"Two-Tiered Feminism"

Why is it some crimes capture the attention of the American public, and others, equally horrifying, don't?

Is it that the public is being manipulated by the media?  You decide.


Read Mark Steyn's article about "honor killings".  It's being seriously suggested that the perps get reduced sentences since the killers are of a different culture.   The media coverage is skewed against the victims of these crimes.

These deaths are not the result of sudden outbreaks of violent anger, but the horrific final moments of years of abuse ended often with meticulous planning by the "family" and prolonged suffering by the victim. Yet the American media gave more coverage to Muzzammil Hassan when he launched an unwatched cable talk network in 2004 than when he sawed off his wife's head five years later.
Yesterday, I was chided by a commentator who thinks Nexis search terms are the bedrock of argument. Okay:

Number of stories in The New York Times referencing Matthew Shepard: 311

Number of stories in The New York Times referencing Aasiya Hassan: Just one.

There's an update on the differences between how media (and feminists) treat women of Muslim descent.

One reason why readers think we right-wing madmen are just making this stuff up is because of the shameful silence (and worse) of western feminists, who implicitly accept a two-tier sisterhood, in which some women get to lead the lives they choose while others, in the interests of "cultural sensitivity," get a literally rawer deal that begins with FGM and, if they're really unlucky, ends with "honor killing."

 Why do I use the term "women of Muslim descent" rather than "Muslim women"?  Because they have no choice in the matter.  If they leave their religion, too often, they're dead.

Share