dilemma for mothers has to do with the objective fact that it’s hard for women to balance family and work?

That’s because they don’t follow my rules. They don’t take their education seriously, they don’t take their work seriously, and they marry a jerk. If you make those mistakes, okay, or you have a passel of children, if you make those mistakes, then you’re going to be in a very tough situation.

Where’s the room for choice there?

Or what feminists like Ellen Goodman have written about films that don’t portray abortion in a positive light.

Not a whole lot of room for choice, there, either.

The original feminists were extremely feminine and also pro-life. That hard work has been twisted and corrupted by modern-day “feminists” who inexplicably demonize men while trying frantically to make women exactly like men in every aspect (employment, sexual behavior, etc.) or chasing men (a la “Sex in the City”) and who make big deals about things like stay-at-home mothers but don’t give impassioned interviews about burquas (or girls forced to die in a fire rather than flee their burning school sans burqua) and shari’a laws that punish women who paint their fingernails (by removing the offending finger, by the way).

Today’s feminists are shrill, angry women who do not speak for me and – I daresay – would criticize my choices to have more than 1 child, and eventually work from or be a stay-at-home mother. They would also criticize my choice to convert to Catholicism (I ran into a few feminists who swore I was “brainwashed” by my husband…), and my conservatism (like they treat MM, Ann Coulter, Condoleeza Rice).

Try Tammy Bruce, try Camile Pagilia not the sore worn N.O.W. crowd. I am a woman and N.O.W. does NOT represent me. I am not voting for Bill Clinton’s wife. N.O.W. maybe happy with Hillary’s enabling but alot of other people are not.

On January 31st, 2008 at 11:47 am, lgm said:
It’s a deduction, not an assumption. You never quote actual feminists, only what people like Rush say they say.

A deduction? Based on what? I just read back over the posts and did not see a single reference to Rush or any other conservative figure. Besides, I can base my comments on conversations with feminists I have known and not have a link to post for you. I know that there is more to feminism than Gloria Steinem, do you know that there is more to conservatism and “anti-feminism” than Rush?

With all due respect, what feminist thinks women in Saudi Arabia are treated better than women in the US? Let’s have a quote, or even a name.

With all due respect, where did anyone say that feminists think “women in Saudi Arabia are treated better than women in the US”?

I can only deduce that you do not fully read the posts here, but rather place your own pre-conceived notions on the comments and the commenters and respond based on those. And please note, this is not some unfair attack on you because of the liberal views you posted. I disagree with Rusty’s views, but I appreciate that he read what I wrote and his responses were based on things I actually said.

What makes you assume that the people on this site who speak negatively of feminism have never discussed it with a feminist?

It’s a deduction, not an assumption. You never quote actual feminists, only what people like Rush say they say.

My negative opinion of the modern feminist movement as a whole comes directly from my contact with feminists and nowhere else.

With all due respect, what feminist thinks women in Saudi Arabia are treated better than women in the US? Let’s have a quote, or even a name.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801300009

I used “doting on the kids” in a colloquial, friendly way. Didn’t mean for it to be belittling. Sorry at any offense caused.