French Feminists: President’s Speech A “Slap In The Face” To Islamic Women

23 responses so far

• 1 ottovbvs // Jun 5, 2009 at 3:15 pm

  In other words Ms Sugier is what most American conservatives like David Frum would call a FemiNazi. Nevertheless because it supports his attack on the president (whatever happened to all that conservative pontificating about not attacking a president when he speaks overseas?) Frum enlists her fairly left wing feminist arguments against what was a perfectly reasonable point that you have to respect other’s cultures even if you don’t necessarily subscribe to them. This is fairly petty stuff David. This is our president trying to advance US interests and bring peace to the middle east. Do we really need this sort of view that is trotted out for no other reason than to score points against a Democratic president.

• 2 joescannura // Jun 5, 2009 at 3:34 pm

  Wow man, your all over this site, and probably others,saying that we should all be relativists. Give up, the relativist days are over.You actually need to make a decision! standing behind, “i respect other people’s culture’s” is the silliest argument one could ever make. Advancing the American cause while giving in to the the same ideology that were supposed to be fighting is a pretty strong oxymoron. Not one you want to make as the leader of the U.S.

• 3 ModerateGal // Jun 5, 2009 at 3:53 pm

  This site is rather schizophrenic.

• 4 ottovbvs // Jun 5, 2009 at 3:58 pm

  joescannura
  wrote 11 minutes ago

  ……Well perhaps it’s because I’ve worked in several countries in Europe, spent time in the middle east and far east both in business and in the military, and run some fairly sizeable businesses that I have some respect for others and don’t buy into your simplistic mantras. I’ve no idea who Ms Sugier is but it’s fairly obvious from the little bit of commentary that she’s probably a bit to the left of Jane Fonda and therefore, under normal circumstances anathema to folks like yourself. Maybe I’m old fashioned but I find the spectacle of using her comments as a means of attacking a US President completely deplorable. It’s obviously ok with you which means we have different standards, brought up in a different generation, I guess.

• 5 sinz54 // Jun 5, 2009 at 4:43 pm

  ottovbvs: You have to understand why this issue is so important to French radical-feminists like Ms. Sugier.

  In 2004, they allied with right-wingers in the French Parliament to pass a tough law *banning* “excessively large” signs of religion in public schools. Not only is the hijab banned, but so is the Jewish yarmulke, evidently. Any student who comes to class wearing one of these faces expulsion, and some have been expelled.

  I don’t think we want to be allied with such a movement.

  Could you imagine the outcry if a teacher told a Jewish boy in her class to “Take off your yarmulke or you’ll be suspended”?

• 6 danbmil99 // Jun 5, 2009 at 4:44 pm

  Oy, what an unholy alliance — radical French feminists and neo-conservatives desperate to regain their once and future empire? “Double, double, toil and trouble. Fire burn, and cauldron bubble!”

  I know a well-off family from Qatar. The daughter wears a veil, entirely of her own choice; the mother wears western clothes and scoffs at the ‘veil thing’.

  Obama’s words were I believe more about the situation in Turkey or France where you are expressly forbidden to wear an article of clothing that you would choose to express your religion. Can you imagine the uproar if anyone suggested that a Jew couldn’t wear a Yarmulke, or a Christian couldn’t wear the cross?

  It was pretty clear to me from his context that he was *not* condoning the idea that it is fine to force women to wear the veil. Rather, he was making a general point that people should be free to wear such symbols or not; it should be up to them, not to the state in either direction.

• 7 ottovbvs // Jun 5, 2009 at 4:58 pm

  sinz54
  wrote 6 minutes ago

  Thanks for background but I’m familiar with the situation….I lived in France for several years and have many friends over there…..I’m afraid what I find totally grotesque is Frum using this woman who may be totally admirable to attack the president of our country when he is engaged in foreign policy initiatives abroad that are intended to both advance US interests but also bring peace or at least a measure of understanding between the factions……It’s very bad….there’s no other way to put it but it’s a measure of the depths to which those on the far right will go either because the are panicked that Obama may enjoy some success or because of Israeli considerations.

• 8 midcon // Jun 5, 2009 at 5:04 pm

  Was Obama supposed to start a holy war on veils and womens rights? This is not about Islam, this is about tribal societies that have existed for centuries who use religion as a weapon against change. The male heads of the tribes react violently to anything that threatens their way of life. Honor killings, genital mutilation, burkas, lack of education in many cases, all contribute to the sustainment of tribal power.

  This is not religious warfare, its tribal warfare. The Shias and Sunnis are both Muslim, but they spend an inordinate amount of time trying to dominate the other. The notion that peace and Islam go hand in hand is about as accurate as the notion that the Native Americans spent their lives living in peaceful coexistence with nature and each other.

• 9 joescannura // Jun 5, 2009 at 5:26 pm

  oh yes, it’s very bad to criticize the president, we musn’t do that, we must sit back and have no opinion while those who have lived abroad give us there incredibly noble opinions. give it a rest. He should have taken some sort of stand, and he really didn’t. He acted like all democrats always say he does,as “the great explainer and teacher”. He stands there acting as if no one knows any of the issues. He talks about them naively and with no breadth, which makes it seem fairly stupid for him to act as a mediator. And he’s really not suposed to just be a mediator.he’s the President of our country, not mediator between us and extremists. We don’t need any more mediating between Al Qeada or Al Shabab. I think we know what they think. I guess I just don’t have enough respect for other cultures. I should go live over seas for a few years and come home and just live in la la land where we all do whatever we want. no judging! only hugs!

• 10 TrueToryism // Jun 5, 2009 at 5:32 pm

  What is he going to do at a speech in Cairo, in a country that isn’t a democracy – and is packed to the brim with radicals’? This is diplomacy, he wanted to score some points whilst taking the heat off his own country — thus, mentioning Europeans’ and the veil. We don’t need to win over or discuss the moderates — we need to win over the conservatives and the reactionaries — because they own the debate in those countries.

• 11 sinz54 // Jun 6, 2009 at 6:37 am

  midcon: During the Bush Administration, we got some big hints from Bush that he was taking America into a modernized “White Man’s Burden” role, the same type of role that the British Empire had in the 19th century: We were going to liberate and civilize the benighted areas of the world, so that the liberated peoples wouldn’t resort to terrorism.

  One of the major after-the-fact justifications for the Iraq War was that we were going to “build a democracy” in a land which had never known it, on the grounds that free peoples don’t resort to terrorism. (Subsequent events proved this wrong.)

  It was for that reason that Bush supported free elections in Gaza (with disastrous results; HAMAS, a terrorist organization, won the election). After that, Bush got very quiet about liberation.

  BTW: The British Empire had been successful in civilizing India, a debt we often forget we owe Britain. The Brits broke the power of the Thuggee cult and worked against the caste system. But the Brits had to stay in India for a couple of centuries, to accomplish this.

• 12 ottovbvs // Jun 6, 2009 at 6:42 am

  The speech was a huge success as even some conservatives are grudgingly admitting. The far right and neocons panicked that the president will be perceived domestically as scoring a triumph or taking an anti Israeli stance are essentially reduced to turning mountains into molehills or finding quotes from obscure French feminist organizations. It isn’t going to make a dimes worth of difference out in the real world and this is what sticks in the craw of those like joescannura who are making much of this sort of trivia. What else can they do but mouth their own blinkered insularity.

• 13 midcon // Jun 6, 2009 at 6:59 am

  sinz, further – I believe that the Bush Administration had in its collective mind that “democratization” was really a code word for “civilization.” We (including me) tend to believe that democracy is a higher form of civilization. And many people (including me) tend to equate tribalism with barbarism.

  Babarians tend to have little respect for life and liberty. People (especially women) are regarded as little more than chatel to be treated as their masters desire.

  The caste system (though outlawed) remains a significant influence in India. Intermarriage of light and dark skinned Indians remains taboo. African tribes consistently rape, pillage and murder other tribes, The Sunnis and Shias are at war and when not, have an uneasy peace. That Wahhabi sect teaches that killing infidels is acceptable and even desired.

  The Bush Administration’s problem was one of arrogance to think that they would “liberate” the world from their tribal and barbaric practices. The shining light upon the hill would elevate them to true civilization.

  Tribalism has existed for centuries and cannot be demolished in a single administration much less over a century. Tribalism continues to be reinforced and even promoted as a means of survival. Israel is a prime example of tribalism, where they are bound together by a common identity for the singular purpose of survival. All tribes react the same way when threatened.

  I believe that tribalism is the greatest threat to civilization on this planet. But I have no illusions that tribalism can be effectively countered any time soon.

• 14 Jan // Jun 6, 2009 at 11:36 am

  “To say that one wears the veil voluntarily does not efface the humiliation that it signifies for all women.”

  And your point is that the social pressure makes the ‘voluntarily’ questionable. I feel the same way about abortion.

• 15 dragonlady // Jun 6, 2009 at 12:02 pm

  ottovbvs, I don’t think you really understand American conservative women. Unlike the leftist feminists, we do not buy into the multicultural view that what happens to women in other societies is somehow equal to how women live freely in ours. Far from calling these women femi-Nazis, we simply do not believe in female genital mutilation, honor killings, that woman are forced not to go to school, or have no rights if her husband chooses to divorce her. I’m not asking for these societies to become Jeffersonian democracies. But I think it’s perfectly compatible with US interests to press that women at least not be treated like sub-humans, for example, in Afghanistan, where little girls get acid thrown in their faces for attending school.

• 16 danbmil99 // Jun 6, 2009 at 11:44 pm

  midcon: “The Bush Administration’s problem was one of arrogance to think that they would “liberate” the world from their tribal and barbaric practices. The shining light upon the hill would elevate them to true civilization.”

  What’s ironic here is that Bush and the neocon’s concept of American exceptionalism is a prime example of exactly the kind of tribalism you are complaining about. What they really wanted to do was to shift the allegiance of members of another tribe to *our* tribe. That’s why it seems so abhorrent and aggressive to so many outside the bubble of American neo-conservative rhetoric.

• 17 sinz54 // Jun 7, 2009 at 6:27 am

  danbmil99 sez: “What they really wanted to do was to shift the allegiance of members of another tribe to *our* tribe. That’s why it seems so abhorrent and aggressive”

  No, that in itself shouldn’t repel you.

  I want America to believe in its own principles of freedom and open markets, and to proclaim to the world that those ideas are more moral and work better than tyranny and command economies. We always did. Radio Free Europe did. Reagan did. JFK did. Even FDR did some of that, with his Atlantic Charter.

  Shifting allegiances by persuasion and example is something everybody across the political spectrum should agree with, with the exception of extremists who just don’t think America deserves any friends.

  But attempting to impose democracy in Afghanistan or Iraq by military force is unworkable–unless, as the British Empire did, we’re prepared to stay there till the extremists die of old age or something.

  We originally invaded Afghanistan to destroy the top leadership of al-Qaeda. We weren’t entirely successful. But Bush made the decision to stay in Afghanistan to civilize the country, on the theory that terrorism doesn’t flourish in democratic nations. I would like to ask Bush if all the Islamic terrorist bombing plots in Britain (some successful, some not), now numbering in the *hundreds* according to MI-6, refutes his theory. Or the horrific terrorist attacks in India, that go back many years.

• 18 sinz54 // Jun 7, 2009 at 6:34 am

  dragonlady sez: “I think it’s perfectly compatible with US interests to press that women at least not be treated like sub-humans, for example, in Afghanistan, where little girls get acid thrown in their faces for attending school.”

  So do I.
  But as conservatives, you and I should believe in gradual and orderly progress, not radical progress. Stopping women from being physically abused is OK. Pushing to remake Afghanistan into a Western democracy is questionable.

  Bush crowed over how women have achieved equality with men in Afghanistan. For example, women in the government now debate freely with men in the government. But that really irritates traditionalist tribesmen, who still believe that a woman’s place is in the home.

  Even many men in America, one of the most advanced societies on earth, still believed that a woman’s place was in the home as recently as a few decades ago. To try to remake Afghanistan (the most backward society on earth) as feminists would like every country to be is pushing too far, too fast, and too hard.

  If we want Afghanistan to have full equality between men and women, then let’s design a roadmap to do that in slow, easy to take steps, say over a period of 50 years.

• 19 danbmil99 // Jun 7, 2009 at 8:29 pm

  sinz: Let me be clear. I have no problem with America stating that our principles and way of life are great. I believe that, and frankly I believe most of our so-called enemies actually believe it too, at some level.

  What is abhorrent and unworkable, as you point out, is to try to force our better way down people’s throats with guns, bombs, and occupation. The history of mankind has shown this to be an exceedingly risky and difficult proposition, even if it is at times morally defensible. It is almost always seen as aggression by the recipient of such gunboat diplomacy. It has the unwanted effect of pushing those who might want change to have to ‘defend their homeland’ or be called traitors. It empowers the same forces of totalitarianism we wish to overcome — they can justifiably claim martial law, and paint themselves as reasonable leaders responding to foreign interlopers.

  You seem to know history, because as you point out imperialism only ever ‘worked’ (if you are of the opinion that it was justified and worthwhile) when the occupier was willing to go the whole 9 yards, and see the project through to completion. Even then, it seems to me that a good proportion of what would have to be called failed states in the world are places where imperialism was tried, sometimes for more than a century. In the end, the will of a people to be recognized as sovereign seems so strong that it just can’t be broken, at least not in a single lifetime.

  And so there we are, and this gives context to Obama’s ‘apology’ for things like the 1950’s interference in Iran. (I wonder what he’ll say if he gets to Chile?)

• 20 danbmil99 // Jun 7, 2009 at 8:32 pm

  “If we want Afghanistan to have full equality between men and women, then let’s design a roadmap to do that in slow, easy to take steps, say over a period of 50 years.”

  So, I guess that means no gay marriage over there for a while? (or maybe it’s like Iran, with no homosexual ‘problem’!)

• 21 sinz54 // Jun 8, 2009 at 10:10 am

  danbmil99: The U.S. didn’t help overthrow the Mossadegh regime because we wanted to impose our own values on the populace. It was to avenge Mossadegh’s nationalization of the British oil companies, and return control of the oil to an Anglo-American cartel.

  Also, the Brits, seeking to entice the U.S. into staging a coup, lied to the U.S. that Mossadegh’s Iran was going to become a Soviet satellite (which was false). But at a time when the Korean War was just winding down, the idea that Iran would go communist if the U.S. didn’t step in proved politically popular.

  The reason for overthrowing Chile was to prevent another Marxist regime in South America.

  We can disagree with the geopolitical thinking that went into these decisions. But it absolutely nothing to do with “bringing Western-style democracy” to those countries. In fact, the U.S. was quite content to have authoritarian regimes running them (the Shah and Pinochet respectively), as long as they were pro-U.S.

• 22 dragonlady // Jun 9, 2009 at 6:47 pm

  Spartacus, you are missing my point. I stated upfront we painfully examine our own mistakes. Its the nature of an open democracy and politically pluralist society. What Im saying is the belief in American exceptionalism is related directly to the belief in political pluralism on the international stage which means we aim to settle disputes peacefully since we agree upon common values. And by American exceptionalism, I define this as this country having a unique place in history since were the first modern democracy, and that the values we hold dear (freedom, self-determination, rule of law, etc) have endured through the test of time. And as I pointed out in my last post, weve shed blood to protect those values not only for ourselves, but others as well. It does not mean we think we hold the absolute truths to everything. But pluralism is different than multi-culturalism (the belief no one culture is better than anyone else since all cultures have problems. Therefore, all values must be held up as equal). For pluralism to take root, you must lay down a few ground rules to make co-existence possible because civilized nations at least agree that co-existence and tolerance is preferable over war and conquest. Yes, there will be disagreements, but its understood other nations will generally pursue their interests peacefully by negotiating in good faith. You wont avoid all violent clashes, but you strive to reduce the intensity and number of them. In multi-culturalisms case, you ultimately undercut peaceful co-existence because you cannot defend that tolerance (i.e., religious freedom) is better than intolerance (i.e., converting people to religion forcefully) since you’ve already given up the moral high ground by stating all cultural values are equal. This is happening in Europe now–their embrace of multi-culturalism has warped the very nature of democracy (i.e., sharia law in Great Britain). If you do not believe in American exceptionalism, you then do not think we should promote religious freedom or democracy thru even peaceful means. A multi-culturalist (i.e., moral relativist) would say because women have not always been free in America, we have no place to tell other nations how to treat their women. While women in this country have fought for equal opportunity and equal pay, this is NOT the same as fighting against honor killings or female genital mutilation. To try and compare these two situations and say it is the same condition is absolutely absurd. One is clearly morally preferable to the other in my view. I view multi-culturalism/moral relativism as anti-reason, and ultimately nihilistic.

• 23 dragonlady // Jun 9, 2009 at 6:51 pm

  Disregard my last post–wrong article.

You must log in to post a comment.