Femagination » Religion

Phyllis Chesler, Feminist and Islamophobe?

Ellen Keim — Thu, 27 May 2010 04:34:37 +0000

Phyllis Chesler

I hate sentences that start with “most” and end with some ridiculous pronouncement about what “most” are doing. Phyllis Chesler appears to be a prime offender, judging by her article on Muslim women and the veil. She writes: “Most Muslim girls and women are not given a choice about wearing the chador, burqa, abaya, niqab, jilbab, or hijab (headscarf), and those who resist are beaten, threatened with death, arrested, caned or lashed, jailed, or honor murdered by their own families.” She also writes that “Most Muslim girls and women are impoverished and wear rags.”

These statements are typical of a person who cares more about justifying her own prejudice than in adding something constructive to the debate. Not only that, but they’re just plain ignorant. Chesler cites examples coming out of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan as being typical of the entire Muslim world. She also equates Muslims with Arabs, when in fact this only applies to 20% of all Muslims.

I especially love this statement of Chesler’s: “It is well known that the Arabs and Muslims kept and still keep sex slaves–they are very involved in the global trafficking in girls and women and frequent prostitutes on every continent.” Where does she get her ideas??

But of course Chesler doesn’t care about being objective—or even factual; she has a career to think of. Dr. Chesler (she has a Ph.D in psychology) is primarily a writer and is the author of thirteen books and numerous articles. (Check out her web site for examples of her writing.) She is also a psychotherapist and an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies at the City University of New York (CUNY). By her own account, she was “held captive” in Afghanistan when she went to visit her then-husband’s family, an experience that she says made her an ardent feminist. It also appears to have made her into a rabid Islamophobe.

In a 2003 review of one of her books, Publishers Weekly concluded that “Chesler’s tone and lack of intellectual rigor will not help her ideas to be heard by those who do not already agree with her.” (Source: Wikipedia.) From the samples of her writings, particularly those about Islam and anti-Semitism, I concur.

But what about Chesler’s feminism? Is she really a feminist or a neo-con masquerading as one?

From what I can gather, Chesler is the kind of feminist who blames the victim. One of her books, Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman, more or less says that women are just naturally competitive with other women, resulting in back-stabbing and general meanness. There is no recognition that women are socialized to be competitive by a patriarchal society that encourages them to stake their identities on the men they can “catch.” (Full disclosure: I haven’t read the book, just this USA Today interview with Chesler about it, so I realize I may be misrepresenting her views.)

Yes, I know I’m dangerously close to saying that there is only one way to be a feminist or that there is a set platform all feminists have to espouse (pro-abortion, anti-pornography, pro-gay rights, etc.). Although, like all people, I am more comfortable with people who have the same views I do, I recognize that we all have our own versions of feminism, just as we all have our own versions of religion. Dor instance, Sarah Palin calls herself a pro-life feminist. Some feminists are supportive of pornography and sex work. Many women who hold feminist views don’t identify with the feminist movement because they feel that it is too upper-class and white.

Me? I’m just a feminist who believes that feminism is—or should be—incompatible with any kind of racism, prejudice or hatred. For this reason alone, I find it hard to believe that Chesler is a true feminist.

The Nature of God

Ellen Keim — Mon, 24 May 2010 17:03:03 +0000

“A God who is beyond sex/gender has no investment in favoring males or oppressing women.” So wrote Asma Barlas in her article “Islam and Feminism.” Barlas states at the beginning of the article that she doesn’t like to call herself a feminist and yet she made an observation that could revolutionize religion.

Some feminists, especially in the ’70s, were fond of speculating what religion would be like if God was actually a woman. I always thought that exercise was silly, but I couldn’t put my finger on why I felt that way. Now I know: it’s because God is neither male nor female.

It’s unfortunate that we use the masculine pronoun whenever we refer to God (I do) because that only perpetuates the idea that God is male in character. Some people may honestly believe that He is. Others may honestly believe that She is female. But if you think about it, it’s clear that God is infinitely bigger than any box we can put Him into. We can speculate all we want—He is neither male nor female. He is male and female. He is androgynous. But it only makes sense that He is, as Barlas writes, beyond sex or gender. He simply is.

It seems to me that if we kept that observation uppermost in our minds we could eradicate much of the sexism that exists in most religions. Of course men like to think of God as a male because that makes it seem like God sides with men. Men also strenuously object to the idea that God could be a woman, because they’re afraid that women would then start to claim the upper hand (as men have). But what if God sees us each as persons who only incidentally are male and female (because of the mechanics or reproduction)? What if He doesn’t favor men over women or the opposite? What would our church fathers (and I use that term to refer to all religions) do with that?

You may be thinking, well, what about the holy scriptures (again, I use this for all religions) that appear to set the stage for the supremacy of men? I would argue that a closer and more objective reading of these scriptures would reveal that they do no such thing. In all ages and in most religions, men have interpreted God’s words to give themselves the advantage. When women have been able to do the interpreting, we see a quite different view of gender. None of us can help injecting our own viewpoints into the way that we read God’s words.

Christianity is a prime example of this. Not one book of the (accepted) Bible was written by a woman. None of the apostles were women. (Why wasn’t Mary of Magdalene considered to be an apostle?) Jesus of course was a man and he didn’t even marry. Why did God send a Son and not a Daughter? (Why did God become a man when He Himself has no gender?) The people who decided which books were in the Bible and who developed the doctrine of the Triune God were all men. Is this just an accident? Or was Christianity shaped to fit the viewpoints of the men who set themselves up as experts?

Or take Islam. The Qur’an doesn’t say that women have to stay in the house, that they don’t belong in the mosques, that they can’t go anywhere without their husbands’ permission, that they must cover their faces, that they can’t go to school, and yet over the years scholars who were men added these restrictions based on the way they wanted society to be structured. Their reasons were political not spiritual. They saw society as a patriarchal system and they sought to keep it that way.

I’m not a religious scholar. I was a minister’s wife for ten years and taught my share of Bible studies. (I also read a lot of my husband’s texts when he went through seminary.) I’m only just beginning to read the Qur’an. And I am a feminist, so of course I’m going to take issue with the idea that men should be the ones who interpret the way we see God. But if I believe that God is bigger than male and female, that He has a vested interest in seeing that all people become faithful to His will and bow to His majesty, then I can’t help but ask these questions.

The Deceitfulness of Crisis Pregnancy Centers

Ellen Keim — Mon, 17 May 2010 10:00:28 +0000

Art by Ryan Inzana

Pro-lifers pride themselves on having the moral upper hand in the abortion debate, because, after all, they’re for preserving human life, not destroying it. However that doesn’t mean that they are above a little deceit and coercion. Take crisis pregnancy centers, or CPCs. These faith-based organizations lure women into their centers with the promise that they will help them to resolve their pregnancy “issues.” But all they really do is steer these women away from getting abortions. They pretend that they are giving women “accurate information about abortion” when all they really do is lecture them about the “physical, emotional and spiritual consequences.” (Taken from the web site of Pregnancy Decision Health Centers.)

I’m not saying that any center, faith-based or not, should push a woman toward abortion. But in the interest of helping her to make the best decision for her, a crisis pregnancy center should supply objective, accurate and judgment-free information about all her options: 1) abortion, 2) giving birth and keeping the baby, and 3) having the baby in order to give it up for adoption.

Notice my wording: “in order to give the baby up for adoption.” It seems it is not enough for some of these centers to get the woman to “choose life.” They are often heavily invested in providing babies for the purposes of adoption. Demand has begun to affect the supply and there aren’t enough newborn, healthy (and usually white) babies to go around. So they pressure pregnant women to help to increase the supply. That way they can kill two birds with one stone: avoid abortion and procure babies for adoption.

These centers use various techniques to talk women into giving their babies up. They tell them that if they choose to keep their babies they’re being immature and selfish. They paint worst-case scenarios about single mothers: poverty, homelessness, despair. And the one I really like: they tell them that giving their babies up is one way to right the wrong they committed by becoming pregnant out of wedlock in the first place.

Many of these organizations provide room and board and pay medical expenses for a “birth mother.” And then, if she changes her mind about giving her baby up for adoption, they tell her that she has to pay them back for the support they gave her while she was pregnant.

They also may purposefully misrepresent the terms of the adoption: They tell the new mother that she has to make up her mind right away, when in reality she might have months to make her final decision. They assure her that the adoption is open (meaning that she will know the adoptive parents and will be provided information about her child as he or she grows up), when the truth is that the adoptive parents are going to spirit her baby away and she will never know what became of him or her.

I’m not saying that adoption is never a good option or that abortion always is. I’m not even saying that women shouldn’t be made aware of all the consequences of their actions: bad and good. But don’t pretend that you’re going to help the woman make an informed decision when you really have your own agenda. Don’t use tactics like shaming to get a desired result. And don’t advertise your services as all-inclusive when in fact you never intended to help a woman to get an abortion or to keep her baby.

Check out this excellent article from The Nation: “Shotgun Adoption” by Kathryn Joyce, author of Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement.

To sign a petition about truth-in-advertising for crisis pregnancy centers, go here.

“The Hijabi Monologues” Are Almost Here!

Ellen Keim — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 23:42:06 +0000

“The Hijabi Monologues” will be performed at Ohio State University on April 30th and May 1st, 2010.

This really is a unique opportunity. We will have performers coming from New York and Canada!

The Hijabi Monologues have been performed throughout the US (Yale University, all over California, South Florida, DC, New York and even Egypt)! This isn’t only a performance, but a movement.

Also, please reserve through Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=110201418#!/event.php?eid=112341082112135&ref=ts

For more information, refer to my earlier post about the tryouts.

The QuiverFull Movement: Family Non-Planning

Ellen Keim — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 00:11:34 +0000

You would have to be on a desert island to not know about the Duggar family who have been showcased on The Learning Channel (TLC). Jim Bob and Michelle have more than replaced themselves in this crowded world by adding 19 children to it. Of course, in some parts of the world, 19 isn’t unheard of. (And get this, the record number of children born to one woman is 69!*) But it’s rarity for the U.S.

What makes the Duggars particularly noteworthy is the reason they have so many children: They belong to the QuiverFull movement, which believes that it is God’s will for a woman to have as many children as she is able to. Contraception, even natural family planning, is a sin. (There’s also a group called Blessed Arrows which is for those who have been sterilized where they can “make amends for their sin” by getting reversals.)

Devotees of the QuiverFull movement teach that children are a blessing from God and that attempting to avoid a pregnancy is a subversion of God’s will. Everything is in God’s hands: the health of the mother or baby, the emotional and financial resources necessary to support another child, and the “so-called” problems of over-population and over-consumption. Obviously, they are against abortion, which puts them at odds with most feminists. That’s not the only thing that alarms feminists, however. They also preach that the man is the head of the household and the wife is to be submissive to him in all things. They blame all the ills of society on women wanting their own way, especially over their own bodies, which are meant to be a “living sacrifice” to God.

I thought four children were plenty. I can’t imagine how I would have managed with more. (I barely managed with four.) The problem with the QuiverFull ideology is a corollary of what it teaches: if you do not trust God for everything, you’re not much of a believer. You may not even be a “true” Christian. I see nothing wrong with seeing children as a blessing from God. But don’t ask me to prove that I’m a Christian by laying my health and the well-being of my family at the altar of complete submission. I believe that God means for us to use the reasoning powers He gave us to make decisions in our lives.

Needless to say, there are critics. One of the most enlightening is Vyckie Garrison of the web site No Longer Qivering (“There is no ‘you’ in quivering”). Vyckie, who has seven children but is no longer a part of the QuiverFull movement, is now working on a book, but don’t wait for it: check out her site now. She has plenty to say about “those who ruthlessly engender fear and dissatisfaction so they can offer their products as the remedy for the very malady which they themselves created.” QuiverFull adherents don’t usually go so far as to say that you’ll go to Hell if you practice birth control, but they certainly cause spiritual angst among their would-be followers. As Garrison puts it: “With promises of protection, security and ultimate victory, peddlers of ‘family values’ manufactured a culture war, and capitalized on our fears.”

If you read “Ten Great Reasons to Have Another Child” from the QuiverFull web site, you’ll get an idea of the mentality that fuels the QuiverFull movement. I had to scratch my head over #4: Have another child to help end abortion. The reasoning? “The more children there are in society, the more pro-life that society will become, and the easier it will be for the great evil of abortion to be eradicated once and for all. ” Right.

I agree that our society needs to become more child-friendly, but I don’t agree that having more children will make it so. And I don’t disagree with the notion that life is sacred. But doesn’t that mean that we should weigh the bringing of new life into the world carefully and not over-do it just for the sake of a short-sighted policy that says that having more children will solve all of society’s ills?

Women are dying around the world because of unrestricted child-bearing. And their babies often die, too. Wouldn’t controlling ourselves, moderation and careful family planning do more to protect those lives than forcing women’s bodies to go to the limit just for the sake of procreation?

Muslim Women: Ambassadors For Islam (For Better or Worse)

Ellen Keim — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:00:41 +0000

I was asked yesterday what subject really needs to be addressed when it comes to Muslim women in North America. I’d like to say that the most important issue is how to communicate our faith. Or inspire respect. Or dispel negative stereotypes. What I did say was something that ties into all three: the way that a Muslim woman dresses.

That seems superficial in the broad scheme of things. But the reality is, it’s a huge problem for Muslims. Not that all Muslim women dress “Islamically.” But for women who do “cover,” even walking down the street can be a challenge.

First I should explain what I mean by dressing Islamically and covering. There are a lot of opinions about what exactly a Muslim woman should wear but the general consensus is that she should be modest. That means no midriff-baring tops and jeans, no miniskirts, low necklines or skin-tight clothes. The most traditional Muslim believes that everything should be covered but the hands and feet. Some even interpret that to mean that the entire face should be covered as well, but they are definitely in the minority.

Women who do “cover,” especially those who wear the headscarf (hijab), are in the unique position of being immediately identifiable as Muslim. And therein lies the problem—and the opportunity (which I’ll explain in a minute). Unfortunately, the Muslim woman who covers has become an icon for all things negative about Islam. Whenever there is a news story about Islam, if it’s not illustrated by angry men protesting somewhere, it will be illustrated by a woman wearing an abaya (the usually black garment that covers from head to toe). The most sinister image that the media utilizes when reporting on Islam is that of a fully covered woman who is wearing the face veil as well.*

Some Muslims feel that covering creates a barrier to communication, because non-Muslims can’t get past the clothing. (See my post from February for a video of three Muslim women talking about “covering.”) But the opposite can also be true. In a way, Muslim women are catalysts because they can cause communication to take place. For those who are not too shy to ask about it, the way a Muslim woman dresses can become a topic of conversation, which can then lead to a discussion about her faith. If she doesn’t dress Islamically, how is anyone supposed to know that she’s a Muslim?

A Muslim woman who covers is an ambassador of sorts for Islam. Her religion will be judged by the way that she acts. This is another opportunity for her to communicate her faith, inspire respect and dispel negative stereotypes. That’s the way that it worked for me when I was first getting to know about Islam. At first I was put off by the way the women dressed, in particular by the headscarves. (See my post on the headscarf that was written before my conversion.) But the more I got to know the women, the less uncomfortable I felt. Their example had a lot to do with my developing interest in Islam.

I won’t lie to you: even I am put off by the image of the Muslim woman in the black abaya and the face veil. But then, I don’t know anyone personally who dresses that way. I suspect that my eventual reaction would be much as it has been with the headscarf: I would get used to it and be able to “see” the women beneath. It’s not a bad thing to have to look past the way a person dresses. We could use a lot more of that in the non-Muslim world as well.

*When the Swiss were voting on a minaret ban in their country, the campaign supporting the ban used this poster: (Notice how the minarets look like missiles.)

Thursday Thoughts: Women In the Mosque

Ellen Keim — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:45:18 +0000

Last Thursday I wrote a post called “Muslim Feminism: Women at Prayer.” It was about a group of Muslim women who dared to pray in the men’s section (which is really the main hall of the mosque and should be open to every Muslim) as a sort of protest. Today I found an insightful article on altmuslimah which gives more background on the “pray-in.” I’ve recently had the privilege of getting to know Fatima Thompson, one of the women who participated in and who is interviewed about the protest. She is quoted as saying:

“The Greensboro Four broke established, non-constitutional, yet explicit rules to break down the barrier of the implicit idea that blacks weren’t as privileged as whites…. and this is what we are doing with women’s rights in the mosque,” Thompson explained. “It’s implicit in the space available to women that they aren’t deserving of the same privileges as men in the mosque. It’s in the mindset.”

She added: ”Women need to be communicated with when designing mosques. Women are clearly cut off from being part of that community when they are corralled into areas that cut them off from congregational prayer.”

In the first woman-designed mosque in the world (in Istanbul), women are still separated from the men on a balustrade above the main hall (which is still reserved for the men), but the leading architect, Zeynep Fadillioglu, vows to make their area every bit as beautiful as the men’s. Too often, the women’s section is a dingy, neglected room behind a partition from which the women can’t even see and often can’t hear what is going on in the main hall. So, although there is still a separate space for women, it is integrated more fully into the mosque’s design. (For pictures of and more information about this mosque, go here.)

I was talking to a Muslim man last night to whom I confessed that I’ve only been to a mosque twice. He teased me, “Once women find out that they are not obligated to go to the mosque for jumaa (Friday) prayer, they stop going at all.” I couldn’t help but think that it might be because they dislike the experience they have when they do go. If Muslim men truly cared about the spiritual lives of Muslim women, you would think that they would want to do anything possible to make their mosque experience as uplifting as it is for the men.

Insha’allah. (God willing.)

Read this article by the religion reporter for the Statesman, Joshunda Sanders, about her visit to a mosque.

Friday Videos: Is This Freedom?

Ellen Keim — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:11:22 +0000

Here is a Spanish short film by Xavi Sala about the discrimination young Muslim women face in a so-called “free” Europe where everything but religion is tolerated in the name of freedom.