| What
follows is a series of essays in response to the ideas of
the first piece. The selections range from thoughtful to
stilted academic. A few reveal an intellectual maneuvering
apparently designed to avoid the topic at hand — women's
continuing oppression. Some Islamic writers seem content to
dump Moslem misogyny at the feet of “culture,” as if
that were an acceptable excuse for a major religion
sanctioning practices like mutilation, slavery and murder.
(But there was no Islamic hue and cry against the
“fatwah” murder edict toward Salman Rushdie, one should
recall.) A Jewish man goes to embarrassing length to discuss
male circumcision — where is Dr. Freud when you need him?!
The
Nation columnist Katha Pollitt remarks in her opening
that, “coming in late to this debate,” she had a “hard
time understanding how anyone could find these arguments
controversial.” She further declares that the very nature
of feminism challenges traditional culture.
Of
course, no one questions the underlying concept around the
sort of “diversity” currently being imported through
Washington's absurd preference for cultures vastly different
from our own. Would it be shocking to suggest that some
cultures are a better fit than others? Would you be happy
living in a village in Pakistan? How about relocating to
Khartoum? Probably not, but Washington creates the parallel
situation through its emphasis on “diversity” in
immigration categories. The State Department invites
thousands annually from cultures as foreign as these to
enter our society as if it were the most natural thing in
the world. It is profoundly unnatural, and only arrogant
American exceptionalism continues this damaging program.
—
by Brenda Walker
Other
books you might enjoy!
|
