There is also a place in hell for women who never criticize themselves.

The criticism of Hadia Tajik’s book cover does not get worse because it comes from a woman.

commentary

This is a comment. Comments are written by BT commenters, editors, and guest commentators, expressing their own opinions and analysis.

It was America’s first Foreign Minister Madeleine Albright, who claimed that there is a separate place in hell for women who don’t help each other.

She believed that women had to build networks and strengthen each other, if they were to be successful in gaining an equal place in society.

She is right about that: all those who fight against oppression depend on solidarity among themselves.

But what does “helping each other” really mean?

These days are Hadia Tajik’s new book, “Freedom”, on sale.

The content of the book has received good reviews, but they have ended up completely in the shadow of the cover image.

The head of the faculty at UiS, Karoline Holmboe Høibo, has, in fact, presented a rarely miserable analysis of women and clothing.

Høibo means the image it sexualizes the Tajik in an attempt to sell more books and presents partially requested examples, such as the image showing “flattering light sets, delicate makeup and fresh hair.”

Høibo wonders if Tajikistan really has the freedom to dress how she wants, or if she has been pressured to become attractive as a writer.

Criticism is, of course, absolutely vain, degrading, and outdated.

The Tajiks are one of the most capable and outspoken politicians in the country. She addresses the challenges of social control in the book.

Why should she suddenly be pressured to sacrifice her integrity to sell books? Hinting at something like that is an insult in itself.

The reader’s post ends by revealing Høibo’s own biases about how a powerful woman can and cannot dress.

He has encountered an avalanche of reactions.

Good to see the almost collective rejection of what are essentially narrow and unfair speculations, but as Høibo has overlooked in her analysis, others have not in their criticism of her.

“Unfortunately, I have to confirm that the self-proclaimed women’s police are doing well.”

It is Tajikistan’s own party colleague and former Labor Party Secretary of State, Kristine Gramstad Wedler, who by this apparently says that Høibo’s position is very bad, because she is a woman.

The prosecution is not very appropriate, and the use of the term is a clear decision technique. Høibo’s gender is as irrelevant in this debate as blow-dried hair from Tajikistan should be.

Wedler also refers to Albright’s out-of-print quote about women not helping each other. But would Hadia Tajik have been more helpful if no one had criticized her?

In spite of Høibo’s publication, to put it mildly, does not have very good impact, it is basically completely legitimate to discuss the cover of the book: What does Tajik want to communicate through the image?

Høibo himself has emphasized that the intention was to discuss the real freedom of women to dress as they wish and is therefore on the same side as their criticisms on the issue of gender equality. He wanted to start a conversation about this, but ended up sharing his own arguments.

Half the point of public debate is to come across counter-presentations, so that one can break one’s opinions against others and perhaps learn something.

It cannot be that just because a bad position that has to do with equality comes from a woman, she has betrayed her fellow sisters and can hope for her own place in hell. So there will be different rules for freedom of expression for women and men.

It becomes directly paradoxical when Wedler apparently wants this in the name of equality. The only thing we achieve then is that women refuse to make critical contributions to another woman, for fear of making mistakes and being sent to hell.

And it’s not exactly criticize each other including what Albright meant by “helping each other”? How can women grow if they are not criticized and asked to reflect on their own decisions and actions?

This also applies to criticism that is bad, overdue, and unreasonable, if it comes from another woman.

It’s just as good to practice dealing with this first and last, because if you’re going from one side of the world to the other, chances are you’ll get it later from a man.

Therefore, showing solidarity is not the same as being silly, and there is a lot of “help” in good reviews.

I understand well that Wedler was really furious when she read Høibo speculating on Tajikistan’s sexualized sales tactic. Me too.

The answer must still be to take the ball, not the woman.