From the Herald Sun (Australia):
Police are being advised to treat Muslim domestic violence cases differently out of respect for Islamic traditions and habits.
Officers are also being urged to work with Muslim leaders, who will try to keep the families together.
Women’s groups are concerned the politically correct policing could give comfort to wife bashers and keep their victims in a cycle of violence.
The instructions come in a religious diversity handbook given to Victorian police officers that also recommends special treatment for suspects of Aboriginal, Hindu and Buddhist background.
Some police officers have claimed the directives hinder enforcing the law equally.
Police are told: “In incidents such as domestic violence, police need to have an understanding of the traditions, ways of life and habits of Muslims.”
[My emphasis]
Sad to say, but this is the predictable result of a culture in which the kind of identity politics that follow from the institutionalization of multiculturalism as the foundation for a political system essentially forces lawmakers into treating each “Other” on its own delineated terms.
In such circumstances, there is no coherent method of governing that can appeal to a uniform equality under the law—other than the structural “equality” that comes from the premise that it is the right of each identity group to negotiate its compliance with the host country’s pre-existing laws.
Personally, I would be heartened to see feminists in this country surrender their adherence to group-based political activism in order to forestall just these kinds of “culturally-sensitive” measures before they arrive here (to be fair, I know of of some who see the tension between multiculturalism as a political philosophy and equal rights), but sadly, identity politics —even in the US—has so insinuated its way into our political system that for a particular interest group to surrender it now is to surrender enormous political power. And so to do so takes the kind of intellectual courage that is often frustrated by the demands of political pragmatism.
The best we can hope for now is that the inherent flaws of multiculturalism become so obvious to so many people that the separatist philosophy that animates it will be exposed and rejected by a majority of educated people throughout the westernized world.
(h/t Tom Pechinski. See also, Dhimmi Watch)
You omitted the obligatory relativistic America bashing.
So, if I want to beat the crap out of my wife and always get off scot-free–all I’ve got to do is convert?
Or would I, you know, have to look like those people too–and maybe talk funny like them for’ners?
Just who’s deciding who is and isn’t Muslim here?
Hel-lo Irish heritage, goodbye public intoxication charges!
I’m actually declaring my own cultural subgroup: Anglo-germanic-irish-catholic-southern-libertarian-agnostic. The police will have to look the other way when I smoke pot, cheat on my taxes, distill my own bourbon, take the muffler off my Jeep, and tell very tasteless jokes.
I got a weird idea. Why don’t we kindly suggest to those Muslims that demand that we recognize sharia law that we already have laws in place? And then, if they argue, we beat them with clubs or maybe stone them?
Chairman eDog,May I join?
Wait a minute… which U.S. groups were upset about the fact that the new Iraqi constitution doesn’t properly protect women’s rights? Feminists. Who was pointing a finger at the Taliban long before Sept. 11th and begging that someone do something? Feminists. Who has drawn heavy attention to things like honor killings and female genital mutiliation for years? One guess.
Inherent to feminism is the understanding that it will often be at odds with cultural relativism. A cornerstone of feminist belief is that all people are deserving of basic human rights. There are certainly many cultures which limit human rights, some to much greater extremes than others. Feminism stands against that, while simultaneously recognizing that walking in with a swagger and telling others how terrible their culture is may not be the most successful way to bring about necessary change.
But thanks for the link!
With the appointment of Ms. Ambiguous to her judicial throne, perhaps we’ll finally reach critical mass, wherein we can all be privileged to carry (along with our identity papers, most recent tax returns, and travel permissions) our own personal set of legal constructs tailored to each “cultural” group we claim to “identify” with. We can call it the Full Employment for Attorneys Rule when it passes Congress, and of course the Multi-cultural Aggrandizement Decision when it gets the inevitible SC rubber stamp.
TW: There’s a method to this insanity.
This booklet sounds more like a Officer Tory Petersen’s Field Guide to Groups You’ll Encounter While on Patrol than the police pandering to an identity group.
Quoting from the article:
Well, one would hope so.
I took a look for the Guide but couldn’t find a copy online. However, here are the examples of identity politics from the article which Jeff linked:
This doesn’t rise to the ‘Don’t arrest that man for hitting his wife, he’s a Muslim’ level, imo.
Nor does this specific article confirm to any meaningful extent Jeff’s overarching point about identity politics—so far as I understand Jeff’s overarching point regarding identity politics without engaging in any ascribitionist tactics on my part.
Or something.
Jill,
You gotta do more than sit around “standing against” stuff and “calling for” stuff.
You gotta kick ‘em in the balls.
Just some friendly advice.
“Who was pointing a finger at the Taliban long before Sept. 11th and begging that someone do something?”
And who promptly quit pointing the finger at the Taliban as soon as GWB started to do something about it (you know, as opposed to just pointing)?
And which New York Senator had the gall to actually state publicly that women in Iraq had it better under Saddam? I guess rape isn’t so bad, after all…
And who has finally put action to those wishes, hopes, and crys for change? One guess.
And who is oddly the most hated and feared man based on the collective outrage from the feminist community? One very similar guess.
Who was pointing a finger at the Taliban long before Sept. 11th and begging that someone do something? Feminists.
Great. Then Feminists should be building a shrine to George W. Bush for actually doing something about the Taliban in particular and liberating Iraqi women.
Oddly, they’re not.
TW: really.
Sorry, Jill.
You stepped right into it.
Off topic: did anyone else here really enjoy watching video and seeing photos of Afghan women voting? Because I sure did.
Thanks, Mr. President. Some people appreciate what you’ve done.
TW: Level. As in, I hope one day to get past level three in the original Super Mario Bros. game. Stupid pirhana plants.
This doesn’t rise to the ‘Don’t arrest that man for hitting his wife, he’s a Muslim’ level, imo.
No, but it’s troubling that police departments even have to officially codify these things. And what happens when some Aussie cop forgets his copy of the handbook and–HORRORS!–interviews a Baha’i suspect before “sunset in the fasting month”?
Why, the rules are all laid out in the handbook, and your officer disobeyed them. We’ll have your shirts, mates!
Who was pointing a finger at the Taliban long before Sept. 11th and begging that someone do something?
Something? Something like what, exactly? I suppose I used to get regular E-mails from one or another female/feminist/progressive/casually well meaning friend all the time, linking to this or that online petition encouraging me to sign to end the oppression of women in Afghanistan. Presumably the Taliban really, really gave a shit about what a couple thousand American college students thought about their policy towards women. What would the feminists, sans swaggering or allying themselves with swaggerers, ever have actually accomplished on behalf of women in Afghanistan? Certainly, plenty of feminists did express their purely theoretical support for Afghani women but plenty of Volvos have had ‘Free Tibet’ stickers languishing complacently on their bumpers for thirty years or more, and I can’t honestly think of anyone aside from the guy printing and selling the stickers who’s benefited in the least from this kind of ‘non-swaggering’ purely theoretical support.
And all this aside, for all the feminists who were for women’s rights in Afghanistan before it was cool, plenty of ‘feminists’ also were and still are just as eager to kowtow to the so-called ‘anti-racists’ and terrified of being callled ‘Orientalist’–ever read an essay by a so-called feminist actually advocating female circumcision because the female orgasm is just a trick of ‘false consciousness’? I certainly have. Ever heard a respected academic claim the Dutch activist Hirsi Ali is nothing but a western tool, and that the westerners who support her are simply playing out typical Orientalist fantasies of white men who save brown women from brown men? I certainly have. Frankly, as long as such opinions remain thoroughly respectable and common among progressives, pardon me for my skepticism about the actual enthusiasm of the modern Western feminist cause as a whole for supporting the basic rights of its non-Western sisters.
Jill – Jeff is criticizing multiculturalism (not feminism, and not you), and linked to Lauren’s comment as evidence that not all leftists/feminists are multiculti types. I’m not sure why you defended yourself like you were attacked.
Or did I read that wrong?
Jill didn’t get the memo from the Unshorn Sisters of the Apocalypse (h/t Bloom County)
source: DSAUSA.org
and
http://www.geocities.com/youth4sa/s11-feminist.html
So there is dissention at the quilting bee.
Also, a quick check of NOW’s archives shows nothing regarding a statement of approval over the Bush-initiated military effort which overthrow of the Taliban. I don’t recall NOW even tossing an “Attaguy” Bush’s way.
There is, however, a great deal of clucking over how the peace should be run by and for women.
–
So it’s okay for me to stone my wife if:
1) I’m Muslim
2) I don’t call her ‘bitch’
Hm?
Sean –
I think you’d find very few Jewish suspects in the US being dragged in an hour or so before the start of Yom Kippur to answer a few questions regarding an investigation.
Again, that reads more like a ‘Field Guide’ than a policy manual which codifies conduct and punishes non-compliance.
Taking your shoes off before entering a particular house during the course of an investigation?
Sure, some cops may not know about that practice.
Taking your shoes off entering a house while serving a warrant? Not so much.
I recognize Jeff’s concern over the gist of what’s going on, but there’s the reality of what the cops face in the field and preparing them for that.
Unless having the cops give unintentional offense to large groups of people is no big deal.
Next time we’ll assemble our army. Luckily we all have army boots.
As an aside to Afghanistan, has anybody else noticed that almost everybody on the left is now saying that “of course I supported invading Afghanistan”?
Funny, I don’t recall their support when we were getting ready to go in (the “dreaded Afghan winter”, “graveyard of empires”, the overthrow of Musharaff, inflamming the “Arab street” even though Afghans aren’t Arab). If I wasn’t so damn lazy, I’d go back and dig up the quotes. But I’m sure somebody will.
Why don’t gangstas and redneck Baptists get the same free pass?
If I came across some dude who had just worked his daughter over with a boxcutter, common sense would tell me this maggot needs to be taken out. Unfortunately, I doubt this is what he meant.
Some notes about Ramadan, this holiest of holy 10th month of the Islamic calendar.
Allah knew what bad boys his adherents could be when he transmitted the Koran into Mohammad’s ear via the Angel Gabriel.
So Allah said it’s ok to “go into” your wife during Ramadan. You’re spozed to fast during daylight hours, but it’s party hearty in the desert after the sun goes down.
These days, after hours shopping is a hot ticket during Ramadan.
Is that capitalist sh!t spreading, or what ??!
Ok, in closing…
Maybe “the feminists” could find something worth getting genuinely po’ed about at THIS website…
http://ethnikoi.org/iran.html
I can see the need to avoid particuarly offensive acts while in the performance of an investigation, but I’ve always thought that Napier managed to articulate the proper manner to approach multi-cultural policing when he was enforcing the ban on suttee in India:
“You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”
Bumperstickerist and TomB,
Late in ‘01 I attended a gallery show opening one evening in which my daughter had some photos and I spoke with various Progressive Feminist Women in attendance who informed me over cocktails that Bush had no business intervening in Afghanistan because he and Repubs were born-again theocrats and imperialists who would bully an honest, indigenous expression of SW Muslim-Asian culture: the Taliban. That these putative feminists were way off-point with their cheap anti-Christian fundamentalism and pro-Muslim fundamentalism is less the point. That they didn’t give one fig about the lot of women and children in fascistic and woman-abusing Afghanistan was beyond startling.
One of these days, I wish the culture wherein the proper response to a man, to put it mildly, treating a woman improperly was to have the other dudes kick the crap out of the offender and offer the woman any services within their capacity, from a ride to her home to a drink to a warm meal, all the while thinking it as little more than their civic duty, would receive the sort of cultural immunity discussed here.
c, that’s identity politics. Women <3 the left.
As Jill pointed out, “standing against” cultures which mistreat women is much more desirable than wielding an arrogant “swagger” in your dealings with them, telling them exactly why their culture is despicable.
“Women <3 the left.”
Lemme rephrase that…
“Women like them hate the right virulently. Good feminist deeds can only come from their party.”
Consider that replacing that sentence.
C, let me assure you that those feminists are in the minority.
Okay, Bumper, I’ll agree that it couldn’t hurt to take off your shoes “before entering a particular house during the course of an investigation,” but again, what troubles me is that the official codification of these things could, somewhere down the line, give ammo to the type of ethnic grievance-mongers that we have here in the States.
And while this handbook seems innocuous, I think Jeff’s main problem with it is the idea that this could be the first step on a path toward enforcing the law differently for different ethnic segments of western countries, where the goal has always ostensibly been equal treatment under the rule of law.
I think those concerns are valid when you have statements like this, from the article:
I mean, why is it that in most cases (and I’m assuming this is true in Australia as it is here in the US), law enforcement’s goal is to get women out of abusive relationships, but in the case of Muslims, it seems that the local Imam should be brought in to keep them there? Seems like you’ve got two standards there.
“Next time we’ll assemble our army. Luckily we all have army boots.”
Lauren, I appreciate the humor in your statement. But as a practical matter, if your reject military intervention, and if frowning really hard at the Taliban was obviously not working, what would you suggest?
And, as a follow-up question, are you willing to acknowledge that what Bush has accomplished in Afghanistan (you know, what with women voting and such) is an affirmative good, even if you disapprove of him in other areas? Same question for Iraq.
What does it really mean, anyway, to be a feminist?
Think of how odd that really is.
I am a woman. I believe very strongly in my legal equality to men. I disagree very stongly with some of NOW’s principles. I disagree with and agree with some of Lauren and Jill’s positions. Does that make me less or more of a woman?
Is there such a thing as a mannist? A masculinist?
Isn’t pretending there is such a thing as a Feminist- a ‘correct’ women’s point of view- rather a disempowering concept?
“C, let me assure you that those feminists are in the minority.”
Regardless of whether that’s so, I’m overjoyed that I can infer that you believe such should be the minority view.
That said, it’s one thing to make unfounded assertions, and another thing entirely to find some factual support. BumperStickerist quoted the DSA as emphatically stating “That we oppose military intervention in Afghanistan.” Note that while they certainly don’t follow-up with “because those crazy foreign chicks don’t deserve the same rights,” but note also that they don’t go on to mention women’s rights at all, preferring instead to ignore the oppression of women and argue that the campaign has proven ineffective. (I can only assume the statement was made before 25 million Afghans had the chance to vote). BumperStickerist then quotes from the Take Back the Night opposition to the war (which, again, is oddly silent as to Taliban oppression, apparently arguing for the status quo as superior to progress), and notes that NOW has never given any hint of an approving nod to the improvement in the lives of Afghan women.
With all of this evidence—well, again, I’m glad you seem to support the idea of gaining some basic civil rights, but on what are you basing your claim that opposition to Afghan progress are the minority view among feminists?
I’d also like to point out that not only is the Take Back the Night statement, quoted by BumperStickerist, stunningly silent as to civil rights for Afghan women, it is also fundamentally irrational. Consider:
“First, it’s the women of Afghanistan who will bear the brunt of it, their cities bombed, their homes destroyed, their food sources disrupted, their families forced onto the road.”
Pardon me? If a city is bombed, then only the women suffer? If a home is destroyed, that somehow impacts women worse than men? Men somehow have less need of food than women? Forced migrations don’t bother men? How does any of that make any sense in the slightest?
The only way I can rationalize that statement is by assuming that the author presumed that women suffer to a greater degree than do men—a presumption I would have thought utterly alien to a group that wants to focus on equality for women. Ah yes, feminists free women by requiring them to be weak. I see.
“Second, there is absolutely no guarantee that the war will liberate Afghan women from the medieval servitude the Taliban has forced upon them: the Northern Alliance, the collection of warlords most likely to succeed them, are little more enlightened than its Taliban opponents.”
Guarantee? Well then I suppose all feminists everywhere should end all political activity of all kind. The only guarantees I know of are death and taxes, and they come to men and women alike. Can any serious advocate argue that steps to liberate women should only be taken when guaranteed to succeed?
“But more broadly, feminists should know that this war is but a battle in the larger war, the war of First World against Third, in which women are most commonly the front-line victims.”
They’ve obviously adopted a radically different meaning for the phrase “front-line,” as it has historically referred to the fighters in a war, rather than the collateral victims. Do the Take Back the Night folks assume that Afghan women are the ones firing AK-47s at our soldiers?
“Solidarity with women of the Third World is a duty for us in the First.”
SUPPORT THIRD WORLD WOMEN BY REFUSING TO HELP THEM UNLESS VICTORY IS ASSURED!!! I suppose I could fit that on a bumper sticker…
The word “feminist” is even imprecise than the word “sexist.” Which is probably why right-wing/libertarian women have such spirited debates about whether to use that label. The fact is, most of us share the early ideals of feminism, though there’s often tremendous disagreement over how to get there. And I mean, we disagree with each other almost as much as we do with mainstream feminists.
That’s all to the good, of course: we need more discussion, not less.
Suffice it to say that if my brother or father were about to murder me for the crime of having been raped, I’d prefer that the cop have an old-fashioned patriarchal/patronizing view of the matter vs. a culturally sensitive one. That is, when it comes to violence society should err on the side of protecting victims rather than being sensitive to the guys who are about to off me.
But, Atilla Girl, that might fragment the family unit!
Better let the Imam sort it out.
Odd, I don’t remember doing anything while I was in Afghanistan that was anything but helpful to women (and almost all men too). Now there were a few men I wanted dead, Mullah Omar, Hekmatyar Gulbuddin and whoever the hell it was that kept shooting 107mm rockets at my base…
As a former head of my county State’s Attorney’s Domestic Violence division, I can only say how absolutely wrong it is to try and keep a woman inside an abusive situation. In the bad old days, that was the attitude taken toward Mexican families in the area (“they need to stick together as a community”, etc.). Thank God we got rid of that practice. Be a damned shame if our friends in Oz made the same mistake.
Frankly, it’s only good if the promises made are carried out. Although Jeff’s post addresses the training of officers in question, I maintain that the beating of anyone to solve conflict, especially domestic, is wrong. Hence my statement that multiculturalism as we know it is in conflict with feminism especially as far as these religious/legal rights go.
If I were to rephrase Jeff’s post to include my views on identity politics: “it is the right of each identity group to negotiate its compliance with the host country’s pre-existing laws” would be “it is the right of each identity group to negotiate within the host country’s pre-existing laws, if its assertions are within international human rights laws.” Identity politics are not inherently bankrupt—if anything the accumulated experiences of many individuals point to deficiencies on a mass scale against minorities that ought not be written off simply because of their labels of Otherness.
As Jill states, the underlying assumption with feminism is that all people are deserving of human rights. Pretty basic standard, no? Hence the reason why wondering whether “mannist” and “masculinist” views are apparent within feminism.
And, by the way, the answer is yes. You can find critiques of sexism within and outside of the contemporary feminist movement, the majority of which take mens’ experiences into consideration.
Correction: Hence the reasons why wondering whether “mannist†and “masculinist†views are apparent within feminism are silly.
Maybee, to truly answer your question, I find that feminism is most useful as a political lens through which to view policy and culture. Personally, this isn’t such a radical thing.
Bah, you know how I feel about looking to international standards. Whenever I hear “international,” I keep seeing the corrupt bureaucrats of the UN. I’d prefer a standard that is actually effective.
Erm… Cannot quite put that sentence together. Lemme make sure… Are you saying that… what are you saying here? That we shouldn’t write off the failings of other cultures as “well, that’s how they do it” simply because the group is a “they?”
I’m sorry, Lauren, but that seems like a cop-out. Sobek asked you if you would acknowledge what has so far been accomplished in Afghanistan as “an affirmative good.” How about this piece on the Afghan elections, from the BBC:
None of us knows how the future will play out, but the lives of women and girls in Afghanistan would seem to have markedly improved so far as a result of our military action there. Would you agree?
If feminism were so easily distilled to “basic human rights for all,” I somehow suspect that such questions wouldn’t even arise. Then again, there are certain positions that rationality explains.
If you’ll excuse me… “WAHT ABUOT TEH BAISC HUMAN RITES FOR TEH FETUSESES?!!!111”
OH NOES TEH ABROTION CHEAP SHOT!
Kidding, of course. But I just want to at least give some perspective to where people doubting feminism’s gender and ethnic neutrality in seeking equal rights, or at the very least griping of a lack “maninism,” isn’t entirely unfounded, but definitely something that deserves discussion rather than acceptance or dismissal.
But that might lead to laundry lists of feminism’s contributions to XX, YY. Probably wouldn’t even be a productive area of debate.
I don’t know where I’m going with this…
Not to challenge Lauren with this one, I just wanna run it up the flagpole, see who salutes.
I wholly support the beating of those who beat women and the castration of those who would rape women. Does this position make me a bad person?
“None of us knows how the future will play out, but the lives of women and girls in Afghanistan would seem to have markedly improved so far as a result of our military action there.”
I would like to add to that the acknowledgment that just because women have the de jure right to vote does not make them de facto equal. I mention this to avoid any contention that “the elections don’t count, because the men just told the women what to do anyway.” To the extent that’s true (and I’ll assume arguendo that it is), it ignores the fact that a transition from de jure inequality to de jure equality is a step in the right direction, and, I would submit, a critically important step. Cultural reformation can more easily follow after the legal reformation.
Women voted largely the same as men for the first few years after getting suffrage in America, if it means anything. It took them a while to slide into the “gender gap” which characterizes some of identity politics today.
Identity politics are not inherently bankruptâ€â€if anything the accumulated experiences of many individuals point to deficiencies on a mass scale against minorities that ought not be written off simply because of their labels of Otherness.
These are ‘deficiencies’ because one universal ideal of human rights has not been applied fully to certain people, though–not because certain groups of people should ideally and in perpetuity recieve different treatment from others and operate under a different moral code. The goal must be moral consensus; it must be understood that multiple moralities are not the ideal, and that any one of these systems of morality is equally available to critique from any person of any background.
Hence while one minority group might justly, from its experience, make a claim on changing the whole standard for everyone, and that other competing moralities are wrong regardless of who you are and where you come from–it is not rational to claim that a certain racial or cultural or sex group should perpetually maintain a different standard for itself than for everyone else, and–worse–that the standards of any such group can never judged or debated by someone ‘outside’ that group (and really, who’s defining ‘outside’ and ‘inside’ anyway? The conservatives of that group? The reformers? The prudes? The perverts? Do we go by blood, upbringing, what? Who gets to lay the dividing lines out?) Identity politics might perhaps be acceptable within limits as an expedient, a pragmatic measure by which a certain group makes a bid either for fairer treatment within the larger society’s existing ethics, or alternatively a bid to change that society’s ethics (presumably, to make it better and fairer for everyone) by open debate–but, unfortunately, in practice, it leads instead to balkanization by race, class, sex, and gender–discouraging rather than encouraging dialogue.
And indeed, it rarely works even as an expedient–black Americans would I am sure have broadly agreed on the ending of segregation as a positive good for any black person in America, but rarely is a certain goal so universally desired among an ‘identity group’–and unfortunately, small groups of vocal activists (provided they manage to wangle recognition as the ‘authentic’ voice of their group from the dominant culture within which they operate) still get to claim to speak for a whole race or a whole sex when they simply do not.
I’m reminded of an NPR commentator who once suggested that if Hispanics would only form a single voting bloc they would, as a whole, have far more political power than they do now. But, of course, one has to ask–power to do what? Clearly, Hispanics vote in many different ways because they have, individually, very diverse opinions and priorities–and why would any Hispanic person have any interest in changing the way he votes to coincide reliably with the vote of everyone else in his ‘culture’ or ‘identity group’ (as defined by God knows who) just so that a certain agenda which he didn’t necessarily, didn’t always, or didn’t ever agree with would be reliably pushed through? ‘Identity politics’ and group solidarity may work to right certain great wrongs to which the solution is obvious and broadly agreed upon within the group–segregation, slavery, apartheid, voting rights etc.–but beyond this it obscures the fact that people who fall into the same category by some definition often still want and believe very different things.
Far better, frankly, to simply associate yourself freely with other people who (regardless of what they look like, where they were born, or how they were raised) simply want the same things you do.
Maybe I’m just really dense this morning, but I’m having trouble following you here.
OHNOES, about your flagpole
–
I think if nobody ever beat anybody, the world would be a better place. But it does become a bit of a chicken and egg argument, doesn’t it? Some ‘conflicts’ are worse than any beating could be. And refusing to use violence in the hopes of solving a conflict can often enable a terrible situation.
But I guess I could take a brave stance and say I am against violence, abuse, insensitivity and general mean-ness. I am against violence against good people.
I don’t disagree with you, Alex. This isn’t about getting people to vote on “my side,” whatever that is. It is about people being able to have political representation that matches their experiences.
More later. I’m working on a post of my own.
Morning? Where are you? France? Traitor!
Sorry, I had to.
No not France…and you caught me. I just looked at the clock and it is officially after noon.
Domestic, I agree. I still maintain my fundamental truths of international conflict resolution however:
1) You can not have a unilateral negotiation.
2) You can have a unilateral ass-whoopin’
Until someone can prove no. 1 wrong, I’m keeping my options open.
Lauren –
I was just reading along minding my own business, when I happened to read your post about identity politics. Your problem is that you don’t recognize that there are only two identity groups that actually exist – idiots and not-idiots. When you learn to stand on your own two feet and understand what that means, you can join the not-idiots.
“It is about people being able to have political representation that matches their experiences.”
But the problem with identity politics is that it presupposes commonality of experience because of commonality of some characteristic—race, gender, orientation, religion, etc. And when someone from a given identity group fails to conform to common assumptions about that identity group, the non-conformist is demonized. Take, as a prominent example, Condi Rice, who defies the race-pimps and the feminists all at once. And conservatives love to point out the hypocrisy of the race warriors who insist that skin-color should determine outlook because it determines commonality of experience.
Now block voting based on commonality of interests, which as a practical matter will almost necessary suggest commonality of experience, is not at all a bad thing, because that’s the very nature of politics: ally yourself with like-minded people because a group can get things done that no individual can.
But identity politics forces people into arbitrary interest groups, regardless of individual choice. It insists that women must think a certain way because they are women, and women have had certain common experiences, and they must all react the same way to those common experiences. None of which is true. We choose how we react to external stimuli, and gender or race do not inevitably result in common experience.
Again, common interest politics is just fine. I associate with the Republican party because I find it politically expedient to do so. Republicans are more likely than any other party to a) get elected and b) reasonably approximate more of my interests than not (although I sometimes have to seriously bite the bullet when I pull the lever).
But note that I am a Republican by choice, and I am equally free to determine whether and how closely I identify with the party, or whether I wish to abandon the party as a lost cause. Not so with identity politics. Under idendity politics theory, a woman is consigned to vote a certain way because of a combination of an accident of birth (gender) and views imposed by the self-declared spokespersons for that group (NOW, NARAL, et al). There is no element of choice, only of subservience to a coerced common goal, accepting what is best for her as determined by someone who—let’s be honest here—may easily be more concerned with perpetuating political power than with what’s best for women in general.
TW: group. Seriously.
Trackback didn’t work:
http://yankeestation.blogspot.com/2005_10_01_yankeestation_archive.html#113038744007784100
what’s. um. culture?
ain’t it them bugs in yogurt?
t/w: friends?
My head a splode when I read things like that. As though feminists were the only ones who noticed/drew attention to that.
As a thrifty Scot(tish-Americaqn), I demand exemption from all tax laws, and all contracts that require me to pay for … pretty much anything.
BECAUSE OF THE PARSIMONY!!!!
while simultaneously recognizing that walking in with a swagger and telling others how terrible their culture is may not be the most successful way to bring about necessary change.
Speak for yourself.
This feminist thinks the only appropriate way to approach culturally-based oppression of women contrary to our own laws, in our own country, is shaming the participants and enforcing a different code of conduct with criminal and civil penalties.
Nobody cares if you offend Christians. We get “piss Christ” Imagine if some artist decided to drown the Koran in a bottle full of urine. Imagine the outrage. Imagine the demonization of that “artist”. Free speech is ok unless it offends Muslims.
I assume the reason nobody cares about offending Christians is because quite frankly, Christians won’t strap C-4 around their waist and detonate themselves in the nearest shopping mall when they feel their beliefs are not being respected.
Read the The Diamond Age. It’s where we’re headed.
Good book.
Turing word: book.
“Once upon a time we knew what to do. A British district officer, coming upon a scene of suttee, was told by the locals that in Hindu culture it was the custom to cremate a widow on her husband’s funeral pyre. He replied that in British culture it was the custom to hang chaps who did that sort of thing.”
I’m imagining Greek-American men across the land looking forward to reacquainting themselves with culturally-normative Man-Boy love.
And I would like to point out that I am most certainly not Greek.
I’m German. Do I get to now invade France? ‘cause it’s in my nature.