Why I am an anti-feminist...
Nesrine Malik, writing for the Guardian, complains about the condescension that is rife with Western feminists. She asks that they distance themselves from localised efforts to empower women so that the natives do not get suspicious whilst also pointing out that the struggles for women in different parts of the world are not the same.
Malik's article is itself condescending, for it reminds us of the days when the good native tells the White Man (or Woman) that it is best if they leave the conversion of the tribes to them, since they can speak their language. Feminism, a broad school of thought, is a Western ideology. It is rooted in the historical perspective of the Western European Weltenschauung that seeped across the planet thanks to guns, germs and steel. Malik disagrees with the Western feminists on the method that this ideology should be expressed and spread, but she shares with them the same intellectual background and belief in the universality of their beliefs. She says:
Although basic rights and dignities are universal, there are ways of enshrining them without perfectly emulating a western experience.
Yet Malik cannot perceive that she cannot make the claim about the universality of these "rights and dignities" while at the same time divorcing it from the western experience. The very use of these words, and the baggage that is tagged along with them, anchors her entire enterprise in the western experience.
I am an ardent anti-feminist, though it is not a position that I came to suddenly but rather through my experience, and especially over the last two years, which has solidified my view of this perspective as causing more harm than good. What I reject utterly is that this classifies me as a misogynist, a chauvinist or that I hate women. I appreciate that feminism is a broad school with many nuances (contrary to what people popularly believe it is not just about females either), but I reject its attempt to redefine our understanding of concepts such as the family or the roles of males and females in human society within the predominant human civilizations.
There are points of view in feminism which I should, and in fact I do agree with, but the agreement is coincidental and not incidental. My perspective on a right is with relation to its object, so a right in my view cannot be "enshrined" in anything as it can easily become a wrong if its object is incorrect. My perspective on relations between the sexes is defined Islamically. When I say Islamically that means that I use the Qur'an and the prophetic sunnah as a guideline. The Qur'an and the prophetic sunnah are rooted in the historical, cultural and social perspective of a non-Western society, untainted even by the brutish influence of Roman "civilization". This non-Western society happens to be Arab, but its values are an expression of the human being in the full Heidegerrian sense. Men and women as they are, right here, in this world. Living, procreating and interracting in complex power relations with no restrictions. These values were important for this non-Western society because without them, power relations resulted in what we call injustice. Islam is distinct from Islamic peoples and what we call Islamic history is actually the "history of Islamic peoples" so we cannot use Islamic history, or Islamic peoples and these terms are contradistinct with Islam itself.
In properly defining the roles and nature of the relationship between male and female, Islam refines and solidifies the normal in what was already existent in non-Western societies. The normal is defined as that which is "always or for the most case", so the existence of exceptions is just that, an exception and not a demolition of the norm. The normal relations and roles of the sexes are reinforced by Islamic values, not imposed by them. In adhering to these norms and guidelines justice is ensured between the sexes, when not, we get something like the Taliban or Peter Andre and Jordan's marriage.
I am opposed to feminist ideology because inherent within it is an attempt to dismantle and destroy this norm and its subsequent relabelling as something archaic, oppressive and, ultimately, evil. The Islamic conception of relations between male and female are marked for demolition by this ideology because of the failures of Islamic peoples to meet that standard. From this fundamental misconception, a new nomenclature is derived based on "rights and dignities" that are enshrined but with no clear understanding of what they are to relate to. Yet this proposed alternative that the West so passionately indoctrinates Arab or Muslim women like Malik with is not viable. It destroys homes, relationships and societies by cracking a nut with a sledgehammer. It also takes what is valuable from us, as Muslims, and replaces that with something of lesser quality and value.
When I say I am an ardent opposer of feminism, then this is why, it is because I hold men and women to a higher (and more coherent) standard than that which feminism demands of its followers. Recognising this fact gives me the confidence to voice this opinion in the face of what can be almost mouth foaming anger by ex-Muslim feminists.
11 comments:
Dear Maysaloon.
I'm a Muslim male and a feminist sympathizer. It seems to me that more Syrian women are choosing neo-fundamentalist religiosity over the kind of modern enlightenment and secular empowerment exemplified by my mom's generation (Maha El-Solh*).
The question is why? To answer this question let me start by reviewing the image of Syria’s women, both inside and outside Syria. TV shows like Bab Al-harra have publicized the mythical duality of Syrian women. They are all being portrayed as being sexy loyal and substantive, and all at the same time.
Historically the women of the Levant were emancipated before women in the US were given their full rights as citizens. If a picture says a thousand words then a phot I will soon post on my Uncle's Blog (middleastforum.com) hopefully does just that. It’s a photo of the front page of Al Diar newspaper (dated June 24 1950) of my Mom ne'e Maha El-Solh (sans veil) graduating with a Bachelors in Science degree.
For every Maha Hakki (she chose freely to take on Dad's surname) there is today a Syrian woman who has put on the veil (Hijab) while also pursuing higher education. Stylistically this may seem like a regression, and it may very well be a regression, but the more interesting question is; why? Why have a majority of educated Syrian women and some Lebanese Muslim women donned this relic of the old world that had been removed at great pain by their grandmothers over sixty years ago? The answer is complicated and needs a little background information.
It is easy to see that more women are veiled in today’s Syria than they were yesterday. My daughter’s generation is more likely to be veiled than my Mom’s. My theory is that it’s a reaction. Empowerment comes in many forms and in historically secular counties like Syria the veil has become a symbol of empowerment not subjugation. Unlike traditional societies like Saudi Arabia where men drive veiling and female segregation, the ubiquitous showing of the veil in Syria is women driven.
This woman driven outward religiosity has been –in my mind- ignited by Syrian secularism. This has pushed moderate women-on the fence of secularism/traditionalism-into the Islamist religious camp. The immorality of modern life both in the West and in secular Arab societies has made Syria’s majority question the value of their normative liberalism. They have en-mass seemingly decided to connect with their past instead of seeking out a new future.
I suspect that they have become enrolled in the theory that being overtly pious will allow them to better guild their husbands sons and daughters back from debauchery to decency a value that has all but disappeared in the West. Organized movements-like the Qubaisi movement-gave them structure and has spread into other Arab countries. Though social in its élan, it is political in its aspiration. It is as if it is a resetting of Sunni women priorities. Women driven Islamization has become a calling that allows them to control their-and more importantly their sister’s-destiny. These are upper middle class educated and intellectual women and what they seem to be saying is; we tried emancipation and we achieved degradation now let’s rethink our priorities.
In my humble oppinion Syria’s women are hell bent on trending towards what I call external Islamization, and only in its failure will they realize how one extreme (Wahabi-inspired outward traditionalism) and its rival trend (secular materialistic decadence) are both wrong.
Taking the middle path--a path the Koran indisputably calls for--can help reverse this trend. Only in moderation can all women be free.
Ayman Hakki
*Syria, before the Lebanese National Pact was drafted by my mom’s uncle Riyad El-solh and Bshara Khoury, included all Lebanon
Dear Ayman,
Thank you for your insightful and interesting comment. You make many good points but if I understand correctly the essence of your argument is that this externalised expression of faith is going to cause more harm than good. I am glad that we both agree that there is such a thing as secular materialistic decadence, I am also in agreement that an internalised piety is far better than an externalised one. However I don't think that this wave of women who are now choosing to wear a hejab is an entirely negative trend, and this is because I do not think that it is driven entirely by a Wahhabite trend that has been imported nor that it is entirely external. Our God does indeed ask for women to cover up and dress modestly, and that these women have empowered themselves (I am a deep admirer of the Qubaysia movement) with Islam rather than a sham Western feminism is nothing short of amazing! I mean can you not see how wonderful it is that women have redefined their roles as the backbone of Syrian society, completely through grass roots meetings and organisations, and have pushed for a renewal of virtues and morality starting with themselves, then their families and finally with their communities? Is this not infinitely superior to a Saudi or Taleban style tyranny which imposes morality from above!? I would have thought you would be delighted and the first to encourage such a return to Islam by Muslim women.
Another area I disagree with you is that they are not, as you claim, victims of some form of false consciousness, nor is what they are saying vague in the slightest. They are encouraging their men, their children and other women who had forgotten their roots or religion to come back. Far from being a throwback to some mysoginist past, I am ultimately starting to understand that the hejab is the first step in a true enlightenment that is beginning in the Arabic world.
As the Qur'an tells us, "do not say we believe but say we submit (aslamna)" this is because the first step is outward piety and faith, the heart will then follow if Allah is gracious enough to light the path, as the delightful Rumi himself believed.
You were gracious in your reply, and I mean no insult to Syria’s veiled masses…but; "Aslamna" means to me what it may not mean to you. It implies that we've-alhamdullilah-surrendered to God's will, and it has no “outward-piety” connotation whatsoever. The linkage your last paragraph implies is incorrect at best.
My mom argues that the veil isn’t synonymous with Islam, and she can site chapter and verse in the Koran to support her claim…but her protests are falling on deaf ears. She is a practicing Muslim but she is unveiled. One woman recently refused to shake her hand because she “assumed she was a Christian!” This was doubly insulting to my mother who loves Christians.
I find a lot of good in the Syrian women's Islamic movement, and you point out all of it eloquently...but again; that woman’s justification for her not shaking my Mom's hand is exclusionary. It is a worldly (duniawi) act. What heavenly (akhrawi) use is it for a veiled Muslim woman to refuse to shake my Mom's hand because my Mom chooses to be unveiled?
The debate of Duniawi vs. Akhrawi Islam is my favorite debate, and I would love to talk to you about it one day. Most Muslims today are lost because they don’t have an “Akhrawi” disposition. I offer you my guiding principle; will this action get me to heaven? If the answer is no; I won’t do it. Conversely I ask; will this send me to hell? and if it may...I also don't do it.
الصعود إلى الهاوية
ترك أم الرشراش لأسرائيل و بيع الغاز الطبيعى المصرى لأسرائيل بخسارة 13.5 مليون دولار يوميا و ترك سيناء شبة خالية من السكان لمصلحة إسرائيل و حصار غزة و اللهث لتكوين أتحاد دول البحر الأبيض المتوسط لتسهيل عملية دمج إسرائيل فى المنطقة العربية لتستفيد أقتصاديا و لرفع الحرج عن الأستثمارات الخليجية فى إسرائيل بالمستقبل القريب ، بينما يتم قمع الشعب المصرى بقبضة حديدية بمعرفة أجهزة الأمن و يعيش أكثر من نصف المصريين تحت خط الفقر مع 2 مليون من أطفال الشوارع كل هذا يطرح سؤال لحساب من يعمل النظام المصرى؟ ارجو من كل من يقراء هذا ان يزور ( مقالات ثقافة الهزيمة) فى هذا الرابط
www.ouregypt.us
Hi Maysaloon,
As always, sorry for the long reply. Its taken me half a day to type it -- you owe me a quarter of my week end! :) I also had to break the reply as it cannot exceed 4,000 characters so there you go.
Your article raises insightful points with regard to modernist thinking becoming expired and falling below the moral standards achieved by traditional cultures and peoples, including Islam.
I think that indigenous knowledge and beliefs which have evolved over many centuries result in an acute ability of the local population that created them to achieve a delicate set of moral and practical balance that enables each civilisation to exist and survive shocks. When applied within their respective setting, they contribute more to human well-being than the sterilised, standardised modern principles brutally imposed. Knowledge and beliefs should not be taken out of their context and dictated on others. If they must, then this should be done naturally, and incremental adaptations must be allowed to enable the otherwise localised culture to be rightly, truly and sustainably adopted by other cultures.
But your statement regarding Islam "properly defining the roles and nature of the relationship between male and female" and of how "Islam refines and solidifies the normal in what was already existent in non-Western societies" strikes me as both true and imprecise. It seems to me (and I hope I’m wrong) that you’re suggesting that Islam's principles are indeed ”the” "normal" and universal principles, and therefore, you’re striking through one universal thought dictated on you, only to replace it with another that is dictated by you and your God on to others. Again I hope I'm wrong and that I simply misunderstood your point, otherwise you would be contradicting the very essence of what you're trying to say. Islamic thought suits the Middle Eastern society. If it must be applied elsewhere, it must be allowed to be adapted to its new setting.
Islam, just like every other religion, suits its original setting perfectly. It suits its geography, its peoples, and their history which are primordial factors that define what Islam is. Isn't the Prophet's Hadith a discussion with the population? Didn't He on many occasions create a 3-way conversation with God by relaying the local people's concerns and aspirations to God? (and I mean actual literally discussing with people whom he actually debated with and preached, and relay their concern to God?). Didn’t God change his mind a few times (numbers of prayers a day, extent and nature of sexual abstention during Ramadan) based on interaction with the population and with the Prophet? Islam is radically "enshrined" within the history of its land, traditions and customs and more largely within the monotheistic setting of the Middle East. This, to me, is a sine qua non premise. Islam is the culmination of Jewish and Christian religions, which, in their turn, are either heavily influenced by Mesopotamian, Egyptian and Kaanaite myths or strongly contrast with them in order to distance themselves from them.
As you and Ayman rightly point out, the population of this region (and each region) is the sole and exclusive body that holds the knowledge on this region's own moral and practical principles. However, in my opinion, I see the current religious wave that’s sweeping through the Middle East as a double-edged sword. On one hand it does successfully redefine the identity of this region and display and revive its practices, but on the another hand, it is also comes out as a mere reaction against modernism and not as a true re-blossoming of middle eastern civilisation. It is therefore being shallowly replicated on a mass scale, and it is introducing, alongside the virtues of religion, a new level of mediocrity which dangerously ignores the recent history of the land by reverting to nasty old habits such religious fanatism and people prioritising a literal application of religious thought over the more complex, tolerant outlook on life which is an absolute necessity in the middle east (hence for example, the above comment about ignorant refusal of handshaking which i and many million Arabs have to endure every day).
So with regard to the discussion above, I believe that what we are experiencing today seems rather like a shallow reaction to the cultural and political trash that the Arab population is exposed to and is generating (neo-capitalism, increasing poverty, LBC et al, star-academy, George Bush’s wars, pop music, Husni Mubarak, the erosion of the Arabic identity, etc) rather than a grassroot renaissance of Islamic Thought (which you are trying to portray). I personally rather see this phenomenon as a merely natural, typical identity crisis. An ostentatious phenomenon (and i ask you to excuse my bluntness).
A claim that Islamic thought is universal therefore would imply that religions and beliefs of the east (Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikh -- which when applied in their setting are as groundbreaking, if not more groundbreaking, than Islam) as well as the west (civil rights acquired after decades of strife and culminating from long generations of thought) are to be wiped out for Islam to take their place as the beacon of ultimate truths. I hope you agree.
I totally agree with your view on being anti-feminist, however, I rather see that in this case, the problem does not lay in the "universal" values per se, but rather, in the claim that Feminism is one of these universal values. I think we must never get fussed and try to blindly wipe-out the delicate principle of universal values. We should rather diligently review which values are universal and agree them rather than dictate them. Would you consider the “right of free speech” not-so-universal?
I believe that there has not been any conscious review of the modernist thought by Arab populations, and that there has not been any "synthesis" done with regard to confronting Islamic thought with Modernist thought, and extracting the best of modern civil rights to top-up existing Islamic morals and principles. We are still light years away from the “amazing” "enlightenment" and "empowerment" which you refer to. Instead of philosophising, thinking and consciously extracting the best of both Modernist and Islamic thought, we are rather lazily and sadly slipping into a comfort zone.
I personally hope this wave too dies sometime soon, just like the one that preceded it, and I hope for a new era whereby the Arab civilisation truly resuscitates into the exceptionally tolerant, intelligent, brilliant and critical-thinking one that it once was.
Finally, and on a totally different note, I couldn't hold myself from smirking at reading the statement about the "Western European Weltenschauung seeping across the planet thanks to guns, germs and steel". I wonder how the Muslim swords, cavalry assassins, and death chariots sounded a millennium ago when, armed to their teeth, they invaded and physically reaped through the millenia-old civilisations of the Indian sub-continent, central asia, north africa, the levant and southern Europe.
The sound of steel and death back then must have not really differed from the sound of American B52s dropping their gift of love to Iraqi children. “same same”.
Unfortunately, there is more than a tad of shared history between Muslims, Romans, Yankees, and Catholics. I do not think that the traditional Islamic moral high-ground can be reconciled with reality unless through a long, slow and intelligent collective thought process.
Cheers,
Jimmy
Hi Jimmy,
I'm honoured that you've felt compelled to present such a well formed answer to my post. I can only give you my gratitude as time is the one commodity that humankind can never recompense adequately!
For brevity's sake I'll focus on key issues you bring up and try to clarify or answer.
Firstly with regards to Islam and universal values, I hope you bear in mind that when I speak of Islam, I speak of it distinctly from the history or behaviour of Islamic 'peoples'. Most people in these discussions use Islamic history, which I consider to be the history of 'Islamic' peoples, interchangeably with Islam itself, which is what the Qur'an and the Prophet's tradition gives us. I think it is important to bear that distinction in mind.
Now, with regards to universal values, my point was in fact that there are universal values that Islam preserves and not that it is itself those universal values. These were there before the Prophet Muhammad, and he himself said he came to preserve the finest of manners, and also that he did not come with anything new, he was only a messenger, a renewer of these principles. Western rights based discourse is a function of Western European society and historical development. It contains smatterings of these universal principles, but to all extents and purposes it has developed separately and entirely along the false context of 'modernity'. It is a ship docked into a free floating harbour.
As for Islam suiting only Middle Eastern society, I think you will note the recent report stating that Muslims now make up a quarter of the worlds population and in fact the Muslims in the Middle East make up the minority in this report. In fact Arab and Muslim are no longer synonymous with each other and there are more non-Arab Muslims than there are Arab Muslims. It also *has* certainly adapted and shifted to fit different peoples and this is something which is taking place completely organically.
As for the Prophet's Hadith, I think it important to distinguish between the Prophet as arbitrator and the Prophet as a legislator. As a legislator he was relaxed in the laws which defined a human beings obligations with her God, but was in fact strict only when dealing with the laws that define human's conduct with one another. This is a distinction that most people are unaware of. The example of the number of prayers did not involve people's input, and the same is with sexual abstention in Ramadan. Over a period of, I think, 27 years, the Prophet received the Qur'an and things which may have initially not been mentioned, such as drinking alcohol or that people may have sexual relations in Ramadan, were gradually mentioned and positions were clarified.
As you yourself mentioned, Islam incorporates principles that were found in previous related faiths in the region, and this again fits in with what I said, that it was not anything new, it was only a solidifying and confirming of principles and beliefs that were being forgotten, ignored or misinterpreted. In fact a recurrent theme in the Qur'an is how humanity is forgetful of these universal principles. So on Eastern religions that you fear Islam will obliterate, I argue the opposite. It is not that Islam is a monopoly on truth, but that in the opinion of some people it has preserved and renewed this 'truth' n a way that others may have altered over time (another strong theme in the Quran).
The idea that this current trend of Islamic resurgence is problematic is not a new one, but again, whilst it did initially trouble me, I now find it quite comforting. I draw upon this comfort firstly doctrinally, and secondly because I realise that it is a reaction to the trashy anti-culture and direct military aggression facing Muslims.
Firstly doctrinally, the answer is simple and in the Qur'an. Allah tells Muslims to not say they have believed, but to say they have submitted (Aslamna), and submitted means to Allah's law and sovereignty, not to anybody temporal. To truly believe and say (Amana) is something which may or may not come, and this is an internal and not external process. As Karen Armstrong points out, it is in repetition that spiritually gradually takes root and this is again a common theme in religions.
With regards to its being a knee jerk reaction, again it comforts me because I realise that like with numerous other invasions of the Islamic world, whether the Crusades or the Mongols, this too will pass, and in such a situation, the radicalism (which is I think a perfectly legitimate defense mechanism that any culture can undergo) will subside, then we can find that what Islam is for, rather than what it is against, will again become dominant. Note that the "golden" age which people refer to was a period when there was a minimal external threat to the people. So no, I beg to differ on this, it is not a worrying phenomenon, nor a new one, but a natural and in my opinion perfectly justified response. I speak in universal terms, in particular cases the issue of the handshaking (and its mentality) I have seen personally, but I have seen far more strictly "Islamic" people displaying surprising tolerance, so the argument goes both ways. Religion is not a cure for stupidity and some people are just jerks.
As for the "guns, germs and steel" smirk, I don't feel it justified. I don't know what a "Muslim" sword would differ to a Christian one by, or what a "cavalry assassin" or "death chariot" is though I understand your probably trying to illustrate some point. There have been wars between people who claimed to be Muslim and people who claimed to be of other religions. There have also been wars between people who all claimed to be Muslims and those who all claimed to be of other faiths. I think here we touch on the fact that just as there is a universal tendency in humans to destroy, there is also one which is there to heal and grow. It is to see which approach is closer to showing us this universalism without eventually collapsing under the strain of its own weight and contradictions that the test of time is there to help us with. So we end where we start it, the universalist principles and which approach has best expressed or preserved them. My argument was and remains that "rights" based discourse, and perspectives like feminism are not the answer, nor are they fit to "top-up" Islamic values.
"These values were important for this non-Western society because without them, power relations resulted in what we call injustice."
If you apply that logic to Islam today, one could argue for its replacement with a social system that results in less injustice based on power relations. For all the flaws of liberal democracies, power relations within them appear less unequal than in Islamic countries - particularly for women. Of course, maybe this is a flaw in Islam "as applied" rather than Islam "in theory", but you could say the same about secular humanism also.
"Islam refines and solidifies the normal in what was already existent in non-Western societies."
Western societies until pretty recently adopted similar views, and most of the west still does. Is Russia a feminist society? What about the Scottish Highlands, or Sicily? Alabama? Berkeley and LSE are not representative of western society.
"I am opposed to feminist ideology because inherent within it is an attempt to dismantle and destroy this norm and its subsequent relabelling as something archaic, oppressive and, ultimately, evil."
That's only true of the most radical campus feminism. Mainstream feminism has a simple goal - that women avoid oppression and are free to pursue their values in life without being put down purely on grounds of gender. Since it is universal desire of all groups to avoid oppression and prejudice, and you cite very similar reasons in your objections to Western governments' behaviour towards the Middle East, it seems strange that you cannot recognise the legitimacy of identical desires when they come from women rather than Muslims, Palestinians etc.
Feminisms roots lie in a simple desire to reduce and preferably eradicate arbitrary injustice and power inequalities based on gender. Most non-reactionary people would, I imagine, see that as a reasonable goal. What norms are being dismantled and destroyed by a Saudi woman would would like to be able to drive her own car, or work with male colleagues without legal or social sanction?
R.Sole,
The points you make are moot, which makes me wonder about how clearly I made my argument so that you could misunderstand me so.
You would in fact, on a closer reading, find that much of what you say is in agreement with what I am writing for. In essence, my post is that the Western ideology of feminism is necessary in the "modern" Western societies and in fact, a valid reaction to those areas you mentioned such as the Scottish Highlands. My point is in fact that whilst they are to be commended, they are attempts to reinvent the wheel and may in fact cause more harm than good in that they are based on those "faulty axioms" you mentioned previously. I believe that there is a subtelty in relations between the sexes which is trampled upon by even the most inclusive of feminist schools. My point is not that the so-called Islamic states are shining paragons of fair treatment to women, it is that a better, more organic, way to conduct relations is evident in Islam and the conduct of the Prophet. Islam in my understanding is not some football team I happen to be born into, but in my view an inclusive perspective and continuation of different religions and customs, it is *of* the people in a way that allows them to remain dynamic and yet not break dramatically with their past as modernism has done to the people of the West (and East). We are mostly in agreement but I think it would be helpful if you tell me what it is you are criticising exactly in the post.
Post a Comment