IN ITS latest issue celebrating global pop feminism, Newsweek includes Rebecca Lolosoli, of Kenya, as one of the 150 “women who shake the world.” Lolosoli has established a “matriarchal utopia,” a womyn-only village called Umoja. To add to the perfection of this Arcadia, many of these women were raped by British soldiers. That’s what we are told by the investigatively hard-nosed Newsweek, and expected to believe without any proof. “Sons are welcome—as long as they are willing to follow the village’s rules and do not try to dominate the women.” The village supposedly offers women protection, as if any women can seriously protect themselves without the help of men.

The women of Umoja must be only too happy to indulge the fantasies of Western feminists and the bottomless credulity of American women. In a ludicrous example of fusion feminism, which is commercial to the core, the village manufactures artisan bead necklaces sold by fashion designer Diane Von Furstenberg. Buy one, and you too can be part of global matriarchy and channel the strength of the Umoja women as you drop your children off at day care or are on your way to work as a low-level government functionary. Umoja! Primitive is cool. It sure beats the soulless, deadening, day-to-day reality of Western androgyny. 

Eliza Griswold reports:

Lolosoli, a mother of five, is now the first woman among her people, the Samburu of Kenya, to ask for—and receive—a divorce.

Two months ago, when the verdict was announced, her husband burst into tears in the courtroom.

“I will get hold of you again,” he threatened.

Lolosoli will be part of this weekend’s Women in the World Summit in New York City. The event is sponsored by Founding Partner HP, American Express, The Coca-Cola Company, ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Thomson Reuters, the Virtue Foundation, Vital Voices Global Partnership, Women for Women International and the United Nations.

                                                     — Comments —

John P. writes:

So let me get this straight. A village of “womyn only” where they can be safe without men with guns and some members of which were raped by British soldiers. When were British soldiers last in Kenya? The 1950’s? Or is there some history I’m unaware of? Also, they sell beads that were designed by a white woman with a remarkably Germanic name. Not even genuine African beads. Pretty thin stuff.

Call me when they start assembling African designed laptops. The Koreans can do it so surely African womyn can!

Laura writes:

Griswold writes that Lolosoli “narrowly escaped attack by British soldiers several decades ago.”

I believe the Umoja women design and make the necklaces themselves. Von Furstenberg has included them in her spring collection. According to the Umoja website, the necklaces “are all hand-made of glass beads by women from the Samburu tribe who fled abusive lives to settle in the violence-free zone they call Umoja.” Umoja means unity in Swahili. (Not unity with men.)

Here is a sample of a “unity necklace.” It costs $195 and shipment is “via UPS from Washington, D.C.”

Kathlene M. writes:

So if a white liberal woman buys an Umoja necklace, she will purge her white guilt. (Apparently the simple African necklaces aren’t appealing and need the genteel touch of a white designer to give them chic status.) At the same time, the white liberal woman looks wealthy and fashionable, and achieves higher status among her friends and colleagues. To quote Charlie Sheen (poster child of crazy liberal culture): “Winning!” 

I can see the conversation at the office or cocktail party: 

“Oh, Lucinda, I just LOVE your necklace. Where ever did you get it?” 

“It’s a Diane Von Furstenberg.” 

“Oh it must’ve cost a fortune.” 

“It did. But all of the money goes to the Umoja village in Africa.” 

So now the woman doesn’t look so vain and narcissistic, having just plunked down $195 for a necklace, because the money went to African women. This however does raise the question: why not just give $195 to a charity for these women? Answer: Because liberals want their good deeds to be seen so that they can gain status from their absolution.

A. writes:

What you describe is so very sad and such an example of the effects of original sin in the world. 

But I have a lot of trouble with the criticism you level at the phenomenon. 

I am sure these women have no men to protect them. I am sure that they have had relationships with men that you and your commenter’s just cannot even imagine. I am sure that they have experienced the type of abuse that sometimes kills the bodies and almost always the feminine souls. They have been badly harmed and rather than attack what may be their only solution and those that admire that solution, we must do everything possible to help those women. 

How? 

I wait for suggestions from you and your readers. It would be nice to see conservatives try to protect women unlike the stance they took when no-fault divorce swept this country. 

The world really does not like women and children.

Laura writes:

You say,”The world really does not like women and children.”

I gather you mean, “Men around the world really don’t like women and children.” This is a false and disturbing generalization. If you mean women in general suffer more than men, you would have a hard time proving it given that many men die in violence, wars and dangerous jobs. Men suffer their own injustices at the hands of women and other men though women are less physically aggressive.

Men who are very evil, cruel and violent are in the minority in most societies and they are typically brought under control by other men and by lawful government. Some societies are lawless and overrun by evil. (Our own society is lawless to an extent. Our marital traditions have been devastated by no-fault divorce.) It is extremely rare even in these societies for the natural affinity between men and women to be so disturbed that no men – no fathers, no brothers, no uncles, no husbands – offer protection to women. In any event, the right to divorce and set up women-only encampments would not help women in these places given that they are physically weaker than men. The Samburu women claim men are a threat to them. But if that is true, how have they been allowed to set up their village?

 I cannot judge the conditions in the Samburu tribe on the basis of this article. This is an extremely biased source given the whole intention of Newsweek and the theme of female empowerment. Do you notice no men were interviewed?  These Samburu women, by the way, are having children by men. How is this occurring if they have intentionally separated themselves?

As far as what we should do to help them, it is not our job to eradicate evil everywhere in the world. If forced marriages or genital mutilation are a problem in this tribe then the good members of the community should try to abolish the practices. We do not expect the Samburu to solve our own weighty problems. We can pray for the Samburu, both women and men. We can support Christian missionaries.

We can buy African crafts, but I think it is wrong to buy those that are marketed in this despicable way, creating a false war between the sexes and serving the propaganda interests of Western feminists.

Daniel Gruberg writes:

You write:

“I cannot judge the conditions in the Samburu tribe on the basis of this article.”

Laura, please don’t be silly. A few quick google searches turns up all the information you need about the poor women in this village, who take in rape victims, women who have been beaten and mutilated, and those forced into marriages as children. Don’t use them in your commentaries against feminism. I am going to assume you are being unthinking and oblivious rather than cruel. These women are all victims, real victims of incredibly horrible situations, and to deny that and act as if their desire to live apart and produce a craft is somehow wrong is simply unfair, unkind, and frankly ludicrous.

I would not necessarily be so harsh in my condemnation if you were only attacking this designer and suggesting that this designer was exploiting these women, but to lambaste these women for having their own village and to allow your readers to do so also is appalling.

Laura writes:

Did I say, “I cannot judge the conditions in the Samburu tribe on the basis of all of the articles about it on the Internet?”

No, I said, on the basis of this article, I cannot judge the conditions in the tribe. My post was about Newsweek’s presentation of Lolosoli and its Women in the World Summit. Regardless of what those conditions in Umoja are, it is despicable for Newsweek to trumpet Umoja as “A Place Without Men.” That was the headline on the teaser with a smiling picture of Lolosoli. Not “A Place Without Rape” or a “Place Without Crime;” it was “A Place Without Men,” as if the mere fact of being male-free made this village worthy of praise.

Eliza Griswold, who on the one hand paints a picture of the Umoja women as constantly threatened by men and on the other hand calls Lolosoli’s husband’s tears and threat in the courtroom “bluster,” described Umoja as a “safe haven and matriarchal utopia.” If it is safe, it is not safe because it is all female. The idea that there is such a thing as a “matriarchal utopia” could only come from the overheated imagination of a naive and sheltered feminist. 

A. writes:

You assume I mean the men of the world don’t like women and children. That is not what I said, nor what I mean. 

What I mean is that the world, human beings in general do not like women and children. There are exceptions of course, but in the big picture they are the usual victims, physically, psychologically, emotionally, economically and culturally. It is women and children who are victims of sex trafficking going on under our very noses in the United States. 

I also think your generalization that cruel men are brought under control by other men and governments is just not true. In fact, the opposite is true in most situations. I have witnessed the cruelty you can’t fathom operative over and over in this, the most civilized country in the world ostensibly. Where does help come from? In my experience, it is almost always the secular liberals who are in the forefront, just like the ones in the articles. I don’t know why, but it is so. 

Shelters for abused women are the brainkids of seculars, not the churches in America. Shelters for homeless women and children are sponsored by the same. Programs for displaced homemakers the same.

Networking for these women? the seculars. The big exception, pregnancy assist centers run by pro-lifers. Otherwise there is inaction and silence and sometimes criticisms of those victims by well meaning, but clueless conservatives. 

You say: “As far as what we should do to help them, it is not our job to eradicate evil everywhere in the world.” 

O.K. Ayn, but it is our job to do what we can, even if it is only speaking out. 

Add me to speaking out and maybe even buying a necklace. You?

Laura writes:

I gather from your reaction to this post that you believe that because some women are raped or the victims of violence, women in general are morally superior to men and should not be criticized. How else can you explan your defense of this outrageous piece in Newsweek? Did you read Eliza Griswold’s article and her gloating over Lolosoli making her husband burst into tears in court after he was divorced? Did you see the enormous headline “A Place Without Men” with a smiling Lolosoli? Do you believe there is such a thing as a “matriarchal utopia?”

Whatever crimes that were committed against the Samburu women, this infantile treatment of the issue in a magazine bursting with feminist fairy tales does not do them justice. 

You write, “[H]uman beings in general do not like women and children.”

There is evil everywhere. There are wicked men and women everywhere. There are many forms of injustice, cruelty and violence. Rape and sexual assaults are especially vile. Men are more physically violent than women and responsible for more of the assaults and murders. But more men die in wars. More men are murdered. More men commit suicide. Women in our culture celebrate maternal neglect and sexual liberation. The latter has created epidemic fatherlessness. I find it difficult to assign greater victimhood status to one sex over the other. There are many forms of injustice and immorality. It is not necessary to prove that women are victimized more often to resist evil.

I wrote,  Men who are very evil, cruel and violent are in the minority in most societies and they are typically brought under control by other men and by lawful government.

Let me rephrase that slightly. What I meant to say was, men who are very evil, cruel and violent are in the minority in most societies and when they are brought under control it is typically other men and lawful government that brings them under control not women acting on their own. Yes, there are cases in which men are not brought under control and communities where lawlessness reigns.

I also said that it is not our job to eradicate evil everywhere in the world. You sneeringly conclude that I have said it is not our job to resist evil in any way or to have compassion for others. You deliberately ignore my statement that we could do other things than support female separatism. As examples, I suggested supporting Christian missionaries or praying.I also stated that there was nothing wrong with buying necklaces from the Samburu. It may even do some good. The clear intention of this Newsweek portrait of a “matriarchal utopia,” however, was to promote a feminist agenda which has nothing to do with the good of these African women.

Kathlene M. writes: 

Your reader “A” wrongly and condescendingly assumes that liberal seculars are the ones primarily out there helping women, children and families. “A” even goes so far as to declare that “otherwise there is inaction and silence and sometimes criticisms of those victims by well meaning, but clueless conservatives.” Hasn’t “A” ever heard of Catholic Charities, to name just one non-secular national charity that has both conservative and liberal support? Catholic Charities help abused, poor, and homeless mothers and children, and they support fathers as well. Furthermore, “Catholic Charities USA makes domestic and international trafficking resources available for agencies to use to help mobilize their communities to identify and serve all chidlren who are victims of trafficking.” 

And don’t forget two other non-secular charities, Lutheran Social Services, which offers services to persons with HIV/AIDS, homeless families, at-risk teens, and those in need of clothing, transportation, or other necessities; and the international Salvation Army which was founded in 1865. Among its many missions, The Salvation Army assists victims of sex trafficking and has an anti-pornography program. 

Your reader then says, “O.K. Ayn, but it is our job to do what we can, even if it is only speaking out. Add me to speaking out and maybe even buying a necklace. You?” 

There are many ways that ordinary Americans of all political persuasions have been compassionately helping oppressed and suffering people that go beyond speaking out and buying a necklace. These people don’t expect a reward or notoriety for such efforts.

Kathlene adds:

As I said earlier, charity in liberal elite circles has become a fashion statement or celebrity brand. It’s a way for liberals to do good and look good to their peers, and even look down on others who don’t have noticeable do-good credentials. A few years ago many liberals I knew just had to wear a Livestrong band. It became a status symbol just to have it. I had no idea what it stood for except that it was uber-cool. (I now know that money for the band goes toward Lance Armstrong’s cancer foundation.) 

Jesus criticized the Pharisees for publicly displaying their self-righteousness but not following God’s commandments. Charity is about giving, and not about receiving or getting recognition for gifts. These necklaces seem more about getting a designer’s name in the spotlight and appealing to the U.S. women’s luxury goods market than it is about ways to help African women’s plight.

Laura writes:

It is un-Christian to speak of one’s charitable donations, let alone publicly display them.

Now we can show off our solidarity with women around the world by buying tribal crafts and encourage them to assume the poisonous attitudes of Western feminists. At the same time, the United Nations directs massive aid to women entrepreneurs in undeveloped communities in its own campaign to disrupt family and discriminate against men. 

Please follow and like us: