The Global Battle Over Reproductive Rights
My book, The Means of Reproduction: Sex, Power and the Future of the World, is about the global battle over reproductive rights. Most people have no idea what I'm talking about when I say that, which is in part why I wrote it. All over the world, there are these huge and hugely consequential fights going on over abortion rights, contraception, population control and women's sexual autonomy more generally. There are big international networks on both sides - one of the alliances I find most fascinating, and most clarifying, is the one between conservative Christians and Muslims who've decided to work together against women's rights at the United Nations. It's not surprising that this stuff doesn't get covered much in the mainstream media -- the reproductive rights of women in poor countries is in some ways as marginal a topic as one can imagine. But there's so much at stake, and, if you look behind the stultifying patois of development bureaucracy and international law, the subject is actually packed with human drama and juicy philosophical dilemmas.
The story I'm telling begins in the 1950s, when many Cold War establishment types began to panic that overpopulation was going to cause so much misery in the third world that it would lead to widespread communist revolution. Thus began the American effort to bring family planning to the world, an effort that I see as one of the most ambitious social engineering initiatives ever undertaken. Eventually, feminists rebelled against the idea of population control, which seemed to reduce women to their wombs and to sanction coercion. They gradually took control of the global family planning infrastructure, and turned it into something that was much more concerned with women's rights. Eventually, reproductive rights even came to be recognized as a component of human rights in international law.
Meanwhile, ascendant religious fundamentalism, both here and abroad, mobilized in response. A kind of right-wing anti-colonialist narrative coalesced, as conservatives in the US, the Vatican, Iran and elsewhere railed against the global reproductive rights project as an effort by Western elites to impose their decadent, libertine values on traditional societies. Now these fights are playing out in vastly different but connected ways in countries from Nicaragua to Poland to India to Uganda.
To quote from the book's introduction:
"All over the planet, conflicts between tradition and modernity are being fought on the terrain of women's bodies. Globalization is challenging traditional social arrangements. It is upsetting economic stability, bringing women into the workforce, and beaming images of Western individualism into the remotest villages while drawing more and ore people into ever growing cities. All this spurs conservative backlashes, as right-wingers promise anxious, disoriented people that the chaos can be contained if only the old sexual order is enforced. Yet the subjugation of women is just making things worse, creating all manner of demographic, economic and public health problems."
There are lots of different directions we can take this discussion in, but I'll begin by raising a couple questions. First, how do you see the tensions between feminism and multiculturalism, and how should the United States, Europe and the UN promote women's rights in countries with unsympathetic governments or local leadership? Do you think it's time for a rapprochement between feminists and those most concerned about overpopulation? (I don't think most people realize how much hostility there has historically been between these two camps, but it's very much a factor in these debates). Also - and this is a broader question -- what do you think is behind the homicidal misogyny now rampaging all over the globe, from Congo to Afghanistan to Juarez, Mexico? Was it ever thus, or is there something new going on?
Regarding China's 1 Child policy, becasue it's sure to come up, I'd just like to point out that as horrible as it may seem, and as corruptly run as it often is, in China's unique circumstances it was probably necessary to stop the country from over populating horribly worse than it already is.
China went from a vast but largely undeveloped agrarian nation to an industrial powerhouse with enormous export markets and a socialist central government providing rudimentary services, practically overnight. Unlike Europe, Japan or the USA, who all have basically flat or slightly negative population growth, China would have grown population exponentially and totally unsustainably.
Keep in mind that historically the primary means of population control and allocating scarce resources, has been warfare. Additionally infant mortality and scarce resources limits population growth. Without those limits, and before the culture has evolved to self impose limits, technology and culture are out of balance and China's population would have exploded.
Imagine a civil war of 2B Chinese armed with modern weapons, many of them impoverished and illiterate, and that taking place in a nuclear armed China.
May 4, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
If warfare was a means of population control, women would go, not men.
May 4, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure if you're trying to be snarky or what your intended point was...
Regardless, warfare is the original form of population control. When resources are scarce and can't sustain a population then existential conflict erupts to allocate resources and reduce population.
Meaning, the primary way of avoiding war is managing resources and population to avoid that eventuality. Developed cultures such as Europe which has become technologically advanced over a much longer period (and fought many wars) evolved culturally to self regulate population.
China, specifically the rural parts, did not.
May 4, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I'm intending to do is to correct your misapprehension that warfare is and has been a means of "population control" either evolutionarily or societally. In fact, the opposite is true, the birthrate during and after war tends to spike upwards. Prosperity, education and upward mobility act as population controls on societies and civilizations.
May 5, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Warfare has always functioned as a means of population control, and not just in humans.
I didn't say it's the only cause or even the primary reason for warfare.
My point was that should population expand beyond what the land is ultimately capable of sustaining, then warfare becomes inevitable, as people will start killing for scarce resources.
May 5, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, you're getting events backwards.
Yes, after the war, people may again expand population, due to greater thrift, a peace dividend, increased employment and economic activity, etc. However, during wartime population drops and people tend to become more thrifty with scarce resources.
May 5, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
One simple consideration should dispel the argument that war is a population control when men, not women are involved.
If there are 100 men and 100 women (multiply by any number you want to get a country's population) and a war erupts killing 90 of the men. All 100 women can get pregnant and produce offspring at a rate of approximately one per year. Not much in the way of population control.
If that same war kills off 90 of the women, there are only 10 women to get pregnant and produce offspring at a rate of approximately one per year. Much in the way of population control.
.
May 7, 2009 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd also mention what I think is a rather self serving fallacy in global feminism, the notion that women in the developed world are more innocent than men, and therefore more aligned with the interests of the oppressed and victimized in the developing world and regions where fundamentalism and reactionary thinking has reemerged.
Reality is that women in the developed world enjoy the material wealth, the big houses and cars, the consumer goods, the natural resources like metals and oil, the cheap labor and servant class such as nannies and cleaning services, just as much as the men of the developed world.
Reality is also that men in these developing countries are also terrible victims. For example the recent torture videos of an Arab prince brutally torturing an Afghan grain dealer, for which he's facing no consequences in his corrupt oil state.
Another reality is that much of the good work being done, such as micro finance, was founded by men. And while they primarily serve women, it's ironic that women make batter investments specifically because they're more biologically tied to the family.
Buying a shoulder bag handmade by an entrepreneurial former Thai prostitute is a great start, but it doesn't even come close to really aligning the interests of American feminists with the women of the developing world. It's often just a cheap bandaid for the conscience.
May 4, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also reject Goldberg's premise that the reactionary forces she describes have emerged against feminism per se. Whet they're primarily responding to is imperialism by developed countries, and feminism is just one of many associated traits.
Afghan farmers wouldn't care much about feminism in the developed world, nor would the Taliban and warlords have seized power and the nation reverted to a religious fundamentalism, if not for the invasion by the USSR and subsequent proxy war between the USSR and the USA. Afghans were happily doing their own thing, and liberalizing rather quickly in urban areas like Kabul, through the 19th and 20th centuries, until the invasion.
Keep in mind the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan, monuments to the region's historical diversity and cultural crossroads, stood for 2500 years. The burqa wasn't commonly worn in Afghanistan even a few decades ago, prior to war devastating the country.
Iran was a quickly liberalizing and democratic state prior to the CIA backed coup which deposed a democratically elected leaders and reinstalled a monarch.
Iranian women in a rapidly liberalizing Iran prior to the CIA backed coup for oil:
http://www.iranchamber.com/society/articles/images/women_cadets_police_iran.jpg
May 4, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
These are all reasons why I'd argue we're generally in a post feminist era.
On average Humanists tend to recognize all of these issues: war, population, resources, gender equity, reproduction, macro and micro economics, etc. Feminists on average tend to see things through a polarizing gender lens which distorts issues.
Humanists also tend to be multidisciplinary, from science to business to sociology, and have the tool sets to address issues. Feminists tend to come from a much narrower background or even indoctrination.
Humanists tend to still recognize empirical differences between sexes/gender (such as micro finance presently preferring women, but trying to develop greater success with men in future) but do not automatically see all issues through a gender lens, nor necessarily have an ideological agenda to project. Feminists tend to either manufacture or ignore sex/gender differences based on prior ideology.
May 4, 2009 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
A post feminist era? Really? When women still make less, on average, for working the same jobs men do? When the best you can muster, in this out of character instance, is the argument that women in the west have big houses and cars? Shouldn't everyone have those things?
May 4, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
That doesn't necessarily mean that "Feminism" (by which I mean the real world institutions of Feminism, NOT an abstract concept of feminism) is suited to deal with the issues and difficult challenges.
In fact, I'd say the Feminist movement for historical reasons is especially poorly suited to deal with those issues.
While Humanists and Feminists share a concern for human rights, Humanists generally aren't burdened with the baggage and bias of Feminism, come from a much broader range of disciplines and posses much broader skill sets.
Under the umbrella of Humanists I'd put everyone seeking humanitarian goals, including some feminists, and coming from a wide range of disciplines from hard sciences to business, and addressing a wide range of issues from climate change to nutrition to healthcare to micro finance and self sufficiency to ultimately human rights which are dependent on those preconditions.
A typical difference between what I'd call a Humanitarian and a Feminist is that a Humanitarian may be a scientist, or an economist, or whatnot, who for whatever reason wants to do good, and applies his/her skills to the task. Such people typical mix in a much broader community which ferments and accelerates solutions.
A Feminist is more often a woman who began her journey through a gender/sex identity, may have become a writer or sociologist, likely defines herself in relation to various orthodoxy which are constraining even to those professing independence, is less likely to possess additional technical skills to address issues, and will always primarily see issues as sex/gender based first and foremost.
Movement Feminists have been in decline for decades and have for the most part failed to attract a diversity of talent. The success of the feminist ideal is to make women's issues a part of humanitarian issues. The failure of Movement Feminists is the failure to integrate into a broader sense of humanitarians, both ideologically and technically.
May 4, 2009 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you consider yourself a Humanist, then I would have to say that the baggage and bias that you see in Feminism is also completely intact in Humanism.
Your baggage and bias is glaringly evident throughout this and your other posts made here.
May 5, 2009 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see any substance to that post. I think Movement Feminism has some very specific baggage from the 60's and 70's which also shaped the institutions of Movement Feminism which have become self referential and stagnant.
May 5, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to say that this is one of the most sexist statements I've seen in a while. Feminists are women and men who believe in the concept of gender equality. Period.
Like Democrats, Republicans, or Americans, people identifying themselves as feminists have diverse worldviews and opinions, and belong to every stripe of life. I find your comments limiting, condescending, and offensive.
May 5, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's not that simple, though that was an incredibly simplistic thing to say. Laughable really that you seem to actually believe it.
I believe in gender equality and many of the historical goals of feminism. However, no I am not a Movement Feminist. For that matter, the vast majority of both men and women believe in gender equality, but only about 1 out of 5 women self identify as Feminist, and about 1/8 men.
Or to put it another way, while almost all women support gender equality, 4 out of 5 are NOT "Feminists."
Movement Feminists remind me a bit of religious Fundamentalists in that they're so assured of their righteousness, they just can't deal with facts or statistics.
May 5, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, you have some serious anger issues.
May 5, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, you have some serious issues with reality. I'm just stating the issues, you seem to be the one getting upset.
My point remains that both men and women may be equally drawn to humanitarian goals, that humanitarianism doesn't discriminate. Humanitarians may bring a wide range of backgrounds and skills to solving humanitarian problems. Take for example the developments in economics, macro and micro-finance, addressing climate change, nutrition, disease, etc. None of those originate in Feminism per se.
There is no dominant humanitarian orthodoxy, which makes humanitarians a far less ideological and diverse group. That forces humanitarians to seek commonality between cultures, be more sensitive to regional needs, and deal with empirical metric for success. As opposed to the predefined ideology of Feminism which seeks to project its values and measures success not in results but in ideological certitude.
By comparison, Feminists are a more insular group tending to have a far more limited set of skills (most feminists come from sociology) and more narrowly defined orthodoxy originating among mostly white middle to upper class women in the US primarily. Even in the USA Movement Feminism represents only about one in five women, and one in eight men. Feminism doesn't have the skills nor cultural diversity to address global problems and is often offensive to other cultures, not to mention many Americans.
May 5, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, to reiterate, my definition of a typical feminist is accurate.
More Movement Feminists are women than men, though it's still only 1 in 5 women compared to 1 in 8 men. Even those numbers are declining over the long term.
Disproportionately Movement Feminists come from a sociology background, particularly sociology programs founded by Feminists and promoting Feminism. Feminists are also disproportionately lesbian, white, and middle to upper middle class. Polls and a simple glance at Feminist Leadership over the last few decades bears that out. That's not just my opinion but a frequent criticism of Feminists by women of color, heterosexual women, and other under represented groups.
For contrast, both men and women doing humanitarian work in specific fields like climate, nutrition, disease prevention, human rights, etc generally do not identify as "Feminist" and come from a broad background with skills actually suited to addressing the challenges they face.
May 5, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you know who identifies as a feminist and who doesn't? We're not required to wear buttons.
Interesting that the leaders of the Humanist Movement are all men.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
May 5, 2009 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, there's quite a lot of poll data tracking the issue. Many polls have shown self identification of feminism declining consistently since the 60s, now down to about 20% of women, much less of men.
When asked if people identify as Feminist, only 1/5 of women and about 1/8 men respond yes.
In fact, Movement Feminist groups often cite the same polls. Only they do so very deceptively.
One question in polls is typically "would you support feminism, if the definition of feminism is sex/gender equality" to which about 65% will then say yes, up from 1/5. However, that's a very loaded question with a narrow and simplistic definition of feminism, excluding it's actual history as a movement.
That's like asking people if they'd support conservatism if it's just about protecting the Constitution and leaner government, or liberalism if it's just about tolerance and social justice. There's a big difference between liberalism and conservatism in the abstract, and real world Liberalism and Conservatism as movements, just as there's a big difference between feminism and Feminism.
I could ask the same question of you: how do you presume that more women are feminists, since as you acknowledge you can't assume? What evidence do you have of anything? How does your crystal ball stack up against empirical data?
May 5, 2009 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Btw, I don't think anyone is excluding women from humanitarian causes. Usually Feminists do that well enough on their own by insisting on seeing every issue as gender/sex and representing women's issues exclusively.
Take an injustice to both men and women and Feminists will represent women exclusively which is divisive. Humanitarians represent all people, not just women.
Feminists will say they represent women's equality. That's a bit of an oxymoron, inherently and divisive combative. That was appropriate in the era of the suffrage movement, but it's utility as a divisive framing of issues is inversely proportional to the goals of equality.
We're definitely past the tipping point where though some divisions still exist, they have to be put aside for common cause. At this point Movement Feminism is doing more to perpetuate gender division than heal it.
May 5, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think anyone is excluding women from humanitarian causes either. It's just that there's nothing good on TV tonight and I just wanted to watch your head spin around a little bit more.
May 5, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you're basically a troll. OK then.
May 5, 2009 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, I can basically sum up your contribution as "not uh!"
You don't seem to know much about any of this except the vaguest impressions. I don;t think it's too much to ask that you actually know something about Feminism before you associate with it, let alone purport to defend it from the big bad misogynists.
But I don't blame you, becasue Movement Feminists for decades have been equating female=Feminism=justice without being honest about their incredibly low popularity numbers even among women, or that it's a political movement like all others.
I'd even bet that if you took away the men and women who think equality = Feminist and there's no other possibility, and if you took away the people who support issues that aren;t necessarily Feminist any longer such as reproductive Choice, and were just left with the people who actually endorse the remaining issues of Movement Feminism, the remainder would be more like one in one in twenty women and virtually no men.
May 5, 2009 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. I'm a troll and I don't have any knowledge of history.
You, on the other hand, are exceptionally skilled at making pronouncements about people you've never met based on a few sentences. Congratulations.
May 5, 2009 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You just admitted you're trolling becasue nothing good was on TV a while ago. So I guess you watched your TV show and are back to trolling.
May 5, 2009 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, at some point could you copy and paste to repost a good point you made or even some information you provided? Cause I must have missed it.
May 5, 2009 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It must be so hard being such a perfect being. I am so sorry you have to come all the way down here to pronounce your "wisdom," and so few of us mortals get it.
Such a burden.
May 5, 2009 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't say I'm perfect. That's a childish argument you're making.
What's a good point that you saw? Maybe you can help by reposting it, rather than just asserting it exists, somewhere.
May 6, 2009 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hardly. You don't want to go here. Trust me. You are obviously well versed in history, and other things.
If Koz can't see that, well, Koz haz issues.
May 5, 2009 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, you don't like me. I'm fine with that. Do you have anything to add to the conversation or a point to make?
BTW, love the chicken routine. It's great. Whenever there's a chicken reference in a thread, you pop in and say "what!?" or something 'cause your avatar is a chicken. Pure comedy gold. It never gets old.
May 6, 2009 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I enjoy that aspect, too.
I like you better when you're naked.
May 7, 2009 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
In one of Koznik's many comments below, HE (hee)insults Goldberg's thesis and work by sneeringly calling it a "wedge issue", however, Koznik's extreme parsing, desperate hairsplitting, and vigorous defense of anti-feminist thought and action seems to be the biggest wedgie of all.
Dost Koznik protest too much? Read for yourself.
Why does anyone identifying with and supporting feminism, capital or lower-case 'F', infuriate Koznik so much?!
Koznik should put that energy to good use, such as helping eradicate violence against women!
May 4, 2009 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was that supposed to be impressive. "hee" and misspelling my nickname is it?
That makes my point exactly about Movement Feminism and it's defenders.
Another way it's on par with the Republican party: it's intellectually dead, operating on a bumpersticker level, entirely preaching to the choir.
May 5, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, I thought it would be obvious to any TPM reader, but the capitalization of Feminism, or Movement Feminism, vs feminism, is a very important distinction.
Similarly, there's an important distinction between liberalism or conservatism (the sets of idealized values) and actual Movement Liberalism and Movement Conservatism. One may support in theory many of the tenets of liberalism or conservatism in the abstract, but they're very different from the actual Liberal and Conservative Movements that have a track record, baggage, institutions, etc.
May 5, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no data whatsoever for my claim, due in part to violence against women having been historically ignored, but I suspect that what feels like an escalating trend is really just that we notice it now. The US, paragons of Western virtue, only got around to granting women full citizen status 100 years ago and that was after freed slaves. So while violent mysogyny may seem foreign to us, mine is the first generation of men raised to see women as our equals. It used to be that domestic violence was considered a private matter. The Christian world has its own issues with honor killings and male domination of women's sexual rights.
If there is a trend it's possible that we're seeing the reaction of a conservative culture reacting to western feminism encroaching on their societies and into their homes. However barbaric the practice is, we have to remember that this violence has a purpose. They do it to prevent their wives from cheating on them and their daughters from ruining their chances to be married off. They see ours as a culture that encourages women to have multiple partners so maybe the pace of their violent behavior is increasing as Western media makes its way into their home.
May 4, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, I'd also add there's basically zero substance to Goldberg's post, and I sort of regret taking the bait, as I'm rather tired of cultural writers who so nothing but bait people on wedge issues.
Shorter Goldberg: "feminism, human drama and juicy philosophy, fundamentalists, terrorism, women's bodies, left/right, black/white... what'cha think?"
May 4, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think most people realize how much hostility there has historically been between these two camps, but it's very much a factor in these debates.
I understand something about the history of this conflict, but it seems like an absolutely unnecessary one to me. These conflict were born during a period when various types of "progressives" in the West often possessed deeply racist and elitist attitudes, and had abandoned concepts of human dignity. They were terrified by the fecund breeding of what they viewed as inferior races, and were at the same time fascinated by the new sciences and pseudo-sciences of control, manipulation and propaganda.
It seems to me that we can avoid a repeat of this ugly chapter if we adhere to a few simple principles: Treat people with respect; always tell them the truth; give them the information they need to make their own decisions; and then let them make their own decisions.
Thus, we don't trick people into sterilizing themselves; we don't foist unsafe pharmaceuticals on people because we think they are too dumb to understand what they are taking or to make informed consent decisions, or we just don't care about the consequences; we don't prescribe eugenicist or population control policy agendas and targets on other populations - targets that those populations didn't choose themselves.
Just give women the means to prevent and terminate pregnancy, insist on the principle that they have the right to access those means, and prevent and terminate a pregnancy, if they so choose - and then let them make their own decisions.
May 4, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your assumption is that people are always capable of absorbing the information they need to make the best choice. Unfortunately, that's not always possible.
To put this in context of China prior to the 1 child policy:
You have vast regions of China that are going to be relatively stable and more technologically developed than at any other time in history. Which is a good thing, becasue the country has been tearing itself apart in bloody civil wars for a century.
At the same time you have populations in rural regions that are totally illiterate, highly superstitious, distrustful of intellectuals and outsiders, and basically living as they have been for centuries. Their culture of the last couple millennium dictates having as many children as possible, especially boys, as the primary goal in life and almost the entire purpose for women.
To be blunt, the people in these villages are about to experience the material benefits of modernity such as increased medicine and nutrition, but do not yet have the cultural means to understand the macro scale consequences of exponential population growth.
Sorry it may offend some people's sensibilities, but the educated people in China made a realistic forecast of China's population growth and realized they were looking at complete disaster. Consequently they adopted a fairly draconian, but necessary, policy of 1 Child. By doing so they've on net balance saves China from catastrophe.
I'm sure as time goes on, and as China has a chance to adjust culturally, the policy will eventually be repealed and other self regulating cultural forces will replace it.
May 4, 2009 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, I'd also point out there's a huge difference from where your values origionate and where you're attempting to apply them. You can't say that one simple rule applies in all cases regardless of differences across cultures. That itself is a sort of cultural imperialism or missionary/evangelism.
Our values are based in a developed country like the US where even the poorest are usually literate and have access to many means of disseminating information, such as media, clinics, etc. For that reason it would be entirely wrong to dictate these choices rather than helping inform individuals to make thier own decision.
However, there's no comparison with rural parts of China that to this day haven't changed much culturally, where there are still very high illiteracy rates, and very little development of media or infrastructure to educate people to make informed choices.
Also, Western culture generally (aside from some religious groups) doesn't emphasize maximal procreation, especially boys, the way Chinese culture did prior to the 1 Child policy; where the cultural emphasis on child rearing goes back millennium and is deeply ingrained, with a large dose of superstition as well.
I think it was an impossible task to educate hundreds of millions of rural Chinese to the dangers of population growth in time to prevent catastrophe, without a draconian policy like 1 Child.
May 4, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you planning to continue talking to yourself like this, or do you think you might settle down eventually?
May 4, 2009 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm posting my thoughts on the subject. You're welcome to do the same. I won't whine about it if you do.
May 4, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're also posting a whole bunch of seemingly preemptive thoughts about things you think people are going to say but haven't actually said.
May 4, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, actually I was responding to exactly what I quoted from you. You're whining is getting tedious though. Are you going to discuss substance? Or keep complaining about tangential style and whatnot?
The value calls you're making are predicated on assumptions that aren't universally applicable. For example, you say to just educate and let the person choose. Unfortunately, that's not applicable to situations where the community can't be educated quickly enough to prevent a catastrophe.
Then the moral dilemma becomes whether to allow a community catastrophe to uphold the sanctity of individual rights.
In China's case the prospect of mass starvation, another civil war, with a population of 2 Billion or so armed with modern weapons, and potentially lose nukes or even using nukes, basically a Rwanda on China scale, is a pretty big catastrophe to avoid.
May 4, 2009 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
In my own first post, I was talking about Western policy toward non-Western countries, not China's own domestic policies, and about how to avoid a repeat of the counter-productive strife between feminists and population activists. I could go on to discuss my general views on population and reproduction policy, but I'm not interested in doing it with you. You're obviously very angry about something and are looking to berate and harangue others, and provoke conflict. Whatever weird button Michelle Goldberg's minimal preliminary foray pushed in you has touched off some angry, manic attack-mode brain dump containing everything your think about population policy and the evils of feminism. I'm just not interested in trying to stand in front of that torrent. So just go on and let it flow; you're doing fine without any participation from others.
May 4, 2009 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're the one freaking out and hurling insults.
Regardless, to return to the subject, you did state:
A good general rule. Basically do no harm. Unfortunately it's not that simple. Also, that totally fails to address the main source of friction between Movement Feminists and other nations:
Movement Feminists are also very active in what I'd call a sort of cultural imperialism. Often doing just as you are doing: projecting your values based in your culture and circumstance, onto another culture in a very different circumstance.
Your values don't address issues in China, India, or elsewhere where there are often a complex tangle of polices, some of which may be fairly draconian like China's One Child, or various policies in India which may seem harsh or even coercive by our standards.
However, to their own reasoning, they're necessary policies to prevent catastrophe, possibly drought, starvation, and the death of tens or even hundreds of millions.
Will Movement Feminists the USA support and feed a billion people if China outgrows it's ability to feed itself? To my eyes there's a kind of intellectually lazy decadence to Movement Feminism's approach to these issues, which ultimately hurts everyone.
So to answer Goldberg's question: no I don't think there will be a rapprochement between Movement Feminism and other parties, becasue I think the counterproductive approach and dogma is too ingrained in Feminism, and I don't think it has the capability to intellectually retool itself.
Again, why I think we're in a post Feminist era, where capable feminists are rolling into a broader set of humanitarian issues.
May 4, 2009 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
...give them the information they need to make their own decisions; and then let them make their own decisions...Just give women the means to prevent and terminate pregnancy, insist on the principle that they have the right to access those means...
Easier said than done when male relatives feel it is their role and their birthright to make all decisions.
Some of the happy, liberalizing pre-Soviet invasion Afghans described by Kozmik earlier in comments were attacking female Kabul University students with acid.
May 4, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
And plenty of blacks were lynched in the US, and plenty of women discriminated against, and plenty of while males made indentured servants. Should Martians and Venusians have invaded the USA and totally devastated our country through a proxy war? How would that have resulted in an an aftermath any better than Afghanistan, or Mad Max for that matter?
The point remains the USSR invasion and subsequent US proxy war in Afghanistan, where we armed and trained the Fundamentalist Mujaheddin against the "Godless Communists" totally destabilized Afghanistan and sent it into feudal warlordism and consequent cultural devolution.
Historically they were modernizing and liberalizing until imperialism and war drove them into reactionary thinking.
May 4, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? My point was that providing women in patriarchal countries with the means to control their fertility is more complicated than developing a healthy respect for their ability to make their own decisions, not that we shouldn't try or Venusians should invade the U.S. or....oh, never mind.
May 4, 2009 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well there's the problem. How can we enforce what rights people "should" have? Especially when we're not exactly a perfect society either. From what I've heard Arabic culture is incredibly hospitable and finds much of our harsh capitalism rather barbaric. Does that justify them condemning our culture or attacks to enforce their values?
How do we impose our values without invading them or other coercive measures? And doesn't history show that often an invasion or coercive means are in the longterm counter productive.
Back to the subject, Feminism often takes a rather aggressive stance and offends other cultures for what they see as American Feminist Imperialism on top of all our other forms of Imperialism.
We fought our own civil war and battles over these issues with a lot of casualties on all sides. My point is that before we step in to save one person from having acid thrown in the face, we'd better make sure we're not creating a reactionary cycle against American imperialism that will result in thousands having acid thrown in the face or worse.
May 4, 2009 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, I'm not saying we're disagreeing, cause I'm not sure actually. I'm just laying out the issues.
May 4, 2009 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
DanK, great post.
My only difference: "termination of pregnancy" is a euphemism for controlling the life decisions of the helpless.
There are basic human rights and duties to protect them that these (another huge euphemism) "reproductive rights" folks just refuse to examine and accept. The most fundamental, and perhaps a watershed point for all human rights at every point thereafter, would be true respect for and love of life. Few among the partisans on either side really are.
It seems that it has become a great temptation for the eugenicists to stare into the darkest behaviors on earth and snap; become controlled by their fearful forebodings and conclude that we must exterminate children to avoid these imagined threats.
What is the good life? This is a basic question beneath this subject.
May 5, 2009 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose these forums work best if limited to people who have read the book in question, but since even the existence of that theory is all but ignored in practice I am sounding off without qualms or knowledge of the book:
1. Until clones arrive, every person in the world either IS female or was grown in a female's womb. So everyone who cares about her- or his rights or those of his/her mother is a feminist.
2. Women's rights includes the right, but not the obligation, to wear clothes, to alter body parts including disfiguring mutilations short of serious health risk, and to engage in other tolerant, respectful and non-violent physical and social behavior in response to cultural norms. I think that takes care of 95% of the "tensions between feminism and multiculturalism." Feminism and multiculturalism face many other challenges of course, but they are not per se at odds unless they are distorted to mean more than the rights of women and the right to have and hold cultural affiliations and preferences different from those of one's neighbors.
3. Read Jared Diamond's "Collapse," and do the numbers ("human drama and juicy philosophical dilemmas" in generous quantities will follow soon enough): The world is never going to support 9 billion people living in American-style ranch houses with two car garages and barbecued steak every weekend. "Reproductive rights" ("every sperm is [NOT] sacred," but every womb is ?) are going to have to be balanced, to some extent, against social and community desires to live sustainably. There is no big need for "rapproachment" for anyone able to recognize and appreciate the basic common sense that neither individual nor collective aspirations can operate absolutely in any kind of decent and long-functioning society. There are many alternatives to such a balance other than war, but most are not pleasant.
4. Of course there has always been misogyny, and of course we live in fast-changing times so misogyny is taking new and different forms. Human rights, rule of law, and common respect applied equally, fairly, and effectively to women and men will probably be both necessary and sufficient to curb the "rampage" and other such ills simultaneously.
May 4, 2009 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
FYI: opening your post with such an obvious logical fallacy is not a good way to impress people.
Obviously we all come from both a female and a male. We're a heterosexually reproducing species, and that's the definition of it. But no, that doesn't mean we're all Feminists, or even that all women are Feminists. Feminism is a political movement. It's not the sex/gender itself.
Really, if that's the best you can muster... you should be a Republican. Preaching to the choir in a shrinking congregation is a sure road towards obsolescence.
May 4, 2009 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
This, to put it mildly, is not my field, and I realized as soon as I hit "submit" that I had not expressed my thoughts very clearly in that opening point. I really meant nothing more or less than what I take as the standard of philosophy of Gloria Steinem, Mary Wollstonescraft, and no doubt countless others, to the effect that women's rights are really basically a subset of human rights, and that 99+% of humans are part of some set of closeknit associations that include women. So the idea of feminism being in some kind of fundamental conflict with other values is not possible under any standard variant of modern enlightened rationality. Feminism is NOT "a political movement" in my Webster's dictionary, it is a bundle of values and organized efforts around them, political and anti-political and apolitical, and you would do better to save your silly and bogus insults for one of your other excessively large number of posts here.
May 4, 2009 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, let's not get into needlessly hairsplitting semantic debates. I think my point is made: female does not equal Feminist.
In fact, the number of women who identify as feminists is roughly on par and tracking with Americans who identify as Republicans.
May 4, 2009 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, the polls I've seen:
About 70% of people feel historical feminism has made their lives better.
However, self identification as Feminist, among women, has been in the low to mid 20s for a couple decades. Men self identify as feminist in the low teens.
More women considered it an insult than a compliment.
The population is about evenly split whether a women's movement, per se, is still needed, though the trend is downwards.
People identify with goals such as gender equality in large numbers, upwards of 80%, but that doesn't translate to the Feminist Movement, it's approaches or politics, per se.
May 4, 2009 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
And btw, contrary to your presumption, human rights may often be in conflict. Again, your presumption is a rather silly logical fallacy.
For example, the rights of the individual and the rights of the group may be in conflict, especially int he short term. Whether it's something as basic as food sharing or population control in China, the individual's immediate goals and rights are often in conflict with the goals/rights of the group as a whole.
That's why we've evolved empathy, to align our interests, such as your appeal to empathy regarding all of our mothers; and also intellect, to see long term consequences for the group, including our self and offspring, such as the population growth and catastrophe scenario I laid out for you.
It takes both.
May 4, 2009 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I meant irreconcilable or uncompromisable conflict, not fundamental conflict. A case of sloppy semantics, not a "silly logical fallacy."
You have a lot of time and energy here. How about using it with someone who fundamentally, though hopefully not irreconcilably, disagrees with you?
May 5, 2009 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're just blowing smoke.
To recap: you begin by saying essentially female=Feminism, and since we all know and care about females including our mothers, we're all de facto Feminists. Which is just moronic, becasue female in no way equates Movement Feminism.
Then you continue on with that fallacy to state therefore no conflict is possible with Feminism. Which is again absurd and based on a laughable and easily disproved premise.
And I hate to break it to you, but Webster's Dictionary isn't a great place to learn about Feminism. Feminism is a movement, it's not a set of values that just came into being sui generis. Movement Feminists have been anointing themselves and trying to convince people of that for decades, and not even 1/4 of women are buying it.
Which reminds me of another way Movement Feminists remind me of religious fanatics.
May 5, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You obviously have an ax to grind here. I don't. Or, at least, not in the same department as you do. Webster has served me very reliably for many years. I believe in altering my position in adjustment to facts not vice versa. You are extremely free in dishing out personal advice, so here's some back to you: try sticking to the subject of the page (which is not the validity or applicability of definitions in Webster's Collegiate Dictionary).
May 5, 2009 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe by "grinding an axe" you mean shooting down your lame assertions such as that female=Feminist or that individual rights/desires such as personal liberty aren't really in conflict with group rights/goals like avoiding a catastrophe.
You can keep calling me names, or you could try making a point that isn't so flimsy, for a change.
May 5, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
And btw, you brought up Websters. I was just pointing out how stupid it is to get one's definiton of such a complex political and social issue from a blurb in Websters.
May 5, 2009 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. I never said female=Feminist. I implied a high correlation, not an identity.
2. When you are done with your 88th double post consisting of 50% irrelevant insults (which maybe are not a result of grinding axes but of"shut up" not being in the non-dictionary of definitions you rely upon) I'd like to hear about your so very complex and sophisticated source that defines feminism to be only a movement and not a set of values AND a movement.
May 6, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE:"...Christians and Muslims who've decided to work together against women's rights..."
FROM HAARETZ: "Ultra-Orthodox 'Modesty Guard' suspected of beating Jerusalem woman", 08/09/08
A group of men who police suspect were hired by an ultra-Orthodox gang recently broke into a Jerusalem woman's home and beat her because they deemed her immodest.
The so-called "Modesty Guard" is suspected of being behind the incident. The gang has been known to unleash extortion, mercenaries, violence and surveillance on less religious Jews they deem sacrilegious. They claim to do it all in the name of God.
The incident may be one of a string of signs of rising ultra-Orthodox violence. Last year, five Haredi Jews assaulted a woman and an Israel Defense Forces soldier because they sat next to one another on a Jerusalem bus.
SOURCE - http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1009580.html
May 4, 2009 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE:"...Christians and Muslims who've decided to work together against women's rights..."
FROM YNET NEWS: 'Modesty patrol' suspected of spilling acid on teenage girl, 05/06/08
(EXCERPTS) A 14-year-old girl from Beitar Illite was taken to the Hadassah Ein Kerem Hospital in Jerusalem after an unknown person spilled acid on her face, legs and stomach, causing light burn wounds.
The act has been attributed to a representative of the so-called 'modesty guard' in this town where religious and secular residents are increasingly at bitter odds.
MDA received the call just before midnight on Wednesday and paramedic Dror Eini who arrived on the scene to treat the girl also managed to calm her down enough so she could explain what had happened.
Eini told Ynet that “the modesty guards have been threatening her for quite some time.” According to the paramedic the focus of the threats has largely been the victim's 18-year-old sister and some suspect the attacker mistook the younger girl's identity for that of her older sister's...
...An ultra-Orthodox teen from Beitar Illite who is in contact with the girl’s family spoke with her sister who described the incident. According to the boy, the attacker stopped the girl and first asked her for directions. Then, after confirming her surname, he spilled a bottle of acid on her...
SOURCE - http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3552461,00.html
May 4, 2009 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE:"...Christians and Muslims who've decided to work together against women's rights..."
FROM HAARETZ: Religious modesty guard 'enjoys support of rabbis and police', 08/20/08
A member of the Modesty Patrol, a group of ultra-Orthodox men working to eradicate so-called immodest behavior in Haredi areas, has detailed in a rare interview an organization that enjoys the support of rabbis and the police.
The group has existed in some form since the establishment of the State of Israel, and is suspected of recently stepping up its violent acts.
While it claims its focus is on advocacy, members have been recently been accused of breaking into homes, violent assault and forcing women to move to the back of public buses.
SOURCE - http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1013163.html
May 4, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE:"...Christians and Muslims who've decided to work together against women's rights..."
FROM HAARETZ: "5 Haredi men beat woman who refused to move to back of bus", 10/21/07
(EXCERPT) Five assailants believed to be Ultra-Orthodox Jews assaulted a woman and an Israel Defense Forces soldier Sunday for sitting next to each other on a bus bound for Beit Shemesh, near Jerusalem.
The incident began when the five men asked the religious woman to move to the back of the bus to prevent males and females from sitting together in public. When she refused, they beat her and the male soldier who sat next to her.
Police forces that arrived at the scene to arrest the men were attacked by dozens of ultra-Orthodox men who punctured the tires of their vehicles, allowing the assailants to escape...
SOURCE - http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/915215.html
May 4, 2009 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't thank you enough for courageously tackling a very dangerous subject, as dangerous as racial IQ differences.
I think you are wrong in dating concerns about overpopulation to the post-WWII period. I would say that these concerns were a principal motivation for WWII.
Barring some miraculous new sources of energy, land, water, etc. a terrible problem with overpopulation is likely to overwhelm all other problems within the next 50 years. The 1 child policy will then look like the mildest of mild policies.
May 4, 2009 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're a wingnut troll, and I didn't say anything about "racial IQ" whatever that's supposed to mean.
May 4, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goldberg is the author at the head of the thread and my post is addressed to her, not you. I haven't even bothered to read your stuff.
May 4, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I don't see her dealing with "Racial IQ" either. As usual, you're just Crazy like FOX.
May 4, 2009 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did I say she dealt with "Racial IQ"? I said
"I can't thank you enough for courageously tackling a very dangerous subject, as dangerous as racial IQ differences."
What that means - for those like you who are mentally challenged - is that the subject of overpopulation and its proposed solutions (eugenics, for example) is as highly charged as the subject of racial differences in IQ (the latter cost Arthur Jensen his career).
I suspect Goldberg will have no difficulty in understanding. I don't give a shit whether you ever do.
May 4, 2009 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol. Sure, when you said racial IQ, you didn't mean racial IQ, you meant racial IQ. It's pretty clear you're not firing on all cylinders.
May 4, 2009 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did I say she dealt with "Racial IQ", you fucking moron?
May 4, 2009 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever. Take you meds.
May 4, 2009 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that a book is being written about this global issue is part of an enormous pile of proof that we are NOT in a post-feminist society.
Blaming feminism for being aggressive, self-serving, imperialist, polarizing, indoctrinating idealogues...it helps nothing.
We've heard this type of stuff before. It's Jerry Falwell with a giant thesaurus.
The need to restore some "old sexual order" should be at the forefront of humanist debates. But as usual, women are left to fight their own battles, and in a society that blames rather than helps, what other choice do we have?
As the old saying goes, "if you feel attacked by feminism..."
May 5, 2009 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I'd say that Feminism by being those things is achieving nothing. What have Feminists accomplished lately?
Right. It's all Black and White. With us or against us. anyone who doesn't toe the Feminist Movement line must me an evil misogynist reactionary, both domestically and abroad. So glad Feminists aren't "aggressive, self-serving, imperialist, polarizing, indoctrinating idealogues"
Btw, when were American Movement Feminists, 1/5 of American Women, elected the world's moral authority? I must have missed that.
May 5, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of which we have abundant example on this thread - I won't mention any names, I'll just say that it begins with "k" and ends with "ozmik".
May 5, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geeze Bev, with such impressive displays of wit from you, how can anyone resist your ideas?
Surely I must be wrong that only about one in five American Women identify as Feminist and would agree with you. I guess 4 out of 5 American women are misogynists like me then, huh?
You're just like the Moral Majority, in that you have a vastly over inflated notion of yourself, completely untethered from reality.
May 5, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the sort of commenter BevD is agreeing with. That's exactly the problem, the remnants of Feminism.
What about all the books arguing that we're in fact in a post-Feminist era, and the fact that 4/5 of American Women don't identify as Feminists, and even less women identify as Feminist globally?
May 5, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also - and this is a broader question -- what do you think is behind the homicidal misogyny now rampaging all over the globe, from Congo to Afghanistan to Juarez, Mexico? Was it ever thus, or is there something new going on?
My first thought was of the dynamics described by Susan Faludi in Stiffed - men displaced by forces beyond their control, deprived of a sense of achievement and value in what they do and who they are, blaming and taking it out on women, but that doesn't explain Juarez which apparently involves powerful men taking advantage of the influx of vulnerable young women from the countryside. Something different (aside from general societal breakdown) seems to be taking place there.
May 5, 2009 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I don't see the lashing out on women in times of conflict and war as something new. Because of the prevalent view of women as chattel, they've always been used to punish enemy combatants. I don't see any difference between the rape of the Sabine women and the rape of the women of Nanking and the rape of the women in the Sudan.
May 5, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, well seeing differences doesn't seem to be your strong suit. You've got equivocation down though.
May 5, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
First let me congratulate you, Michelle, on writing an excellent and important book. One reason it is important is that it is written by a young woman for a new generation that needs to know this history so that it can continue the slow progression toward greater justice for women in this world.
For me, much of the book was living history, but for those who are younger or were not directly involved in expanding the principles of reproductive self-determination in the U.S. and globally--whether the rationale du jour was population, women's health, or women's rights/feminism--you've documented critical events in the trajectory toward greater justice for women.
That the trajectory has not always gone in a straight line, nor has it gone smoothly from one point to another is simply a reflection of the fact that changing the gender power balance is so profound, it inevitably generates vicious backlash. The backlash comes from fear of change, and anger that the change means or will mean a diminishing of power for the dominant group. In that sense, their fear and anger make sense because in fact we are changing the world. For the better, we think. Power is not a finite pie or a zero sum game, we think. Gender equality is better for men as well as women, we think. But those who feel their place at the top of the hill getting shaky don't agree, and they fight back.
I never believed, nor do I believe now, that there is necessarily a conflict between the various motivations for wanting women to have access to birth control and safe, legal abortion.
My direct experience with many of the population control advocates you describe (quite accurately by the way) is that by and large they were men of the era in which men were uncomfortable with talking about sex, childbirth, or much of anything else warm and wet. But they could talk comfortably about demographics. And they had the power and money at their disposal to get access to family planning to women.
May 5, 2009 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd dispute that. If you look at Feminist demographics, actually it's a book written by a younger woman for an older and shrinking audience.
I think that's also based on a false premise becasue the US was never in danger of over population, or under population. The US debate on birth control and abortion was never seriously based on population issues. Neither in Europe.
I believe that's also false, due to your earlier false premise which constructs these issues as gender warfare. A much simpler explanation is simply that we've evolved as a society and the tenets applicable to agrarian biblical times (maximal procreation & sexual division of labor) are no longer operative.
That's just more men are oppressive misogynist boilerplate. btw, why do Feminists never explain how women came to be so oppressed in thier eyes? Gender roles apparently just happened, sui generis, without any rational explanation or evolutionary purpose.
Warm and wet? Really? Is that meant to be taken seriously? That "the men" concerned for example with the potential for overpopulation of China for example, aren't actually concerned about crop yield, pandemic disease, water shortage, failed states, warfare, or loose nukes. It's really just an aversion to things "warm and wet" in your opinion?
That's exactly what I mean. It's really hard to take most Feminists seriously. There's no substance there. It's such "misogyny... oppression.. blah blah..." totally unsubstantiated self referential dogma.
Which might be why only 1 in 5 women identify as Feminist, despite Feminists continuing to claim to speak for all women.
May 5, 2009 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another false narrative Feldt attempts to construct is that men are oppressing women on the issue of abortion, birth control, and women's reproductive rights generally. That's false and conflates number of issues. It's the main straw man, that since men are oppressive women must unify to oppose them, hence Feminism.
Actually it's traditional people, both men and women, who are against birth control and abortion, and may also be against any form of population control.
It's also been progressive/liberalizing people, both men and women, who've been in favor of birth control, choice, and may also be in favor of reasonable population control when necessary.
The traditional people, both men and women, are typically more religious and maintain biblical values (or other religious beliefs) of maximal reproduction, suited to agrarian biblical times.
More liberal/progressive people, both men and women, tend towards a more practical approach, balancing pleasure, medical concerns, population concerns, individual rights vs states rights, etc.
But again, it's men and women on both sides. The fault line tends to lay along cultural divides, not gender.
Setting it up as a gender war is just a false premise and scare tactic to herd women into following Feminist leaders.
May 5, 2009 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, the fall of Feminism was due in large part to 2nd Wave proscriptive Feminists dictating to women not based on common sense and shared goals, but based on a byzantine set of litmus tests derived from Feminist Canon and Orthodoxy, resulting in bizarre proclamations on anything from bras to China's One Child policy.
Movement Feminism today has more in common with the Vatican than the Suffrage Movement.
May 6, 2009 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
For me the history lesson was the most interesting aspect of this book. It’s fascinating to see how the threads of Cold War fears, environmentalism, feminism, and traditional patriarchy intersected to get America to the strange point we now occupy in this drama. That history also begs many questions in my mind about the causes of misogyny.
To Goldberg’s questions: If the trend I’ve seen among those types in the US (who are after all often explicitly allied with their international counterparts) is an indicator, misogyny is getting uglier along with the ideology that underpins it. As another indicator, it also seems to me that the book recounts a rising tide of opposition to family planning aid over time, too (or maybe it’s better described as surges and backlashes). Historical parallels also come to mind: There was a time in the American South when the racism that had long been part of the white culture became more virulent, and a time when the antisemitism in Germany intensified dramatically.
As far as how to deal with the problem, I’m inclined to want to base that on an understanding of what drives it. The reason is that it’s been scary to see how such extremists rise up again after appearing to have been vanquished (I’m partly thinking of Christian fundamentalists who were the subject of Goldberg’s previous book, Kingdom Coming). Therefore, whatever means we use to fight, it’s important to have a World War II type victory and not a World War I type, in the sense that we want to win without ongoing feelings of humiliation among the vanquished, or leaving in place the antagonisms that caused the conflict (which the victors of WWI disastrously did, and the victors of WWII wisely did not).
So what, then, is the cause of intensifying hatreds? The historical parallels might be a clue. I grew up among Christian fundamentalists in the American South and witnessed their increasing anger over gender and religiously-based “culture issues” after the civil rights movement. What is generally not mentioned is that racial antagonism, although one can hardly argue it got worse, percolated in that stew as well, albeit not as publicly in their rhetoric. The commonality of a need-to-be-superior-to-someone-else mentality is obvious. The other toxic ingredient, which I’ve seen catalogued in the case of both the American South and radical Islam, is a sense of humiliation (subjectively, of course), which makes the extremists more extreme. Maybe it is even the root cause of their extremism. It certainly contributes to their mistrust of everyone outside their own self-defined group, which in turn leads to a tremendous capacity for delusion and prevents dealing with them on reasoned ground.
May 6, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
women's sexual autonomy more generally. There are big international networks on both sides - one of the alliances I find most fascinating, and most clarifying, is the
tool bag factory
August 11, 2010 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feel good, thank you on the article.
seks | sikiş
January 4, 2011 3:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of server 2008 hyper v, best iscsi san
March 30, 2011 5:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of exchange high availability
April 28, 2011 6:03 AM | Reply | Permalink