Author
|
Topic: Feminism outside the framework of the Western White Bourgeoisie
|
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617
|
posted 30 November 2004 11:36 AM
In the thread about patriarchy, Sillygoil raised an interesting issue regarding Feminism as a movement espoused by white bourgeois women. Not only is it quite problematic within that context, because the main contention bypasses economic and class variations, but also because of its applicability in a non-Western paradigm. Sillygoil and others mentioned women of color. I would also like to add women of colonial or post-colonial contexts. In such contexts, the woman faces a two-fold challenge, that of indigenous local patriarchy, and that of opressive foreign colonization, and as such, Feminism fails as a model to be applied generically. To illustrate this point, I would like to take Gayatri Chakravorti Spivak's article Can the Subaltern Speak?, in which she discusses the advent of British colnialism on the ritual practices women are subjected (and subject?) to in India, mainly the caste(sp?, anyway, widow burning). When the British forbade it, the logical reaction would be that they have done Indian women a great favor by banning such great injustice, however, the women in question opposed it ferociously, since they viewed it as a Western colonial power that hijacked their voices. In the scenario of white men saving Indian women from Indian men, the Indian women were torn between the opression of local practices, from which they could be liberated thanks to an opressive colonial structure, and the opression of this colonial structure, where redemption takes place through somewhat an indigenous resistance, in which the prevailing culture endorsed harmful rituals.[ 30 November 2004: Message edited by: liminal ] [ 30 November 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]
From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534
|
posted 30 November 2004 11:47 AM
Isn't Heather Mallick half (east) Indian?I agree that minority representation in the press remains most problematic. I've discussed that many times with two of the few Black journalists at Radio-Canada, Michaelle Jean (of Haitian origin) and Léo Kalinda, (a Tutsi from Rwanda). Perhaps you could suggest some columnists from non-majority groups - of colour, immigrant, Aboriginal... ? My neighbourhood is very multicultural and the rank-and-file activism and feminism in community groups are starting to reflect this. Of course then we get into the question of who exactly is "of colour" - that is particularly problematic in the case of Latin Americans. And of course Arabs are defined as "non-white", while Sicilians who are exactly the same hue are "whites"...
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
S Best
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7514
|
posted 30 November 2004 12:06 PM
quote: Originally posted by sillygoil: It amuses me no end to read about female oppression and see it coming from the mouths of white women primarily. As I mentioned in my last post on the other thread, even Rabble.Ca is representative of white middle class privilege in it's columnists.Hmmm, everyone is white.
sillygoil, from time to time--no matter how amusing, inappropriate or inadequate it may be--it is necessary for oppressors to discuss their oppression of others, and try to develop solutions, as unwelcome as they may be. I would suggest that if they fail to do so, the hopes of the oppressed ever being realized--absent of taking up bloody arms--are greatly reduced. Your tolerance, understanding, and guidance would be welcome and helpful. Regards Stephen Best
From: Ontario | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 30 November 2004 12:18 PM
Thanks for the Spivak reference, liminal -- a wonderful thinker and writer, whatever she takes on. quote: In such contexts, the woman faces a two-fold challenge, that of indigenous local patriarchy, and that of oppressive foreign colonization, and as such, Feminism fails as a model to be applied generically.
The thing is, we have watched this apparent paradox played out repeatedly during the current international crisis -- and it has even been played out on babble. Many will remember, eg, Laura Bush and Cherie Blair emoting over the lot of women in Afghanistan, whose liberation they claimed to be working for (as they allowed themselves to be exploited for their husbands' political agenda). As Heather Mallick would say -- does say, regularly, in the very title of her columns: As If. It seems to me that the paradox is dispelled very quickly by reflection on two facts, and I suspect that these two conditions would also have been true in the C19 British imperial Raj: 1. The imperialist's moralizing rationalizations of his behaviour towards the colonized are usually transparently cynical -- I mean, is there anyone who believes that the American war party went to war primarily or even secondarily out of concern for the liberation of Afghan women? -- and 2. The presence in the colonized populations of advanced, often heroic liberation movements, which usually, if given any non-cynical support at all, would be the much wiser and more effective leaders of liberation struggles. The women of RAWA, eg, stand every bit as much as a rebuke to the West as they do to the Taliban. [ 30 November 2004: Message edited by: skdadl ]
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873
|
posted 30 November 2004 02:45 PM
quote: Originally posted by sillygoil: It amuses me no end to read about female oppression and see it coming from the mouths of white women primarily. As I mentioned in my last post on the other thread, even Rabble.Ca is representative of white middle class privilege in it's columnists.Hmmm, everyone is white.
Hmmm...defining who is white and who is of colour is very problematic, as lagatta points out. I suppose it depends upon who is applying the labels, or whether they are self-applied, because it often has little to do with appearance. Does Heather Mallick self-identify as a woman of colour (I suspect that she herself would laugh, at least, at the garbled syntax that the preceding represents)? I have no idea. I've read several of her columns, and she sounds "white". Wait a second...does "whiteness" have a sound or style? Hmmmm. Another problematic concept. Is there, in fact, an "ethnicity" to writing, beyond the obvious cultural differences? Is ethnicity like gender in writing, where arguably some writing seems distinctly female and some male? What about her mode of dress? Very bourgeois, with her pearls and all. Not a sari in sight. Does Heather Mallick, in fact, dress "white"? Hmmm. Is there an "ethnicity" to dress, beyond the obvious cultural differences? The only things that seem clear, is that it takes a bit of work to step outside assumption, and that everyone makes assumptions about others. Another question I have is, what's considered bourgeois these days? One of my oldest and dearest friends says we become bourgeois when we can afford to buy new underwear when the old ones get ratty looking. I own two pair of ratty drawers. Does that make me a demi-bourgeois? I find myself wondering how many ratty pairs of undies are required before I am once again allowed into the milieu of the non-bourgeois. Just in case it comes up, and I need to recognize my white privilege but want to disown my bourgeois-ness. Beyond a doubt, it doesn't matter how broke I am or how marginalized I feel as a single mother, or whether I once had to feed my kid from a food bank, as a white woman I do definitely enjoy the privilege of colour. And I do need to work hard to avoid making assumptions about people based on this privilege. But I've been around activist/feminist groups for ages, and I've watched otherwise perfectly sensible people criticize others for their "white middle-classness" on the basis of their looks and dress, only to discover that the person is part aboriginal and the clothes come from Goodwill. You just never know. It certainly helps to ask before pointing fingers though. Saves a bit of embarassment. I think we all owe it to ourselves and others to keep up a sturdy regimen of questioning our assumptions. Yes, it's a bit of a pain in the ass, and sometimes, you know, making a negative assumption about someone or a group just feels so darned good (oh yes it does, admit it). But really, we'll all be in better shape if we can manage to do that on at least a quasi-regular basis.
From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sillygoil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6884
|
posted 30 November 2004 03:10 PM
Rebbecca West wrote: quote: Hmmm...defining who is white and who is of colour is very problematic, as lagatta points out. I suppose it depends upon who is applying the labels, or whether they are self-applied, because it often has little to do with appearance. Does Heather Mallick self-identify as a woman of colour (I suspect that she herself would laugh, at least, at the garbled syntax that the preceding represents)? I have no idea. I've read several of her columns, and she sounds "white".
I am trying not to scream here. The neat thing about determining whether a visible minority is not white is by looking at the colour of our skin, the shape of our eyes. All you have to do is look in a mirror and see that um... hmmm, I ain't white. Perhaps you need corrective lenses Rebbecca because it's very easy for cops, employers, government, social service agencies, etc to see that visible minorities are not white, hence things like racial profiling.
From: Little house on the prairie | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873
|
posted 30 November 2004 03:32 PM
quote: Originally posted by sillygoil: Rebbecca West wrote: I am trying not to scream here.The neat thing about determining whether a visible minority is not white is by looking at the colour of our skin, the shape of our eyes. All you have to do is look in a mirror and see that um... hmmm, I ain't white. Perhaps you need corrective lenses Rebbecca because it's very easy for cops, employers, government, social service agencies, etc to see that visible minorities are not white, hence things like racial profiling.
Go ahead, scream. You might feel better. Now, we've already established that people make mistakes. You thought Heather Mallick was white. Fair enough...it's sometimes hard to tell by photographs. Now what about all of those African Americans who used to "pass", in order to avoid the life-crippling effects of racism. They looked white. Did that make them white? If everyone knew they were African American, would looking white have protected them from the onslaught of racism? No, and no.So you see, or perhaps you don't, assumptions of privilege, of race, of class, aren't as effective as actual knowledge of a person or group of individuals. We cannot, should not, judge on the basis of appearance, or other superficial and sometimes misleading characteristics. We need dialogue, openness, acceptance and honest exchange of information. Not judgement. [ 30 November 2004: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]
From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
sillygoil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6884
|
posted 30 November 2004 04:46 PM
Rebecca - there is a sale on at Lenscrafters.The OVERWHELMING majority of visibile minorities are VISIBILE... you are referring to ONE person in a pot of BAJILLIONS of people. It that pot of soup has a white broth, do you not think that the first thing you will see is the black pepper - it kind of stands out. Really Rebecca, get those glasses honey. Your point aside from being ridiculous is offensive. My point about columnists for Rabble.Ca simply affirms the fact that white appears to be right in terms of privilege and this website cannot speak of equality if it is not representative in something as very basic as regular columnists. One final thing Rebecca - you wouldn't happen to be a white woman - would you? White people are very blind about their degree of privilege when it is compared to that of visible minorities. And when a white board of directors for a corporation or in this case, a contributor sees a single minority in that sea of white, they look at it as fair, equitable and representative. It aint. [ 30 November 2004: Message edited by: sillygoil ] [ 30 November 2004: Message edited by: sillygoil ]
From: Little house on the prairie | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448
|
posted 30 November 2004 05:08 PM
Rebecca, lagatta, your comments read as if you are denying the existence of race and racial discrimination. We all know that isn't so. At best, you are minimizing it, and I agree with sillygoil on this much: It's easy for us white folks (even those who just "pass" for white) to do that. I'm actually really surprised at all this.If the regard of feminists of colour for the majority of the feminist movement is just as sillygoil says, then this thread is a prime example of exactly why they do. I guess it comes down to how you identify yourself. I identify myself as feminist first, but I'm white -- the dominant in this culture. Others may put other aspects of their experience ahead of their feminism. (edited for typo) [ 30 November 2004: Message edited by: Zoot ]
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448
|
posted 01 December 2004 12:17 AM
Yes and no. I sincerely try to put myself in others' shoes and try to understand their perspective -- although I am not suggesting in any way that I can actually experience it. I have a friend who is an academic, and in her work reads a great deal of feminist writing from both black and white women's issues writers (note I am not calling them specifically "feminist", because not all are). I am no expert myself -- far from it, in fact -- but we've had some fairly illuminating, for me, discussions -- one about this very issue very recently. I am interested and willing to listen. I can't change my whiteness anymore than you can change your non-whiteness, so that's the best I have to offer right now. [ 01 December 2004: Message edited by: Zoot ]
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Klingon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4625
|
posted 01 December 2004 04:12 AM
P’Tachk! This discussion and the way it's going might be another reason why feminism, at least as it is expressed here, isn't being taken seriously by just about everybody out there, and why so much of the "left" is written off as whacko! quote: Hmmm...defining who is white and who is of colour is very problematic,
Problematic!?! It's damned absurd is what it is. For such a supposed commitment to fighting racism and prejudice, folks here seem to spend more time and effort on categorizing who's in the "white" club and who's in the "people of colour" club than some of the racist groups I have seen out there! I know I'll likely get rapped on the knuckles by a moderator or electro-flamed by some here, but this gets really boils my blood, and I get pissed off when I see folks like lagatta, who tries to land some common sense in the middle of this song and dance, gets burned for doing so. Racism and bigotry and the resulting oppression and violence spread across the ethnic spectrum. To get to practical basics, either you think that’s acceptable, or you don’t. If you don’t then you try to combat this and change the situation. How? There is no shortage of ways that have been tried; no shortage of analyses to try to understand the cause; no shortage of history to the whole thing. I have always found that over-coming resentment, fear and prejudice between people of various ethnicities happens best when folks discover and focus on their common histories and interests around practical concerns, like work, family, neighbourhood matters and other areas where folks can build common cause. That results in generating respect for one another’s ethnic diversity while overcoming the divisions sown between them by racist sentiment or circumstance. People communicating with one another on a common practical issue teaches them about each other’s cultures and ways of doing things. There are lots of differences, but there are also a lot of similarities, and those are what people get enthused about (since they are already trying to accomplish a common goal). In this environment, they are able to disagree on any differences without losing respect or trust. It certainly doesn’t mean they all totally rid themselves of presumption or prejudice—no one ever really does. But the situation sure does change from one primarily of dis-respect, mis-trust and intolerance to one mainly of solidarity, common cause and even friendship. I have seen this happen before many times, working on anti-racist campaigns, union organizing, and assisting refugees and on neighbourhood issues. You don’t overcome this by dwelling on racial differences and stripping people of their diverse and established ethnic heritage and lumping them into nebulous groups like “white” or “coloured.” This practice is founded in US political culture and I have found has little credibility outside the halls of US liberal thinking. Yet it seems the close-knit family of intellectuals and theoreticians and political correctoids on this site, in particular those who seem to want to carry a feminist banner, don’t seem to understand this fact or spend any time focusing on practical ways to overcome racism in the real every-day world. It would be much wiser to let people figure out on their own what ethnic group they are in (or want to be in), and focus more on encouraging people across the ethnic spectrum to find common cause and work together democratically as equals. Then again what do I know? I’m just a low-life male hetro-breeder who hurts the self-proclaimed owners or experts of this forum by providing a dose of every-day reality.
From: Kronos, but in BC Observing Political Tretchery | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sillygoil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6884
|
posted 01 December 2004 07:03 AM
quote: Hmmm...defining who is white and who is of colour is very problematic,
That's why I asked if the individual who wrote that absurd quote was white - which they are. I find it ironic and amusing that a white person would have difficulty determining who is of a different colour or that they would find it very problematic. This is why it's hard for feminism to speak for me because it's whiter than white. Whiter than the finest bleached linen from Homesense, whiter than a shiny new fridge at Future Shop. So it's laughable for feminist which is white and largely middle class to speak about the evils of patriarchy and the oppression of women when it can't even address the oppression that feminism creates and sustains upon visible minorities because feminism is a white woman's movement. I am more oppressed than a white feminist or a white woman because of the fact that I am a visible minority. Why isn't feminism recognizing that or addressing it? Why aren't contributors to rabble black or hindu or muslim or asian? It's a white world my friends and feminism would do well to look at the oppression it has created simply by it's arrogance and ignorance because it is white.
From: Little house on the prairie | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 01 December 2004 12:50 PM
periyar, you won't get a hostile reaction here. You may get clumsy reactions, mind. Me, for instance: I am white and childless, so I'm not much use ... except I remember being a frightened, excluded child very clearly. Two assumptions that should be questioned (not that I'm saying that you're making them, periyar -- just a general caution): none of us necessarily knows whether all the women posting to babble are white, to begin with; and then maybe we should consider that there might be some white women here who have children who are not white. Actually, I shouldn't make that last point a conditional. I know it is a truth.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534
|
posted 01 December 2004 01:00 PM
Yes, including one of the moderators... I am very annoyed at some of the accusations here. I made several points about racism - notably the severe under-representation of "visible minorities" among the journalists from whom we draw most of our columnists. (Neither of the ones I mentioned write in English, and they mostly do TV and radio journalism). I mentioned those two Radio-Canada journalists since I've known them for years. Saying that racism is a social construct, as indeed is race, and that sometimes the differences, even "visually" - or audibly - are very very small, in no way reduces the sting of racism, whether it is stares, comments, suspicion, obstacles to employment or housing or lethal violence. We have very recent local examples of the latter: namely the death of Neil Stonechild and the role racism played in the death of so many Aboriginal street women in Vancouver. Often people who are very close and could be confused with the targets of their racism can be the most racist of all. A clear example is how aboriginal people are treated by metzitzo Latin Americans - one can get an echo of that in Northern Quebec - places like Lac Saint-Jean where many of the "white" people are visibly part native. I've seen the same in Southern Italy against North Africans, by olive-skinned people with curly black hair... One of the most notorious racists in history, the darkly handsome, cultivated and evil Dr Josef Mengele evidently feared greatly that he was himself "tainted" with non-Aryan blood - perhaps thinking he was part Roma.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873
|
posted 01 December 2004 01:28 PM
quote: Originally posted by sillygoil: The OVERWHELMING majority of visibile minorities are VISIBILE
I completely agree. My point has to do with assumptions made about people. That was my only point. For other points, see below: quote: My point about columnists for Rabble.Ca simply affirms the fact that white appears to be right in terms of privilege and this website cannot speak of equality if it is not representative in something as very basic as regular columnists.
I happen to agree that there should be more representative diversity in Rabble columns. Apart from issues of fairness, equity and proper representation, diversity is just way more interesting. quote: One final thing Rebecca - you wouldn't happen to be a white woman - would you?
Yes, I am as white as they come. I've said so already in threads you post to, and in others. It's no secret. There's no need to assume that I am, or imply any slyness on my part. Just ask. quote: White people are very blind about their degree of privilege when it is compared to that of visible minorities.
Yes, we are. I've never disagreed with this, or your other points. quote: Rebecca, lagatta, your comments read as if you are denying the existence of race and racial discrimination.
That's a serious accusation, and I'm going to have to insist that you back it up with something specific I have posted. What I have said is that race is not always visible to the superficial observer and one should never assume that a person is white. I've said that there must be another, qualitatively different kind of experience of racism for those who look white, but are not. Stating that in no way implies that race or racial discrimination does not exist. Quite the contrary. [ 01 December 2004: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]
From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 01 December 2004 01:41 PM
periyar, about your concluding question, which is interesting and fair:I admit, first of all, that I wasn't following the parenting thread much because I don't feel useful and I can't read everything -- I mean, that's a weak excuse, but it's one that we all fall back on at one time or another, I think. I don't think it's right for me to tell you about anyone else's commitments on this score, first of all because another woman might think of her commitments as broadly political, not entirely determined by her personal situation, so I don't want to project anything on to anyone else. But when we keep talking, we do begin to learn lots of things about one another. For instance, if you talk to me long enough, you will learn that I have a special interest in disability issues -- I try to discipline it politically, but no question that that interest arises from the personal in the first place. The trick is that we need to keep talking. For a while, it has been hard to make this forum an easy place for women to talk. That has had something to do with trolling -- for some reason, there have been a great many discussions attacking feminism or women-centred discussions here lately, and none of us has quite figured out why. But we've all noticed, and we're committed to trying to turn it around. I hope that you will help us. [ 01 December 2004: Message edited by: skdadl ]
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
periyar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7061
|
posted 01 December 2004 02:16 PM
skdadl,Thanks for the non-defensive response. I don't know the people on babble so I am working on assumptions which I am completely open to being challenged about. Yet, what bothered me was what I thought to be a deflection of addressing issues about race and represenation- (and I don't think representation is central to analysis on racism, but an important part of it)with the sentiment that myself and silly goil are making assumptions about the majority of posting babblers on a particular issue are white and negating that does not have any impact on the content of their posts. It does just as me being a woman of colour impacts on my experiences and formulations regarding racism. Now, I'm actually very interested in the inital post by Liminal who mentioned the communities in India which practiced sati (widow burning). The british did abolish it but left it at that. The end of this practice would have created a new social group- widows- they would have no social status and possibly no community support. It reminds me of conservatives who value the unborn child, yet has nothing but contempt for poor mothers and their children. In her book- Of Silk Saris and Mini Skirts, Amita Handa, a Toronto academic, writes about the utilization of 'traditional/modern' to evaluate women. This dichotomy was used by the british raj to distinguish itself as civilized, morally superior from Indians- therefore the sati ban. The Indian nationalists also utilized the feminine to further their agenda. Handa writes: "In the context of colonial India, concepts of femininity became inseparable from a politics of cultural authenticity, preservation and Indian identity itself.” Handa interviewed young canadian south asian women who could describe this same dichotomy, sans academic terminology, in their lives today. The south asian communities in canada assign certain expectations and values (experienced by women as limiting and oppressive, patriarch cal) to the feminine, to distinguish themselves from the dominant group. The dominant group also depicts south asian women as victimized by their own ‘backward culture’ while doing nothing to address its own variations of oppression directed at these young women, including racism and sexism, classism etc.
From: toronto | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 01 December 2004 02:28 PM
quote: Now, I'm actually very interested in the inital post by Liminal who mentioned the communities in India which practiced sati (widow burning). The british did abolish it but left it at that. The end of this practice would have created a new social group- widows- they would have no social status and possibly no community support. It reminds me of conservatives who value the unborn child, yet has nothing but contempt for poor mothers and their children.
I'm really interested in these issues too, periyar. As I said above, I know them best through foreign policy -- forgive me, but that's what I know best, and I don't even know that all that well. However, the rest of your post is both helpful and complicating to me. Sometimes I wish I could draw diagrams in my posts, y'know? It gets so complicated? You can see a group responding defensively to a genuine offence, but the response cause a further oppression, or can ... and so on. For someone like me, hoping only to help to tame Western foreign policy, it has been an easy answer for a long time -- I see strong indigenous liberation groups, RAWA in Afghanistan being a touchstone -- and I say to the patriarchal imperialists here: if you want to see women there freed, then you listen to those women. You support them by following them. But that's an easy out for me, isn't it, when there is the much more complex structure right here in Canada that you describe. What can I say, periyar? Keep on describing it, when you're talking to us ... But then beyond that, you need to be building networks here from within. We must be able to connect.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
periyar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7061
|
posted 01 December 2004 02:50 PM
I think Handa's analysis is relevant because it can be applied to other communities living in Canada with colonial histories, as well as societies who are currently being subjected to American imperialism. I'm thinking about the muslim communities and how women have been used to further agendas which are not particularly conducive to their empowerment or self-determination, already mentioned by you. And I think western/ white feminists have to think about how they respond to this. One thing which is important is to recognize as you did, that there are anti-authoritarian feminist movements in these communities. For western feminists, these, I think, are the important alliances. I have seen some western feminists get very passionate about female genital mutilation in African countries, It is oppressive and sexist, but, these same women are not enraged about the extreme poverty that impacts these communities- the role of the west, its history and present day prepetuation of women's poverty, for example-through IMF-World Bank policies. Is it because to focus on FGM, they can focus on the other- those non-white barbaric men- and compare it to their own societies where this particular patriarchical practice does not exist, although others do- like cosmetic surgery. Are they buying into the discourse of 'traditional' and 'modern'?
From: toronto | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 01 December 2004 03:47 PM
This dynamic arose in yet another context sometime in the last couple of days here.Once again, in Nigeria, a sharia court (in, I'm assuming, one of the northern provinces of that divided country) has imposed a sentence of death by stoning -- but this time, upon a man judged guilty of homosexual relations. Now, we have been reading about several earlier cases in which those courts have imposed death-by-stoning sentences on unmarried young women who have become pregnant, usually, it appears, by rape, but ... We also know that the central Nigerian government is opposed to these sentences and, given past experience, is likely to be able to commute them -- given international support, rather than international condemnation. I'm no expert on the politics of Nigeria, but I know enough to know that we should be supporting rather than upsetting at this point, and there are historical reasons for the divisions in the country ... and I'm sure there is much more to be said. But if you find that recent thread, you will see that people were outraged at the thought that this kind of -- outrageous, no doubt -- sentence should be subject to negotiation at all, since here it would not be. There's the problem. I see the problem. On that thread, I tried pretending to be sure that there are activist groups in Nigeria who could guide activists here in their responses, but I'm not sure. I'm guessing, but I'm not sure. In Canada, I know that the Council of Muslim Women has been working most wisely on current awareness of what it would mean to introduce sharia courts for some purposes here -- we could find a link. And yet it is distressing: no matter how often we advise letting such an obviously capable group guide the reactions of other Canadians, that topic has been raised again and again on babble in a sensationalistic way, and the same arguments have to be made over and over again. There is a blindness. I see what you mean, periyar. One good argument isn't enough to clear it up. [ 01 December 2004: Message edited by: skdadl ]
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873
|
posted 01 December 2004 04:34 PM
quote: In Canada, I know that the Council of Muslim Women has been working most wisely on current awareness of what it would mean to introduce sharia courts for some purposes here -- we could find a link. And yet it is distressing: no matter how often we advise letting such an obviously capable group guide the reactions of other Canadians, that topic has been raised again and again on babble in a sensationalistic way, and the same arguments have to be made over and over again.
Skdadl, I have to admit that the idea of any religious law being given credibility here in Canada completely appalling. I can't comment much on sharia, because I don't know enough of it with any intimacy to do so, but from what I've been told, the interpretation of sharia is more problematic than most of its content. CCMW has talked about sharia in "a Canadian context" (sorry...can't recall where I read that). I think that until we know what that means, it will continue to be very worrying.Shamina Shaikhhas an interesting perspective on the difference between Islam, and its interpretation by patriarchy. [ 01 December 2004: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]
From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
athena_dreaming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4574
|
posted 02 December 2004 02:57 PM
Sillygoil, I don't think of feminism as a monolithic movement--I don't think there is "a" feminist movement. I think the criticisms you are making of "feminism" are very valid for a certain segment of the broader movement, and certainly for its more public face, but there are feminist writers who are explicitly anti-racist and write etc. from that perspective. Of course the only name I can think of off the top of my head is bell hooks.... And I'm sure you know about her already. But I think it's a real shame if you honestly ... I don't know how to put this ... feel no connection to feminism at all? I can understand it (or I think I can) but it's really too bad; feminism misses out when the critics don't hang in and try to kick it into shape. If that makes sense. Periyar, I am so glad you brought this up. I was thinking the same thing at the time--but from the opposite perspective. How do I innoculate my little girl against racism? I mean, she's white, so I'm not overly concerned about her experiencing it (though I'm concerned about her experiencing other forms of discrimination), but I am concerned about her perpetrating it. And I know I'm in no perfect position to be able to tell her what racism is, or isn't, or what it's like, etc. etc. I guess this doesn't really belong here, but I would be most interested in lurking on such a thread at any time.
From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 02 December 2004 06:08 PM
quote: Originally posted by sillygoil: I am more oppressed than a white feminist or a white woman because of the fact that I am a visible minority. Why isn't feminism recognizing that or addressing it? Why aren't contributors to rabble black or hindu or muslim or asian? It's a white world my friends and feminism would do well to look at the oppression it has created simply by it's arrogance and ignorance because it is white.
Having followed the original thread, and this the spin off thread, with interest. After mulling things over I find some things very troubling. I suppose it is based upon my own personal issues and perceptions, but your comments above, to me showed equally as much bias, as those you accuse of being biased. In particular, it is this comment of yours; "black or hindu or muslim or asian". The largest component of disenfranchised visible minority females in Canada, are First Nations women. Yet you have failed to include them in your inclusive list, of who should contribute, why? Is it because of an endemic perception that women from other visible minorities are superior to Canadian First Nations women? Is this a buy into elitism of perceived worth, that you accuse white feminest women of perpetuating, but are over looking in your bid to argue minority bias in the feminest movement? Why did you have this oversight?
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Chris Borst
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 731
|
posted 02 December 2004 11:34 PM
quote: Originally posted by sillygoil: This is why it's hard for feminism to speak for me because it's whiter than white.
sillygoil, I've had one question keep recurring to me as I read your various posts to this thread and the Patriarchy one. You keep saying, as here, that it's hard for feminism to "speak for" you, or that you can't relate to feminism because of its inability to "speak for" you. I found this curious, just in so far as I wouldn't have thought of feminism as trying to "speak for" anybody. I would have thought of feminism as trying to create spaces in which women - white women, black women, Asian women, First Nations women, any and all women - could speak for themselves. So I wonder, why this choice of phrase? I'm not any authority, of course - completely the opposite. And I'm not contesting anything you're saying. I'm just curious about this one way in which you've phrased your criticism.
From: Taken off to the Great White North | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Budd Campbell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7019
|
posted 03 December 2004 12:13 PM
quote: Originally posted by Chris Borst:
sillygoil, I've had one question keep recurring to me as I read your various posts to this thread and the Patriarchy one. You keep saying, as here, that it's hard for feminism to "speak for" you, or that you can't relate to feminism because of its inability to "speak for" you. I found this curious, just in so far as I wouldn't have thought of feminism as trying to "speak for" anybody. I would have thought of feminism as trying to create spaces in which women - white women, black women, Asian women, First Nations women, any and all women - could speak for themselves. So I wonder, why this choice of phrase? I'm not any authority, of course - completely the opposite. And I'm not contesting anything you're saying. I'm just curious about this one way in which you've phrased your criticism.
Well, there's something I am curioius about, Chris. You say you're not an authority, quite the opposite. However, from your posts in other threads such as 'Women's Studies 101', 'Patriarchy, Myths and Realities', and 'The Demise of Feminism', it appeared to me that you were quite the well read feminist scholar and that you proudly considered yourself as such. Why the sudden denial of any expertise in this area?
From: Kerrisdale-Point Grey, Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Budd Campbell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7019
|
posted 03 December 2004 12:27 PM
quote: Originally posted by audra trower williams: Okay, Klingon, that's it. I'm tired of your refusal to treat the feminism forum, and most of its participants, with the respect it deserves and requires. You've been taken to task on this issue several times, and you are incredibly dismissive about our concerns. I'm suspending your posting ability for a week.
I just read Klingon's post, and unlike many of his messages, it seemed to be mostly in English. So I think I know what he said. I don't understand why he was suspended. Can anyone explain to me what rules that post broke, or how it's offensive? He didn't ridicule anyone personally as far as I can see. And can other posters please explain why they have not questioned this suspension, which seems to me to be without foundation.
From: Kerrisdale-Point Grey, Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sillygoil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6884
|
posted 07 December 2004 06:04 AM
Athena Dreaming wrote: quote: But I think it's a real shame if you honestly ... I don't know how to put this ... feel no connection to feminism at all? I can understand it (or I think I can) but it's really too bad; feminism misses out when the critics don't hang in and try to kick it into shape. If that makes sense
There are far better things to promote or feel connected to on an issue by issue basis - that's how I approach things. Remember, it is feminism that claims to speak for all women. Remind wrote: quote: In particular, it is this comment of yours; "black or hindu or muslim or asian". The largest component of disenfranchised visible minority females in Canada, are First Nations women. Yet you have failed to include them in your inclusive list, of who should contribute, why?
Ahhh, I was expecting a comment like that. I suggest starting a new thread about the oppression of visible minority women and I will be happy to engage you in discussion on that topic. Meantime, if you are suggesting that I am discriminating against another visible minority women's group because I left it out of the list, then I guess i am a racist because I also forgot to list the handful of aboriginal women immigrants from Australia who happen to live in Canada. You'll note, earlier in this discussion, I used the term VISIBLE MINORITY, first nations people are part of that group. White women ain't. Chris Borst wrote: quote: I would have thought of feminism as trying to create spaces in which women - white women, black women, Asian women, First Nations women, any and all women - could speak for themselves. So I wonder, why this choice of phrase?
Because, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, the face of feminism - that which is clicked on the news at night, on the shelves of bookstores, teaching women's studies at university, etc, is overwhelmingly white. It is also because at meetings and conventions where visible minority women tried to speak with their own voice, it was shut down or marginalized by white women in the movement.
From: Little house on the prairie | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 10 December 2004 03:37 PM
*discussion changes course, reverts to earlier discussion*I would ask people to reread some of the exchanges above about Western ethnocentrism, and its clunky interventions in social problems in non-Western societies. I fear that we are experiencing on this board lately a few unhappy demonstrations of just that clunkiness. I don't want to call it bigotry. Yet. But see the Circumcision thread.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|