by Molly Ivors
The first rule of life in Greater Wingnuttia is simple: it's all about the shifting the blame left, baby. To quote presidential aspirant Mike Huckabee, "Abortion, environmentalism, AIDS, pornography, drug abuse, and homosexual activism have fragmented and polarized our communities."
Allow me to translate Huckabee into English: "Abortion (Feminists! Sex!), environmentalism (Hippies! Free Love!), AIDS (Teh Gaii! Sex!), pornography (Sex!), drug abuse (Brown People! Probably having Sex!), and homosexual activism (Teh Gaii!!! Sex!) have fragmented and polarized our communities."
Because there's nothing, really, that says "community" like trashing the planet, engaging in bigotry and sexism, worrying about other people's bedrooms, and how they spend their free time. (I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Huckabee has never actually lived in a neighborhood in which AIDS was a serious problem.) But don't think it's just one redneck minister with nice china, a gastric bypass scar, and an aspiration to be America's Pastor--no, blaming the Left for the ills of the world is alive and well even among those who don't dress up like ice cream men for family photos.
Today's example is Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post, whose shared initials with another famous nutjob may be more than coincidental. After all, as I was recalling recently, my encounters with Miss Havisham began over an excellent post by my friend Echidne containing the classic line: "A feminist is needed in Aisle Eight to fix some spilled self-esteem." And as the other AA whined at the time, it's feminist's fault that some men are pigs.
Well, according to her AA buddy, rape is feminists' fault, too.
Stay with me here. Applebaum claims that the misdirected energies of American feminists (date rape, continuing economic disparity between men and women, and reproductive rights) are directly responsible for the sentencing of a Saudi woman to prison and beating for the crime of riding in a car with an unrelated man and subsequently being raped. She predictably goes after NOW (with a little self-congratulatory giggle: "I hate to pick on that group, but it's so easy"--in other words, they asked for it) and says that while she's glad we can focus on the marginal here, it means leaving our sisters in the lurch over there.
The reigning feminist ideology doesn't help: The philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers has written, among other things, that some American feminists, self-focused and reluctant to criticize non-Western cultures, have convinced themselves that "sexual terror" in America (a phrase from a real women's studies textbook) is more dangerous than actual terrorism. But the deeper problem is the gradual marginalization of "women's issues" in domestic politics, which has made them subordinate to security issues, or racial issues, in foreign policy as well.
American delegates to international and U.N. women's organizations are mostly identified with arguments about reproductive rights (for or against, depending on the administration), not arguments about the fundamental rights of women in Saudi Arabia or the Muslim world.
Until this changes, it will be hard to mount a campaign, in the manner of the anti-apartheid movement, to enforce sanctions or codes of conduct for people doing business there. What we need as a model, in other words, is not the 1960s feminism we all remember but a globalized version of the 19th-century feminism we've nearly forgotten. Candidates for the role of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, anyone?
Senator Clinton would do a fine job. Of course, when I click through the Sommers link (in the execrable Weekly Standard), I get an anti-Clinton ad from the RNC, so maybe she's not the best choice. I hear Karen Hughes, Fran Townsend, and Harriet Meiers are just kicking back these days, maybe they can do it. Wasn't Hughes supposed to be in charge of Muslim outreach or something? And isn't there a woman in the State Department?
Clearly, this is NOW's fault.
I have no problem adding my voice to the cacophony of those calling the original Saudi ruling appalling. I also decry the treatment of gang-rape and corporate-imprisonment victim Jamie Leigh Jones, who Ace of Spades and Rusty Shackleford have called a liar whose story is "too perfect." (Wow, imagine if there had been inconsistencies! That would have convinced ol' Rusty!) NOW also does not mention her on their site, but I do not blame them for her rape and subsequent abuse by a system more interested in keeping Vice-President Meisterburger in fresh colostomy bags than meting out justice.
Of course the Saudis have backed away now from the original verdict, much to the chagrin of their own Aces and Rustys. The Saudi bloggers blame the too-little, too-late actions of George Bush and his BFF Bandar for the shift. "Was this woman pardoned in accordance with Islamic law or as a result of foreign pressure?" Like our own wingnuts, they're batshit insane, looking for a religious excuse to pump up their tiny penises by abusing women. The functional difference between our religious right and mullahs who enforce shari'a is one of language and culture, not intent or willingness to punish sexuality. And anyone who would consider voting a conservative Christian minister into office should keep that in mind.
Attacking one of the few groups standing up to the bullshit double standard is pretty spectacularly unhelpful, AA. But I admit, it's probably easier to blame them than people who actually, you know, make policy.
After all, NOW was probably riding in a car with an unrelated man, so they deserved it. Hell, maybe it was even Bill Clinton!
(h/t attaturk)