It's the way in which criticism is generated which bugs me, all the time (both on the left and on the right) you see people set up a caricature of their opponents and attacking them on that basis. It's odd that those who tend to claim moral superiority are so often inclined to judge everyone who doesn't share their opinion while not realising that they place their own values onto those who are unable to do anything with these values. — Gooseone

Unfortunately caricature isn't necessary. Daniel Pipes is an example of a guy who has command of a lot of facts and chooses to twist them to create the inflammatory picture he thinks is necessary to wake people up to the threat he sees. In my view it just eliminates him altogether as a worthy resource.

And I think that's the situation in a nutshell: everybody is clear-sighted regarding the particular threat that worries them: for some it's the threat of terrorism, for others it's the threat of victimization of innocent Muslims. I guess it's the possibility of bloodshed that makes people feel it's ok to stretch and twist the facts.

That's not a straw man I'm afraid. I highlighted an example. Or do you insist that every argument is conclusive and concise to the point where I'd have to take 5 days to write an essay. If your point was, Eqypt isn't the only majority muslim country in the region that practise FGM, then say so. Instead you go "straw man", when it really wasn't. That made it a stupid conversation. — Benkei

There's more issues surrounding this, because most people do not receive and practice customs based on textual evidence but on the actions and expectation of their surroundings. Much the same that most Westerners aren't Christian any more but do believe in, for instance, the Christian work ethic. Or arbitration and impartiality as a requirement for fair judgments (also an ecclesiastical invention). So when people practice FGM, it isn't because they've done an extensive study of the Qu'ran and hadith and wonder whether it's the "islamic" thing to do. They basically do it because everybody around them does it and expects them to do it too. — Benkei

Also, speaking of straw men, I said she claimed FGM was a Muslim problem and took issue with that, which is different than claiming there are links between FGM and Islam as you state it (still incorrect, but closer to the mark). — Benkei

I would not expect you to write an essay, in the context of your message you set her up and swiftly dealt with her on the basis of an argument which I find weak. You did not state you took issue with her equating Islam with FMG and, though FGM isn't something that automatically goes with Islam, her personal experience, and that of many more, perceive it to be the case. I am keenly aware that it's easy ammunition for the right to purport Islam to be equal to FGM (I would consider doing so a form of a straw man argument) yet if making any connection is deemed to be wrong in advance, we lose the ability to use said religions to aid in combatting FMG.

I was going to act as a legal advisor to her at one point, because I felt strongly about FGM as well and thought it was great someone from her background would take up this cause. She had a habit to propose things that were legally unfeasible and I was supposed to help her formulate steps that fit in the existing legal system. Unfortunately, she turned out to be more interested in being shocking (and polarising the debate) than actually implementing effective policies. She made a conscious choice at some point to chose form over function and that's where I exited stage left. — Benkei

Even though this could be wholly false (not trying to antagonize you here), such personal experience does way more to inform me then attacking here on one of her statements where "I" would grant her some credibility due to her personal experience.

Where you are opposed to prohibition against maidenhood restoration and I would be for it, based on the knowledge that the hymen doesn't exist as it's often purported 'and' the idea that the myths around virginity should be expelled, we were talking about an ethical decision from the Swedish government. I did use your less nuanced argument to refute the idea of a "fascist" government deciding what we can or cannot do by stating it's not considered fascist if governments penalize murder. it was a bad example, there's a lot of difference between deciding on individual freedom and deciding on those who blatantly violate others' rights, my apologies. Concerning the nikab,I would be for prohibiting it, call me xenophobic but I would like to be able to see other people their faces. Also, it could evoke unjustified claims of discrimination, someone with a full face tattoo would probably get turned down when applying for a representative function, I feel doing so is a right and although it can be considered discrimination, I feel such discrimination is justified.

Where your assessment concerning my preconceived notions is correct is in that I see Islam as a monolithic culture when it comes to woman's rights (and in a clear divide between church and state). This is indeed where my sense of moral superiority comes in and where I am of the opinion that's it wholly justified to condemn Islam and equate it with an inherent regressive attitude. I feel it's morally wrong to claim we're better off giving people the freedom to emancipate on their own then attempt to change what is governing their idea's at the current moment.

Then you are unaware of the historical developments in this area. There was a time that Islamic women could divorce and receive part of the estate, when us Westerners treated women as a thing to be owned. The thin veneer of respectibility we shroud ourselves with to feel superior is easily lost. 2 world wars in the "enlightened world" is proof enough. Human beings are animals if we do not continually make the effort to be more than just animals and it's only too easy not to make the effort, when we perceive it not costing us anything (except our humanity).

The point being, these things are in flux and I don't think the human race has progressed morally in any way as compared to 4000 years ago. — Benkei

I do think we've progressed morally, yet mainly because we've gained material wealth (be it through carrying out atrocious acts). If people are incapable of seeing how this works, we have indeed gained nothing and would easily revert back to animals in the case of any material setback. I'm not so much right wing as you might think, I am of the conviction that if we're convinced we actually have gained any morality we should apply it (long story).

The main thing which made me reply adversely to your reaction was the way in which I perceived you to claim moral high ground. In the Netherlands I feel the disdain / contempt which appears to go hand in hand with the left when they criticize the right does as little for actual development as does the populist attitude of the right.

FGM is difficult to discuss rationally in the west. I'm afraid it falls under that "white savior complex", or as Spivak described it, "white men saving brown women from brown men", (intentionally provocative, and I realize, postcolonial poststructuralism). Spivak was talking about British rule over India, and how the rare practice of "sati", or throwing the living widow on the husband's funeral pyre, was used to demonize, oppress and silence Indian society. So, I asked my fiance, who is Indonesian and Muslim about FGM. She said it is an optional practice. It was done to her, but not to her niece. It is FGM level I, which is just a "nick", not full-on surgery. Also, everyone she knows is aware it is for the purpose of cleanliness and doesn't have anything to do with Islam. In my own interactions in the area, I was told a few times that the fathers either object or don't care, but it is the mothers who usually push for it as they think it will improve her chances of marriage later in life. I'm still a bit confused about that part, because I don't think it is something I've heard advertised, and quite a few women have no idea whether they had it done or not, and could probably get away with lying about it. I have a theory that the "cleanliness" aspect was adapted from colonial and missionary messages about male circumcision. All I heard about the more extreme FGM levels is that it is practiced only in Africa, based on local tribal traditions. The Islamic justification is that there are no concrete rules in Islam to prevent it, and some local traditions were tolerated, so they rely on the current social environment.

But back to the "white savior complex". I think we are all subject to being manipulated by "damsel in distress" themes. It is a powerful means of getting people worked up to support war and violence. The problem is that it is also powerful enough to cover up guilt. It allows us to be temporarily hypocritical. We can ignore all the oppression we put women under at home, or how our treatment of the target country might have brought about the very conditions we are fighting -- and go on a sacred crusade against the infidels. I'm also sure the extremists on the other side are thinking the very same thing. "Those westerners are oppressing their women by dressing them up like porn stars, we have a holy mission to rescue them". The problem with hypocrisy I've seen is that our brains can't handle the cognitive dissonance for long. It seems that people will eventually settle on an extreme side of the issue, while seeing the other side as a fantasy. Side A trying to dismiss that any oppression is happening in that foreign country, while Side B trying to dismiss that there is any oppression going on at home. Both sides are ultimately trying to help, but both methodologies can become destructive. Both sides find, and sometimes even share, their champions of their arguments. Sometimes the message of those champions is completely twisted around to serve their position. Sometimes the champions are serving their own interests, others are truly trying to serve their own people and culture, but get misrepresented and exploited anyway.

My own opinion comes from the old-fashioned notion that we serve by example. First take care of the mote in your own eye. You start to deal with tragic issues like FGM by not being the cause of the conditions that promote it and clean up your own society first. Most of the worst practices in the world were often inspired by things we take for granted.

I'm not familiar with Daniel Pipes, yet it's somewhat noticeable there are lots of people trying to polarize most any debate, it's an effective strategy to keep people occupied it seems. Like swstephe mentions, it could be a "white savior complex", it could be that there's a possibility for bloodshed and probably a bunch of other reasons. Maybe it's just energy efficient to have a nice and manageable duality, "my position is right because clearly (enter some reductio ad absurdum) so they are wrong, bla bla". Humans organising in groups and acting against other groups is well, human nature. In a globalized world where a lot of people appear to act as individuals you kinda need a strongly defined ideology to get people to organize, back and empower such ideology. Rallying against a specific ideology is also an ideology.

The problem with hypocrisy I've seen is that our brains can't handle the cognitive dissonance for long. It seems that people will eventually settle on an extreme side of the issue, while seeing the other side as a fantasy. — swstephe

There's that (very much so!) and, like people organizing in groups, there are probably a bunch of other innate tendencies which make it easy / pragmatic for people to take on a specific stance. Engaging in dialogue can, at times, be hard work and it's often to no avail. What bugs me about a lot of discourse I find myself in is that it resembles a battle of opinions instead of an exchange of idea's. In the area's on this planet where people are fairly well off a lot of energy is spent on satisfying direct emotions, feeling "good", having fun, things like that. Moral relativism can lead to hedonistic nihilism and such a stance would make it absurd to expend energy on thinking about things which aren't immediately pleasurable. Maybe it's here where we can take care of "the mote in our own eyes".

In my opinion it's also kinda futile to engage in dialogue with someone who's already convinced there's an absolute truth and it's written down in some book.

There's that (very much so!) and, like people organizing in groups, there are probably a bunch of other innate tendencies which make it easy / pragmatic for people to take on a specific stance — Gooseone

It seems to me that organizing into groups is part of the problem. Take any group and their list of causes and you find a lot of contradictions. By organizing in groups, you tend to sweep those contradiction under the rug of identity. In a more consistent universe, this thread should be called "the alliance between the Right and Islam", as the majority of the members of both groups share the same ideals. Perhaps implicit animosity between groups that share so many values in common is a kind of competition or shifting blame for unpopular beliefs onto the other group. You would think that a group that passes laws to defend religious beliefs would be defending Islam from the evil liberal humanists and atheists.

We can ignore all the oppression we put women under at home, or how our treatment of the target country might have brought about the very conditions we are fighting -- and go on a sacred crusade against the infidels. I'm also sure the extremists on the other side are thinking the very same thing. "Those westerners are oppressing their women by dressing them up like porn stars, we have a holy mission to rescue them". The problem with hypocrisy I've seen is that our brains can't handle the cognitive dissonance for long. — swstephe

I see that false equivalencies are alive and well in these debates. The fact that you call women in the West "oppressed" and equate said oppression to the treatment of women under a number of Muslim-majority countries is spurious at best. Women in the United States live longer, graduate college at greater numbers, and best men in any number of metrics. But because they, say, make roughly 93 cents to the man's dollar, this is equivalent to the stoning to death of female adulterers.

You will note that women in the United States (unlike Saudi Arabia) choose what to wear, and if some of them opt to dress like "porn stars" (whatever such dress may look like), then that is their choice. No one is "oppressing" them, and no one "dresses them up."

More news from the "religion of peace":

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/10/05/she-wouldnt-listen-pakistani-man-explains-honor-killing-of-sister/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.4bfdb3825642#comments

(Now cue the cavalcade of plaints that honor killings likewise "have nothing to do with Islam.")

This might be a good example of my point. Maybe at some point, you may have gotten a vague impression of a contradiction with fighting for women's rights in Saudi Arabia, while simultaneously oppressing women in your own country. So you broke that cognitive dissonance by denying that your society is oppressing women at all. It goes much deeper than wage inequality. Every week, the news comes out with a story about how a woman was raped, and the rapist gets away with a really minor sentence, while many leaders say "she was asking for it by her behavior". It is especially bad in the military, (chances of being raped has been estimated at 1 in 3).

Isn't that essentially what is wrong with "honor killing", that the officials in that country don't treat it as murder, like they would in the modern west? Take a look at any historical reference and you will see that "honor killing", started with Augustus Caesar's, "Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis", and carried around Europe as part of Napoleonic code. I agree that FGM, honor killing, forced marriages, etc is evil and must be stopped, but it is easier to do by reinforcing identity than seeking to destroy it.

I put that statement about western women dressing up like porn stars in quotes because that is what people in strict Islamic countries are saying, not me. I also know that they would use the same excuse as you do, that most do it out of choice and for complex social interactions, not because it is strictly enforced. After living in a Muslim majority country, then coming back to the US, I was impressed how similar was the controversy over American women going topless during the "free the nipple" campaign, (ironically protests were carried out where it wasn't illegal). The west certainly has a lot to say about how women dress in their society, just look at how any female public figure is judged more by appearance than political views.

This might be a good example of my point. Maybe at some point, you may have gotten a vague impression of a contradiction with fighting for women's rights in Saudi Arabia, while simultaneously oppressing women in your own country. So you broke that cognitive dissonance by denying that your society is oppressing women at all. It goes much deeper than wage inequality. Every week, the news comes out with a story about how a woman was raped, and the rapist gets away with a really minor sentence, while many leaders say "she was asking for it by her behavior". It is especially bad in the military, (chances of being raped has been estimated at 1 in 3). — swstephe

No, it's a good example of a false equivalency, which speaks to my point. Yes, in the U.S. some rapists are given light sentences, and military has a problem with institutional procedures relating to rape (by the way, the stats on male rape in the military are likewise depressing; this problem is by no means confined to the treatment of women.) And in some Muslim-majority countries, the female victim is persecuted for being raped! There is clearly an asymmetry here, despite your rhetorical attempts to conflate them. (I will be charitable in my reading of your post to not take it as saying that I personally have oppressed women in my own country, though your wording was a bit sloppy.)

Women in the U.S. (as I said) graduate college at higher rates than do men, have greater life expectancies, can open businesses, etc. Women in Saudi Arabia are beholden to severe restrictions on their movements, freedom of association, and dress. (And this is just one Muslim-majority country.)

Isn't that essentially what is wrong with "honor killing", that the officials in that country don't treat it as murder, like they would in the modern west?

Even when they do treat it as murder, it is ignored by "traditionalists" and (god help me that I have to say this in the year 2016) tribal leaders.

Take a look at any historical reference and you will see that "honor killing", started with Augustus Caesar's, "Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis", and carried around Europe as part of Napoleonic code. I agree that FGM, honor killing, forced marriages, etc is evil and must be stopped, but it is easier to do by reinforcing identity than seeking to destroy it.

Ah, yes, the "well, practice X preceded Islam, and therefore its practice cannot be a result of Islamic doctrine" defense. Sorry, Islam may not have invented honor killing, but in the 21st century, if there's honor killing afoot, the perpetrator is almost always Muslim. Italians, not so much.

I put that statement about western women dressing up like porn stars in quotes because that is what people in strict Islamic countries are saying, not me.

Yes, and Nazis no doubt regarded the Allies as morally execrable as the Allies did the Nazis. What of it? The mere fact that each side may demonize the other in a dispute somehow implies that both opinions are equally valid? I highly doubt you'd say something like this, but your point eludes me.

I also know that they would use the same excuse as you do, that most do it out of choice and for complex social interactions, not because it is strictly enforced.

I notice your underhanded rhetorical jab about my statement being an "excuse." It's not an "excuse," it's simply a fact: women in the United States (outside of employer-mandated dress codes, which apply to men, as well, and statutes regarding public nudity and so forth) choose to dress themselves. They are not forced by threat of violent reprisal to drape themselves in black bags with a slit cut into them.

After living in a Muslim majority country, then coming back to the US, I was impressed how similar was the controversy over American women going topless during the "free the nipple" campaign, (ironically protests were carried out where it wasn't illegal). The west certainly has a lot to say about how women dress in their society, just look at how any female public figure is judged more by appearance than political views.

Yea, more false equivalency. The claim that women's going topless is morally and legally condemned in some quarters is akin to forcing women to live in a black bag (in a desert climate, no less) holds no water.

And, yes, I agree that, for instance, female politicians' looks probably come under more scrutiny than their male counterparts (though men are not exempt from this either; no one seems able to discuss Chris Christie for more than five minutes without mentioning how fat he is). But this is a far cry from mandating that women drape themselves from head to toe in black fabric (or even just cover their hair), stoning them for adultery, or mandating whom they must marry (under threat of violent reprisal).

The US cannot be at war with a religion.
That would be a violation of the constitution, in particular freedom of religion.

We are not at war with Islam.

The emphasis on the burqa is interesting, It is very Othering. Some French people find it - but nothing about the way the supposedly oppressive male Muslims dress - so offensive they want to ban it.

I really dislike it too, very occasionally in Bradford I'll pass a woman wearing and it gives me the creeps.

It's not the sort of thing to go to war over, though. Islamic women aren't Other, they're my fellow students, my wife's co workers, strangers in the next street, bbc newsreaders, local councillors. Mostly round here they wear Western dress, or lots of variants on discrete dressing that are nevertheless colourful and fashionable. I have no cause for war with their religion, although in religious debate I explain I'm an atheist. It seems that in common with women in both Iran and Saudi, British Asian women outnumber men as graduates these days. Perhaps big changes are bubbling up while all this warlike rhetoric is being exchanged.

Common decency demands that when presented with a victim, you don't ignore him or her and immediately try to find a counterpart in America to focus on.

I think you missed the point. As a Muslim, both in America and living in Muslim countries, I get a chance to chat with others in my community. When subjects like circumcision or honor killing come up, I politely point out how those practices were not Islamic and were actually introduced by European colonialists centuries ago, but the source was forgotten, and they spread the word around. When the west got rid of those laws, the colonies didn't get the memo. So I believe I've actually helped those victims. When self-appointed non-Muslim "Mullahs" go around insisting it actually is an Islamic practice, without a shred of evidence, he helps to gradually undo that work and oppress them even more. It sounds like they are insisting on keeping that oppression going so they can keep up their righteous indignity.

So I am accusing these Mullahs of falling victim to a "white savior complex" mentality, (which can actually affect anyone of any race or gender -- so not the best name). The symptoms are a commitment to dismissing the possibility of oppression in their own back-yard. This "white savior complex" works to assuage guilt by shift all the blame on foreign men as "the other". Another symptom is that implied solutions tend to be impassive and drastic. The "white men saving brown women from brown men", comes from a Spivak essay which points out that those "brown women", (the "subaltern"), have a voice and are capable of making decisions on what they would like to do, but that voice is completely disregarded. Instead, the implied solution is to invade their countries and free them from their religion and even their identity. Think about how it would feel if anyone tried to do that to your community? Based on the number of people in America scared senseless about "Sharia Law" taking over the country, they ought to be able to empathize -- but they apparently can't. It seems to me that the descent thing to do would be to let them decide what they want to do for themselves.

As for the "niqab", (the black robe that covers everything), I don't have that much experience. I've spoken with a few, (through a female intermediate), and they say they don't mind and even feel proud to wear it. I've even heard a white American convert to Islam who wore it says she gets a lot more respect from people than she did before. She was actually a bit of a feminist and thought it helped avoid the "male gaze" of objectifying women. Maybe that is why a lot of men feel uncomfortable around it. I figured out it actually serves some function in the Arabian desert. I once saw a woman eating a hamburger outside a mall, in direct sunlight, around lunch time. I think it was about 45C, (113F), outside. Then I realized that everyone, (even desert bedouin), was wearing some kind of robe, it keeps the sun off and circulates air underneath. Also, I've had the chance to join a few conversations to point out that full outer covering is not Islamic or "hijab', but a bit of overkill.

The word "hijab" refers to the areas of the body to keep hidden in the presence of people outside the family. I saw an article which said that they wanted to ban "hijab" -- I thought it was funny, because to follow that law to the letter, it would mean I would have to walk around without pants! When areas of France were banning the niqab, I had a long debate with my fiance. I was opposed to the ban because I don't think the government should be telling people how to dress, but she was in favor of it, because she thought people need to adapt to the local culture. That reminded me that I really have no say over how someone else is supposed to think, and no right to think I have some kind of moral obligation to force people to change their minds.

I politely point out how those practices were not Islamic and were actually introduced by European colonialists centuries ago — swstephe

So you indoctrinate others with your firm grasp on absolute truth.

So I believe I've actually helped those victims. — swstephe

And yourself, even though you claim you have no right to on how others are supposed to think ...unless it's your "truth" off course.

She was actually a bit of a feminist and thought it helped avoid the "male gaze" of objectifying women. — swstephe

Yes, "naturally" all males should feel ashamed they can get physically attracted to woman.

I thought it was funny, because to follow that law to the letter, it would mean I would have to walk around without pants! — swstephe

Yes, that 'and' the concept that it helps to keep cool in hot climates is enough to show that it's without any rational reason to outlaw the niqab, a better reason might be to keep warm in certain cold climates, but I digress.

That reminded me that I really have no say over how someone else is supposed to think, and no right to think I have some kind of moral obligation to force people to change their minds. — swstephe

...which you still do, yet one difference in opinion is enough to make you realize "it's all relative".

So if we locally ban the practice of tying boys under the age of ten around their ankles with vines to make them jump from height with the aim of getting as close to the ground as they can, we're suffering "white saviour complex"? Surely those young boys are mistreated because they now aren't able to prove their manhood as they're supposed to.

The only thing you are rightfully pointing out is that we should be careful when "we" interfere and that we shouldn't go out to other countries and violently impose our morals onto a local population, the rest sounds as if you would be terrible in raising kids.

I think Spivak is failing to realize the prevailing situation. Most pale people and otherwise don't actually give a flip about suffering people anywhere.

Male circumcision was Jewish and wasn't embraced by Gentiles until early to mid 20th Century unless I'm mistaken. If the transmission of the custom happened as you describe... is there evidence of this?

Did she mention the US? "We" is more generic than a country.

What country do you believe has declared war on the religion?

Male circumcision was Jewish and wasn't embraced by Gentiles until early to mid 20th Century unless I'm mistaken. If the transmission of the custom happened as you describe... is there evidence of this? — Mongrel

Hopefully you aren't eating right now. To give you some context, one of the most popular breakfast cereals is Kellogg's Corn Flakes. It was invented in 1878 by John Harvey Kellogg. He was a homeopathic physician that believed sex harmed health, (it is said he never consummated his own marriage and adopted all his kids). So he invented a cereal that was so boring, (unlike the usual ham and eggs wealthy people ate at the time), that people wouldn't be so sexually frustrated. (Same story behind Granola and Graham Crackers). He was also part of the "Orificial Surgery" movement. That group believed that many sicknesses could be cured through circumcision of both males and females, as well as other bizarre treatments. It had a brief moment in the UK, but it was in the US that it really took off. Male circumcision in US hospitals became almost routine, by the 1950's. Even female circumcision was performed as recently as the 1960's. It was only finally banned in the 1990's. I did manage to find a few secondary references to how missionaries brought this practice to Africa in the early 20th century. They tell you it is for "cleanliness", (which is still debatable), but originally it was to prevent masturbation.

For evidence, just search for "Orificial Surgery" or "Edwin Hartley Pratt". If you are in a hurry, try this badly made video:

The emphasis on the burqa is interesting, It is very Othering. Some French people find it - but nothing about the way the supposedly oppressive male Muslims dress - so offensive they want to ban it.

I really dislike it too, very occasionally in Bradford I'll pass a woman wearing and it gives me the creeps.

It's not the sort of thing to go to war over, though. Islamic women aren't Other, they're my fellow students, my wife's co workers, strangers in the next street, bbc newsreaders, local councillors. Mostly round here they wear Western dress, or lots of variants on discrete dressing that are nevertheless colourful and fashionable. I have no cause for war with their religion, although in religious debate I explain I'm an atheist. It seems that in common with women in both Iran and Saudi, British Asian women outnumber men as graduates these days. Perhaps big changes are bubbling up while all this warlike rhetoric is being exchanged. — mcdoodle

For whatever it's worth, I agree that I dislike burqas. I also disagree with general burqa bans (excepting particular circumstances such as driver's license photos, workplace dress rules, etc). I believe that people should be permitted to engage in foolish, demeaning behavior if they so choose, without laws preventing them from doing so (and no, I don't find the rhetoric of some apologists that the burqa is "liberating" for women to be persuasive: a prison is never liberating, even if said prison is made of cloth).

So I am accusing these Mullahs of falling victim to a "white savior complex" mentality, (which can actually affect anyone of any race or gender -- so not the best name). The symptoms are a commitment to dismissing the possibility of oppression in their own back-yard. — swstephe

I've already explained what's wrong with this sophistry. It is possible to acknowledge the misogyny and gender inequality in one's own country (the U.S. in my case) while decrying the far worse plight of women in some Muslim-majority countries (such as Saudi Arabia, which we've been discussing here**). This is nothing like a case of "cognitive dissonance," as you've claimed: cognitive dissonance in this case would amount to dismissing, ignoring, or even favoring gender discrimination in one's own culture, while also decrying it in others' (including in Muslim-majority nations). That's not the case here.

Your plaints about "white savior complex" are little different than cries of "Islamophobia" in such discussions: it serves only to deflect and discourage criticism by implying some sort of racism or white paternalistic/colonial mindset without at all engaging in honest discussion. It is good propaganda; it is, however, a poor way to do philosophy.

**To wit:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/five-things-that-saudi-arabian-women-still-cannot-do-a6765666.html

I knew about the Kellogg story. The guy behind it was Sylvester Graham (graham crackers). It would really astonish me if that package of insanity made its way to Indonesia. Wasn't Indonesia dominated by the French? There is no culture on the planet that is further from American sensibilities about food than the French.

For whatever it's worth, I agree that I dislike burqas. I also disagree with general burqa bans (excepting particular circumstances such as driver's license photos, workplace dress rules, etc). I believe that people should be permitted to engage in foolish, demeaning behavior if they so choose, without laws preventing them from doing so (and no, I don't find the rhetoric of some apologists that the burqa is "liberating" for women to be persuasive: a prison is never liberating, even if said prison is made of cloth). — Arkady

Fair enough, Arkady.

Wasn't Indonesia dominated by the French? There is no culture on the planet that is further from American sensibilities about food than the French. — Mongrel

The Dutch were the primary European colonial power. Not many seem to be aware of it, but the Dutch were unusually contemptuous of and cruel to the people of the regions they colonized, even by European standards. The Boers were Dutch settlers.

Interesting. African slaves were first introduced to N. America by Dutch slave traders.

I knew a Dutch woman who was amazed to learn the Boers were of Dutch extraction. I thought this odd, as "Boer" is a Dutch word (meaning farmer).

The Dutch were a colonial power since the 1600s. But like the Belgians (who were late to imperialism and oppression, concentrated in the Congo) certain of their atrocities against native peoples in Indonesia took place in the 20th century, particularly in the years 1945-50.

I've read that the Dutch aren't forthcoming about the history of their treatment of native peoples, and have taken legal action against those who have published accounts related to their rule in Indonesia. There have been articles in the English press about it. Those articles seem to take some pleasure in noting that the Dutch, though quick to condemn the violation of human rights by other nations, try to silence those who refer to their own conduct in that area. Perhaps the English are exaggerating.

There's a wiki article about the Rawagede massacre in 1947. In 2009, the Dutch state promised to pay 20,000 euros to the widows of the victims.

I've read that the Dutch aren't forthcoming about the history of their treatment of native peoples, and have taken legal action against those who have published accounts related to their rule in Indonesia. There have been articles in the English press about it. Those articles seem to take some pleasure in noting that the Dutch, though quick to condemn the violation of human rights by other nations, try to silence those who refer to their own conduct in that area. Perhaps the English are exaggerating. — Ciceronianus the White

As a native Dutchman I am not very keenly aware of explicit efforts to try and negate what happened there, though this tendency could have been more relevant before my time. I can envision government having tried to put a lid on their conscious involvement seeing the timing just after WO II makes it even more atrocious. Though I can't recall my exact history lessons, I feel it's safe to say it's considered a black page in Dutch history by most of my contemporaries. There 'is' a national consciousness about the ordeal and it does not favour Dutch nationality.

That being said, is this turn of the thread supposed to to invigorate "white saviour complex / white guilt" or something? The Indonesian mass killings in 1965-66 weren't exactly pretty, as was the Rwandese genocide. The role of the UN in the latter can be debated, as can the role of the Dutch in Screbrenica ..."damned if you do, damned if you don't".

I would not want to make the latter imply as if I'm making an excuse for the Indonesian atrocities, but it does shine a nice light on "moral relativism". And yes, questions can (and should be!) posed towards the previous interference of western nations in non-western continents which might have laid the groundwork for these atrocities to happen but then?

Should we blame ourselves for acts carried out half a century ago, should we learn from our mistakes, should we face the facts in that most countries who want to be taken seriously should have a nuclear arsenal ...if not to defend from getting raped for resources? And how does globalized capitalism play a role in all this?

Maybe we should ask NASA (if there aren't conspiracy theories around negating their overall work) to see how we best handle when we explore other planets / realms and try to minimize our impact on foreign environments because we wouldn't want to disturb such a pristine environment.

Just today I read an article from an Amnesty International representative about wearing a Hijab, it went along the lines of: "We Muslim woman don't wear it because we try to avoid unwanted "erotic" exchanges, we wear it show our subservience to Allah / God".

So where's the line in not messing with a pristine environment and thinking: "wtf, grow up already!"

I've already explained what's wrong with this sophistry. It is possible to acknowledge the misogyny and gender equality in one's own country (the U.S. in my case) while decrying the far worse plight of women in some Muslim-majority countries (such as Saudi Arabia, which we've been discussing here**). This is nothing like a case of "cognitive dissonance," as you've claimed: cognitive dissonance in this case would amount to dismissing, ignoring, or even favoring gender discrimination in one's own culture, while also decrying it in others' (including in Muslim-majority nations). That's not the case here. — Arkady

The classic example: you believe smoking is bad for your health, but you like to smoke. That creates cognitive dissonance, a contradiction between belief and action. There are several ways the brain tries to deal with it. It can simply minimize the health effects of smoking, or to trivialize the desire to smoke. That's what most people would do with such a conflict. But there are also extreme positions appeals to shadowy conspiracies to eliminate one side of the conflict.

Your plaints about "white savior complex" are little different than cries of "Islamophobia" in such discussions: it serves only to deflect and discourage criticism by implying some sort of racism or white paternalistic/colonial mindset without at all engaging in honest discussion. It is good propaganda; it is, however, a poor way to do philosophy. — Arkady

I'm not discouraging criticism. I criticize FGM and even male circumcision, forced marriages or child marriages. I admit that they happen. I just think if you really want to do something about it, you politely reason with people and respect their identity and beliefs.

Islamophobia works on hatred and fear. It looks just like the days of the "Red Scare" which kept pointing to irrational fear to drive people into throwing out reason or any chance of dialog. The white savior complex is also real, (and just as much on the "left" as the "right"). It plays on feelings of compassion and generosity, but without thinking how it affects the target of those feelings. In NGO circles, there are many talks about how too much charity can disrupt an economy as much as a disaster.

**To wit:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/five-things-that-saudi-arabian-women-still-cannot-do-a6765666.html — Arkady

You won't get any argument from me. Saudi Arabia is a bit of an extreme example, though, and most Muslims around the world complain and shake their heads -- but feel like nothing can be done as long as the rest of the world backs them up for oil. I haven't been to Saudi Arabia myself, but I did sponsor an Austrian guy and his wife who were driving from Europe to South-East Asia. They got pulled over by the police in Jeddah because they thought his wife was driving. The police opened the door, then stood there stunned when he didn't see a steering wheel in front of her. The Austrian guy said, "looking for this officer"? It was a right-hand drive car, like the UK, not left-hand like Saudi and the US. But things are rapidly getting betted since King Abdullah died. A prince there said that he thought women should be able to drive legally, (and royal opinion is basically law there). Actually, women can and do drive in remote areas. Also, there are many ways of going around without a member of their family. I've been told there are many different levels of society. There are the royals, the loyal government workers, the regular Saudi, who has 100s of ways to get around the rules, then there are many villages which have been ignored for historical reasons who still don't have electricity. If you really want to fight these problems, I'm all in favor of economic and political sanctions out of concerns for human rights -- but of course, most people will just expect them to become BFF with China and Russia then. Ultimately, it is the west that is supporting that treatment. It was the British who brought the Saud family there in the first place, and we give them money and weapons to crush or bribe any attempt at democracy or overthrowing them.

That being said, is this turn of the thread supposed to to invigorate "white saviour complex / white guilt" or something? The Indonesian mass killings in 1965-66 weren't exactly pretty, as was the Rwandese genocide. The role of the UN in the latter can be debated, as can the role of the Dutch in Screbrenica ..."damned if you do, damned if you don't".

I would not want to make the latter imply as if I'm making an excuse for the Indonesian atrocities, but it does shine a nice light on "moral relativism". And yes, questions can (and should be!) posed towards the previous interference of western nations in non-western continents which might have laid the groundwork for these atrocities to happen but then? — Gooseone

My fiance was a baby during the killings in Indonesia, but she remembers being shown a pit in their back yard where they were supposed to hide in case the communists came around. The propaganda since then had been very anti-communist in the subsequent decades. I managed to get her to watch "The Act of Killing". She probably knew some of the people re-enacting those killings, but in the end, she was upset that they associated some current politicians with the more militant groups. I watched "The Look of Silence" by myself, but haven't showed it to her yet, even though it is much more compassionate, (the survivors refuse to seek revenge, despite the pain they still feel). However, I heard that after 50 years, the government is officially considering looking into the facts after all these years.

The classic example: you believe smoking is bad for your health, but you like to smoke. That creates cognitive dissonance, a contradiction between belief and action. There are several ways the brain tries to deal with it. It can simply minimize the health effects of smoking, or to trivialize the desire to smoke. That's what most people would do with such a conflict. But there are also extreme positions appeals to shadowy conspiracies to eliminate one side of the conflict. — swstephe

Uh, what? "Shadowy conspiracies"? Unfortunately, there's nothing "shadowy" about the shrill cries of "Islamophobia" every time it is suggested that, just maybe, certain cultures or groups should saw off just a few less limbs as punishment for petty theft, or throw just a few less gay people off of rooftops or hang them from cranes in public squares.

I'm not discouraging criticism. I criticize FGM and even male circumcision, forced marriages or child marriages. I admit that they happen.

Sure, you admit that they happen. But you seem to deny the role of Islam in certain of these practices (though I will give Islam a pass when it comes to male circumcision...).

I just think if you really want to do something about it, you politely reason with people and respect their identity and beliefs.

<Sigh> Why is it nearly exclusively in the realm of religion that one's beliefs must be "respected?" In nearly every other domain, beliefs are scrutinized, analyzed, and criticized, but religious beliefs must be "respected", for some reason. I'm not certain I even know how to respect a belief (a person, certainly, or an institution, but a belief?). The best I can do is be as objective as possible in analyzing them.

As for polite discourse, perhaps you should tell that to, for instance, the Bangladeshis who have been hacked to death by Muslims for daring to blog (yes, blog) about topics which they find disagreeable. I am sure the machete-wielding mobs will be highly receptive to your pleas for a civil discussion.

Islamophobia works on hatred and fear. It looks just like the days of the "Red Scare" which kept pointing to irrational fear to drive people into throwing out reason or any chance of dialog. The white savior complex is also real, (and just as much on the "left" as the "right"). It plays on feelings of compassion and generosity, but without thinking how it affects the target of those feelings. In NGO circles, there are many talks about how too much charity can disrupt an economy as much as a disaster.

People have greater reason to fear Muslims than they do, say, Quakers, Unitarians, or Episcopalians. They have greater reason because Muslims have given them such reasons. In the modern world, not all religions inspire doctrinally-driven acts of terror at equal rates, nor do all religions produce equal proportions of violent radicals.

The reasons for violence at any level are, of course, multifaceted, and religion is probably rarely the sole cause of any particular act of terror. And many acts of violence (from interpersonal to interstate) have nothing to do with religion whatsoever. However, in the year 2016 (soon to be 2017), there is one major religion which seems to have a unique problem with radicalization leading to violent acts, and that religion is Islam.

**To wit:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/five-things-that-saudi-arabian-women-still-cannot-do-a6765666.html — Arkady

You won't get any argument from me. Saudi Arabia is a bit of an extreme example, though, and most Muslims around the world complain and shake their heads -- but feel like nothing can be done as long as the rest of the world backs them up for oil. I haven't been to Saudi Arabia myself, but I did sponsor an Austrian guy and his wife who were driving from Europe to South-East Asia. They got pulled over by the police in Jeddah because they thought his wife was driving. The police opened the door, then stood there stunned when he didn't see a steering wheel in front of her. The Austrian guy said, "looking for this officer"? It was a right-hand drive car, like the UK, not left-hand like Saudi and the US. But things are rapidly getting betted since King Abdullah died. A prince there said that he thought women should be able to drive legally, (and royal opinion is basically law there). Actually, women can and do drive in remote areas. Also, there are many ways of going around without a member of their family. I've been told there are many different levels of society. There are the royals, the loyal government workers, the regular Saudi, who has 100s of ways to get around the rules, then there are many villages which have been ignored for historical reasons who still don't have electricity. If you really want to fight these problems, I'm all in favor of economic and political sanctions out of concerns for human rights -- but of course, most people will just expect them to become BFF with China and Russia then. Ultimately, it is the west that is supporting that treatment. It was the British who brought the Saud family there in the first place, and we give them money and weapons to crush or bribe any attempt at democracy or overthrowing them.

Yes, I agree that the West has gotten in bed with some rather unsavory regimes in order to further their own economic and political interests. However, it is an extreme interpretation of Islamic doctrine, not the meddling of Western powers, which is responsible for the myriad human rights abuses (both the rare and grotesque, and the more day-to-day) in Saudi Arabia. If tomorrow Saudi Arabia announced that it would, for instance, abolish public beheadings, I doubt that said announcement would be met with howls of protest in the halls of power in Berlin, Washington DC, or London.

As for the long-term prospects of women in Saudi Arabia in the wake of King Abdullah's successors, that remains to be seen (you will forgive me if my optimism is somewhat cautious...)

The Dutch were the primary European colonial power. Not many seem to be aware of it, but the Dutch were unusually contemptuous of and cruel to the people of the regions they colonized, even by European standards. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes. It is difficult to find historical examples of a truly benevolent empire. I just don't think there's any such thing (even if colonialism has had some positive impacts in some cases).