A Moroccan-born Muslim woman, married to a French man, living in the east of Paris, with three French children, lost her appeal for citizenship on the grounds that she has adopted a radical practice of her religion, incompatible with essential values of the French community, particularly the principle of equality of the sexes. And, I mean, she does wear a burqa, and the balance of gender roles in her home sounds like it’s fucked-up. But if France is going to start declaring that it’s unFrench to act in opposition to the principle of equality of the sexes, there are an awful lot of citizenships they’ll need to revoke.
You could start with pretty much every major political figure who endorsed Nicolas Sarkozy over Segolene Royal in 2007 because she was too inexperienced, despite having almost the exact same resume– three ministerial posts, having served as a deputy to the National Assembly, and a former head of a regional government. That includes members of her own party who endorsed the male candidate over her. It’d definitely include the fellow Socialist senator who chose to endorse a right-wing dude because, while Royale may be pretty, the presidential election is not a beauty contest. And there’s no question that you’d have to deport the UMP minister who explained that her best chance of winning would come if her looks could help hide the fact that she’s a bitch.
You might have to start plucking random French citizens and inquiring why only 18% of the parliament is made up of women– behind such noted stalwarts of the principle of equality of the sexes as the United Arab Emirates and Afghanistan. You could inquire as to why 60% of the unemployed in France are women, and 75% of part-time workers. Why, there are all sorts of things that might need to be cleared up if upholding the principle of equality of the sexes is now one of the major determinants in defining Frenchness.
Over and over again, people assert that they haven’t got a problem with Muslims at all, no, that’s not it- it’s just that they’re so unenlightened toward women! It’s a classic attempt to do some rhetorical judo- instead of saying we just don’t want those people here and looking like bigots, instead they get to play the grand feminists. And if they’re so concerned about women’s rights that they’ll, you know, deny them citizenship for wearing a burqa, then surely we can forgive them if they haven’t quite overcome the whole problem with equal pay, dismissing female politicians as unserious, keeping them at under 20% of business executives (or should it be "exec-cute-ives"?), dropping those power words like bitch whenever threatened, and so on… At least they’re paying lip service to invented obstacles toward an equal society, after all.
And I don’t mean to pick on the French. I like them! But you’ll see this attitude throughout the Western world. You’ll see it in new London mayor Boris Johnson, decrying the way women are treated in Afghanistan on one hand, while his chief of staff defends the fact that he fired the five top-ranked women in city hall on the grounds that women just aren’t as qualified. You’ll see it in every American preacher who weeps for women’s rights in the Muslim world but thinks that their American counterparts are baby factories. And if it bums you out and you’re hoping to find a place to get away from it, don’t count on the pony rides and free health care of France as a safe haven.
(cross-posted to dansolomon.com)
Related Articles
18 users responded in this post
“Rhetorical Judo.” I like it.
“woman is the nigger of the world”
I find it more worrisome that “she lives almost as a recluse, isolated from French society…She has no idea about the secular state or the right to vote.”
If they’re already trying, aren’t those better rights to deny citizenship, rather than claiming that her so-called radical religious practices are against “the essential values of the French community”?
Islamophobia is a real issue in Europe, and for good reason. But like you said, it’s disgusting that they’re doing this under the guise of protecting “the principle of equality of the sexes”.
Yeah, but why is “deny her citizenship” to default position? Why not “take her aside and educate her a bit about the realities of living in France, then reassess her citizenship application (and probably honor it, since she is aftera ll the mother of three other citizens)”?
find it more worrisome that “she lives almost as a recluse, isolated from French society…She has no idea about the secular state or the right to vote.”
If they’re already trying, aren’t those better rights to deny citizenship, rather than claiming that her so-called radical religious practices are against “the essential values of the French community”?
I think the point is that stuff is considered part and parcel of the radical religious practices.
Should’ve added this before but I think the way women are treated in the Muslim world is so extreme that unless you advocate women staying at home from birth and getting no education and permission from men for everything then you can condemn the treatment of the women there without being an ardent feminist. Hell, even a slight feminist.
Why not “take her aside and educate her a bit about the realities of living in France, then reassess her citizenship application (and probably honor it, since she is aftera ll the mother of three other citizens)”?
Wouldn’t that be forcing their values on her, and they couldn’t have that, now could they?
Agree with most of the post, but got to take slight issue with the Boris Johnson example, as it’s a little closer to home for me. He didn’t remove them because he doesn’t like women or trust them with power, but because they were not qualified to hold the jobs they did (not to mention that they were hired by the previous incumbent, a two-faced, lying weasel) which is fair reason to remove anyone from their job. Especially if that job involves little more than wasting taxpayer money on worthless “initiatives”.
“Wouldn’t that be forcing their values on her, and they couldn’t have that, now could they?”
I take it you have never a. Been to France b. Met a French person.
Have a rant about multi-culturalism if you like, but try and apply it to a country where it’s actually practiced. Did you know that France has no real knowledge about how many of it’s citizens are muslims beyond educated guesswork because the government refuses to acknowledge differences exist? Assimilation is the offical policy. The only city in France where cultural differences are acknowledged to any extent is marseilles. Guess which was the only city not to have massive race riots a few years back.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/thinkingallowed/thinkingallowed_20080326.shtml
What’s with the “only 18% of the parliament is made up of women-” thing? I mean, is that bad? Seriously, think about it. Does there HAVE to be a fifty-fifty gender split in politics? Isn’t that awfully sexist?
One of Canada’s political parties (I can’t remember, I don’t like research) has recently barred men from becoming candidates until they get enough women in office, which smacks as blatant sexism.
When it comes to talk about gender equality, please, please leave those meaningless, insulting numbers out of it.
I take it you have never a. Been to France b. Met a French person.
I take it you have never a. Read sarcasm b. been on the internet before today.
There is a long, long, looooooong history of colonial powers justifying their rule, particularly in the middle east, by expounding on gender inequalities allegedly inherent in the colonized culture. It’s actually really interesting to read stuff published a couple hundred years ago. It smacks of the same sentiments we see today in the language used to justify islamophobia. It’s something that postcolonial feminist theory really interrogates, the role that western women, western feminists, and indeed western patriarchy co-opting the language of western feminism, played in the justification of colonialism.
The residues are still very VERY prevalent today. It’s a rather cunning method: we’re not bigots, we’re unmasking how intolerant THIS OTHER culture is! We all want tolerance! The West is awesome! And really, it’s clever, especially given this generations increased awareness of prejudices and the harm they cause, etc. It’s not, however, by any means a new strategy.
I find it sad that it’s worked so long.
I find it sad that all inequality is judged as equal.
Correct me if I’m wrong there Andrew but your sarcastic comment that interfering with another’s culture would be bad would (if read sarcastically) imply that interfering with another’s culture can be a good thing where the values of that culture are incorrect – and that weak wristed multiculturalists are so blinded by cultural relativism that they can’t tell the difference.
Which is a completely irrelevant statement to France, a country that has one of the most inflexible approaches to the integration vs. assimilation debate in Western Europe.
@ Smith- The point of the Boris Johnson example isn’t the firings, so much, as it’s Parker’s defense of the decision to not hire women for high ranking positions by saying “it’s easier to appoint women to posts for which few qualifications are required”. I don’t have a problem with Boris firing Livingstone’s girlfriend.
@ Quixim- One bizarre proposal by Stéphane Dion doesn’t render the role of numbers in determining a culture’s attitudes toward gender irrelevant. The fact that less than 20% of French (and American, and British- though the Canadians are a bit better) legislators are women is telling. One can draw conclusions from that about the nature of gender equality in a country without demanding that men be barred from seeking office.
@ Jason- Of course all gender equalities aren’t judged as being the same, but that’s not really the point. The point is that, if you’re going to go so far as to deny citizenship to people on the grounds that they don’t understand gender equality properly, then you’d better be damn sure you practice your ideals.
–d
There is a long, long, looooooong history of colonial powers justifying their rule, particularly in the middle east, by expounding on gender inequalities allegedly inherent in the colonized culture.
And then there were people who took the opposite tack, and said that women’s equality was proof of racial inferiority.
Skemono: Definitely. Oppressions are intwined throughout society(ies) like a web. They often overlap, intertwine, intersect, as well as contradict.
So yes, feminism was used (and is used) to justify racism. And racism was used, and is used, to justify misogyny. The arguments exist not because they are true, but in order to maintain power. The arguments shift as needed.