For years, feminists–myself included–focused on women as victims. We argued, correctly, that women were not only being discriminated against economically but were the objects of horrific psychological, sexual, and physical violence.
In North America and Europe, women are still being raped, incested, battered, trafficked, tortured, and murdered. However, after forty five years of feminist activism, such acts are increasingly viewed as crimes, and are increasingly reported and sometimes punished. Rape as a weapon of war, (think Bosnia, Rwanda, Sudan, Congo) is now seen as a crime against humanity.
Understandably, but also regrettably, many feminists got used to viewing women as victims-only, never as perpetrators or collaborators. When, early on, some daughters described serious abuse at the hands of their biological, adoptive, or foster mothers, few feminists took them seriously. Similarly, when lesbians initially described being battered by their female partners, few feminists took up their cause. We did not (want to) believe that woman’s inhumanity to woman was widespread or AS widespread as either man’s inhumanity to woman or man’s inhumanity to man.
I was among a handful of feminists who took the allegations of female abuse at female hands seriously. In 2002, after more than twenty years of on-again/off-again research and writing (and after dragging my feet about publishing), I finally published my book Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman. I surveyed thousands of years of human history around the world. I also looked at female-female primate behaviors.
Unsurprisingly, females may be hard-wired to compete against and destroy other females (but not males, who are physically bigger and who are also viewed as a woman’s potential protectors). Girls and women are also be socialized to keep each other in line and to enforce conformity by using techniques such as shunning and slandering, and as important, by rewarding female compliance with maternal and sisterly “grooming.” (Yes, like primates).
While some American feminist leaders blessed me for writing this book, many greeted my book “nervously.” Many believed–and still believe–that women must prove that we are morally superior to men in order to justify our desire for equal rights. But this should not be the case.
Like men, women are as close to the apes as to the angels. We have also internalized sexist and other non-virtuous values and often minimize or justify our own oppression. Like men, women join and support fascist, totalitarian, and misogynistic regimes; women also collaborate with evil and profit from that collaboration. My point: Women are human beings and whether we are perfect or a lot less than perfect, we are worthy of equal rights for that reason alone.
By the way, the belief that only our victimization will save us is one of the reasons that American feminists often fail to distinguish between our improved and vastly superior status in imperfect America and the status of women in the Third World. There are some other reasons too.
Although Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman received a front page review in the Washington Post’s Book Review by Deborah Tannen and I was interviewed and reviewed in at least twenty five countries on six continents, the publisher discontinued it earlier this year. There are many used copies online which you may still purchase–and yes, I am considering self-publishing it. And why? Because the perspective this book provides is the only way in which we may understand certain global realities.
For example: The spate of “bride burnings” in India (which has now reached epidemic proportions) is not only about economic misery. It is also a story about mothers-in-law who join in the ongoing beating of daughters-in-law and who douse them with kerosene in order that their sons may command a second, larger dowry. In some instances, sisters-in-law also join in the battering which invariably precedes the actual murders. Although this crime is barely and rarely prosecuted, New Delhi, India actually boasts a “mother-in-law” wing in the Tihar Jail.
In Asia, many wives have been known to throw acid in the eyes and faces–not of their cheating husbands, but into those of their husband’s mistresses. (It is not mere jealousy but rather the desire to exclude a rival’s access to a husband’s paycheck). In Muslim and Arab countries, envious female gossip about a girl or woman (she is having an affair, she is too independent) plays a role in that woman’s honor-murder. In a jihadic era, many Muslim women extol the virtues of radical Islam and Islamic custom that includes practices that are extremely harmful to the health such as face and body “covering,” female genital mutilation, arranged child marriage, polygamy, and purdah (sequestration).
Often, it is one’s own grandmother who either insists on her granddaughters’ genital mutilation or who carries the butchery out secretly, without her daughter’s knowledge. Both Somali-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Egyptian-born Nawal el-Sadawii have described childhood experiences like this. American feminist Alice Walker, and separately, Austrian-born Fran Hoskin, devoted years of their lives (from the late 1970s through the 1990s) to documenting the savage and heartbreaking practice of female genital mutilation.
Recently, several young girls died in Egypt from this barbaric surgery which is often carried out without an anesthetic and without sterile instruments. (I am not implying that such mutilation would be acceptable if it were performed more humanely and safely in a hospital, although some Third World feminists sometimes say so). In Egypt, the government has finally threatened to end the practice. Its local adherents have, in response, threatened to bring the government down.
Today, many western feminists and progressives are multi-cultural relativists, not universalists. This means that they are more concerned with being (falsely) condemned as “racists” or “colonialists” than they are concerned with opposing gross violations of women’s bodies and minds. Thus, while western feminists are not “happy” about the extraordinary violence against women in the Third World (please note that the violence is not only Islamist violence), they usually hesitate to condemn it, even in principle, if the perpetrators are peoples of color who have formerly been colonized.
Some western feminists have justified face- and body-covering as forms of “feminist liberation” and as no worse than the bikini. Some have viewed purdah and polygamy as enviable forms of “feminist sisterhood.” (Read my book The Death of Feminism: What’s Next in the Struggle for Women’s Freedom). Recently, Roger Sandall has quoted the British feminist anthropologist, Melissa Llewellyn-Davis, who delicately described the gruesome genital mutilation as equivalent to our own “white wedding.”
I don’t know what they’re drinking or inhaling but this cruel and usual foolishness has got to stop. I once lived in Kabul, Afghanistan and was expected to remain indoors–but enough about me. Even if we can’t “do anything” in the short run to end this misery, we can at least “name” it properly and dedicate ourselves to the proposition that all women (even those who are African, Asian, and Muslim) are created equal.





PJM Home
Woman's Inhumanity to Woman
The Death of Feminism: What’s Next in the Struggle for Women’s Freedom
Women and Madness
The New Anti-Semitism: The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It
Women of the Wall: Claiming Sacred Ground at Judaism’s Holy Site
Letters to a Young Feminist
With Child: A Diary of Motherhood
Feminist Foremothers in Women’s Studies, Psychology, and Mental Health
Patriarchy: Notes of an Expert Witness
Sacred Bond: The Legacy of Baby M
Mothers on Trial: The Battle for Children and Custody
About Men
Women, Money & Power
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
11 Comments
1. George Jochnowitz:For many feminists and gay-rights activists on the left, anti-Zionism takes precedence over all other issues. Consequently, the gross mistreatment of women and gay men that may occur in third-world countries is ignored, since one doesn’t want to offend one’s anti-Zionist allies. The alliance, of course, is totally asymmetrical, since jihadists and their ilk will never do anything to support women’s rights and gay rights. By discussing this subject as you do, Phyllis, you may help feminists to wake up.
Oct 10, 2007 - 10:58 am 2. tanstaafl:Today, many western feminists and progressives are multi-cultural relativists, not universalists. This means that they are more concerned with being (falsely) condemned as “racists” or “colonialists” than they are concerned with opposing gross violations of women’s bodies and minds.
That sums it up quite nicely.
A position based not in common sense but in a kind of ideological posturing.
I see such kinds of “thinking” and attitudes as based in fear and lack of courage.
Exactly the opposite of how the self-anointed modern liberal and liberated woman might view herself.
Oct 10, 2007 - 12:41 pm 3. Debbie:An excellent article. I’ve asked the same question for years. Why are the feminists so quiet when it comes to Muslim treatment of women? There is no good answer, in fact there is no answer at all from them on the subject when pinned down for one.
Oct 10, 2007 - 12:42 pm 4. David Thomson:“This means that they are more concerned with being (falsely) condemned as “racists” or “colonialists”
This is why leftist and radical libertarian political candidates must be resoundingly defeated at the ballot box. They can, at best, offer no more then a half-hearted response to the Islamic terrorists. The dark skinned thugs are presumed similar to dogs that have been mistreated. Their rabid behavior is ultimately our fault.
Oct 10, 2007 - 2:05 pm 5. SGT Ted:Today, many western feminists and progressives are multi-cultural relativists, not universalists. This means that they are more concerned with being (falsely) condemned as “racists” or “colonialists” than they are concerned with opposing gross violations of women’s bodies and minds.
It also points to a moral bankruptcy that prefers to remain silent to avoid being called a name, rather than do the right thing.
Oct 10, 2007 - 4:24 pm 6. njcommuter:And the moral bankruptcy of a movement that demands the silence. This is rule by force and fear, not public debate using free speech of free people.
Oct 10, 2007 - 6:20 pm 7. mercurior:the whole ide of female genital mutilation has had a lot of press, and that is how it should be.
yet millions of men suffer a similar form of genital mutilation, and nothing is said. this is why these feminist (read anti male organisations), want this thing to happen, they dont want it to stop, once all women are treated the same as men, then there will be no need for them, and no organisation will voluntarily kill themselves once they have finished their job.
they revel and they will enjoy creating more problems for them to “solve”.
Oct 11, 2007 - 6:10 am 8. Sissy Willis:Phyllis: I think you will get a kick out of “Girls will be girls,” an illustration by Anita Kunz, whose words betray a refexive multi-cultural relativist mentality:
“Based on their clothing, none of those women are physically free,” Kunz told The Phoenix. “I’ve had lots of reaction that baffles me. I’ve been called anti-woman, a racist, anti-Semitic, anti-American, you name it!”
As I said in my own post on the subject — “At the intersection of vanity and liberalism” — “Like old age, moral relativism is not for the faint of heart.”
Oct 11, 2007 - 8:03 am 9. Classical Values:new blog exposes hideous double standards
Via Dr. Helen, I learned that Dr. Phyllis Chesler (author of The New Anti-Semitism — a great book!) now has a Pajamas Media blog. There’s already a lot of great stuff there, but I was drawn to a reference in…
Oct 11, 2007 - 10:04 am 10. Virginia Ray:So why aren’t we organized to force battered women’s shelters to be built with the ten million the UN has in their Trust to end violence against women globally? (UNIFEM’S Trust Fund in Support of Actions to Eliminate Violence Against Women) The UN is stealing that money just like they stoled the oil for food money. So why aren’t we organized to force the State Dept’s Office of International Women’s Issues to build shelters and connect US women with women leaders who are organizing globally?
I agree with your comments about the left, but is anyone writing on this blog stupid enough to think that the answer is on the right?
Phyllis Shafely to the rescue?
We need a Global Feminists for Women’s Rights Organization whose focus is to shape the foreign policy of the US to feminist ends. This is a heroic endeavor and saying the same things over and over to each other over will not make it happen. Whose purpose does talk without action serve?
It is tragic that those “feminists” who were organized, or rather who held the sheds of those institutions real feminists built in their greedy hands, did nothing to use the middle east war to help Muslim women. They were too lost in supporting the boys on the left, shouting anti Bush slogans to recognize the opportunities to liberate women. The few who did see the war as a strong hand lifting the rock of oppression ended up talking to ourselves in a shriller and shriller voice.
Now what? More of the same?
Oct 11, 2007 - 11:40 am 11. mercurior:who die more often in wars, in disaster areas, who die more of violence towards them.
MEN. more men are killed due to violence, than women. (i am not saying violence against women is right perish the thought but more men die each year than women due to violent acts).
yes have shelters for women but also have shelters for men, as they get abused just the same as women.
its all about equality, and it shouldnt be one sex gets more than another.
Oct 11, 2007 - 3:37 pm