Colonial Feminism of the New York Times: I have mentioned colonial feminism before (see Leila Ahmed's book on women and gender in Islam): the notion that colonial officers stationed in Muslim lands would exploit and bogusly champion the issue of women's rights in Muslim countries (to bash Islam and Muslims, and to justify the project of colonialism itself) while those same colonial officials were opponents of women's rights and women's suffrage in their own countries. Lord Kromer is a good example. George and Laura Bush, AND the Feminist Majority are also good examples: for one week they all collaborated to send buckets of crocodile tears to the women of Afghanistan to...justify war against the women AND men of Afghanistan. Here the New York Times has this news item: "Afghan Poet Dies After Beating by Husband." A horrific crime, no doubt. But why is that a news item worthy of coverage when women are killed daily in the US by husbands and boyfriends? That really underlines the notion of colonial feminism. I have been involved (in an advisory capacity) with women's shelters around the US, and know about the reality. I am sure that women were killed and or beaten in New York City yesterday, but why is their murder not worthy of coverage? They have names of course. They have stories to tell too. But for some reason the same phenomenon of domestic violence earns more, and qualitatively different, coverage when it occurs in Muslim countries.