Thoughts on Osama bin Laden’s extreme misogyny. Were female troops really the catalyst for 911? Those who have fought for coed armed services should ask themselves “Why do they hate us?”
9 thoughts on “Psychoanalyzing A Mass Murderer”
Comments are closed.
Very interesting.
I read an article a few months ago about how female troops were used on raids in both Iraq and Afghanistan because of their effectiveness in obtaining information from the locals. In addition to their being better suited to interview the women, there was this, as the author put it, ” In the macho Arab world, an assertive female with an assault rifle is sort of a man’s worst nightmare.” That would seem to support the idea that the presence of female soldiers in muslim countries could be part of “why they hate us.”
Yet I find “follow the burqa” to be a bit of a stretch. In fact it seems like the worst kind of oversimplification: any man that forces his wife to wear a burqa must be a terrorist. Really? That would seem to ignore the role of tradition in human behavior. Do we act as we do more out of deeply held beliefs or more out of habit? Is it conviction or conformity that drives this man or that to insist his wife wear a burqa? I don’t find this author’s broad-brush psychoanalysis very compelling.
There’s also an aspect of modernity chauvinism here. Consider comparing the mores of today with those of even our own the past. Should we condemn every man living in the US a century or two ago because they cooperated in what would be viewed by today’s standard as a deeply misogynist society?
And that’s the real friction here. Many parts of the world are living with traditions that have not changed much in centuries. To compare our conception of modernity to theirs is like stepping into a time machine. I’m not arguing for moral relativism here — I say their traditions be damned when it comes to human rights — but the fact that their societies have not evolved as quickly as ours does not make every man a terrorist, or even a bad husband for that matter, even if that behavior in our society would be intolerable. Just as we (some of us at least) don’t condemn the founding fathers for their practice of slavery even though we would find it intolerable today.
any man that forces his wife to wear a burqa must be a terrorist. Really?
If that’s what the article said, then sure, you’d be right to question it. But that’s not what they said. This is an example of what is called a straw man. Now, from your argument style, it sounds like you’re not familiar with what a straw man is. So let me quote from Wikipedia (the link above):
In this case, let’s look at what the author (Phyllis Chesler) of the article originally said:
Note the use of the phrase “might also be”. So there’s no implication that a man who forces his wives to wear burqas must be a terrorist. However in your reply, you claim otherwise. This is an example of a misrepresentation of an opponent’s argument and the first stage of the straw man fallacy. If Chesler had really claimed “must” instead of “might be”, then of course, your ire would be justified and the subsequent demolition justified. But since Chesler didn’t make such a claim, then your argument is misdirected and useless. Do you see that?
In any case, it is important to accurately represent another’s argument in order to avoid this sort of mistake. It also is a sign of respect and might result in you being respected somewhat more (don’t get your hopes up though). I hope this information helps you to be a better debater!
Karl: You make a good point. My formulation was stronger than the author’s, and I certainly didn’t intend and don’t want to be unfair to the author. So thanks for pointing that out.
But I’m puzzled by your characterization of it as a straw man argument. As the quote in your post clearly shows the author draws an implication between a woman wearing a burqa and some likelihood of her husband being a terrorist. The precise likelihood is not specified, but the very act of stating it, (twice in one paragraph) and indeed the context of the article imply that the likelihood is significant. It seems to me that all I really did was exaggerate the strength of that implication, in effect exchanging “must be” for “may be”, which is a error in degree but not, I think, in kind. Though I’m guessing you don’t agree with it, the basic argument still seems applicable to me.
And what of the many women who “voluntarily” wear the burqa? Stockholm syndrome? Or is it a similar reason to why women often support female circumcision?
I suspect guaranteeing education for women is critical in these areas – give them options. It could be interesting if the war in Afghanistan became a direct war for women’s rights – this might even be the key to peace (and international support). Give women the education, the personal power, the institutions, the financial support, the travel options, the fighting prowess, and see what happens.
Pete:
Western women also regularly allow themselves to be dominated by their men, submitting to (physically, sexually and emotionally) abusive relationships. I’m not an expert on this by any means, but I think that’s usually driven by the belief that they can’t do any better elsewhere – and so they use a number of psychological tricks to convince themselves that the situation is acceptable.
In Arab societies this passivity is heightened by (1) truth, Arab men are more likely to be equally bad, and (2) societal laws that return runaways to their husbands and families, often to be punished or killed. Empowering women to leave relationships and support themselves independently is usually the answer. That’s why clinics that serve as half-way houses for abused women are so important.
Of course you can over-do that too. Our society has lost sight of basic fairness (to men) and forgotten that men can be victims too in its quest to empower womankind. So there’s that to watch out for. But the goal of empowering women to be able to choose to not be in a relationship (or any relationship) remains a good one. That’s why the un-shrouded faces of female Kuwaitis in power is such a threat to the Islamic fundamentalists.
Notanexpert, I think that’s more reasonable a stance. It’s worth noting that we have something of a one-way correlation between people who commit suicidal bombings in the Middle East and extreme misogyny. But what does that really tell us about terrorism in that part of the world and how to fix it? Perhaps if we do as Brock suggests, that is, if we give women more freedom without unduly penalizing men, that will have the side effect of reducing misogyny and subsequently terrorism.
There are historical incidents of terrorism in the past, they just didn’t have bombs back them to strap to retarded kids. But they did go on suicide raids and fight powers that outmatched them militarily. Examples in our own history include the American Indians and Confederate Soldiers who could not accept Union supremacy.
The common thread is that the terrorist is (1) a member of a culture that is going extinct, and (2) militarily weak. It just so happens in this century that the culture most up for extinction is the traditional Arab culture of fundamentalist religion and misogynistic patriarchy.
There are two strategies for “fighting” terrorism then. Neither involve “making friends”, because ultimately this is a fight for survival. Our ways of life have come into contact, and thanks to the Internet there’s no way to build a buffer between them. Either the Western Liberal way has to go or they do.
Strategy #1 is to make your own culture seem like less of a threat to the endangered culture. Make your females wear head scarves when visible to Arab women and keep female soldiers out of the country. Don’t push for female rights. Etc. If you look less threatening then they won’t be so enraged as to attack you. Let their apathy work in your favor.
But that doesn’t work too well, because of modern technology – they buy our DVDs, watch our television shows, and surf our porn sites; plus there’s no avoiding seeing Pelosi and Merkel even in their own newspapers. Even if we pulled out of the Middle East our just existing would threaten them, as their women and second-tier males see an alternative lifestyle, and our trying to appear less threatening has the effect of dragging out the process of their cultural death.
Strategy #2 is to hasten their cultural death. Get the “losers” in Arab culture (women and single men who could afford a wife but cannot compete with Arab Sheik’s harem budget) to buy into a reformed Islam like they’ve got in Lebanon and Albania. Flaunt your strong women. Fund radio and television programs talking about how good the Muslims in Israel and America have got it. Etc. There will be turbulence in those countries, and some of it will get exported, but if we can create enough champions for a more liberal Islam within those countries they will absorb most of the casualties in their fight for independence while killing off the guys who refuse to join the 21st Century. They’ll de-Nazify themselves.
How does Mr. Kaddafi’s “honor guard” fit into all of this? I understand they where head covering in the form of natty berets or military-style hats, but even with that, his “bodyguard babes” looke quite Western.