Snidery
I’m not in a position to dispute the substance of this snide review of Hirsi Ali’s book due to the small inconvenience that I haven’t read the book that the snide review is a review of. But what I can do (and will) is point out the snideness, and the markers of same. (Now, you’ll be thinking, ‘But OB, you go in for a certain amount of mockery yourself on occasion, so do you not pause to murmur to yourself about stones and glass dwelling places?’ Fair point. Yes, I do pause, but not for long, for the simple reason that I have invincible Feelings of Superiority – I’ve been told that on very mediocre authority. No actually that’s not why my pause is briefer than that of a hummingbird; the reason is rather that there is a considerable difference between Notes and Comment and the New Statesman. I curb my mockery when writing for publication in places other than Notes and Comment. Also, frankly, I do a better job of it. Dispute me if you will.)
Snideness. Markers.
It’s obviously what I’ve been waiting for all my life: a secular crusader – armed with Enlightenment philosophy, the stamp of the liberal establishment and the promise of sexual freedom – swooping into my harem and liberating me from my “ignorant”, “uncritical”, “dishonest” and “oppressed” Muslim existence. At least that is what Ayaan Hirsi Ali thinks I’ve been waiting for.
Secular crusader, the stamp of the liberal establishment (what the hell is that? and what rock concert does it get you into?), swooping, my harem – and a very odd conjecture as to what Hirsi Ali thinks presented as a fact.
She soon became a prominent and controversial politician, a brown face made welcome by her shrill denunciations of Islam…However, the publication of The Caged Virgin couldn’t have come at a worse time for Hirsi Ali, a woman who has built her career on portraying herself as a victim.
Shrill – cf. ‘strident’. And as for the career built on self-portrayal as victim – I would have thought the career was built on a considerable amount of courage along with refusal of victimhood.
Now that doubt has been cast on the personal history Hirsi Ali relies on to give her arguments authority, her new book reads more like a whimper than a bang.
Shrill…victim…whimper. It’s all belittling stuff – and sexistly belittling at that; it’s unfortunate when women use sexist rhetoric and epithets against other women. It’s a wonder Alam doesn’t call her a bitch.
Hirsi Ali is not breaking new ground. Others, such as the controversial Fatima Mernissi and Leila Ahmed, have been here before, except their work is meatier, making reference to classical texts and engaging in important historical debates.
That’s not so much snide as, in my view, mistaken, even if it’s true. Hirsi Ali doesn’t have to be breaking new ground; she could be just publicizing existing ideas and research, for instance that of Mernissi and Ahmed; more people (at least in certain places) will read her book than will read theirs; there is a place for polemics and simply making existing material more widely known.
These brave women sadly do not have the luxuries of monetary resources, bodyguards, spin-doctors and PR agencies that she takes for granted.
That she takes for granted? Really? Does that seem likely, given Hirsi Ali’s history? She started out doing menial work in the Netherlands, after all. And as for bodyguards – she wouldn’t need them if it weren’t for the death threats, so it’s a bit much to throw them in her face.
It’s all rather nasty, and rather long on sneering and short on substance. Geoff Coupe (who alerted me to the review) has a good comment here – and he has read the book, so is in a better position to argue.
I can well imagine that if, as Hirsi Ali did, I worked as an interpreter in abortion clinics and refuges for battered women, then I might see the world through a jaundiced eye, but that does not remove the reality of those observations and experiences. One chapter entitled ‘Four Women’s Lives’ gives the stage to others to tell their story. One of the strengths of Hirsi Ali’s book is that she does provide the source references to her claims – although Alam sneers that: “she provides little evidence to back up her claims that the Muslim woman is a caged virgin – sexualised, segregated, denied human rights – and that Islamic theology is responsible for this”. Really, I wonder whether we’ve actually read the same book.
Anyone want to write a review for B&W? Geoff?
It’s in The New Statesman, so what do you expect. They give house room to Pilger, SWP and supporters of the ‘resistance’ in Iraq Afghanistan and Chechnya. A critical view of anti-imperialist Islam is unacceptable to them. After all, an atheist organisation like SWP joining up with reactionary Islamists shows they have abandoned any principle except ant-Americanism.
Best wishes
GT, say so to the NS by all means if you like, but don’t say it here. How many times have I told you? That’s libellous. I’ve asked you and asked you not to post comments that I will have to delete – it’s a lot of extra trouble; please stop doing that. Don’t call people liars: it’s libellous.
What seems to me particulary absurd is that Hirsi Ali is characterized as “shrill.”
If you have ever heard her, I believe that a far better way to characterize her tone would be “demure.” She is soft-spoken, calm, even stately in her delivery.
Her denunications — the actual words in her book — are also calm. Some may not agree with her, but I can’t see that calling her shrill is reality-based.
Here, for example, is a paragraph:
“Like other thinking people, I like to tap into sources of wisdom, morality, and imagination other than religious texts — other books besides the Koran and accounts of the Prophet — and I would like other Muslims to tap into them, too. Just because Spinoza, Voltaire, John Stuart Mill, Kant, or Bertrand Russell are not Islamic and have no Islamic counterparts does not mean that Muslims should steer clear of these and other Western philosophers. Yet, at present, reading works by Western thinkers is regarded as disrespectful to the Prophet and Allah’s message. This is a serious misconception. Why should it not be permitted to abide by all the good things Muhammad has urged us to do (such as his advice to be charitable toward the poor and orphans), while at the same time adding to our lives and outlook the ideas of other moral philosophers? After all, the fact that the Wright brothers were not Islamic has not stopped Muslims from traveling by air. By adopting the technical inventions of the West without its courage to think independently, we perpetuate the mental stagnation in Islamic culture, passing it on from one generation to the next.”
Of course the word “shrill” is just one of those anti-woman cliche used to denigate any woman with a brain and a voice.
>>It’s a wonder Alam doesn’t call her a bitch.
In the very first post at Pickled Politics (17 May 2006) on the Ali asylum lie affair, the bitch word was used in the first sentence. Not a single person took exception to it. So I would not be in the least surprised if Alam or other muslim commentators do *think* of Ali in those terms.
Am I adding to your liability woes, Ophelia?
Mr Tingey
You’re not going to call people liars on here, because it makes *me* liable to be sued. So don’t! Otherwise, I’ll ban you.
It doesn’t matter whether people are actually lying; what matters is that I don’t want to risk even the possibility of being sued for libel.
Technically speaking, I own B&W (though of course, it’s OB’s work and, as far as I’m concerned, she has moral ownership) – I pay for the server, I own the domain name, I programmed it all, etc; as I understand it, this means that I’m responsible for ensuring that people stay the right side of the libel laws. This means that until that time that I’m no longer the technical owner you have to do what I say whilst you’re here. And that means you don’t call people liars!
Love,
Jerry
I’m based in London, not the USA. As I understand it, this stuff was established via a court case that the ISP Demon lost a number of years ago.
See here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/695596.stm
In this situation, I’m your host, so I’m responsible for what you say!
You can say stuff is untrue. You can’t say it is a lie. There’s a difference. People can be mistaken, etc., which does not necessitate a deliberate attempt to mislead.
mirax, no, not at all! (Not adding to liability woes.)
G Tingey seems to have gotten me in trouble though. If B&W has to close down because JS doesn’t want to host it any more, you can thank him.
Mirax,
To be fair, most of the early comments were too busy jumping on Al Hack’s typically shoddy post to notice that first comment. And 80% were pro-AHA.
Revisiting that post, I have to say you kicked his ass on that one.
Colourful with the actualité ?
Hi Don,
I was wondering if the Dons at HP, Badscience, PP and B&W were the same bloke! Now I know.
There were 2 threads at PP and the first was extremely hostile to Ali while the second was more toned down. I felt that a lot of the hostility was a kneejerk reaction from muslim commentators – even the liberal ones – who seem to have greater difficulty with Ali’s open and repeated repudiation of Islam than any other aspect of her personality.