What do you think?
Rate this book
Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?
Polygamy, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, punishing women for being raped, differential access for men and women to health care and education, unequal rights of ownership, assembly, and political participation, unequal vulnerability to violence. These practices and conditions are standard in some parts of the world. Do demands for multiculturalism — and certain minority group rights in particular — make them more likely to continue and to spread to liberal democracies? Are there fundamental conflicts between our commitment to gender equity and our increasing desire to respect the customs of minority cultures or religions? In this book, the eminent feminist Susan Moller Okin and fifteen of the world's leading thinkers about feminism and multiculturalism explore these unsettling questions in a provocative, passionate, and illuminating debate.
Okin opens by arguing that some group rights can, in fact, endanger women. She points, for example, to the French government's giving thousands of male immigrants special permission to bring multiple wives into the country, despite French laws against polygamy and the wives' own bitter opposition to the practice. Okin argues that if we agree that women should not be disadvantaged because of their sex, we should not accept group rights that permit oppressive practices on the grounds that they are fundamental to minority cultures whose existence may otherwise be threatened.
In reply, some respondents reject Okin's position outright, contending that her views are rooted in a moral universalism that is blind to cultural difference. Others quarrel with Okin's focus on gender, or argue that we should be careful about which group rights we permit, but not reject the category of group rights altogether. Okin concludes with a rebuttal, clarifying, adjusting, and extending her original position. These incisive and accessible essays — expanded from their original publication in Boston Review and including four new contributions — are indispensable reading for anyone interested in one of the most contentious social and political issues today.
The diverse contributors, in addition to Okin, are Azizah al-Hibri, Abdullahi An-Na'im, Homi Bhabha, Sander Gilman, Janet Halley, Bonnie Honig, Will Kymlicka, Martha Nussbaum, Bhikhu Parekh, Katha Pollitt, Robert Post, Joseph Raz, Saskia Sassen, Cass Sunstein, and Yael Tamir.
Okin opens by arguing that some group rights can, in fact, endanger women. She points, for example, to the French government's giving thousands of male immigrants special permission to bring multiple wives into the country, despite French laws against polygamy and the wives' own bitter opposition to the practice. Okin argues that if we agree that women should not be disadvantaged because of their sex, we should not accept group rights that permit oppressive practices on the grounds that they are fundamental to minority cultures whose existence may otherwise be threatened.
In reply, some respondents reject Okin's position outright, contending that her views are rooted in a moral universalism that is blind to cultural difference. Others quarrel with Okin's focus on gender, or argue that we should be careful about which group rights we permit, but not reject the category of group rights altogether. Okin concludes with a rebuttal, clarifying, adjusting, and extending her original position. These incisive and accessible essays — expanded from their original publication in Boston Review and including four new contributions — are indispensable reading for anyone interested in one of the most contentious social and political issues today.
The diverse contributors, in addition to Okin, are Azizah al-Hibri, Abdullahi An-Na'im, Homi Bhabha, Sander Gilman, Janet Halley, Bonnie Honig, Will Kymlicka, Martha Nussbaum, Bhikhu Parekh, Katha Pollitt, Robert Post, Joseph Raz, Saskia Sassen, Cass Sunstein, and Yael Tamir.
152 pages, Paperback
Published August 9, 1999
16 people are currently reading
394 people want to read
About the author
Susan Moller Okin
22 books17 followersliberal feminist political philosopher, and author of Justice, Gender, and the Family and Women in Western Political Thought.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
April 4, 2011
Susan Okin presents her audience with an interesting viewpoint about the effects of multiculturalism on women across the globe; however, her argument contains crucial holes and false assumptions that work against her claims. Her central point that multiculturalism and the idea of minority group rights allows for violences against women to persist in minority cultures is especially compelling and certainly in need of critical discussion. Okin’s main starting point for criticizing multiculturalism is the assumption that Western liberal cultures have achieved the right kind of multiculturalism and that other cultures should mirror the practices of the West. This claim, and the evidence Okin uses to support it, is dangerous for analyzing multiculturalism because of certain problems within Western culture in terms of how women are treated and viewed. Another crucial flaw in Okin’s argument is that she fails to look deeper into the damaging practices she uses as examples. That is, the circumstances and cases described or cited by Okin are seen in her essay only on the surface and, while it is clear that these practices should be abolished, Okin’s only solution offered is assimilation into Western culture or the extinction of such cultures. For the purposes of Okin’s argument, this solution only creates an imperialistic attitude towards the cultures she is criticizing and does not allow her audience to consider the root causes of certain cultural practices. Thus, I would argue that Okin’s analysis of multiculturalism contains assumptions about Western liberal cultures that overlook damaging Western ideologies about women and the violences and injustices caused by those ideologies, and that her criticism of cultural practices lacks an in depth look at the underlying beliefs and ideologies driving such practices.
Okin’s discussion on the Western liberal world in her original essay constructs a view of the west that glosses over any issues women in this culture may have and excuses the violences and injustices against women in these cultures in a way that is in itself an injustice to women. Okin lists a series of injustices or violences against women in Western liberal culture; such as economic inequality, a focus on beauty, and illegal violence (16). However, she then argues that, in light of the rest of the world, these problems are not as bad as what other women across the globe are subjected to. She also uses global circumstances of women as a way of saying, basically, that our patriarchy is better than the rest of the world’s patriarchy. Furthermore, she does so by giving a list of things Western liberal cultures do not do to their women; such as, the idea that girls are not told that they are less valuable than males or that they should be subservient to the male population (17). These particular claims, and the direction they take Okins’ audience, are not only flawed, but also extremely risky for analyzing multiculturalism. The first claim works against women across the globe by allowing certain problems, quite serious problems, to be overlooked or put aside for the sake of Okin’s central argument. Thus, while writing to help women across the globe, Okin is doing much the same thing as the cultures she is condemning throughout the rest of her essay. That is, Okin has taken the negative circumstances of many Western liberated women and made them less important to the world because the West has achieved liberation for its women and minorities. This is very much like what she accuses minority groups within multicultural societies of doing to their own women. Okin claims that these cultures basically make their women into a minority within the minority, and therefore further take away the rights and concerns for women in these minority cultures. However, by discounting injustices on women in Western culture as she does, Okin makes Western women’s problems less important to the big picture.
Okin’s claim concerning the ways in which we do not teach our daughters damaging ideologies about their place in the world is also a crucial point at which her argument loses some credibility. Yes, in Western Liberal cultures, such as the U.S., we publicly and verbally tend to work to provide a positive outlook for the young women in our culture; however, the covert messages in everyday life are much more damaging. For instance, the most popular toys for young girls today are baby dolls, barbies, and other maternal or image based objects. These toys send messages about the place of females in our society that continue to put women and girls in subservient positions. Furthermore, the images of the ideal American woman in mass media are either concerned with maternal natures, sexiness, or a mixture of the two. If a popularized American woman does not fit into these images, she is often demonized or, at the very least, put under scrutiny and ridicule by the public. Thus, the covert messages sent to our girls basically say that they should attempt to fit into a mold of sexiness and/or maternity in order to be considered a good American woman. Unfortunately, Okin does not explore even the possibility of such hidden messages within our society. Instead, she uses the U.S. As an example of the good cultures while ignoring the potential danger of basing cultural reforms on America’s success as a liberal society. The inherent danger here being that, while the violences within the minority cultures Okin describes may cease if completely assimilated into Western liberal culture, but these cultures will be receiving a new group of ideologies and damaging mainstream beliefs about women that could influence more violence against women.
Not only does Okin not give enough consideration to problems within Western liberal cultures, but she also fails to really deconstruct the examples of violence against women she provides as evidence for her argument. For instance, Okin cites examples of clitoridectomy and forced marriages of young women (14). While she begins deconstructing them by going into the religious ideologies inherent in several of these practices, Okin does not look much deeper to attempt understanding the underlying assumptions, beliefs, and traditions of such practices. For example, when discussing polygamy Okin quotes an immigrant from Mali to display the obvious assumptions and beliefs about women in this particular culture and practice (15). However, there must also be a tradition and deeper belief system that is not openly expressed in this example, but rather is the driving force behind such practices. Without acknowledging the deeper levels of belief inherent in all cultural practices, any attempts at reconciling such practices will fail. Furthermore, Okin’s strategy of criticizing certain cultural practices while maintaining the assumption that Western liberal cultures are the ones to be mirrored by less liberal cultures is an inherently imperialistic strategy. While Okin may not wish to portray such an imperialistic attitude, the way in which she presents her argument does so in a way that encourages the attitude that the world should assimilate into Western culture no matter the sacrifices of (not dangerous) culture values, religious practices, and native languages.
The claims Okin presents about multiculturalism and its possible negative effects on women are, on the surface, quite compelling; however, because of the way in which these claims are presented, her argument lacks some credibility. Her focus on the way in which minority group rights allow certain injustices and violences against women to persist makes for an interesting and important issue to be discussed. However, Okin’s treatment of Western liberal culture as the portrait of how other cultures should operate ignores crucial Western ideologies and the damaging effects of those ideologies. Furthermore, Okin’s argument as a whole operates as a glossing over of the major issues she presents to her audience, when several of these issues are in need of being further deconstructed and explored.
Okin’s discussion on the Western liberal world in her original essay constructs a view of the west that glosses over any issues women in this culture may have and excuses the violences and injustices against women in these cultures in a way that is in itself an injustice to women. Okin lists a series of injustices or violences against women in Western liberal culture; such as economic inequality, a focus on beauty, and illegal violence (16). However, she then argues that, in light of the rest of the world, these problems are not as bad as what other women across the globe are subjected to. She also uses global circumstances of women as a way of saying, basically, that our patriarchy is better than the rest of the world’s patriarchy. Furthermore, she does so by giving a list of things Western liberal cultures do not do to their women; such as, the idea that girls are not told that they are less valuable than males or that they should be subservient to the male population (17). These particular claims, and the direction they take Okins’ audience, are not only flawed, but also extremely risky for analyzing multiculturalism. The first claim works against women across the globe by allowing certain problems, quite serious problems, to be overlooked or put aside for the sake of Okin’s central argument. Thus, while writing to help women across the globe, Okin is doing much the same thing as the cultures she is condemning throughout the rest of her essay. That is, Okin has taken the negative circumstances of many Western liberated women and made them less important to the world because the West has achieved liberation for its women and minorities. This is very much like what she accuses minority groups within multicultural societies of doing to their own women. Okin claims that these cultures basically make their women into a minority within the minority, and therefore further take away the rights and concerns for women in these minority cultures. However, by discounting injustices on women in Western culture as she does, Okin makes Western women’s problems less important to the big picture.
Okin’s claim concerning the ways in which we do not teach our daughters damaging ideologies about their place in the world is also a crucial point at which her argument loses some credibility. Yes, in Western Liberal cultures, such as the U.S., we publicly and verbally tend to work to provide a positive outlook for the young women in our culture; however, the covert messages in everyday life are much more damaging. For instance, the most popular toys for young girls today are baby dolls, barbies, and other maternal or image based objects. These toys send messages about the place of females in our society that continue to put women and girls in subservient positions. Furthermore, the images of the ideal American woman in mass media are either concerned with maternal natures, sexiness, or a mixture of the two. If a popularized American woman does not fit into these images, she is often demonized or, at the very least, put under scrutiny and ridicule by the public. Thus, the covert messages sent to our girls basically say that they should attempt to fit into a mold of sexiness and/or maternity in order to be considered a good American woman. Unfortunately, Okin does not explore even the possibility of such hidden messages within our society. Instead, she uses the U.S. As an example of the good cultures while ignoring the potential danger of basing cultural reforms on America’s success as a liberal society. The inherent danger here being that, while the violences within the minority cultures Okin describes may cease if completely assimilated into Western liberal culture, but these cultures will be receiving a new group of ideologies and damaging mainstream beliefs about women that could influence more violence against women.
Not only does Okin not give enough consideration to problems within Western liberal cultures, but she also fails to really deconstruct the examples of violence against women she provides as evidence for her argument. For instance, Okin cites examples of clitoridectomy and forced marriages of young women (14). While she begins deconstructing them by going into the religious ideologies inherent in several of these practices, Okin does not look much deeper to attempt understanding the underlying assumptions, beliefs, and traditions of such practices. For example, when discussing polygamy Okin quotes an immigrant from Mali to display the obvious assumptions and beliefs about women in this particular culture and practice (15). However, there must also be a tradition and deeper belief system that is not openly expressed in this example, but rather is the driving force behind such practices. Without acknowledging the deeper levels of belief inherent in all cultural practices, any attempts at reconciling such practices will fail. Furthermore, Okin’s strategy of criticizing certain cultural practices while maintaining the assumption that Western liberal cultures are the ones to be mirrored by less liberal cultures is an inherently imperialistic strategy. While Okin may not wish to portray such an imperialistic attitude, the way in which she presents her argument does so in a way that encourages the attitude that the world should assimilate into Western culture no matter the sacrifices of (not dangerous) culture values, religious practices, and native languages.
The claims Okin presents about multiculturalism and its possible negative effects on women are, on the surface, quite compelling; however, because of the way in which these claims are presented, her argument lacks some credibility. Her focus on the way in which minority group rights allow certain injustices and violences against women to persist makes for an interesting and important issue to be discussed. However, Okin’s treatment of Western liberal culture as the portrait of how other cultures should operate ignores crucial Western ideologies and the damaging effects of those ideologies. Furthermore, Okin’s argument as a whole operates as a glossing over of the major issues she presents to her audience, when several of these issues are in need of being further deconstructed and explored.
May 9, 2013
A very nice collection of essays - the central essay by Okin is great, insightful and thought-provoking - her reply to her critics ditto. But the book is worth reading in its entirety, since it collects reactions ranging from assent, through intelligent qualifications, mild criticism, to the bat-shit in(s)ane. Especially the latter ones are instructive; contributions by Homi Bhabha, Bhikhu Parekh, Sander Gilman will probably be a great test to see if you are a 'gut liberal' (as Brian Barry proposed somewhere), because if you are, these will make your skin crawl. But also, once you see through all the post-colonial bluster and rhetoric, you will probably notice how devoid of a coherent argument their position often is. Even after 13 years this collection is still very relevant and highly recommended.
August 20, 2017
unnecessary blah blah and turning around the bush...
October 16, 2020
Let's say you're from the former French West Africa. For decades, your countries were exploited and your countrymen killed by an oppressive colonial occupying force. Even after declaring independence, your country is likely still a French client state that continues to be ravaged by French economic interests. Your last best hope was the pan-African anti-colonialism of Thomas Sankara, a man whose government was destabilized by a cabal of shady Western interests, including France, and was then assassinated during a coup.
Living in extreme poverty, you're offered a job opportunity in France. By French standards, the pay is paltry, but for you it's the best opportunity you have. You go to France alone and perform back-breaking labour for years without seeing your family. You likely face constant discrimination. Most of your money goes back home to feed your starving family, but you manage to save up enough money to one day bring them over to live with you in France all together in one tiny apartment. But there's a problem: you have two wives, a not uncommon situation where you come from (it had been banned for a little while at least in Burkina Faso under the aforementioned Thomas Sankara who, again, was killed in a French-supported coup). France refuses to recognize your polygamy, and so essentially demands you chose one wife and let the other lose all of her rights as your spouse. You protest that this isn't fair, only to have some racist, reactionary feminists pull their hair out, screaming: "bUt WhAt AbOuT tHe DiGnItY oF wEsTeRn WoMeN!?!?!?!?!"
Living in extreme poverty, you're offered a job opportunity in France. By French standards, the pay is paltry, but for you it's the best opportunity you have. You go to France alone and perform back-breaking labour for years without seeing your family. You likely face constant discrimination. Most of your money goes back home to feed your starving family, but you manage to save up enough money to one day bring them over to live with you in France all together in one tiny apartment. But there's a problem: you have two wives, a not uncommon situation where you come from (it had been banned for a little while at least in Burkina Faso under the aforementioned Thomas Sankara who, again, was killed in a French-supported coup). France refuses to recognize your polygamy, and so essentially demands you chose one wife and let the other lose all of her rights as your spouse. You protest that this isn't fair, only to have some racist, reactionary feminists pull their hair out, screaming: "bUt WhAt AbOuT tHe DiGnItY oF wEsTeRn WoMeN!?!?!?!?!"
January 8, 2011
Interesting book that raises good points. However, the number of collaborators leads to a lack of depth and some of the pieces end up being more polemical than enlightening. Moreover, the Reply in the end that Okin makes to all the pieces ends up being rather awkward, somewhat offensive, and has borderline personal attacks that lack academic polish. Furthermore, a number of the pieces have rather un-academic way of arguing points, drawing on newspaper articles to make broad statements, etc. Overall, I do recommend it for a start in looking at some of the issues that arise between feminism and multiculturalism because it is one of the first works to talk about this but more recent works do a better job.
February 22, 2024
Read as part of a university project, very thought provoking and relevant for my course but also some replies were a bit confusing
July 13, 2016
It's difficult to review a book like this. It's set up as a lead essay (by Okin), followed by several short response essays by other public intellectuals, and finally a reply essay by Okin. I guess to be successful such a book should have at least an interesting lead essay, and then a diversity of responses that span the possibilities.
The lead essay is indeed fertile for commentary, if quite imperfect on its own. Okin is entirely correct to note a tension between multiculturalism and feminism, but her navigation of this tension is not very deft. She tends to essentialize other cultures by their patriarchal public face without delving into the heterodox or dissident voices within those cultures.
A number of responses correct this mistake, however, so I'm quite happy with the book overall. The contributions by Martha Nussbaum, Joseph Raz, and Cass Sunstein all treat the fundamental tension with the care its irreducible difficulty requires. (Nussbaums's contribution is even titled "A Plea for Difficulty"). I was also impressed by Azizah al-Hibri's response, which was a defense of feminist interpretations of Islam. Learning about al-Hibri is probably the most valuable thing I'm taking away from the book.
Some of the responses were not so great, but this is to be expected from a book like this. Some were downright absurd. For a good lol, e.g., read Sander Gilman's response, which argued among other things, that clitoridectomy isn't detrimental to women's sexuality because not all sexual pleasure comes from the sex organs.
The lead essay is indeed fertile for commentary, if quite imperfect on its own. Okin is entirely correct to note a tension between multiculturalism and feminism, but her navigation of this tension is not very deft. She tends to essentialize other cultures by their patriarchal public face without delving into the heterodox or dissident voices within those cultures.
A number of responses correct this mistake, however, so I'm quite happy with the book overall. The contributions by Martha Nussbaum, Joseph Raz, and Cass Sunstein all treat the fundamental tension with the care its irreducible difficulty requires. (Nussbaums's contribution is even titled "A Plea for Difficulty"). I was also impressed by Azizah al-Hibri's response, which was a defense of feminist interpretations of Islam. Learning about al-Hibri is probably the most valuable thing I'm taking away from the book.
Some of the responses were not so great, but this is to be expected from a book like this. Some were downright absurd. For a good lol, e.g., read Sander Gilman's response, which argued among other things, that clitoridectomy isn't detrimental to women's sexuality because not all sexual pleasure comes from the sex organs.
May 29, 2007
Will Kymlicka's thoughtful response was the most worthwhile of the bunch.
(Note: Okin was my professor's senior thesis advisor)
(Note: Okin was my professor's senior thesis advisor)
March 22, 2022
Terrible on many levels. Okin's analysis of Abrahamic religions is incredibly shallow, and her dismissal of non-Western lifestyles verges on the ethnocentric.
October 29, 2025
Dieses Buch ist kein gemütlicher Lesestoff, sondern eine intellektuelle Arena. Schon der Titel selbst, "Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?“ (1999), dient als die zentrale Provokation des gesamten Bandes. Er stellt die Debatte bewusst als einen unversöhnlichen Konflikt zwischen zwei Eckpfeilern der progressiven Politik dar: dem feministischen Ziel der Gleichberechtigung des Individuums und dem multikulturellen Ziel des Schutzes von Gruppenrechten.
Das Inhaltsverzeichnis enthüllt, wie brillant das Buch als intellektuelles Duell konzipiert ist. In Teil 1 beantwortet die Philosophin Susan Moller Okin 1946 - 2004) diese Titelfrage implizit mit einem klaren „Ja“. Ihre These lautet, dass die Duldung patriarchaler kultureller Praktiken im Namen des Multikulturalismus die Unterdrückung von Frauen zementiert. Teil 2 eröffnet daraufhin ein Kreuzfeuer von 15 hochkarätigen Antworten, die Okins Prämisse dekonstruieren und die gesamte Bandbreite der zeitgenössischen politischen Theorie abdecken.
Die Resonanz auf Okins Essay ist vielstimmig und überwiegend kritisch. Die Debatte spaltet sich in mehrere Lager: Einige (wie Bonnie Honig mit „My Culture Made Me Do It“) scheinen Okins Sorge zu teilen, dass Kultur als Alibi für Unterdrückung missbraucht wird. Eine breitere Front, vertreten durch postkoloniale (Homi K. Bhabha, Azizah Y. al-Hibri) und liberale (Will Kymlicka) Stimmen, wirft Okin im Gegenzug „liberale Selbstgefälligkeit“ und eine westlich-patriarchale Perspektive vor. Fragen wie „Whose Culture?“ (Katha Pollitt) oder die Infragestellung „barbarischer Rituale“ (Sander L. Gilman) deuten darauf hin, dass Okins Gegner nicht die Unterdrückung von Frauen verteidigen, sondern Okins monolithisches Verständnis von „Kultur“ und ihre vermeintlich universelle Definition von „Gleichberechtigung“ angreifen.
Zwei Jahrzehnte später lässt sich fragen, wie sich die Konfliktlinien weiterentwickelt haben. Letztlich zwingt diese Sammlung die Leser dazu, einfache Positionen aufzugeben. Beiträge wie jene von Joseph Raz („How Perfect Should One Be?“) drehen den Spieß um und hinterfragen, ob der westliche Liberalismus selbst seine eigenen Gleichheitsideale erfüllt. Martha C. Nussbaums abschließendes "A Plea for Difficulty" (Ein Plädoyer für die Schwierigkeit) dient dabei als philosophischer Schlussstein. Ihr Titel legt nahe, dass die Titelfrage selbst zu simpel gestellt ist und man die komplexen Widersprüche anerkennen muss, anstatt eine „heilige Kuh“ (Bhabha) gegen die andere auszuspielen.
Aus heutiger Sicht, im Jahr 2025, wirkt Okins binäre Fragestellung fast schon nostalgisch. Die Debatte, die sie zwischen Feminismus und Multikulturalismus eröffnete, hat sich vervielfacht und ist ins Zentrum der heutigen Auseinandersetzungen gerückt. Man muss nur „Multikulturalismus“ durch „Religionsfreiheit“ und „Frauen“ durch „LGBTQIA+-Rechte“ ersetzen, und man befindet sich mitten in den aktuellen juristischen und gesellschaftlichen Grabenkämpfen. Mit einem Augenzwinkern könnte man sagen: Martha Nussbaums Plädoyer für die „Schwierigkeit“ wurde mehr als erhört. Die heutigen Debatten, etwa um Trans-Rechte innerhalb des Feminismus selbst, zeigen, dass die Frage „Whose Culture?“ (Wessen Kultur?) nun auch auf den Feminismus zurückfällt und die „heiligen Kühe“ (Bhabha) von damals heute die umkämpften Minderheiten von morgen sein könnten.
Für mich ist dieses Buch ein Dokument philosophischer Selbstprüfung – ein Streitgespräch, das zeigt, wie schwer es ist, Prinzipien wie Gleichheit und kulturelle Vielfalt miteinander zu versöhnen. Gerade deshalb bleibt es lehrreich: nicht als Antwort, sondern als Einladung, weiterzufragen.
Das Inhaltsverzeichnis enthüllt, wie brillant das Buch als intellektuelles Duell konzipiert ist. In Teil 1 beantwortet die Philosophin Susan Moller Okin 1946 - 2004) diese Titelfrage implizit mit einem klaren „Ja“. Ihre These lautet, dass die Duldung patriarchaler kultureller Praktiken im Namen des Multikulturalismus die Unterdrückung von Frauen zementiert. Teil 2 eröffnet daraufhin ein Kreuzfeuer von 15 hochkarätigen Antworten, die Okins Prämisse dekonstruieren und die gesamte Bandbreite der zeitgenössischen politischen Theorie abdecken.
Die Resonanz auf Okins Essay ist vielstimmig und überwiegend kritisch. Die Debatte spaltet sich in mehrere Lager: Einige (wie Bonnie Honig mit „My Culture Made Me Do It“) scheinen Okins Sorge zu teilen, dass Kultur als Alibi für Unterdrückung missbraucht wird. Eine breitere Front, vertreten durch postkoloniale (Homi K. Bhabha, Azizah Y. al-Hibri) und liberale (Will Kymlicka) Stimmen, wirft Okin im Gegenzug „liberale Selbstgefälligkeit“ und eine westlich-patriarchale Perspektive vor. Fragen wie „Whose Culture?“ (Katha Pollitt) oder die Infragestellung „barbarischer Rituale“ (Sander L. Gilman) deuten darauf hin, dass Okins Gegner nicht die Unterdrückung von Frauen verteidigen, sondern Okins monolithisches Verständnis von „Kultur“ und ihre vermeintlich universelle Definition von „Gleichberechtigung“ angreifen.
Zwei Jahrzehnte später lässt sich fragen, wie sich die Konfliktlinien weiterentwickelt haben. Letztlich zwingt diese Sammlung die Leser dazu, einfache Positionen aufzugeben. Beiträge wie jene von Joseph Raz („How Perfect Should One Be?“) drehen den Spieß um und hinterfragen, ob der westliche Liberalismus selbst seine eigenen Gleichheitsideale erfüllt. Martha C. Nussbaums abschließendes "A Plea for Difficulty" (Ein Plädoyer für die Schwierigkeit) dient dabei als philosophischer Schlussstein. Ihr Titel legt nahe, dass die Titelfrage selbst zu simpel gestellt ist und man die komplexen Widersprüche anerkennen muss, anstatt eine „heilige Kuh“ (Bhabha) gegen die andere auszuspielen.
Aus heutiger Sicht, im Jahr 2025, wirkt Okins binäre Fragestellung fast schon nostalgisch. Die Debatte, die sie zwischen Feminismus und Multikulturalismus eröffnete, hat sich vervielfacht und ist ins Zentrum der heutigen Auseinandersetzungen gerückt. Man muss nur „Multikulturalismus“ durch „Religionsfreiheit“ und „Frauen“ durch „LGBTQIA+-Rechte“ ersetzen, und man befindet sich mitten in den aktuellen juristischen und gesellschaftlichen Grabenkämpfen. Mit einem Augenzwinkern könnte man sagen: Martha Nussbaums Plädoyer für die „Schwierigkeit“ wurde mehr als erhört. Die heutigen Debatten, etwa um Trans-Rechte innerhalb des Feminismus selbst, zeigen, dass die Frage „Whose Culture?“ (Wessen Kultur?) nun auch auf den Feminismus zurückfällt und die „heiligen Kühe“ (Bhabha) von damals heute die umkämpften Minderheiten von morgen sein könnten.
Für mich ist dieses Buch ein Dokument philosophischer Selbstprüfung – ein Streitgespräch, das zeigt, wie schwer es ist, Prinzipien wie Gleichheit und kulturelle Vielfalt miteinander zu versöhnen. Gerade deshalb bleibt es lehrreich: nicht als Antwort, sondern als Einladung, weiterzufragen.
February 13, 2023
📖 Is Multiculturalism Bad For Women? by Susan Moller Okin and others ✨️
I was ready for heavy philosophical writings, disputing group minority rights, integration in the society, feminism and well-being of each individual. And I was wrong!
In beautifully combined assays, 15 authors reflect on different topics on two sensitive areas: clashes between feminism (claiming equal rights for women) and group rights (acting according to culture, religion, or tradition, which sometimes repress individuals/compulsory veiling / forced marriages / rape pardon while marrying etc).
Thou topic is complex, dilemma let's itself to be spotted into small details and sub-ideas, guiding an important cultural and societal dialogues.
📌 How far a Muslim emigrant would get if he refused to pay interest on his Vusa bill on the ground that Islam forbids interest in borrowed money. -> Everyone understands that this won't work. Why is oppression of women and children another story?
📌 To make liberal arguments for the rights of groups, one must take special care to look at inequalities within those groups, especially inequalities between sexes. Minority rights should not be constructed so as to enable group to oppress its own member.
📌 Tolerance cannot be unconditional
I was ready for heavy philosophical writings, disputing group minority rights, integration in the society, feminism and well-being of each individual. And I was wrong!
In beautifully combined assays, 15 authors reflect on different topics on two sensitive areas: clashes between feminism (claiming equal rights for women) and group rights (acting according to culture, religion, or tradition, which sometimes repress individuals/compulsory veiling / forced marriages / rape pardon while marrying etc).
Thou topic is complex, dilemma let's itself to be spotted into small details and sub-ideas, guiding an important cultural and societal dialogues.
📌 How far a Muslim emigrant would get if he refused to pay interest on his Vusa bill on the ground that Islam forbids interest in borrowed money. -> Everyone understands that this won't work. Why is oppression of women and children another story?
📌 To make liberal arguments for the rights of groups, one must take special care to look at inequalities within those groups, especially inequalities between sexes. Minority rights should not be constructed so as to enable group to oppress its own member.
📌 Tolerance cannot be unconditional
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 11, 2025
ძალიან მნიშვნელოვანი საკითხია წამოჭრილი, რომელსაც ბევრი პოლიტკორეტულობის შელახვის შიშით მოერიდებოდა- რას ვაკეთებთ, როცა განვითარებულ სამყაროში მცხოვრები რელიგიური და ეთნიკური უმცირესობების კულტურული უფლებების დაცვა სასტიკ წინააღმდეგობაში მოდის ქალთა უფლებების დაცვასთან, რომლებიც, მით უმეტეს, ამ უმცირესობათა სოციუმებში, ხშირად ილახება. იძულებითი ქორწინება, ღალატის შემთხვევაში მკვლელობა, ცემა, ეკონომიკური და საშინაო დაქვემდებარება, ბავშვთა ქორწინება, იძულებითი ქორწინება, სხეულის კონტროლი…- ესაა იმ ,,ფასეულობათა” ჩამონათვალი, რომელზეც ბევრი ისლამური, იუდეველური და აფრიკული კულტურა დგას. მათი მოთხოვნა, პრივილეგიები ჰქონდეთ დანაშაულის ჩასადენად, კულტურული სპეციფიკის საფარქვეშ, რაც ლიბერალ- დემოკრატთა მიერაა მხარდაჭერილი- თავისთავად ეწინააღმდეგება ინდივიდის ღირსებისა და უფლებების ხელშეუხებლობის ლიბერალურ-დემოკრატიულ პრინციპს. ტექსტი დიდად არ გვთავაზობს გამოსავალს, თუმცა ამ ალოგიკური დაპირისპირების ილუსტრირებას ახდენს, არსებული მოსაზრევების შეჯამებით.
January 12, 2019
The debates arise by these essays are very exciting to read. Multiculturalism is not such a popular ideology to contrast to feminism, but now I understand why is so important to do it. The way the book is composed (with Okin's reply at the end) makes it really educating. I honestly never thought feminism theory could be this exciting. A must reading to anyone interested in going deeper (than comercial authors) on feminism.
February 24, 2026
Susan Okin's opening essay is excellent, as are some of the responses. Some of the responses are just outright bonkers.
Even if all you read is Okin's essay, it's worth the read.
And the answer is definitively yes: multiculturalism is bad for women.
Even if all you read is Okin's essay, it's worth the read.
And the answer is definitively yes: multiculturalism is bad for women.
Read
April 18, 2020Feminism in its worst.
September 2, 2020
Felt strongly enough about this book to write a dissertation on it. A really interesting challenge, with some flawed assumptions. Excellent responses from contributors!
September 16, 2021
Far from perfect but definitely changed my views on feminism / increased my intersectionality
January 22, 2022
Certaines réponses adressées à Susan Moller Okin sont très bonnes. Mais l’article de cette dernière est terriblement frustrant.
June 7, 2022
m'ha agradat molt
December 16, 2023
je mens j’ai lu que 20 pages pour mon cours de gender and politics
February 20, 2024
1 star for okin… 2 stars for bhabha absolutely annihilating her ass
June 1, 2024
Le format est SI COOL, et la question posée est évidemment passionnante. Un énorme slay.
February 23, 2025
I don't agree with Okin but this raises some interesting questions
July 2, 2011
Menguji adalah sebuah proses lanjutan, sebuah fase penarikan simpulan sementara (hipotesis), kemudian mengelaborasinya menjadi bagian dari gagasan (discourse) yang sedang dikembangkan. Susan Moller Okin (1999), dalam tulisan “Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?” sebenarnya sedang melakukan proses itu. Namun Okin tak sekadar menguji, tapi juga memberikan penilaian lebih jauh tentang kemungkinan-kemungkinan atau ketidakmungkinan terjadinya dialektika feminisme dan multikulturalisme. Dalam tulisannya, Okin melihat praktik Multikulturalisme di negara-negara liberal sebagai atribut: pemberian hak-hak kelompok, atas nama sebuah budaya minoritas yang harus dilindungi dari kepunahan.
Ia pun segera menyadari adanya aspek partikular dari Multikulturalisme, ketika gagasan tersebut mencoba menyapa kritik-kritik Feminisme atas “praktik-praktik kultural” dari berbagai macam kebudayaan. Menurutnya, apapun konsep yang terlahir dari rahim liberalisme dengan sendirinya nilai yang diinternalisasi juga adalah nilai-nilai liberalisme. Mustahil sebuah kelompok hak-haknya dibatasi, atau sebaliknya, harus diberikan perlakuan khusus karena alasan-alasan tertentu. Menurutnya, Multikulturalisme telah terperangkap dalam logika sederhana ini.
Ia pun segera menyadari adanya aspek partikular dari Multikulturalisme, ketika gagasan tersebut mencoba menyapa kritik-kritik Feminisme atas “praktik-praktik kultural” dari berbagai macam kebudayaan. Menurutnya, apapun konsep yang terlahir dari rahim liberalisme dengan sendirinya nilai yang diinternalisasi juga adalah nilai-nilai liberalisme. Mustahil sebuah kelompok hak-haknya dibatasi, atau sebaliknya, harus diberikan perlakuan khusus karena alasan-alasan tertentu. Menurutnya, Multikulturalisme telah terperangkap dalam logika sederhana ini.
February 11, 2017
Certainly made me ambivalent to Performance Standard 7: Indigneous people.
November 6, 2011
This is a good collection of articles. It opens with Okin's original piece on multiculturalism and women which spawned a lot of debate. The rest of the pieces are commentaries on Okin's original work - some supportive, others critical. Though some are much better than others, almost all of them are worth a read. They're all fairly short and to the point, and provide a lot of material for thought. Okin's retort aat the end of the book is also useful, as it allows her to further develop her argument, and in same cases, stick to what she said. It's not the most exciting piece of academic literature ever, but it's a short, fun read.
April 11, 2014
I personally loved this book. Everything about it was amazing and factual. The format of the book was very nice as well. I liked how it gave Susan Moller Okin's opinion first and allowed for critiques the second part from other writers. Finally, Okin would respond to her critics in the final part. If you love social justice and women's rights, read this book! It is a quick read, but it contains so much information. I would only recommend you this book if you like feminism and social justice. I really loved reading this book and thank you Ms. Whittemore for recommending it and loaning it to me!
May 25, 2011
Susan Moller Okin wrote a provocative paper - enough to sustain a book with responses and conversation. For me, this book was a useful window into the discourse surrounding feminism and multiculturalism, which sometimes can be in conflict. It's interesting to see how academic criticism happens - some very sober and stern papers, overly dry and critical; other responses that were more generous and non-defensive, with wonderful insights and alternative perspectives.
Overall a fun case study in criticism and careful thinking on an interesting subject!
Overall a fun case study in criticism and careful thinking on an interesting subject!
December 24, 2011
I strongly suggest reading the book beyond the first essay which many readers will find flawed in a number of ways (e.g.,conflation of culture and religion, sweeping generalizations, lack of nuance, West-centeredness and so on). The piece by Okin is surely problematic, but the subsequent responses to it offer a thoughtful critiques and a range of perspectives on the highly controversial issues of women's rights, multiculturalism and liberalism.
June 23, 2013
This is one of these books that makes you think and reflect for a long time. A long list of influential people in the field of multiculturalism, feminism and filosophy gave their intelligent views, arguments and opionions related to the title's question. Some contributions may be a bit out of date by now, but the book still provides an incredible kaleidoscope of views worthwhile reading and to reflect about. A true eye-opener!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews