Feminist leader Naomi Wolf howls as her justifications of Islamic misogyny are exposed
Newsflash: WASHINGTON/AP â€” Obama trufer czarVan Jones resigns as environmental adviser amid controversy over past statements. (wonder which sewer rat will replace him..) Good riddance, jackass!
Leftist feminist Naomi Wolf, like other Leftist feminists, have in their overriding multiculturalist relativism a soft spot for Islam and its oppression of women. Phyllis Chesler, Jamie Glazov and David Horowitz have noticed, and the sparks are flying. This article is written by a defender of Wolf. “Feminists face off over the veil,” by Tracy Clark-Flory atÂ Salon, September 5, JW:
- Com-on’, show us some cat meat, b*tch!
- Mali women’s rights deferred for “peace and calm”
Pic Â thanks to Tundra Tabloids:Â The Burqa: Ultimate Feminist Choice?
Pull up a chair and grab some popcorn, because there’s another battle royal raging over the veil. In one corner, we have Naomi Wolf, third-wave feminist heavyweight and author of “The Beauty Myth,” defending Muslim garb. In the other, we have Phyllis Chesler, second-waver and author of “The Death of Feminism,” attacking both the veil and Wolf for daring to defend it.
The first shot was fired with the Sydney Morning Herald’s publication of an article by Wolf headlined “Behind the veil lives a thriving Muslim sexuality.” She recounts her travels in Morocco, Jordan and Egypt, and the time she spent with women in “typical Muslim households.” She observes, “It is not that Islam suppresses sexuality, but that it embodies a strongly developed sense of its appropriate channelling — toward marriage, the bonds that sustain family life, and the attachment that secures a home.” There was “demureness and propriety” outside of the home, “but inside, women were as interested in allure, seduction and pleasure as women anywhere in the world.”
How interesting that the same things that Western feminists have scoffed at for decades — “marriage, the bonds that sustain family life, and the attachment that secures a home” — become warmly appealing when they see them in the Islamic world.
Then, Wolf turns to the inevitable comparison with Western styles of dress. Many of the Muslim women she spoke with said that revealing get-ups cause men to stare at and objectify them. Wearing a headscarf or chador, however, leads people to “relate to me as an individual, not an object,” they told her. When Wolf went to the local bazaar wearing a shalwar kameez and a headscarf, which hid her womanly curves and wild hair, she “felt a novel sense of calm and serenity” and even, “in certain ways, free.”
She ends the essay, however, with a colossal caveat:
I do not mean to dismiss the many women leaders in the Muslim world who regard veiling as a means of controlling women. Choice is everything. But Westerners should recognise that when a woman in France or Britain chooses a veil, it is not necessarily a sign of her repression. And, more importantly, when you choose your own miniskirt and halter top — in a Western culture in which women are not so free to age, to be respected as mothers, workers or spiritual beings, and to disregard Madison Avenue — it’s worth thinking in a more nuanced way about what female freedom really means.
Wolf isn’t defending forced veiling or even the veil itself. She’s arguing in defense of women’s individual experiences of veiling. Much like any decent anthropology 101 professor, Wolf is trying to force a shift in the perspective of her Western readers so that we might seriously consider the possibility that some Muslim women truly and legitimately see dressing scantily in public as repressive and experience covering up outside of their home as freeing….
To thisÂ Jamie Glazov replies trenchantly: “Ms. Clark-Flory, do you really still not get it? Muslim women don’t get to ‘truly and legitimately see’ anything in an environment where seeing something the way they want to, and acting on it, will get them stigmatized at best and executed at worst.”
Clark-Flory goes on to excoriate Chesler, Horowitz and Glazov for their assorted sins against multiculturalist orthodoxy, and then concludes:
You might notice that as this conflagration spreads, more and more conservatives — many of whom do not identify as feminists — are rushing in to stoke the fire. As they do, the discussion becomes less about defending women’s rights and more about supporting their ongoing culture war. That reminds me of a line from Wolf’s essay: “Ideological battles are often waged with women’s bodies as their emblems, and Western Islamophobia is no exception.”
Yep. That’s what it’s all about: “Islamophobia.” This calls for a Thought Experiment!
Imagine a book of the Bible. Let’s call it the Book of Naomi. And imagine that the Book of Naomi likened a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: “Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will” (Naomi 2:223).
Imagine also that the Book of Naomi declared that a woman’s testimony was worth half that of a man: “Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her” (Naomi 2:282).
The Book of Naomi also allows men to marry up to four wives, and to have sex with slave girls also: “If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice” (Naomi 4:3).
It rules that a son’s inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter: “Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females” (Naomi 4:11).
Worst of all, the Book of Naomi tells husbands to beat their disobedient wives: “Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them” (Naomi 4:34). It allows for marriage to pre-pubescent girls, stipulating that Naomian divorce procedures “shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated” (Naomi 65:4).
If such a book of the Bible existed, do you think Naomi Wolf would be wringing her hands about “Christianophobia”? Of course she wouldn’t. She would be on the front lines denouncing this terrible misogynist book and calling upon those who believe in it to reform.
But of course the quotations above are all from the Qur’an. And that changes everything for Naomi Wolf.
See also Hugh Fitzgerald’s take on Wolf’s writing on Islam and womenÂ here.
Naomi Wolf may yet surprise us all. She may yet, that is, not do what at this point would be the most obvious thing, which would be to go whole hog, and end her silly Spiritual Search, and simply convert to Islam. Gosh, it worked for Yvonne Ridley. And Ingrid Mattson. And any number of Western women who married some liquid-brown-charmer (interested in them not only for the Green Card they would help to insure, but also for the salary they brought in, or the likely future inheritance) and now happily hijabbed (it’s like belonging to a special club — it gives one importance, like Huey and Dewey and Louie in the Junior Woodchucks of America), and those women, having converted without much understanding of Islam, also fail to consider One Big Thing: the children whom they raise as Muslims will be raised up brainwashed in a faith that stunts moral and mental growth. And what mother, if she really thought about it, would want such a thing for her children? But they don’t know it, as yet, because they marry a Muslim, and convert to Islam, oblivious to much that is in the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira, and without really understanding the history of Islam over the past 1350 years, and know little about the attitude toward almost all forms of artistic expression in Islam, and toward free and skeptical inquiry, and toward the Believer himself, who is taught to be a “Slave of Allah,” who should never question any part of Islam.
Some — a little late – find out more, sometimes by reading, but usually through grim experience. Adn their children? Their children, having been brought up in a family suffused with Islam, sometimes — but how often? — manage to fight their way to mental freedom.
If Naomi Wolf does the unsurprising thing, and converts to Islam, perhaps she can find a gig as the ex-Jewish counterpart to the ex-Catholic Ingrid Mattson, and teach at the Hartford Seminary. If she does get such a job, I suggest she not visit the nearby home of Mark Twain — he didn’t like what he saw of Islam’s effects in the Middle East. And the other attraction that Hartford offes — the Wadsworth Atheneum — is full of statues, strengst verboten in Islam, and paintings, most of them also unacceptable in Islam because, you see, they depict human figures.
Oh, well. She can always learn to recite the Qur’an in this or that recitation style. Perhaps Ingrid Mattson can join in.
Posted by: HughÂ atÂ September 5, 2009 4:12
“Many of the Muslim women she spoke with said that revealing get-ups cause men to stare at and objectify them.”
Naomi Wolf would be the one to suffer most if men stopped looking at her. Pathetic!
She might even turn into a real sex-kitten once a bearded macho-mullah whacks her into submission, something I’d really love to see.
But then there are increasing numbers of western females who travel to Africa to equalize their hormone imbalance (which is as much a mental imbalance) because they feel time runs out for them, and they often end up fleeced and destitute while being involved with a Mohammedan pasha. Â Sadly, the story doesn’t end there, they also enable their Mohammedan papagallis to settle in the west, with their extended family clans, and by that they manage to employ armies of social workers. Perhaps that’s what they mean by creating “green jobs”.
Ya, I agree with Hugh above: the ‘portable seclusion’ would do her good. She may yet surprise us – I can’t wait!
Posted by:Â sheik yer’mam