Google

Bartlett's Bizarre Bazaar

Comment, Comics and the Contrary. Contact: aj_bartlett1977*at*yahoo*dot*co*dot*uk
Enter your email address below to subscribe to Bartlett's Bizarre Bazaar!


powered by Bloglet

Monday, May 22, 2006

 

National Feminists

There is a movement to dress up modern racism in the clothes of progressivism. This is nothing new, in form. Racism, at least, successful racism, has rarely built its rationale on blatant hate. Rather, the demonisation of minorities and immigrants has been conducted via what were, at the time, apparently reasonable, rational grounds; concerns with the intelligence of the nation, with the biological health of the populace, with the maintenance of the indigenous culture, and so on. And why? Because in order to successfully build a modern racist society the support of middle-classes and the intelligentsia needs be won. We can see this happening now, when attacks on Muslims are dressed up as assertions of ‘Enlightenment values’, as defences of ‘free speech’, as efforts to safeguard ‘superior’ European culture. I have written [here and here] about two of the recruiting pamphlets in this campaign.

Despite knowing this, I rarely fail to be surprised by those who dress their attacks on Muslims up as blows for feminism. It is one thing to point out that Islam can be practised in ways that repress women. But when this is used to legitimate calls for restrictions on the immigration of Muslims, the true face of those dancing in this ‘progressive masquerade’ is revealed. If one is concerned for the welfare of Muslim women, one would welcome their immigration to the West, where, according to the unspoken contradictions in the narrative of these racists, these repressed women will find opportunities for liberation that they could not find in their homelands. So do those who make calls for restricting the immigration of Muslims have the welfare of women at heart? Some do, and have been recruited, in their good-natured but slapdash liberalism, by racists. Some are plain racists. And the rest? The rest we might describe as ‘National Feminists’ as, yes, they care about the welfare of women, just so long as these women are of their own kind. It is these National Feminists who, rather than demanding the establishment of women’s refuges and multi-lingual support services, call for restrictions on the movement to women to the West and for the burkha to be banned.

How would that be managed, anyhow? Would the police strip women in the street, or merely toss them in riot vans for the way in which they dress. Do either of those options sound like a liberal society to you? And yes, I have some sympathy for the argument that the burkha is an objective symbol of oppression. But to enact a repressive policy to liberate women that takes no notice of the subjective understandings of women who wear the burkha will get you nowhere but oppressive authoritarianism. To adorn a law with the language of liberation when, in practise, it would lead to harassment, embarrassment, insult and arrest for those women whom lounge bar legislators feign concern for is to perform a grotesque act of doublespeak. Social analyses using the language of false consciousness are all well and good; indeed, we must all believe in the existence of false consciousnesses to some degree if we are to make sense of human beings with different value and belief systems to our own. But it does not a democracy make to legislate in all but the most egregious cases, which, for liberty’s sake, ought be limited to those cases that psychologists, not rabid islamophobic racists, describe as mental illness.

Comments:
Great post Andrew.
 
I'm a National Feminist and proud of it.

Nation states, provided they are Western and therefore civilised, guarantee enlightenment to those from uncivilised cultures. Therefore Muslim women should ditch their backward burkhas and become British if they want to live here.

It is the British identity, not the Islamic one, that gives them rights.

Choose to wear the burkha? Yeah, right. Like they choose to marry a peasant from "back home" at 16. Perhaps some children "choose" to be molested by their parents. It's their "little secret", see.

If I were unlucky enough to be born into this benighted religion, I'd rather have Mel P on my case than you or Madeleine Bunting. At least she knows where enlightened values come from - and it ain't the east.
 
"Therefore Muslim women should ditch their backward burkhas and become British if they want to live here."

And if they don't, they deserve everything they get when we send them back where they came from, presumably? Just for wearing a particular garment? How very compassionate!

I suppose women who wear short skirts or even pashminas (nasty, eastern things!) 'deserve it', as well.
 
NIBster, I really wouldn't waste your time engaging with 'Mary'. She's a professional troll as well as a bigot.
 
And if they don't, they deserve everything they get when we send them back where they came from, presumably?

It's their choice. Dress like a civilised normal person or piss off to a country where black ghosts with slits for eyes are normal.

We don't tolerate men leading "their" women around the streets on a dog leash. A burkha is no better than this.
 
I see what you mean, John - the phrase 'crocodile tears' springs to mind.

I'm out of here!
 
Oh, your concern for women is mind-boggling, OP.
 
I'm off now - it was nice to drop in.

Bye.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


Archives

August 2004   September 2004   October 2004   November 2004   December 2004   January 2005   February 2005   March 2005   April 2005   May 2005   June 2005   July 2005   August 2005   September 2005   October 2005   November 2005   December 2005   January 2006   February 2006   March 2006   April 2006   May 2006   June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   November 2006   December 2006   January 2007   March 2007  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

«#?» Listed on Blogwise