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.
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 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.
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.