Give them an L Pill already.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the feminist world when a Benghazi-type attack fells 4 fearless women combatants.
Cui bono indeed.
We all pay a heavy price so that a few "progressive" pseudo-intellectuals can gain bragging rights and careers out of their PC grandstanding.
Ritalin is more of a problem in the US than the UK, and I am not sure I can usefully comment.
Our host has indeed alerted society about the abuse of Muslim women, on several occasions. The problem is, when well-meaning people want to know about the oppression of women, they do not care what is written by a psychiatrist, or by anybody else in front-line services: they follow the people they have already identified as their thought leaders, and those women are indeed strangely silent.
The problem in the UK is so bad that in some towns gangs of Pakistani men were picking up 14-year-old white girls to groom them for sexual abuse; the police had been aware of this activity for a decade but, having already been declared "institutionally racist", they did nothing. And there was not a word of complaint from prominent feminists.
It's not that progressivism or feminism are wrong - I think we've benefitted from both - but when they became mainstream, it was too easy for their leaders to stop thinking, while basking in the reflected glory of their more illustrious predecessors.
P.S. Oops, my typo: "... as [a] psychiatrist blogger said ..."
'Or, as psychiatrist blogger said in a different context, "Just because you call yourself a progressive or a feminist, doesn't make it true, your progressive passions may end up setting women back five hundred years -- that's right, 500 years."
And yet there are those who blame both feminism and psychiatry, rather hyperbolically, in my opinion, for the wholesale destruction of Western civilization.
It is not 'the feminists' who are force feeding boys Ritalin (in both the US and the UK).
And psychiatry was in a position to alert society about abuse of Muslim women. They failed too.
It is indeed true that high-profile British feminists, the kind who lecture us about "glass ceilings" and "hostile environments", on prime-time TV and in columns in the mainstream press, are strangely silent. The reasons may be:
(1) These upper and middle class white women are only interested in promoting their own class interests.
(2) They are comfortable only when confronting the pushover men of their own class and race. Although they pretend to have the moral courage of, say, the suffragettes, they are not going to oppose outrages against their fellow woman if this entails any personal danger.
(3) They do not feel that the supposedly universal values of feminism need to be applied to people of a different race or religion, implying that they do not think of these people as fully human. This position would of course be deeply racist, but femino-leftists find it much more comfortable to blast white men for, say, not employing or promoting enough people from ethnic minorities, than to examine their own racism.
(4) All of the above.
The example raised by Dr Dalrymple demonstrates the shallow imposture that is the modern feminist Left: they are just as racist, self-interested, and cowardly as anybody else, except that they have made careers out of telling us that somehow they are the ones who occupy the moral high ground. For example, by shouting "racist" if anyone makes the eminently sensible suggestion that we greatly reduce immigration to Britain from Pakistan.
Or, as psychiatrist blogger said in a different context, "Just because you call yourself a progressive or a feminist, doesn't make it true, your progressive passions may end up setting women back five hundred years -- that's right, 500 years."
American feminists, my friend, American feminists.
Feminists function within the safe world of white libs, making their stands at colleges and NY social functions far away from where the tough battles are. They supported Hillary when she defended her husband - Tammy Wynette mode - and as a reward got a senate seat. But where are they when third world women - even those living among us in our 'safe' first world get treated like chattel? Probably at rally for Nancy Pelosi. They hate Chistianity more than Islam - feel more threatened by a Sarah Palin than an ayatollah. Their snarky political correctness decades ago turned me off decades ago.
It's odd that women who have benefitted from feminism should reject it. It makes them look like fickle followers of fashion.
And as for the brits being lazy comment in the article: the good doctor retired at 55. I know good, honest, competent psychiatric nurses who are going to have to work until they are in their late 60s. Try not to judge others by your own pitifully low standards, Dr. Daniels
To Stella's Dec. 20 post:
You don't seem to have gotten any better informed on this topic in the last three days than you were when you first posted. In the late 1990s, long before 9/11 made it fashionable to profess concern for the plight of Muslim women, Mavis Leno and the Feminist Majority Foundation fought to stop the building of a proposed Unocal pipeline in Taliban Afghanistan that would have brought billions of dollars of revenue to the Taliban, and would have conferred official recognition of their government by the US Government. Their efforts brought the Taliban's depredations against women into public view, and brought the Taliban into disrepute in the Western world. Prior to their efforts, the Taliban had either been tolerated or ignored by supposedly enlightened Western opinion.
A movement that harnesses public opinion to induce the US Government and a multimillion dollar corporation to forego a multi-billion dollar oil deal is very far from "ineffectual." You obviously haven't followed the link I posted last time, but try Googling "Mavis Leno Unocal," and reading the first ten hits. A reasonable person would be forced to reconsider her claims.
Incidentally, what were conservatives of the same time saying and doing? They were drinking tea with Taliban officials and criticizing feminists for exaggerating the evils of the Taliban, as in this example:
Read the section on "Human Rights" in the preceding article, and ask yourself: if feminists were so ineffectual in debates about the Taliban, why are they the main target of his critique?
If feminists have not made a stronger impression on public consciousness than they have, who is to blame for it--the feminists who spoke out, or the public that refused to listen? Can a person unwilling to follow and read a few Internet links really complain about the "ineffectuality" of others? To repeat: if you insist on shutting your eyes, you are guaranteed to condemn yourself to darkness.
John birch December 19, 2012 at 5:39 PM
Two faced hypocritical witches. That's why.
So, what do you reckon we should do with them?
Burn them at the stake?
"But where are our feminists ... when women such as this suffer such severe oppression? Hardly a peep is heard from them."
They are, I have concluded after working for years as an expert witness in the Dutch courts where I have seen quite a lot of this kind of thing, not working for the liberation of women, but for the oppression of men.
I forgot to add to my comment below...
Thank you for publishing this.
I'll link to it from another site I read, where both Islam and women are constantly characterized as victims of Western attitudes.
There's nothing to be gained (except for the female Muslim victims) by complaining about their treatment. Complaining about discrimination at the top of the executive ladder can make someone millions of dollars. Like the debates about the horrors that slavery invoked on Africans that is only about America; not Cuba, Brazil, or Arabia, who can't be extorted. Like "The Victim's Revolution" by Bruce Bawer that was reviewed here last month -- women, blacks, latinos, and queers are all victimized by western males. Or at least, they're the only ones who can be profitably complained about.
Irfan Khawaja: you miss the important point that the feminists you cite are ineffectual in making an impact comparable to the impact (at least in the sense of general recognition of their making a point and taking a stand)feminists made on public consciousness over comparatively trivial issues such as TD cites.
Modern feminism is owned lock, stock and barrel by leftism. Leftists believe that "my enemies enemy is my friend"; Islam is the enemy of Western civilisation; ergo, criticism of Islam is "objectively" support for the West and is verboten.
Ditto the animal rights movement - when did you last hear any animal rights group condemn halal meat? Or a trade union leader condemn the imprisonment of trade unionists in Muslim or Communist countries?
Welcome to the post-modern world of the modern left!
Two faced hypocritical witches. That's why.
Effie - I am a US Classical Liberal, so conservatism mixed with libertarianism. I do not study UK politics, so I don't know where I'd fall there. As to what his beliefs are other than the subject column, I don't know - I was commenting on that specific issue - his views on GWS are meaningless to the topic at hand.
Michael - many people find satisfaction in working - be it the work itself or the ability to take care of oneself, or a combination. Since women are people, one can deduce that some of those people who find satisfaction in paid work are women.
That feminist silence is perhaps less surprising than you expect. The joy she finds in her career, limited though it is, isn't that removed from the zeal of feminists to set aside motherhood for the grind of working 8-5 marketing toe-nail clippers or whatever. Feminism is a classic example of a Capitalist Tool. Hence your remark:
G. K. Chesterton summarized that attitude when he said of the feminists of his day (I quote from memory), "A million women rose up as one, saying 'We will not be dictated to,' and promptly became stenographers."
--Michael W. Perry, editor of Chesterton on War and Peace
Liz, I'm probably further to the right than you are.
The man is unpatriotic. As someone who is further to the right than you are (if you even have a clue what that means) I disapprove of that. And you should disapprove of that too.
Maybe there's a 'leftist' hiding deep down inside you.
Google Dalrymple + gulf war syndrome + ex military.
Effie - typical leftist tactic to smear someone without responding to facts. He married or is a relationship with a educated woman - how is that bad? You would rather him be with someone who is uneducated? Then you would accuse him of having a huge male ego who could not tolerate a woman as a peer? And as to electrocution - the brain and nervous system operate on electrical charges, so there are therapies that try to correct electrical problems. You may or maynot approve of various medical therapies, but at least give an intelligent critique of them.
Amy - he was stating that this allowed the women some degree of outlet/personal expression. If enough women have these opportunities, it wil lead to their economic and emotional independence. He was also complementing them. Again, I do not see how this is bad.
'It occurred to me that if I were an employer, I would want otherwise oppressed Muslim women to work for me. An attitude toward work such as theirs is not common, at least not in Britain. For them, work represents freedom and happiness, not drudgery and exploitation.'
if you hate feminists then you should also hate traitors too.
Dalrymple is our contemporary Lord Haw Haw.
Old Theo has probably benefitted rather a lot from feminism. he is a kept man, kept by a woman who is a psychiatrist and ECT specialist. In other words he is kept by a woman who electrocutes people for a living.
Be careful what you wish for, Doc, it may come true.
Feminist's never condemned Ted Kennedy nor Bill Clinton. Ted Kennedy drove a woman to her death, Clinton used vulnerable women for tawdry sexual escapades. The hypocrisy of these "women's right advocates" will never end because they don't care about women. They use women as convenient material to promote their leftist agendas.
If Kennedy and Clinton had been Republicans, you'd still heard the echo from the screaming.
The feminist cause, their raison d'etre, is the destruction of capitalism and the homophobic, sexist, militaristic, imperialistic, root-of-all-evil USA.
Their use of "women's rights" is merely a ploy, a charade, a fraud to promote their left wing agenda. NOW is basically the female only version of the CPUSA.
These women's groups care about women as much as Stalin and Lenin cared about the proletariat.
Speaking out about oppression of Muslim women will not help at all their hate-America-first agenda at all, so they simply say nothing about it.
Also, look at the reception NOW extended Ayaan Hirsi Ali; there was none. As far as NOW was concerned, Ali was a non-person, an untermensch.
Let's be very very clear; if 75% of all CEOs, members ofcongress, mayors, governors were female AND the president of the USA was female, NOW would STILL exist.
What does that tell you?
I was commenting on US feminists, not British. We have some of the same problems here that you have in the UK.
I still do not see what a profession that deals with severe mental illness - a psychiatrist is a specialized MD - has to do with "social justice" anymore than a gastroenterologist does.
Lastly, thank you for informing me that there is life outside of the US. I thought my ancestors' stories of the old country were fiction.
Feminism is a huge disparate political movement. Psychiatry is a profession and thus better equipped to take direct action on what they regard as social injustice. See the difference?
As for this:
'Much of the US feminst movement is made up of neurotic, overly emotional, hypersensitive and illogical women.'
Dalrymple is a BRITISH psychiatrist. There is life outside the good old US of A, you know.
Farewell Angelina,feminists are presumed to be interested in issues affecting women.Psychiatrists - mental health. Gastroenterologists - GI systems, Certified Public Accountants - financial reporting issues. Do you see the connection?
And the silence of the psychiatrists? Have you nothing to say on that issue? Or should the concept of collective guilt only be applied to groups that you are not a part of?
Much of the US feminst movement is made up of neurotic, overly emotional, hypersensitive and illogical women.
Too true...and the same silence can be heard here in the USA. The women's movement, which many of us found exciting many years ago, has devolved into frivolity, pretentiousness, and self-indulgence. Feminism now means censorship, socialism, abortion on demand, collapsed professional standards (for the sake of "parity"), free contraception for all age groups, and a glorification of strippers and prostitutes.
They will get a taste of their own medicine- if you criticize feminists, no matter how valid, you are a misogynist- NO MATTER WHAT, if you criticize a racial minority you are a racist NO MATTER WHAT, when you criticize a Muslim you are an "islamophobe" NO MATTER WHAT.
Whenever I am allowed to closely question "multiculturalists" or feminists about what multiculturalism really means, it always comes down to western (or in my case, American) culture giving way in all circumstances to other cultures. I should conform to other cultures habits and values when I'm abroad, I should let immigrants from other cultures habits and values take precedent over mine, I should try to learn from other cultures but I shouldn't expect them to learn from mine, but to keep their culture even in America. This is anti-western culture, not multiculturalism. This is why feminists are silent about oppression of women by other cultures.
It is not feminists not speaking up, it is society at large. If as a white male, I don't speak up, but expect a white female to do what I afraid to do, what type of man am I?
I have taught in London College were girls have had forced marriages, to husbands from "home". The lead up to weddings, times of sadness and to finish assignments for fear they won't be allowed to finish them later. Some marriages are to enlighten home husbands, many to men raised to expect a bare foot, pregnant wife in the kitchen. You see the girls with bruised faces, the price of attending college after marriage. I spoke up in just a limited way, it was clear I would only be called a racist white male. My ex-wife a Spanish woman viewed the situation with horror. My Policeman cousin has seen acid throw in women's faces, so once disfigured they can be divorced. This is not a male issue, often I have seen the situation where the man working outside, has become westernised and has the odd beer with his workmates and the wife, less exposed to the alien London environment, which will never be home, is the one driving the demand to remain traditional. I have also taught an Afghan man who took his five daughters with him to London as refugees, leaving his wife. He wanted them to have a free life, his wife wanted them to be traditional and saw him as corrupted when he worked for an import/export company.
I am re-married and living in Australia, I worked in a University where Saudi students were seen drinking alcohol and applied for asylum, as they would be beaten if they returned home. The University is short of funding no one spoke up, not man or woman, this is why we will be dominated by the power of the womb and it is not that far away.
Feminist means Hater of the West, and nothing more. A profoundly parochial stance.
I applaud Theodore Dalrymple for both his style and content. Rather than ranting about the obvious injustice he offers an effective practical alleviation of the unrelenting problem.
It would appear that feminists are sufficiently hostile to Western culture, that they would prefer to have a culture that will happily rape them (if not honor-kill them). I suppose it is a self-solving problem - under sharia, feminists will no longer be allowed to express an opinion, let alone vote. And once more, the wheel will have turned.
On compassion: The bus was silent, full of blank-faced commuters. One woman was standing and cellphone yapping loudly. One of her remarks was her sorrow at the loss of 26 people, including 20 children, in Connecticut the other day. I realized she considers herself compassionate because she feels for people she doesn't know and will never know. But she has no consideration or compassion for the bus riders around her, and she took umbrage at my glare as I turned around and coughed markedly in her direction, my indication of disapproval of cellphone yapping on an otherwise silent bus.
What does this have to do with TD's article? Everything. Those who identify with the downtrodden are afraid of the downtrodden whose male relatives may hurt them or kill them. So they concentrate on minor offenses, committed by professors or university presidents, safe targets. They consider themselves compassionate, but they are posturers. They are not compassionate in the least, they are self absorbed and entitled, like the cellphone yapper on my bus who disturbed the peace of those around her, but was full of sympathy for those who were far away and out of sight.
CPB: You make my case - typical Democrat (in the States) tactic, ignore the issue and point fingers elsewhere. There's no excuse, no argument, no rationalizing what's going on, no mistaking the cowardice and hypocrisy, so may as well claim what's happening is a distraction for something else. Do you people all read from the same playbook? How can anyone think like this?
Say What..."Have any laws been broken"? But that could've been asked in the case of women's circumstances in most times in the past. Probably no laws were broken but that didn't mean that the treatment was moral; legal, yes - moral, no.
CPB - What Western sexism? Are there any occupations closed to women? Any educational opportunites denied? Are not inheritance laws, credit laws and property rights equally vested for both men and women? In divorce law, women get custody of the children unless it can be proved that they are unfit (and the standards of "fitness" are low). So provide examples of sexism that compare- and not the Andrea Dworkin kind.
If you truly knew people who grew up in these ME countries, maybe you'd have a better understanding of what sexism really is.
Thank you for a touching, sympathetic peek behind the curtain of the lives of such women. Such is their religion and their culture.
The Religion of Peace is a gift to its practitioners and to all of mankind. The suppression of women is Islam's greatest gift to womanhood. Surf on over to YouTube and take a look at some of the videos posted by Imams and Pakistani and Bangladeshi Islamic scholars, many of them serving the growing Muslim population in Great Britain, including several who are obviously white converts to Islam, instructing fathers and husbands in the correct, Koranic way to beat their wives and daughters.
Don't you read the mainstream media? Get with the program. White is black, black is white, war is peace, and peace is war. Didn't some guy named Orwell write that somewhere?
Popular Western derailing tactics include ignoring any sexism inherent in the West and focusing on demonizing the Middle East. It has the added benefit of inflating the Western Male ego and desire to feel superior to all other cultures. If you have to shift the focus onto what you consider the deepest, darkest places on Earth, then what does that say about Western treatment of women? Americans sidestepping the issues while simultaneously feigning ignorance about the plight of their female citizens is pretty dehumanizing, no? Not to mention the fact that you unfairly *assume* Western feminists do not acknowledge Middle Eastern women's struggles. That's a pretty strong confirmation bias you've got. How convenient....
NOTHING better illustrates the hypcorisy of the left, especially the feminist left, than this issue. Oh yes, people will refer to this person or that group to support the claim that there isn't silence, but really, how loud are the objections, how strident? Where are the boycotts, where is the front page editorials, where are the protests?
Don't see any of that do you?Especially in comparison to other movements, such as opposition to apratheid, opposition to the war in Iraq, and about a thousand other things I can name, that aren't half so heinous and don't address a fraction of the number of people.
It's all about hypocrisy, and the truth is that there are a number of reasons you don't hear more - for example:
First and foremost of course is the craven cowardice of the left, the reluctance to take any stand that could possibly result in real personal harm or risk, via a fatwa or something else. When it comes to taking a stand these people, who pat themselves on the back for taking "courageous" actions against "christian" values, are petrified at the thought of going against anyone who could possibly fight back. And they see the examples of taking a stand - in Denmark, in the Netherlands and elsewhere, the result of which is that the message has been recieved by these oh so hypocritical people, especially here in the states, with our Democratic media.
Another reason of course is this odd moral relevance of the left, that somehow if it isn't western then it must be good, and should be respected, even if the result is the systematic oppression of half the population. How twisted do you have to be to see the world in these terms?
Another reason of course, is the fact that there isn't any money in fighting for woman's rights in the muslim world - and the craven left doesn't fight anything unless someone is plying them with cash, and the big donors do not give to the cause when it comes to repression against women. As for why there isn't money, see above.
Last but not least (and there are probably another dozen reasons) somehow, those on the left view western countries as just as repressive as what's described in this article. When I get into discussion with the few people who I know who still cling to leftist views, what I hear is that the west doesn't treat women any better.
Hunh? On what planet do these people occupy that they can compare the modern condition of women in the west with places like Saudi Arabia? Yet somehow, in the narrow minds of those on the left there isn't any difference - to hear them talk about it BOTH societies repress women equally.
It's like you can't have a discussion with these people - in the same conversation, and I've mentioned this before, when talking about global warming, after mentioning that scientists had discovered warming on the Moon and Mars, I was told that humanity had somehow caused warming in outer space as well - this friom a pair of university educated professionals! How do you get through to people who believe in such nonsense??
It's like when you join the left you become a close minded, superstitous, hypocrite who sees the world fundamentally different from those who don't subscribe to their irrational philosophy. Not, of course that cowardice doesn't play a part as well - since most of all the reason the media stays away from this issue is fear.
Makes you wonder what would happen if the Catholic Church rediscovered its roots and got a spine.
Dalrymple has written about this at much greater length in essays such as "The Barbarians at the Gates of Paris" and "When Islam Breaks Down." Google for them.
Incidentally, as some of the comments here show, it's good to see that TD still has the right enemies.
The major reason for the silence is that indeed the feminists are more pro-Marx than pro-real women. After all, according to them, the West is this horrible force that has enslaved women and third world cultures. Probably why Ms. Magazine features such inhuman travesties such as Mormon Churches not allowing women to wear pants to Temples, but nary a mention of honor killings or FGM.
I assume many honestly believe if the West is destroyed, all of the evil of the world would vanish - we'd be holding hands and singing Kumbaya.
A response to Stella:
You "detect a proprietary character" to my comments. Why not just try reading what I actually said, instead of detecting things that are somehow supposed to be inserted between the lines? The content of the claims I am making is more obvious than any "proprietary character" in my remarks.
You haven't heard too many peeps from feminists--but then, you concede unfamiliarity with the feminists I cite. Isn't this like closing one's eyes and then complaining of the darkness? The existence of the feminists I mentioned is not exactly proprietary information. In one case, I supplied a link. It's public property. Take a look at it. In the other case, I supplied a name. Why not take a look at her work? In both cases, I'm alluding to a documentable track record that goes back decades. A few minutes with Google should suffice to find it, and its existence flouts Dalrymple's uninformed claims. One would expect a person writing on this topic to be acquainted with the subject matter before he starts criticizing people for moral lapses or omissions.
As for "impressions," "authority" and personal experience, how exactly do they supersede the empirical facts I've cited? As for "abuse," who has initiated it? Did I attack Dalrymple out of the blue, or did I respond to an attack of his on people who don't deserve it? My "impression" is that the answer is the latter.
You ever notice you don't hear too much from gays either.
I have long ago realized that "feminism" is a movement less interested in women's freedom and more interested in women's domination by neo-marxists. (note their non-outrage at the Clinton/Lewinsky affair) Rather than classical liberalism's authentic interest in political freedom, Marxist-Feminism has no interest in women who wish to remain heterosexual, in their lexicon only the lesbian is truly free. Hence the indifference to the Moslem women's plight.
Not all feminists are silent. The preeminent German feminist Alice Schwarzer, known for having founded the once-radical feminist magazine "Emma," has spoken and written much against Islam and particularly its treatment of women.
But it seems to me that this topic deserves an article of its own, one that differentiates a bit more. The way it comes off here, the swipe against feminists is just appended on to a story that stands on its own as interesting. If the young lady in question had shown an interest in western feminism, had asked for and been refused help by western feminists, etc. - then it would have been more germane to the piece.
If the British Muslims wanted to gain political traction they should file disparate impact lawsuits against western institutions.
"Being against the West, they can't be all bad, can they?? And being against the West makes them our comrades, doesn't it?? And what's really important here, a few muslim women, or bringing down the oppressive, patriarchal West?? How can we criticize those who are essentially our allies??? We can't be judgmental of them. Who are we to judge them??" Or so think the militant feminists...
UK feminists are complicit not silent. They will not challenge Muslims or any other non-European cultural practices in case they are called racist.
The result is complicity in barbarism. FGM, honour killings, gang-rape, forced marriage, 'grooming', kin marriage leading to high levels of disability and more. A lot more.
ban first cousin marriages
It's just sad that there is one rule for one and one rule for another in that household.
When people decide to live abroad they should try to adopt the culture and habits of the people of the country where they choose to live.
Why would devout Muslim Pakistanis choose to live in London when they could live amongst people who share their values?
Where are our feminists? Conflicted and remote.
One must compartmentalize when dealing with this religion/culture and it is difficult. As a Western woman this culture and religion are anathema to me. Plus it is so easy to generalize and lump all of these men together and hate them.
I think the attitude transfers over to the women
with the thinking that they as mothers must be doing something to turn out generation after generation of males like this.
Could this be why British/Indian) nurse Jacintha Saldanha committed suicide when the Australian DJ's rang the London hospital where Princess Kate was being treated for morning sickness? That she loved her job so much.
This is a very interesting article in the actual context of an Indian woman being abused in her passion for her job by a radiostation with the consequences we understand better if we know the antecedents of the persons and their environment.
I detect a somewhat proprietary character to Irfan Khawaja's objections to TD's writing on something which appears to IK to be less that fully informed trespass on or close to one of his areas of special knowledge.
Like TD I haven't heard too many peeps from those who have spent a good deal of time and effort campaigning for the equality of men and women, and fairly called feminists, in relation to the oppression suffered by quite a lot of women and girls from the sub-continent or families from the sub-continent.
Needless to say I am not well acquainted with the feminists and feminist utterances that IK cites. I share with TD the impression that the average concerned citizen who might make the time to do something about it, if only adding his/her signature to something or writing to an MP, has not been given the beating about the head on the plight of the truly oppressed that an earlier generation did about relatively trivial feminist matters such as those cited by TD which were perhaps more about enhancing the careers and earning power of educated middle class women than anything more general.
Most of what TD wrote was about something on which he could write with authority and from experience. And it is important. If he chooses to chide those still pursuing feminist causes for ineffectuality on something as important as he describes it hardly seems justification for IK's abuse.
TD,or Ed. or someone else who may know, please answer the obvious question of any reader who read this piece sympathetically. Why did a report have to be prepared on her?
They are only feminists on the outside, inside they are robots of the Left.
An expression of unbelievable ignorance, but exactly what one expects of Theodore Dalrymple. In fact, the feminists have been the loudest critics of Islamic fundamentalism (much louder than the conservatives) since the rise of the Taliban in the 1990s. Evidently Dalrymple has forgotten, or never heard about, Mavis Leno's (et al's) campaign against the Taliban, or the Feminist Majority Foundation's Campaign to Stop Gender Apartheid. Old news at this point, no?
Actually, the academic feminist critique of multiculturalism is old news, too, dating back at least to the 1990s (ever heard of Susan Moller Okin?). But I'm assuming a minimal familiarity with the feminist literature, the supposed object of Dalrymple's critique. Evidently, familiarity with what he is writing about is too much to ask of Dalrymple, whether the topic under discussion is feminism, Islam, Ayn Rand, or John Stuart Mill. He brings the same inimitable combination of bluster and ignorance to virtually every topic he discusses. At least one can't fault him for playing favorites. He doesn't know enough to have any.
I'm failing to see your point here. Feminists fight for the rights of all women. Are you seriously suggesting they single out ethnic and religious groups for special scrutiny? The woman you write of is oppressed, yes, but have UK laws been broken in terms of her treatment?
You also write of further wishing to capitalize on her oppression if you were an employer.
Are you sure you're not just looking for a reason here to complain about feminists?
Have you never heard of Ayaan Hirsi Ali?
We are out there and outspoken. However, to claim you are a feminist invokes very negative and defensive reactions. Women publishing feminists blogs are subjected to vile online comments and campaigns with threats of rape and death. Even very educated people, men and women, react uncomfortably to the issue. Female led programmes, such as the UK Loose Women, even ask questions such as "Do we still need feminism". The backlash against feminism is very evident and strong with issues such as equal pay actually sliding backwards in some cases. In issues such as those addressing ethnic minorities anyone standing against sexism is often attacked with accusations of racism and a lack of cultural understanding. That said, despite these difficulties, there are many outspoken women, organisations and blogs and it is concerning that the writer of this article thinks that women are silent. Look at Half the Sky movement, the UK Fawcett society and brave women such as those behind the women driving campaign http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18422642 . The problem is not that feminists are silent, I would really urge the author to do some research, it is that people really don't want to listen.
Hopefully it's not just because she is NOT white.
Kind of a silly title. Feminism just means believing in equality between men and women. Anyone with half a brain would identify as a feminist. The title should be something like "silence of the otherwise ethical"