Why Aren’t Feminists In The U.S. Supporting The Cause Of Iranian Women In The Current Protests?

Excellent question, don’t you think?

Writes Sarah Rumpf, at the conservative blog Red State,

“Liberal feminist groups in America have been busy this year, knitting pink hats with cat ears, organizing marches, dressing up like characters from The Handmaid’s Tale, and tweeting their #Resistance panic that the Trump administration will soon chain all of us ladies in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, where we’ll be forced to make sandwiches and watch Archie Bunker…you’d think that a story about women who are actually facing systemic gender-based oppression would be an obvious rallying cry.


Conservative author Christina Sommers tweeted,

“Women in Iran are valiantly protesting genuine oppression. So far the silence of major feminist groups in USA is deafening. Where are you @NationalNOW, @AAUW @nwlc @MomsRising?

Where indeed. Nor have Hollywood celebrity feminists like Madonna, Meryl Streep, Ashley Judd, Lena Dunham, Alyssa Milano, et al. mentioned the Iranian protests. The Democratic party feminists among their elected officials have similarly been silent. Why? From an ethics perspective, it seems like a serious breach of integrity.

I see the following possible explanations:

  • Cognitive dissonance. The feminists are more dedicated to opposing President Trump than they are supporting women’s rights abroad. Trump has been vocal in support of the Iranian protests.

That means the protests are bad.

  •  Pro Obama denial. President Obama let the 2009 protest, and by extension any chance of liberty for Iranian women, come and go without his support or endorsement in a cold display of real politick at its worst.

Obama’s ex-staff and supporters are twisting themselves into pretzels to insist that this wasn’t the mistake—and betrayal of principle–that it was.

  • Apathy. They don’t care about Iranian women.

They care about abortion.

  • Selective multiculturalism: Muslims can do no wrong is the progressive party line, and U.S. feminists don’t have the courage of integrity to break from it.

Did I miss one?



86 thoughts on “Why Aren’t Feminists In The U.S. Supporting The Cause Of Iranian Women In The Current Protests?

  1. Because modern feminists aren’t actually in the business of opposing oppression…

    They are in the business of inventing “evils” out of non-problems, typically in safe situations (America) and then going at them like they are heroes.

    Real evils? Nope, too dangerous and often times under the umbrella of people they consider friends.

    In unsafe situations? Hell no.

  2. Selective multiculturalism combined with cognitive dissonance. Feminists and other progressives only care about women’s rights in the Middle East if a Republican President is buddy-buddy with the offending country’s leaders.

    Hence, all that criticism of President George W. Bush and his ties with Saudi Arabia we heard about during the Iraq War.

    The rest of the time, Muslims are a protected minority (being persecuted by White Anglo-Saxon Protestant males with concerns about religious-inspired terrorism) and any criticism of them is discrimination. Europe has already fallen victim to this doublethink when the female mayor of Cologne suggested that the women who’d been mass groped on New Year’s Eve a couple of years ago should have minded what they were wearing.

    • I remember an article in National Review Online following the opening of the war in Afghanistan in which a certain feminist, whose name I don’t remember, was quoted once as saying the only war she would support would be to bring the Taliban down, due to their oppressive treatment of women. However, now that that very war was on, she was speaking out against it.

      I also remember feminists Katha Pollitt and Barbara Kingsolver and Arundhati Roy all railing very strongly against the War on Terror: Pollitt telling her daughter she could fly a flag out her bedroom window but nowhere else in the place, Kingsolver blathering that the nations of the world needed a mom to step in and stop them from fighting, and Roy, well, she is impossible to understand.

      None of them said a bloody word while Bill Clinton was bombing the Balkans or Obama was leading us into Libya. None of them, and none of their disciples, give a damn about issues of war and peace unless the guy leading the war and shaking up the peace has an R after his name. None of them said boo when Clinton was carrying on with Monca in the Oval Office, because he was aligned the right way on abortion. Likewise, as AMG pointed out above, none of them give a tinker’s dam about groping or child grooming or polygamy or gender apartheid as long as it’s Muslims doing it.

      The minute a white male places a misunderstood hand on a woman’s shoulder, he’s a harasser and needs to be fired and publicly shamed. The minute a grown white man turns his head at the sight of a pretty girl who looks 18 but isn’t, EEEEEEK! A pervert! The mere mention of the Mormons brings out all kinds of accusations of polygamy and sneers about magic underwear. Finally, if a white man even dares imply that men and women are different and might be better suited to different roles in life, he’s a sexist pig and needs to be horsewhipped through the streets of the nearest big liberal city.


  3. Christina Summers, aka Christina Hoff Summers aka CHS aka Based mom considers herself a democrat/libertarian. Though I would agree a lot of her writings seem more on the conservative side. If it is true feminism is about equality of the sexes, then I would say she is a true feminist. She is part of that second wave feminism with the added twist of focusing on the role of young boys in today’s culture.

    I rather enjoy her vlog (The factual Feminist) which deals with finding truth in growing feminist issues (Wage gap, 1/5 rape, etc).

    I think she would be a good person for you to follow Jack.

  4. It’s pretty obviously cognitive dissonance. They’d rather shut up and suffer allegations of hypocrisy than make any utterance that could be remotely considered supporting President Trump.

  5. Here’s an easy answer — they are protesting what is going on in the United States. There is nothing wrong with that. As a liberal woman, I am well aware of how women are treated in certain parts of Africa (Congo among others), the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. A mass protest in DC about Iranian women would achieve what exactly? Bringing attention to an issue that we have no power to change here?

    When the Tea Party protests increased government spending, do we criticize them for not discussing countries where taxes are far higher and government waste and abuse is rampant? Nope. Do we criticize pro-lifers for not bringing attention to the fact that abortion is legal in every first world country? Nope.

    This country was founded on protest. People can protest what is going on here without bringing attention to the fact that we are pretty lucky, all things considered. We already know that — but that doesn’t mean that it can’t get better.

    As an aside, you use your platform here to talk about things that you want to talk about — and you don’t take kindly to people who question why you aren’t writing about more pressing ethical issues. What’s good for the gander …..

    • Jack isn’t looking for full blown protests. He’s merely looking for support. It is EERILY silent in the feminist realms on the topic of the Iranian protests.


      • And in honesty, I don’t think anyone is expecting the modern American ‘feminists’ to actually support the Iranian protests… rather, bringing up their silence as a clear indication that modern American ‘feminists’ don’t stand against any real problems at all.

      • I think we move in different forums. My female friends and I discuss this all the time. My male friends? I can’t think of a single time it has come up.

        I also ran a quick search on NOW’s website and found dozens of articles on female oppression in other countries, including Iran.

        You all are just wrong on this issue. And here’s something to think about — where are all the male protests about what is going on in Iran against women? I’ll even take an article or two. Anyone?

        • Again, no one is expecting protests.

          But I can link to countless non-Feminists who have come out definitively supporting the Iranian protests, and indeed specifically in praise of the women of the Iranian protests.

        • The claim that their silence is lame
          And the fact of the courage they lacked
          Gets dismissed: “What about…?” they insist..
          That’s Whataboutism!

          I’d say President Trump is a man, no? No feminist group has to do any more than he has done, which is to lend vocal support to the protests themselves via statement or social media.

    • But nobody’s asking them to stage protests or spend money. How much time does a statement take? Groups have been quick to publish condemnations of, say, Israel, when it responds in kind to routine Hamas missiles. The Tea Party example isn’t on point: it’s a domestic tax policy group. Gay rights groups have been vocal in criticizing Russia and Uganda. Women’s rights groups have been vocal about female genital mutilation. Human rights are supposed to be universal—if women’s rights groups care about women, then the right of Iranian women to dress as they please (as one example) is worth a damn tweet.

      You will notice that my post has nothing to do with blogs. If I were a public figure, a celebrity or a national groups with any measurable power or influence—that would be measured in part by whether my statements were picked up by news sources—I would necessarily have different obligations and priorities. As it is, this is a narrow focus, single topic blog that even at that involves too many topics for me to cover.

    • See my general comment below.. But you are dead wrong: this country was not founded on protest, it was founded on a set of principles that the mostly British Colonials believed and and were willing to die for. The ultimate protest? Perhaps. But you minimize it significantly.

      Frankly, if the worst thing American women have to fear is sexual harassment, then they are in a kind of heaven compared to other women in other countries.

      Your version of “protest” would indeed mean nothing. But prominent American women speaking out in support of Iranian women would mean something. As would an American policy regarding women’s rights and the amount of money given a nation in foreign aid. This is an area where today’s quasi-feminists could in fact make a difference: insist that the rights of women are part of the decision-making process on foreign aid.

      Just think. There are a lot of options. You just want to shrug it off and say we (American women) cannot have an impact. A cowardly approach indeed.

      • “But you are dead wrong: this country was not founded on protest, it was founded on a set of principles that…”

        Thank you for this!

        I was about to go into a ranty monologue about this being a flavor of the “America is founded on Rebellion” trope. (Because it wasn’t founded on rebellion…but on Rule of Law and Equal Treatment Before the Law).

        Glad you swatted it down.

    • “Here’s an easy answer — they are protesting what is going on in the United States. There is nothing wrong with that. As a liberal woman, I am well aware of how women are treated in certain parts of Africa (Congo among others), the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. A mass protest in DC about Iranian women would achieve what exactly? Bringing attention to an issue that we have no power to change here?”

      It’s an honor to be present at the birth of Feminist Nationalism. You’re going to need a snappy shortened form of the term, though.

      • AGAIN. We do have power. Lobby against foreign aid being given to nations that do not respect the rights of women. Make it a Congressional discussion. We can do that. If we want to.

        It is in fact ‘easy’ to focus on American women, but where exactly has that gotten us? The reams and reams of paper and media devoted to sexual harassment that women did not feel empowered to report is not a good result for feminists’ action, now is it? If American women don’t think they have the power to ‘out’ sexual harassers, what has our mission accomplished?

        Ever heard of multi-processing? We can fight sexual harassment at home and at the same time influence foreign aid to nations that abuse women.:

        If American women can’t think on several levels, perhaps they don’t deserve the forum they claim to enjoy..

      • One can be a feminist nationalist AND internationalist. I am both. Are you? Is anyone here? Has Jack ever talked about this except to say that liberal women aren’t doing enough?

  6. Let’s just face it: Ms Magazine and Gloria Steinem cared only about American and Western women — where the gap between male and female rights were relatively small, but all the more frustrating because of that difference..This was something they could take on, and perhaps find fame and some change as a result.

    But now we learn that American women were NOT liberated by Gloria, et.al., because sexual harassment on a major scale has been documented on a wide scale. Did Gloria empower women? It doesn’t seem so. For women to come out years later and take a stand on sexual harassment they’ve known about for years is shameful and cowardly.

    Why then should we expect American feminists to take on the really hard questions? American/Western women face NOTHING when contrasted to other cultures, from Brazil (where a man can still murder his wife for ’embarrassing’ him and get acquitted) to the Arabic nations where women can similarly be executed for stepping outside the bounds of their ‘religion,’ to some African nations where female circumcisn (i.e., removing the clitoris so that women have no joy for sex and are thus more easily enslaved by men), and so on.

    We are a selfish and cowardly group of women. And anyone who actually expects American feminists to speak out or take on the actually horrible things that women are forced to experience around the world are just dreaming.

    Go Gloria! You have achieved nothing. Not even a new conscience in the hearts and minds of American women for those other women around the world who suffer daily because of their gender.

    • Hmmm. Under 30 seconds of research found dozens of articles on this subject by feminist websites. Did you bother to read them?

      • Oh, I forgot! Feminist websites affect national policy all the time.

        There is positive action that can be taken that doesn’t involve “protests” and screeds on “feminist websites.” Both are non-starters, and an excuse for passive and unproductive “action.”

        I stand by my analysis. You can use the feminist websites as a research source at your own peril to finding truth.

        • Tweets are stupid. Remember when Mrs. Obama posted the sad face picture of Bring Back Our Girls? You and I both agreed that this was meaningless and beneath her position. But perhaps Trump’s conduct has changed your feelings on this.

        • There are books in the library, but no one convinced me that I should read them, so my ignorance is reality.

          Maybe I would have read them if someone offered me a cookie or published a funny cartoon of a cat reading a book or something, but no one did any of those things. #flateartherforever

      • Why do you think this is a retort? See, only feminists read feminist websites. I’m guessing they aren’t big draws for Muslims…right up there with Pork.con. We are talking out outreach. Social media. Press releases. Statements.

        • I am having trouble following this. Feminists only read feminist websites, and tweets are somehow more meaningful than well-researched articles? Tex accused us of being eerily silent. We’re not. I proved that, but you were more interested in attempting to prove your flawed premise. Perhaps you can’t find us on Fox News or Breitbart, but we have been fighting the good fight.

          • Tweets go out to the world. You have to go ON websites. People retweet and repost on Facebook. News sources don’t make website posts into news items. Tust me—this I know from hard experience. Press releases, social media posts that go viral—they are news. They can get to Iran. Jezebel isn’t going to make a dent.

            • Tweets are stupid. Remember when Mrs. Obama posted the sad face picture of Bring Back Our Girls? You and I both agreed that this was meaningless and beneath her position. But perhaps Trump’s conduct has changed your feelings on this.

                • Jezebel links most of their articles to Twitter. I assume most other feminist websites do too. People also share articles on Facebook and Twitter. Are you really saying that no American feminist orgs have tweeted in support of the Iranian feminists? I find that hard to believe. How would you know this?

                  • I’m saying that the support by feminists of an overwhelmingly female led protest in Iran has been muted, minimal, inaudible and invisible.

                    I wasn’t setting a trap with Jezebel,butyou fell into it anyway: it has no coverage of the Iran protests at all, certainly no support from a feminist perspective. Here’s the Iran tag:https://jezebel.com/tag/iran

    • Further, while I am not a huge Gloria fan, I have listened to several recent interviews where she has listed violence and discrimination against women internationally as the No. 1 issue against women to be addressed. But please continue in your own echo chamber if you prefer.

  7. If I put myself into the shoes of an American women’s organization with honest intentions, I think I’d make the following considerations:

    1) Do I sufficiently understand the intricacies of the plight of Iranian women?
    2) Can my actions, if irresponsible, cause serious repercussions?
    3) What can be gained or lost by my involvement?
    4) What will others perceive (even if inaccurate) as my motivations if I become involved?
    5) Will my involvement in this related area derail my own goals and efforts in my primary area of concern?

    Put on top of the above considerations, if the specific women’s organization does not have honest intentions, there’s a host of reasons not to involve yourself. Primary among them: it doesn’t elect US Democrats.

    • 1) Do I sufficiently understand the intricacies of the plight of Iranian women?

      What’s to understand, from a human rights perspective? Strict Islam relates women to second class status

      2) Can my actions, if irresponsible, cause serious repercussions?

      This seems to be the favorite rationalization for inaction right now. Another question: is inaction irresponsible?

      3) What can be gained or lost by my involvement?

      Always a responsible consideration.

      4) What will others perceive (even if inaccurate) as my motivations if I become involved?

      I’d say the Davy Crockett principle blots this one out.

      5) Will my involvement in this related area derail my own goals and efforts in my primary area of concern?

      Also a fair consideration. In this case, I’d argue that staying mute may derail goals and efforts in the primary area of concern.

      • 1) If I don’t understand Iranian culture and what Iranian women want (en masse) then trying to impose my own culture upon them might be a bridge too far. If I insist on their right to being able to walk topless in their cities while whoring themselves for a profession and all they wanted to do was not wear a headscarf, I’ve misunderstood their plight. Insisting on rights that they don’t want potentially alienates the possible support that might exist if “only reasonable advances” are advocated.

        4) So if I don’t engage fully educated because of #1, but I still want to show my support, I might do something small, like send a tweet or write a statement of solidarity. Will it accomplish anything? Not if it’s small and not sustained. In which case, am I doing it for them or for me? Will my local adversaries use it as an example of my futile efforts, screaming into the hurricane? Or perhaps they use my silence against me.

        2) Sometimes a rationalization is actually an appropriate justification. Can a liberal American women’s organization have influence on Iranian legislators who are beholden to their customs, culture, & religion? Does American influence in the Iranian citizen protests give Iranian government leaders a point of contention & the ability to dismiss the unrest as “foreign interference”?

        3) If we go “whole hog” and raise the profile of the citizens who are trying to make peaceful evolutionary change, does that give license to US Gov’t to insist that it’s become a call for revolution and war? Will the citizens we’re trying to help become the unwitting pawns of a US military invasion that is ignited by intense American interest?

        5) My favorite ethics blogger hates when people say “why aren’t you writing about this or that”. It’s his blog, he gets to pick and choose the topics he devotes his time and energy. Same goes for any organization, though an organization could have more bandwidth to handle more situations.

        All of the above to say simply this: If you don’t have a goal, a defined scope of engagement, and you can’t reasonably ascertain the impact that your involvement might have – it’s best to leave things unsaid and save your words and actions for a later point in time when they can be used appropriately.

        • Fair as always, Tim.

          4) So if I don’t engage fully educated because of #1, but I still want to show my support, I might do something small, like send a tweet or write a statement of solidarity. Will it accomplish anything? Not if it’s small and not sustained. In which case, am I doing it for them or for me? Will my local adversaries use it as an example of my futile efforts, screaming into the hurricane?

          This is exactly what happened when liberals and feminists spoke out in support of the girls kidnapped by Boko Haram.

          Feminists are pretty much in a lose-lose situation. Anti-feminists don’t like it when they don’t speak out on international issues, but they also don’t like it when they do.

          If I were in charge, I’d make a statement in support of the Iranian feminists anyway.

          • Boko Haram is a good reference point–EXCEPT the group being targeted was a terrorist group. Terrorist groups don’t care about public opinion, or bad PR, or who says what they did is wrong. So Michelle’s much maligned frowny face tweet was just virtue signalling.

            But protesters under siege need hope and a sense that they are in the right. Moral support does matter. Pressure on oppressive governments from the world does matter. And when we are talking about core American values, we should always be consistent, as should rights activists.

            • I’m not sure oppressive governments are any more likely to listen to US-based feminist groups than a terrorist group is to listen a First Lady.

              Your point about moral support is well taken, but I was also under the impression that some protesters have specifically said they do not want US-based politicians or groups to be seen as supporting them, lest they be accused of being American puppets. I’m not informed on this topic enough to know if they’re in the majority, or if that’s what the leaders of these movements are saying, let alone whether that’s the right call—again, I lean toward “Make a statement”—but it does have a certain logic to it. It’s why the Obama administration wasn’t more publicly supportive of previous Iranian protest movements, no?

              Like I said, I don’t know if this reasoning is correct, but it strikes me as at least logical enough to merit inclusion in your poll.

    • ‘1) Do I sufficiently understand the intricacies of the plight of Iranian women?
      2) Can my actions, if irresponsible, cause serious repercussions?
      3) What can be gained or lost by my involvement?
      4) What will others perceive (even if inaccurate) as my motivations if I become involved?
      5) Will my involvement in this related area derail my own goals and efforts in my primary area of concern?”

      I started by writing responses to individual items… And while I was, I realized that there were so many intersecting thoughts that I’d have to repeat full paragraphs for different points to answer them. And so I thought it might be better instead to answer the questions as a block, and try to string my responses together. I think it worked…

      “Sufficient”, in that context, is subjective. A healthy portion of people commenting on current events barely have “sufficient” neural firings to breathe and type at the same time, and yet they believe that they have a sufficient understanding of what they’re talking about about that their input adds something to the discussion. Delusions of grandeur? Naivete? God knows, but the idea that the same people who wore vaginas on their heads to Protest Trump would stop to consider whether their expertise on the subject was sufficient to comment is so absurd in the face of the reality of 2018 progressive feminism that I think it’s a canard.

      But using *my* subjective interpretation of “sufficient”? There are some topics where the plot is so self evident it almost writes itself. The Iranian interpretation of Islam in the context of women is self evidently bad. Speaking against that shouldn’t be controversial. The protest of women attempting to empower themselves against a brutally oppressive regime is so self evidently good that even someone neurologically damaged by spending an unhealthy chunk of their life on Twitter should not have to balk to ask these questions.

      How do you take half of the positions that progressive, inter-sectional feminism has and not take a position here? This newfound Feminist Nationalism be damned, does no one remember the retardation of Hillary Clinton saying “women have always been the primary Victims of War.” Feminism was more than willing to use the conditions of third world women to bolster support for their first world causes, right up until the men they were demonizing happened to be Muslim.

      Can supporting Iranian women have consequences? Like I said, reasonable possible outcomes has never really stopped the people we’re talking about from supporting stupid causes before. But even approaching the question in good faith? Probably not. Let’s be serious…. What’s the worst that could happen? No really… Women Protest the Hijab in Iran. Worst possible outcomes: The women could be arrested, raped and murdered, then have their corpses serve prison time. This sounds bad, but I have no doubt that 1) Those women are entirely cognizant of that. 2) They normally call those possibilities, individually at least, “Tuesday” and 3) They’d still really like your support.

      The possible personal outcomes though… There’s the sticky wicket. The Group Think Engine of progressives is normally efficient at rooting out dissident voices and painting them as right wing extremists. In cases like these, where the interests of different layers of the Progressive Stack are competing, it’s sometimes hard for individuals to gauge where the public sentiment will eventually fall out, and a wrong step could lead you to a place one step shot of an internship at Breitbart. And for a demographic obsessed with signalling virtue but horrified at the idea of offending someone on The Stack, this represents a quandary. Sticking one’s neck out makes one more liable to have their head removed, but how else do you get that sweet, sweet virtue lucre without saying something?

      I think the silence represents a real soul searching moment for progressives, even if they’re not actively aware of why it is that they’re paralyzed. I think the reason they aren’t talking about it is they have no idea what the consensus is, and it makes them so fundamentally uneasy that they push it off. How do they take up arms against Islam, even if it’s in defense of an empowerment movement?

        • It’s hard to listen when you have these conversations privately behind closed doors, because you’re afraid the wrong person might hear it. This is fundamentally different than donning vagina shaped headwear and screaming about something in public. Normally, I’d assume that you’d know something like that, but with comments like these, you’d never know.

          Or maybe I’m wrong! It happens, from time to time, maybe you do talk about it, and in the exact same way as you talk about all the things I find odious about the feminist movement. And I’m really setting myself up here, because it would be so easy to prove: All you’d need to do to prove me wrong is to provide two examples. One of support for Iranian women bucking the hijab, and one of support for the women’s march (bonus points for vagina hat pictures).

          • Still Spartan apparently ASSUMED that these websites were discussing the plight of the Iranian women. As I posted late last night, I checked Ms., Jezebel, NOW, and four prominent feminist blogs. Nothing. Nothing even close. So as I know SS and know she would not deliberately warp honest discourse and chide other posters (like E2) using false information, I have to conclude that she too assumed these dedicated rights groups would give a crap about the Iranian sisters, and didn’t even feel it was necessary to check (though, oddly, she implied she had) before saying that support was aflame on those sites.

            • She’s right that HISTORICALLY women’s groups haven’t balked at supporting their third world sisters, uncharitably only so far as they could also exploit them for domestic support, but at least they did it. Something has changed, and it’s ugly. And it’s the kind of thing that I think will horrify people like SS, once they come to terms with not only that it’s happening, but what it means.

            • I didn’t assume anything. I easily found them (some admittedly were a year or two old), plus I found a ton of articles from left leaning media sources generally, like HuffPost and NYTimes.

              This is fake news.

              • How can an article on the current Iran protest be a year or two old? The post was about silence on THIS protest, and pretty clearly, to wit:
                “Why Aren’t Feminists In The U.S. Supporting The Cause Of Iranian Women In The Current Protests?

                Bad Spartan. Bad.

                • Oh FFS. The reason why this is fake news is that feminists and left leaning media cover the plight of women internationally all the time. So, you’re beef is that you can’t find sufficient coverage for one specific event, when US feminists have been the only ones sounding the alarm generally for women’s issues internationally for decades?

                  Shouldn’t the real question be why isn’t everybody covering it? And yes, I did read about the current protests. NY Times is all over it. So is HuffPo.

                  Right leaning sites have created a story that the left isn’t doing enough instead of providing substantive coverage on the protests themselves. And now every right leaning group is running the same story. Pathetic.

                  So if every female journalist, blogger, etc. wrote a story about the Iran protests today, would right wing news run a story about how feminists are eerily silent about the most recent beheadings in the Congo by rebel groups? How about other areas? Quite frankly, it is dangerous to be woman outside much of the free world. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/nov/29/remembering-women-killed-fighting-for-human-rights-in-2017

                  • I don’t think people are looking for Journalist-like coverage or analyst-like articles. I think the problem is a distinct lack of assertions of support, well-wishes, hopes for success, invocations for safety, or statements of solidarity and unity with the *actions* the Iranian women are *currently* engaging in.

                    Modern American ‘feminists’ are silent in this regard.

                  • Total fantasy and spin. HuffPo and the Times aren’t feminist sites. (Huffpo publishes anything—the Times spent days trying to minimize the import of the protests.) The pots made it very clear what it was about. It was correct. You’re flailing like a wounded octopus.

                  • “The reason why this is fake news is that feminists and left leaning media cover the plight of women internationally all the time.”

                    The reason why this IS news is that feminists and left leaning media USED to cover the plight of women internationally all the time.

                    Your Spin-Fu is weak. Your original position was: “I am so sure that my compatriots will have spoken on this, that I will assert, without checking, that they have, because of course they have” and you have now shifted to “The left under a pathetic, narrative driven attack by a vast right wing conspiracy, it assumes that people like me would comment on things I previously asserted I assume people like me would comment on.”


      • Good response, and I apologize for not having a response for you. Previously I was really just trying to play devil’s advocate and trying extend a bit of level fairness, but the reality is that I’ve run out of things to say on that side of it. The truth of the matter is that these organizations are knee deep in a pile of their own makings and while they probably care about other humans across the globe, it’s not their true focus or mission, which is less altruistic and more political selfishness.

        The USA has some shitty activist groups. #FirstWorldProblems

  8. Iran has any number of things going for it in the eyes of lefties and feminists: as do they, Iran despises the United States, as a government policy; Iran is not the United States, therefore, it’s superior; Islam! Any non-Christian religion is to be deferred to in all ways possible; being deemed Islamophobic is to be avoided at all costs, certainly a few women being killed in protests is nothing to get upset about if it means not being accused of being an Islamophobe; and of course, TRUMP! He’s mean to Iran so we have to be nice to Iran, they’re just like us, victims.

  9. I don’t know if anyone has said this (just glanced through comments), but I don’t think you can ignore the history in Iran. Before the religious regime, you had the Pro-American Shah. Progressives can’t seem to oppose the enemy of their enemy. To oppose the regime would be to suggest that Iran would be better off if the detested Shah had not been overthrown.

    That is why they were fine with Castro running Cuba into the ground; he opposed Batista.

    Then, there was all kinds of other meddling in Central and South America.

    Those who thumb their noses at attempts by the U.S. to influence politics in other places will get a pass.


  10. You can repeat the exact same arguments when it comes to the deafening silence on homosexual rights in the fundamentalist muslim run countries. In the United States we’re fighting over wedding cakes while ignoring that being caught as a homosexual will get you beheaded in the middle east.

    I’ve often wondered what would happen if a gay couple went to a cake shop in Dearborn Michigan and ordered a cake; who would liberals support? The oppressed homosexual couple, or the oppressed Muslim shop owner?

    • Matthew, that was the bind lefties had after the gay night club mass murder in Orlando: An Islamist guy has shot a bunch of gay people! Yikes! What to do, what to do? Which marginalized group has the most gravitas and requires the most deference?

      Reminds me of the old Jack Benny skit where the robber points a gun at Jack and shouts repeatedly,”You’re money or your life!” To which Jack, eventually, responds, “I’m thinking, I’m thinking!”

      • I don’t remember any prominent progressive individual or group that had trouble condemning that shooting. Can you give an example of what you’re talking about?

        • From wiki: On June 13, singer Richard Marx posted an image to his Facebook page that read “We should demand more of our elected officials rather than their fucking thoughts and prayers”. He wrote on Twitter: “every one of the 60 members of the Senate who voted against the Assault Weapons Ban in 2013 and defeated it has blood on their hands”.

          Gee Chris, I guess I got confused. The Muslim guy got a pass and guns got blamed instead. My bad.

          • You really don’t think there were any orthodox lefties who didn’t say to themselves, “Ooh, this is not good for the cause of orthodox lefty-ism?” when they found out who the shooter was? There’s a readily available pecking order of “marginalized” groups?

            • I certainly agree that many on the left are reluctant to condemn bigotry within Islam. But that’s different from the type of “pecking order” you describe. The question wasn’t “In light of this attack, do we defend gays or do we defend Islam?” The question was “How do we ignore Islam’s role in producing something like this?”

              • The problem was that they took that question as a legitimate call for ideas, and finally figured out that they could ignore Islam’s role in producing something like that by ignoring Islam, blaming guns, and humming “Baby Bumblebee”.

          • Hm. I do remember that, and I agree that blaming the right wing and gun policy was wrong in this case. But your question, “Which marginalized group has the most gravitas and requires the most deference?” suggests that progressives couldn’t decide whether to support the gay community or the Muslim community after this attack. That wasn’t the issue in the example you provided; in that case, the progressive individual was clearly doing what he thought was supportive of the victims, while ignoring the ideology of the shooter entirely in order to blame other groups. That’s bad, but it isn’t the same as the reaction you described.

            • You’re saying, “Prove It!” My observations are simply based on what I see of human nature, Chris. So sure, many of my comments are speculative. But my speculations were probably fueled in part by eight years of the Obama administration’s knee-jerk downplaying of radical Islamic terrorism. Remember? The kind of words that were verboten? Like the radical Islamic terrorist military doctor shooting soldiers in Texas and the Obama administration calling it “workplace violence?” That kind of stuff does a number on one’s brain after a while.

  11. So, to sum up — the best source for wondering what feminists think on a certain subject is to read opposition blogs and twitter instead of going to the source material. 🤔

  12. Huh! No Iran posts on the Ms. blog since 2016. I’m O-4! What a coinkydink!
    Well, I’m sure I’m just unlucky, and all those feminist websites and blogs that I haven’t checked are just overflowing with support for the current protests.

    • So I decided to try one more. You know, to be fair. After all, I’ve been assured that feminist sites have lots of posts supporting the women of Iran as they protest for basic human rights.It’s just dumb luck that the five I’ve checked, Jezebel, Ms and three major blogs, have nothing about it at all. So here goes the 6th—the F-word.

      Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand—nada. Zilch. Nothing on Iran since—well, since 2009, when Obama let the last protest go by.

  13. It’s like an addiction! I can’t stop looking at all these feminist websites and blogs to find the tsunami of supporting articles and blog posts supporting the courageous, oppressed women of Iran, since Still Spartan and Chris assure me that they are there. So I’m now checking NOW, the big enchilada!
    WHAT? Nothing since 2009 AGAIN?????


    It’s almost as if that crazy pro-Obama denial option on the poll is the right one. Nah. Can’t be.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.