What We Have to Lose:Women in the Post-Bush era

Good Morning Readers!

Just recently, I saw something about the history of the Middle East which really amazed me. Namely, a bunch of photographs showing just how common it was in the 1960's and 1970's for women in the Middle East, Egypt, and even Afghanistan to wear miniskirts and other "Western" clothing. Of course the link I posted was interested in why miniskirts would go from being so common to the typical attire in the area being what it is, in such a short time. But two other things were just as conspicuous to me. One was that the pictures included not just miniskirts but also the kind of women's clothing with pants I remember my mother wearing when I was a small child (1970's), and a few women wearing more "conservative" attire which did not amount to a contemporary Hijab. Even sadder were the pictures of Iraq and Afghanistan not only with Hijab free women, but even more conspicuously in better condition than they are in now, thanks in no small part to the Bush administration.
On looking at those pictures, I am reminded of one passage in the book "The Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood, in which the main character Offred, a woman who among other things must be dressed head-to-toe with in red, while going to the market (the only time she can leave home), looks at a bunch of Japanese reporters. When she sees the women wearing short skirts and loafers she thinks "I used to dress like that."

When it comes to the situations that exist in certain countries, too many Americans react to hearing about it by saying "Boy aren't we lucky to be here instead." whether from the Left or from the Right. But when one looks at how various societies have changed over time, perhaps what more people need to reconsider the common assumption of "It can't happen here." This isn't to deny that some countries are more at risk for a severe dictatorship than others, or that Western society which has comparatively few traditions of forced veiling would be less likely to adopt that particular kind of backlash.

But yet, during the Bush years there was not only pressure to roll back reproductive rights, but they also tried to roll back things like Title IX. A very illogical proposition, when one considers that girls who play sports, are at a lower risk for teenage pregnancy. One would think that anyone who was against abortion would like the idea that something as simple as sports teams can be effective. If they are against that, then I'd have to wonder if this is as much about enforcing gender roles as preventing abortion-or maybe more so.

One obvious engine in the backlash is increase in the number of fundamentalists since the 1970's around the world.

But perhaps a deeper issue, lies with the fact that so many people in their heart of hearts believe that feminism is fundamentally an impractical movement or a luxury of a society with few serious problems.

Marlo Thomas once said that feminists were men and women who knew for a fact that the sexes were equal and wanted society to wake up to that fact, so humanity can stop running on half-strength. Or in other words, that gender roles made individuals and societies less able to deal with whatever problems might come along.

However, one lesson I've learned from post 9/11 America is how many people see these things very differently. Indeed, it is amazing how after 9/11, sort of feminist backlash seemed to be an almost automatic reaction. Early after the attacks there were many references in the media to how the attacks would make career women "re-evaluate their lives", and how things like knitting and baking were sure to become popular. Feminist Susan Faludi upon writing a book about the matter called "Terror Dreams", pointed out that this was a very strange reaction where the terrorist attacks had been committed by about the most anti-feminist group imaginable. Frankly, I couldn't imagine why people were even thinking about such things, at that time.

Equally amazing, is how quickly so many people backed both The Patriot Act and the Iraq War. If some people considered gender equality as only a luxury for a very privileged society, do they also think the same thing is true of democracy or civil liberties? Apparently, the answer is all too often "Yes". Fundamentally, they view female personhood and rights for the *man* on the street, to be not assets that a society can use to solve problems, but a liability.

And this is a point that most feminists have not paid all that much attention to, but could matter a lot in context that includes global warming, water shortages, economic/uncertainties, terrorism, epidemics, natural disasters, and nuclear weapons. Would many people in the US consider another backlash against feminism a logical response to global warming and the associated problem? That is after many of them figure out that it is a real problem after all?

Certainly the history of scapegoating women for just about anything that can go wrong in society is nothing new. When reading the book "The Handmaid's Tale" during the 90's, I had very serious doubts that the Western world could see the same kind of backlash as Afghanistan and Iran. After all did those cultures ever produce large numbers of women like my great-grandmother who immigrated to the US from Ireland all by herself as a teenager and thousands like her in the 19th century? In general the answer would be "Absolutely not".
But on looking at Middle Eastern women of the 60's and 70's dressed like my mother used to in those days, I'm not so comfortably certain about that anymore.
And at some point Western feminism may have to be not just about what women have gained, or how far we have to go. But also about what we could potentially lose, if the wrong factions came to power.

Say Goodnight Readers!