Proud ‘n’ patriarchal
James Fergusson says everybody should calm down and not get in such a swivet about women being treated like rebellious livestock in Afghanistan.
This does not mean the west should stand by in silence. On the contrary, it is our duty to go on arguing the case for gender equality and to keep Afghans engaged in that old debate. But we have no right to be shrill…
No right to be “shrill”? Why not? Why doesn’t anybody have a right to be “shrill” about gross cruelty and vindictiveness and oppression?
Well because we don’t understand, Fergusson says.
It might help if we understood the Taliban better. The harshness of the punishments they sometimes mete out only seems incomprehensible to the west. The strict sexual propriety the Taliban insist upon is rooted in ancient Pashtun tribal custom, the over-riding purpose of which is to protect the integrity of the tribe, and nothing threatens the gene pool like extramarital relations…The Pashtuns are, famously, the largest tribal society in the world. Some 42m of them are divided into about 60 tribes and 400 sub-clans and they are intensely proud of their culture which has survived three millenniums of almost constant invasion and occupation.
What does he mean “works”? It “works” because the Pashtuns are a large tribe? So the fuck what? Who cares how big a tribe is if its bigness depends on brutal control of half its members and a life of generalized hostility?
The west views gender equality as an absolute human right and so we should. But no country, certainly not Britain, has yet managed unequivocally to establish that right at home; and we tend to forget both how recent our progress towards it is, as well as how hard the struggle has been. Full women’s suffrage was not granted in Britain until 1928. With such a track record, is it not presumptuous to insist that a proud, patriarchal society that has survived for 3,000 years should now instantly mirror us?
The fact that Britain has not yet managed unequivocally to establish gender equality is not a reason to be timid about resisting the Taliban version of gender inequality. Nobody is insisting that Afghanistan should instantly mirror Britain, but that’s not the only alternative to thinking “a proud, patriarchal society that has survived for 3,000 years” is nothing to be proud of when half its people are born to fear, deprivation and misery.
The Boers were a proud, patriarchal society too; so what? James Fergusson probably wouldn’t say “is it not presumptuous to insist that a proud, racist society should instantly mirror us?”; yet the word “patriarchal” apparently has a different kind of resonance. It shouldn’t.
Out of curiosity, are men ever described as “shrill” (implying that only women care about women’s rights) or is he insulting everyone equally? Perhaps this a privilege we get when advocating for women to be treated as human beings.
Great. Explanations aren’t excuses. All of humanity onced lived and thrived in tribes but guess what, we outgrew them, about the same time that we started living in cities. Stoning foreigners to death and oppressing women might be beneficial (probably not, but let’s just suppose) in tribes but we aren’t living in tribes and our morals have progressed.
So by all means, let’s understand how humans can be driven to such abysmal extremes but let’s never condone or tolerate it.
There’s an assumption in the article that we should oppose only those cruelties that seem incomprehensible. Of course, the oppression of women in Afganistan is caused by something (just like every other phenomenon in the world except the Flying Spag Monster). Trying to understand how it’s caused is very useful, but (as Tyro says) that doesn’t mean we should tolerate it.
Why do we always only have to try to understand the culture of the oppressors?
There are many brave and heroic Afghani women who are fighting for their human rights and placing themselves in jeopardy and losing their lives.
Why shouldn’t we be trying to understand their culture?
Tribalism no longer flies. Neither does dogma. Not if we want to continue existing as a species on this planet.
That’s why it is my business to care if Afghani women are each giving birth to 10 children without access to sexual and reproductive healthcare and rights, nor access to education, employment, resources or political decision making power.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tom Marshall and Dale O'Flaherty, Ophelia Benson. Ophelia Benson said: Proud ‘n’ patriarchal http://dlvr.it/3wXxt […]
I sometimes think feminists go too far. For example, the word “bitch” is not sexist in the slightest, as I’ve seen Ophelia claim in comments elsewhere. It would take too long to explain in detail why here, but the short version is that it isn’t only pronouns that are sex-specific – the behavior that makes a man an “asshole” makes a woman a “bitch” – and that difference is no more sexist than the difference between “he” and “she”.
But then I see tripe like that offered by Fergusson, and I find myself without any motivation whatsoever to criticize said excessive feminism. That someone in 2010 can write such nonsense is astonishing. It sounds to me exactly like those “not racist at all” people calmly explaining why the Negro really benefits from “his” position of social inferiority (or slavery, if you go back far enough).
I find it sad that future generations will have just as much a sense of moral superiority when examining their history (our present) as we do now over ignorant and misguided generations past.
“nothing threatens the gene pool like extramarital relations”
It sounds impressive, although I suspect that a people still living in a mindset where the punishment of adultery is stoning to death might not express it quite that way.
However, what I really wonder about is how an extra-marital relationship with another member of the same tribe threatens the tribe’s gene pool? To quote the old joke, incest is a family game, and most of us (with the exception of the people stoning members of the tribe who misbehave) know that the children born of incest have a higher probability of receiving all sorts of undesirable genes than people whose parents are from different gene pools. In other words, if the Pashtuns really wanted to stay strong and well, they should – logically – have stoned any couple who have a sexual relationship where both are Pashtuns.
Logical, but not very likely.
I’m intrigued to learn how we might resist the ‘Taliban version of gender inequality’ or ‘engage them in debate’. I doubt that written indignation or placard waving would have much influence on the mullahs. 500,000 NATO troops and 30 years occupation of Afghanistan probably would change their cultural attitudes to women,but how likely is that?
The Afghans know that this latest wave of invaders will leave with ‘broken teeth’, like all their predecessors.
That we have not acheived perfect gender equality doesn’t mean that we can’t ask other societies to stop stoning accused adultresses or to stamp out the idea that it’s okay to kill a daughter at the mere whisper of suspicion that she might have spoken to a boy on the phone when really she didn’t but you think she might have, so go ahead and bury her alive in the back garden just in case, it’s better that way, and it’s a proud tradition.
Nobody said we’re trying to get them to be as gender-equal a society as our own. Dragging them into what we had a couple or three centuries ago would be a good first step.
I had a very similar response to Fergusson’s piece.
I wasn’t sure he was being a douche until I got to the “shrill” comment. Up until that point, it sounded like he was building a case that the military mission was not ever going to save the women of Afghanistan, and so that should not be a reason for continuing it. If that had been his thesis, he even scored a few points for it later on (e.g. the observation that the regime being propped up by the NATO forces is itself piss poor on women’s rights) and I might have taken it seriously.
But saying we need to “understand” the Taliban?? That we shouldn’t be “shrill” in response to this kind of sick brutality? Yeah, that guy needs to STFU.
Re: Thanny — Problem with your bitch/asshole logic is that you neglect other usages of “bitch”. For one, it’s used in regards to both genders as a verb meaning “whining” or “excessively complaining”. You don’t hear people saying things like, “Jenny kept assholing about the cheap wine at the restaurant”. For another, when a man uses it in regards to another man, it is a sign of dominance and aggression. I’ve never seen a woman best another woman in a sporting competition and respond by telling the loser to “Take it, asshole!” — and if I did, I do not think it would have the undertones of dominance and sexual aggression that are present in the more common phrase I am referring to.
Do I still use the word “bitch” from time to time in casual conversation? Yes, I must admit I do. Too many years of talking a certain way at the pub, it’s not going to change overnight. I try not to use it in a sexist way, but I know that using it at all still has the potential for some hidden misogynistic implications. So I almost completely avoid it when I am writing (even though my blog posting and commenting is otherwise laced with profanity, heh). There’s just a whole lot of bad that goes along with that word, I’m afraid.
Thanny’s first paragraph is entirely wrong, but it would take too long to explain here. Besides, I don’t feel like it; I get fed up to the back teeth with explaining why sexist epithets are indeed sexist epithets, why asshole is gender neutral while bitch is not, why sexist epithets for women are way more loaded than sexist epithets for men (hint: same reason “nigger” is more loaded than “honky”), and why it is simply not useful or clever or polite to make an issue of it on the website of a woman who is known to detest the word.
Furthermore, I’m away for a few days (and not going to be updating while away), so it would be nice if no one seized the opportunity of my awayness to write more treatises here on why it’s okay to call women bitches.
I crossed with James. Yes; what he said. Now let’s not discuss this further until I get back. It’s not the subject of this post, and Thanny’s bringing it up was a provocation. I bet Thanny wouldn’t post on off-topic defense of calling people “nigger” on the site of a black person – but when it’s a woman – oh hey, that’s different. Well no it isn’t. It’s political and hostile and a provocation.
If anybody wants to support women in Afghanistan they ought to donate to The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan. Just google it and you’ll see.
Ugh. Fergusson’s article is so steeped in dudely privilege that reading it made me do a bit of sick in my mouth. A plea by a dude for us to ‘understand’ violent, oppressive, hateful dudes… isn’t it just so touching? The women of the society probably don’t need our understanding, after all, they almost definitely don’t mind being assaulted, raped and murdered, amirite? They’re probably just as ‘proud’ as the dudes are of this arrangement…
Indeed. Imagine this: “Nazi Germany was a proud, anti-semitic society, and anyone who had a problem with it just didn’t understand…” Yeah right.
P.S. I love the word ‘swivet’ and will now be using it in everyday conversation.
So their sexism is rooted in racism? Well that’s okay then!
I’m not entirely wrong, but I’m not going to argue the point. The fact that “bitch” is the favorite epithet of women for other women they are displeased with is argument enough.
I also find it extremely distasteful to compare “bitch” with “nigger”. You will find neither word in my conversations, in case any delusions about my motivations are present.
The reason I brought the topic up was to highlight just how sexist what Fergusson wrote was, but I guess that point got lost in the resulting sanctimony.
What seems to be missing for the author here is the appreciation of the conflict between communal and individual rights. You can explain the attitude towards women as being part of communal life and needs. You must recognize, though, that to acknowledge those needs as preeminent is to dismiss the concept of individual rights, not just gender rights.
Doing this is not politely acknowledging local customs. It is endorsing the closed society over the open society. This is not a question of degree, or a slippery slope. It is either/or.
I also find it extremely distasteful to compare “bitch” with “nigger”. You will find neither word in my conversations, in case any delusions about my motivations are present.
You know what I find distasteful? Rude, provocative people who have the nerve to tell the person on the receiving end of a nasty epithet that she shouldn’t find that epithet disturbing. That she’s overreacting. Who the hell do you think you are doing that in the electronic equivalent of someone else’s living room?
I’ve heard the same thing said by assholes who insist it’s not homophobic to use the word “gay” to denote bad/silly behavior. My answer to that applies to you, as well – fuck off.
Sorry, the first paragraph in my previous post should have been in blockquote. It’s Thanny’s words, not mine.
Whoops – I should have read O’s directive not to continue the derail in her absense. Mea culpa.
Point of information. (I wan’t going to comment on this one) … but:” nothing threatens the gene pool like extramarital relations”
Dead wrong.
The worst threat to ANY gene pool is incest.
I didn’t mean to be sanctimonious; the reason I brought it up was because it is something my thinking has changed about over time — my opinion used to be basically the same as yours — so I thought it would be worth sharing why my thinking has changed. Also, I can’t really afford to be sanctimonious about it since, as I admitted, I still occasionally use the word in casual conversation (though I do try to catch myself).
But as per Ophelia’s request, I shall say no more about it :) Just wanted to say, really, I did not mean to be sanctimonious, it’s a tricky issue, and it’s difficult — especially for us men — to wrap one’s head around it.
Oh dear, now I can’t help myself derailing just a biiit further:
I agree it’s assholish to try to justify the use of “gay” in that context based on that logic.. but it’s not assholish to point out that there is a genuine social conundrum, at least in the United States, where a lot of today’s young people — I’d say under 15 or so — have picked up the usage of the term “gay” in that context, and yet are absolutely baffled by homophobia. Not so much in the boonies, I guess, where homophobia is still the norm… but even in the mid-size city where I live, it seems kids these days just don’t really give a fuck about a person’s sexual preference — yet the use of “gay” to denote crappiness has penetrated their common language anyway.
What the hell do you do about that? I just don’t know. What I do know is that, as a straight person and an adult, I have absolutely no excuse for perpetuating the use of the word in that context. And beyond that, I guess that’s all I can do… But when you’re talking about a 12-year-old, it’s less straightforward. (Also, the two people in my social group who still tend to use the word in that context — though, if written, they will spell it “gey” in that context — are both bisexual. Oy, confusing!)
In any case, to generalize: The use of the word “bitch” by women, “fag” by gay people, “nigger” by black people, and “gay” to mean “lousy” by young people who don’t even grasp homophobia… well, we could debate that all day whether that is okay and what that implies. But what is not up for debate is that if you are an adult and you are male/straight/white, you don’t get to use that word — end of discussion.
Argh, I just can’t leave well enough alone. Sorry. Anyway:
While I agree that this is literally true, there’s usually not much of a need to say it. It’s kind of like if the existence of the Black Panthers caused you to assert that “I sometimes think civil rights advocates go too far” every time the NAACP was mentioned. I mean, I guess it’s true but…
Too many women today are afraid to refer to themselves as feminist, because the word has become associated with a tiny lunatic fringe of “feminist” thought. And sorry, the fallacious association didn’t develop because of the existence of that lunatic fringe; the fallacious association developed because some men, even some fairly liberal men (and that would have included me half a decade ago) feel the need to point out that they “sometimes think feminists go too far” every time the concept comes up. Whether you mean to or not, when you say that, you are communicating a message to every woman who reads/hears you: “Don’t call yourself a feminist, because then I might think you are going too far.” And that’s really sad.
What a joker. Seems to think ‘cosmopolitan’ appearances are more important than substance. I might just add that even before 1928 British women were enjoying ten times the freedom Afgan women now have.
Including, as in the cases of Elizabeth the 1st, Victoria and Elizabeth II, the freedom to be head of state.