It’s not normally my habit to parse columnists, but I want to take a different tack to that taken by my esteemed co-blogger Phil on Janet Albrechtsen’s latest farrago of fallacies.
I don’t want to attack Albrechtsen on the feeble remarks she makes as a faux-feminist (see Weathergirl, Cristy and myself in Phil’s thread for more discussion from a feminist perspective). Nor do I want to defend Germaine Greer, who can speak for herself, and whose contribution to public debate makes Albrechtsen’s pale into the insignificance with which I would normally regard it.
However, I want to challenge Ms Albrechtsen to take her argument about so-called “culturalist defences” to its logical conclusion, and to see whether she’s willing to let the cards fall where they lie, or whether her childish polemics are just another instalment in the interminable and increasingly tedious culture wars.
Would Albrechtsen condemn – on the same grounds as she alleges that Pakistani courts should be condemned (and where I am inclined to agree with her – despite the reservations I have about her motives already signalled) an oft mounted defence in this country and the land of the free, the United States of America – not some Islamic Republic – the “gay panic defence”?
After all, at the basis of the gay panic defence is exactly the same phenomenon that Albrechtsen criticised – a claim that homosexuality is so abhorrent to straight normal males in our (presumably and putatively Christian) culture that killing another man that they think might be coming on to them is grounds for acquittal, a lesser charge of manslaughter or a mitigating plea at sentencing of diminished responsibility.
Perhaps the most outrageous use of the gay panic defence was in the defence of the accused and their sentencing in the Matthew Shepard case.
For those who don’t know, these are the circumstances of Matthew’s death:
Shortly after midnight on October 7, 1998, 21-year-old Matthew Shepard met Aaron James McKinney and Russell Arthur Henderson in a bar. According to McKinney, Shepard asked them for a ride home. Subsequently, Shepard was robbed, severely beaten, tied to a fence and left to die. McKinney and Henderson also found out his address, intending to burgle his home. Shepard was discovered 18 hours later, alive and unconscious.
Shepard suffered from a fracture from the back of his head to the front of his right ear. He also had severe brain stem damage, which affected his body’s ability to regulate heartbeat, body temperature, and other vital signs. There were also about a dozen small lacerations around his head, face and neck. His injuries were deemed too severe for doctors to operate. Shepard never regained consciousness and remained on full life support. He died at 12:53 a.m. on October 12 at Poudre Valley Hospital in Fort Collins, Colorado.
Police arrested McKinney and Henderson shortly thereafter, finding the bloody gun as well as the victim’s shoes and credit card in their truck. The two murderers had attempted to get alibis from their girlfriends.
At trial -
During court cases both of the defendants used varying stories to defend their actions. Most notably they used the “gay panic defense”, arguing that they were driven to temporary insanity by Shepard’s alleged sexual advances toward them.
Here is a tribute to Matthew which describes the nature of his death in more emotive terms than I want to use just now.
I challenge Albrechtsen to condemn – with her sincere respect for life and for human rights – this sort of vile culturalist defence. And I hope she doesn’t explain away this loathsome Christian group’s hate campaign against Matthew’s memory as just a product of the culture proper to Topeka, Kansas.
Can Albrechtsen deny that homophobia – like misogyny – has long been part of our Western culture? And still is today? And that these cultural attributes are increasingly openly authorised by her fellow culture warriors? For instance – before she became an ABC board member, she was decrying Playschool for showing a kiddie with two mums? Doesn’t Ms Albrechtsen believe that rights for queer folk and feminism are evil things that go against our cultural family values?
What about it, Janet? Stand up like a woman and be counted!
Elsewhere: A thoughtful post by Kate.
Amen.
Very nice work indeed, Kim.
This is the biggest reach since Rod Marsh retired.
Homosexual panic defence.
Related: Iran sentences woman to death by stoning for adultery.
Haven’t heard anything from feminists about this. Puzzling.
Haven’t heard much from anyone about that. Google News turns up a whopping nine results for “iran stoning adultery”, just one for “soqra” (the name of the woman), and seven for “soghra” (an alternative spelling) — though you’ll be pleased to know that the lefty scum at the ABC published the story via a Reuters feed (can’t say the same for Albrechtsen’s stable).
But despite the fact that the story has hardly been picked up anywhere, I found it being distributed on a feminist email list, and in a feminist ezine.
So I think the answer to your puzzle is that feminists haven’t heard about the particular case you raised, because it hasn’t been given much press, and when they have heard about it they condemn it unconditionally.
What’s that I hear?
The grating sound of trolling? Who else but C.L.?
I’ve got an idea. Why don’t you do a nice thought piece at your blog on why we should promote tolerance in Western countries to allow Iranian asylum applications and extraditions to be processed more favourably. I’d love to hear your views on the topic, seeing as this is a thread about western values in western nations.
C.L. – have you picked up a few pointers during your recent sojourns at RWDB central? Perhaps the tired tim line of “Lefties haven’t posted on this/condemned that” with a twist?
Ah Janet. Janet again.
I read her opinion pieces once every two months and it’s like reading reading the same article over and over again. Just rearrange the bits.
No matter what she wants to say, it’s always boils down to the usual suspects. Which means I find myself increasingly bored by her formulaic writing and questioning her own conviction.
Here she starts with yet another one of her customary rants against feminists new and old. But when it comes to having yet another go (and how many is that now?) at a woman who most Australians know by name only if at all, a woman who hasn’t lived here for decades and whose opinion is of no consequence and carries no weight – but hec, at least compared with jealous Janet, Greer’s name is still internationally recognised and gets honorary degrees like every other minor celebrity who jumps the shark – but at least when Albrechtsen has another go at Greer, she gets two birds with one stone: not just a feminist but also an elite. And we can even weave in Iraq for bonus points.
And so we’re off, churning out the usual litany of a “soft Left loathing of Western culture”, “cultural cringe”, “liberal loathing of Western culture”.
Not to mention her selective memories when it comes to recounting facts so she can have a shot at her favourite bête noires.
One of them, Fairfax’s Sydney Morning Herald has been reporting on the Pakistani rape cases for months and months. And if she had been reading she may have noticed the convicted men are psycho, one having committed suicide, others at one stage seeking to represent themselves because of some half-baked paranoid excuse. I mean, who would want to be a lawyer for them – pity the guy who is. If you were in his shoes, how could you defend the indefensible committed by the morally bankrupt and unrepentant? Who’s to say his ‘cultural’ defense was not under their instructions (not to mention their loopy father). But let not facts – or the victims even – get in the way of burkha bashing. And let’s not mention that the legal process was vindicated when the judge overturend the appeal. Only Howard gets vindicated.
And if she thinks it was only Ellison and Mundine and a few Aboriginal women who were outraged over the Yarralin decision, (let’s not forget that loathsome Human Rights Commission who went in to advocate against the pathetic sentence), then she has only been selectively watching the ABC and ignoring the headlines.
Oh but she can’t mention the ABC anymore. That’s for the editor.
Janet may like to talk about “the predictable genre of political whinge lit” with its “few central articles of faith”. But when it comes to Janet one can talk of the predictable genre of opinion writing and its cut and paste creed.
The needle’s stuck in a
grooverut, girlfriend and it’s putting us to sleep.Either get something new to write about or at least get a thesaurus.
Even if I take this week’s column at face value, all she seems to be saying is that unless some ire comes from one who
is an object of her hatebears one of her pet labels – elite, lefty, feminist, whatever – and unless that ire comes in the time, manner and form of her chosing then you are on the wrong side of her culture war and oppressive to boot. The supreme irony of course is that in fighting her imaginary little friends, she spends most of her time bagging her own favoured Western culture. Because the very people she rails against the most are the products of Western culture. These are the people that her joyous Western secular liberal democratic free cultures breed.Who cares if people don’t self define themselves in her simplistic categories or share her worldview for starters. And never mind the countless, nameless people who quietly go about their work advocating for the poor, the marginalised, the oppressed – with or without burkhas – doing good and seeking justice without the chest-puffing and fanfare. As Robert has obliquely reminded us, Janet is not even going to use her privileged position writing for a national daily to seek them out and give them a voice.
Still, since when was an Aussie journo’s opinion column in an MSM organ reflective of their real opinion? When was the last time an Aussie opinion writer challenged or inspired you, caused you to pause and reflect instead of just reinforcing your prejudices? When did they ever stop whinging about something (shit why do they get paid to blog?) and offered you some analysis that was a little more sophisticated than a stereotypical ‘burkhas are bad’. Any ever offered a solution? Hec when did an Aussie opinion writer last entertain you even?
Perhaps we expect too much, not least in expecting our opinion writers to have an original thought. People like Janet are probably just paid to do a job. No dog in the fight, just write to formula, write to script.
Snip. Snip. There’s a good doggie. Give the dog a Bone.
I think Albrechtsen has some templates set up in Word for her articles.
Is Albrechtsen making accurate points in her piece? Is the Western Feminist movement essentially awol when it comes to the treatment of women in the 3 rd world? I think she makes great points here. She is also echoing the same accusations made by Pamela Bone from time to time.
Rather than attacking the messenger, it is not too late for the movement to make itself heard about this serious issue.
Saint:
“When was the last time an Aussie opinion writer challenged or inspired you, caused you to pause and reflect instead of just reinforcing your prejudices”?
Greg Sheridan in the OZ today gave a very good account as to why we can differentiate the French riots to say the recent arrests in Australia. He argues rather than simply just blame the riotors, a good portion of the blame ought to be directed at the French state for enacting labor laws that essentially offer no jobs to the poor members of French society. Labor laws again…….
Ahem. Here’s some links you guys might find helpful, before you condemn the entire western feminist movement:
http://theheretik.typepad.com/the_heretik/2005/06/mukhtaran_mai_t.html
http://www.maryams.net/dervish/index.php/2005/06/22/muslim_campaign_for_mukhtaran_mai
http://feministing.com/archives/002048.html
http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2005/06/mukhtaran_bibi__1.html
http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_echidneofthesnakes_archive.html#111996829575818222
Oh why have the feminists been silent on these issues? Um, they weren’t.
Oh, and great rant by the way, Saint.
Kate:
What did Carmen Lawrence last say? I may have missed it.
Albrectson should be ignored because she has nothing to offer on an intellectual level and is not attractive either sso nothing to offer we sexists!!
Give me Julia Baird any time
So Henderson and McKinney tried the gay panic defense. So what? It didn’t work with one receiving a double life sentence and the other life. Neither are going to see the outside of a prison in this life. So the courts and society in general rejected the defense. Why therefore does anyone need to condemn its use? Next time some claims the “devil made me do it” are the religious required to condemn that defense?
“Aliens made me do it”. Are we required to condemn the unwarranted UFO-phobia?
The culture rejected the defense. Isn’t that enough?
Two posts condemning Albrechtsen’s article.
Well done, Janet, another direct hit on the hypocritical Left.
Kate, I think the argument goes:
“I don’t pay attention to what feminists say, I don’t visit any feminists sites, or read any feminist pubcliations, but why haven’t they condemned ‘xyz’!”
Something tells me you’re not really interested in what Carmen Lawrence has to say, Joe. Nor does it surprise me that you would have missed something.
But here, for example, is a press release she put out condemning stoning in Nigeria:
Hazym, you’re making Kim’s point – are we required to condemn everything?
saint, agree with Kate – brilliant rant!
…ALbrechtsen…Albrechtsen… Hmmmm. (*scratches head*).
Oh! Skanky Hobrechtsen…. Right…Why didnt you say?
(Why do people presume we read that low-rent RW rag the OZ?)
Kate, that first link is boilerplate equivalency theorising. (Note: all criticisms of anything vaguely Islamic must be accompanied by the suggestion that really the US is more evil. This is the way to ‘PC cleanse’ what you’re saying).
The second link observes that “Personally I’d like to know why the tribal elders who ruled she had to be raped, aren’t being hauled up to the courts as well as the rapists, but anyway…”
But anyway – not exactly the Female Eunuch.
The third is a block quote.
Number four is a standard blog post – well done, should influence the three poeple who read it.
Number five is sound.
It is good to see Carmen Lawrence commenting on issues pertaining to women, life and death.
What we have here from ‘feminists’, in toto, is close to nothing compared to the global crisis we’re talking about. It is far more terrifying and far more profound than the glass ceiling or the zipless fuck. Come back with references to 500 books from feminists on the subject.
Then we can talk Turkey, and various other countries.
Yes, Lefty Elitist. Shanky’s the resident hack at Quadrant Lite. I don’t usually read that rag either, but saw it today. Front page story: ‘Rocker rolled on to jihad’, documenting how a “homegrown extremist” (forget the presumption of innocence) had fallen down that most predictable slippery slope–he went from playing in a rock-and-roll band to believing in “global jihad”! Moreover, neighbours reported of the suspect coming and going from his house in a red car!!!!
Just what you’d expect from our national broadsheet. (Forgive the digression from Janet.)
CL: “What we have here from ‘feminists‚Äô, in toto, is close to nothing compared to the global crisis we‚Äôre talking about. It is far more terrifying and far more profound than the glass ceiling or the zipless fuck. Come back with references to 500 books from feminists on the subject.”
First you claim that there is absolute silence, then you are provided with a range of examples that this is not true, so you claim that you are, by default, correct unless 500 books are produced. How about you actually try to prove your point CL, instead of demanding conclusive proof (for which you will always conveniantly raise the quota) that you are incorrect?
My guess is that it is because you are both lazy and wrong.
I have proved my point. As have two commenters above – one of them female – cheerfully referencing a famous description of Albrechtsen as a whore.
How two commenters describing Albrechtsen as skanky goes any way towards proving your point is totally beyond me, but I really have to do some study now rather than arguing with a brick wall.
“Greg Sheridan in the OZ today gave a very good account as to why we can differentiate the French riots to say the recent arrests in Australia.”
Joe, thanks. Are you sayint that Greg Sheridan starts off with the premise that we thought they were one and the same. Well blow me, I’m on the internet, I can read newspapers and blogs from around the world and they’ve been reporting the riots for two weeks and you know, I never got the impression there was any connection. (see my comments at Surfdom for example).
Quiz time:
1.How many cars get burned by louts in France every year?
2. If you took a poll of say 3000 Australians, how many self identified ‘feminists’ would you find and how many could name more than five ‘feminists’?
hehe. I love it when commentators declare their point proven.
“What I said”
(not having a go CL, done it myself…)
CL: Haven’t heard anything from feminists about this. Puzzling.
Kate: Well Here are a bunch of examples
CL: Come back with references to 500 books from feminists on the subject.
This is hillarious. CL, so I take it from now on you won’t be sourcing say fictious pics on blogs about Sharia law and instead are going to back up all your points with the sames standards you demand of feminists?
Saint
You posed a question. I gave you a response. I really don’t know what else I can say.
LE:
Why do people presume we read that low-rent RW rag the OZ?)
Because, just ocassionally, and only then they show better better sense than the SMH and The Age.
The reason you think it’s a RW rag is because it holds a few paid RW bloggers, which is more than the other two.
Two years ago The Age ran a piece titled “Right Wingers are sick”. Way to go guys when you offend over 50% of your paying readers. They are surprised readership is down on every circulation count?
Two years ago? Is that all you have, JC?
And you’re wrong on circulation. As The Age has increasingly corporatised, dumbed-down and employ conservative hacks, they have lost readership. There was a drop in circulation, for example, following a (management-directed) editorial urging voter support for the Howard government in the last federal election. Many people cancelled their subs.
Hmm, I think the decline in circulation has a lot more to do with the internet than anything else.
Joe, thanks. Perhaps you should have read the rest of The Australian given that it is Howard’s echo chamber:
So what fabulous insight did Sheridan add. And if I go back to your original premise of a connection between Paris riots and the arrests here which necessitated Sheridan’s differentiation (a premise which I never shared), I note too that most (all?) of the suspects picked up here in Australia had jobs, some even self-employed. And I note too that desptie our ‘regulated’ markets our employment is lower. There are far more complex factors at play here and there.
I have always said that employment is the cheapest form of social insurance is employment, but I also notice the astounding success of one of the world’s most deregulated employment markets: Iraq. And note what little if anything Howard has ever said about employment there or about its economy in general. But then, there’s no political point for AWAs to score on that.
Saint:
The French labor markets are not just constipated like ours through regulation. They are literally locked up. Regulations in France are acute. You hire someone in France you have “married” that person for life.