She was using the word the way it's generally used in discussions on multiculturalism. By default, we ought to use words according to their general usage, unless we have reason to do otherwise (words gain their meanings from their usage, after all).

I don't know if Okin expects women to walk away from their communities. She's arguing against multiculturalism as a political process. If at any point she tells WOC to walk away from their cultures without showing any respect for how difficult that can be for many women, or how many women have no desire to do such a thing, then I'd like to see the evidence for it. Point me to a citation or something.

The marketplace of ideas is NOT a capitalistic notion. It is a term that originated with Plato's dialogues, which predates capitalism by a long while. Further, the value of it is objective, and not temporally determined: thus, even if it was 'capitalistic' that would not discredit it in the slightest.

Okin can use the marketplace of ideas to criticizes 'cultures of colour' (there's no such thing, it should be 'cultures inhabited largely by people of colour' or something) if she wants to, and her contribution is valuable. I value and agree with her criticisms.

She may not have ignored Spivak: she may just not value her ideas or her approach. Not everyone looks at the world the same way, and not everyone shares a postcolonial ideology (which is perhaps what you think 'multiculturalism' means). I do not value Spivak, Edward Said, or any postmodern philosopher. You may have just ignored the brilliance of Plato, but ideas have an objective existence and objective worth, and simply 'locating' them adds nothing to the dialectic; rather, it takes away from it through detraction and a category mistake.

Let the subaltern speak as much as they want. It's when they start policing other people that I have a problem.

I will continue to use 'idiotic', because I do not agree with the arguments against its use.

If this 'space' is primarily one where 'marginalized people' feel 'safe and valued', then that shows something very wrong with the people who created it and the so-called 'marginalized' people who would feel devalued by something so trivial. A place of discussion should be primarily intellectual, with some basic norms of civility. But the use of 'idiotic' does not violate those norms.

It is excessively sensitive to be bothered by such words. People with nothing better to do and no sense of priority give importance to such things.

We should have free speech, and if we don't, then that's something that should be changed. It's not 'without consequences', it's with consequences that are not worth stifling free speech for.

I am all for people developing the virtue of compassion, but the virtue of resilience and stoicism are equally important. The problem with people like you (and other postmodern, identity-politics people) is that you do not help in people's growth, which requires the development of that latter set of virtues. People cannot live in cocoons, given the illusion that the world caters to their every sensitivity. People like you think you're compassionate, but in fact are only interested in the complete destruction of the human spirit, especially of those who are 'marginalized'. Stop patronizing people and let them grow up, if you really care about them.

I also do not share a libertarian conception of freedom, and I don't know if Okin does. But either way, her arguments do not have to be based on your idea of liberation. They're based on HER idea of liberation. And not being genitally mutilated or forcibly married off to some man you have never met is at odds with it. Given that she's not a relativist (and if she was, I'd have no respect for her whatsoever), she's not going to talk as if freedom means only what people think, any more than she would as if 1 + 1 equals whatever people think it does.

As far as basic liberalism goes however, I share her ethic, and for her to show a lack of concern for women of colour's freedoms could potentially show the racism of lowered expectations, which is a patronizing and inconsistent attitude.

No it isn't actually. Your use of the word 'multiculturalism' is entirely different from Okin's, or Kymlicka's for that matter. People who have written about multiculturalism have tended to define it as a political process of granting group-differentiated rights, and considering some societies (multicultural societies) a collection of smaller communities. If you want to use the word differently, then that's just a semantic disagreement, and not a substantive one.

White feminists can talk about whatever they've studied, whether it's within their culture or not. She, and everyone else, deserve the freedom to participate in the marketplace of ideas and fulfill their intellectual potential. But that can't be done if she places reigns on her mind and considers herself 'unworthy' of talking about something because of her race.

Every claim she makes about other cultures is backed up by evidence. Her claims are true based not only on my own experience, but on all the data there is on the subject.

Her position is not demeaning to my feminist politic, but your stifling of her freedom of thought and speech is.

I consider 'idiotic' a fine expression and will continue using it for as long as I can.

You should reconsider your use of the word 'unsafe'. Your policing of other people's speech makes this 'space' unsafe for everyone, as everyone benefits from free speech.

"Thanks, but, as a woman of color, I would much rather fight for equality WITH my community than prostrate myself before the white racist liberal state."

And as a woman of colour, I refuse to prostrate before the misogynists within my 'community'. You can be stuck to the hips of misogynists because their skin is nice and dark, but I value my own freedom above all else.

Are you serious? She can't criticize other cultures because she's White? That's just ad hominem, and I disagree strongly. I think you should address the merits of the arguments, not the person who's making it.

Multiculturalism and feminism are conceptually distinct. It's no more smug to distinguish between the two than to distinguish between cats and dogs. She's not saying one can't be a person of colour and a feminist at the same time. But obviously multiculturalism and feminism are not the same, as the former is an ideology of group-differentiated rights on the basis of ethnic or cultural identity, and the latter is an ideology of women's emancipation. You can hold both ideologies, but to distinguish between the two is neither smug nor inaccurate. In fact, to not distinguish between the two is idiotic.

Why shouldn't a non-Muslim White feminist criticize other cultures? Give me one good reason. You're committing the genetic fallacy by implying that she's wrong because she's White. Even if her criticism smacks of 'imperialism' -- which it doesn't -- that says nothing about whether it's true or not. More on the genetic fallacy: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-...

Also, don't bother with the 'I'm an XYZ therefore I'm right'. It won't work on me. Not only is it fallacious, unvirtuous (being narcissistic and self-pitying, an attempt to arouse sympathy in the other person like a shameless child showing off a wound in order to get more pocket money), but I'm also completely immune to it given MY identities (although I think identity is complete bullshit, obviously). I am also a Third World woman of colour (and a lesbian too, so that's even more points), and I think her argument is utterly brilliant.

This comment expresses what I think about this issue as well. Men object more to the veil than to pornography, though the latter is more misogynistic. The reason is, IMO, that women exposing themselves to men gives men greater control. The veil challenges their sense of access to women's bodies, and pornography does the exact opposite.

That isn't to say that the veil isn't oppressive in its origin. We just have to keep both things in mind.

It's the old colonial rhetoric of 'rescuing' brown women from their savage men. It combines the sexist theme of the damsel in distress (which involves denial of women's agency) with the racist theme of a civilizing mission. Using women's bodies as a battle-field may be an appropriate image.

However, we need to also be careful not to dismiss the issue of genuine misogyny in different societies (including Muslim ones) and in Islamic law. It's just that the way many WhiteMen address the issue is clearly paternalistic, and is not the proper way.

As an example of a good, non-patronizing feminist critique of various practices (including ones practiced in Muslim communities), I would recommend Susan Okin's criticisms of multiculturalism.

White women are evil, evil EVIILLL!
My recent post Chomsky on Social Democracy and Markets