Some thoughts on recent events

No, this is not about David Bowie about whom my feelings are lukewarm, at best. I refer to the events of New Year's Eve in Cologne and other Continental, particularly German cities as well as subsequent developments. My intention was not to write about it because there were so many people pontificating already but an exchange I had with a very well known journalist (no name, no pack drill, as they say) who thought that the official report, which confirmed that the Cologne attackers were "of migrant origin".When I asked why that is a surprise, given what we had heard from the women victims and why is it worse than if the attackers had lived in the country for a while, the reply was "because it plays into the hands of those wanting to sow division".

What can one make of that attitude? Can this journalist really think that the crimes are less important than the need to prevent "dissension", which cannot possibly be sown who think it is all right to attack women in the streets? Could this journalist have possibly preferred that the story of Cologne as many other similar but smaller stories had been buried by unsympathetic police officers and politicians? One cannot help suspecting that with this and many other journalists. After all, the media has been entirely complicit in the mess.

Other discussions I have had yielded some interesting moments as well. On a personal basis I can confirm that a good many people on the left are or are trying to be in denial about this. The number of assertions I have seen that this must have been a plot put together by the extreme right and other opponents of immigration is extraordinary. What that shows is the usual left-wing contempt for the people they allegedly support and a reluctance to understand that there are other cultures around and some of them are incompatible with ours. The notion that only Europeans or Americans are capable of deciding to do anything and everyone else simply follows instructions or gets caught up in a conspiracy is laughable but also dangerous. Yet there are many people around who do not even see anything wrong with that.

There have been the inevitable comments and articles about "feminists" being ready to sacrifice other women for their own rather skewed politically correct attitudes. That, I keep pointing out, is true only if we all accept that Guardian-type definition of a feminist being left-wing. Then it all becomes a general problem for the left. There are, however, many of us feminists, who believe in freedom and equality and who are not on the left. We have been discussing these issues for some time and intend to go on discussing them. Nobody, in my opinion, is more of a feminist than the Baroness Cox, who is fighting for the rights of women against Sharia law and who is much disliked by the left, including the so-called feminist left.

There are the inevitable arguments that we should look at male violence in general and not assume that some cultures encourage it more than others. Any discussion of that kind would take away attention from recent events and criminal activity and bog us down in pointless meanderings. Of course, there is something to be said for looking at the male violence angle but not quite what these people mean.

One of the big arguments against the decision to allow in refugees/migrants in large numbers (a decision that almost all European countries have been rejecting) was the fact that the majority of them were young men though enough women and children could be found for moving pictures in the media. Not only does that raise uncomfortable questions as to whether these are really refugees but should remind us that a sudden influx of tens of thousands young men is not that good a development and is unlikely to be conducive to keeping peace and law and order. When those young men come from societies, which have a very different attitude to women, then big trouble could be expected.

Unfortunately, having committed themselves to a certain series of actions, politicians together with the media that supported them and those entrusted with the preservation of law and order, preferred not to acknowledge that trouble was on its way. When it came (and that happened some time before this last New Year's Eve) official reaction was to dampen the fires, dismiss complaints, bury the news story and hope it will all go away. They may have feared a backlash, dissent, even violence aimed at the migrants but most of all it is their own position that was at risk and up with that they could not put.

As my friend and wise mentor John O'Sullivan put it on his Twitter feed:

Official silence, meant to prevent a backlash, fueled a backlash which, btw, is a racist term for critical opposition to foolish policies.

The story of violence against women at various occasions and in various parts of Europe (with Britain not exactly being exempt, what with our tales of gangs grooming young girls and years of official denial) has now become too big to suppress. The Police Chief of Cologne was thrown to the dogs and the Mayor of that city, having made some very stupid statements that basically blamed the victims, is whining that she has been attacked and criticized. The interview is well worth reading in full to see the political helplessness and need to blame everyone else. None of it is new but people have become less tolerant.

What we see here is quite normal for the political establishment. They make a colossal mistake or two, refuse to look at valid criticisms and discard any opposing ideas. When those criticisms turn out to be correct they find it impossible either to acknowledge it (with some exceptions) or to admit that the mess is now too big for them to deal with and they have no idea how to get out of it.

This has happened over and over again, the whole appalling mess of the eurozone being just one example. In the case of this particular mess there were two catastrophic decisions: one is to take in very large numbers of migrants/refugees from societies that are run on different principles without even a perfunctory check beyond the odd newspaper story; the other, older decision (and really it is hard to tell whether it was a decision or something that just happened) was not to insist that those who come to our countries and societies abide by our laws and our own cultural norms. That does not mean people cannot worship in their own way, wear clothes they prefer (though I have a rooted objection to the veil) or eat the food they like (that, above all). But there are more important issues such as the position of women in society. The decisions were challenged and criticized all along and these criticisms were dismissed as emanations of racism or xenophobia. Well, now the whirlwind is upon us.

The row over gender segregation in British universities

Read that title and marvel that we can even have such a row. Can you really believe it that some universities and their unions allow gender segregation in meetings and, indeed, demand it when certain speakers appear? Could anyone imagine having a discussion about segregation by race?

As the grand-daughter of a woman who went to university in 1914 to study medicine (yes, she did become a doctor and a very good one, too), I feel very strongly on the subject and ought to have written about it before. (Not sure where the last few weeks went but blogging has been sparse with little else to show for it.)

For the moment I am going to take what might look a lazy way out and publish somebody else's thoughts on the subject. Tehmina Kazi (full disclosure: she is a friend and has agreed to my publishing her piece) is the Director of British Muslims for Secular Democracy. Here is her summary of the arguments:

Aspects of the gender segregation debate that have annoyed and perplexed me

1. Denial that gender segregation even exists in universities.

2. Downplaying of the discrimination and shoddy treatment faced by women who have experienced it, which goes back many years.

3. Those who are unable to see why it is problematic for a public body like Universities UK to prioritise the whims of external speakers over university public sector equality duties, and THE SPIRIT of equalities law.

4. No-one has given me a GOOD reason as to WHY gender segregation it is practiced in the first place, in either civic or theological terms. "Because we've done it for years..." does NOT count.

5. When I ask how gay, lesbian, transsexual and intersex people can fit into gender segregated environments, many people seem to assume they can sit where they like - and are able to exercise this in reality. This completely ignores the power dynamics at play here... Who could forget the case of trans Muslim convert Lucy Vallender, whose local mosque told her she was not allowed to pray alongside women? As Kate Maltby wrote for the Spectator: "Basing your very seating arrangements on the belief that ‘male’ and ‘female’ are the fundamental categories of human existence is deeply discriminatory to transgender or intersex students – these fenced-off areas offend by their very presence, even if mixed seating areas are also available." Further, how many of these mixed seating areas are, in practice, for married couples only?

5. Women who turn around and say, "But I've never had a problem with being segregated." Fair enough, but where is the empathy for people who HAVE suffered as a result?

6. The endless comparisons with toilets. Since when did the privacy issues of taking a dump compare to those of engaging one's brain and listening to a speaker as part of an audience?

7. The endless comparisons with single-sex educational establishments, which people actively CHOOSE to attend. Even if the choice was made for them by their parents, you'd think they would be able to enjoy such freedom of choice themselves at the age of 18, SHOULD they decide to attend university. What people effectively have NO choice over is attending a public event at a MIXED university - either as a guest or student - where the arrangements inhibit them from sitting or entering alongside the opposite gender.

(As for the single-sex colleges at Cambridge University, they were originally set up to help redress the gender imbalance in higher education. As I understand it, at least one of the Cambridge colleges in question intends to become co-educational when the proportion of women at Cambridge reaches 50%).

8. The automatic willingness to believe opportunists who have SMEARED activists who peacefully protested against segregation at the UCL event in March 2013 (which triggered the Universities UK guidance in the first place). One of these activists is a good friend who has gone through quite substantial hardship to raise money for orphans in a MUSLIM-MAJORITY country, no less.

9. Confusion over the distinction between discretionary segregation (where people randomly sit where they wish, perhaps in same-sex clusters) and organised segregation (which is either enforced by the event organisers, or requested by the student societies in question).

10. Complaints that the issue is receiving disproportionate public attention NOW. Where were these complainants when women's rights activists were raising these issues within the community for YEARS? Keeping schtum and not upsetting the apple cart, yes?

11. Complaints that those who raise this issue MUST have an Islamophobic agenda, when many of them are actually Muslims whose concerns have been brushed aside for years. (As an aside, many of these same Muslim activists have ALSO done a lot to challenge GENUINE anti-Muslim sentiment).

12. Assumptions that those who campaign against gender segregation in university events MUST also automatically oppose it in congregational prayers. This is not about acts of worship, as Equality and Human Rights Commission Chief Executive Mark Hammond made clear: “Universities can also provide facilities for religious meetings and associations based on faith, as in the rest of society. Equality law permits gender segregation in premises that are permanently or temporarily being used for the purposes of an organised religion where its doctrines require it. However, in an academic meeting or in a lecture open to the public it is not, in the Commission's view, permissible to segregate by gender."

Some of these points I find more important than others but all of them are worth thinking about. I suspect I shall be returning to the subject in future blogs. 

A couple of pictures

This is still about the American Presidential campaign and some of the more ... ahem ... interesting aspects of it.

This graphic appeared on the Obama/Biden site and was removed after a certain amount of fuss but not before somebody thoughtfully took a screen shot.

And here is the response.

What I find odd is that women might find it possible to vote for the Democrats and for Obama in particular after that sort of political statement.

A blog that is well worth reading

Alan Craig's name is not as well known as, perhaps, it ought to be. He is the man who led the battle against the East London mega-mosque, a battle that seems to have been lost as planning permission has been approved of. But to some extent the battle was won as the vast building will not be constructed in time for the 2012 Olympics, which was the original aim.

The sect behind the mega-mosque is Tablighi Jamaat, which originated in South Asia and has particularly harsh views on the position of women (as well as the Infidel). This is what Mr Craig has to say and he is not inaccurate:

Originating from South Asia, Tablighi Jamaat is the most successful Islamic missionary group on the planet and the UK is one of their prime missionary targets. During the recent public inquiry into the use of their West Ham site, the sect’s trustees explained how they reconcile their active promotion of wedding ceremonies with the fact that theirs is a male-only mosque. At the ceremony the marriage contract is signed solely by the bridegroom and the father or brother of the bride. The bride does not sign it. She does not even attend her own wedding.

The Planning Inspector, blinded and biased by his profession’s multi-cultural mores, subsequently reported (here) merely that “the highest standards… of inclusion for women… are not being achieved” at the male-only site (yes, he really wrote such tripe, check it out: para 77) and that the all-male mosque is “generally an inclusive environment”! Troglodyte Saudi authorities that bar female car drivers within the regressive Kingdom can eat their hearts out: this bride-ban is happening in 21st century London apparently with the active connivance of UK authorities.

When shall we hear from the feminist organizations of this country about this outrage. Or about the other one Mr Craig writes about on his blog, the bullying of a Bangladeshi Christian pharmacy assistant?

My own association with Mr Craig is through work on Baroness Cox's Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill about which I have yet to write. Mea culpa. I am delighted that he has a blog of his own as well as a column in The Church of England Newspaper. I strongly recommend the blog to my readers though I know that not all will agree with everything Mr Craig says. He would be the first to support people's right to disagree. Go for it.

ADDENDUM: Alan Craig disagrees with me on one important point and says this:

Actually the battle against the mega-mosque is far from lost; in a sense the battle proper has yet to begin - when we see the full plans published later this year.

However we have lost a preliminary planning skirmish - which no doubt has encouraged and emboldened the mosque proposers. We won the argument but lost the decision - this time round.

Well, he will have the full support of this blog. A city that has as many mosques as London does, has no need of a mega-mosque, let alone one where women are not allowed to sign their own marriage agreements.

Will it make any difference?

The New York Times discusses whether the fall of Strauss-Kahn (or DSK) will make any difference to gender relationships in France. (Story covered on this blog here and here.) There is an odd question that arises in my mind. There is no doubt that the macho attitude is there and sexual misbehaviour (by which I do not mean affairs but actual attacks on women) are ignored or have been until now, as the forced resignation of George Tron demonstrates. Yet there seem to be more women on higher levels in politics in France than here. How is that to be explained? I would also be interested to know whether there have been any serious comparisons between the level at which there is a glass ceiling in business in France and in Britain.

Before anybody accuses me of something I am not guilty of, I must point out that I do know and have written about the truth of what women's lives are in certain other societies and in Islamic countries and communities. Nevertheless, not everything is perfect in the West either.

After International Women's Day

This year marks the hundredth anniversary of International Women's Day and it is, therefore, pertinent to ask why stories of young girls being sold into marriage "in our own backyard" as Phyllis Chesler says, should be of so little interest to the media and the various feminist organizations.

She really annoys them

Readers of this blog would have noticed that from time to time I make uncomplimentary references to left-wing feminists, particularly to their reluctance to voice support for women who suffer from far more than the pressure to wear bikinis on the beach. (Depends on who wears them, say I. There are times when it is causes suffering to other people. But I digress.)

There is a long-standing problem here in that right-wing feminism as in fight for women's legal rights, property rights, education, the vote and suchlike matters has been written out of history to a great extent. Feminist historians do not find it interesting to talk about the important role of women in, say, the Conservative Party while Conservative historians dismiss the subject as being of no significance.

There are some exceptions. There is Mitzi Auchterlonie's excellent Conservative Suffragists

There are Martin Pugh's books that provide a "revisionist history" of the women's movement and an overview of women in the "modern" post-Disraeli party.

However, for the real struggle one has to look, as always, across the Pond where left-wing feminist groups are being driven mad by the presence of the Mama Grizzly, Sarah Palin, now described as a feminist, rightly in my opinion and infuriatingly in theirs. Dana Loesch writes about it in the Washington Examiner.

It is left-wing feminist groups who are silent

Toby Young asks today: Why have Western feminists been so muted in their criticisms of Iran? in connection with the case of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, the woman who has already received 99 lashes for adultery, has now admitted to all sorts of other crimes on Iranian TV and has been sentenced to being stoned to death. To be fair to Mr Young he does make it clear in his article that he is speaking of left-wing feminists, a subject this blog has broached a few times. Health warning: the comments on the article are quite remarkably stupid.

Sisterhood left in the dumps

This is a little early for a non-American blog to comment too much on the forthcoming November elections though the primaries are throwing up some interesting candidates. Still, there are so many American blogs who know and understand the nuances better than we do that I see no reason for saying too much.

However, this has to be pointed out. There were many primaries on Tuesday night and many strong women candidates won them. So, rejoice the sisterhood! Right? Wrong. Most of those strong women are Republicans and, generally, on the right of the political spectrum. So, just like Margaret Thatcher in Britain, these women have been written out of the feminist scenario. They are not, apparently, to be applauded or shown up as role models. In a different way, the fact that both Secretaries of State under President Bush were black and one a woman are ignored. As I recall, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice (as well as Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas and people like political economist Thomas Sowell) have received racist abuse that had not been seen in the US since the days of segregation. But as it came from the left it did not matter.

Rachel Larimore on Slate asks: Where is the Rah-Rah Sisterhood?

I’m not surprised that the only primary race to be noted by Feministing is Kamala Harris’ victory in the Democratic race for California attorney general or that the comments on a straightforward who’s-who post at Jezebel are full of bile regarding Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman. But it is disappointing that many liberal women don’t even seem to want the GOP to have strong female candidates. As Sara Libby wrote in Slate yesterday, “Do you still cheer if the ceiling is crashed by two conservative businesswomen?” To answer a question with a question, why not? (Especially in a primary.)

Here’s one reason to cheer. Conservative acquaintances ask me what it’s like to be in the minority at Slate. I tell them it’s great because it makes me think harder and sharpen my arguments; it challenges my assumptions. That’s the purpose of healthy debate. If the only women in politics are liberal, there’s not going to be much debate. And if a woman has to be pro-choice and pro-government and anti-business to be a palatable Republican, well, you just want Democrats in disguise.

Ann Althouse, herself a conservative law professor and blogger puts it more bluntly:

You know, it's fine with me if we just start treating women like people. We women are not a team. And this isn't a game. The failure of liberals to cheer about the female GOP candidates is an indication that they are strong candidates. That's good!

But then, you see, these people would have to start cheering Sarah Palin and that would never do.

Muddled heads

On various occasions I have articulated my belief that left-wing feminists are seriously muddleheaded. Either that or completely dishonest. Of course, one does not preclude the other.

Let us look at a couple of stories that demonstrate the above contentions. Via Instapundit we hear that Code Pink, the most vociferous women's anti-war movement is reconsidering its attitude about withdrawal from Afghanistan.

An article in The Christian Science Monitor describes meetings between representatives of Code Pink and various women in Afghanistan with the latter falling over themselves to assure their American "sisters" that they do not wish to see American troops pull out as yet. The consequences of such an action in the country and especially as far as women are concerned would be catastrophic.

The surprised Code Pink representatives are reconsidering their position. The only problem is that, as far as women in Afghanistan are concerned, this is not exactly new. We have been hearing this for several years and Code Pink have been criticized for not paying sufficient attention to the plight of women in that country. What has made them change their minds? Could it be the fact that George W. Bush is no longer President? That Barack H. Obama is entitled to their support (assuming he does decide to stay in Afghanistan)? Could it be that the movement was not really about peace or American "imperialism" but about undermining a Republican President? Surely not.

Let us now look at something else. It is one of the cornerstones of left-wing feminism that opposition to Israel is the correct attitude; that feminists must support the Palestinian struggle, regardless of how that affects women.

Noah Pollak points to an interesting contrast on Commentary Magazine, linking back to relevant articles.

As the LA Times reports, this year's Nobel Prize for Chemistry has been shared between three people, two Americans and one Israeli. The latter is not only the first winner so far who is not American, either born or naturalized, but is also a woman, the first to win a science Nobel Prize since 1964. (One of the winners of the Medicine Prize was also a woman, this time an American.)

So that's Israel, where women can rise in their chosen profession as far as their abilities will take them and can win distinguished prizes for their work.

What of the Palestinians, the chosen cause of left-wing feminism? Fortunately, Noah Pollok provides another link. The Jerusalem Post tells us that in Gaza (where there are no Israeli troops so they cannot pull out any more) Hamas has banned women from riding on motorcycles as this is not in keeping with traditional Islamic ideas. (I don't suppose there were motorcycles in the days those ideas were developed.)

The decision to ban women from riding motorcycles was published by the Hamas-controlled Interior Ministry, which is in charge of the movement's security forces in the Gaza Strip.

The decision is seen in the context of Hamas's efforts to enforce strict Islamic teachings in the area.

Two months ago, a Hamas judge issued an order requiring all women who appear in court to wear the hijab.

Men and women who are seen together are regularly stopped by Hamas policemen or militiamen who question them about the nature of their relationship.

Let us remember this the next time we hear feminist organizations proclaiming their support for Palestinians against Israeli oppression. Who exactly is being oppressed and by whom?

This is what I want to be

The redoubtable Phyllis Chesler has a column on Pajamas Media, entitled "Feminist Hawks Unite!" Sounds good, I thought and read it.

The name came from the New York Times that has suddenly discovered that there are feminists out there who feel strongly about the way women are treated in the world of Islam. Well, they sort of discovered it as they appear not to have realized that one of the most outspoken feminists on the issue is Ms Chesler herself.

So here’s what puzzled me. In their infinite wisdom, The Paper of Record decided that there is only one “feminist hawk” in the entire universe and his name is…David Horowitz of Frontpage magazine. Actually, this is a giant step forward. Usually Horowitz is demonized as a Traitor who left Ramparts (both the magazine he edited and the faux-fighting American left which it represented) in the dust and became a born-again, fire-breathing conservative.

Here, he is credited not only for publishing the work of “feminist hawks” but for being the only “feminist hawk” they could find to name. The article gets even more peculiar when it presumes to tell us that the “feminist hawk” phenomenon is mainly a “hybrid” invention of the “internet,” one that has “borrowed left-wing shibolleths as one way that conservative ideas can make it big in a generally more liberal online social sphere.”

Well, you can see the argument: if we dismiss the whole movement by pretending that only very few people, male or female, are part of it and these are all either nasty conservatives or traitors to the left-wing cause, we can pretend that this is all a quaing distraction from the all-important issue of Obama-worship.

Ms Chesler, understandably, will have none of it and, to be fair to him, neither will David Horowitz, who thinks she should adopt and proudly use the name. Here is what Ms Chesler says on the subject:

Among the writers concerned with women’s rights are: Frontpage editor, Jamie Glazov; Anat Berko; Tammy Bruce (who was once the President of Los Angeles NOW); Nonie Darwish; Brigitte Gabriel; Professor Donna Hughes; Nancy L. Kobrin; Robert Spencer, Wafa Sultan; and countless others. I will be adding more names to this list.

I know, I know: Many of the above writers are conservatives, not liberals. Some are new-comers, others not. But, they are all, myself included, “hawkish” on the subject of the war against women and a) will not engage in cultural relativism to avoid being called “racists” or “Islamophobes;” b) will not be held hostage to one of two political parties; c) will not sacrifice Israel, America, the West, Muslim democrats/dissidents–or the truth–in order to remain politically correct and aligned to social, political, and funding networks.

OK, so why won't the New York Times list these authors and, in particular, why will it not give Ms Chesler her due?

How, dear reader, did I ever fall afoul of the New York Times? What daring deeds did I commit that has led to my almost utter “disappearance” in their pages? That is a long story, meant for another day. Hint: Try exposing sexism among feminist leaders, then expose anti-Semitism both among western intellectuals and jihadists, and top all that by exposing an utter failure of principle and nerve among western progressives in terms of human rights in the Islamic world–and see where that lands you on the left-liberal radar.

I admit it: I did all that in my last three books: Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman, (2002) The New Anti-Semitism, (2003) and The Death of Feminism: What’s Next in the Struggle for Women’s Freedom. (2005).

I regret nothing.

I actually do not care whether the NYT, which knows nothing about my existence, ever mentions me or not, though in Ms Chesler's position I probably would. But I agree with all the above, adding only that it is hard to imagine anything uglier than the vicious misogynistic attacks the left-wing, so-called third-wave feminists directed at Sarah Palin. (Sticks and stones - the lady is doing fine.)

Anyway, my point is this: I want to be a Feminist Hawk. In fact, I am going to be a Feminist Hawk, the first Feminist Hawk (after Margaret Thatcher) in Britain. Right, that's decided then.