People make a ridiculous deal out of someone at any point doing any work with the CIA, or a company having IQT on their cap table, or anything like that.
Yeah, right, as soon as you get involved you instantly meet with the smoking man from the X-Files and see the dead aliens and become part of some kind of grand conspiracy. After that every single thing you say or do is part of some giant perfectly organized CIA plot. Please.
Most of what these three letter agencies do is boring.
It’s a lot like guilt by association: “this person did business with this person therefore they are totally the same on everything and part of some big agenda.” False.
Sure, but it is really interesting to think that the 50s arts and 60s youth movements as top-down "soft power" countermeasures to the USSR and communist revolutions, and that it's not so spontaneous as it's typically thought of.
What would you think of someone who works for KGB (now FSB) and propagandizes the values of USSR (or modern Russia)?
secondly: CIA job is exactly promote the image of a "liberal, nonviolent and honorable” agency, while killing thousands people to overthrown elected governments just because uncle Sam did not like them...
Most of what the 3 letter agencies do is also fraud- some drunk station chief phoning in some changes as "I made that happen!".
The CIA is a pillar to prop up stuck cultures excuses for why they get nothing good done - when your own ideology has no explanation power and thus no real help to offer, except calls for endless uprisings and civil wars. It also keeps a whole "nonacademic" wing of academia propped up. For when your theories have no predictive power and reality merciless digresses- its all a conspiracy by the 3 letters.
Most of the work is probably boring and not consequential on its own. But I think that's sepaerate from whether it's reasonable to encourage people to draw an ethical line. We probably wouldn't feel comfortable with someone who knowingly did work for the KKK, even if that work was just making photocopies, picking up office supplies, and keeping track of membership dues.
Then you don't say stuff like “In my experience The Agency was completely different from its image; it was liberal, nonviolent and honorable”. It is not "guilt by association" anymore, it is pure complicity.
I don't even know much about her. I'm just sick of lazy conspiracism, which has totally taken over the discourse now because people aren't getting enough experience in the real world and living their life behind screens. Reality is not a TV show or a social media conspiracy theory.
I think she was probably an American liberal who worked with some people at the CIA who were nice at least to her and who also wrote about feminism.
And yes, the CIA has also done terrible things. It's a huge sprawling many-headed bureaucracy and she probably had contact with an entirely different part of it than the one running around fucking up Latin America.
Or hey, maybe since Gloria Steinem said something good about the CIA therefore all feminism and all 60s social movements were all 100% CIA psyops and everything she wrote was dictated to her through her brain implant. Could be for all I know.
This article says exactly the opposite: everything was completely coherent and known within the CIA. The information gathered on student leaders and members by the supposedly "liberal, nonviolent and honorable" side was never kept away from the "total assholes and monsters" who could sell them away to their dictator friends.
If you want clicky headlines or simplistic denunciations, then saying that everyone ever associated with the CIA was a "spy" is quite useful.
Otherwise, it's kinda like saying that everyone ever employed by Ford Motor Co. was a mechanical engineer, and bears responsibility for exploding Pintos.*
(And bear in mind that James Bond is about as realistic a depiction of "spy" as Bugs Bunny is a depiction of "rabbit".)
Yes, yes, the good ol' "liberal, non-violent, and honorable" CIA of the 50s and 60s. So different from the one we have now.
Is this the CIA that overthrew the democratically elected prime minister of Iran after he nationalized their oil industry? Or is it the one that installed a dictatorship in Guatemala to stop land reform and tend to the whims of the United Fruit Company?
Maybe it's the organization that murdered the first elected leader of Congo, to keep cheap copper, colbat and uranium flowing? Certainly it can't be the agency that illegally spied on American citizens who fought for Civil Rights or protested against the Vietnam War.
> Is this the CIA that overthrew the democratically elected prime minister of Iran
Mosaddegh Was not democratically elected, he was appointed by the Shah after the recommendation by the Majlis which itself was largely appointed. Later Mosaddegh rigged a real election and tried to give himself emergency power to dictate law. The Shah and his generals with the help of the US and Britain removed Mosaddegh. Yes the British wanted to get involved because of oil nationalization but Mosaddegh was trying to become a dictator, and alienated a lot of the population.
Majlis means parliament, and with the monarch Shah in control, that makes it a constitutional monarchy. To place a putschist general on par with that is disingenuous; it is a democratic retreat.
To be fair Iran back then wasn't a system like the UK or Sweden where the king's power is limited to signing laws. It worked more like Gulf states today with a much more personal form of government, the Shah could freely appoint ministers and dissolve parliament when he wanted. And his secret police was trained by the CIA.
It wasn’t a constitutional monarchy at the time, there were reformers pushing in that direction but the constitution put very few limits on the Shah. The Majlis wasn’t popularly elected then either.
It interesting because the people at the CIA probably could be fairly described as "liberal, non-violent, and honorable". That sort of thing is heavily into banality of evil territory - lovely people, just a bit thoughtless about the effects they were having on huge tracts of the world.
With those types the best you can hope for is at least they act rationally and effectively. It gets really sad when they do tremendous damage for reasons that make little sense, even in context.
It’s the residual Puritanism. Foreign-facing federal agencies like the CIA were the last bastion of American WASPs. I grew up around these people because my dad worked for a contractor for USAID, which was at times a front for the State Department, and was similarly WASPy culturally. They’re lovely people. Soft-spoken, orderly and rule-following, public service-oriented, intellectually curious. But they also have this cultivated detachment from baser emotions that enable them to pursue abstract ideas to their logical conclusions without normal gut feelings and common sense getting in the way.
Feminism has always been bundled up in the idea of American cultural superiority that justifies pursuing hegemony (although the term used is usually "women's rights").
Sure. I thought briefly about using the phrase "American Feminism".
But, regardless, to be more nuanced: Feminism gets rhetorically roped into the case for Western cultural hegemony, which in turn gets used as a justification for US military adventurism.
Modern intersectionality isn’t the cultural relativism of 20th century liberalism. Intersectionality has a built in escape hatch for any aspect of foreign culture that conflicts with the foundational premises of post-religious children of mainline american protestants. Any such practice gets lifted to a “human right,” thus taking it out of the realm of cultural differences and allowing it to be imposed on foreign societies without accusations of cultural imperialism.
This avoids failure modes of 20th century cultural relativism, which treated everything as socially constructed and therefore within bounds as long as some society accepted the practice. It has a different flaw, however, in that there is no rational distinction between what’s a socially constructed aspect of culture and what’s a human right.
Concrete example: I'm Bangladeshi, and our society has strict gender roles. When you visit a Bangladeshi household, the women will spend all the time in the kitchen cooking elaborate meals, while the men are socializing. This is rooted deeply in tradition, religion, etc., and even extends to Bangladeshis who live in western countries. It's how Bangladeshis show hospitality, caring for family, etc.
How do you approach this from a feminist perspective?
1) If you're a western cultural chauvinist, like my mom and me, you'd say that Bangladeshi culture is backwards and the goal should be to be more like say Scandinavians where society doesn't impose this burden to cook elaborate meals on women.
2) If you're a cultural relativist, like most 20th century liberals, you'd say gender roles are arbitrary social constructs, and it's not our place to impose what we perceive as more advanced views of gender roles on other cultures.
3) If you're an anti-colonial feminist, you've got a tension. Unlike a cultural relativist, you cannot accept the Bangladeshi practice. But unlike a cultural chauvinist, you can't say that your own society's view of gender roles is superior. So you have to reframe gender roles as being a matter of women's rights, and therefore outside of culture. You put it in the same bucket as other social practices that we're willing to condemn as being outside the realm of legitimate cultural practices.
Note that the first and second groups accept the premise that gender role are cultural. The third must construct a second category of social practices outside the boundaries of culture in which to place practices that they condemn. But this distinction between what's "culture" and what's “not culture" is arbitrary. The collective imposing social rules on individuals to allocate work, achieve desirable ends, etc., is what culture is. What the anti-colonial feminist has done is just whittled down the box labeled "culture" to include only the aspects of society--food, clothing, etc.--that they don't have strong feelings about either way. It's the "Disney's It's a Small World" version of culture, where everyone is just a Western European wearing different different clothes and eating different food.[1]
This is particularly relevant in the context of this discussion about Steinem and the CIA. The CIA people of the 1950s were in bucket (1)--they thought that Anglo-American culture was superior in its substantive aspects over other cultures. All of those peoples' kids became post-Christian liberals, but their fundamental view of the world isn't actually all that different. (3) is just (1) with more steps and more hiding the ball about the very significant cultural differences that actually exist in society.
[1] More sophisticated intersectionalists will frame this in terms of "choice," but that steals the base. The notion that society can't prescribe social roles to people without their affirmative consent is itself an outgrowth of western individualism. From India to China to Africa to the Middle East, prior to western influence, everyone agreed that society can impose roles and obligations and burdens on individuals based on who they are.
> allowing it to be imposed on foreign societies without accusations of cultural imperialism.
I don't actually know if this is an accurate representation of 21st century feminist thought. If anything, I think they just take an inevitableist view and say every country must be allowed to have its feminist revolution in its own time.
I just don't think it's particularly shocking that the US government would try to co-opt some of its rhetoric as a justification for military adventurism. They already do w/r/t the Middle East.
It is a shame but there are almost no true grassroots political organizations, most of them are payed, bought or employed by someone.
A very good example of this is that we don't see any major feminist rallies against how the government is handling the Epstein files, whose victims where predominately young girls and women.
Virtually every single feminist organization has spoken against Epstein, his best friend Trump, and the people around them. And in support of their victims. Where are you getting your information from?
It's almost like there's someone, who perhaps even got elected on the back of getting the files released and who exerts power over media outlets, that doesn't want this to be a big story.
That's a bipartisan sentiment as far as politicians are concerned. They pass it around like a hot potato and give it brief lip service only when it suits them.
This is the kind of bizarre article you see in an era where people reflexively support anything having to do with the federal bureaucracy. Even the 1960s CIA that was overthrowing democratically elected leaders in other countries is now “liberal, nonviolent and honorable.” Where did this come from? Politically homeless socially liberal Reagan republicans?
> Still, whatever the truth of the extent of the CIA’s financial involvement with Abstract Expressionism, Anfam believes that it was “the best thing the institution ever paid for”. He smiles. “I’d much rather they spent money on Abstract Expressionism than toppling left-wing dictators.”
I had a similar view of my work that involved SDI "Star Wars". Better spent on my paycheck than on bombs. Don't forget, the gorgeous mirror in the Vera Rubin Telescope was one of two donated from another three-letter agency's dumpster.
I could tell you, but then you'd have to be shredded.
Buddhists like to "turn poison into medicine". So should we all.
dstnn | 20 hours ago
krapp | 20 hours ago
dgellow | 20 hours ago
2OEH8eoCRo0 | 20 hours ago
red-iron-pine | 19 hours ago
api | 20 hours ago
Yeah, right, as soon as you get involved you instantly meet with the smoking man from the X-Files and see the dead aliens and become part of some kind of grand conspiracy. After that every single thing you say or do is part of some giant perfectly organized CIA plot. Please.
Most of what these three letter agencies do is boring.
It’s a lot like guilt by association: “this person did business with this person therefore they are totally the same on everything and part of some big agenda.” False.
I don’t think this means anything at all.
gedy | 20 hours ago
FeteCommuniste | 20 hours ago
https://www.guggenheim-bilbao.eus/en/did-you-know/la-cia-y-e...
6P58r3MXJSLi | 20 hours ago
What would you think of someone who works for KGB (now FSB) and propagandizes the values of USSR (or modern Russia)?
secondly: CIA job is exactly promote the image of a "liberal, nonviolent and honorable” agency, while killing thousands people to overthrown elected governments just because uncle Sam did not like them...
wry_discontent | 20 hours ago
21asdffdsa12 | 20 hours ago
The CIA is a pillar to prop up stuck cultures excuses for why they get nothing good done - when your own ideology has no explanation power and thus no real help to offer, except calls for endless uprisings and civil wars. It also keeps a whole "nonacademic" wing of academia propped up. For when your theories have no predictive power and reality merciless digresses- its all a conspiracy by the 3 letters.
Cultural Inability to Advance is everywhere!
tdeck | 20 hours ago
Arodex | 20 hours ago
api | 19 hours ago
I think she was probably an American liberal who worked with some people at the CIA who were nice at least to her and who also wrote about feminism.
And yes, the CIA has also done terrible things. It's a huge sprawling many-headed bureaucracy and she probably had contact with an entirely different part of it than the one running around fucking up Latin America.
Or hey, maybe since Gloria Steinem said something good about the CIA therefore all feminism and all 60s social movements were all 100% CIA psyops and everything she wrote was dictated to her through her brain implant. Could be for all I know.
Arodex | 19 hours ago
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/03/23/a-friend-of-th...
bell-cot | 20 hours ago
Otherwise, it's kinda like saying that everyone ever employed by Ford Motor Co. was a mechanical engineer, and bears responsibility for exploding Pintos.*
(And bear in mind that James Bond is about as realistic a depiction of "spy" as Bugs Bunny is a depiction of "rabbit".)
A serious article on the activities Steinem was involved in: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/03/23/a-friend-of-th...
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Fuel_system_fires,_...
han-tyumi | 20 hours ago
Is this the CIA that overthrew the democratically elected prime minister of Iran after he nationalized their oil industry? Or is it the one that installed a dictatorship in Guatemala to stop land reform and tend to the whims of the United Fruit Company?
Maybe it's the organization that murdered the first elected leader of Congo, to keep cheap copper, colbat and uranium flowing? Certainly it can't be the agency that illegally spied on American citizens who fought for Civil Rights or protested against the Vietnam War.
So much for soft power.
ch4s3 | 20 hours ago
Mosaddegh Was not democratically elected, he was appointed by the Shah after the recommendation by the Majlis which itself was largely appointed. Later Mosaddegh rigged a real election and tried to give himself emergency power to dictate law. The Shah and his generals with the help of the US and Britain removed Mosaddegh. Yes the British wanted to get involved because of oil nationalization but Mosaddegh was trying to become a dictator, and alienated a lot of the population.
esafak | 20 hours ago
tancop | 20 hours ago
esafak | 20 hours ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_Unite...
ch4s3 | 16 hours ago
roenxi | 20 hours ago
With those types the best you can hope for is at least they act rationally and effectively. It gets really sad when they do tremendous damage for reasons that make little sense, even in context.
rayiner | 19 hours ago
hollerith | 14 hours ago
Yes, WASP are attracted to universal moral principles. A major WASP institution (namely, a religious denomination) is literally named "Universalism".
nonsensical_ | 20 hours ago
neutronicus | 20 hours ago
dgellow | 19 hours ago
neutronicus | 19 hours ago
But, regardless, to be more nuanced: Feminism gets rhetorically roped into the case for Western cultural hegemony, which in turn gets used as a justification for US military adventurism.
dgellow | 19 hours ago
rayiner | 17 hours ago
This avoids failure modes of 20th century cultural relativism, which treated everything as socially constructed and therefore within bounds as long as some society accepted the practice. It has a different flaw, however, in that there is no rational distinction between what’s a socially constructed aspect of culture and what’s a human right.
dgellow | 17 hours ago
rayiner | 16 hours ago
How do you approach this from a feminist perspective?
1) If you're a western cultural chauvinist, like my mom and me, you'd say that Bangladeshi culture is backwards and the goal should be to be more like say Scandinavians where society doesn't impose this burden to cook elaborate meals on women.
2) If you're a cultural relativist, like most 20th century liberals, you'd say gender roles are arbitrary social constructs, and it's not our place to impose what we perceive as more advanced views of gender roles on other cultures.
3) If you're an anti-colonial feminist, you've got a tension. Unlike a cultural relativist, you cannot accept the Bangladeshi practice. But unlike a cultural chauvinist, you can't say that your own society's view of gender roles is superior. So you have to reframe gender roles as being a matter of women's rights, and therefore outside of culture. You put it in the same bucket as other social practices that we're willing to condemn as being outside the realm of legitimate cultural practices.
Note that the first and second groups accept the premise that gender role are cultural. The third must construct a second category of social practices outside the boundaries of culture in which to place practices that they condemn. But this distinction between what's "culture" and what's “not culture" is arbitrary. The collective imposing social rules on individuals to allocate work, achieve desirable ends, etc., is what culture is. What the anti-colonial feminist has done is just whittled down the box labeled "culture" to include only the aspects of society--food, clothing, etc.--that they don't have strong feelings about either way. It's the "Disney's It's a Small World" version of culture, where everyone is just a Western European wearing different different clothes and eating different food.[1]
This is particularly relevant in the context of this discussion about Steinem and the CIA. The CIA people of the 1950s were in bucket (1)--they thought that Anglo-American culture was superior in its substantive aspects over other cultures. All of those peoples' kids became post-Christian liberals, but their fundamental view of the world isn't actually all that different. (3) is just (1) with more steps and more hiding the ball about the very significant cultural differences that actually exist in society.
[1] More sophisticated intersectionalists will frame this in terms of "choice," but that steals the base. The notion that society can't prescribe social roles to people without their affirmative consent is itself an outgrowth of western individualism. From India to China to Africa to the Middle East, prior to western influence, everyone agreed that society can impose roles and obligations and burdens on individuals based on who they are.
nonsensical_ | 16 hours ago
neutronicus | 14 hours ago
I don't actually know if this is an accurate representation of 21st century feminist thought. If anything, I think they just take an inevitableist view and say every country must be allowed to have its feminist revolution in its own time.
neutronicus | 17 hours ago
I just don't think it's particularly shocking that the US government would try to co-opt some of its rhetoric as a justification for military adventurism. They already do w/r/t the Middle East.
dgellow | 17 hours ago
red-iron-pine | 19 hours ago
Arodex | 18 hours ago
neutronicus | 17 hours ago
swed420 | 19 hours ago
(certain strains of feminism do acknowledge the relevance of class variables, but the mainstream ones avoid it like the plague)
throwfaraway135 | 20 hours ago
A very good example of this is that we don't see any major feminist rallies against how the government is handling the Epstein files, whose victims where predominately young girls and women.
dgellow | 20 hours ago
throwfaraway135 | 20 hours ago
[1] https://theprint.in/opinion/pov/silence-epstein-files-global...
sceptic123 | 18 hours ago
swed420 | 17 hours ago
That's a bipartisan sentiment as far as politicians are concerned. They pass it around like a hot potato and give it brief lip service only when it suits them.
rayiner | 20 hours ago
readthenotes1 | 19 hours ago
k310 | 20 hours ago
> Still, whatever the truth of the extent of the CIA’s financial involvement with Abstract Expressionism, Anfam believes that it was “the best thing the institution ever paid for”. He smiles. “I’d much rather they spent money on Abstract Expressionism than toppling left-wing dictators.”
I had a similar view of my work that involved SDI "Star Wars". Better spent on my paycheck than on bombs. Don't forget, the gorgeous mirror in the Vera Rubin Telescope was one of two donated from another three-letter agency's dumpster.
I could tell you, but then you'd have to be shredded.
Buddhists like to "turn poison into medicine". So should we all.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20161004-was-modern-art-...