I thought this was really interesting because I've seen this, but from a very different group to the one the author has in mind. I went to a private school (yes one of those people), and there...
I thought this was really interesting
culturally endorsed practices that are oppressive to women often remain hidden in the private or domestic sphere
because I've seen this, but from a very different group to the one the author has in mind. I went to a private school (yes one of those people), and there were a lot of problems with sexual assault. However, this was rarely taken seriously by the police, because they were prone to think "nice wealthy white boy" and then do nothing.
There's also a general trend of claiming "ethnic minorities threaten women" as a kind of cover to hide racism behind. Of course I'm not saying that ethnic minority women don't deserve equal rights (and there is often a tension between anti-racism and feminism, see e.g. analyses of the struggles of black women), but I do think that one has to be careful about playing into the "ethnic minority men are nasty rapists" that historically was common e.g. when it comes to lynchings of black men in the US.
I think the big risk here is that we miss the fact that nice, "respectable" white men are also perpetrators of sexual violence and gender discrimination more widely; by advocating "ah the minorities don't share our nice, civilised, equal values" we might miss that it's not just the minorities!
I think you raise a valid point that this could be used to boost racism. I'm not a fan of the article's wording and tone, something about the way it's written feels just a bit too academic and...
I think you raise a valid point that this could be used to boost racism. I'm not a fan of the article's wording and tone, something about the way it's written feels just a bit too academic and judgmental to me. However, I don't agree with using "we should talk about white men too" because that is a different topic from this article.
The point of the article is to educate people about how women in immigrant communities can still suffer from abuse and discrimination from their own families. People object to overt displays such as child marriage, honor killings and polygamy, but there are so many more private forms of control.
You can't tell by looking if a girl or woman has been subjected to genital mutilation. You can't tell if they're pressured to only think about marriage and give no thought to work or education (an issue common in EVERY culture, mind you). You can't tell if they were raised with expectations to serve their brothers and fathers like maids.
A lot of people don't think of this beyond the more obvious and overt examples of abuse and misogynistic practices. Even second- and third-generation immigrants can be subjected to these practices, all in the name of "culture". It's important to spread awareness, but it's also tricky for the exact reasons you mentioned of how it could bolster racism.
FGM, general sexism, etc are of course urgent injustices we should seek to redress – I don't want to minimise them! Yes, the high-wire act is to combat misogyny everywhere (including among...
FGM, general sexism, etc are of course urgent injustices we should seek to redress – I don't want to minimise them!
Yes, the high-wire act is to combat misogyny everywhere (including among black/brown people) without falling into the "minorities are savages" pit. I think some on the modern left set themselves up for failure by suggesting that there is something "redeeming" in suffering – e.g. that because ethnic minorities have suffered discrimination they must have gained some superior moral position from this. I don't really buy this, and think that relying on this kind of argument (as some do) as a reason to combat racism is a bad idea.
I think we also should spare a thought for women of ethnic minority backgrounds whose concerns are in many ways not taken seriously by both anti-racist (as women) nor feminist (as ethnic minorities) moments.
I haven't read the whole thing closely yet, but this article feels a little tautological. Are cultural practices that are bad for women still bad if they are practiced by immigrants? Yes,...
I haven't read the whole thing closely yet, but this article feels a little tautological. Are cultural practices that are bad for women still bad if they are practiced by immigrants? Yes, obviously. The implication is that acceptance of other cultures as a whole encourages acceptance of anti-women practices, but I don't really see much evidence for that. There are a couple examples cited from the 80s, like polygamy in France (but they stopped recognizing polygamous marriages 30 years ago), and this issue of "cultural defense" (this is the only example I could find, from 1988: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-07-15-mn-7189-story.html). I don't think it's the case that modern-day liberal democracies allow immigrants to break the law in the blatant ways described in this article, and I also don't think that oppressive practices happening "in the private or domestic sphere" would somehow stop happening if we tried to forcibly assimilate everyone.
The article admits that "multiculturalism" is hard to define, which is true, but I've never heard anyone claim it means that immigrants should get like diplomatic immunity and not be prosecuted for crimes that their culture allows. In my understanding it just means acceptance of relatively benign things like different food, clothes, languages, music, holidays, etc. Monocultural society means forceful punishment of things that are not crimes nor harmful to anyone, but are visibly different from the majority. I don't see a middle ground between these two and don't see why you would want one.
Edit: Ok the article is 25 years old, that explains it. I think the arguments and examples are out of date, and it's hard to see it as relevant to current issues.
I thought this was really interesting
because I've seen this, but from a very different group to the one the author has in mind. I went to a private school (yes one of those people), and there were a lot of problems with sexual assault. However, this was rarely taken seriously by the police, because they were prone to think "nice wealthy white boy" and then do nothing.
There's also a general trend of claiming "ethnic minorities threaten women" as a kind of cover to hide racism behind. Of course I'm not saying that ethnic minority women don't deserve equal rights (and there is often a tension between anti-racism and feminism, see e.g. analyses of the struggles of black women), but I do think that one has to be careful about playing into the "ethnic minority men are nasty rapists" that historically was common e.g. when it comes to lynchings of black men in the US.
I think the big risk here is that we miss the fact that nice, "respectable" white men are also perpetrators of sexual violence and gender discrimination more widely; by advocating "ah the minorities don't share our nice, civilised, equal values" we might miss that it's not just the minorities!
I think you raise a valid point that this could be used to boost racism. I'm not a fan of the article's wording and tone, something about the way it's written feels just a bit too academic and judgmental to me. However, I don't agree with using "we should talk about white men too" because that is a different topic from this article.
The point of the article is to educate people about how women in immigrant communities can still suffer from abuse and discrimination from their own families. People object to overt displays such as child marriage, honor killings and polygamy, but there are so many more private forms of control.
You can't tell by looking if a girl or woman has been subjected to genital mutilation. You can't tell if they're pressured to only think about marriage and give no thought to work or education (an issue common in EVERY culture, mind you). You can't tell if they were raised with expectations to serve their brothers and fathers like maids.
A lot of people don't think of this beyond the more obvious and overt examples of abuse and misogynistic practices. Even second- and third-generation immigrants can be subjected to these practices, all in the name of "culture". It's important to spread awareness, but it's also tricky for the exact reasons you mentioned of how it could bolster racism.
FGM, general sexism, etc are of course urgent injustices we should seek to redress – I don't want to minimise them!
Yes, the high-wire act is to combat misogyny everywhere (including among black/brown people) without falling into the "minorities are savages" pit. I think some on the modern left set themselves up for failure by suggesting that there is something "redeeming" in suffering – e.g. that because ethnic minorities have suffered discrimination they must have gained some superior moral position from this. I don't really buy this, and think that relying on this kind of argument (as some do) as a reason to combat racism is a bad idea.
I think we also should spare a thought for women of ethnic minority backgrounds whose concerns are in many ways not taken seriously by both anti-racist (as women) nor feminist (as ethnic minorities) moments.
I haven't read the whole thing closely yet, but this article feels a little tautological. Are cultural practices that are bad for women still bad if they are practiced by immigrants? Yes, obviously. The implication is that acceptance of other cultures as a whole encourages acceptance of anti-women practices, but I don't really see much evidence for that. There are a couple examples cited from the 80s, like polygamy in France (but they stopped recognizing polygamous marriages 30 years ago), and this issue of "cultural defense" (this is the only example I could find, from 1988: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-07-15-mn-7189-story.html). I don't think it's the case that modern-day liberal democracies allow immigrants to break the law in the blatant ways described in this article, and I also don't think that oppressive practices happening "in the private or domestic sphere" would somehow stop happening if we tried to forcibly assimilate everyone.
The article admits that "multiculturalism" is hard to define, which is true, but I've never heard anyone claim it means that immigrants should get like diplomatic immunity and not be prosecuted for crimes that their culture allows. In my understanding it just means acceptance of relatively benign things like different food, clothes, languages, music, holidays, etc. Monocultural society means forceful punishment of things that are not crimes nor harmful to anyone, but are visibly different from the majority. I don't see a middle ground between these two and don't see why you would want one.
Edit: Ok the article is 25 years old, that explains it. I think the arguments and examples are out of date, and it's hard to see it as relevant to current issues.