again,

[Seth Ackerman]

Kelley wrote:

> At 05:51 PM 12/2/01 -0500, Seth Ackerman wrote:
>
> >Why is it a problem? This is my question.
>
> as i pointed out initially, third world feminists critique the way that
> white westerners talk about "rescuing brown women from brown men". we were
> talking about that in our discussion of US "feminisms", the burka, etc. i
> referred you to that discussion. the argument is that westerners use their
> concern with "rescuing brown women from brown men" instrumentally,
> cynically in order to advance an ideological position. that's what
> political football means.

Thank you for this detailed explanation.

I think I see what you mean. Not long ago, I posted a message that mentioned
an instance of rape in pre-Taliban Afghanistan. That might have piqued your
interest, since I rarely post messages about rape in America. Maybe I'm
"trying to rescue brown women from brown men" even while I give scant
thought to the condition of women here in the USA. Maybe my interest in
women's oppression only extends to those countries whose experiences I can
use as a political football in my leftist arguments with Brad.

But the thing is, the two examples are not alike. They're not even similar.
The domestic dysfunctions you cite - like the survey numbers on the twisted
sexual attitudes of some teenage American boys -  are worrying, but nothing
at all like the mass killings, systematic rape and chaotic pillaging of
early-90's Afghanistan. It's not like you've caught me in a double standard.
It's not as if I earnestly profess concern about the tens of thousands
killed in the streets of Afghanistan while remaining silent and complacent
about the tens of thousands killed in the streets of the US. We don't have
that problem here.

That's why your analogy...

> this is where the concern with relativism/lack of relativism
> comes in:
>
> 1. On the one hand, you want to make relativist claims about terrorism,
you
> want to remind your interlocutor that the al-Q is no worse than the US.
[1]
>
> 2. OTOH, you do not relativize with regard to gender oppression and rape
in
> the US. the nature of your discourse means you cannot. were you to make a
> relativist claim about gender oppression that was similar to your
> relativist claim about terrorism, then you couldn't not judge the NA worse
> than the Taliban.
>
> As third world feminists point out, the discourse makes barbarism and
> gender oppression the problem of those other "backward" countries, not a
> problem in our backyard.

...doesn't make sense. The problems I'm accusing the US of creating in
Afghanistan are not problems that we have here "in our backyard." If I went
on and on about how US policy towards Afghanistan perpetuates a social
climate that encourages Afghan men to make sexist remarks about their wives
and girlfriends, resulting in a culture of date rape in that country - then
I'd be sort of a hypocrtite. (After all, if I was so concerned about such
gender norms in Afghanistan, why not a word from me about gender norms here
at home?) But no, what I was accusing US foreign policy of doing is
something different - setting the scene for a return to the lawless banditry
that killed 50,000 people in Afghanistan a few years ago and which also
involved a lot of rape. That's a totally different thing.

Ironically, you say *I'm* making relativist claims (about Al-Q versus the
US). My position on that is complicated, and it's a real oversimplification
to say I think Al-Q is "no worse" than the US.  On the other hand, you're
being totally relativist when you analogize the bloody mayhem of 1994
Afghanistan with the unequal gender norms of the US.

> i think this discussion is open to the same criticism, particularly since
> you were using the Taliban only six short weeks ago to legitimate
intervention:
>
> "So far the bombing has been hitting mostly military targets, but if the
> U.S. keeps going with no results to show, we are likely to see some
> vindictive and reckless attacks on civilians. In the end, if the U.S.
wants
> to replace the government of Afghanistan, it has to risk its own soldiers.
> If it's unwilling to do that, it has no right to risk the lives of the
> Afghan population. But as for the goal of toppling the Taliban, can we
> really be against it?" (Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001
> http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/0110/0896.html )

I still believe all of this. My position hasn't changed much. I'm still in
favor of toppling the Taliban. But I'm against replacing it with rule by
warring bandits, especially since we have a historical example of that kind
of rule in Afghanistan and it's worse than the Taliban. How to do the first
thing without doing the second thing - or even whether that's possible - are
devilish questions that are hard to figure out, and were even harder when I
wrote the above passage, which was only two days into the bombing. (Before
most of the civilian deaths happened, by the way.) But it's not like I've
suddenly switcheds sides to better serve my ideology.

> I also assumed that since you *appeared* sensitive to the
> issue of rape and gender oppression in third world countries, then you
were
> already familiar with the topic and that i could bring up how sexist
> ideologies frame ordinary language, and how the assumptions implicit
within
> language represent women's desire, and how those encourage the phenomenon
> of date rape.

You're right that I'm pretty unversed in feminist thought. It's a great gap
in my education, and not the only one. I'll go further and admit this to
you: I've barely read any military history at all, even though I write a lot
about wars and international relations. Another big gap. I'm willing to
learn about both, even though they're not my main intellectual interests.
But you seem to assume that I (or any generic male leftist) would
necessarily agree with all your positions on these subjects if I only read
the following 12 feminist authors. I don't necessarily think that's true. I
might be a better debating partner, but I might still disagree. Why refuse
to converse with the unlearned, or at least refuse to debate the unlearned
without a cloak of impatience and scorn?

Seth