Blame feminists
Peter Boghossian raging at “western” feminists for what Allah-botherers do to women.
Don’t play the clip. Word is it’s as horrible as you’d expect.
I’m a feminist, and I suppose I’m “western.”
Tip Jar
Peter Boghossian raging at “western” feminists for what Allah-botherers do to women.
Don’t play the clip. Word is it’s as horrible as you’d expect.
I’m a feminist, and I suppose I’m “western.”
Thinks he’s an intellectual, a philosopher no less. Lectures people on their cognitive failings. Has never heard of selection bias. Doesn’t know how the media works. Totally full off it.
What the hell does he mean, “silence of Western feminists,” about the oppression of women and girls under Islam?
I suppose if you accept the assessment of the ‘woke’ that they are the only true feminists, you might be able to make that point, but…
Feminists are always being blamed for things feminists haven’t done, or for not doing things they actually did.
For “silence of Western feminists” read “failure of the media Boghossian likes to read to carry stories about protests and actions performed by Western feminists on these issues”, as well as “failure of Boghossian to read whatever reports might have crossed his newsfeed about these protests and actions”.
He was talking to Dawkins relatively recently about the whole “maybe Christianity is sufficiently benevolent that the woke atheism is a worse alternative”; Dawkins’s response was essentially “well I hope that’s not true or I’ve essentially wasted my entire life”.
So does Peter assume feminism has the power to end an androcentric religious society’s abuse of women? What has Western society *overall* been able to do? I think that by now feminism absolutely should have this kind of power to end injustice toward women, but it won’t any time soon if it has to simultaneously fight off criticisms and dismissals by the likes of Peter and other sneering men who obviously lack support, or oppose feminism entirely.
What have you done, sir? Post a horrific, attention seeking video on twitter? A video that explains absolutely nothing about feminism, then dismiss feminism based on a faulty causal chain?
I’d invite Peter to examine his (mis)conceptions about feminists, and ask himself why he isn’t one himself, but it looks like his mind is made up. Very Socratic, dude.
Boghossian exaggerates, but he points to a real phenomenon that has been covered here repeatedly: after the gains of feminism and gay rights secured last century, the movements turned inwards rather than outwards. Instead of focusing on extending women’s rights and gay rights to other places they were conspicuously absent, the leading organizations got behind trans rights, and began to undo the progress made in the West, calling that “progress.”
But no, the barbarity that has overtaken Afghanistan is in no way the fault of Western feminists.
There’s silence from feminists on this in the same way as there’s silence from feminists on the harms of Genderism. There are, in absolute terms, many who are feminists and speak on the subject, but that’s neither here nor there when those who have stolen the feminist label own the airwaves, the publishing houses, the activist organizations, the politicians, and the narrative.
Ok so I’ll just stop bothering, shall I?
No? But I wouldn’t expect to change the perception that “feminists” as a group aren’t talking about Middle Eastern oppression of women and would much rather hop on board the trans train to Genderville.
Nullius:
Are you saying that western feminists should adopt your own priorities?
Just asking.
Saudi Arabia (and any other state that enshrines in law the subordination and oppression of women) should be a pariah state the way South Africa was under apartheid. But, as in many other instances, geopolitics trumps human rights, unless the human rights abuse can be turned to tactical geopolitical advantage and used to embarass an opponent. Saudi Arabia sits on top of an ocean of oil, so it gets a pass because oil. But given many cultures’ blindness to sexism (as opposed to racism, which “everybody” knows is “bad,” such that most try to keep their racist thoughts private or secret if they can), the chances of foreign policy being redirected to advance the rights of women are pretty close to zero.
Indeed. But even within the West, I don’t think there’s a single country that has succeeded in leveling the playing field for women on anything other than a temporary, piecemeal basis. The near-overnight triumph of trans “rights” against the interests and safety of women and girls has shown just how fragile, halfhearted, and tenuous the supposed commitment to women has been. The idea that anyone should have been able to redefine “woman” in law so as to include men is insane. It should not have been possible. It should have been unthinkable. But instead of being laughed off the stage, this redefintion has been embraced in a state-enforced, nightmare mash-up of Orwell and Kafka.
Who else but women could have had their rights sold out from under them with such ease and thoughtlessness?** What better demonstration of the continuing, comparative powerlessness and unimportance of women in the West? We can’t afford to be smug. Given our recent history, and how breezily women’s concerns over the destruction of their rights were swept aside, what guarantees do women have that, given the right circumstances, we might not ourselves slide into the kind of barbarism*** Boghossian is decrying? None. Both the ability and inclination to control and dominate women are already there to a frightening degree (see above re: trans “rights”). It’s not that the urge to subordinate and control have come back; they never went away.
Feminist principles should be on the same foundational status as equality before the law and one person, one vote with regards to establishing and maintaining the basic rule of law and democratic norms*, not some kind of a sop rolled out as an afterthought if women get uppity. If that means that some of our “foundations” need to be dug up and redrafted, then so be it.
*We’ve seen plenty of examples of the difficulties many nations have in preventing tyrrany and corruption, and upholding justice unswayed by power and money. Gwynne Dyer suggests that this is part of a longer struggle that has played out over millenia:
https://gwynnedyer.com/2024/the-underlying-struggle/
**Not to mention the defeat of Roe v. Wade in the United States.
*** Not intending to Godwin myself, but if Germany could launch the Holocaust, no country is proof against the potential for state supported barbarism and evil. As the world slides into climate catastrophe, what are the chances that the “climate” for human rights will improve? Women are always on the chopping block. The potential for widespread, extreme “populist” responses to deteriorating global conditions puts them in more danger, not less. Unless their rights are firmly re-established and strengthened now, the risk women face in the future only worsens. (Not that laws will necessarily protect them, but better to have something in place rather than very little or nothing. It would be nice if the powers that be could be persuaded to telegraph something other than “disposability” when it comes to women’s rights and safety.)
Omar: I don’t even … I’m saying that actual feminists should expect to get no credit for doing the work of actual feminism, because false feminists have taken over the public institution of feminism.
I would consider this abandoning feminism. There are plenty of self styled “feminists” out there who are no such thing. One in particular even considers himself a “suffragette” which is absurd.
[…] a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Blame […]
@Omar
Stop playing Identities and start making noise about actual patriarchy? Yes, please?
I know that calling attention to misogyny, including Islamic barbarism, while opposing Pomo nonsense is and has been the feminism of Ophelia and many others for decades. But I don’t know what to call what passes for mainstream feminism these days. If I refuse to call it feminism, am I playing “No True Scotsman”?
I wish PB had made his point without lumping all (western) feminists together. He’s interviewed Helen Joyce; he should know better. But mainstream “intersectional” feminism seems hardly worth the name. It won’t even distinguish between women and men: it’s a world of “non-men” (which category includes “cis women”, “trans women”, and the likes of femme demibois) and “cis men” (the source of all evil, unless they’re BIPOC, like the gentleman in the clip, who doubtless would be a feminist ally were it not for the evils of Western Colonialism.)
Boghossian’s criticism fits No True Feminist, but lots of Faux ones.
Lady M says it with impeccable clarity, as usual.
Lady M: (re #16): Lady M: (re #16):
I’m afraid I am not up on all that specialist terminology. I am just a retired (going on 85) Australian cow-cocky. (My wife and I just last week sold our place on the NW Plains of NSW.) I got my interest in feminism thanks to the fact that my paternal grandmother was a rather militant one, and a suffragette, back in the years before WW1. She did time in Holloway Prison, London, for that, as did many of her contemporaries.
But my question to Nullius: “Are you saying that western feminists should adopt your own priorities?” I believe to be a valid one. It arises from a statement made to me once by a feminist friend in Sydney, and in the course of a pleasant conversation: “Please do not assume that your reality is mine as well.” That gave me much food for thought at the time. So I pass it on freely, and on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, and without any antagonism intended.
Yes, Lady M, Boghossian should (and I’m sure does) know better but he’s playing his own game. Pretending Nullius’ faux feminists are the only feminists is all part of the same grift that sees them pandering to the genderists and the “I’m not a feminist but” crowd alike. Opposite side but same MO. Bullshit, like sex, sells.