A hypothetical
Imagine, for a moment, that the United States was militarily occupying a country where a certain kind of ethnic prejudice was endemic among traditional segments of the population. Imagine that as part of its occupation plan, the U.S. was allowing these traditionalists to assume greater political control. And imagine that one of the things the traditionalists were choosing to do with their new power was to enforce heavy restrictions on the ethnic group they despised.
Imagine that members of the despised ethnic group were now barred from holding most jobs. Imagine that they were being denied basic legal rights. Imagine that members of the ethnic group were no longer allowed to drive or to be outside after dark. Imagine that if they did go outside (during the day only, of course) they were required to wear an identifying piece of clothing — perhaps a yellow star or a bag over their heads. Imagine that the penalty for breaking these rules was beating or death.
Imagine that a wave of terrorizing murders was taking place, with members of the despised ethnic group kidnapped, tortured, maimed, killed, and then left with notes pinned to their corpses explaining that the same fate awaited any other rule-breakers.
Got all that pictured in your mind? Good. Now, imagine hearing something like this as an explanation for why the U.S. wouldn’t be getting involved:
“In terms of what they’re doing within their own culture, I don’t think we’d intervene in that.”
5 Responses to “A hypothetical”
-
therealUK says:
The key thing that seems to slip so many people’s minds is that it’s always male culture that is defended.
“Must respect other cultures” translates as must respect the right of other men to control and abuse their women as they see fit.
Male culture can sod-off, I’m not interested in respecting it for one minute.
April 7th, 2008 at 4:15 am EST -
orlando says:
I don’t suppose this will surprise anyone given the way the U.S. treats Saudi Arabia. Remember when if a country practiced apartheid it was considered a bad thing? There’s a reluctance to name it as apartheid when it’s perpetrated according to gender; I think we need to make sure we call it what it is.
-
Violet says:
Things like apartheid are only bad if the victims include men. That’s the key. Because only men are human. You can do damn near anything to women and it’s just “traditional culture.”
It reminds me of years ago when my father told me that ethnic oppression (of any kind) was worse than the oppression of women. Why? Because the former involved “an entire people” he said.
Women are half the fricking population, but we don’t count. We’re the sub-human half.
I would love to see countries like Saudi Arabia banned from the Olympic games for their gender oppression. I would love to see them subjected to the same global censure that South Africa was. I’m quite sure I’ll die before that happens.
-
octogalore says:
Yeah, don’t hold your breath on that one. The dismissiveness is mind-boggling: the article mentioned “los[ing] sleep over things like gender issues” like the most trivial of distractions.
When various holdovers from religious/patriarchal countries are “reclaimed” by feminists from these countries, these kinds of articles clarify why it’s wise to wonder whether this is possible.
-
Maud says:
Well, your father had a point. When it’s only women being treated this way, we needn’t be concerned about it progressing to the point of genocide. No matter how much the men hate/fear women, they have to keep some alive to make their babies. So no worries, right?
