>Not sure what you mean by feminism as the ‘ism’

I think you’re outlining the difference quite well yourself. The one end of the spectrum is “feminism ” as womens rights as human rights. The other end is a theory that is based on assumptions about human agents that are, well, problematic, to say the least. Abstraction from “common gender biases” sounds great as a slogan, but as it’s impossible - to the very least in the same way the veil of ignorance can only a theoretical device - all that is left is a theoretical construct of some “orginal cultural sin” that is, even when accepting it, disconnected from its possible biological roots.

I’m sorry to hear that you can’t dance… if that should be so. And no, my first thought would not be your gene pool as an explanation for that lack of skill. I am not that much of a dancer myself, and even though I suppose I would like to blame it on ms skin colour, I doubt anyone would buy that.
But you know, not all differences are alike, and that was precisely my point. Maybe an arythmic culture is the main, or predominant reason for our common lack of dancing skills. But can the same be assumed for *all* differences between men and women? Maybe what we’d need to do should we continue this discussion is clarify what exactly we refer to by differences. But personally, I find evolutionary psychology to have more explanatory power when it comes to a lot of differences. Differences that are, I agree, often amplified, distorted and exaggerated by often dysfunctional culture. But their root cause is, I would say, a simple inequilibrium: the simple fact that egg cells (female reproduction) is a much scarcer resource than sperms and thus that evolution is working through female choices (in the human case at least).

I suppose I am a feminist in the humanist, human rights sense, but certainly not in theoretical one.

Anyway, being a white male, I’m a bit of a burnt child in this respect, as I was exposed to a feminist discoursive environment in my LSE flat without any kind of cultural preparation though my prior MBA programme ;). So there’s a chance I may still jump the gun… but I do enjoy discussions of this topic.

Also, Andrea Dworkin is indeed strong meat, and as such has often been held responsible for things she never actually said, like ‘all sex is rape’ and other things. (This is not an accusation, but yet another attempt to clear up the all-too-common strawfeminist stuff that’s in circulation)

But what I really don’t understand is how you dismiss out of hand the suggestion that all gender differences are cultural. (Obviously we are both eliding differential roles in reproductive capacity as a given; and something that feminists try to compensate for as Colin outlines in his 2nd charactersiation.) I hope you would have no problem accepting that racial difference is entirely cultural, depsite physical differences such as size, colour, features. It’s not because my skin is white that I can’t dance… Neither is a position that physical differences do not create psychological differences anathema to humanism as you seem to suggest; quite the contrary, as humanism affirms the dignity and worth of all people.

And thirdly, group rights versus individual rights is the line all political groups face. But it’s a real chicken and egg, because the group rights of women is just a multiplication of the individual rights of a woman. So what’s your problem? We have all sorts of special interest groups, religious and political, all clamouring for influence. To me, the most important part AHA’s mission was attacking the ‘group’ rights of men who beat and murdered women, and who found their justification in the name of Islam. Does this stance make her an individualist, or one who stands for the group rights of women? Does it even matter when she’s saying things that need to be said?

I agree that it’s off-topic but still very interesting subject.

As I understand it, Colin is right in a colloquial sense that its possible to be humanist and feminist at the same time. However, feminism as the “ism” does, as I believe, is still largely hijacking gender theory and to a significant extent still advocates the idea that all gender differences are cultural, not biological.

Sure, it’s come a long way since Andrea Dworkin, and a lot of third generation feminists are fighting against radical feminist ideologues themselves.

But still, it remains a contentious issue advocating group rights against individual rights. At that point it becomes more difficult to be a feminist and a humanist at the same time.

I’m getting off-topic, and I apologise, but the ‘all sex is rape’ anti-feminist meme is evil and must be destroyed.

One is ‘gender equality as advocated by women’. This is only really ‘feminist’ in that in most societies, women were regarded as more disadvantaged than men by advocates of greater equality. Unfortunately there isn’t a good gender-symmetric word for advocates of gender equality, so even men will sometimes call themselves ‘feminist’ to express support for equality. Sometimes this takes a very abstract form, where it is a balance of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ perspectives on the world that is sought, not just equality of individual men and women.

Another is a kind of bundle of issues that disproportionately affect women, from domestic violence to childcare provision. Male counterparts do exist, for example ‘Fathers 4 Justice’, but are generally much more marginal. This kind of advocacy has become institutionalised in some Western countries with ‘Women’s Officers’ et cetera in businesses, colleges and governments.

Then there are forms of female supremacism, which hold that men are inherently evil/stupid and must be kept under control by women, and favour special privileges for women to counterbalance a supposedly male supremacist society. Unlike its male counterpart, this exists more as a straw man than a real ideology, and few feminist groups openly advocate it, but when radicals make pronouncements like ‘all sex is rape’, you have to wonder what role men would have in their ideal society. The most radical feminist political party I’ve heard of of any size is the Swedish Feminist Initiative, which believes that Sweden is controlled by the ‘Gender Power Hierarchy’ and calls for action to reduce men’s status in society.

Without knowing more, I suspect Ali supports some combination of the first two. It is perfectly possible to be a feminist and a humanist.

Francesucks: Ali won a feminist award for her contributions to Dutch feminism and was moved to tears to receive it. Indeed, I am really curious to see how her feminist, pro-gay, anti-clerical radicalism will go down with US conservatives. (I myself think that AHA’s melange of views is somehow quite Dutch, she’s taking arguments 1970’s left-wing activists used against Christian conservatism and applying them with equal ruthlessness to Islam)

To many commenters: why o why does an overly restrictive immigration and asylum policy have *anything* at all to do with free speech?

To The Economist: There are villages in the NL which lack a culture of free personal behaviour, but does, say, Amsterdam lack such a culture? Why?

To any sociologist reading this: Do any of the pop-sociological prejudices about “European culture” mentioned in this thread make any sense? Can the level of conformism in the US be compared to that in NL? What’s the result?

Ciao,

True, Malvo was a Muslim, but I haven’t read or seen anything to indicate that he is a practicing Muslim. Nor did he carry out the snipings in the name of jihad. As his co-killer testified earlier this week, he did it because he was a nihilist, with infantile dreams of the killings making him infamous.

The veracity of free speech is defined by law. It seems to me that the laws regarding free speech in America are undeniably superior with regards to Europe with regards to what you can say.

I think some things in the US are protected as free speech in the US that are not considered free speech in Europe, say monetary campaign contributions. That’s a consequence of legal traditions, I’d suggest. But the legal element is, as the Economist rightly points out, only the formal institution. Formally, I would suggest, that free speech regulations are generally equal, although Reporters without borders’ Press Freedom Index (a different, albeit related concept) is more concerned with the US than Europe having only European countries on #1 and the US at #44 (http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=554).

I’d suppose a consequence of the dismal recent corporate media performance in the US, and as such not in itself indicative of any lack of “free speech” throughout the society. However, it does show that simple mental concepts about the US as the “land of the free” that is welcoming immigrants and happily allowing any radical point of view, and Europe as a place that is lacking “a culture of free speech” because it’s ethnically more homogeneneous societies do not allow differing views, is overly simplified.

“Doesn’t Germany outlaw the idea that the Holocaust is fiction?

It does indeed, and there are, I would argue sufficient historical reasons for doing so. However, you are right to point out that this exception to the rule is a weakness, not a strength.

Because you ‘fervently’ discuss something in no way means that your culture of ideas is robust. It’s what’s allowed into the discussion that counts. It seems to me that Europe is sorely lacking in this regard.

No, it’s not just the amplitude of arguments that determine that quality of a debate. Let’s take the intelligent design debate as an example - there are advocats, even vocal and powerful alleged advocats of intelligent design - the state premier of Thuringia, for example (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieter_Althaus). It’s not that their views are in some way restricted by anything than public interest in what they have to say.

Hektor,

Many European countries are more strongly conformist than the US, and this does impact the level of free speech.

I doubt that the latter is the case, even though I think it’s still possible to argue the former.

For me, the scary thing was when Ali’s neighbors sued for her to leave because they considered her a security threat.

I agree. Although I don’t know exactly what made the court agree with them. It seems strange.