Where for art thou, Oh Reality Based Community?
Published by R. Mildred October 9th, 2006 in Purposefully Inflammatory, Racism, Blogitics, Filtered Propaganda, Lick My Jackboots of Love, This Vicious CabaretHold up, Hold, the fuck, up lindsay, What the fuck are you talking about?
I am of course referring to this ghastly burkatuter grade evil creature of a paragraph:
Amanda’s insight undercuts ethnocentrism. It’s harder to think of your culture as the measure of all others when you realize that humanity’s most serious problems repeat themselves everywhere under different guises. If you assume that there are commonalities, awareness of an oppressive practice in another culture should lead you to wonder if your own culture might be doing something similar but less obvious to you.
Let us step the fuck back and examine what the fuck it appears Lindsay is accusing Amanda of here:
Accusation the one: the burka piccie undercuts ethnocentricism.
Reality: the burka piccie is just a reheating of the rightwing meme used to justify the afghanistan invasion after Bushchev let Osama escape into pakistan. It was accompanied by no extra analysis, nor where actual afghani or indian women who are forced - one group through physical threats of violence and rape and another through the social coercion that everyone suddenly gets once the activity that women are being coerced into is a freaking burka and not highheels or gagging on cock* - even mentioned, the point was to compare Ann Althouse to Teh Taliban, who might as well be run by a funny little moustachioed austrian for all the substance found behind the various “you’re worse than the Taliban!!!!!11!” wolf cries I’m seeing atm.
That it was only criticism of the initial burka peice that prompted every ghorii from here to calcutta to start going on about how terrible burkas are is just another layer of irony on the whole thing - complete with a liberatarian style missing of the point; “the taliban had women beaten with sticks - see how oppressive several feet of cloth is!” went the cry, in face of a million and one people who A) knew that already, being feminists, and B) objected to the Uncle Leo style hyperbolic comparison between hardcore violent oppression with Ann Althouse’s hatred of boobies.
That the only real reply to all this is to point out that neither Amanda nor Lindsay denounced the holocaust, which everyone must admit was even worse than burkas are, and in turn to denounce both amanda and lindsay as anti-semites of the worst sort.
That this is nonsensical is of course a case of me meeting both Lindsay and Amanda half way with their pitiful excuse for logic on this subject, what with them having long ago left the safe and comfortable lands of sanityville to go to the crazy place where Ann Coulter’s mind resides.
Accusation the two: That the burka piccie shows how many of humanity’s problems repeat themselves in different cultures, and in turn makes it harder to make your home culture the one against which all others are judged.
Reality: If any such empathy was involved, then the burka piccie would have been something a bit more substantial than a cheap snipe at ann althouse’s fear of boobies - it would have been a complex and crosslinked examination of hijab customs in both the west and the developing nations where islam is strongest, with ample comparison between burkas and Dawn Eden/Crazy Clown Ladies for America’s modesty cult and other rightwing memes - with no expense being spared to examine how the gag cult of RandomBird and others is a remarkable hyper-reaction to the modesty cult that oppresses no more or less than burkas really, but exploits the wins feminism has made to liberate women in the west and turns those past successes into more bondage to bind us in.
In short, it would have been a completely different post, and while my experience within and around muslims in the west, and in africa and india too, barely starts to give me the depth of knowledge that might enable me to write such a post, I would do it with the sort of care and tenderness that such a complex and intricate subject deserves.
Or to put it another way; if the word “complex” is used to describe anything but the nonsensical rationalisation that Amanda and Lindsay have been pumping out, I shall laugh until I wet my bra. Lindsay here is of course confusing the reaction to the burka post with the burka post itself, and is at the same time forgetting or wilfully ignoring the fact that if no one had mentioned and pointed out the badness involved in the use of the burka as a cheap symbol of islamic patriarchy then no actually talk about burkas would have occurred in the first place, leaving us with what actually occurred: A middle class white woman using the oppression of muslim women as a cheap gag to get back at Althouse with.
Not to break too fine a Godwin’s law but, what if it had been the holocaust that was used instead for the cheap snipe? Say a black triangle? Would criticism of such an obvious retorical misuse of the holocaust been so readily slapped aside? I doubt it.
All of which invalidates the third accusation, which rather relies on the first two being somehow accurate.
And while some of Lindsay’s commenters bitch and moan about how certain (name no names) feminists’ refusal to be inclusive to this sort of unconcious and offhand islamophobia is of course what is really holding the feminist movement back - unlike the white, middle class heterocentric feminists propensity to be total assbags, which one can only presumes is all to the good - I have to wonder why they’re wasting their time writing and reading mutiple page essays on burkas, when they could be doing something they probably think IS useful, like banning headscarves in french schools (again).
Because if we don’t denounce islamic culture as the “ultimate” form of patriarchal oppression, well that’s as good as letting the terrortalibanists win.
How dare you imply that I’ve swallowed and am now repeating right wing talking points, I know I’m not because I didn’t intend to, and I should bleeding well know eh, what?
* Not that I’m bitter, razafraza…
** For if burkas are so oppressive, how come the women were only beaten when they weren’t able to own the damn things? It’s almost like a totalitarian theocratic state is more oppressive than some cloth garment, but that can’t be so, why Amanda assures me otherwise… And if a Texan english lit professor doesn’t know her knout from her scold’s bridle as far as the oppression of all women everywhere in the world goes, then I posit that no one does.
*** Yes folks, I also didn’t see anything wrong with the piccie at first glance, it was only BfP, BA and other’s critiques of the piccie that got me looking at the thing to see if they were right about it, at which point I realised they were.
This is of course how you’d take any reasoned critique of anything in the bathoblogosphere, as opposed to the apparent methodology used by non-racists who’s apparent reaction to a POC actually saying anything at all is best represented by this sign:
This is of course, the worst sort of racism of them all: treating POC like having a different skin tone means that they have a severe mental disability, and being too afraid of made up stereotypes to actually treat them like “normal” people, and be able to criticise as criticism is needed.
And I don’t care if you don’t do it on a concious level, it’s still fucking racist. Feminism is about women being accepted and treated like people, which includes *gasp* the ones with darker skin tones as well. If you’re focusing on the “C” in “POC” and not the “P”, you’re approaching it all wrong and letting the whole fucking side down in the process.
LOL I have been waiting for you to say this!
Damn good again.
I didn’t think anyone would take the time to respond to the craptacular post by Lindsay, as the issue is now almost ‘dead’. But I’ll leave my little vote of confidence on this page as I am assuming you won’t get too many responses to this…
Tags, motherfuckers. Please.
The tag issue is fixed.
But the issue of absurdly narrow and ungenerous interpretations of intent by people who demand a wide berth when it comes to their own work continues, I see.
Imperialist. Why do you want to bomb Luxembourg?
* kisses R Mildred full on*
Well said. Thanks.
and, actually, this is something i forgot to say to Lindsay, this is precisely the kind of colonizing feminist social scientists have been accused of. Run off to another country, investigate it, run back home to publish your book or article in order to enlighten everyone as to how we aren’t any better than them or, at the very least, these serious problems are all just the same. They are same all the way down, at root, there are no differences whatsoever, not even the difference between patriarchy operating under conditions of colonialist rule v. patriarchy operating under conditions of anti-colonialist struggles vs patriarchy operating under conditions of living in the belly of the colonizing beast.
It’s just all the same. No need to account for any differences at all.
and it’s a repetition of the same thing BfP already complained about:
gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender
*yawn*
Those of us who live in the US — are we being colonized? No! We are doing the colonizing. How is it that what the Dead Guy on A Stick Lovers do the same thing as what other fundamentalists do? When you make this equivalence Lindsay, it just reproduces it all over again.
And not surprisingly people get the sense that the only thing that matters to white feminists is gender gender gender sex sex sex sex sex sex sex gender gender gender sex sex sex gender gender sex gender. Looking at anything else just ruins it for feminism — and then some white guy steps in to say, “Yeah, and you’re ruining for the left too. Not that he ever gave a shit about feminist causes most of the time, the white guy, but it’s a convenient tool to use his supposed concern for the fate of white feminists to advance HIS fucking agenda.
Anyone who brings another analysis to bear, one that sees systems of oppression as interlocking, are just people trying to ruin feminism as so many of the commenters at Majikthse are saying. (Whether Lindsay thinks this or not, I haven’t gotten a sense. Though it does become clear in comments on a thread at my place, that it appears that Lindsay wants to hold gender oppression as the primary constant in cultures across time and space, while adding in class, imperialism, race, ability, sexuality — like different ingredients you can add to a basic muffin mix to get different results. (This is referred to as an additive analysis, explained as insufficient by Elizabeth Spelmen and Maria Lugones in “Have we got a theory for you!” (by which they are referring to the grand theories of white feminists that seek to explain all via gender).
The objections to gender only feminism are launched from an entirely different place: gender isn’t the constant underneath which everything operates epiphenomenally and we only look at the epiphenomena when it’s convenient to make a point.
Hello! White Women here to look at all other cultures only through the lens of a gender analysis — and not through a lens which makes the connection between gender, capitalism, imperialism. Not through a lens which puts me uncomfortably in the position of actually have to think hard about imperialism and my relationship to that monstrosity.
I mean: if that’s what you are, into the gender only analysis, just declare that on your blog and sign off with a signature line on all your comments which makes it clear where you’re coming from. I can’t just file it under, “yawn.”
And then, go figger why it is that people call white feminism colonizing? Imposing their demands for a constant gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender analysis on everything. and if it brings in anything else in at all, it’s like a second thought. Ooops! Oh yeah, let me take my gender glasses and put the imperialism filter on them.
Oh, I see a glimpse of what you are talking about. But I really don’t wanna wear it, so I’m talking off the filter now. Coz I can do that, just drop it aside and *decide* when I get to think about imperialism (or any other system of oppression).
A lot of other feminists can’t friggin’ do that.
But the issue of absurdly narrow and ungenerous interpretations of intent by people who demand a wide berth when it comes to their own work continues, I see.
OMG, why don’t you call me a radfem as well marc? I mean It’s not like my amazing indifference to people’s intent in this matter hasn’t been repeated ad nauseum or anything. Jesus christ, It’s not like you haven’t seen me ascribe intent to people without good evidence before either, how many times did I accuse KH of being in it for the money? It’s not like I do such things subtly, if I was calling lindsay or amanda or you pro-slavery I’d say “lindsay, amanda and marc are pro-slavery.” What I am saying, repeatedly, is that you are all carrying around unrealised islamophobic bullshit and need to get your self-analysis on.
And I’ve done it much nicer than I could have done, you have no idea how strong the urge to satirise this bullshit by whipping out some good fashioned old red state/blue state dichotomy stereotypes about texas and texans in the hopes that you two would finally get it, if it was a culture either of you cared about that was being used as a hollow symbol in a silly little interblog cussing match.
But I didn’t because the whole red state/blue state dichotomy is neo-con bullshit through and through - just like hearing people call the burka the “ultimate” form of oppression was - because if you’re a feminist you know that, unlike the burka, Rape is actually one of the ultimate forms of patriarchal oppression, and you don’t have to go to afghanistan to find it.
If the burka is up for grabs in this half assed way, then I demand Amanda and you denounce specifically texan DV as the ultimate form of oppression also, fair’s fair. I remember what that 70’s reject that Twisty photoed ages ago was wearing - so you can’t tell me that DV in texas doesn’t combine seriously fugly clothing with the assault of women now and again.
And isn’t that what the true spirit of denouncing burkas is about - cheap intercultural fashion criticism?
Imperialist. Why do you want to bomb Luxembourg?
To
steal all the chocolatefree the men from the evil tyranny of the filthy luxemborgian leather shorts of course!punkass marc
I was curious what this meant?
RM,
You cannot say “leaving us with what actually occurred: A middle class white woman using the oppression of muslim women as a cheap gag to get back at Althouse with.” — and then claim not to care about intent. That is a damning accusation of the photo’s intent.
Indeed, your supposition that we are “carrying around unrealised islamophobic bullshit” centers entirely on intent. It seems to me (speaking of intent) you are so thrilled with the fact that you eventually identified with a position you didn’t immediately see upon viewing the photo that you’ve now decided that “islamophobia” is the only reasonable interpretation — not just to take from _seeing_ the photo, but what was _meant_ by it.
You bring up satire, and I am so glad you did. Satire often uses serious subject matter — yes, even holocaust or nazi imagery — to make a point that can often be darkly funny. Many people saw the burqa photo precisely that way — not as a “cheap snipe” as you call it, but a statement on the similarities between Althouse’s view and those who force women to wear burqas. This doesn’t minimize the oppression of women wearing burqa, rather it shows the logical conclusion of Althouse’s position.
To say that we cannot use the image because it is of another culture and some women choose to wear it creates an environment where people in power can flex oppressive muscle and then tell its critics to shut up because they “don’t understand our culture.”
The burqa is a patriarchal tool of oppression. This is conceded, even by you. In fact, when I look for something out of the mouths of someone who _isn’t_ Western, all I hear is first-person experience commentary like the words of RAWA and this:
By putting the premium on exposing false “islamophobia” and not on the real oppression expressed above, you shield the oppressors.
I bet there were people who saw that photo who’d never seen a burqa before, and I bet they immediately had awareness raised about what that experience might be like. The comments at Pandagon seem to back this up, and that sounds like much more real good than could ever come of your false claims of “islamophobia.”
I bet there were people who saw that photo who’d never seen a burqa before, and I bet they immediately had awareness raised about what that experience might be like. The comments at Pandagon seem to back this up, and that sounds like much more real good than could ever come of your false claims of “islamophobia.”
That doesn’t mean we should confine our discussions to their level. Like RM said, Amanda could have posted about the burqa, period; she could have linked, say, someone who’s actually been forced to wear one. This was an offhand reference to it that didn’t actually contain any information about what they are, how they are imposed, or how they feel from the inside.
This image has been explained as a satirical take on (a) Althouse’s sexist body hatred and (b) her extremely shallow and hateful understanding of middle-eastern and Muslim culture SAII. In order to skewer the former, it supports the latter. When Amanda and Auguste make similarly shallow comparisons, they lose the right to complain about Althouse doing the same thing.
Stand back: we may be one comment on the comment away from singularity formation.
To say that we cannot use the image because it is of another culture and some women choose to wear it creates an environment where people in power can flex oppressive muscle and then tell its critics to shut up because they “don’t understand our culture.”
The complaints weren’t about references to or comparisons with the burqa, period. They were about this particular use of this image.
piny,
That is false logic. The burqa does not represent all Islamic culture. The burqa is no more the representation of Islam than the girdle is of Christianity. Criticizing it is not the same as criticizing the entire culture. Nobody’s lost the right to do anything.
piny,
That is false logic. The burqa does not represent all Islamic culture. The burqa is no more the representation of Islam than the girdle is of Christianity.
What are you talking about? I never said the burqa was the representation of Islam.
And what lost right are you referencing?
Then why does using it in satire mean you support a “shallow and hateful understanding of middle-eastern and Muslim culture”? You seem to be conflating a distaste for burqas with an ignorance of Islam on the whole.
That is false logic. The burqa does not represent all Islamic culture. The burqa is no more the representation of Islam than the girdle is of Christianity. Criticizing it is not the same as criticizing the entire culture. Nobody’s lost the right to do anything.
But I will say that this is a false equivalency. Burqas, viz. Althouse et al., have become the symbol of the oppressed middle-eastern woman and the oppressive and irrational “Islamist” faith. Like it or not, they do contain that symbolic baggage. There’s no similar thing for Christianity, in part because white westerners see it as a white western religion.
You said Amanda and Auguste “lose the right to complain about Althouse doing the same thing.”
This is not true. They did not demonstrate anything like Althouse’s behavior by using the burqa in the photo. This is because the burqa does not stand in for Muslim culture.
You said Amanda and Auguste “lose the right to complain about Althouse doing the same thing.”
This is not true. They did not demonstrate anything like Althouse’s behavior by using the burqa in the photo. This is because the burqa does not stand in for Muslim culture.
Moral high ground, shall we say. They used the burqa in order to make an offhand statement in support of an agenda unrelated to women who wear them. And it worked in their comparison not because of the literal burqa itself, but because of the cultural function the burqa symbolizes. It wasn’t an attempt to raise awareness about the burqa, but a comment on an interaction between two Western women.
So, what, because the actual oppression of the burqa has been coopted, it’s no longer valid for satirical observation by the left? That’s absurd. We should absolutely use it to make our points — again, it raises awareness. The photo actually helped.
If someone has demonstrated a strong track record of being opposed to everything coming from Western fundies like Althouse, there is every reason for their work, especially their satire, to be seen in that light. Clearly, no one would ever be able to accuse Amanda of supporting the Western fundie view of Islam if they read any of her other work.
I was recently told I should not criticize someone for having an attitude that has clearly been disproven by the whole of her work. And I think that is true. Why isn’t the same consideration being afforded Amanda and Auguste?
Marc –
I realize you are tired, exasperated, and feel hurt at the moment, but ….
This seems to me to be missing Rmildred’s point. Consider how you pointed out how you over-reacted re: BlackAmazon because you were unconscious of how protective you were of a friend. Belledame and I are both _conscious_ of the way we’ll fiercely fight anyone who seems to attack the other, and will often reflect on the role that plays.
But in this case, what is going on is something that society systematically produces to make us unaware and unconscious of our own belief systems and how they operate. In a enlightenment liberal society, we have an ideal that we do not treat people different on the basis of gender, race, class, sexuality, disability. In order for structures of oppression to work now, they are no longer overt, but covert, hidden unconscious.
Simply being unaware of the context within which that imagery circulated is an exercise of white privilege. Whites, even white feminists, can blithely ignore the discussion of burqa imagery. they can travel from one major blog to the next and hardly ever read about the discussions of it, rarely read posts that recap info from RAWA, and on and on. This is privilege. It’s surrounding yourself with others like you and who think like you and have concerns similar to your own — even though there may be a pretty wide variety within that domain.
As the quote I sent from Iris Marion Young pointed out (and she’s characterizing an enormous body of scholarship, not pulling it out of her ass), oppression involves
I would have used a different term — white Imperialist privilege — to shift the focus away from individuals, since ‘phobia’ is generally understood to be a word that psychologizes the problem and keeps us from looking at social structure. [1]
The real issue here really is, for us as liberals, to deal with what Jenny Yamato calls
http://blog.pulpculture.org/2006/03/27/something-about-the-subject-makes-it-hard-to-name/
Whites who want to be allies to people of color: You can educate yourselves via research and observation rather than rigidly, arrogantly relying solely on interrogating people of color. Do not expect that people of color should teach you how to behave non-oppressively. Do not give into the pull to be lazy. Think, hard. Do not blame people of color for your frustration about racism, but do appreciate the fact that people of color will often help you get in touch with that frustration. Assume that your effort to be a good friend is appreciated, but don’t expect or accept gratitude from people of color. Work on racism for your sake, not “their” sake. Assume that you are needed and capable of being a good ally. Know that you’ll make mistakes and commit yourself to correcting them and continuing on as an ally, no matter what. Don’t give up.
here’s more context, from Jenny Yamato, . What Yamato says here could be applied as the general way all oppressions work in the bare bones operations):
—————————————-
[1] That is why, for instance, when nubian from Blackademic.com fired up Blog Against Heterornormativity Day, she avoided the word “homophobia”. While there are certainly homophobes, we can’t fight them alone, but must fight heteronormativity more generally.
nice HTML job, ya dumb bitch (she mutters to herself)
So, what, because the actual oppression of the burqa has ben coopted, it’s no longer valid for satirical observation by the left? That’s absurd.
Yes, that’s an absurd argument to make. It’s also an absurd reading. No. The actual oppression of the burqa must not be coopted by liberals, either. It’s not valid for satirical observation that fails to pay any attention to its specific dimensions. These comparisons don’t wash because they always begin and end with our problems. This was not about women who actually wear them or about what wearing them actually means, any more than la Althouse’s arguments are.
I was recently told I should not criticize someone for having an attitude that has clearly been disproven by the whole of her work. And I think that is true. Why isn’t the same consideration being afforded Amanda and Auguste?
Because we’re a bunch of bloggers tossing around abstruse political arguments on our lunch hour, and do not have the power to actually affect Amanda’s life in any way? I respect Amanda and Auguste in general, and I think they make good points. I feel that way about you, too, recent posts notwithstanding. I disagree with her reasons for posting this photo and yours for defending them, which is why I criticize those arguments. Like we’ve recently been told by other people, it’s really unproductive to equate “This is [bad] behavior” with “You are a [bad] person.” If I complain about a mild case of heterosexism, I’m not calling someone Fred Phelps.
Marc
LOL. In the first place, when a group is in power, it controls so many mechanisms for justifying and normalizing that power, that rebellion and critique is from a minority or the range of acceptable criticism — as in enlightenment liberal societies — is contained within a range of acceptable discursive criticism and political practice.
Is there actually an example of the US doing this? What the US actually says is, “You inferior fuckstains” and calls them names like Cheese eating surrender monkeys if they’re from a nation that we can sort of trust to have bought into the whole Western thing — IOW, they are operating within the terrain of acceptable critique within western culture. But how about if you’re a brown person from a colonized country creating systematic critiiques and actually *doing* somwthing about it?
Well, maybe a little economic warfare thrown at them. Also, go to their rulers and get ‘em on board the Imperialist Klew Train, make sure theyre good banana republics and squash those critics. No go? Break out the big guns: label ‘em terrorists, whip up anti-communist hysteria.
That danger you concern yourself with is, shall we say, unwarranted. It’s ALREADY being done. So, not adding to the problem by appropriating cultural symbols and misusing them to mean something they don’t in another culture is NOT the source of the problem. It won’t mean that we can’t criticize the dominate culture, since the dominate culture already made that a reality and is containing that criticism (and political action based) .
As you say, B|L I am capable of realizing when I have had my views colored by something subconscious, so I don’t think I can be considered particularly closed-minded on the whole.
Of course, everyone, even you, can still fail to see subconscious influences from time to time. But this is a case where I believe you all have built up a series of false assumptions and misapplied accusations of systemic xenophobia.
I think piny really clarified for me where I think we part ways:
Even though everyone, even RM, has called the burqa patriarchally oppressive, for some reason, its use in the photo was construed not as a statement on the actual oppressive piece of attire, but on Islamic/Muslim culture itself.
I find that to be unreasonable. The burqa, it has been agreed, is oppressive. Even though the right also uses this argument, we should still be free to use it, too, because it actually does oppress women. The photo was satire, and I found it damning not of Muslim culture, but of the burqa. And the burqa is something I believe we are all free to criticize, even in satire.
You see the use of the burqa as “appropriating cultural symbols and misusing them to mean something they don’t in another culture.” And yet women in Afghanistan and here see the burqa as oppressive. And the photo was not appropriating it for anything other than that meaning. So it wasn’t misuing the burqa at all. It stood in for what the women forced to wear it say it is: oppressive.
The second problem: you see Amanda as standing in for the US government, which is also nonsensical when you consider her strong opposition to both this administration and also imperialist intervention in general. That’s not me “sticking up for her,” that’s just a true statement when you look at her work.
Even though everyone, even RM, has called the burqa patriarchally oppressive, for some reason, its use in the photo was construed not as a statement on the actual oppressive piece of attire, but on Islamic/Muslim culture itself.
I find that to be unreasonable. The burqa, it has been agreed, is oppressive. Even though the right also uses this argument, we should still be free to use it, too, because it actually does oppress women. The photo was satire, and I found it damning not of Muslim culture, but of the burqa. And the burqa is something I believe we are all free to criticize, even in satire.
This was not a criticism of the burqa. This was a criticism of Althouse by linking Althouse to the burqa. No quality of the burqa was up for discussion. You cannot have it both ways. Either this burqa is part of a thoughtful discussion of burqas or a blunt object being employed as a satirical criticism of Althouse. Not both.
And no, I apparently haven’t been clarifying hard enough. Its use in the photo was construed as a statement about Western women in Western culture using an artifact from a non-Western culture worn by non-Western women without regard for any differences between the two–that is, any way in which life in a burqa might differ from the preferences of American fundamentalists. That’s why people can agree that it’s oppressive and still resent the inability of white Western women to see anything but their own particular problems. This burqa was not being presented as itself, but as a scrim onto which anything but itself could be projected. Like I said: not about the women who actually wear them.
Piny,
Althouse’s views are patriarchal and oppressive. So is the burqa. In fact, the burqa’s oppression is the logical conclusion of Althouse’s attitudes. By putting two images together, you can criticize both very effectively. This is an example.
Go surf around at the Radical Woman of Color Blogs. How many times do they blog about the evils of Xtian fundamentalism? Seriously. Take a day off from blogging on this blog and read them.
Can you guess why this is the case — that their focus isn’t on Xtian fundamentalism anywhere near the way it is on mainstream white feminist blogs?
It is for the reasons BfP outlined: this isn’t an issue for women of color in general. It is certainly not an issue for the women in Afghanistan. Or Iraq. Or anywhere else. The women in those countries are harmed just as badly by Clenis as they are the Busheviks.
And the women of color in this country, especially women who think of themselves as more radical than the mainstream left — feel an affinity with women in other countries because they know what it’s like to be othered. They know what it’s like to go to a major white feminist blog and see that their issues are rarely raised, that the things that get 446 gazalongajillion comments are — SEX threads. Gender threads. All of enormous concern to white women and almost always framed *only* in terms of how white women see and experience it. And when it’s not, the only people injecting a race or class analysis into the picture are …. women of color. Who are then personally attacked for having the audacity to muddy up someone’s post and comments section with “their” issues. Or are treated to deafening silence. Oh. that’s nice. Thaks for sharing.
you do NOT see anything mirrored back to you that looks like you. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. And when it is? You read a bunch of defensive white people in comments sections saying things that make you want to stick a rusty jack knife into your eyeballs so you never have to read such tripe again.
NO ONE DOES THIS ON PURPOSE.
They do what comes easy to them, what they know, what matters to them.
When white feminists want you to get on board with their issues — because we are all affected by them (e.g., rape, birth control, abortion — sex related) — they expect solidarity. But no such expectation follows in terms of women of color’s interests and projects. In fact, it is fair fucking game to attack their concerns as distracting from feminism, EEEE TTTT CCCC. Which isn’t usually what the bloggers themselves do, but their commenters are sure assholes about it often enough.
And sometimes people hold the blogger accountable for that hostile environment, as they’ve often done with Alas or Hugo re gender.
Again, no one does this on purpose. Amanda was impressive to me because as soon as she saw the problem, she started linking to people and occasionally making their posts the subject of her posts. She actually gave a shit and tried.
But people are now feeling just a wee bit betrayed. Which is what BfP was also saying in her original post.
?You see the use of the burqa as “appropriating cultural symbols and misusing them to mean something they don’t in another culture.” And yet women in Afghanistan and here see the burqa as oppressive. And the photo was not appropriating it for anything other than that meaning. So it wasn’t misuing the burqa at all. It stood in for what the women forced to wear it say it is: oppressive.
Again, no. It stood in for an attempt on the part of a Western woman to use misogyny against another Western woman–neither of whom has ever been forced into a burqa, and neither of whom will ever willingly adopt one. The burqa stood in for our interactions, our beliefs, our cultural mores, our problems, us, us, us. Women in Afghanistan see the burqa as something they live with. They have different reference points for it. We see it as convenient shorthand for other things which we live with. They are both oppressive, sure, and sexist, but that basic level of comparison is exactly what progressive bloggers should be getting over and beyond. This is why people are calling it imperialism: it is a willingness to reduce other peoples to echoes of yourself.
marc
my mistake for making an analogy then.
let me clarify. you understand how its possible for, in general, a human to have unconscious motivations, right?
Well, becasue of this basic process, it can be systematically shaped so that it is not about you as an ndividual and your personal, unique relationships and experiences that no one else shares. Rather, it is systematically shaped so that you and everyone else who is white in the US will think a lot alike and it will take lots of reading, listening, thinking, arguing, hashing it out, and eve knife throwing, over years, in fact the process never ends — the process of learning how to unlearn one’s sexist, racist assumptions.
This is not the same thing as your personal blinders when it comes to friendship — though the basic mechanisms are the same.
Because you unconscious privilege is something that you are told by the entire society is Good, True, and Beautiful. You have a whole structure of institutions, norms, cultural practices, etc. that shape how you think about the world and support that world view as, in fact, unassailably right.
Which is why it’s not about you, but about structure. Your unconscious attachment to Amanda can be dealt with by you and no other systems in society have to be underdone for you to change the way you think and act.
But that is not how it will work with oppression. It helps, but we also have to get rid of the things Young describes in the quote I provided. We also have to build a social movement.
Piny,
We clearly have different interpretations, then. It doesn’t stand in for any of those things in my view. Do you really see no similarities between the Althouse attitudes and those of the Taliban?
B|L,
Yes, systemic issues are real. If you recall, I talk about my own battles with conditioned patriarchal inclinations on this blog regularly.
My previous comments to piny also explain why we disagree about this situation. The burqa was used for what it is to women in both cultures: a symbol of oppression. There’s no reason to start misapplying all sorts of other meanings onto its use in a satirical photo/discussion about body-related oppression.
I like the Young quote quite a bit. It is because these things are real that I think it is important to focus on real islamophobia. Though I know you see it differently, I see this as a false claim. And I believe that not being able to distinguish the two hurts our ability to tackle the real systemic issues.
BfP’s post: To women who wear the burqa, they may recognized that it’s oppressive, but it is not their most pressing concern at the moment since surviving is and they are trying to survive becasue of the bombs we drop. What the burqa means in terms of oppression, right now, is less mostly like than what the sound of a missile means in terms of oppression.
BfP’s post: There is no real threat of anyone in this country ever being forced to wear a burqa. It can be joked about because you are not a woman in a country simiultaneously experience the oppression of your own country and the oppression of a colonizing country.
At Majikthse, sunnrunner pointed out that, to women who wear burqas, they live in a country where they understand covering the body as something that is done to honor and cherish the female body. the covering isn’t done the way covering in this country was done: to hide a shameful christian woman’s body. While women forced to wear burqas may agree that their very structure is an instrument of repression and oppression, they don’t see covering in and of itself the same way xtian fundamentalist do: the body is shameful, women’s in particular.
We clearly have different interpretations, then. It doesn’t stand in for any of those things in my view. Do you really see no similarities between the Althouse attitudes and those of the Taliban?
Yes, I see similarities. I made reference to a few of those similarities above. What’s your point here?
My previous comments to piny also explain why we disagree about this situation. The burqa was used for what it is to women in both cultures: a symbol of oppression. There’s no reason to start misapplying all sorts of other meanings onto its use in a satirical photo/discussion about body-related oppression.
No, it was used by Western women to symbolize Western problems. Handy shorthand. It is not a symbol for women in “both cultures.” It is a symbol for women like Amanda, Ann, Jessica and other women who do not have to wear burqas. For women in Afghanistan, it is an actual thing. Its presence in their lives is not remotely symbolic.
B|L, I have posted a sampling of comments from RAWA on RM’s previous thread and I posted one from an author above. Those women feel strongly that burqas are deeply oppressive. They are not a tool of cherishment, at least not in the eyes of the women I quoted. And I trust them more than any westerner, don’t you?
BfP’s post: There is no real threat of anyone in this country ever being forced to wear a burqa. It can be joked about because you are not a woman in a country simiultaneously experience the oppression of your own country and the oppression of a colonizing country.
Exactly. And it can be joked about in a context where it is removed from any meaning but a symbolic reference to “oppression” which is actually being used to indicate an oppressive philosophy that has nothing to do with these women.
like the Young quote quite a bit. It is because these things are real that I think it is important to focus on real islamophobia. Though I know you see it differently, I see this as a false claim. And I believe that not being able to distinguish the two hurts our ability to tackle the real systemic issues.
———–
what’s a false claim? distinquish two what?
B|L, I have posted a sampling of comments from RAWA on RM’s previous thread and I posted one from an author above. Those women feel strongly that burqas are deeply oppressive. They are not a tool of cherishment, at least not in the eyes of the women I quoted. And I trust them more than any westerner, don’t you?
You also trust them more than women in the same situation who feel differently.
The claim posited by this post is false. RM says that there is islamophobia behind the picture, and I think that’s incorrect. And I think not being able to distinguish between real systemic issues and false ones (like the arguments regarding this picture) slows the process.
piny,
any source material would be deeply appreciated.
Additionally, piny, as long as that is a view held by a reasonable chunk of Muslim women, isn’t it then fine to side with it and use it in your discourse, however satirical? Unanimity isn’t likely to come there or here or anywhere anytime soon when it comes to identifying oppression.
any source material would be deeply appreciated.
Yeah, threads on Western misogyny have given me a pretty good idea of how that would play out.
For what? The idea that women aren’t handpuppets? The you’re-apologizing-for-the-burqa strawman? I get the impression that many if not most women feel that the burqa is oppressive; I accept that and can certainly see the logic in it. You, on the other hand, are arguing that their intimate reaction excuses appropriation that bears a superficial resemblance to what they’re saying. You’re also arguing that we should listen to women who complain about the burqa, but not to women who complain about Amanda’s islamophobia. That’s self-serving.
Additionally, piny, as long as that is a view held by a reasonable chunk of Muslim women, isn’t it then fine to side with it and use it in your discourse, however satirical? Unanimity isn’t likely to come there or here or anywhere anytime soon when it comes to identifying oppression.
A distinct minority of American women see bikinis as oppressive. You could probably say the same thing about porn–even porn which you consider to be extremely misogynistic and violent. Does that mean that feminists are duty-bound to not analyze these things? Of course not. That’s a strawrelativist. Amanda was not analyzing the burqa. Why is it so hard to understand the difference between “handy shorthand used as blunt object in offhand crack on Ann Althouse” and “thoughtful commentary on the burqa?”
Piny, if the argument that the burqa is oppressive is legit, then it can be used as part of a satirical argument about oppression. And thus doing so does not immediately imply islamophobia.
This is kind of a silly comparison. The women who are forced to wear the burqas are primary sources on the subject of burqa oppression. Obviously, they are crucial to the discussion. But the women calling Amanda islamophobic are not primary sources and do not seem to be admitting that Amanda’s attitudes about burqas fall in line with the primary sources. To say that the primary sources and the islamophobic accusers deserve equal voice is unreasonable.
Okay. Women who wear burqa aren’t a monolith. Women who have opinions about this aren’t a monolith. Muslim women WHO BLOG HAVE ALREADY WEIGHED IN ON BFP”S blog post.
This is now not about the Burqa , it is about the fact that peopel are incredibly happy to flaunt that unless it matches up with their own ideals the feel not at all bothered to give certain WOMEN( cause for some reason when we say OF color we’re suddenly incapable of talking about our own experiences cause we havent reached teh handy dandy level of non oppressed white folks carry in their back pockets to be trusted)and intellectual credit or deep reading.
Everytime someone goes Well I trust real Muslims more than WOC who arent in that place they both are smug as shit because if we need to have hiearchical ladde rto have avalued opinion. Muslim women beats WOc who beats random white folk no?
So this autoritarian ” well get me a Muslim I trust bullshit ” is offensive, because in one swoop it proves ya didn’t fucking read BFP to deeply or you would see One Muslim women UMamALi talks about her problems with this entire thing.
And it shows a disingenious desire to shape discourse because whats happening is essentially people covering their ears going *NANANAN* CAN”T HEAR YOU*
And in fact if this whole thing was undertaken with out knowledge which by now is a given. Yet used because hey we wanted to make a commentary didn’t feel much more tahn that desire and cursive knowledge of the object and its relationship to ISlam , WOC and HISTORY.
AND
Then taking the conversations to blogs where WOC arent actually quoted. Just summarized ( wheres the commentary on THAT)
AND
Made to pass authenticity tests that NO ONE ELSE IS REMOTELY ASKEDTO DO.
AND
TOLD what and how they should define terms important to them
AND
watch as “liberal allies” have no problems about making ,or allowing random potshots at their intelligence ( think constructively, Orwellian argument.. blah blha as if we’re so dumb we can’t catch teh smug)
Fuck Islamophobia it’s racism , its disrespect,its rude , and its tiresome.
Rather than handle that we get people wringing their ahnds so they can KEEP the privilege of being an ass hole. As if thats mor e important than anything else
Piny,
The burqa is oppressive and is seen that way by you and me as well as “many if not most” of the women who wear them (to use your words). We agree on that. So why can it only be discussed in the context of “thoughtful commentary?” We understand it to be oppressive and thus it can be used in satirical discourse about oppression, even Western oppression, without having to concentrate solely on the burqa.
Blackamazon,
You agree that it women like those in RAWA and the author I quoted are legitimate primary sources, right? And they have every right to feel the way they do about the oppressiveness of burqas, yes?
So if someone makes a photo in which both Althouse’s views and the burqas are put together to show the oppressiveness of both in a satirical fashion, then that isn’t islamophobic. It’s perfectly in line with the views of many Islamic women and arguably makes their oppression more relatable to westerners. Like I said, there are commenters on Pandagon who never really had the experience of thinking about burqas and the oppression experienced and expressed by Muslim women. That photo made them think. That’s not islamophobia.
The burqa is oppressive and is seen that way by you and me as well as “many if not most” of the women who wear them (to use your words). We agree on that. So why can it only be discussed in the context of “thoughtful commentary?” We understand it to be oppressive and thus it can be used in satirical discourse about oppression, even Western oppression, without having to concentrate solely on the burqa.
The burqa was not being discussed at all; it was not a secondary focus but a visual figure of speech. If I compare WalMart to Hitler, I am almost certainly not making an reasoned statement about WalMart, but I am definitely not making a reasoned statement about Hitler or about anything related to Hitler. In fact, I have managed to steal the Holocaust from the Jews. It’s wrong to use it in a satirical discourse about oppression that makes no reference to its actual function, that uses it only to discuss something completely different.
This is kind of a silly comparison. The women who are forced to wear the burqas are primary sources on the subject of burqa oppression. Obviously, they are crucial to the discussion. But the women calling Amanda islamophobic are not primary sources and do not seem to be admitting that Amanda’s attitudes about burqas fall in line with the primary sources. To say that the primary sources and the islamophobic accusers deserve equal voice is unreasonable.
Wrong. These women–WOC, Muslim women, women of middle-eastern descent–are in fact primary sources on the subject of Western racism and the tendency to ignore problems that aren’t directly related to white Western women. You are listening to these primary sources not because of any belief in primary-source primacy, but because you think they justify appropriation. They don’t.
Justify appropriation? WTF does that mean? I just think they have been forced to wear burqas they don’t want to wear, and I think that because they say so. I don’t have any more motivation than that.
So if someone makes a photo in which both Althouse’s views and the burqas are put together to show the oppressiveness of both in a satirical fashion, then that isn’t islamophobic. It’s perfectly in line with the views of many Islamic women and arguably makes their oppression more relatable to westerners. Like I said, there are commenters on Pandagon who never really had the experience of thinking about burqas and the oppression experienced and expressed by Muslim women. That photo made them think. That’s not islamophobia.
At best, it’s privileging the viewpoints of deeply ignorant westerners above those of everyone else, and apologizing for an inability to think beyond the basic “Sexism exists outside of America, too,” level. This is assuming that the post actually did cause people to think about the effect of the burqa, which is debateable.
It is? It’s debateable? Because many of the commenters at Pandagon are kinda the proof.
No the islamophobia comes when anything that isn’t convienient to that interpretation gets thrown out .
As I have stated NO ONE whose pissed off has said that the peopel who are against burqa dsdon’t count but more than a few people have said that those who arent don’t count.
The picture may have made folks think about it , but it was used mostly to take a shot at ALthouse. It was used with minimal knowledge of the garment or the history , WHICH BOTH PARTIES ADMIT on BFp’s blog. It was used as a short hand for opression about a group that is barely mention in the post to emphasize a BARELY related topic due to ” visual ease”
Appropriation, simplification and puicking and choosing . Deliberate avoidance of knowledge and misuse for the benefits of another group .
If it’s not islamophobi ait is as I state dbefore racism and privileged entitlement.
WHich was not the point of my post.
AT this point eveyrtime it’s brought up that the problem is teh way that the POST PICTURE discussion has been used to silence women of color, SOmeone has to reexplain the BURQA pic and only the stuff said by the white folks .
It’s myopic and its really not even honest discourse, it’s peopel pushing in hopes of garning a ” the picture wasnt THAT bad” even after we bring up new points
It is? It’s debateable? Because many of the commenters at Pandagon are kinda the proof.
No, they prove that it’s possible to use this image to make people think about “oppression.” That doesn’t mean they’ve started thinking about oppression of middle-eastern women, or that they are any more inclined to pay attention to what those women are saying.
Now who has an unreasonable standard of proof, piny?
Like I said, there are commenters on Pandagon who never really had the experience of thinking about burqas and the oppression experienced and expressed by Muslim women. That photo made them think.
Oh please. It did nothing of the sort. The only people who even mentioned anything resembling the “oppression experienced and expressed by Muslim women in that thread were the people objecting to the use of it as a punch line in the photo. Most of the commenters in the original post were just having a good laugh.
This entire thing is getting sillier by the moment, with Lindsay and Alon Levy going into convulsions of white supremacy, and people ascribing, retroactively, lofty motives to both Amanda and Auguste in their use of the burqa in the photo… when both said early on that it was not about Muslim women (as evidenced by the absence of any hint of them in the post) but was just a prop, a shorthand punchline to the joke, the focus of which was Althouse and her crew.
Why could they not have just been wrong? People really are wrong, sometimes, even with the best of “intentions” - and while they might want to examine their motives or own biases when the first thing they think of to illustrate a point being made between squabbling white people is to grab something from a different culture that has nothing at all to do with the current topic, and use it without even a mention of its meaning to them, or to anyone else… that’s something for each individual to decide if they need to do.
But if the intention was to symbolize or in any way highlight the plight of the women who would normally wear that garment, forced to or by choice, instead of to use the burqa on a stick to serve their own ends, then by all means, they should have said so in the original post.
Now who has an unreasonable standard of proof, piny?
Who has an unreasonably low standard for productive dialogue, marc?
It’s not an abstruse point at all. If you get people to think about other people by constantly referencing their own problems, you make it more difficult for them to see those other people’s lives when they do not match up with their own. Any greater awareness of the fact of oppression is gonna be heavily diluted by the inability to see that oppression as anything but a mirror of Western circumstances.
Except its not because teh commenst were mostly don’t you dare apologize. These women don;t get it etc. The follow up has been WOC being ignored and continually asked to jsutify pictures tehy didnt make so if nanything this dustup is proof
The flexibility that’s been invoked to intrepret the picture has extended past the mere demands of niceties like “textual evidence”, which makes me wonder why people waited for an excuse like this to jump all over and accuse me and Bill Clinton of single-handedly oppressing everyone on earth.
No the islamophobia comes when anything that isn’t convienient to that interpretation gets thrown out .
As I have stated NO ONE whose pissed off has said that the peopel who are against burqa dsdon’t count but more than a few people have said that those who arent don’t count.
Many times, in the context of discussing tools of oppression, it has been argued that the feelings of those who opt into what is used as a tool of oppression are secondary to those being oppressed. This is because we must first free up those who are being oppressed — they are suffering, and if the discourse “others” a choice for someone who prefers using the tool of oppression, then they lose much less than the oppressed women gain, especially if it ever leads to real change.
This argument happens on feminist issues all the time. Maybe you don’t agree, but it’s been done outside of the burqa context a lot, and so it’s not islamophobia.
But if the intention was to symbolize or in any way highlight the plight of the women who would normally wear that garment, forced to or by choice, instead of to use the burqa on a stick to serve their own ends, then by all means, they should have said so in the original post.
Yes! Exactly! Transparently false! Whatever the justice of using any given thing as blunt-object satire, one thing you can never claim is that the satirist is trying to spark reflection on the shorthand symbol. It’s there in order to create a knee-jerk reaction.
But hell, what do I know? I wrote a jokey blog and am not, by any stretch of the imagination, an academic. Nor will I be morphing into a Marxist theorist any time soon; had I wanted to be one in the past, the urge is thoroughly squelched now.
AMnda show anybody in any text that accused you of this. ANd ill happily concede it but no one has,
And once a fracking agin IN R MILDREDS POST the problem is now not the FLIPPING PICTURE. Its the way that in defending this picture people have absconded with any respect of peopel of color and their intelligence.
You wann say fuck it we don’t care fine. Butstop pretending that you care about WOC when you cant even concentrate on the subjects we talk about for more than thirty seconds before it gets back to “, oh their not being rational,oh their twisting shit, oh blah blah WITH NO PROOF!
Especially when in response we at least give you the courtesy of QUOTING YOUR WORDS
I can’t and won’t control my commenters, sorry. They felt the anger was ridiculous, I disagreed, but I’m not going on a censoring binge.
I respected everyone’s intelligence, but my interest in this debate completely ceased when I was accused of not being able to “understand” at Lindsay’s blog. I realize that I’m not an academic, but I’m hardly stupid.
I respected everyone’s intelligence, but my interest in this debate completely ceased when I was accused of not being able to “understand” at Lindsay’s blog. I realize that I’m not an academic, but I’m hardly stupid.
You know, I don’t think marc is stupid, but I think he’s wrong.
Piny,
Fair point, but at the same time, I feel you are asking for far too much to even consider my point. I can’t drill into people’s heads to show you exactly how much they got out of it, but at the same time, many comments indicate to me they got the two-pronged satirical point that criticized both the oppressiveness of the garb (but not the entirety of Muslim culture) and Althouse. As long as that’s a reasonable possibility, then I think it’s more evidence that the claims of islamophobia fall flat.
If you want to say that this kind of satire doesn’t necessarily help them understand the full experience of the burqa in the context of Muslim culture, I hear that, but that’s also not islamophobia or racism.
But accusing us of not knwoing the difference of between a perosn under and burqa under a stick is above board.and not disrespectful
And no one calle dyou stupid , we said and it still holds that you’re abvoiding stuff we say to concentrate on things that you feel are said WITHOUT ACTUALLY REFRENCING OUR TEXTS.
you want to not talk bout this fine but being held accountable is not being called stupid
You know, I don’t think [insert person] is stupid, but I think he’s wrong.
That’s a summary of everyone’s positions at this point, I guess.
I am a little perplexed that there’s so much debate about what I intended by the picture (noteworthy: the actual photoshopper was a man, whose intentions seem unworthy of mention, for reasons I can’t possibly imagine) when both I and the forgotten creator of the picture have explained the intentions. I grasp that there’s interpretation beyond the artist’s intention, but luckily as said artist, I’m free to disagree. As is anyone. I disagree that there was imperialist motivations behind what was intended to be a slap at imperialism.
Also no one is asking you control your commenters but when teh trhead goes with shots at everyone who disagreed with your takes intelligence veracity and dignity and you say NOTHING in addition to going to another blog and questioning their intelligence and calling them harping on it.
Marc
I am talking about teh post effects about as much as tehe picture. We can agree to disagree on teh picture but the treatment ffo POC,WOC and peopel who agree with them has been RACIST and dismissive. CHaracterized byu a constant non response when we bring up you knwo actual points.
I am a little perplexed that there’s so much debate about what I intended by the picture (noteworthy: the actual photoshopper was a man, whose intentions seem unworthy of mention, for reasons I can’t possibly imagine) when both I and the forgotten creator of the picture have explained the intentions. I grasp that there’s interpretation beyond the artist’s intention, but luckily as said artist, I’m free to disagree. As is anyone. I disagree that there was imperialist motivations behind was was intended to be a slap at imperialism.
That’d be Auguste, your henchman. I think that people are arguing a lot of different connotations on a lot of different levels. I’m not, incidentally, arguing that you are teh racist.
I didn’t accuse you of it. I said that it’s interesting to me that NO ONE can tell that it’s a burqua on a stick. That group technically includes you, but it includes everyone. My point was that it’s interesting that the garment effectively erases the person under it to the degree that NO ONE can tell who or what is under it. I don’t think you’re stupid, and you’re stretching to find personal insult in what amounts to, “No human being that I know of has X-ray vision.”
We picked a burqua out of a catalog because the joke was that it’s Jessica under it. Thus, it seemed silly to photoshop another woman entirely into it. There is literally nothing more to the story than that. No secret insults, no attempts to imply anyone is stupid.
I apologize that I didn’t jump in and fight on every point. I have a regular, 40 hour a week job. It cuts into my flame war time.
I’ll have you know that your insult at Auguste that implies he’s taking orders from me is completely backwards. He made the picture, I shoved it into a post that I mostly wrote because I was interested in the coded remarks about Jews and Italians on Althouse’s blog. I thought it was interesting that while most of us tend to think that white Americans don’t have the ethnic breakdowns of old in any substantial way, certain WASP-y conservative types are still carrying the torch. They’re like encased in glass or something.
no one asked you to censor, but you do have your own six shooter form of regulating discourse, described on your blog regarding the very blowouts re Alas and Hugo. Those things can be put into action.
I’ll have you know that your insult at Auguste that implies he’s taking orders from me is completely backwards. He made the picture, I shoved it into a post that I mostly wrote because I was interested in the coded remarks about Jews and Italians on Althouse’s blog. I thought it was interesting that while most of us tend to think that white Americans don’t have the ethnic breakdowns of old in any substantial way, certain WASP-y conservative types are still carrying the torch. They’re like encased in glass or something.
Uh, I know it’s been a rough week, but: kidding. I was kidding. I was being sarcastic. Of course I don’t think Auguste is your henchman. I assumed that you would see that as, you know, so ridiculous as to be funny.
So do I and frankly it’s not a flame war . you want to talk about female politics and bridge building and teh like but when peopel disagree iwth you you either pull mea culpas and tehn negate them or call us flamers .
And its not a flame war or more tahn ten seconds of your back, to say ” please be respectful” . It takes teh asmae amount of time it took you to be snide with me.
It’s not a flame unless you think were doing it on purpose to flame which if you responded tot hem on the meatof tehir texts you would see they are not.
Peopel are disappointe BECAUSE they dont think you a racist or they didnt .
It is absurd the amount of latitude that is asked by peopel with half the teh resources and exposure are asked to give.
It also wonderful that even though iVe brought up twelve different things . Still on the picture. Even though R mIldreds post not about teh picture still on the picture.
ANd even though the person with the bulk of the critisims on THIS WHOLE SHEBANGY BANG is BFP.
SHE HAS YET TO BE QUOTED.
Rmildred you were more right than you know.
I know that this may be a bit dangerous, given my history of battles with RMildred and Marc….but I have to bring my nickel’s worth into this.
The problem with the photo, Amanda, wasn’t that it merely appropriated a symbol of a religious faith (however repressive that faith may be) to simply lay smack upon an antifeminist asshat like Ann Althouse. The main issue is that it piles on the heap of issues that WOCs have against White liberal establishment feminists who appropriate their struggles and their issues while speaking down on them as incapable of thinking and acting for themselves. The ensuing debate, coming so soon after the Lieberman blackface pic at firedoglake (and the “respect your betters” smack leveled at Black critics of that tactic), combined with all the holy hell that Black feminists like Nubian got for stating her offense at being talked down to for her skin color), has done more to reenforce the view amongst Black and Brown women that traditional feminists and liberals simply use them as cannon fodder for their own pleasure and privilege. I for one do see what you were getting at with the pic; I just think that the execution and the timing was simply too suspect. Some jokes are pretty funny…except to those who are mocked and ridiculed, even unintentionally.
I’ll pass on the rest of the brohaha for now, since it’s been covered so well by others (namely, B|L and Blackamazon and Nanette, among others).
Anthony
My point re: you is that, because you accused people of asking for cultural relativism, you misunderstood what BfP asked for in her post. She did not call for cultural relativism as if we can make no value judgments. But, you trotted out a conversvative discourse to misrepresent her argument and suss out all those kneejerk anti-pomos who won’t even bother to read her post but glommed on to “cultural relatavism” to have a field day.
Not one word BfP was quoted. Not one single bit of close engagement with what she actually wrote. You give more space to conservatives in a fisking than you did to her words, which stood for themselves and could not be used to support the charge of cultural relativism.
That, Amanda, is failing to understand how you reproduce the racism people are calling for all of us to stop reproducing.
You can go on being “offended” because your fee fees hurt, but it doesn’t wash with me. I think you are perfectly well intelligent. I just don’t think you are demonstrating that you care to understand — by which I mean exhibit “care” “concern” and “sensitivity”.
Not understand in terms of intellectually grasp a sentence. But emotionally make a connection to the argument under consideration. Engaged Fallibilistic Pluralism as I called it at Lindsay’s.
Rmildred’s post — this post — was about the picture. She talks about Lindsay’s claims about the picture and refutes them. She attributes unkind intent to Amanda — on the picture. On this post, this thread, it is about the picture.
Yes, I censor people who come on spewing hate. I don’t censor for disagreement. I’m certainly not interested in making everyone who comes to my fairly laid back blog submit a comment request submission so I can make sure they’re following proper Marxist protocol when they comment. Most of the time, I let my regulars….be regulars.
Piny, thanks. Sorry, I guess I figured the funny was left at the door on this conversation a long time ago.
It’s not a rough week. My life, all things considered, is the shit.
I don’t think censorship, even so much of Trolly McTurnerson, is necessarily being advocated here. Just your ability to flay people saying stupid things.
I would flay them, but seriously, I have a job.