Video: Tammy Bruce on the feminist response to teddy-bear blasphemy
posted at 12:10 pm on December 3, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
A point often made but often worth making. It’s not obvious to me why NOW should have anything to say about the Gillian Gibbons case, which doesn’t involve a “women’s issue.” But then, neither did the deportation of Elvira Arellano and they had plenty to say about that. They should have something to say about the Saudi gang-rape case, as not only are those nasty wingnuts covering it in some detail but, thanks to Bush’s coziness with the Saudi royals, it’s perfectly legit on the left to hate the Kingdom. Oh well.
Tammy claims feminists’ silence signals that Gibbons and the Saudi woman “deserved” what they got. I wouldn’t go that far, but as she says, this is all infused with that curious parochial progressivism that can generate white-hot outrage over a parental notification requirement for a pregnant 13-year-old in the U.S. but only the most perfunctory statement of condemnation — if any — of a woman being cut to ribbons for the crime of being gang-raped in Saudi Arabia. Feminism may not end at the water’s edge but it sure seems tired once it finally crosses the ocean.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Heh.
Spirit of 1776 on December 3, 2007 at 12:15 PM
I remember back in the early ’90s when some NOW chapters resolved that, because native Hawaiians had surrendered their island to the white man in the face of certain genocide, the state should be given back to its indigenous peoples.
Half of the natives were likely women, so I can understand why NOW would get involved.
saint kansas on December 3, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Well, she is talking about what it signals to
college women. On that, I find it hard to argue with her.It may not be what NOW actually believes, but reality and perception do not always go hand in hand.
Esthier on December 3, 2007 at 12:18 PM
The punishment isn’t for being gang-raped, but rather for being in a car with an unrelated male. Affection for males is not something the feminists can related to (if though, as in this case, the victim was being blackmailed).
pedestrian on December 3, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Yes, I’m aware what the claimed charge is. Color me skeptical.
Allahpundit on December 3, 2007 at 12:24 PM
NOW keeps out of feminist issues in Islamic lands and cultures so that when Islam finally takes over (thanks to all the dhimmis!), the Sharia-enforcing clerics won’t punish them for daring to speak out for women (essentially, NOW just wants to stay off Sharia’s radar).
Frozen Tex on December 3, 2007 at 12:25 PM
Actually, affection for males is the highest crime in feminist orthodoxy, therefore that woman got what she deserved according to feminist theory. Call them when a woman gets executed for showing affection for another woman and then gets gang-raped.
BKennedy on December 3, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Commenting on abuses around the world would make their domestic actions for women’s rights pale in comparison to the trials — literal and metaphorical — women face everywhere an American flag doesn’t fly; better to stay de facto multi-cultural, non-interventionist, ethically dissonant, and self-engrossed than to get wrapped up in the principles upon which NOW is presumably founded upon. After all, the US media’s not going to hold their feet to the fire.
Vizzini on December 3, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Note: While I did inadvertantly mix up the chronological order of the events in the last sentence, I would not put necrophilia past the adherents of the religion of peices.
BKennedy on December 3, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Well said Tammy Bruce! I think NOW would be a lot more powerful if they did step up attention on these worldwide issues against the equality of women. Their narrow focus of getting the most woman friendly government to become even more women friendly really gives their movement a bad name.
Feminism has come a long way in the USA. A woman is even the odds on favorite to win the Presidency. Women in this country are allowed to do anything they want – as it should be (other than killing their baby).
NOW needs to focus on radical Islam and how it treats women. Radical Islam is the threat to feminism AND gay rights for a different issue. Yet they take no criticism and reserve all of their criticism for the USA.
AMERICA IS THE SOLUTION NOT THE PROBLEM! Agree 100% with Tammy Bruce here.
ThackerAgency on December 3, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Certain the members of the renowned nonpartisan American think-tank “The View” will find the best way to reconcile this conflict of feminist and Muslim ideologies.
saint kansas on December 3, 2007 at 12:32 PM
The GANG RAPE was the PUNISHMENT for being in a car with an unrelated male. The punishment is for committing adultery by being gang raped.
In Islamic countries, women who are raped are always guilty of adultery by definition. If they didn’t get raped, they didn’t commit adultery. It is terrible, awful, absurd. But (off topic) I might argue that our law here of taking a woman’s word for it while ruining 3 lacrosse players’ lives a bit absurd too.
But yes, the punishment now is for adultery that resulted when she was being punished for being in a car with an unrelated male by being gang raped. Her crime here was ‘being gang raped’.
ThackerAgency on December 3, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Just like when they didn’t come to the defense of Kathleen Wiley. The enemy of my friend is my enemy.
Tony737 on December 3, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Or NOW’s outrage at the return of Imus, and their silence on the woman killed in Iran, by the ‘dating police’…chirp, chirp, chirp.
Also, while the Mohammed teddybear-naming is not a woman thing, when was the last time they decried the way the women are treated by Sharia, and the fact that the entire religion is hijacked?
Entelechy on December 3, 2007 at 12:40 PM
NOW is too busy holding orgasm workshops over how awesome they are (aside: they need workshops to do what the rest of us can do with minor communicative effort) to worry about Sharia creep. You see, Bush (the President) is the real enemy to women’s rights.
BKennedy on December 3, 2007 at 12:49 PM
They don’t want to jeopardize their comfortable position atop the ivory tower to actually take a moral stand against gang rape in a foreign country. It would cut into their time calling American men a-holes and giggling.
Matticus Finch on December 3, 2007 at 1:01 PM
Great line.
Although I think in truth … it’d be more accurate to say it drowns noisily halfway to Greenland.
Professor Blather on December 3, 2007 at 1:04 PM
If you visit BBC or other UK sites, you’ll see the Left indeed thinks the Sudan teacher deserved it.
VinceP1974 on December 3, 2007 at 1:21 PM
from http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?section=middleeast&xfile=data/middleeast/2007/march/middleeast_march71.xml
It’s horrific enough that lashing is being used to punish for that. By saying that the punishment is for something even more ridiculous lets the Saudis of the hook for what they are really doing. Certainly their are other cases where a rape victim has been punished, but there seems to be enough shame in this instance that they are not saying that. Let’s take that small victory and move on to the real issue in this case, which is to treat the woman as not even having the right to visit whom she wants.
By the way, the “Take Action” page of feminist.org today lists 6 items. Items 2,4, and 6 are all the same: subsidized abortions.Items 1 and 3 are completely different, they are for subsidized abortions in other countries. Item 5 is some obscure labor dispute on some island somewhere, probably a dispute over how much abortion nurses should be paid.
pedestrian on December 3, 2007 at 1:22 PM
Some one should alert NOW that Republican Muslims have fired a young feminist at CAIR for asking for a raise and a promotion. That would set a fire under them.
BL@KBIRD on December 3, 2007 at 1:29 PM
Tammy Bruce hit the nail on the head. Today’s “feminism” is not about women’s issues, but about liberal politics. To these so-called feminist any crticism of jihadists means an alliance with their most hated enemies, George Bush, the millitary, and America. Substitute the jihadist with an American soldier and see them kick up a stink.
RMR on December 3, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Who’s doing the ‘allowing’? I think it is better to say that women are at liberty to do what they want.
[/nitpick]
;-)
Ochlan on December 3, 2007 at 1:52 PM
If men continue to be feminized and Islam allowed to take over, then woman will no longer be allowed to do much of anything. Someone has to lift the shells. Interesting post on that subject here: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_12_02-2007_12_08.shtml#1196697012
pedestrian on December 3, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Feminism pretty much destroyed the U.S.A.
Connie on December 3, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Yes. Interesting. I concur with Volokh.
Ochlan on December 3, 2007 at 2:17 PM
Someone said somewhere (maybe even in an earlier thread here, fuzzy memory) that the correct and direct response to the left’s “cultural relativism” argument in these case (i.e. it’s their culture, we need to respect it, it’s the victim’s fault for not being sensitive, etc.) is a simple, one-word response.
Apartheid.
If you opposed apartheid, how in the WORLD can you not oppose the violent subjugation of women in the Middle East?
Of course, if you ask that question of NOW, I hope you like the sound of crickets.
Merovign on December 3, 2007 at 3:32 PM
These chicks pick their battles very carefully. They would nevah, evah go up against Islam. They fight back. Killing innocents is more their M.O., than putting themselves in harm’s way.
Hening on December 3, 2007 at 4:03 PM
NOW hates female people.
- The Cat
MirCat on December 3, 2007 at 4:21 PM
I would point out, to NOW, et al., that roughly half of the babies aborted are girls. So who, in fact, is rampantly denying rights to women?
urbancenturion on December 3, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Feminists are only interested in women 18 years of age or older who can be brainwashed into buying NOW’s shtick.
Teenage girls? Who cares, give them a pill and if they get knocked up, rend their baby from their womb and give them an “I had an abortion” T-shirt to solace them.
Pre-teens? Who needs morals. Just give the kids some fruit and rubbers and they’ll figure it out and move into teenage status.
The unborn? “We prefer the term ‘products of conception’”
Men? What?
BKennedy on December 3, 2007 at 4:45 PM
Why doesn’t Tammy run for office.
LtE126 on December 3, 2007 at 5:45 PM
The ironic thing is that if Islam were to dominate the world, NOW would be one of the first on the chopping block.
eeeeediotssss.
Black Adam on December 3, 2007 at 8:47 PM
It’s cases like this that really show where the Left’s heart is.
Tzetzes on December 3, 2007 at 9:09 PM
And she carries a gun and knows how to use it.
MSGTAS on December 4, 2007 at 8:19 AM
NOW is afraid of the male-dominated Mohammedans. They only speak where they have the freedom to attempt to dominate men; they say very little about actual repressive societies where women are actually abused and mistreated. I have no respect for their pulpit and since the time they did not speak on behalf of the victims of Bill Clinton; they actually have had very little to say about anything; they sold their soul to the devil regarding legitimate issues of women’s rights.
apostle53 on December 4, 2007 at 9:45 AM
Good News! http://www.theonion.com/content/news/man_finally_put_in_charge_of
dont taze me bro on December 5, 2007 at 2:42 PM
Comment pages: