This article on Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Laila Lalami has prompted a reply from a reader, Suhail Shafi:

“Ms Lalami’s article… [takes] a firm stand against the oppression of women in any way shape or form… Believing in equality for women without insulting or vilifying anybody’s religious sentiments… strikes as being far more constructive than the factually questionable (at best) rant of the likes of Hirsi Ali. Yes, ‘eminently brilliant’ is quite an appropriate label for Ms Lalami’s work.”

Setting aside the matter of Lalami’s “eminent brilliance”, an obvious problem springs to mind. It seems rather difficult to “take a firm stand against the oppression of women in any form” without challenging the specific religious ideas and specific religious laws that are used to justify and perpetuate the oppression one is supposedly taking a stand against. How, for instance, does one deal with the “respected” Andalusian imam, Mohammed Kamal Mostafa, whose book, The Islamic Woman, advises Muslim men on how to beat “rebellious” women without leaving visible signs of injury, in accord with Muhammad’s teachings? How, exactly, does one challenge Mostafa’s assertions – and the assertions of others like him – without also challenging the “sacred” ideas that are invoked as an unassailable religious mandate? And how does one take “a firm stand” without suggesting, at least by implication, that those “religious sentiments” are wrong and disgusting on very important issues?

“Believing” in the equality of women is very easy and conveniently vague, especially if one is unwilling to challenge the means by which cruelty and coercion are perpetuated, justified and enforced. Unless one is prepared to address the theological nuts and bolts of the matter, and prepared to risk offending some religious “sentiments”, it’s hard to see what kind of “firm stand” has actually been taken.

Elsewhere, Tim Blair highlights the flummery of some multicultural “feminists” when confronted with female genital mutilation. One particularly conflicted soul says, “It would seem to me counterproductive to have loud denunciations of [FGM] – the key thing should be to convince people it is wrong.” Quite how one makes a compelling and realistic argument while studiously avoiding “denunciation” of any kind isn’t exactly clear. Apparently the words “barbarous” and “stupid” are frowned upon. But again, it isn’t obvious how such practices can be challenged in any meaningful way if one is obliged to flatter the “sentiments” of those who wield the clitoral scissors.

Update: Some of the comments are quite illuminating. Related: this.

I thought I’d highlight a piece from Friday’s ephemera by Christina Hoff Sommers, on what she calls the “fecklessness of American feminism.” Sommers notes the silence of so many “vagina warriors” on matters of gender oppression in Islamic societies: 

“If you go to the websites of major women’s groups… or to women’s centres at our major colleges and universities, you’ll find them caught up with entirely other issues, seldom mentioning women in Islam. During the 1980s, there were massive demonstrations on American campuses against racial apartheid in South Africa. There is no remotely comparable movement on today’s campuses against the gender apartheid prevalent in large parts of the world…

Many feminists are tied up in knots by multiculturalism and find it very hard to pass judgment on non-Western cultures. They are far more comfortable finding fault with American society for minor inequities (the exclusion of women from the Augusta National Golf Club, the ‘under-representation’ of women on faculties of engineering) than criticizing heinous practices beyond our shores. The occasional feminist scholar who takes the women’s movement to task for neglecting the plight of foreigners is ignored or ruled out of order.”

As, for instance, when the “post-colonial theorist” Gayatri Spivak denounced Martha Nussbaum’s critique of postmodern feminism and her reference to Islamic misogyny as mere “flag waving” and advancing some (no doubt wicked and rightwing) “civilizing mission.” Sommers also casts an eye over the intellectual contortions of those who equate cosmetic surgery and a tolerance of pornography with acts of jihadist terrorism – an equation that renders those who mouth it trivial, pretentious and morally absurd.

In a piece titled The Tyranny of Moderation, Oliver Kamm offers a sturdy and unforgiving defence of free speech, while taking a swipe at the evasion, dishonesty and spinelessness that increasingly surrounds the issue. Kamm points out that free speech is not, and cannot be, a matter of “balance”, “sensitivity” or fatuous moral equivalence, and that the open testing of ideas is not, as some suggest, an “ethnocentric imposition.”

“It is inevitable that those who find their deepest convictions mocked will be offended, and it is possible (though not mandatory, and is incidentally not felt by me) to extend sympathy and compassion to them. But they are not entitled to protection, still less restitution, in the public sphere, even for crass and gross sentiments. A free society does not legislate in the realm of beliefs; by extension, it must not concern itself either with the state of its citizens’ sensibilities. If it did, there would in principle be no limit to the powers of the state, even into the private realm of thought and feeling.

The debate has not been aided – it has indeed been severely clouded – by an imprecise use of the term ‘respect’. If this is merely a metaphor for the free exercise of religious and political liberty, then it is an unexceptionable principle, but also an unclear and redundant usage. Respect for ideas and those who hold them is a different matter altogether. Ideas have no claim on our respect; they earn respect to the extent that they are able to withstand criticism… It is not, in fact, a fine sentiment to require respect. Respect is not an entitlement. It is, at most, a quality that is earned by the intellectual resilience of one’s ideas in the public square… 

If those with deeply held convictions find they receive compensation for injured feelings, then mental hurt is what they will seek out. As one group succeeds, then others will perceive the incentive to fashion comparable demands… Respecting the beliefs and feelings of others is a lethal affectation in public policy. It is easy to depict freedom of speech as liable to cause hurt, precisely because it is true. The policy that follows from that is counterintuitive but essential: do nothing. The defence of a free society involves not taking a stand on its output, but insisting on the integrity of its procedures.”

Amen, brother. Related: this, this, this and this.

Over at Shire Network News, the very fine Tom Paine interviews Evan Coyne Maloney, maker of the film on campus censorship and coercion, Indoctrinate U. The examples of political bias and intimidation, often at tax-payers’ expense, are eye-opening to say the least and touch on issues raised here. Other topics discussed include John Bolton’s brush with BBC “impartiality”, the oafish Michael Moore, the insane Jerry Falwell, jihadist television and the “mental torture” of unscented soap. Download the SNN podcast here.

Further to recent posts on PC bigotry and the redefinition of racism, La Shawn Barber has highlighted another example of students being steered towards approved kinds of prejudice.

Seattle high school students have at public expense been sent to the annual White Privilege Conference, the stated aim of which is to provide “a yearly opportunity to examine and explore difficult issues related to white privilege, white supremacy and oppression.” Topics headlined for ‘exploration’ include “white man’s pornography”, “multiple systems of oppression” and “transforming whiteness in the classroom.” Given such tendentious subject matter, readers may be forgiven for questioning the extent to which realistic discussion will actually be encouraged, or indeed permitted, and for questioning whether the White Privilege Conference does in fact provide “a challenging, empowering and educational experience.”

Visitors are, however, assured that the WPC is “not about beating up on white folks,” but is instead about “working to dismantle systems of power, prejudice, privilege and oppression.” Whether those two statements prove compatible in practice is, alas, not entirely clear. Dr Peggy McIntosh, a “highly sought-after speaker” on multicultural teaching methods, describes white privilege as “an invisible package of unearned assets… like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, code books, visas, clothes, tools, and blank checks.” If that explanation isn’t sufficiently clear or convincing, Dr McIntosh also provides a White Privilege Checklist, which defines white privilege as the ability to “be in the company of people of my race most of the time” and to “avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust and who have learned to mistrust my kind or me.” The ability to go shopping without being followed or harassed is, Dr McIntosh asserts, another indicator of heinous racial advantage, as is the ability to find publishers for articles on the “invisible, weightless” phenomenon upon which she happens to opine.

La Shawn Barber notes that racially-fixated ideology isn’t exactly unknown in Seattle’s educational system. Dr Caprice Hollins, the Director of Equity, Race & Learning Support for Seattle’s public schools, has previously criticised individualism, long-term planning (or “future time orientation”) and the speaking of grammatical English as “white values.” The expectation among teachers that all students should be responsible individuals and meet certain linguistic and organisational standards is, according to Dr Hollins, a form of “cultural racism.”

Behold your tax dollars at work, shaping young minds for a brighter tomorrow.

More here and here.