The New Feminism: Breaking the Multicultural Relativism Taboo
By Artemis March on March 4, 2009 at 10:00 AM in Current Affairs
Editor’s Note: Reprinted from The New Agenda.
The following is the opinion of the author, and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The New Agenda.
When American feminists have broken their silence about the beheading of Aasiya Hassan, their reactions have tended to emphasize the commonalities in male violence against women across cultures and caution that it not distract our focus from this bigger picture. But in dismissing the importance of making distinctions among the cultural contexts in which such violence take place, are they playing into the hands of the politically correct crowd who don’t want us to talk about this subject at all?
What are the challenges for feminists as we try to navigate not only honor killings (as this beheading appears to be) taking place on American soil, but also the complex issues to which they open? Do they not point in two directions at once—the commonalities in male violence against women and their socio-cultural specificity? I suggest it is both/and, not either/or.
Assuredly, male degradation of and violence toward women is of pandemic proportions, and we must raise awareness and outrage in order to make unacceptable all forms of male violence against women (VAW). The media routinely erase that reality by locating the problem in the personal failings and pathology of individual men. But when at least one in three women in this country can expect to be sexually and/or physically assaulted during their lifetimes, some on a repeated or ongoing basis (as is often the case with the sexual abuse of girlchildren and the battery of women), it should be obvious that such behavior is neither exceptional nor deviant. If we are to change this behavior, we must first recognize that male violence against women is built into the structure of our asymmetrical sex/gender system even when it is not acted on.
(For the record, its structural nature in no way diminishes the accountability of men for their abusive and violent behavior toward women. It merely identifies the primary level at which the problem must be addressed.)
Yes, there are common denominators driving all male violence toward women. Male entitlement to appropriate, use, degrade, and discard women is part of that gendered structure, as is women’s de facto status as object, property, possession. Male entitlement is fed by a pornified misogyny which has innumerable channels of distribution, especially in our multi-media age.
Despite commonalities among all forms of male violence against women, we ought not simply disappear honor killings into the general VAW category by dismissing the importance of making distinctions that derive from their cultural or religious context. Why not?
Context Matters. When we say that male violence is all the same, we bypass the fact that it is informed by, and expressed through, specific cultural, societal, and religious contexts. Understanding behavior in its cultural context is one of the principles drilled into social scientists and ethnographers—with good reason. As Violet Socks writes in her February 19 TNA post, “We can’t stop honor killings unless we know why they happen—and I mean exactly why they happen. What are the social and religious codes at work there?” We cannot change what we do not understand, and we cannot understand something that we don’t discuss openly and honestly.
In her comments at TNA to Amy Siskind’s February 21 Daily Beast post, attorney Elizabeth Kates suggests one aspect of how this plays out. She has observed that the common thread among Western batterers is their “focus on themselves.” An individual sense of grievance and victimization is used to justify his behavior to himself while maintaining a belief in his own personal goodness. The honor killer, by contrast, does not feel he has to justify his behavior. He can perceive himself as a “neutral actor” doing something that in his social world is seen as “objectively necessary.” We need to understand such differences in order to address each of them effectively.
I would add that what Kates is pointing to in both instances is not reducible to psychological causation. She is pointing to sociological phenomena that manifest themselves through the structuring of men’s psyches and behaviors in their respective cultures. “Social structure” is not visible as such, but it is real, and it is powerful.
Drawing the Line. Second, If we lump honor killings in with all VAW, we beg the question of the exportation of Sharia Law to non-Muslim countries. (Most, not all, honor killings in the U.S. are committed by Muslims.) Not only are honor killings migrating to many parts of the world, but so also are demands for a dual legal system that accepts and glorifies rather than punishes the perpetrators. As we observe this process in Europe, we can be sure that these demands for a double standard in our laws are coming to a neighborhood near you.
This is a critical question for Americans, for women, for feminists—a question few of us ever dreamed we would be thinking about a decade or so ago during which only one American feminist voice, Phyllis Chesler, stands out for calling our attention to Islamic gender apartheid and its migration.
Sharia Law makes no apologies for absolute male entitlement to subjugate women and to punish them for infractions or alleged infractions of the shame-honor system—the social structure governing gender relations and sexual relations in Islamic and some other cultures. We need to gain clarity in our own minds and be able to articulate where the line must be drawn when religious fundamentalists, Islamic or otherwise, claim the right to practice behaviors that are antithetical to the premises on which we operate (at least in theory and in aspiration) and lead to harm against others—specifically against women.
- We need to draw a line when respect or tolerance for other cultures and religions turns into accepting practices which harm women.
- We cannot accept a dual legal system or cultural practices that subordinate or erase the rights of women to self-determination and bodily integrity.
The rubber meets the road here, folks.
Breaking the MCR Taboo. So what stops us from having absolute clarity that we will not accept a double standard or dual system of laws, and that we must have free and open discussion about Islamic shame-honor systems and their consequences? The politically correct orthodoxies of multicultural relativism (MCR) that have infused the consciousness of progressives—including most progressive/Leftist feminists.
Multiculturalism was intended as an antidote to racism and imperialism. Its relativism accepts all cultures as equal—especially if they have ever been colonized, and its people are people of color. Sounds good on first hearing. But here’s the catch. Subscribers to MCR enforce their orthodoxy by attacking as “racist” anyone who criticizes men of color or their male-dominated cultures.
MCR has two fatal flaws. It eschews standards for truth and ethical judgment—something we see reflected every day in the mainstream media, most of whom have abdicated the search for truth and holding public figures accountable to those standards. Edward R. Murrow would roll over in his grave at this abdication, and by the pretensions of one its most flagrant violators to co-opt his sign-off line.
The second fatal flaw is that it blocks women and their male allies from challenging the women-harming practices of non-Western, patriarchal cultures, including the shame-honor system that organizes gender relations in Islamic and some other societies. Toeing the MCR line not only means that race and ethnicity always trump gender, but also stifles feminists’ speaking out vigorously and unequivocally on behalf of women.
The new feminism must not unwittingly align with the politically correct thinking fostered and enforced by the Left, including Leftist feminists. Sweeping honor killings into generalized VAW falls right into that trap.
To stay out of the trap, we cannot be intimidated and silenced by the fear of being called “racist” or “anti-Islamic.” Being pro-women is not anti-anything-else. We must break multicultural relativism’s silencing taboo or it will break us.
The New Feminism—a Third Way. There is a way out of the self-defeating relativism that leaves women behind and subjugated. The new feminism must stand on the higher moral ground of universal human rights—formulated so as to include abuses specific to women, both in war and in peace. With firm ground under our feet, we can see the limits of relativism, and insist that women’s right to full humanity override all claims that legitimate men’s entitlement to subjugate women. Two cardinal principles would be that:
- Women’s rights to self-determination and bodily integrity are universal human rights.
- Our rights to self-determination and bodily integrity must always trump cultural and religious practices that harm women. Our rights cannot be subordinated to any brand of female subjugation.
Standing by this position reflects the new feminism’s being a creature of neither the Left nor the Right. The old feminism was demonized, caricatured, and ridiculed by the far Right, while establishment feminists allowed themselves to be incorporated into the Democratic Party. Women’s interests have not been well served by the male-centered priorities of either the Left or the Right. The new feminism must reinvent itself from its own roots, its own priorities, and its own perspectives, creating a Third Way.
© 2009 by Artemis March, PhD
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
Just as a sidebar…..
Sorry….. The shelter that my wife works at, upon receiving a call for the woman`s protection, also calls animal rescue because studies show if there is abuse, then the animals usually catch Hell too.
Yes, the abuse of defenseless animals is an integral part of this horrendous problem of sexual and physical violence against women and children. It should be a felony to harm animals and cause them to suffer.
It’s really sad that you felt the need to post this comment about animals here.
This is an important and excellent post.
Is this all you could come up with?
Jesus Christ.
oh please. maybe if people learned how to empathize with animals (thinking, feeling creatures), there would be a lot less problems among human beings.
Great post, but one quibble: Sadly female relatives tend to be active participants in these atrocities, whether honor killing or aiding and abetting female circumcision. So there’s a lot of work to be done in this area, not just with men.
But thank God Artemis posted this sane critique of multicultural relativism. There’s been way too much of that going on lately. Please check out the postings on Slumdog Millionaire/Dharavi slums and the subsequent comments. I thought working to fight poverty, human trafficking, child prostitution and illiteracy was generally considered to be a positive and not a sign of creeping Western imperialism.
This will continue until ALL WOMEN EVERYWHERE stand up for themselves as living beings who deserve respect. Many women in society allow themselves to be belittled, minimized, treated disrespectfully, abused etc from little to big ways. It could be letting their husband control everything or it could be downright abuse. I don’t know why society feels men need to have their ego stroked in order to maintain civility at the expense of disrespecting women.
Personally, I will not subject myself to anyone or anything that is connected in any way to degrading women including tv shows, magazines, business services etc.
I will not subject myself to anyone or anything that is connected in any way to degrading women including tv shows, magazines, business services etc.
you must live in a box woodiej! ;o)
But you are right.
As long as people act like their stereotype, they will be stereotyped.
I need to reread this article when I have more time, and less distraction. It deserves my full attention!
they (abusers) do it because they know they can get away with it, and sadly, most women’s self-esteem is so low, they don’t even know they deserve better.
BTW-This man was only charged with 2nd degree murder based on the “fact” that he didn’t “plan” to kill her. Previous statements said that he kept the weapon, a sword capable of severing any appendage from the body in one fell swoop, at the station for self protection. In my mind, that stretches the term “self protection” to the extreme. Other statements indicate that he lured her to the station on some pretext that convinced her to go.
She made the mistake of trusting that the laws of the US would protect her from extremist ideology.
Abuse, victimization, or murder of women by male family members is unacceptable. Freedom of religion is one thing, heinous criminal acts based on “culturally accepted behavior” is not granted under the Constitution.
The police and prosecuter involved in this case seem to be bowing to “political correctness” so as not to offend the Muslim communities at large. I don’t believe that the majority of Muslims approve of or adhere to “honor killings” or other forms of Sharia law.
FYI-Other culturally extreme punishments include cutting off the right hand for stealing and cutting out the tongue for lying or bearing false witness. Are we to accept these forms of personal “justice”, too?
Another FYI-The #1 cause of death of pregnant women is murder by a spouse or significant other.
The police and prosecutor involved in this case seem to be bowing to “political correctness” so as not to offend the Muslim communities at large.
…….
The law should be the law and it should not allow for crimes to be charged as being less because it involves a woman victim or a woman of a particular faith or culture or ethnicity. The patriarchy will use everything, including emotional blackmail and charges of racism to maintain the status quo, their belief that woman and children are the property of the males in society.
The continual practice of the patriarchy is really a new form of modern day slavery, only no one says it out loud for fear of offending the patriarchal males. Imagine being a woman and living under such fear, fear of the same even in this country is simply to wrong?!?
A beautiful, strong statement of principle, that I and I hope many others intend to repeat often in public.
Excellent. Sexism and misogyny should be denounced no matter who the perpetrator. Race and religion do not have to be mentionned. Sexism should be denounced wherever it happens.
Obama should have fired Favreau immediately.
The Assiya Hassan case should have been denounced immediately. It took two PUMA bloggers, SUGAR and Uppity Woman, to get it onto CNN and the MSM. Religion did not have to be mentionned.
The Chris Brown/Rihanna abuse should have been denounced immediately. Apologism won the first round.
I agree, as Silence is our greatest enemy.
Racism in any form is immediately denounced.
The same must be done with sexism.
Amen Sister, Amen!
As someone who has always studied foreign cultures and been mistaken for being a multiculturalist, I was horrified when I finally took a class on what multiculturalism actually is and realized I agreed with none of it. It’s far more than being interested and open to foreign cultures. It’s a moral blindness to any possibility they can have a negative side at all and exalting them above your own culture even when undesirable.
That said, I see you referenced Phyllis’ FrontPage article, but here’s the link to her landmark study on the differences between domestic violence and honor killings: http://www.meforum.org/2067/are-honor-killings-simply-domestic-violence. It’s quite a different phenomenon. Also, the Bridges TV guy – I heard he used hunting knives and wasn’t even a hunter, which implies premeditation.
And I’m quite certain that all of you who denounce the violence against women will also spend a few moments to denounce the violence that is directed at men by women. Yes, there ARE men who are the victims of abusive wives and girlfriends who have NO support groups because of the very system that is so quick to demonize abusive husbands and boyfriends.
We all hear the jokes made about female teachers in recent years who have inappropriate relationships with their male students (as young as 10 and 11) and the frustration that responsible parents have at the double standard they face when attempting to prosecute these predators. That double standard also adversely affects men who are the victims of domestic violence. There aren’t any shelters for battered men and law enforcement is VERY rarely sympathetic to such men, most typically calling their manhood into question (”what kind of man are you that you can’t defend yourself from a woman?”). Counseling is widely available for men who perpetrate domestic violence, but almost none exists for men who are victims (and quite often, a man who does find counseling will be berated for being “too weak” and “too passive” with no real suggestions on how to deal with the situation or how to get out of the relationship).
This broadside against multiculturalism is little more than a smokescreen (and one which, in this case, is little more than a diatribe against Islam). Society as a whole is responsible for how men deal with things. Men, from a young age, are rarely urged to TALK. They’re taught to “take action” to resolve a problem. When frustrated, they’re supposed to “go hit something”. They’re wired by society to ENJOY violence–football games, hockey, boxing, soccer (though it seems the last tends to have more violence among the spectators than the players). For millennia, war has been the primary outlet for the “natural” state of male aggression but people now tend to not want war (and since Vietnam, we’ve seen how many other social problems can arise when soldiers, who are TRAINED to kill people, return to a normal, unregimented society).
But, even apart from the societal conditioning of me, there’s also the RELIGIOUS conditioning that is not unique to Islam. Honor killings exist in areas that are not touched by the Quran (let’s not forget that, as recently as 20 years ago, reports came from HINDU India of widows still being subject to sati, with an elderly widow even jumping into her husband’s funeral pyre LAST YEAR–this seems to have been entirely voluntary but for centuries, most widows had little choice in the matter, and the women were doing it to “preserve” family “honor”). Then, too, the Bible itself has a crapload of junk that has been used (in recent times, mind you) to justify punishing children and keeping women out of leadership roles (bear in mind that in Orthodox Jewish synagogues, women and men are not allowed to sit together because women are “polluters”–read the restrictions on menstruating women and attending services as well as what women have to go through after childbirth in order to attend services). Women were tortured and killed simply for being women BY CHRISTIANS (mainly under the guise of rooting out witches–and, even in rural parts of Europe, women are routinely harassed and accused of witchcraft). The Roman Catholic Church STILL maintains exorcism as a practice (though the Church claims to need more “hard proof” of possession before an exorcism is warranted).
But, go ahead and criticize Islam as though no other religion indoctrinates its people with absurd beliefs, especially in the treatment of women (there are some Christian men who advertise the “The head of the woman is the man” quote from 1 Corintians and expect their wives to obey their every word as though the women were little more than children).
i think that most of us condemn ALL violence (except in obvious cases of self-defense), but i think that it would be pretty far off to suggest that women are equally as violent as men.
Yes, we condemn all violence.
I assume that women are concerned against all violence but, it’s inappropriate for you to assume that we as women have not criticized other religions. There is so much wrong headedness in your post it is not to be taken seriously. Male violence against women kills many more women every year than any violence women might commit against their male counterparts..many times in DEFENSE. Men for the most part are larger and stronger and can do far more serious harm given this fact. Finally, no. I am sorry but, it’s violence against women and misogyny that I concern myself with now. Precisely because I gave my energies to every other “important” causes for years and then I learned this year that my country and it’s media have a serious issue with acceptance of misogyny. It is seen as far less serious an issue than just about every other social ill.
I just sat and listened to the editor of Newsweak say that he did not think sexism played a role much in the MSM during this election. THERE is the problem. The issue is not given any credence or brought to bear with any dedication as being of the utmost importance in this society and until it is, all these things will go on and on and on.
So pardon me if I am not that concerned with women’s violence against men at this moment in history. I will let you take up that torch and wish you well in that endevour. I would say though that you have far, far more opportunity to avenge yourself should you be such a victim.
No one was criticizing Islam for the sake of criticizing Islam. We are criticizing, and condemning the practice of beheading or killing a woman and feeling justified in doing so just because you are a man and this action is one of your “rules” A life is a life and entitled to the same rights as any other.
Great Post Artemis March!
Love it!!
Dr. Marsh,
I read your post twice and avoided reading the comments, because I want to understand exactly what you are saying and the purpose of the post. In your effort to define the “new” feminism, you have tried to remove the evidence which exists in our own society of abuse and sexism by referring to the failure of other societies/religions as something apart. The violation of human rights in whatever context they occur should be condemned by people of good conscience everywhere. The beheading of a Muslim woman in our country is outrageous and this man will be tried and punished according to the laws here. He will not be allowed to use his social or religious views as an argument to validate his actions. But to turn this into an argument for or against the actions of feminist in this country is disingenuous. If you are saying our country should speak out against these practices where ever they occur, I agree completely and I would add doing business with these countries is hypocritical whether it is China or Saudi Arabia. It seems your opinion only addresses killings which occur in our country in which case, to describe it as something other than domestic violence advances your argument it should be responded to in a different context than the more than one thousand/yr homicides committed by spouses or intimate partners against women which occur in this country every year. Attny Yates (whoever she is, I had no luck on Google) is splitting hairs by trying to differentiate between violence committed by a western man against women in terms of self justification and the violence of a man justifying his action by acceptance of his community or government. Dead is dead and fearing the importation of Sharia Law into non Muslim countries is specious, if not deliberately misleading. It’s difficult to believe anyone would take such an argument seriously even if every Muslim country condones this practice, which is not true. I agree the women’s groups in our country have failed women and have moved beyond the original movement into the political arena and aren’t responsive to the very real sexism and inequality which still exists in the US after more than a hundred years of struggle. In the early years in the US, men were not punished for violence against women and the Salem Witch Trials are a good example of the absence of laws against killing women publicly. Less than ten years ago, Turkey passed a law requiring a mandatory life sentence for honor killings whether the victim was male or female and, in many instances, men in the US serve a much shorter period of time. As recently as 2000, the Southern Baptist Convention issued the following statement with respect to marriage:
” A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.”
The Catholic Church refuses to even consider the ordination of women as priests. While neither of these denominations condone violence against women, their policies demean and show a lack of respect for equality. If the US condemns the killing and violation of women around the world, it should first be willing to represent women as equal partners with full rights. We don’t live in isolation here. What we do and how we treat all of our citizens is noted by other countries and since we are supposed to be the guiding light of freedom and equality, what we do matters. I feel we wouldn’t even be having this discussion without the memory of 9/11 or the disgusting behavior of our media and political leaders in the last election. American women need to redefine what feminism means for them and only we can change things (with the help of a some truly liberated men). In the end, I’m not sure of the intent of your post or what you think should be done. This story has been publicized and will continue to be until a resolution, just as the story of a CA man who killed his wife and unborn child in order to escape responsibility and begin a new life with a new woman was repeated many times on cable news. I’m still a member of, but no longer a believer in NOW, but I don’t recall they made any public statement about Scott Peterson. I’m left wondering if your intention is to stir hatred against Muslims and/or discourage feminism in it’s true sense.
Her post is simply about opposing sexism wherever it exists:
* We need to draw a line when respect or tolerance for other cultures and religions turns into accepting practices which harm women.
* We cannot accept a dual legal system or cultural practices that subordinate or erase the rights of women to self-determination and bodily integrity.
I worry the US will institute Sharia law like they did in the UK.
Of course, the feminist solution to that is to oppose sexism wherever it exists and to not institute Sharia law in the US.
Donna, Yes, Dr March said everything you say, but she said much more. By somehow creating categories for the motivation for the actions of western/Muslim men, she implies one is more lethal than the other and everything else is based on that premise. Bringing Sharia Law into the conversation, turned the focus of the problem to religion and away from VAW. Then she introduced feminism into the essay, as if women are in some way responsible for a lack of resolution to the problem. As far as the Sharia Law being introduced into our country, anyone in the US is subject to US law and anything else wouldn’t be tolerated. Religious practices in our country are permitted, even, guaranteed in our Constitution and I wouldn’t want it to be otherwise. Given we all know this is true, her references are misleading.
I read a different article than you because she said the exact opposite:
Leftist feminists focus on race and religion and therefore did not condemn Obama for not firing Favreau, Hassan for murdering his wife and Chris Brown for abusing his girlfriend.
MCR is a constructed word and doesn’t indicate an acceptance of cultural traditions which cause harm to members of the society in question or, by extension, others. “Leftist” feminist is a new phrase in our lexicon since conservative feminism has never been identified. It is my belief the only differences are those used by both political parties to get out the vote and divide. For years, conservative Republicans have been comfortable with classifying successful, independent women as femi-nazis, bitches and ball-breakers. Whatever the Obama supporters are willing to accept, they are not representative of the millions of women who supported Hillary Clinton and refused to vote for him because of the sexism encouraged by his campaign. How many conservative women have bothered to question the lies repeated about Hillary for more than fifteen years or have made an effort to protest her treatment by the press? “New” feminism became the new only after Gov Palin’s candidacy and although I disagree with her on most social issues, I wrote to the media and NOW several times to protest her treatment and the lies being told about her and her family. I wonder how many Republican women have ever written in defense of Hillary? If the trashing of two women in the last two years, succeeds in unifying a sufficient number of our gender to make a real difference in the fight against abuse and for equality, then we can say something positive has come from the experience. But the recent attention to Sharia Law strikes me as less an outrage of the practices of a cult than another political tool. The Fundamentalist Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints held women in virtual slavery, their polygamists practices were known to the authorities in Texas and tolerated for years. Most of those women chose to stay in that environment to be with their children or were too indoctrinated to leave, but they had an option and places to go for help. Some have said the acceptance of the law in the UK has helped women. Rules for marriage and divorce were negotiated to allow them the same rights as other citizens and any crime of violence is adjudicated under British law. The Sharia Law allows a community to arbitrate a limited number of issues, just as some religious sects in the US are allowed to do. I don’t like this post and I have serious doubts about the motivation. I refuse to be a puppet to anyone’s agenda ever again and it is for that reason I left the Democratic Party after many years of voting only for party candidates. I will protest abuse and sexism as I have done for the last thirty years while never forgetting for a moment what happens here, in my own country.
I’m against cultural relativism, Sharia law and sexism anywhere.
The article simply opposes sexism in any form.
Racism in any form is denounced. The same should be done with sexism.
The New Feminism condemns misogyny in all its forms and there’s no need to mention race or religion.