Washington Times makes more false claims

Friday, 07. 17. 2009  –  by Janice

| More

I was disappointed by the recent Washington Times article “The Stoning of Soraya M.: Vivid Portrait of Female’s plight under mullah’s” by Manda Zand Ervin. Although I have never come to expect progressive perspectives from the paper, this article was by someone who appears to care deeply about The Stoning of Soraya M, yet has a very distorted view of the community supporting the film. In the article Ervin complains about the lack of attention being given to The Stoning of Soraya M. and blames it on both “feminist American culture” and Hollywood.

Ervin seems to be unaware of the nature of the film industry and blames American feminists (a popular scapegoat) for the film not currently being shown worldwide, including to Congress: “How can these powerful women on your side of the world be so indifferent toward the women in this globalized world of theirs? How can they think for one minute that their freedom and equality is worth anything as long as there are women living under these conditions?”

Part of the reason the film has gained so much media attention is precisely because of the determination of women such as myself, and suggesting that all American women are “indifferent” to the plight of women in other parts of the world is as counter productive as making a generalized statement about women from any part of the globe.

I speak for not only myself but many feminists I know personally when I say it is very important to me that this film not only be widely viewed, but that human rights abuses against women in Islamic countries are exposed and stopped. I take offense to anyone who makes such generalized statements about American women, just like I take offense to anyone who would want to paint all Iranian women as being the same.

I wonder if Ervin is aware that the very existence of the film is largely due to the efforts of Betsy Nowrasteh, an American woman. While I don’t know if Betsy considers herself a feminist (I would love to ask her!), it is worth pointing out her involvement to someone who accuses powerful American women of being so indifferent to the plight of women outside the U.S.

Ervin not only complains that American women are indifferent to the plight of other women, she complains that those “trust fund” or “Hollywood” American women that do visit Iran return to refer to it as the “exotic Islamic Third World.” I would personally like to ask Ervin to send me any articles or statements from American women referring to Iran as the “exotic Islamic Third World” so that I can respond. I could find no such statements.

Ervin further chastises American feminists:  “In fact, the feminist American culture, the Hollywood culture, is a major issue that Islamists such as the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Osama bin Laden, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Taliban have against America and the West.”

Okay, so Khomeini, bin Laden, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood all hate American feminism, this is no surprise to me. But is Ervin suggesting that this should be a reason for American feminists to alter their strategy in some way? People who hate American feminism hate it because it stands for female equality, something that all misogynists despise. Surely Ervin is not suggesting that bin Laden and friends hate “feminist American culture” because it is not trying hard enough to get The Stoning of Soraya M. played in U.S. Congress, or is she?

Is Ervin suggesting that bin Laden and friends hate “feminist American culture” because we are weak and indifferent to the plight of the women in their countries? If so, they are as unaware about the true nature of feminism in this country as Ervin herself seems to be.

“But this culture supports the Islamists by its silence and indifference to the issue of human rights. "The Stoning of Soraya M." should have received many Academy Awards, many Cannes awards, many movie reviews.”

There have been hundreds of reviews and stories published about the film, much more than its limited release would have suggested. Furthermore, it is perhaps a tribute to the passion Americans have for exposing this story that it has actually already won several awards. The Stoning of Soraya M. won an Audience Choice Award at the Toronto International Film Festival, a Heartland Truly Moving Picture Award, and the Audience Award for Best Narrative Feature at the Los Angeles Film Festival. The nominations for this year’s Academy Awards have not been released yet, but the film is definitely generating what you may call Oscar “buzz.”

“It is the least the culture can do for the Iranian women suffering for their human rights that American feminists exploit.”

I would agree with Ervin when she says that promoting the film is the least American feminists can do, but what proof does Ervin have when claiming that we exploit Iranian women? Ervin accuses American feminists, many of whom are perhaps among the strongest supporters of Iranian reform and human rights, of both being indifferent to the plight of women in other parts of the world, but also exploiting their plights for our own gain. However, when it comes to evoking the image of a group of women to further a personal agenda, it appears that Ervin herself is evoking the stereotypical image of self absorbed, ignorant, Americans to further her agenda. The truth is that the best way for all feminists to expose injustices is to work together rather than falsely accuse each other.

In preparation for this piece I tried to first contact Ervin to tell her about the Moral Courage Project’s summer campaign. The article did not include an email address so I left two unreturned calls with the Washington Times asking to be put in touch. I also attempted to look up her organization, Alliance of Iranian Women, but could find no web page for the group. I welcome a response from Ervin at any time and would love for her to know about the hard work American feminists are doing to make sure Soraya’s story is told.




8 responses to “Washington Times makes more false claims”

  1. Irshad Manji says:
    July 17th, 2009 at 10:10 am

    Love your passion, Janice. I'm moved by your words and congratulate your young feminist task force for making the Soraya campaign such a personal commitment this summer. People should know that you aren't being paid to lead this campaign. It's straight from the heart.

    And kudos for recognizing Betsy Nowrasteh as an American feminist who's gone out of her way to ensure that Soraya's story gets told. Betsy — wife of the Iranian-American director Cyrus Nowrasteh –persisted in tracking down the author of "The Stoning of Soraya M." when all hope seemed lost. Without several years of Betsy's doggedness, the production company couldn't have secured the rights to turn the book into a film. An American feminist made it happen.

    Finally, the National Organization for Women (NOW) should also be acknowledged. At its annual conference this past June, NOW included flyers about The Stoning in all 500 of its kits for delegates. Moreover, Judi Polson, chair of NOW's NYC chapter, personally spoke with other chapter presidents about encouraging their members to view the movie. Judi and her partner, Arthur (a white American male feminist!) have also attended Soraya screenings, both as a show of support and as a way to get informed.

    Ms. Ervin has a point that too many American feminists are intimidated by Muslims who lash out against films like this, but Janice, Betsy and Judi are not among them. I salute you all.

    One last thank-you, Janice, for trying to contact Ms. Ervin before posting this piece. It's a sign of your intellectual honesty. Someone who merely preaches dialogue wouldn't make the efforts that you have. Your sincere pursuit of engagement is an example to many of us.

    Judi Reply:
    July 19th, 2009 at 7:56 pm

    @Irshad Manji,

    Irshad, thank you for your kind acknowledgement of NOW’s, Arthur's, and my efforts to promote the Moral Courage Project and in particular, "The Stoning of Soraya M.".

    Manda Zand Ervin exhibits a discouraging level of ignorance when she asks: “How can these powerful women on your side of the world be so indifferent toward the women in this globalized world of theirs?”

    My first point: "Powerful women" in the West? Did she see *any* of the confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor? Did she hear the lies that were repeatedly told to rip the woman apart on national television? The web of lies was reminiscent of that which led to Soraya’s execution–a high-tech stoning, to paraphrase sitting Justice Clarence Thomas (who has himself a clear history of harassing women). Although every single one of her accusers freely agreed that Sotomayor is more qualified than anyone nominated for the Supreme Court in the past *100 years* — including Justice Thomas and the current Chief Justice–Senators verbally abused her for 4 days straight, presumably as the price of her getting the job.

    Clearly Ervin has an irrationally inflated idea of women's power, at least in the U.S.. Some of us continue the fight for equality, as Irshad has so kindly pointed out. I agree that typically, we in the U.S. are fortunate enough to not usually put our lives visibly on the line, although I have in fact been in physical danger as a result of my activism. Regardless, the cost to feminist activists in this country is nevertheless great, whether Ervin chooses to see that or not–note that Judge Sotomayor is divorced and has no children. I would encourage Ervin to learn more about the feminist movement in the United States, and what it’s like to be a grassroots feminist, before she throws stones at us.

    My second point: Ervin needs to learn a great deal more about the U.S. before she attacks feminists, like myself, who are already fighting on her side. The root cause of the West’s indifference to the global plight of women is not our culture, but our economy. The U.S.’s shameful, continued dependence on Middle Eastern oil supplies ensures that the U.S. government’s response to violence against women–if any response–will continue to be muted. Energy independence is not only an economic issue, but a national security issue–and a feminist issue.

    In sisterhood,
    Judi Polson

    Janice Reply:
    July 20th, 2009 at 2:47 pm

    @Judi, I especially think it is counter productive for women to go after each other in this way. What is it about feminism that makes it such a popular scapegoat, even among people who claim to be feminists such as Ervin? The feminist activists I know, such as yourself, give their entire lives and souls to the work they do, yet are hardly ever characterized as the fearless warriors they are. Judging by Ervin's article I don't think she knows any 'American feminists' at all, for otherwise how could she say these things?
    I wish we were able to engage Ervin in this conversation.

  2. AJHance says:
    July 17th, 2009 at 2:14 pm

    "Ervin further chastises American feminists: “In fact, the feminist American culture, the Hollywood culture, is a major issue that Islamists …have against America and the West.”"

    Am I missing something, since when has feminist American culture been synonymous with Hollywood culture? A person could argue that since Hollywood culture does influence American culture and American feminists are seeped in that society so there is a loose connection, but American feminist culture is by no means Hollywood.

    Janice Reply:
    July 17th, 2009 at 2:41 pm

    @AJHance, you are so right!! One only needs to watch He's Just Not That Into You, a film with a SEQUEAL already in the works, to see the divide between Hollywood and "feminist American culture."

    Anthony NYC Reply:
    July 17th, 2009 at 3:51 pm

    @Janice & AJ:

    Its just that old logic trick of: Many people in Hollywood are feminists but the vast majority of American feminists aren't from Hollywood. It seems the author just wanted to get her piece printed in the conservative Times so she exploited the idea that Hollywood is considered a liberal community and clumsily and hastily twisted that fact into a view that fit the papers leanings. She offers no facts to support her ideas, just anecdotal musings at most.

    To take it a few steps further she did the old: Hollywood = Liberal = Feminist = Socialist = Environmentalist = etc. Its all black and white to some people, no room for nuance. I'm surprised she didnt find a way to blame environmentalists for the lack of the film distribution with the energy legislation ramping up in Congress. That may have gotten her on the front page!

  3. Holly says:
    July 17th, 2009 at 3:24 pm

    The irony about the troubling nature of Ervin's op-ed is that I read much of it hearing involuntary responses of agreement, appreciation and compassion fire off in my head. Yet I am left flummoxed as to why she doesn't understand how profoundly so many of us are on her side, in complete agreement with her about the unacceptability of the cruelty Soyara suffered and the visceral grief we feel privately and collectively that it continues.

    Ervin asks: "How can they think for one minute that their freedom and equality is worth anything as long as there are women living under these conditions?"

    Her question leaves me as bewildered as it seems she is…I don't know who she is talking to in order to arrive at the conclusion that American women who know of this film or of the reality that it exposes are not responding.

    I don't know how she can reconcile that conclusion with the response I witnessed and heard in the room that night in Wasington, D.C. (a room in which she was most definitely NOT the only Iranian woman); there was palpable outrage, and then the announcement from Irshad about this campaign was made, to much applause…

    While the op-ed offends in the same broad-brush-stroke way that we must avoid approaching this difficult conversation about human rights abuses in the Muslim world, there is something positive to take from it. Perhaps the frustration, grief, passion – whatever motivated Ervin to write – and the willingness the Wash Times to publish her piece are signs that the critical dialogue we're having today because of Soraya is going to continue to widen and deepen.

    Irshad Manji Reply:
    July 20th, 2009 at 11:37 am

    @Holly, I hope that this type of conversation DOES widen and deepen. It has to, if we're ever going to address sensitive cross-cultural issues with honesty. One example of conversation widening can be found on my Facebook page right now, where a debate is raging (and rightly so) based on a note that I posted a couple of days ago. In the note, I'm answering a question asked by one of my Facebook supporters who watched The Stoning and wondered where it was filmed. Here's what I wrote:

    "There's no way the director would have been allowed to shoot in Iran (where the real Soraya lived), so he filmed in Jordan. Interesting side-story: Jordanian villagers got so caught up in the lights and cameras that some wanted to be the first to hurl stones at the actress who played Soraya. Am I the only one who finds this revealing about human nature?"

    Now, here's a sample of the debate:

    * "This violent-lemming culture of the Middle East is truly primitive for the times we're living in, and is counterproductive towards the goals of democracy. Mindsets need to change, and regimes will fall on their own." – Jesse

    * "Jesse, I wish I could say you were absolutely right! However, i am Canadian and have witnessed mob mentality here and in the U.S. Take for example the riots of Los Angeles in the early 90's, the 1968 Democratic convention, the riots (celebrations?) of winning sports teams in their cities. I know here in Canada some universities are rethinking their orientation days because of the problems they have faced with crowd mentality. We are reminded of Pavlov and Milgaard's experiments on human nature to follow with suggestion or without question." – Shandra

    * "True – riots happen. But in the more controlled atmosphere of a movie being filmed, there's a drastically less chance of violence erupting. Stupid people have less say under the watch of a director than they do alone at 7-11." – Jesse

    * "As a convert to Islam that was born and raised in the Midwest, I assure you mob mentality does exist and thrive there. Because I wore a scarf at that time, I was spit at,taunted, shoved around…this all under the watchful eyes of my high school teachers and principal. I've been shot at, I've been run off the road, I've been terrorized: not by some crazed Arabs, but by those people I knew and grew up with. My own people. People attack those they find foreign.

    As for the Arabs and the Middle East, and I lived there too, for many years, they're no different than their Midwest counterparts. If they have the benefit of multicultural awareness, they are altogether different in behavior to those who have not. There is a sick ignorance that pervades those who never interact with others' cultural mores and beliefs. It has nothing to do with class or creed. I'd like to hear more on education of a global nature." – Mari

    * "It says something about Islam. Sorry Irshad, I love and respect you, but I still have to say it." – Katherine

    * "Katherine, people engage in all sorts of violent acts – religion has nothing to with it." – Noreen

    * "Of course religion has to do with it. If people think some guy is a prophet from God and he tells them to stone people for adultery, and they go ahead and do it, then they do it precisely because their religion prescribes it. Stoning is part of sharia, sharia is part of islam. When you already have barbaric practices in your religious system its very easy to take them to other areas of life too…" – Ina

    * "I agree that often these acts are done in 'the name' of religion. But does Islam really preach violence or is it a convenient interpretation of the laws of the Koran? As I was recently trying to come to terms with the devastation in the Jakarta hotel bombings I was compelled to think about what drives suicide bombers to kill and be killed. I looked for something in the Koran that would condone or call for this behaviour and instead found a passage that that says suicide is forbidden (Qur'an 4:29-30) "Nor take life – which Allah has made sacred – except for just cause…" (17:33). This is where there is room for interpretation. "except for just cause". So is adultery "just cause"? Is politics just cause? What about praying to a God other than Allah…just cause? Anybody can twist anything around to make it suit their purpose and if they are a strong enough leader they can twist it just far enough to gain an army of followers who will never question their motives." – Ella

    I could go on an and on, as there are plenty more posts. You know what I take strength and heart from? The fact that the vast majority of posts are reasoned, despite reaching very different conclusions.

    If Ms. Ervin is at all interested in engaging, I'm sure a constructive discussion can be had. But so far, i see no evidence of her desire to reach out. Which does her point of view no favors at all.

    The one thing I'm affirming from all the interactions on this site — and related sites — is that reciprocity matters. It's not a strong opinion that changes the world; it's whether the person who expresses it is willing to hear from those who disagree. So let me know if *you* disagree!

RSS Moral Courage Posts

Tweets

    Most Popular

    Shortcuts

    Comments How-to


    Download instructions on how to post your comment on moralcourage.com

    Archives

    Links

    Soraya M. Stills

    Get the Flash Player to see the slideshow.

    Latest Comments

    Interaction Tip


    If you want an image displayed when you comment on a post, you can register your email with gravatar.com. Then the image you upload will show up whenever you reply.