Religion, SF, and Other Speculative Fictions.


Mind on Fire random header image
← →

Hate Crimes, or, Miko Asks a Bunch of Questions.

Posted by Miko on October 18th, 2006 at 10:40 am · 8 Comments

I was listening, a few years ago, to Rock the Casbah for the first time in many years. As I listened to the lyrics (“by order of the Prophet, ban that boogie sound…drop the bombs between the minarets down Casbah Way”), I thought to myself, doesn’t this song qualify as a hate crime? I’ve since added a new playlist to my iTunes: Hate Crimes, in which I drop especially heinous acts of music (Dr. Dre just came on…I think he might qualify for membership in that list).

I thought of this again during the recent debate (which may not have been too publicized) about the Michigan Womyn’s Festival. They established the festival as a safe place for women to congregate and…be women? I’m not certain. But they recently had to deal with alternate sexualities that challenge these womyn’s conceptions of womanhood. Their criteria for admission used to be “women (-identified-women) born women” this would exclude women-identified-men, men-identified-women, and women (-identified-women) born men. They have since revised their admission to include some of these groups in principle, but have requested that people who don’t fit into the initial criteria simply not attend (so that they don’t have to turn them away).

A new blog that I discovered, Women’s Space (I believe run by one of the founders of the above) articulated the best argument (in my mind) that I’ve yet heard defending the MWF’s decision to exclude certain women. She said, and I’m paraphrasing, that there are difficulties and cultural issues that women born women face and should work through together; issues that women born men or men-identified-women cannot know or understand. While I agree with this on principle, I still find it problematic to exclude based on superficial differences (clearly, she would not deem this to be a superficial difference).

The Women’s Space blog frequently chronicles what she calls hate crimes or acts of terrorism against women. She believes that this terminology is important since they are often underreported but illustrative of hatred of women endemic in (both western and eastern) society. She reports crimes like the recent shootings in Pennsylvania (where Amish girls were singled out) and domestic and international domestic violence (stonings, honor killings, &c.).

The recent establishment of radio for women by women also brought this to mind. The comic and television show Boondocks frequently makes fun of the television station allegedly by blacks for blacks, BET, arguing that it serves only to segregate this particular marginalized group further.

  • Will women’s radio become the BET of feminism?
  • Are either necessary for the demarginalization of the respective groups?
  • How is that different?

It is important to celebrate both differences and similarities, but where is the line and when is it crossed? A book group (such as ours) could logically and, I believe, rightly, exclude from its meetings those who have not read the book being discussed. This would be a segregation of those who have not read the book from those who have. Does this qualify as a hate crime against the non-book readers? Obviously, this is an ad absurdum argument, but again, where is the line?

The name of Matthew Shepard is instantly recognizable to most of American society, and likely conjures very strong feelings. The name of Luz Maria Franco Fierros‘ name is virtually unknown. Should it be otherwise? What, at the end of the day, is our definition of a hate crime?

Tags: Current Events · Feminism

8 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Johnny // Oct 18, 2006 at 9:20 pm

    Miko, nice post. Like you these questions often pull me in different directions. I think it is very important to challenge many of the distinctions we place on gender for the purposes of inclusion. At the same time I see no inherent problems with groups identifying themselves with boundaries. Since my intuitions are very pluralist in nature, I find it refreshing that there are many different groups with many different sets of boundaries and norms of acceptance. As long as groups are respectful of the differences of others, I see no problem at all in acknowledging that important differences between persons and groups of people exist.

  • 2 Jonathan // Oct 19, 2006 at 7:45 pm

    You’ve stumped me! I can’t figure out the connection between hate crimes and inclusive groups.

    But I see some interesting thoughts around the dangerous of “inclusive” groups. I believe what makes one good or bad can be found it the motivations of the members for coming together. We can all remember (and cringe) the high school “popular” group. This anomaly is so pervasive that it sets the stage for inclusive groups based on motivations of personal gain at the expense of others as a social norm in adult society. This is the bad motivation I was talking about. C.S. Lewis talked about this in a lecture he gave a long time ago. It is not good to desire to be part of the “inner circle” or the “elite” group. Their interests revolve around power and self-gain, and in the end, they end up becoming twisted and hurt the community or society they are in rather than doing any good at all.

    Our book group is an example of the opposite. It is beneficial by nature – its members gather together for a desire to understand our world, but its inclusiveness is by nature an invitation – to join us and work together towards a common good. And that’s just it – all inclusive groups or societies should exist ultimately for the good of both themselves, but more importantly, for others outside the group.

    Male inclusive groups should exist to empower men to be better husbands to their wives, or fathers to their children, etc. To be more general, the inclusive group, if they gather at all, should gather based on traits that make them unique (gender, religion, love of philosophy, etc.) for the purposes of serving others and to become better people themselves.

  • 3 Reg // Oct 20, 2006 at 8:22 am

    Male inclusive groups should exist to empower men to be better husbands to their wives, or fathers to their children, etc.

    If we reverse the genders, would it become something cringe-worthy? “Female groups should exist to make them better wives and mothers…” I also think that the “beneficial by nature” argument is problematic. Beneficial all depends on where you’re standing: a bunch of guys getting together to keep blacks in line is beneficial, in their minds, to their society. But we wouldn’t call the KKK beneficial by any stretch. I know that this gets into morality, but I still feel that the urge to segregate ourselves (as humans) into groups of like-minded (in the best possible world) seems to lead to some of the grandest atrocities in our history.

    A blog I ran across the other day had this to say about hate:

    I marvel at the vogue of hate today in this country; who you can freely hate these days and who you can’t. You can hate women, and gays, and fat people. You can hate poor people, and the homeless. You can’t, however, hate black people or Jews anymore, at least not on television or in print. (You can still hate blacks privately, but Jews are harder; some have blonde hair and it isn’t easy to tell if they are in the room.)

    Which I think sums it up nicely. Or the song from Avenue Q (which I haven’t seen, but have the soundtrack to), “Everyone’s a Little Bit Racist”.

  • 4 Jonathan // Oct 20, 2006 at 12:09 pm

    When I said male inclusive groups, I guess I meant to say specific male inclusive groups for husbands and fathers (they must be either husbands or fathers to be involved). And yes… the reverse would hold true too – for mothers and wives groups – that their goals should be to become better mother and wives for the benefit of themselves, their husbands, and their children. Women who have no desire at all to be mothers or wives would not want to be in these groups in the first place.

    I agree that the term “beneficial” is in the eye of the beholder. Beneficial to whom? That’s what I am getting at when I talk about the motivations behind the group. If they are self-centered, they will be “beneficial” to outsiders in an underhanded way – meaning on the surface, beneficial to the outsider, but in reality, beneficial only to the group members. In your example of a racist group of guys, they are only benefiting themselves by retaining a racist society where they are the master race. Maybe a better word then “benefit” might be love. I don’t mean the feeling, I mean the conscious choice to put others before yourself, and treat them like you would expect to be treated.

    You are absolutely right about the dangerous inclusive groups can cause. That’s why I really believe that their focus must be one primarily motivated by love for those outside the group and secondly, for the nurturing of those inside.

  • 5 Reg // Oct 21, 2006 at 7:57 am

    I like that: motivated by love. I think most things would be made better by that…

  • 6 John // Oct 24, 2006 at 6:46 am

    I hate to jump into this so late, but I’ve grappled with this concept of inclusivity/exclusivity when reading Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble. She’s a post-Modernist theorist and one of the founders of Queer Studies. She is critical of feminist scholars who exclude everyone who doesn’t fit an essential definition of “woman.” While she makes a powerful argument that needs to be considered, I’m kind of pissed off at her for weakening the feminist cause.

    I see labeling at the core of her critique (and the situation you describe above). By naming something, we have power. By creating something called “feminism,” and by identifying women as victims of patriarchal oppression, we now have the power to fight this very real injustice. At the same time, we exclude and marginalize groups by the very act of naming, and we oversimplify something that is very complex. Women participate in the oppression, and men are victims as well. And where do the transgendered fit? So the labeling/naming needs to be balanced with constant introspection and self-critique, with the caveat that too much navel-gazing or critiquing could hamstring and dissolve the initial movement.

    I hope this isn’t too tangential…

  • 7 Reg // Oct 25, 2006 at 12:41 pm

    If we can agree that not only women are harmed by patriarchalism, but men as well, then transgendered are included…or at least, if we agree that not only women but other genders as well.

    and I understand the need to be prejudiced and have stereotypes. Our brain naturally relates things to one another. That’s why, when you meet someone you like, one of your first thoughts is “this person really reminds me of…” similarities make us comfortable. It just seems to be a fine, nearly invisible line, that we probably each cross every day.

  • 8 Reg // Oct 27, 2006 at 7:36 am

    how about school gender segregation…?

Leave a Comment