This is an archive of the former website of the Maoist Internationalist Movement, which was run by the now defunct Maoist Internationalist Party - Amerika. The MIM now consists of many independent cells, many of which have their own indendendent organs both online and off. MIM(Prisons) serves these documents as a service to and reference for the anti-imperialist movement worldwide.
This is an archive of the former website of the Maoist Internationalist Movement, which was run by the now defunct Maoist Internationalist Party - Amerika. The MIM now consists of many independent cells, many of which have their own indendendent organs both online and off. MIM(Prisons) serves these documents as a service to and reference for the anti-imperialist movement worldwide.
Maoist Internationalist Movement

Pseudo-feminist attacks "Arabic countries" over sexy clothing

June 7, 2006

A syndicated feature appearing in newspapers throughout the United $tates took on the topic of sexual assaults and wimmin wearing sexy clothing. In last Sunday's "Woman to Woman," "left-leaning" Diane Glass argued that Islam, not sexy clothing, caused sexual assaults, and "right-leaning" Shaunti Feldhahn emphasized that wimmin should make good clothing choices in light of research showing that people believed wimmin were responsible for being attacked if they wore sexy or revealing clothing.(1) "Woman to Woman" ( Atlanta Journal-Constitution , Universal Press Syndicate) is known as a column with a "point/counterpoint" style, but this week's "Woman to Woman" is more like a tag team against Iran and migrants. Nobody explicitly mentions Iran in this column, only "Arabic countries" and Muslim migrants in certain European countries, but in one newspaper, the column appeared on a page opposite an editorial supporting economic sanctions against Iran instead of war. Various reactionaries at this point are stirring up chauvinism against Iran without openly calling for war. People are drawing connections between the column and Iran, and the column itself is reactionary.

"Woman to Woman" claims to be an ongoing debate among wimmin. Actually, it represents a discussion among female-biology adults in the United $nakes who use biology as a cover for spreading reactionary ideas. Male gender oppressors also have some interest in seeing debates like the one on clothing and sexual assault play out, because the debates ultimately serve patriarchy. With the emergence of things like raunch culture , it is given that First World men and the gender aristocracy are going to arrange debates between female gender oppressors. The liberal/conservative framing of these debates is just a distraction.

We have seen similar debates countless times in the mainstream media and college newspapers. Usually, a conservative writes that wimmin should wear less sexy or revealing clothing as a precaution. Some pseudo-feminist retorts that wimmin should feel free to wear whatever they want -- have uninhibited Liberal clothing choice -- and men should just change how they respond to wimmin's clothing. Actually, these positions are more compatible than it might seem, whatever backward agenda is attributed to the conservative in question. The debate is thoroughly sub-reformist and limited to lifestyle recommendations, whether it is telling wimmin to dress less sexy or telling men to treat only sexy lingerie as an invitation to sex. Another pseudo-feminist position is that the imperialist-patriarchal state, repressing children and the world's wimmin, should be strengthened to repress sex offenders instead of wimmin changing what they wear. All of these positions ignore the fact that First World people are making no sustained advances toward ending patriarchy, and they ignore the majority of rape and even the majority of legally-defined rape. Nancy Grace types whip up support for more police and prison repression for the sake of going after stranger rapists, letting the majority of rape and even acquaintance and family perpetrators of legally-defined rape off the hook. Talking about whether clothing leads to "gang rapes" distracts from the majority of sexual assaults while ignoring the power differences at the root of rape and which aren't just based on how people perceive individual situations.

The debate over so-called provocative clothing is old. What is different about the debate in "Woman to Woman" is the fusion of pseudo-feminism and anti-Middle Eastern and anti-Muslim chauvinism. Diane Glass suggests that oppressed-nation people from South Africa to Paris are uniquely prone to being rapists. She argues much rape has nothing to do with clothing. But then Glass says "many devout Muslim men think a woman without a headscarf is asking to be raped." This is what passes for "left-leaning" -- something out of an article advocating assimilation and decrying the "colonization" of Europe by migrants.(2) Glass implies hijab is a scheme by men to blame rape on wimmin. There is hardly any difference between what Glass says and oppressor-nation nationalists talking about migrants raping white wimmin and calling on their boyfriends and husbands to save them.

Glass mentions a report by Dagbladet on migrants and sexual assaults. (The same Norwegian newspaper later published anti-Muslim cartoons.) Others commenting on the same report openly say their concern is with migrants attacking Norwegian wimmin, not Muslim men attacking Muslim wimmin.(3) They use sexual assaults as an excuse to prop up borders and sexual oppression overall.

Glass points out there is no "natural drive for men to rape," but united with her are Freudians who believe hijab is sexual repression that causes rape. Glass mentions that the same clothing can be sexualized to different degrees, but Glass says not one word in opposition to the sexualization of clothing or the eroticization of differences between groups with different amounts of power, only objecting to the way Third World people sexualize clothing. Glass seems oblivious to the advertising and media sexualization of clothing even though she defends a womyn's "choice" to wear "low-cut blouses." Glass may defend wearing low-cut blouses, but not the sexualization of them, but "choosing" to wear low-cut blouses and the sexualization of wimmin's clothing both come from patriarchy. Separating these two things is just something the gender aristocracy does in aspiring to patriarchal power. Without opposing the sexualization of clothing under patriarchy, men also want to control how their own clothing is sexualized. The gender aristocracy tries to adopt oppressor power strategies.

Glass in this one commentary shares some of the same assumptions as her Freudian allies, or why else does she neglect to point out that Muslim men also lower their gaze? Glass presents no social analysis of rape. Glass pays lip service to not treating wimmin as property, but she says nothing about the treatment of children as property despite children being victims of sexual assaults. Glass opposes only a part of rape and does so to whip up support for chauvinism against the Third World and support for imperialist borders that result in sex slavery.

Shaunti Feldhahn doesn't mention Arabs or Muslims at all, choosing only to give wimmin readers clothing advice. It almost makes Feldhahn look progressive compared with Glass' chauvinist rant, but conservative Feldhahn serves only to drive liberals to Glass' side and reinforce the "left" appearance of Glass' reactionary ideas. In addition, Feldhahn assists Glass by drawing an artificial distinction between "cute" and "sexy" and suggesting it would be okay if wimmin and girls dressed cute as long as men didn't think of that as a sexual invitation. What Feldhahn fails to understand is that cute and powerless, and powerlessness itself, are sexy to Euro-Amerikans. Thus, Euro-Amerikans fantasize about having sex with wimmin who wear the hijab and seek to displace competition by attacking Muslim men as rapists.

Notes:

1. Shaunti Feldhahn and Diane Glass, "Does what women wear contribute to sexual assault?" 4 June 2006, http://www.uexpress.com/womantowoman/

2. "Mark Steyn: Multiculturalists are the real racists," 20 August 2002, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/736142/posts

3. Fjordman, "Muslim Rape Epidemic in Sweden and Norway - Authorities Look the Other Way," 20 February 2005, http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/02/muslim-rape-epidemic-in-sweden-and.html