Wednesday, September 02, 2009

'Feminist betrayals'

I have new glasses. No, wait - New Glasses. This means everything looks all super and awesome and slightly higher than usual, and sometimes even 4-D.

Yeah, that's right. 4-D.

If anyone was worried by the last post - I will just reiterate that writing about suicidal thoughts is my standard way to free myself of them. To quote The Golden Notebook yet again - 'Literature is analysis after the event.' To blog my fears is to seal them in the syntax-coffin and push 'em off to a Viking burial of publication. They shrink to Roman characters and stop being fuzzy visions of potential futures in my head that might grow and grow until I find myself inside.

My dear oldest sister was fool enough to attempt undertaking the topic of my brother's general bumassery with my parents (specifically, my mother) this evening. Much as I care about her, it was a fool's errand. Firstly because it was SO not the time to pick a fight and secondly because, well, he's TWENTY YEARS OLD. It's a bit late to institute miracles of parental authority, especially when now more than ever, they're huffing about being old and selling up and moving somewhere in India (ha! Yeah right. Dad would end up getting BARBECUED) and how they just want to be left alone.

They were on top form, interpreting it as an attack on their parenting, attempting to obfuscate the heart of the matter by fixating on technical details ('Have we ever forced either of YOU out of bed?' etc.) and finally, my mother squawked, her natural rougeur heightened by sunburn, 'WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO DO?' My dad echoed this earlier (less forcefully) and sort of wandered in and out being 'righteous' and basically accepting his role in the argument enthusiastically. I actually told my sister to give it up and told my mother not to drag me into it when she attempted to. I did, however, laugh cynically. Which was not necessary, I guess.

Earlier, my sister and I had a spin class. No, not the New Labour kind, but this fucking insane bike-astride form of exercise which kills about a thousand calories at a go or something and is SO not the thing to do if you have any sort of problems Down There. I neared weeping 20 minutes in, but somehow lived through to the thirtieth minute. My crotch was most unhappy, and I think I may have saddle burn. Good freaking God. The surreality of the experience was heightened by the fact that we were in a pitch-black room lit with electric blue here and there so that everyone was all teeth, eyes an' T-shirts. The speakers weren't working so the instructor basically turned down the (shit) music every now and again to yell incomprehensible instructions, which were then transmitted to me by the sororal teeth to my right. Just remembering it is making my crotch get mad at me.

Onward, to pastures less private-related! I was almost amused to see that the usual crock of shit about Western feminists not doing enough for Muslim women was doing the rounds. I went on to Heresy Corner to hit back, but guys - I'm pissed. Why the fuck do feminists keep taking flak for not 'saving' Muslim (or non-white) women all the time? Why is it exclusively our job? Given all the talk about liberating the women of Iraq, the American government doesn't seem to have bent over backwards to avoid a similar fate (i.e., things going backwards) in Afghanistan.

I'm sorry, but I'm having a little Red Mist moment, so to those who argue like the Heresiarch has, can I just say: um, fuck you? I could care less whether swearing is big or clever right now, I am really fed up of (often male) people who don't normally go out of their way to support women's rights or racial equality fucking telling women how to behave. The post on HC - 'Silence of the Fems' should REALLY have been thought out more, because - yes, rich white Western feminists (or a few renowned ones anyway) perhaps SHOULD highlight these things more.

However, there are plenty of us Western feminists who aren't white and we know better than anyone how hard it is to save ANYONE from a deeply patriarchal culture, let alone Muslim women. Also: do 'Muslim women' as a group have the monopoly on oppression? You'd think it judging by that post. Whereas a middle-class Indonesian woman is obviously NOT going to be as oppressed as an Indian hindu chamar (untouchable) female. Also, what about the oppression of poor migrant women (frequently non-Muslim) by Muslim women in the Middle East?

Obviously, things aren't as wonderfully simple as HC would like to make out. It mentions Geraldine Brooks's Cif article, launching an attack on the first few lines and missing the point spectacularly. The whole HC post pretty much boils down to 'But OMG! Western feminists didn't ADOPT AYAAN HIRSI ALI! How dare they? Traitors!'

Which is clearly utter cack. I'm sorry, where does it state that 'Hirsi Ali' and 'all Muslim women' are one and the same? Where is the proof that Western feminists rejected her and 'left' her to be bankrolled by neo-cons? Furthermore, why is it not society at large's responsibility to bankroll her (rather than just feminists') if Western liberal democracy is so loving and tolerant and all of those other things it claims to be? Shouldn't everyone be signing her up to advertise, or something?

I demonstrated the appalling lack of research to some extent, by linking to a recent F-Word post calling on suggestions from readers for how to help the women of Mali in my comment on the post. Check out this bit of pathetic emoting though:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, whose unforgivable crime is to be black, a woman, an immigrant AND a believer in the liberal principles of the Enlightenment
This coming from a blogger who was among those thinking that Henry Louis Gates might have been 'imagining' racism, and I quote:

That Henry Louis Gates should have interpreted Crowley's challenge as racist isn't surprising, though. Gates isn't just black (African-American, if you insist). He's a professional analyst of the black experience. And he has always been a politically-engaged scholar. He is, perhaps, primed to see racist behaviour where there is none.


That's right kids, he was one of those uppity negroes. Not like good old Ali, who has been playing the victim alongside neo-cons to HC's satisfaction! He made the mistake of showing the ugly racism, the Dark Side of liberal democracy.

To return to Geraldine Brooks though; her article grated with me at first, but once I had finished reading it, I was hard pressed to argue. I mean, what excellent advice:

I'm not saying here that a human right is what the local despot says it is. I find the kind of moral relativism that justifies practices such as female genital mutilation disgusting and fatuous. What I am recommending is a little humility. Western feminists with a genuine desire to raise the status of oppressed women in Afghanistan or elsewhere should call their nearest mosque and make an appointment to talk to the sisterhood there.

Sadly, such logical and non-patronising advice is wasted on the likes of Nick Cohen and the Heresiarch who clearly feel that feminists should simply be seen to be doing something. Do they have any fucking idea how patronising it is that they, white people with very little awareness of the day-to-day realities of growing up in another culture, are telling feminists with experience on the ground what to do? We should launch a feminist Iraq War mark II, should we? Geraldine Brooks actually provided a suggestion on what to do to get Muslim women engaged with Western feminism - precisely so that they can be 'saved' as the Heresiarch so patronisingly put it. I haven't seen that from any of the men sounding off.

I grew up in another culture, and guess what, wannabe neo-cons? Them darkies are not that different to you. People everywhere just want to belong, just want the safety of a group identity and freedom from individual angst. For people juggling more than one culture, it is really confusing. In the same way that you so-called liberals (because it's not authoritarian at ALL to scold feminists for not executing your will, oh no sirree) clutch your 'liberal secular democracy' and English breakfasts and beer at the pub (or whatever) like a comfort blanket - so too do they clutch their separate language, customs and religions like a comfort blanket. That doesn't mean that we should leave them to it if what they're doing is wrong - but I'm fucked if I can see how shouting in their faces about how they need to stop being medieval and telling them that their way is wrong is effective. You don't want to let go of your 'liberal values', why on earth should you expect them to want to get rid of theirs as if by magic?

Even if you believe it (and I must confess, it didn't take me too long to get sold on atheism and Western liberalism), people take a very long time to deprogramme. When they're not even of your country, and you throw in a shared inglorious history of colonialism and imperialism - well, you can expect a lot of shuffling away and a lot of failure. It's better to work like that renowned Western politicker Machiavelli - through discreet fanning of the flames of rebellion. These Muslim women that get tossed around and routinely consigned en masse to oppression - they too are people with agency. They need supporting and encouraging - not to be trampled on so that we can make way for Liberal Democracy 2.0 or whatever.

I mean ferChrissakes, I come from an educated middle-class Indian family who have lived in this country since well before I was born, and I'm a British national. I have tried the full-on approach with female relatives quite a few times and it was like they simply tuned me right out. Women living under oppressive regimes are very often so floored by the fear of taking the hard road and standing up for themselves that they simply concede. It is easier to surrender oneself to low expectations and run from reality. I myself had decided that I would rather die than follow my mother in becoming the sort of person that thinks a domestic violence-free marriage is 'successful.' There's the grey area around what exactly constitutes DV in our culture anyway - it seems to be an unspoken thing that if it's not frequent, then you shouldn't really leave. Thankfully, that's changing but it's taken at least 20 years to start changing! So... to reiterate what I was saying earlier - busybodies, kindly take a hike and get a reality check already.

18 comments:

Rumbold said...

Good post. It is a shame that more people don't take the trouble to read blogs like the F-word, and western feminists like Cath Elliot. Bashing feminism for supposed sins is easier than having to confront issues yourself.

The Gates thing was a bit of a muddle. No-one really came out of it well.

Heresiarch said...

You miss my point about Gates. I didn't imply - at all - that he was an "uppity nigger" or assumed that the police were racist or was even making a fuss because he was apt to descry racism everywhere. I know many commentators did make precisely that point, or variations thereon. But I didn't. I phrased that sentence with considerable care: you apparently read it with none.

I was discussing Gates not as "A black man", but as Henry Louis Gates, a particular individual with a particular academic and political background. Someone who, as he himself admitted in a telling comment, had analysed racism but had not (or not so much) experienced it. Part of him, I suspect, welcomed his humiliation, not because he wanted to make a fuss about race, but because he was now in a position to look victims of actual police racism in the face, as someone who had also experienced it.

I've not heard a single piece of evidence to suggest that this was anything other than a typical example of a police-officer arresting someone who didn't treat him like God. I've not heard evidence that Gates was treated in a racist manner, racially abused or arrested only because of his race (although the original complaint, which did not involve that officer, might have been partly motivated by racial stereotyping on the part of the member of the public who reported it - that's a different matter).

As to the feminism post, your point seems to be that even if rich white western feminists DID speak out more on behalf of the endemic oppression of women in Muslim and other non-western cultures it's unlikely they could change much. I'm not sure. The moral and financial pressure they could bring to bear, through influencing our own governments' policies, might be considerable. My point was that female dissidents, like (but not just) AHA tend to meet with opposition and indeed incomprehension from liberal westerners - the assumption being that there must be something odd about them if they found something fundamentally (not just superficially) lacking in the view of women found eg in the Koran. Geraldine Brooks, with her fantasies of sharia-compliant feminism, seemed to me to exemplify that.

BenSix said...

Blithely O/T - You were right about The Wire. 'Tis awesome.

asquith said...

I would have thought that people like the Heresiarch, & me, generally don't subscribe to the Something Must Be Done school of tokenism. We don't come up with grand schemes for "saving" people, & I'd like to say that as frustrated as I was by the events in Iran I think Obama was right to ignore the neoconservatives because the "measures" they would have taken would have blown up in the faces of the Iranian people. (Also note that he doesn't support the presence in Afghanistan, whereas I do, but I'm not anyone's idea of a foreign policy imperialist).

I read that article as being more a complaint about those who are actively taking the wrong side. You can read my comments there, about why people would be uneasy about associating with neocons & that.

But the attack on the whole of the pro-faith "left" (who are regularly dealt with at Shiraz Socialist, which you may like to read if you haven't yet) is justified. (I did look at those articles linked to as well, & I see why they'd be slagged off, albeit I tend not to frequent Comment is Futile due to the worthlessness of most of what is
"written" & also the shite that is the moderating regime.

Compare the venom-filled reaction to Does God Hate Women? with the ringlicking shown towards Eagleton, Bunting & whoever else it is, this in the supposedly liberal press. It had me spitting blood.

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/notesarchive.php?id=2732 (etc).

Yes, we're walking a tightrope. I myself neither have nor want any acquaintanceship with patriarchal & illiberal societies, but I know enough to say there are people within them who are very much like me.

I indicated Johann Hari as someone who seems to succeed in his approach. His championing of the likes of Malalai Joya is unfeigned & he really seems to think of these people as his fellow humans, which I know can be quite hard to do.

I suppose politics is a bit of a game for those who aren't at the sharp end but some people do feel this compulsion to get involved with just about anything & can't just ignore everything outside their bedrooms.

On a lighter note, you are quite welcome to add me if you have twitter- I would be "asquith". (can't figure out OpenID tho).

KJB said...

Re: Gates. OK - fair enough, I can live with that, it's a proper explanation of what you think.

'The moral and financial pressure they could bring to bear, through influencing our own governments' policies, might be considerable.' How exactly? I would LOVE it too if Germaine Greer and Fay Weldon and their ilk stopped being such wastes of space, but how on Earth do they (for example) bring financial pressure to bear on the UK govt against Saudi Arabia?

'Geraldine Brooks, with her fantasies of sharia-compliant feminism, seemed to me to exemplify that.'

I don't think she envisioned 'sharia-compliant feminism,' I think she was trying to argue that SOME progress is better than none. My religion doesn't even sanction misogyny and yet people continue to enforce it because that's what 'culture' has taught them. The lack of logic and independent thought makes me want to scream, but really, what can I or anyone else do? The charge of 'race traitor' is a powerfully alienating one. You can't just cast off your community and be adopted by benevolent white liberals. I should know, I've tried it (to some extent)!

KJB said...

Rumbold - I agree with you as ever.

Ben - Mwahahaha! I TOLD you! Yay! Now, if you come to the next PP meet-up, we can be nice and obsessive about it together. :-D

KJB said...

asquith - I read the Terry Eagleton Cif article about 'Ditchkins.' I thought it was hilarious; it didn't leave much of an impression on me apart from that.

I'm currently reading Does God Hate Women? and enjoying it a hell of a lot. Cristina Odone raised a troubling point though, in her Guardian review:

'There is a very telling mistake at the beginning of Does God Hate Women? The authors pay tribute to an Afghan poet they call Safia Amajan. Amajan, they explain, wrote poetry in secret because under the Taliban, women were banned from schools and any intellectual activities were suspect and punishable by hanging. In November 2005 she was beaten to death. Her husband, who regarded his wife's literary endeavours as a stain on his name, was arrested for the murder - but got off by claiming Amajan had committed suicide.

It is a harrowing story. The problem is that it is not Safia Amajan's story, but Nadia Anjuman's. Anjuman, not Amajan, was the poet killed in 2005. Amajan, the head of the department of women's affairs in Kandahar, was gunned down a year later by the Taliban.'

While I'm not sure about the rest of the review, that is a really not very impressive mistake to make at all.

Johann Hari is officially awesome - he (indirectly) directed The Libertarian towards blogging, which led to us ending up together. Even if there wasn't that, he is still, as you say, a thoroughly decent yuman bean.

'On a lighter note, you are quite welcome to add me if you have twitter- I would be "asquith". (can't figure out OpenID tho).'

I am officially refusing to join Twitter on the grounds that I am not important/popular/interesting (delete as applicable) enough.

asquith said...

You can join twitter- even if what you said was abject shite (which I don't think it would be) you could always do as I do, just put up a series of links.

It really warms my heart to see people clicking on links I provide- they really take me so seriously they think what I link to is worth reading :)

Muhamad Lodhi said...

I really like it. Will come back to read it.

KJB said...

Um - thanks, Muhamad? Were you talking about the post?

Ala said...

This post is absolutely fucking brilliant.

KJB said...

Danke very much, Ala. :-D

Muhamad Lodhi said...

Hey, hope you've acclimatized to seeing things in 4-D.

Anything on suicide worries me, even the subtle insinuations on it. But, sadly, that's not enough to stop me from contemplating it, every once in a while.
Schopenhauer, I believe, said something about the consciousness that which tries to find out what it feels like to liberate its self in such a way never gets to find out what such an attempt at its manumission feels like.

Your brother's case sounds like a case of mollycoddling, which is, prospectively, damaging for him, and, whoever cares for him.

Ah, the dream of self-repatriation...sweet! :-)


Jeezwheez! What kind of a gym were you in? Yikes!
I'd recommend yoga, or, pilates (my mrs does it).



moral relativism is a cop out and it's particularly the stand of intellectual dullards and mediocrities.

I'm glad Geraldine isn't a moral relativist.
You also hit the nail in the provincial-universal coffin.

butterflywings said...

Great post.
As if western feminists are responsible for 'saving', or should 'save' Muslim women (clearly a monolith - I mean, no difference at all between say, Saudi Arabia or Malaysia! In the minds of people like Heresiarch, I think, all Muslims are the same).

The idea that western feminists can or should tell women from other cultures what to do and think smacks of colonialism. A lot.

And 'why are you focusing on x, when y is SO MUCH MORE IMPORTANT' is such a petty, pathetic argument.

And I wonder what Heresiarch is doing to save the 'poor oppressed Muslim women'. Hah.

Anonymous said...

I share the pain of doing a spin class & vow never again even though my sporty colleague has since told me that the gym sells little gel cushions to put on the seat of spin cycles!

I could not think of anything as worthy to say about feminism like the other commenters. But am sure spinning classes are an affront to a womankind so it should count on a level.

Persephone

sonia said...

well said amrit. i dont see why western feminists have to go and 'save' anyone anywhere anyway. that's so missionary like. people have to want to help themselves. naturally some of the militant feminists *of the east* ha ha such as moi find much in common with what early feminists *in the west* and we can't expect anyone to fight our battles for us. its a tough road and one needs moral courage to stand up to one's community. i don't know why everyone has their knickers in a twist about western feminists and muslim women (well alright i do actually) but anyway, the point about cultural relativism - spot on. things ain't that different, and actually, the kind of social conditions early 'western' feminists had to work in, are very similar to the kind of social conditions any feminist has to work within, in the 'non-western' parts of the world today.

either which way, you can't win- i remember cath saying that when i met her last december at the pub. if you're a 'white' woman and you want to speak out about something or other, people will say oi you what's it to you. if you don't do anything, people say oi you didn't do anything! ridiculous.

the way the guardian set out the question - though i thought was problematic. 'Is the idea of extending western rights to Muslim women merely imperial hubris?'. Ha, its not the idea that people have the same rights/desires/or desire to speak out on behalf of someone else - that's imperialistic. but its not for 'someone' to 'extend' the rights to them. why is it seen like that? here you are - here are some rights for yoU! how odd. no one is 'extending' rights to them. 'they' have to do it for themselves. Anyway its the same idea as invading someone to 'extend' democracy to them - it doesn't work. that's just 'inter-national' geopolitical rambling though. no one invaded a country to change it. they did it cos it suited them.(though change may well happen once the invasion is done)

anyway feminism isn't about female solidarity. the feminist project may have required female solidarity to get it going, and for it to continue, but it isn't about female solidarity. its about gender inequality. that's probably the main problem, and a lot of feminists do see it this way - which is what exacerbates this kind of thing. I have to write a post what i think about all this.

sonia said...

i do think heresiarch makes many valid points in his actual post about this whole topic.

http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2009/09/feminists-and-islam-reply-to-my-critics.html

KJB said...

Yes - I guess his follow-up was something of a grudging improvement...

anyway feminism isn't about female solidarity. the feminist project may have required female solidarity to get it going, and for it to continue, but it isn't about female solidarity. its about gender inequality. that's probably the main problem, and a lot of feminists do see it this way - which is what exacerbates this kind of thing. I have to write a post what i think about all this.

Omigod, yes, yes, YES!