New at Reason

David Weigel | October 24, 2006

Cathy Young communes with Michael Ledeen and Wafa Sultan, and returns with some hard thoughts on the fairer sex and the religion of peace.

Comments

|10.24.06 @ 4:03AM|#

'Recently, these tensions turned into a nasty academic controversy in the United States, as the Chronicle of Higher Education has reported. In June, Hamid Dabashi, an Iranian-born professor of Iranian studies and comparative literature at Columbia University, published an article in the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram attacking Azar Nafisi, Iranian �migr� and author of the 2003 best seller "Reading Lolita In Tehran." Nafisi's memoir is a harsh portrait of life in Iran after the Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic revolution, focusing in particular on the mistreatment of women, who were stripped of their former rights and harshly punished for violating strict religious codes of dress and behavior.

Complaining that Nafisi's writings demonize Iran, Dabashi branded her a "native informer and colonial agent for American imperialism." In a subsequent interview, he compared her to Lynndie England, the US soldier convicted of abusing Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib.'

I don't see how you could say that this is indicative of the excesses of academic multiculturalism taken too far. Dabashi's remarks could just as easily be interpreted as an Iranian who is sensitive about his country being dissed.

Love your writing Cathy, but better example please.

|10.24.06 @ 6:55AM|#

When America gets "dissed", is it appropriate for us to respond with childish ad-hominem attacks? Especially if we are professors at elite universities?

This comment appears FAR beneath that of a Columbia professor. By his own words, Dabashi reveals himself as a "native informer and agent of the racist, sexist, anti-Semetic terrorist Islamofacists" - and we should can him for it.

|10.24.06 @ 7:30AM|#

Chad,

Given that Edward Said was also a Columbia Professor, his reaction is exactly what I expect of someone from that overrated institution.

|10.24.06 @ 7:31AM|#

Good article.

Quite Judgemental for Cathy.

I don't see how you could say that this is indicative of the excesses of academic multiculturalism taken too far

I can. Comparing an author to a soldier who abuses people isn't just excessive, it's plain silly. And as soon as you refer to someone as 'a native informer and colonial agent' you deserve to be dressed in a chicken suit and laughed at.

|10.24.06 @ 7:35AM|#

I agree that it's a silly and stupid comment, but I don't see from the article how one could say that his motivation was fealty to multiculturalism rather than blubbering against someone who he feels dissed his country.

|10.24.06 @ 7:42AM|#

This comment appears FAR beneath that of a Columbia professor.

Why do we always expect Academics to see the wood for the trees? Forget trees - they spend their entire lives focusing on microscopic grains in the sub-soil stratum, let alone small saplings that might give them a bit of perspective.

I appreciate that this is a MASSIVE gerneralisation but perhaps it has a kernel of truth about it.

I have listened to supposedly intelligent men and women, with forehards like billboards and letters after their name that read like a dictionary come up with shit that is so dumb it gives you a headache. And because it's so dumb and everyone pulls that pained face which says 'what the fuck is he talking about?' certain people don't only think it's true, they think it's 'revolutionary' or 'profound' or 'urgent'.

Boy, Academics.....

|10.24.06 @ 9:19AM|#

There is an interesting article over at Slate Magazine now that argues that for the same reason that western women wear dresses when visiting sacred islamic sites, Islamic women ought to remove the veil at work in the west to be culturally sensitive to us, who do not like people wearing masks at work.

|10.24.06 @ 9:38AM|#

Different Phil,

Just read the Slate article. It's OK. Of course, you could point out that there's a big difference between being a tourist and a national and that the latter should have more right to assert their beliefs. Not that I agree with that.

It's funny - as English people are notoriously polite and our ability to seethe with anger at the sheer injustice of someone jumping the queue, perhaps that's why we're kicking up such a fuss about head scarves.

|10.24.06 @ 10:29AM|#

A lot of the controversy about veils reminds me of abortion debates. Shouldn't women choose what to wear and not to wear, and shouldn't men keep their noses out of it? It's easy for Hamid Dabashi to critiscise Azar Nafisi's decision not to wear the veil, since he is not the one stuck with having to give up his personal identity for an old cultural habit.

If men had to wear veils then taking them off would be a blessing on the Prophet (PBUH)!

dhex|10.24.06 @ 11:06AM|#

good article cathy, but i have to deeply disagree with this:

"What's more, their choice helps legitimize a custom that is imposed on millions of women around the world who have no choice."

the choice is the rub here. it doesn't legitimize the actions of violence in other places that force women into head to toe coverings - it doesn't even effect it.

|10.24.06 @ 12:08PM|#

fealty to multiculturalism rather than blubbering against someone who he feels dissed his country

These are not two different things (except in two special cases).

|10.24.06 @ 1:16PM|#

I didn't expect Cathy Young could cover much ground, in only ten paragraphs, on the huge topic of "Are Muslim Women Oppressed? An exploration of the place of women in Islam." And sure enough, focusing mainly on the veil, she doesn't.

In at least some Muslim cultures:
Muslim men can divorce unilaterally by mere incantation.
Muslim women can't drive, can't travel without family escort.
Muslim women must have multiple witnesses to charge rape.
Female Muslim rape victims are subject to shunning and/or execution.
Mosque services and Muslim school classes are segregated by gender.
Education of Muslim women forbidden.
Muslim clerics teach the proper techniques of wife beating.
It's an insult to a Muslim husband to ask about the well-being of his wife.

I have no idea whether Islam is "irredeemable," or whether the West can or should "impose solutions" to the situation of Muslim women. But the answer to the title question of Young's "exploration" is "Hell, Yes!"

|10.24.06 @ 11:17PM|#

The subtext of Young's article is that any Muslim woman that DOES wear the veil is validating the oppression of women. This is about as valid as Dabashi's statement calling Nafasi a Quisling.

Maybe the veil is imposed by force in Afghanistan, but it generally isn't in London. It is a genuine choice and women should be free to choose it, not have paternalistic Home Secretaries make the choice for them. And they probably don't need to be sniped at by self-righteous feminists as alert for Quislings as leftist university professors.

|10.25.06 @ 4:24AM|#

Cathy -- good job.

gutta,

I have no idea whether Islam is "irredeemable," or whether the West can or should "impose solutions" to the situation of Muslim women. But the answer to the title question of Young's "exploration" is "Hell, Yes!"

I don't see that her article disagrees with you. In fact, she's planted a foot solidly on one side of the proverbial fence.


James,

The subtext of Young's article is that any Muslim woman that DOES wear the veil is validating the oppression of women. This is about as valid as Dabashi's statement calling Nafasi a Quisling.

Ya missed the boat, man.

Choice is one thing. What you do with it is another.

Cathy isn't saying they shouldn't have the choice. She's say they shouldn't make the choice they're making.

She's right, too.

|10.25.06 @ 4:37AM|#

dhex,

the choice is the rub here. it doesn't legitimize the actions of violence in other places that force women into head to toe coverings - it doesn't even effect it.

No, you missed Cathy's point. "Choice" exists, first, at the political level. Do you get to choose or not? Assuming the answer is "yes", then it comes to the personal level: what do I choose?

Social customs are a matter of choice. You do, in fact, legitimize a particular social custom every time you abide by it. It doesn't matter where on face of the globe you happen to be. By your choice, you either grant or deny the custom your personal sanction.

Cathy is passing a value judgement at the personal level. And she's hitting it dead on.

Imagine, just for a moment, what it would be like to spend your entire life, never being able to go out in public without a mask covering your face.

It's not the right way for a human being to live.

Jennifer|10.25.06 @ 11:05AM|#

If your religion teaches you that women must be 100% invisible in public, perhaps you'd be happier in a society where female invisibility is the norm. Slightly off-topic, but I agree with the people who say that British Muslim public-school teacher shouldn't be allowed to wear the full-face veil at her job. Here in the West, it's customary for children to be able to see the faces of their teachers.

I know that in America it's illegal for adults to go out in public with their faces hidden by masks (a la the Ku Klux Klan). If your religion requires you to violate the law of a given country, you might be happier not going there.

Tolerance is great, but the idea that we must be tolerant of intolerance is not. At what point should "tolerance for all" give way to "when in Rome do as the Romans do, especially when going to Rome was something you chose to do?"