Everybody, especially on the left, is a giant racist sexist who gleefully makes fun of other cultures while being terrified of them at the same time.
Everybody, especially on the left, is always othering somebody else and justifying US military intervention.
Everybody, especially on the left, makes equivalent errors in judgment, because unapologetically using blackface and/or referring to yourself as someone’s “better” is totally the same as using a patriarchally oppressive burqa to show the logical conclusion of a body-hater’s arguments.
There is no other interpretation for what they say and do — and if they disagree, it is only because of their deep racism and sexism and othering tendencies. They must be verbally abused as a result.
Either that, or there’s just a little loss of perspective out there.
‘In her comments, Lindsay said the very thing I tried to get across several times:
“The fact that you think something is racist and I don’t doesn’t mean that I’ve wronged you, or that I haven’t listened to you, or that I’m morally defective for not reaching the same conclusion as you did. It just means we disagree.”’
And what both you and Lindsay are failing to grasp is that YOU don’t get a vote in deciding if something is racist or not. The fact that you think you do is what’s causing your problem.
One….more…..time…..:
WOMEN decide what’s sexist. Men DO NOT.
PEOPLE OF COLOUR decide what’s racist. Whites DO NOT.
When a woman tells you your actions are sexist, you apologise and DON’T FUCKING DO THEM AGAIN.
When a POC tells you your actions are racist, you apologise and DON’T FUCKING DO THEM AGAIN.
You DON’T get a vote in something that you are INCAPABLE of judging DUE TO THE FACT THAT YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE PRIVILGED GROUP.
Jeez, why is that hard to understand?
OMFG! In her own words, buh buh buh butttttt it’s only true when other people do it, not when Amanda does it!
I really didn’t want to shake the bee’s nest, just when it was finally dying down. But this is just too much:
>Actually, RM, I was at a family funeral, not a parental visit. Thanks for being so
>thoughtful.
Oh don’t be so melodramatic, we’ve all been to bad family gatherings but there’s no need to get hyperbolic about it.
Um… if Marc was really at a funeral, there’s nothing hyperbolic about it. Why is your first assumption that he was just exaggerating to score a point? There is a nastiness in the air which has nothing to do with the validity of the points being raised.
Every single one of the arguements you and that reject from some new jersey gated community have been putting forth basically can be parsed down to “who cares what POC think?”
So do you know what marc? Fuck you too, because either we all stand together, or we all fall. That’s what solidarity means.
And don’t forget “You’re either with us or against us”. No dissent will be tolerated! Especially when it comes to MY interpretation of a somewhat cryptic photoshopped picture (which needs an accompanying paragraph to explain what it even means in the first place, let alone how it might be offensive)!!! And whoever disagrees is white middle class (which is to say, racist) scum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Give a break. Holding a different opinion about something this abstract doesn’t mean the other side is saying “who cares what POC think”. Or are you asserting that every POC, or even the clear majority of them, would be immediately offended by looking at Amanda’s photo?
Look, I’m not saying it’s not okay to be offended by it. Fine. Be offended by it. But not everything that you find offensive will be offensive to everybody else. Don’t make everything so, um, black and white. Sure, some stuff is clearly racist. But then there’s other stuff which may stand on uneasy ground but should be open to discussion. DISCUSSION. Which means: NOT immediately accusing every person who comes in with a differing viewpoint of deep seated racism.
And Crys T, it doesn’t have anything to do with whether the person who disagrees with you is white, black, female, male, christian, muslim, Afghanistani, or Bill Clinton. Everybody gets “a vote”, or rather, their own feelings on the matter.
About the “intent” thing– has Amanda actually been making that argument here? I’m not necessarily saying she hasn’t, but I just haven’t seen it. Marc is the only one I’ve noticed making the “intent” argument. And let’s remember folks, they’re two different people who maybe, just maybe, might have differing trains of thought.
“it doesn’t have anything to do with whether the person who disagrees with you is white, black, female, male, christian, muslim, Afghanistani, or Bill Clinton. Everybody gets “a vote”, or rather, their own feelings on the matter.”
Bull fucking shit. Do you mean to tell me that a fucking KKK member should get a vote in deciding whether their behaviour is acceptable or not? What a load of crap.
Do you mean to say that men should be able to decide what the acceptable limits of treatment of women should be. FUCK OFF!
You absolutely, positively CANNOT let the members of the privileged group decide where the limits should be set on their treatment of the less-privileged groups, because the privileged group WILL CHOOSE TO FUCK EVERYONE ELSE OVER. As you and Marc and Amanda are choosing to do now.
This is not a question of “having a differing opinion,” as you and Marc are trying to frame it. This is a question of people with privilege shoving their way in and having the arrogance to impose their own choices on how other people ought to be treated. It’s fucking unacceptable. There is no way that it can be minimised or excused away as all right.
Bull fucking shit. Do you mean to tell me that a fucking KKK member should get a vote in deciding whether their behaviour is acceptable or not? What a load of crap.
Do you mean to say that men should be able to decide what the acceptable limits of treatment of women should be. FUCK OFF!
I will be the first to join you in disagreeing with everything that KKK members believe in. But yes, they have a right to their opinion, and to express it. What I would NOT allow them is the right to shut anybody ELSE up, or burning crosses on people’s lawns, or lynching, or anything else that is taking concrete action which harms another person. Even a speech inciting violence, I’m against that too. But less than that– yeah, I think we kind of have to let them. What’s the alternative? Lock them all up?
Crys T, I’m saying everybody gets “a vote”. Everybody. The downtrodden too. Everybody. I’m not trying to stand up for the oppressors here. Quite the opposite. To say that everyone has a right to express their opinion, whatever it may be– that is the opposite of racism, or oppression, or arrogance. I will not deny that right to anyone; who am I to be the arbiter of right and wrong thinking? Who are you? We’re just people. We might be wrong about some things.
Stuff like lynching? Sure, that’s bad, don’t allow it, that’s why there’s laws against it, and if there weren’t, I’d be pushing for that law to get passed as hard as you would. But an empty burqa next to President Clinton? I dunno. The outrageousness of it just isn’t as apparent to me. You think it should be self-evident. Fine. Let’s talk. Please don’t just tell me to “fuck off” because I’m trying to “impose my own choices on how other people should be treated”. Because I’m doing nothing of the sort.
Anybody in here who says that their way is the only way on this not-so-obvious-issue is being just as dismissive as they think I am.
Um… if Marc was really at a funeral, there’s nothing hyperbolic about it.
Hey! He says he went to a funeral, I say he didn’t, can’t we just agree to disagree?
If I say he fucked his dog to death, and he says he didn’t, well both opninons are equally valid, we’re all fair and balanced here.
This is the problem of white people only being able to take this stuff seriously is if it also comes from another white person, they start to think “oh it’s just some esoteric arguement between white people hahaha, it’s all philisophical and platonic so doesn’t really matter if we can’t agree on this.”
And yes if Trex or Marc are just defending their loves it’s fair enough for them to be huge racist assholes, but if I am pissed off with the people who I love having their oppression erased and turned into whiteboy trivia, well it’s unreasonable for me not to just agree to disagree with the trexs of the world.
And whoever disagrees is white middle class (which is to say, racist) scum
Oh yes, again we see the mythical “reverse racist”, God of Gods, riding in on his flying strawfeminist, oh yes we’re just trying to shut down discussion – unlike the whole agree to disagree bullshit (which is one of those privelaged acts of racism which you’re unable to see) which only happens to, by a freak coincidence, be designed to shut down the discussion – oh and gods forbid we make racism into some sort of taboo! Not that anyone is being racist of course, au contraire.
Oh and the “you’re either with us or against us” trope is only bullshit if “us” is equal to rightwing racist corporatist downpressers, when the “us” is, say, the working class or POC or women, being “against us” is by definition wrong. This is a thing called “logic”, it is wonderful to use now and again.
BTW If you’re here to defend the “against us” position, please don’t bother, idiocy makes me gassy.
Anybody in here who says that their way is the only way on this not-so-obvious-issue is being just as dismissive as they think I am.
Yup, but dismissing racism isn’t BAD you nitwit. Racism isn’t considered a valid viewpoint on Punkassblog.
Hey! He says he went to a funeral, I say he didn’t, can’t we just agree to disagree?
If I say he fucked his dog to death, and he says he didn’t, well both opninons are equally valid, we’re all fair and balanced here.
Wow. You write that, knowing full well that Marc has just lost a family member, and his old dog to boot… Just. Wow. Maybe you using those examples to aim a retort at me, but… are you sure you’re not just gunning for Marc here? I mean, saying that kind of stuff, I’m not the one whose feelings you’re going to hurt.
Before you go off on another one of your “Oh boo hoo, another privileged white boy can’t take a few bad words” writeoffs, consider… what are you really trying to achieve here? Are you really trying to engage in any sort of dialogue? Who are you really attacking? What is your real motive?
Wow. You write that, knowing full well that Marc has just lost a family member, and his old dog to boot… Just. Wow. Maybe you using those examples to aim a retort at me, but… are you sure you’re not just gunning for Marc here? I mean, saying that kind of stuff, I’m not the one whose feelings you’re going to hurt.
Who the fuck are you anyway? Of course I’m aiming at marc, and I’m pretty sure he’s smart enough to get the point.
And it’s a serious point, as well as being the only point around which actual reasonable discourse can revolve.
“Actual reasonable discourse.” Yeah, okay. We can try that again some other time. I think, for now, actual reasonable discourse has been left far, far behind.
Nope, “civil” dicourse was dropped by people living under oppressed systems the moment it stopped working.
Back in ancient Sparta.
Reasonable discourse is the other thing, where the disempowered have an appropriate voice in things that concern them primarily, but have to concern us all if this whole progressive thing is to work.
What you’re a fan of is this thing where the privelaged close their eyes and believe in some farcical “level playing field” which is presumed to exist ex nihilo because the alternative puts white people in the awkward position of not having their privelage awkknowledge or respected.
If a discussion of race doesn’t look like some sort of political carnival, where the voices of POC are given a greater weight and respect than the voices of white folk like you and me, then it’s not reasonable.
And the fun thing is that I’m not even talking about some sort of rightwing conception of AA style depowering of whites, but just that white people awknowledge that even the most well informed white person is still a mere enthusiastic amateur compared to POC as far as knowing what they’re talking about in regards to the oppression of POC, because POC live with the system of oppression every single day of their lives.
But of course they can be wrong, see me criticising a POC who decided to inform people that Patriarchy was the ultimate form of oppression in another post. Reverse racism, strangely enough due to it not actually existing to quite the huge degree otherwise sane white leftistan denizens are claiming it does, wasn’t a problem.
No, you’ve routinely rejected out of hand the opinions POC until they stopped bothering to argue, and are now declaring that to be somesort of victory.
I have repeatedly maintained the validity of both interpretations.
Which is ridiculous, one by definition invalidates the other, to accept them both to be valid requires you placing them in seperate realities that do not in anyway intereact.
Which I guess is true for you and lindsay.
Ken Blackwell is an interesting example of someone who throws out unfounded accusations of racism to shut up his opponents. His campaign has repeatedly implied or outright claimed that people oppose him because they’re racist and he’s black. But despite his race, he’s a de facto white supremacist and the mastermind, if you will, behind the new version of Jim Crow being practiced in Ohio. So the question of who is racist gets very confusing—if you criticize Blackwell, are you being racist because he says you are a racist? Or are you being anti-racist, because you oppose how he disenfranchises black voters?
1) It fucking well was a cheap snipe, due to it being a cheap snipe. Dog shit in the street is still dog shit regardless of the intent behind the placement of the dogshit in the street, your assumption of intent being the only definition by which an object can be assessed or categorised anally rapes monkeys. If you’re saying that August is so stupid that it can’t get its point across, then we both agree I guess (though I wouldn’t call august stupid, that’d be mean) on that issue.
2) You’re assuming I hold your absolutist strawman view about when a white person can and cannot criticise a POC. I assume your intent was to agree with me on the whole you fucking your dog to death thing though?
3) that was patently a cheap snipe, as recognised by its cheapness and its snipiness, and are you absent? Are the POC I’m referring to? STFU then because I was right.
I could go on, but you didn’t.
Ken Blackwell is an interesting example of someone who throws out unfounded accusations of racism to shut up his opponents.
And? woody allen was a jew in hollywood, the jews do not control hollywood, right wing bullshit is sometime specifically accurate yet involves this greater social context you see, and if it isn’t specifically accurate then they’ll pay someone to make it specifically accurate just because they can.
however, if you’re not trying to prove the existence of reverse racism in the form and ot the extent that Marc and 1984 called it forth, but are instead trying to imply that either you accept that your piss poor contextless use of the Burka as the ultimate symbol of oppression isn’t racist or you are objectively pro-ken blackwell, then I laugh dirisively at your latest strawman amanda.
Do show us your intent amanda, lest marc explode (again).
Nope, “civil” dicourse was dropped by people living under oppressed systems the moment it stopped working.
Back in ancient Sparta.
…
2) You’re assuming I hold your absolutist strawman view about when a white person can and cannot criticise a POC. I assume your intent was to agree with me on the whole you fucking your dog to death thing though?
Fine, R Mildred, sorry I didn’t understand yet your distinction between “civil” and “reasonable” discourse. Sure. I can see how uncivil discourse might be reasonable in certain situations.
But in order to be effective (as opposed to self-defeating), that uncivil discourse had better be relevant to the cause at hand. Just how, R Mildred, does making inane snipes AGAIN about Marc’s recently deceased dog have ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING AT ALL?
It’s not that you’re never making any points with any merit. But if the only way you can bring yourself to do it is to repeatedly insult and bait the people who disagree with you, then you are not looking for a dialogue at all, civil or reasonable.
Do show us your intent amanda, lest marc explode (again).
Truly, Marc does not appear to me to be the one exploding here.
Rereading your post, I think I see the point you were trying to drive at by needling Marc about his dog again. Your point was wrong– based on what you’ve been writing, I’d say he was not attacking a strawman at all (just you)– but at least relevant.
But also inappropriate, unfeeling, and unwarranted. And offensive in the bad way– not the “oh this is satire, have a sense of humor” way. In the “I just want to piss you off so you can’t speak or think coherently and then I can claim I’ve won, so I’ll be as petty as possible” way.
I dunno, maybe Marc is taking it all with good humor. But if it were me, I’d say, flat-out, that an apology was in order.
Sorry to stoke the fires. Sheesh. What I’d like here, more than anything, is for people– well, certain people– to cool off a little bit. I’m not exactly helping, am I?
Huh, R? I just thought Blackwell was an interesting example of how you can’t always tell who’s fighting white supremacy by the color of their skin.
But also inappropriate, unfeeling, and unwarranted.
that’s what this whole thing feels like to the POC marc has been dismissing Quin, it’s about empathy.
This sort of crap is so common for POC that it’s like a punch in the gut to see their allies whipping out as well. And I really don’t like people hurting my friends like that.
Huh, R? I just thought Blackwell was an interesting example of how you can’t always tell who’s fighting white supremacy by the color of their skin.
Which still implies that I think POC are above reproach. You mentioned reverse racism and that has been rather misused by some of Lindsay’s non-racist commenters, and anyway in Blackwell’s case it’s just plain old racism, no “reverse” business involved in it just because he’s covering his racism by preemptively accusing other people of being racist; it’s all just part of his racism.
See Also: projection, Rightwing
Quin, Marc should know for a fact whether he was at a funeral or not, he should also know for a fact what the circumstances were of his dogs death. R is saying she doesn’t believe him, and making up reasons that certainly don’t fit to make a point. The point is that POC should know for a fact whether something is racist, since many of them have been colonized (I’m native american) we should also be able to recognize colonialism when we see it. Marc et al have been telling us that they don’t believe us and making up reasons that don’t fit.
Amanda that is plain disingenous. Most of the time you can tell, and pointing out the exception to the rule as the standard…
For instance I dismiss The Grouch as a POC even though he/she says they are “part” muslim. That -part- is a giveaway to POC. It’s someone who identifies with whites even though genetically this person is more than one race. This is the kind of person who only identifies with POC when it suits, but is culturally white the rest of the time.
I kept hoping that Marc, Amanda, and Lindsay would eventually see the light and come around, but that’s not happening. Instead they are using the exception to back up their claims in the exact same way that conservatives point to someone like Blackwell or Clarence Thomas as the epitome of black thought.
Blackwell also identifies with whites, I’m not saying he thinks he is white, I am saying that in order to climb the ladder in Republican circles he had to find a way to be acceptable to them. He has to get in their heads and even if he doesn’t think like them he must act like he does.
It’s not disingenous, in the slightest. I agreed and (though this is forgotten) apologized for making an image I think does, by accident, have the possibility of upholding the othering of Muslim women. My readers are smart enough to know that most Middle Eastern women are not under the burqua, but the red meat war supporting base doesn’t, and there’s an argument to be made that my image contributed to this misunderstanding. Lindsay’s post, however, contributed to the proper discourse, which is to say that Muslims are a diverse group and Middle Eastern countries have diverse cultures.
Had I been toeing the line that my intent was everything, my point about Blackwell would have been horseshit. But I was pointing out that racism is systematic, and if I contributed to the system, I apologize and will strive to do better. The argument then turned into this bizarre assertion that the very people who are trying to work with Muslim feminists are somehow contributing to their oppression because many of them are not Muslim. I’m afraid that while I can see that point, I think it’s off base.
But if Blackwell is too obvious an example, here’s a much more troubling figure, especially troubling to the idea that “POC” is a group that speaks with one voice: Condi Rice. Quick: For or against white supremacy? Whatever you say, you have to defend it to the death, by the rules of this non-debate shit-flinging contest.
“Caitlin Flanagan. Ken Blackwell. Clarence Thomas. Anne Coulter. By your logic, we should listen to these people over someone like Stephen Colbert or Lindsay Beyerstein on issues of sex and race. This is patently false.”
As I pointed out to Lindsay, there is a world of difference in us saying that we shouldn’t take, for example, Ann Coulter’s definition of what sexism is and us deciding that we should allow MEN to make the definition. Which would be similar to what you are trying to do. It is not your place as white people to be telling POC that their definitions of racism are wrong. I as a woman can say Coulter is full of shit, but it is not up to you as a man to be overriding either me or her.
“people of color have weighed in on Lindsay’s thread with the same viewpoint as me. Do they not count?”
Of course they count, but you are still not getting the point: that is not YOUR place to be deciding what is acceptable or not. You can’t just listen to the POC who are saying what makes you feel comfortable and ignore all the others who are saying the opposite. You can’t just tell yourself, “Hey, a couple of women say I’m not being sexist, so I’ll believe them over all the other women who’re telling me I’m a pig.” It doesn’t work that way. It may not be easy, but the best course of action is if some people tell you you are being offensive, you take that on board, even if one or two people from the same group say what you’re doing is okay.
“And if you are a person of color, why, if another well-meaning person of color disagrees with you, must I agree with _you_ or be a racist?”
This assumes that making photoshopped images of burqas is somehow a necessity, or an action that had to be taken. Rubbish. It was a fucking in-joke for Amanda’s pals, not some great blow for the anti-racist cause. You can very well refrain from appropriating images that don’t belong to you in order to make jokes. It’s not hard. Even if there isn’t a consensus amongst the group the image belongs to, how is it hurting you to say, “Well, lots of people in that group seem to feel I’m wrong. Even if I’ve got one or two saying it’s okay for me to use, maybe I should respect the views of those who feel it’d be wrong for me to do”? Why is that hurting you?
As it stands, as much as you say you’re not ignoring those who’ve critised Amanda & Auguste, you’re taking it upon yourself to decide whose point of view you’re going to respect. And, surprise, surprise, you choose to listen to those who give white people the greatest latitude in using others’ cultures for their own ends. You may as well say that as a pro-feminist man, you’ve decided that you’re going to choose to listen to women like Coulter or Dawn Eden. After all, they’re saying things that make it much easier for you as a man, aren’t they? And they ARE women, never mind that they’re not exactly known and respected as feminists in the feminist world. That’s similar to what you’re doing when you ignore women like Brownfemipower, Nubian (who, btw, some of you guys were championing a few months back), and Blackamazon–women whose names most of us have known for some time as being fighters against racism–and instead choose to focus in the words of a couple of random people who made posts and said they were POC, too. Come on, Marc. Come on.
“I have heard several viewpoints and settled on the one that sounds most correct to me.”
No Marc, you have settled on the one that makes you the most comfortable, involves the least amount of effort to change on your part, and, importantly, makes your girlfriend look the best. Amanda’s a big girl, she doesn’t need your blind devotion and protection. In fact, it’s to the point now where it’s getting offensive: you’re losing all reason in your attempts to defend her against criticism. Let her take it herself, she’s not some weak little inept flower.
And remember: she did actually apologise, albeit in a completely half-arsed way, as the result of BFP’s & R Mildred’s posts. So why now all of a sudden have you decided that those two women are Amanda’s “enemies”? Amanda herself conceded the fucking point!
Anyway, this should be all moot, after reading Amanda’s previous posts on this type of thing. She bloody KNOWS she’s been hypocritical–nearly every argument we’ve been making, she made herself previously. So why are you even arguing the point? Or do those things just magically not apply when it’s Amanda doing them? Come on.
And Amanda, since you’re here again: seeing as you *did* in the posts both BL and R Mildred have linked to raise pretty much EXACTLY the points that people have made against you in this particular argument, I’m asking you, how come those points don’t apply to you? How is your case different?
Amanda, I will apologize to you if I misunderstood, because I was getting the feeling that you thought your intent was everything. I won’t say that it isn’t because I am partially attibuting some of your supporters thoughts to you, because I probably am. But also, until this post I didn’t think you clearly demonstrated your thoughts on the matter, although you probably thought you had. I think it would have meant a great deal to POC if you had said as much to those who were defending you on that thread at Pandagon. I know I thought that was an indication you were backtracking. And it isn’t because you work and didn’t have time to say anything, that thread went on for days without a peep from you.
That part about the red meat supporting base, that is where Lindsay stepped in it. She dismisses this argument and I think for most POC this is the most important part. It’s not just conservatives or Republicans who think like this, many liberals, progressives, and even apolitical people do not understand that muslims aren’t some monolith who all think and act alike. Our country simply does not educate us on people of other countries and cultures very well, and so we get that education from television and film which does spread the stereotype of muslims as freedom hating evil terrorists bent on killing us all.
The reason why privileged people who think they are working with muslim feminists could be hampering their cause, is the fact that they are privileged. They think they can speak for muslim women. Just because they wouldn’t want to wear the burqa, which many muslim women don’t want to either, they think they can come up with the proper solutions. They usually can’t because they don’t understand the complexity, the dimensions of the problem, or muslim women’s priorities. I’m sure the burqa is quite low on their priorities even in Afghanistan. I think they would say that ending the war, rebuilding, sending their daughters to school, being able to see a doctor, being able to go to market unescorted, come way before whether they can throw off the burqa. That’s why ending the war and getting funding for rebuilding through relatively non-imperialist parties (the UN or NGO’s) is where we as Americans should be focusing ourselves instead of the burqa.
Crys, I’m sick to death of the 3 white women who keep beating and beating on this thing wearing the mantle that disagreeing with you=disagreeing with People Of Color. That there is such a term doesn’t mean they all speak with one voice. Marc didn’t disagree with People Of Color, which is not an entity. What he did when he wanted information on the subject was actually seek out the individual people of color who knew the most about it. The dismissive hand waves displayed by the people who are angry with him at what women forced to live under the burqua have to say was repugnant and downright racist, in my opinion.
Crys, they actually aren’t “making points”. They’re actually “trolling”. Accusing me of not believing in what I’ve repeatedly said is trolling, not arguing. They’re lobbing accusations at me and hoping something sticks. Really, it’s getting silly.
I think it was accidental in the sense that you were unaware of RAWA’s criticisms of the use of the Burqa by white US feminists:
The excerpt is from Transnational Feminism and Afghan Women’s Rights by Val Moghadam
I’d actually argue that no one said intent mattered. We’re all far too edumicated for that. I said that I felt that the possibility of reading the photo as racist was enough that I felt, in retrospect, that I shouldn’t have done it. Lindsay said she thought the photo had enough context that reading it as racist wasn’t actually held up by the text. I think, strictly speaking, she’s right that the general context of my blog is such you know that I’m not supportive of treating Muslim women as a joke. But the evidence that some people found it offensive—people who I respect like brownfemipower and Kevin—was enough for me to figure that there was a legit interpretation I hadn’t considered and I apologized for it.
The intent thing was a red herring AND a strawman floated to keep the hostilities high on a subject where everyone actually agrees on what’s important, the number one thing being the notion the racist stereotypes are being employed by imperialists to wage colonialist wars. At this point, I’m not immune to thinking that some people fanning the flames of misunderstanding are cops that are trying to derail this blog.
The reason why privileged people who think they are working with muslim feminists could be hampering their cause, is the fact that they are privileged. They think they can speak for muslim women. Just because they wouldn’t want to wear the burqa, which many muslim women don’t want to either, they think they can come up with the proper solutions. They usually can’t because they don’t understand the complexity, the dimensions of the problem, or muslim women’s priorities. I’m sure the burqa is quite low on their priorities even in Afghanistan. I think they would say that ending the war, rebuilding, sending their daughters to school, being able to see a doctor, being able to go to market unescorted, come way before whether they can throw off the burqa. That’s why ending the war and getting funding for rebuilding through relatively non-imperialist parties (the UN or NGO’s) is where we as Americans should be focusing ourselves instead of the burqa.
God, I’m commenting to death, but since I think you are arguing in good faith, Donna, I think we can have a productive conversation. I know what you’re saying here, and I agree that a lot of liberals do make this mistake. But a lot don’t and you can’t tell who and who doesn’t feel this way by their race for sure. American feminist organizations are a bad target for this criticism, since they follow RAWA’s lead in setting goals and standards. To me, offering help is the right thing to do, if it’s actual help and the importance of letting the feminists of any country set the goals is paramount.
Lindsay didn’t phrase it this way, but the idea that Afghani feminists are the leaders on this subject was implicit to her argument. All of her points were generated from literature that is traced back to people that live in Afghanistan and write about the issue.
Re: the burqua. It’s a symbol, and a powerful one. That’s why the Taliban demands it, because they want women to feel cowed by the very clothes they wear. The argument that X or Y or Z is more important doesn’t hold much water with me, because nothing about abhorring the mandatory burqua prevents someone from prioritizing education, health care, etc. For those of us who actually support Afghani feminism, the burqua is a synecdoche that stands for all the various oppressions of women.
I think, strictly speaking, she’s right that the general context of my blog is such you know that I’m not supportive of treating Muslim women as a joke.
Then why the burka piccie Amanda? because you realise that Statements of Intent Do Not Change Reality.
Not unless you’re some sort of giant pan-dimensional squid faced God-like being who’s merest thought can retcon reality to your slightest whim.
But I doubt that.
You guys do also remember that I called myself a racist, right?
Who are the individual people of color who knew the most about it? B|L got RAWA’s thoughts on it here. I got UmmAli’s thoughts on it in her poem “No More”
No More
I will no longer be the pin-up girl for your wars,
oppressed and veiled whore
to be pimped to the masses
for “feminist” causes.
From this moment on
this struggle will no longer be
all about you
and your agenda
for me.
I will not offer apologies
for refusing to melt my soul
and pour it into the mold
that you have shaped for me.
Take back your hands and their intent.
you cannot reshape me
into your image
of liberty.
You cannot liberate me
and simultaneously negate me,
alienate me,
berate me.
Know this, sweet sister,
I have the final say over my destiny.
My fashion decisions do not oppress.
These tightly woven strands of cloth on my head
do not compare
to the weight
of your foot
on my neck.
We will never succeed if each time i try to lift up
from the oppressive depths of obscurity,
you tear away at my beliefs
Some of us want to be heard
and not seen
and some of us want everything.
You know
and I know
and I know that you know:
power and freedom of choice
are not directly proportional
to the amount of flesh that I show.
While the poem wasn’t written specifically to address burqagate, she weighed in over at BFP’s place too.
The only other muslims I can think of who had anything to say are Alon Levy’s interpretation of what his MALE muslim friend had to say, and who knows how Alon phrased it, it’s doubtful that his friend saw any of the actual threads and discussions; in other words, I would have much rather have had the man show up and speak for himself. The other one is Bint Alshamsa and she agreed with the rest of the POC who thought it was wrong to use the burqa as a symbol this way. I can’t find the exact thread she commented on, I think it was over at one of one of the threads at BFP’s place, but I am sure you can stop by her blog and ask her what she thinks.
Context, R. Deliberately trying to change what I did say into what I didn’t say is not debate, it’s trolling.
I’m not interested in awarding points because you called yourself a racist. Brownie points is not an argument. Plus, you’re actually arguing from intent there, like, “I’m quicker to cough up some platitude about how we’re all racist, so I get more generous interpretations of my point.” No one here is addressing that issue because it’s beneath us to quibble about who will say that she’s a racist first. We’re all of this culture, we all have racism issues.
Donna, I get that. And I can totally see why it’s unwise of Americans to focus on it, but not because of priorities. Again, dropping the mandatory burqua in no way, shape or form hurts their other goals. But because it does uphold the sense that “those people are so DIFFERENT than us”, when they’re really not.
However, contextually speaking, the original post and the apology post were both about how conservatives say that we’re so different than Afghanis, but the truth is that we are not. I was taking a swipe at the conservative use of the burqua to other Muslims. However, I accept that my post missed the mark, in no small part because the image of the burqua is too loaded to be wielded effectively to mock conservatives for their platitudes about “helping” women when they don’t even let the women they’re claiming to help take the lead.
Deliberately trying to change what I did say into what I didn’t say is not debate, it’s trolling.
You’re not going to quote Webster’s def of Trolling now are you?
I’m not interested in awarding points because you called yourself a racist. Brownie points is not an argument.
Good thing it’s a (another) strawman arguement you have there then isn’t it?
You and marc just seem to consider that calling another white person racist is akin to calling them hitler is all, meh, glad we agree on that point.
R, taking potshots at me in order to shut down an actually productive discussion is definitely the dictionary definition of trolling.
taking potshots at me in order to shut down an actually productive discussion is definitely the dictionary definition of trolling.
What productive discussion did it shut down again? we’ve gone from marc gibbering about “agreeing to disagree” to you actually engaging people.
Well, almost.
Donna and I were actually talking, which was your cue to try to confuse the issues again, I guess.
huh? THAT wasn’t trolling, the stuff before that was, that was just me being snippish while I write a longer comment, you are still free to engage Donna to your heart’ss content, always have been, her last comment being caught by the modbot actually screwed up the discussion more than I could have unless you wanted to avoid engaging her or were much more intellectually lazy than I know you to be.
belated comment, do excuse the tardiness.
The argument then turned into this bizarre assertion that the very people who are trying to work with Muslim feminists
how many have you even met though? how deep was your analysis of the use of burqas in india where the threat of violence isn’t legally used to enforce the practice? you used the rightwing’s Idea of the burka to make a point, and you didn’t do it well.
And when talking about things like that, if you don’t do it well you’re doing it racist.
Had I been toeing the line that my intent was everything, my point about Blackwell would have been horseshit.
You didn’t make that clear though, and that’s not our fault you said what you did without bothering to note any of the context into which what you said was being placed.
AGAIN
The argument then turned into this bizarre assertion that the very people who are trying to work with Muslim feminists are somehow contributing to their oppression because many of them are not Muslim.
No. They were criticising the use of the Rightwing’s Symbolic Burka by middle class white people to attack another middle class white person. It was the way you used the oppression of muslim women without them really being involved as people that offended, to start with.
Then as soon as you start to take into account the context of how the Symbolic Burka was used to justify the occupation (which has worsened the oppression of afghan women, because hte taliban were the lesser of two evils in afghanistan, the other evil being chaos and the rule of take-what-you-can which always makes facists seem attractive) it gets worse, if I was going to use the Symbolic Burka in satire, it’d be to satirise the Symbolic Burka, not to criticise another american because for those who know the full context of the current occupations the Symbolic burka is as much (if not more) of a symbol of american oppression of muslim peoples, as the Taliban’s.
It’s like that transphobic “ann manhands” stuff that gets thrown at coulter, yes she’s something of the Rightwing’s ideal conception of the ideal woman, and yes she ironically does have a large jawline and big hands despite the righties often going on about feminists being unfeminine, and she’s very bad and needs to be mocked, but it doesn’t matter how much you otherwise support transrights and how many transfriends you have, you use the slur and you’re being transphobic, it really is that simple.
There’s reasons, some of them almost noble and many quite well thought out, why the cisgender might be able excuse it’s use, but it’s still offensive to transexuals to call ann coulter a man, because you’re holding up transexuality as something that is bad “sure she’s an evil, pro-genocide racist misogynistic asshole of the first order, but what’s bad is that she’s trans!”
the same with this “ultimate oppression” stuff here again you’re thinking about it wrong:
Why does the burka stand in? Women are beaten, murdered and raped (often in that order) in America for dressing in a way that isn’t modest enough, that’s what that business about women dressing like they’re “asking for it” is about, they dressed in a way that wasn’t totally sexless, ergo they were available to be fucked.
Ted Bundy is the ultimate symbol of female oppression, and would have been a much better thing to photoshop into the picture, he’s white and privelaged just like Ann Althouse and justified his fucked upness by claiming women weren’t dressing modestly enough.
he even aimed most of his crap at college going women as well. If ann althouse had a strapon and could pick up a shovel she’d be beating “slutty” college girls to death with a shovel and beating her to death faster than you can say “academic bully”
But the burka is the first thing that came to your mind, why? Because the bushchev admin has spent millions of dollars in corporate kick backs making the burka into the “ultimate” form of female oppression.
And why did it do that again? to help justify the first move in the latest round of anti-islamic pogroms by the neo-cons.
And by reusing the meme you did, you become a “little georing” (to paraphrase That politically incorrect quote of Ward Churchill’s) for the international anti-islamic pogrom that the neo-cons are using for various reasons atm, irregardless of your prior position on such things – we all know you’re against the war, and were against afghanistan too, that was never in question btw you misconstrued things or we didn’t explain properly (now that I can agree to disagree on btw) – because the Symbolic Burka meme exists primarily to enable the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
and yes you can try to use it for not-bad or not-racist reasons, but that doesn’t matter because for you to use it like that you have to ignore all that context with regards to how it’s been popularised and used against muslims.
” I’m sick to death of the 3 white women who keep beating and beating on this thing wearing the mantle that disagreeing with you=disagreeing with People Of Color.”
And I’m sick to death of the white woman who won’t admit that she’s engaging in the very type of behaviour that she’d SLAUGHTER any male engaging in similar disingenuousness about sexism for. You would, you KNOW you would, so I want to know WHY the hell you consider this case to be different?
And no matter how you try to dodge it, it’s not about disagreeing with ME or R Mildred or BL. It’s about disagreeing with and dismissing women like BFP, Blackamazon and Nubian. I can’t even believe you’re trying to shrug this off as, “ooh, it’s only you white women who are arguing this anyway” when you know damn well that the reason most WOC aren’t here anymore is because they’ve given up on you in disgust.
Once again, aren’t you one of the ones who’s said in the past that it’s up to men to call out other men on their sexism? Well, I’m calling you out on your racism. Why is it somehow “wrong” or “presumptuous” or whatever it is you’re trying assert here for me to do that, yet completely okay–indeed *desirable*–for men to call each other out on sexism?
“they actually aren’t “making points”. They’re actually “trolling”. Accusing me of not believing in what I’ve repeatedly said is trolling, not arguing.”
Amanda, you haven’t been around here to make points TO. You started this shitstorm then ran off pretending that it wasn’t happening–except for a handful posts on Lindsay’s where you knew that anyone not on your side would get shouted down. It’s only now that most WOC have had enough and have decided that you are beyond reaching that you’re venturing back into this. And I strongly suspect it’s precisely because then you can limit yourself to arguing with us white girls only and can dismiss anything we say out of hand as being “inauthentic.”
Secondly, I personally have not been arguing “with” you. I have been arguing with all those people who insist you had nothing to apologise for, and that white people should be allowed to define racism over the protests of people of colour. If I’ve used your name, it’s because a) the specific example we’ve been discussing involved your actions and b) from what I could see at Lindsay’s you at least in part went back on your limp excuse for an apology.
You still haven’t explained how you reconcile what looks to the rest of us like a complete about-face on questions of racism and controversial jokes to your earlier posts on the topic. In fact, you’re nor responding to anything at all. You’re playing victim here, accusing us of making baseless attacks when in fact you’re refusing to deal with anything we say.
Amanda, I think both you and Auguste “get it”. I still wonder if Marc and Lindsay do, among others. I think they assume you two were “bullied” into making your apology. The problem I see is that if we (POC) take the gentle approach we aren’t taken seriously, since we don’t appear to be that upset over it. But when we take a more aggressive stance or what may appear to be bullying we still aren’t taken seriously, because now we’re being hysterical, engaging in hyperbole, etc. We can’t win for losing. The other thing is how it seems to us (POC) that this is all a hypothetical intellectual academic exercise for white people, to us it’s our lives. —There I go again, getting hysterical, using hyperbole, exagerating the hell out of the situation; c’mon it’s just one picture!— Nope, it’s not just the picture, it’s TRex’s racist screed against Liza, it’s FDL’s use of blackface that was the preface to TRex’s racist screed, it’s incident after incident both online and in the real world that tell us we are getting nowhere fast, and then getting the brush off and marginalized again each time we bring it up.
I actually cried when I read Bint Alshamsa say this over at Feministing:
If it would make it easier for you, Jessica, Samhita, Celina or anyone else to actually go out and talk to people of color and see what they have to say about this issue, then just write me off as some deranged person with a mysterious and unjustified grudge against white people, white bloggers, white blogs, people with the first name Jessica, and anything else that might make you feel better. If it will get you to at least come and read what people there have said, come and denounce me and my statements on my blog. I’ll post WHATEVER you want to say there.
I didn’t come here trying to claim that I was so important that I deserve listening to. I came asking, begging, putting my dignity on the line, subjecting myself to the possibility that other people of color may view it as grovelling and others may attempt to tear me a new one just like they did others in the past. So, please tell me how this is an attempt to discredit Jessica. I made a request. I asked questions. I explained how I see things. If that was too demanding, if it wasn’t couched between sweet enough words, then just ignore me. If you feel like I got out of line with you or calling these attendees “clowns” is simply more than you can bear to deal with, then I’ll delete it all from my blog.
There are lots of people of color who are smarter than me, more committed feminists than me, more eloquent than me, and anything else that you might value in a person of color if you want to validate POC feelings about this.
But for God’s sake, won’t somebody please go and participate in the conversations that other people of color are having about this?
This is how desperately we want people who claim to be our allies to listen to us, to acknowledge that our concerns are valid, to help us to be heard above the din of the white people who shout us down and tell us to shut the hell up. She’s even saying, all right ignore me if you have to, but speak to any POC, we’re all saying the same thing. But of course no one wanted to listen.
This is much bigger than just this one episode. It happens again and again. When I hear some black person say, “They don’t give a damn about me, they just want my vote during elections.” What am I supposed to tell that person? All I can tell them right now is that it is true. Whites don’t find out what we are actually saying, they don’t know what issues are important to us, they think that they can somehow extrapolate that we all have the same issues since we are all Americans. That’s why the whole “the internet is colorblind” is bogus. You can tell when you are on a blog run by a POC and it does not interest whites, or they would be reading and commenting regularly, as well as linking to those blogs. Sure some do, but alot of the major ones where all the whites get their news and views do not. One of the reasons why some of the white run blogs that do feature POC views are not major blogs might be the fact that they feature POC views.
Alright, I’m worn out and have a headache and doubt I’m making much sense anymore. So I’m outie for now.
And I’m sick to death of the white woman who won’t admit that she’s engaging in the very type of behaviour that she’d SLAUGHTER any male engaging in similar disingenuousness about sexism for. You would, you KNOW you would, so I want to know WHY the hell you consider this case to be different?
That doesn’t strike me as true in the slightest. Why would I get mad at a man who unintentionallly offended someone, thought about the offense, and apologized for it?
Donna, if it helps, I know that Marc and Lindsay aren’t doing what a lot of people in my thread did, which was dismiss the concern out of hand. I think they take it very seriously and are engaging people on the issue, but they too have very real concerns. The very real concern they’ve both voiced explicitly and implicitly is that a particular group of women of color—the women who have explicitly sought help in their struggle against the Taliban’s oppression—is getting brushed aside.
Lindsay and Marc are both meatspace friends, of course, and I can tell you up front that I disagree with them specifically about the context issue. They don’t think I was bullied into apologizing and I’ll bet you that they’d both be a little skeptical of the idea that I’m able to be bullied.
That comment you quoted makes sense to me in a lot of ways, but here’s my concern: By calling all the women listed white, Bint managed to insult Samhita, who is not white. And this is my concern—how is it fair to tell a non-white woman that she’s not speaking for people of color when she speaks for both herself and writes about political issues involving people who struggle against white supremacy nearly every single day? I understand that the comment comes from anger, but it’s also frustrating to me to see prominent bloggers who are not white be dismissed so quickly.
First and foremost , this post is exactly why we feel the way we do. Because first you make comedy out of real concerns then you deign to say we’ve lost our perspective on things. Thank you oh great lefty coraller sorry that I lost my lock step.
Finally you do realize that R mildred’s post coments petered out not because it was resolved but because a post OF AMANDAS showing an amazing amount of hypocrisy around the humour issue was found and also while you’re congratulating yourself did you even think to ask how the POC’s felt while patting yourself on your back.
I didn’t fell respected I didn’t feel valued I felt fucking tireed of watching things I said be ignored so you can continue to sya I”M NOT AN ISLMAPHOBE and ARGUE AROUND ME to talk to teh white people .
And yes I noticed.
I also notice once agin the ” FIGHT CIVIL FIGHT CIVIL” that keeps gettingpulle dout to discourage anyone who feels deeper about this than some sarcasm and sardonics.
Amanda
The comment she quoted WAS NOT erasing Samhita though really the bait and switch attempt at reverse racism is nice. It was Bint’s impassioned pleas to EVERY SINGLE EDITOR of Feministing.
It also is telling to me that of ALL The people who disagreed with you your focus is on the ” three white women” mind you the poeople who disagree with you are men women,black,white , multi racial,international, male female and transgendered.
In fact what was amazing to me about this kerfluffle was how many WHITE people who were willing to be participants within dialogue with POC outside of their safe sphere. People who thought the joke was FINE. PEopel who weren’t comfortable people who didn’t care one way or the other.
But what really i Notice is that for all your handwring hand patting and but what about the women under the burqa. Has either of you showed up to ANY OF THE POC or ALLIED blogs that critiqued you. You could post this but to read through BFP’s which by now I KNOW You havent you missed various MUSLIM FOREIGN INTERNATIONAL women of color talk about it on both sides. You miss her other posts for m women of the sphere.
You’re out reach has consisisted of beating from the bullpulpit to OTHER white folks about what is or is not proper leftism.
So in sum total this whole thing niether your behavior nor you treatment or interaction with women of color has changed but youre talkinga bout who has no persepctive.
Donna your heart is amazing.
and yes i Noticed should read
And yes I noticed that it is happening again with Donna.
I get the point of Bint’s comment. I just am expressing concern that it’s mean to Samhita. I don’t get why some blogs have women of color on them and yet are dismissed as “official” WOC blogs. I don’t get the “beating from the bullpulpit” thing. I have a blog. I write what I think. The criticism that I’m somehow telling other people of whatever race what proper leftism is strikes me as way off the mark. My only real belligerency is that I think that you can’t really be an anti-choice feminist, but other than that, everything else is quite actually just my opinion. My behavior is not subject to change by fiat issued by strangers. Behavioral changes come from actual arguments I find compelling. I think the picture missed the mark, I won’t do that again, but other than that, I think most Bitch Lab-led criticisms of me are trolling and they certainly aren’t going to lead to anything but my opinion of her scholarship plummeting by the minute.
and I’m expressing a concern that rather than actually adress it by saying I get it you went for asingular ambiguous sentence . So rather than take MOMENT to actually adres sthatlarge statement you jump right to being ” mean”
Also WOC blogs that deal mainly with WOC issues are different from blogs that have WOC bloggers. The fact that a blog has a WOC as a blogger does not make it a safe space for WOC and in the case feministing Samhita has ahd some foul shit said to her ON THAT BLOG that many WOc of clor bloggers and blogs jumped in for and fast speeds so while we may not agree that its a woc blog we aren’t slighting Samhita .
And teh bully pulpit thisng is becuase rather than adress blogs who are critiquing you THAT AREN”T those blogs you keep saying are or are not WOC blogs youve been to lIndsey and here complaining that the people who are harping on you are white. You took time to take shots at BItchs acadmy but didn’t adress the fact that when all is said and done youre showing the same discourtesy and isolation to OTHER WOC”s who are critiquing you. You’ve but BItch in chagre when in fact many of her criticisms have been followed and seconded and thirded by peopel who arent her. I don’t need a leader I fin d whats going on wrong by myself thank you .
The proper leftism was adressed mostly to MArc so I apopologize for the screw up.
Finally I don’t really have many illusions that you will change your behavior and what I find most interesting is taht no one is issuing fiat. It’s not about teh picture anymore. It;s about teh constant disregard of WOC when it’s not exactly what you want to hear. It;s about the fact that you are insinuating you find our arguments uncompelling but when you write it constantly reflects taht in many ways you have no idea what they actually are. Not that youre stupid in anyway but in teh you’re avoiding and disregarding us, often in a way which intended or not is actually quite disresppectful.You say you find something of the mark ,but why?You don’t find are arguments compelling,what could compell you? No one is making demands of you but people are showing you the incongruity between how you are treating people and your words of supposed apology but you always come back to the White women or the well but this blog has A POC/WOC blogger rather than deal with the many others.
Youve chosen your points to stick to and tahts fine but it’s not a personal vendetta agianst you. It hasn’t beena bout the picture for a while ON MANY IF NOT MOST OF THE BLOGS you’re avoiding and peopel have found words form you that in other cases you seem to understand but you avoid that ALL . ( as you did with most of DOnna’s Bint’s and my posts to talk about
!) Don’t be mean to Samhita or Pam or teh blogger YOU like rather than teh one speaking
2) The white woman in the conversation you don’t like
Marc, your basic point:
“I hold a position shared by many Muslim women, which is that the burqa is oppressive. Because I hold that view, I find it okay for people who share that view to use it in satire to make a point. That is all I have ever argued for on any post.
Now, it can be argued that the photo aids and abets islamophobia in others if the photo is interpreted certain ways. I hear that. But that isn’t the same as the photo or my arguments about the photo being islamophobic, ie racist.”
It I read you correctly, this argument leads to the following:
1. You can take an object that has been used by racists and imperailists to advance their racist and imperialist objectives and use it for non-racist objectives and “poof” all racist and imperailist interpretations have been washed away and no longer apply to that symbol.
2. Furthermore, anyone who claims that the original racist and imperailist meanings that the symbol has carried in other uses still exist is wrong and being *insert dismissive adjective here*.
My objections are as follows:
First, I believe it is almost impossible to wash away the racist and imperailist meanings of the burqa when using it is a symbol.
Second, I don’t believe you have explained the process in which this “washing away” of bad symbolism can happen or how it happens in this image.
To be clear, I can and do see that there is a way to view A&As intent as not being racist. I can and do see that in creating and posting the image, A&A were intending to present a meaning that was not racist in intent. We can agree on these two points and still disagree on your stated belief
What I don’t understand is your assertion, without any proof at all, that any other meanings and interpretations of the image are false or in bad faith. Most of the arguments I’ve seen resolve around this issue: your belief that your intent erases the racist meanings that apply to the symbol of the burqa.
Simply repeating your belief (which you have done) is not an explanation of the thought process behind this belief nor does it engage in any way with the many arguments that have been offered that directly contradict your belief.