I find often hilarious reading, or listening, debates about the supposed contradictions in feminism when dealing with Islam.
How can feminists attack the evil white heterosexual male of the “western” world, while conceding a trump card to the rigid androcentric set-up of the Islamic religion and relevant societies?
Let alone the radical Islam and the implied misogynistic view of women?
The seemingly contraddiction stems from a superficial understanding of feminism.
What critics of feminism fail to get, yet, is that feminism has achieved the status of a criminal organization based on the incremental absorption (and abuse) of power, by accurate manipulation of human social psychology.
Who hasn’t eared a feminist evoking the spectre of the sharia law, to warn everyone in the “western” world about the danger of turning back the (feminist) clock of history?
Women would be chattels in the patriarchal world designed by men in the “First” world, pretty much as women are forced into burkas by radical Islam.
Sound familiar, doesn’t it? And sometimes it works with ingenuous folks.
The power of such position relies on “victimhood by association”. Women are, as a class, victims of the oppressors, men as a class. So men inherit the oppressor status despite cultures, religious beliefs and geographical differences; the same, in the opposite direction, applies to women.
So you may wonder: if feminists care about women and hence about Muslim women, why don’t they condemn firmly Islam?
If you pose yourself this question, you bought, at least partially, the propaganda according to which feminism cares about the “rights and dignity of women”. Feminism cares about women, pretty much as politicians care about their voters. Feminists care about power, and men in the “first” world are the obstacle on their way. Women just represent the consensus basis to consolidate and to mobilize against the enemy.
Feminists can’t condemn radical Islam, for two very simple (and coherent) reasons, stemming from the “gender as a class” paradigm. It has nothing to deal with “double standards” or hypocrisy.
Firstly. They simply can’t condemn Islam, even if inclined to, because doing so they would put a spotlight on the differences among women living in different cultures; thus, tearing down the concept of women as a monolithic class of oppressed beings. Women in the “western” world dress burkas, get it. Indeed, if you carefully analyse the feminist usage of “sharia” victim card, you’ll notice that it isn’t brought up to draw a separation line between women’s status in the “western” world and those under sharia, but to build a bridge between the latter ones and first world grandmothers. The condition of women under radical Islam has nothing to deal with religion, but with lack of feminist enlightenment. Deal with it
Secondly. They can’t stress out men’s misogynistic attitudes under radical Islam otherwise they would downplay the evil implications of first world men’s attitudes, such peeing while standing, staring at women, catcalling and manspreading. Men are an oppressor class, and our grandfathers forced women in burkas as well. Nowaday we don’t thanks to feminism. Feminists, simply put, do not see differences among men; they only see different stages of oppression when male attitudes are not properly confined.
Condemning radical Islam, in essence, would undermine the very pillars of feminism. If feminism accepted just for a second that the status of people is pretty much situational, it would open the door to the possibility that women in the first world (in comparative terms with men) are not oppressed and maybe they have never been. And that men are not oppressors. And that maybe women not only are not oppressed, but they are, as a whole, a priviledged demographic. This is not simply conceivable.
Maleness is the original sin, and the sin can’t be extinguished until its very root perishes.
The only fair share of power feminism conceives, it is the absolute power.