Feminism and Multculturalism

 “One can be  a feminist, or one can be a multiculturalist, but on cannot be both.”

-attributed in various forms to various people

 

The recent disaster in Afghanistan might have gotten people thinking about validity of the above quote. It is not literally true. People can and do hold all sorts of contradictory notions simultaneously. What is actually meant is that one cannot consistently be both a feminist and a multiculturalist, and that is true. The term “feminist” is used in a number of ways including simply denoting any woman who votes with the Democrats.  However the relevant meaning in this  context is a person who believes that each woman has an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and should have the same legal rights and political authority as men. “Multiculturalist” also is used in various ways, even sometimes meaning only a preson favoring the uncontroversial idea that people should learn the characteristics of different cultures and appreciate the accomplishments of people in them. However the relevant meaning is one who rejects the notion of universally valid principles and norms and believes that people’s actions and ideas should be judged and considered only in terms of their culture’s accepted practices and beliefs, with one culture’s notions of what is right or morally desirable  no more valid than another’s. 

 A consistent feminist would say that the treatment women will be getting and the conditions they will be facing in Afghanistan under the Taliban are wrong, while a conistent multiculturalist would say that they are manifestations of traditional Islamic culture in that country and that condemnation of the Taliban for them is wrong (and probably racist to boot, these days). I and I think most libertarians and liberals and a good many conservatives side with the feminists. A person in Afghanistan or North Korea or China has the same rights as one in Zurich or Kansas City, and seriously violating them is a crime wherever it happens and whoever does it. I think many or most leftists agree with the multiculturalists. They have an incentive. Doing so provides an easy way to avoid criticizing the savagery  of communist states past and present (and some non-communist savages who hate America as much as they do) while being outraged and every real or imagined fault of the United States past or present

Bad Behavior and Explanations

The news lately has been full of stories of  famous or at least well known men having behaved badly sexually toward women (and sometimes boys or other men)  by  actions including vulgar and unwanted solicitations, insulting inducement, harassment, intimidation, bullying, or even assault or rape.

Some religious and social conservatives have blamed this on people’s abandoning traditional notions of proper sexual behavior  - such as the disapproval of sexual activity before or outside of marriage, the condemnation of homosexuality as sinful, the particular importance of female virginity at the time of marriage, and the general view of sexual interest and behavior  as part of humanity’s lower nature  -   starting with the so-called sexual revolution of the 1960s and getting worse ever since.  To them there is a natural progression from  more liberal attitudes on sexuality   to Weinstein, Spacey, and Lauer.  Yet there is no necessary or observable connection.  It is quite possible to think that people do not need the approval of the government or a church for their sexual activities, that homosexuals are not sinners, that  virginity up to marriage is not important, and that sex is a fine thing and still disapprove of and refrain from coercing or harassing  anyone sexually. Many people do  so, while many people with strict traditional beliefs are guilty of these things.  The argument seems to say more about a historical thread of hostility to sexuality in Christianity than about anything really occurring. It calls to mind both Mencken’s definition of a puritan and the old quote about a person having been taught  that sex is the most bestial and degrading of human activities, and one must save it for one the person he loves most in the world.

Some leftist feminists have put the blame on masculinity – not some  men’s hubris, indecency, or lack of honor, but on masculinity itself. This makes even less sense than what the social conservatives are saying. There are plenty of strong, masculine men  who restrict their romantic attentions and activities to women who are receptive to them, do not assume all women fall into that category, and behave as gentlemen.  There are plenty of wimps who are harassers or worse.  (It is fair to note that it is likely  neither Al Franken nor Kevin Spacey nor Matt Lauer, to cite some prominent examples, would be seen by most people as an exemplar of masculinity.)  This argument seems to say more about a thread of neurotic man hating in leftist feminism than about anything really occurring.  It also serves to support the viewpoint of some rude stereotypes and crude jokes about leftist feminists. 

There are, however, some simple and obvious observations to help explain what has gone on.   Successful phonies are good at fooling people and often can do so for a long time. Unethical people will tend to do what they think they can get away with.  When they get  some power and authority, they will tend to think they can get away with a good deal.  Fame  does not make trash any less trashy or scum any less scummy.  People sometimes tolerate more than they should from people they fear or think can be of benefit to them. That covers a lot of it.