What we seem to have here is a failure to communicate. As much as I hate repeating myself it is apparently necessary.
Dear anyone and everyone that has arrived here thanks to these or similar search terms:
-alyx vance nude patch
-"Alyx Vance" fuck
-alyx vance fucking
Women do not exist to tingle your peen. Tough, but true. Is it at all possible that yo can try and see a woman in a video game as something other than wank material? Especially when that particular character manages to SAVE YOUR ASS on multiple occasions?
Or you could grow the fuck up and learn how to talk to real girls. Just a thought.
Edited to add: and to the person (and any subsequent people) who got here by searching for "Alyx Vance rape"? Go fuck yourself, because that is the only fucking you deserve, motherfucker.
Edited for Neil in the comments:
Neil, I'm not mad. I'm just sick and tired of entitled man-children who think women exist as fuck holes. If you want something to fuck, well...you have yourself, so why don't you just run along and do that now. And take your "lol" with you. You'll need it.
ETA The Third: I also want to thank you sexist motherfuckers for driving up my stats with your sophmoric fantasies. Lemme know how that all works out for you, why don't ya?
Showing posts with label sexism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexism. Show all posts
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Calling it what it is..what was that again?
(This post contains sexual assault and rape triggers. Please proceed with caution.)
Out of the 4 women in my immediate family, myself included, I know for sure that 2 of us have been raped, my mother and myself. I am fairly sure that one of my sisters has also experienced rape. She has admitted to me that she has had experiences that fit the criteria but she is reluctant to call it "rape" and seems to prefer to file it under "sex with regrets." my mother also doesn't use the word rape to describe her experience, although she is open about the fact that her enthusiastic consent was never obtained. Even with this acknowledgment, she still relies on euphemism to name what happened to her.
I have had quite a few fights with my spouse about rape and when to use the word. The last argument centered around a post at The Curvature in which Cara discusses Lil' Wayne and how his first sexual experience(at age 11 initiated by a 14 year old girl) can probably be classified as rape but is treated by others as a mark of status as a male, especially as a black male. The discussion was specifically about rape apologism as it applies to men. My spouse was very upset that I called it rape. Zie claimed that I had no right to call it that if the victim did not.
I'm not sure I accept that argument. There are certain elements of it that sound like they are progressive and do fit with my ethics, namely that we do not have the right to define the experience of another. However, this argument specifically feels inauthentic. Mainly because we don't talk about any other assault or crime like this.
What makes rape different? It took me years to define my experiences as rape, and I am still resisting it to a degree. Why does everyone, survivors and non-survivors alike, freak the fuck out when you dare to utter the r-word?
Part of it seems to be a dissonance between what rape is and what we think it is. There is a nauseating list of popular myths about "real" rape, like the persistent myth that rape is what happens when a stranger jumps out of the bushes and drags you down a dark alleyway with a knife to your throat, and if that isn't what happened then it isn't "really" rape.
In fact, part of the reason there is so much social contention over rape statistics can be directly attributed to how rape is defined. For example, the way rape is defined in studies where survivors are asked to self-report what happened to them changes the statistics on rape prevalence considerably.
There is also a social dissonance about who rape happens to. There are apologies up the wazoo every time the word "rape" rears its head. We have pervasive social myths about how rape victims want it, or deserved it. Even in cases that seem clear cut there is talk of the survivor's behavior and character as if this excuses the fact that someone else felt they had a right to hir body.
Another part of it is how we stigmatize survivors. This ties directly in to the ideas of "real" rape. No one wants to be a "raped" person when that means being stigmatized either as a liar, a slut or as damaged goods.
I don't know. I'm still working on this, but I refuse to be shamed for what happened to me. Anyone who wants to try to make me feel ashamed can kiss my fat ass.
Out of the 4 women in my immediate family, myself included, I know for sure that 2 of us have been raped, my mother and myself. I am fairly sure that one of my sisters has also experienced rape. She has admitted to me that she has had experiences that fit the criteria but she is reluctant to call it "rape" and seems to prefer to file it under "sex with regrets." my mother also doesn't use the word rape to describe her experience, although she is open about the fact that her enthusiastic consent was never obtained. Even with this acknowledgment, she still relies on euphemism to name what happened to her.
I have had quite a few fights with my spouse about rape and when to use the word. The last argument centered around a post at The Curvature in which Cara discusses Lil' Wayne and how his first sexual experience(at age 11 initiated by a 14 year old girl) can probably be classified as rape but is treated by others as a mark of status as a male, especially as a black male. The discussion was specifically about rape apologism as it applies to men. My spouse was very upset that I called it rape. Zie claimed that I had no right to call it that if the victim did not.
I'm not sure I accept that argument. There are certain elements of it that sound like they are progressive and do fit with my ethics, namely that we do not have the right to define the experience of another. However, this argument specifically feels inauthentic. Mainly because we don't talk about any other assault or crime like this.
What makes rape different? It took me years to define my experiences as rape, and I am still resisting it to a degree. Why does everyone, survivors and non-survivors alike, freak the fuck out when you dare to utter the r-word?
Part of it seems to be a dissonance between what rape is and what we think it is. There is a nauseating list of popular myths about "real" rape, like the persistent myth that rape is what happens when a stranger jumps out of the bushes and drags you down a dark alleyway with a knife to your throat, and if that isn't what happened then it isn't "really" rape.
In fact, part of the reason there is so much social contention over rape statistics can be directly attributed to how rape is defined. For example, the way rape is defined in studies where survivors are asked to self-report what happened to them changes the statistics on rape prevalence considerably.
There is also a social dissonance about who rape happens to. There are apologies up the wazoo every time the word "rape" rears its head. We have pervasive social myths about how rape victims want it, or deserved it. Even in cases that seem clear cut there is talk of the survivor's behavior and character as if this excuses the fact that someone else felt they had a right to hir body.
Another part of it is how we stigmatize survivors. This ties directly in to the ideas of "real" rape. No one wants to be a "raped" person when that means being stigmatized either as a liar, a slut or as damaged goods.
I don't know. I'm still working on this, but I refuse to be shamed for what happened to me. Anyone who wants to try to make me feel ashamed can kiss my fat ass.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
I am so pissed off right now
Breaking the silence: On Living Pro-Lifer's Choice for Women
I have to say, I am utterly shocked. And LIVID. What exactly are women supposed to do? We choose to go through with and give birth to an unplanned pregnancy? We are selfish, or stupid and deserve any hardship it causes unless we are white and financially well off. We choose to have an abortion? Then we are cold, heartless, baby-killing harpies. We choose to give the resulting baby up for adoption? Then we are selfish and/or heartless failures as women because we didn't want to follow our "maternal instincts" (puke) and become good little obedient child raisers, unless we are women of color, or poor, in which case, see point number one. We choose never to have children at all by being sterilized before its an issue? Then we are failures as women, except for WoC and poor women. Then we are just doing what we should to leave the population to the privileged.
I see no reason to play their fucking game. We will lose no matter what, purely by virtue of daring to exist while female and think that we are actually people with the right to live as we see fit.
I have to say, I am utterly shocked. And LIVID. What exactly are women supposed to do? We choose to go through with and give birth to an unplanned pregnancy? We are selfish, or stupid and deserve any hardship it causes unless we are white and financially well off. We choose to have an abortion? Then we are cold, heartless, baby-killing harpies. We choose to give the resulting baby up for adoption? Then we are selfish and/or heartless failures as women because we didn't want to follow our "maternal instincts" (puke) and become good little obedient child raisers, unless we are women of color, or poor, in which case, see point number one. We choose never to have children at all by being sterilized before its an issue? Then we are failures as women, except for WoC and poor women. Then we are just doing what we should to leave the population to the privileged.
I see no reason to play their fucking game. We will lose no matter what, purely by virtue of daring to exist while female and think that we are actually people with the right to live as we see fit.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
"Conscience": Its Like "caring" but ...not.
Obama administration is working to repeal DHHS regulation that prevents health care organizations that receive federal funds from firing or refusing to hire health care workers who refuse to dispense medical care for "moral" reasons. Still wishy-washy on actual "conscience" clauses which allow health care workers to refuse medical care in the first place. Important distinction: what is being repealed is the idea that a clinic that provides family planning services could fire someone who refuses to dispense birth control for their refusal. What is not being repealed is their supposed right to refuse care. This concept of conscience clauses and right to refuse care can and does apply to much more than reproductive health. Doctors could refuse to see or touch gay or trans patients, pharmacists could refuse to dispense medications to people who are transitioning, EMTs could withhold lifesaving measures from someone they found "repulsive" and claim conscience.
What I want to know is: what kind of conscience can rationalize refusing medical care, which in some cases is life saving and in almost all cases is necessary to some degree, on the basis of personally not wanting to encourage "immoral" behavior? What kind of conscience thinks that another person's health and LIFE is worth less than their ability to say they are "moral"? When did your right to a "clean" conscience trump the right of someone else to live? You have to think that this person in front of you has less of a right to live than you have to sleep at night. Its fucking psychotic. How dare you call yourself moral when you are willing to let people die for your conscience? When does your right to feel good about yourself become more important than someones life!? How the bleeding burny fuck CAN you feel good about yourself knowing that you harmed someone and/or actively contributed to their death?!
The only answer I can come up with to explain it is hate.
You hate anyone who lives a life you don't agree with. You hate them to the point that possibly letting them die is a-okay for you because they aren't really people anyway. Women who want to make their own decisions about their reproduction? Not people. Queer folk who live openly? Not people. Transpeople who just want the chance to be themselves? DEFINITELY not people. Multiply these sentiments by several hundred if the aforementioned women/queers/transpeople are not white, or are poor, or live in a "developing" country, or don't fucking speak English, or don't try REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY hard to be as "normal" as possible or any number of things that add to your smug feeling of superiority that masks insecurity, fear and hate.
This is the difference between you and me, you so-called "moralists." I want everyone to have the right to live their lives as they see fit provided they don't prevent others from doing the same. You? You only want people like you to have that chance. In my perfect world, you would be allowed to have your life, and your opinions still. The only difference is that you would not be able to dictate the life of anyone besides yourself.
In your perfect world, I wouldn't even exist.
I refuse to lay down and die so you and yours can live in your perfect world.
What I want to know is: what kind of conscience can rationalize refusing medical care, which in some cases is life saving and in almost all cases is necessary to some degree, on the basis of personally not wanting to encourage "immoral" behavior? What kind of conscience thinks that another person's health and LIFE is worth less than their ability to say they are "moral"? When did your right to a "clean" conscience trump the right of someone else to live? You have to think that this person in front of you has less of a right to live than you have to sleep at night. Its fucking psychotic. How dare you call yourself moral when you are willing to let people die for your conscience? When does your right to feel good about yourself become more important than someones life!? How the bleeding burny fuck CAN you feel good about yourself knowing that you harmed someone and/or actively contributed to their death?!
The only answer I can come up with to explain it is hate.
You hate anyone who lives a life you don't agree with. You hate them to the point that possibly letting them die is a-okay for you because they aren't really people anyway. Women who want to make their own decisions about their reproduction? Not people. Queer folk who live openly? Not people. Transpeople who just want the chance to be themselves? DEFINITELY not people. Multiply these sentiments by several hundred if the aforementioned women/queers/transpeople are not white, or are poor, or live in a "developing" country, or don't fucking speak English, or don't try REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY hard to be as "normal" as possible or any number of things that add to your smug feeling of superiority that masks insecurity, fear and hate.
This is the difference between you and me, you so-called "moralists." I want everyone to have the right to live their lives as they see fit provided they don't prevent others from doing the same. You? You only want people like you to have that chance. In my perfect world, you would be allowed to have your life, and your opinions still. The only difference is that you would not be able to dictate the life of anyone besides yourself.
In your perfect world, I wouldn't even exist.
I refuse to lay down and die so you and yours can live in your perfect world.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Why I am a purist
I love sci-fi and fantasy. I was raised in the era of movies like The Dark Crystal, Legend, Labyrinth, The Neverending Story, the Princess Bride, The Last Unicorn...My parents helped. We always had sci-fi books laying around the house (I still read the entire original Dune series once a year or so) and my mom would tape things like Red Sonya or Neverending Story for us to watch over and over again.
As I got older, I started getting a little pickier about my books. There were some tropes that seemed ever-present in fantasy specifically that bugged me to no end, the handsome hero swinging his phallus replacement around to protect the fragile but oh so beautiful princess from being touched. If I was lucky, the fragile princess would have power of her own, but it was almost inevitably magic of some kind, which allowed her to stay on the fringes of any battle and usually was the excuse for her weak constitution. Even female heroes would end up saved by the man yet again, regardless of her own strength.
Eventually, my mother (who can be seriously awesome) introduced me to Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series. This series seems to fall victim to some of the usual tropes at first, but very quickly it is revealed that not all is as it seems in that regard. The series is full of strong female characters, and by that I don't mean "Strong Female" characters, but strong characters that happen to be female. Its not a perfect series, but it does amazingly well in the gender department. Goodkind displays an amazing depth of insight into female perspectives, experiences and realities.
Can you imagine my joy when I found out they were making a TV series?
Absolute. Pure. Bliss.
Then I watched it.
I've read Backlash, I should not have been surprised. I should have expected that the entertainment industry would sap all individual personality from the female characters and insert tired old tropes about how women "really are." It doesn't matter if the character is essentially in charge of an entire council of nations and is the highest authority in the land. Underneath it all shes just a weak little girl who needs men to save her. She still has her amazing power, but now using it ONCE makes her faint like a delicate fucking wilted flower!
Additionally, the racial characterization is unbelievable. Why, pray tell, is the one character which was written with a specific speech pattern ie "I am" becomes "I be" (meant to indicate her native language's grammatical structure conflicting with the language she currently speaks) cast as a woman of color? Especially when this character was not originally written so? To make it worse, shes a sorceress who lives in a hut full of bones, and uses bones to ward off the underworld. Cue the "mystical POC/ voodoo preistess" stereotype. Tia Dalma anyone?
Theres more, but frankly, it isn't even worth addressing in some ways, cause we have heard it all before.
In all honestly, I wish I could even be anything other than bored and disappointed.
In short, don't bother with "Legend of the Seeker" As usual, the Western entertainment industry took perfectly good source material that actually portrays a complex world and boiled it down to the things that make white guys feel most comfortable.
As I got older, I started getting a little pickier about my books. There were some tropes that seemed ever-present in fantasy specifically that bugged me to no end, the handsome hero swinging his phallus replacement around to protect the fragile but oh so beautiful princess from being touched. If I was lucky, the fragile princess would have power of her own, but it was almost inevitably magic of some kind, which allowed her to stay on the fringes of any battle and usually was the excuse for her weak constitution. Even female heroes would end up saved by the man yet again, regardless of her own strength.
Eventually, my mother (who can be seriously awesome) introduced me to Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series. This series seems to fall victim to some of the usual tropes at first, but very quickly it is revealed that not all is as it seems in that regard. The series is full of strong female characters, and by that I don't mean "Strong Female" characters, but strong characters that happen to be female. Its not a perfect series, but it does amazingly well in the gender department. Goodkind displays an amazing depth of insight into female perspectives, experiences and realities.
Can you imagine my joy when I found out they were making a TV series?
Absolute. Pure. Bliss.
Then I watched it.
I've read Backlash, I should not have been surprised. I should have expected that the entertainment industry would sap all individual personality from the female characters and insert tired old tropes about how women "really are." It doesn't matter if the character is essentially in charge of an entire council of nations and is the highest authority in the land. Underneath it all shes just a weak little girl who needs men to save her. She still has her amazing power, but now using it ONCE makes her faint like a delicate fucking wilted flower!
Additionally, the racial characterization is unbelievable. Why, pray tell, is the one character which was written with a specific speech pattern ie "I am" becomes "I be" (meant to indicate her native language's grammatical structure conflicting with the language she currently speaks) cast as a woman of color? Especially when this character was not originally written so? To make it worse, shes a sorceress who lives in a hut full of bones, and uses bones to ward off the underworld. Cue the "mystical POC/ voodoo preistess" stereotype. Tia Dalma anyone?
Theres more, but frankly, it isn't even worth addressing in some ways, cause we have heard it all before.
In all honestly, I wish I could even be anything other than bored and disappointed.
In short, don't bother with "Legend of the Seeker" As usual, the Western entertainment industry took perfectly good source material that actually portrays a complex world and boiled it down to the things that make white guys feel most comfortable.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Slide...
I have been accused of many things. I'm big on the subjectivity of reality, so I tend to own the things I have been accused of as other people's interpretations of my behavior, even if I feel they are false. If I can understand how someone would interpret me in a certain way, then I can understand their perspective and then YAY DIALOGUE!
There is one thing though, that I stand by whole heartedly and will never compromise on, that I am accused of regularly, either overtly or covertly, and that is being confrontational. In this vein, I have been told that I'm too militant, that I'm too angry, that I care too much, that I have a chip on my shoulder, that I'm too mean to listen to and that I don't know how to pick my battles.
I actually get that last one a lot, that I have to learn how to pick my battles. I don't know how to just let some things sliiiiiiiiide.
I tend to hear this complaint when I am making the person/people I am with uncomfortable for various reasons, usually tied either to the fact that I am challenging their perspective directly or I am annoying/angering someone else in the situation and that worries and/or upsets my friend(s)/family member(s). Now, in order to be fair to my spouse, this sentiment is not always meant in the same way. When zie says it, zie also qualifies that zie thinks I am over-extending myself and zie doesn't want to see me crash into a depression or exhaustion cycle. I know that some of my family sees it similarly. Even in those cases though, there is one concept that underlies every single motivation for someone telling me to just "relax." There is always the implication that whatever I am speaking about or against is just not worth the effort of being...excited about, angry about, worked up, or even just caring about.
*snort*
My question always ends up being why. Why should I let it slide? Because I can't change it? Because you don't care about it? Because its easier to ignore it? Because you would rather coddle someone who says something ignorant?
I have been told not to confront someone who casually use the word "faggot" to describe someone because everyone just wanted to get on with the chat we were having. When I called him out though, the majority of the people in the chat were behind me. He eventually threw a fit and left, calling me a troll in the process. (LOL IZE NOT TROLLIN' ROFL) My friend who ran the chat tried to get me to stop calling him out on his abusive language to avoid discomfort for this one jerk with a bigoted perspective despite the fact that the vast majority of the group was uncomfortable with his presence and his language. So why did his comfort trump all of ours? Why is kicking up a fuss in these situation looked down on, while someone who is using language that actually contributes to lower quality of life for actual people is supposed to be just left alone? Why is reminding people of basic rules of civility that we all should have learned in kindergarten a shameful act but insulting others protected as sacred opinion?
Underneath this and a laundry list of other situations like it, continues to flow that basic idea: some issues are not worth fighting for. ignore it and it'll go away. You are just one person, you have no real power. Submit to it cause its going to happen anyway.
I say FUCK THAT. Yeah, nothing will change if you sit on your hands and say nothing about it. These things don't just fade away on their own. How many times in history has something changed because the group of people negatively affected sat quietly and politely waited their turn? How many institutional oppressions have been solved by just letting it sliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide? And before anyone starts, yes, calling out individuals is part of addressing institutional oppression. These institutions are built and informed by our society and have various cultures issuing from them. One of the ways to combat it is to let people know that this culture they have accepted is damaging to real people and that these people have the right to live their lives free of this damage. What happens when you call out bigots? They learn that their behavior is not accepted nor encouraged by everyone. What happens when we stay silent? they think there is nothing wrong and that people agree with them.
Silence changes nothing. Silence is one more way to be complicit in these on going structures. Yes, we must choose our battles. I have chosen mine. My battle is not to let hatred against me or those I love pass by unremarked upon. You think my battle doesn't matter? Keep it to yourself.
There is one thing though, that I stand by whole heartedly and will never compromise on, that I am accused of regularly, either overtly or covertly, and that is being confrontational. In this vein, I have been told that I'm too militant, that I'm too angry, that I care too much, that I have a chip on my shoulder, that I'm too mean to listen to and that I don't know how to pick my battles.
I actually get that last one a lot, that I have to learn how to pick my battles. I don't know how to just let some things sliiiiiiiiide.
I tend to hear this complaint when I am making the person/people I am with uncomfortable for various reasons, usually tied either to the fact that I am challenging their perspective directly or I am annoying/angering someone else in the situation and that worries and/or upsets my friend(s)/family member(s). Now, in order to be fair to my spouse, this sentiment is not always meant in the same way. When zie says it, zie also qualifies that zie thinks I am over-extending myself and zie doesn't want to see me crash into a depression or exhaustion cycle. I know that some of my family sees it similarly. Even in those cases though, there is one concept that underlies every single motivation for someone telling me to just "relax." There is always the implication that whatever I am speaking about or against is just not worth the effort of being...excited about, angry about, worked up, or even just caring about.
*snort*
My question always ends up being why. Why should I let it slide? Because I can't change it? Because you don't care about it? Because its easier to ignore it? Because you would rather coddle someone who says something ignorant?
I have been told not to confront someone who casually use the word "faggot" to describe someone because everyone just wanted to get on with the chat we were having. When I called him out though, the majority of the people in the chat were behind me. He eventually threw a fit and left, calling me a troll in the process. (LOL IZE NOT TROLLIN' ROFL) My friend who ran the chat tried to get me to stop calling him out on his abusive language to avoid discomfort for this one jerk with a bigoted perspective despite the fact that the vast majority of the group was uncomfortable with his presence and his language. So why did his comfort trump all of ours? Why is kicking up a fuss in these situation looked down on, while someone who is using language that actually contributes to lower quality of life for actual people is supposed to be just left alone? Why is reminding people of basic rules of civility that we all should have learned in kindergarten a shameful act but insulting others protected as sacred opinion?
Underneath this and a laundry list of other situations like it, continues to flow that basic idea: some issues are not worth fighting for. ignore it and it'll go away. You are just one person, you have no real power. Submit to it cause its going to happen anyway.
I say FUCK THAT. Yeah, nothing will change if you sit on your hands and say nothing about it. These things don't just fade away on their own. How many times in history has something changed because the group of people negatively affected sat quietly and politely waited their turn? How many institutional oppressions have been solved by just letting it sliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide? And before anyone starts, yes, calling out individuals is part of addressing institutional oppression. These institutions are built and informed by our society and have various cultures issuing from them. One of the ways to combat it is to let people know that this culture they have accepted is damaging to real people and that these people have the right to live their lives free of this damage. What happens when you call out bigots? They learn that their behavior is not accepted nor encouraged by everyone. What happens when we stay silent? they think there is nothing wrong and that people agree with them.
Silence changes nothing. Silence is one more way to be complicit in these on going structures. Yes, we must choose our battles. I have chosen mine. My battle is not to let hatred against me or those I love pass by unremarked upon. You think my battle doesn't matter? Keep it to yourself.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Quick Hit: Misogyny Where You Least Expect It
Another one for the "You have got to be fucking kidding me!" file.
I love StumbleUpon. You want to lose a whole night of productivity? StumbleUpon. I have found some awesome sites and amazing images through this lovely concept.
Unfortunately there is no way to request things that are not written by idiots who say sexist things.
If you follow the link, you will find a blog post about the worlds deepest pool, which looks amazingly awesome. One problem though, the sub-title of the post.
Anyone else see the problem here?
...
...
No?
Ummmm...is it absolutely necessary to advertise an amazing place with the suggestion that its a great place to kill a woman who cheats on you?
In a world where the vast majority of murdered women are murdered by their significant others, you really thought this was appropriate? Or worse, a fun thing to joke about?
Well I know that is exactly what makes me think someone is edgy and cool, is their willingness to joke about drowning bitches who dare to fuck someone other than them. Way to go there Skippy.
I love StumbleUpon. You want to lose a whole night of productivity? StumbleUpon. I have found some awesome sites and amazing images through this lovely concept.
Unfortunately there is no way to request things that are not written by idiots who say sexist things.
If you follow the link, you will find a blog post about the worlds deepest pool, which looks amazingly awesome. One problem though, the sub-title of the post.
The Deepest Swimming Pool In The World
The last date you take your cheating girlfriend on.
Anyone else see the problem here?
...
...
No?
Ummmm...is it absolutely necessary to advertise an amazing place with the suggestion that its a great place to kill a woman who cheats on you?
In a world where the vast majority of murdered women are murdered by their significant others, you really thought this was appropriate? Or worse, a fun thing to joke about?
Well I know that is exactly what makes me think someone is edgy and cool, is their willingness to joke about drowning bitches who dare to fuck someone other than them. Way to go there Skippy.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Fame and victim blaming
Unless you have been living under a rock in the States recently, you have probably heard of the case of musical artist Chris Brown facing charges for beating the stuffing out of his girlfriend, Rhianna who is actually more widely known than he is.
Cue the inevitable cries of "What did she do to make him act like that?" There is unsupported conjecture that she cheated on him and/or gave him herpes being give as justification for his actions, or the usual suggestions of "but hes so NICE!" that are being offered as proof that the bitch must be lyin'.
I will never understand how someone can rationalize the idea that because you like someone's artistic expression that you know who they are and how they would act. Famous people are still PEOPLE and some people are assholes. Just because you like his music/think hes pretty/hate her for her fame/looks/relationship with him, does not mean you know fuckall about who they are.
No, I don't want to hear any, ANY justification for domestic violence. I have heard that he was abused by a child, and if it is true then it is awful that he was. This does not excuse violence he commits in any way. Aileen Wuornos was sexually and physically abused throughout her life and no one excused her for her crimes.
As far as the incursion into Rhianna's privacy in this case, I get so enraged that someone not only released her name, which is against law enforcement protocol, but a motherfucking picture of her after the attack that it is all I can do not to fucking walk to LA to verbally tear the shit out of whoever did that and their boss until this person is unceremoniously and publicly fired and shamed. I will instead quote Uppitybrownwoman:
This woman and her injuries are not gore porn for anyones amusement. No one has a right to see these photographs just because she makes a living in the public eye. If you need to see a picture of a battered woman to "show you the REALITY" of domestic violence, I suggest instead volunteering at a local homeless or battered women's shelter or just fucking right the hell off. If it takes something like that to "prove" to you that shit like this is a problem, then you have some serious soul searching and questioning of your humanity to do.
Fuckers.
Cue the inevitable cries of "What did she do to make him act like that?" There is unsupported conjecture that she cheated on him and/or gave him herpes being give as justification for his actions, or the usual suggestions of "but hes so NICE!" that are being offered as proof that the bitch must be lyin'.
I will never understand how someone can rationalize the idea that because you like someone's artistic expression that you know who they are and how they would act. Famous people are still PEOPLE and some people are assholes. Just because you like his music/think hes pretty/hate her for her fame/looks/relationship with him, does not mean you know fuckall about who they are.
No, I don't want to hear any, ANY justification for domestic violence. I have heard that he was abused by a child, and if it is true then it is awful that he was. This does not excuse violence he commits in any way. Aileen Wuornos was sexually and physically abused throughout her life and no one excused her for her crimes.
As far as the incursion into Rhianna's privacy in this case, I get so enraged that someone not only released her name, which is against law enforcement protocol, but a motherfucking picture of her after the attack that it is all I can do not to fucking walk to LA to verbally tear the shit out of whoever did that and their boss until this person is unceremoniously and publicly fired and shamed. I will instead quote Uppitybrownwoman:
I don’t want to open up any dialogue right now. I don’t want to teach you. I don’t want to explain to you how women of colour are shoved in all directions when it comes to violence against women. I don’t want to teach anyone about sexism and racism in the media. I don’t want to tell you about my experiences so that you can satisfy your voyeuristic curiosity that we have been trained to have. I don’t want to make any woman, WOC or not, into a model victim. I don’t want to tell you why it’s wrong to expect that of any survivor. I don’t want to have to argue again and again why it is downright bullshit to try to take away agency from the survivor. I don’t want to explain that “the personal is political” doesn’t mean no one has a right to privacy.
I want to yell. I want to scream. I want to rage. I want to extend a hearty ‘fuck you’ to a lot of people.
I don’t give a fuck how your life has been fundamentally changed by seeing a sensationalized photograph of a domestic assault survivor.
I don’t give a fuck about her fame.
I don’t give a fuck that you want to see it too.
I don’t give a fuck that you think she has no right to privacy because she’s a celebrity.
I don’t give a fuck how lucky you now feel to have never experienced intimate partner violence just because you’ve seen it.
I don’t give a fuck that you can see the ‘upside’ of this because it’s “raising awareness.”
I don’t give a fuck about you making her into an example.
I don’t give a fuck about what you think she should and should not do about her life.
I don’t give a fuck about her abuser’s career.
I don’t give a FUCK if you think she deserved to be abused, or to have her photos spread around like a fucking Christmas card.
Fuck the people who have turned this into entertainment.
Fuck the people who have turned this into an after-school special on VAW.
Fuck the people who published it on news sites and displayed it on television (I am looking at you Entertainment Canada).
Fuck the people who posted it on their blogs, their journals, their Facebooks, MySpaces, and other social networking sites so that EVERYONE else can see it.
I give a fuck about her dignity and I am yelling about it. I give a fuck about her choices that only SHE has a right to. I give a fuck about her life. I give a fuck about her rights. I give a fuck about her privacy. I give a fuck about her, so why don’t you?
This woman and her injuries are not gore porn for anyones amusement. No one has a right to see these photographs just because she makes a living in the public eye. If you need to see a picture of a battered woman to "show you the REALITY" of domestic violence, I suggest instead volunteering at a local homeless or battered women's shelter or just fucking right the hell off. If it takes something like that to "prove" to you that shit like this is a problem, then you have some serious soul searching and questioning of your humanity to do.
Fuckers.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Same Shit, Different Day
Dear US, US based mainstream media, and various other information outlets,
Please stop it with the judgments of Nadya Suleman. I am so sick of hearing about this that I could puke. Asking if she should be "allowed" to give birth to octuplets when she already has six children is an irresponsible question. Her body, her life and her choice. So they may end up on some sort of public assistance. Who the fuck cares? no really, who cares? Some of y'all think you shouldn't have to pay for her choices because you think they are irresponsible. I get it. I also think thats a pretty fucking cold Regan-esque thing to say. These are children, they are here and they are alive, and they deserve a chance at a decent life, regardless of how desperately you want to judge their mother. Unless you really think your self-righteous posturing about how this woman is a leech, insane or worse is more important than feeding children who haven't done anything but be born. And seriously, Yahoo news...the whole family may end up costing a whole 1.3 million dollars as a scare tactic? That means one dollar from a million taxpayers. How many taxpayers do we have in this country, hmm? Purposefully inflating that number to feed into the welfare wank? THATS fucking irresponsible.
Honestly, judging women for their reproductive choices is so fucking old-meme I don't even know where to begin. Besides, if she were a white woman with a husband everyone would be cooing over the pwecious widdle babies and TLC would be falling all over itself to give her a TV show and years worth of free shit.
Just cut it the fuck out already.
love and kisses,
me
Please stop it with the judgments of Nadya Suleman. I am so sick of hearing about this that I could puke. Asking if she should be "allowed" to give birth to octuplets when she already has six children is an irresponsible question. Her body, her life and her choice. So they may end up on some sort of public assistance. Who the fuck cares? no really, who cares? Some of y'all think you shouldn't have to pay for her choices because you think they are irresponsible. I get it. I also think thats a pretty fucking cold Regan-esque thing to say. These are children, they are here and they are alive, and they deserve a chance at a decent life, regardless of how desperately you want to judge their mother. Unless you really think your self-righteous posturing about how this woman is a leech, insane or worse is more important than feeding children who haven't done anything but be born. And seriously, Yahoo news...the whole family may end up costing a whole 1.3 million dollars as a scare tactic? That means one dollar from a million taxpayers. How many taxpayers do we have in this country, hmm? Purposefully inflating that number to feed into the welfare wank? THATS fucking irresponsible.
Honestly, judging women for their reproductive choices is so fucking old-meme I don't even know where to begin. Besides, if she were a white woman with a husband everyone would be cooing over the pwecious widdle babies and TLC would be falling all over itself to give her a TV show and years worth of free shit.
Just cut it the fuck out already.
love and kisses,
me
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Veiled Contempt-Part one: "Hijab" (aka The "Mythnomers and Impervections" edition)
(go here for an explanation of the title)
So, we are finally gonna start with this conversation, mainly because it seems to be the hugest issue that your average non-Muslim westerner will bring up regarding women in Islam. This took forever to actually put together, so pay attention.
Welcome to the first section of Part One in my Veiled Contempt series.
The veil.
This particular subject in itself is huge, and how it is addressed is rarely unproblematic for the people actually faced with the prospect of wearing something that has so many shades and degrees of meaning from place to place.
Very often, at least in a good deal of the popular culture that I have seen, the concept of veiling is either painted as absolutely oppressive, all the time, no matter what, or as an object of ridicule.
This part of this series will serve as a sort of primer on basic veiling names and facts, as well as dispelling some myths about the practice itself. I will add a disclaimer, this information should not necessarily be considered comprehensive. It is based on a few years of research on my part but there is a huge wealth of information on this topic. This piece barely scratches the surface.
First thing that must be understood: not every Muslim women veils. Not every predominantly Muslim country requires it either. Most don't require anything in the way of head covering for women, in some Muslim countries the practice is discouraged or outright banned in certain areas and even in the countries where it is required, veiling as it is recognized by non-Muslim westerners, and even some Muslim westerners, is a largely urban and recent phenomenon that has a huge variance from country to country, ethnic group to ethnic group.
Next thing that must be understood: there are many different variations of veil, all of which have their own name, and their own history, locality and meaning.
The headscarf, or hijab, is the most ubiquitous symbol of female Muslim identity to outsiders. There is no doubt in your mind when you see a woman wearing any one of the possible variations of the veil as to how this woman identifies herself. However, there are a multitude of questions as to why a woman would identify herself so openly in this way. In response to that, there is a multitude of reasons for wearing it, dependent on factors such as location, culture and interpretation of religious texts. Depending on where the woman is currently located, and where she is originally from, the veil can have many meanings, many purposes and many “why’s” attached to it. In today’s world, the veil has significant social, religious and political implications.
There are different variations of the veil, each of which has a slightly different implication. To list them fairly quickly, there is the hijab or headscarf, which can be found throughout the Middle East as well as in Turkey; there is the jilbab, often associated directly with the hijab; the niqab, which is not only the jilbab and the hijab but also a covering for the face which leaves only the eyes showing; the chador, or “sheet” which is a large piece of fabric, or a cloak that is wrapped around the body and head and is found mainly in Iran and Pakistan; the burqa, which is usually a large tent-like garment with a screen to allow the wearer some vision, and is found mainly in Afghanistan; and lastly the abaya, a flowing garment which is normally black that covers from the head to the ankles and can be found all over the Middle East. The style which is used to wear and decorate the various different methods of veiling can be an indicator of regional origin. The niqab can be as simple as a black outer garment worn when one goes out, to an elaborately decorated headdress made with leather and sewn on metal decorations. The simpler version generally indicates an urban dweller, whereas the more elaborate niqab is an indicator of a smaller, more rural village dweller. The style in which a hijab is wrapped about the head is also an indicator of regional origin. Hijabs in Egypt are very different from hijabs in Turkey.
The obvious meaning of the veil is to establish visual evidence of differentiated roles for males and females within Islamic culture. The actual source of the veiling tradition pre-Islam is unclear, but there are many theories. One theory is that women would cover themselves in the desert to prevent the dust and sand from ruining their clothing, or to prevent them from being made a target for raiders. In a strictly Islamic interpretation, it indicates something quite different. There are clothing and headwear prescriptions for both men and women within Islam, but they have one major difference. In every mention of men covering their heads it is with some reference to the divine. Men were to cover their heads to show a relationship to God, whereas women were to cover their heads as an indication of separation from certain aspects of social interaction and as an indication of modesty.
There are religious writings that have been used by many different groups and individuals to enforce a version of the veil on women. Two Surahs specifically indicate that a woman should cover. Surah An-Nur (24:31) advises women to “draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husband’s sons, their brothers or their brother’s sons or their sister’s sons, or their women or the slaves whom their right hands possess or male servants free of physical needs or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex.” Essentially, this Surah dictates that women should only show their “beauty” to their husbands or to those who are ineligible to be their husbands. This Surah has been used to not only make the argument for veiling, but to make the argument for nothing more than modesty. It has been taken to the other extreme as well, and has been used to justify extreme examples of veiling, which will be discussed later.
There is also Surah Al-Ahzab (33:59), which delivers a more direct command: “O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters and the believing women that they should cast heir outer garments over their persons [when abroad]: that it is most convenient that they should be known [as such] and not molested: and God is Oft-forgiving, most merciful.” In this passage, the word “outer garments” used here is jalabeeb, plural of jilbab, which is a long gown covering from the neck to the ankles. This Surah is also used to justify extreme veiling.
The current trend of young, second generation Muslim women in western countries beginning to veil when it had not been a well observed practice in their families has been attributed to these two Surahs, the translations of them in English and the interpretations thereof. Many of these young women are interpreting veiling as fard, or religious duty. This has become more important in recent years as the popularity of multiculturalism has expanded. There has always been an attitude of assimilation for immigrants to America due to how recent immigrants ahve been and are treated as "other" and marginalized, and in the late 80’s/early 90’s it wasn’t seen as very “cool” to be anything other than mainstream, so immigrants to places like north America were more likely to try and assimilate in order to gain social recognition and reduce the “otherness.” In the last decade or so being ethnic in some way has become more fashionable and therefore more desirable. With the idea that asserting ones ethnic identity is a way of gaining social status, it has become important to some women to assert a specific part of their identity. Since it is a bit more difficult to assert a specific ethnic identity and still maintain a fairly decent social circle without being deemed racist, it has become easier to bring a religious identity more to the forefront and to still be inclusive. It has even gotten to the point where instead of trying to blend into the usual social hierarchies in school, or in public, it is easier to carve out a specific social niche in which everyone who is part of the group shares some visible evidence of their identity. This particular evidence has become so popular that there is a fairly brisk market for these culturally specific garments and businesses have sprung up amidst the demand.
The veil also has social implications, which are very dependent on the location and culture of the veiler. The most common social implication of the veil is the protection from harassment. Many women who choose to veil have found that by asserting their identity as a pious Muslim woman, they are either left alone when it comes to unwanted sexual advances, or they are able to take a higher moral ground because of it. In my own experience of wearing a veil her on the streets of Philadelphia, I did notice a difference in the way I was treated by men. I found that I was stared at less, and the cat calls that have been a fact of my life since the onset of puberty had all but stopped. It has been stated in several different studies on the choice to veil that many women witnessed a reduction in how much they had to deflect unwanted advances once they assumed the veil.
However, this does not always apply. In a conversation on NPR that I had with Azar Nafisi, the author of Reading Lolita in Tehran, I asked her about this in regards to the forced veiling of Iranian women. She said that while that was used as the official justification for enforcing the veil, in her experience it only made street harassment worse. According to her, this was mainly because the assumption of the veil was compulsory and had many different veins of logic behind it, not the least of which being the assumption that women were inherently a temptation to men and had to be covered to protect men from their “seductive powers.” This mindset, even under the guise of protecting the women, only served to put them at greater risk. Mrs. Nafisi emphasized that the important part of this was the choice to veil. When veiling no longer becomes a choice and is compulsory, it loses any moral high ground or credibility because it is no longer a sign of the individual woman’s piety, but a social mark of inherent licentiousness.
Another social implication of the veil is the reactions of western non-Muslims to women who veil in their midst. There are a great many assumptions about the veil and the purpose of it in the west, and there have been some recent negative reactions to veiled women in supposedly “liberal” countries.
The first and most obvious example is the French ban on obvious religious clothing or symbols in public schools. This ban states that religious headwear is not allowed in a publicly funded institution. The argument is that because France is so secular, and assumes that a great deal of its citizens are also secular, they do not want to be seen as endorsing any particular religion. There is also the argument that the veil is something that is forced on women by their fathers, husbands, or other family members and the government has to be willing to protect them from that. This is an understandable desire, however, the premises that it is based on are false. The vast majority of women who live in western countries who veil do so by choice. Their families often resist them in their decision to veil, as a part of not wanting to stand out as ethnically different and because of the implications of identifying openly and visually as a Muslim in a world where there has been a great deal of violence attributed to Islamic fundamentalism and where many people assume that “Muslim” and “terrorist” are synonymous.
Another case is Britain. A few years ago a British elected official began to insist that if any of the veiled Muslim women in his constituency wished to speak to him, they would have to remove their face veil. He called it a “visible sign of difference” and insisted that he would not accept people trying to separate themselves from the rest of the world. If they wanted his attention, they had to remove their veils. It was obvious that he had no idea what he was asking and had no idea about the significance of the veil. He too, assumed that it was something forced on these women by possessive husbands and exclusionary cultures. It did not cross his mind that perhaps this woman chose it for herself and sees it as a sign of her devotion to God. He assumed, like so many others, that he was “saving” these women and giving them a chance at being “free.” Quite often, as I mentioned earlier, veiling is chosen. There are only a few countries that require women to veil and even in those countries there are rural areas where it is not observed as extremely as it is in the city centers. Some cultures that have a large Muslim population do not allow women to veil, so when they come to a western country that prides itself on freedom to worship, they choose to worship in a way that was denied them before. If a woman is from Indonesia or Turkey and chooses to veil when in a western country, this is most likely because in her country of origin, she is either socially discouraged, or outright denied the choice.
Possibly the largest implications connected to the veil are the political implications. Politically, the veil can function in many ways, but the ones that I will discuss here are the uses of the veil as a sign of either obedience or defiance of the government, and the veil as a sign of protest against the West.
There are at least three major countries in the Middle East that strictly enforce a veiling policy for their female population, Iran, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Each of these countries policies has their roots in various political and religious justifications. In Saudi Arabia, the niqab is the required form of veiling for any time that a woman leaves her home. The restrictions go much deeper than that, and extend to women’s ability to travel alone or obtain anything without the permission of a male guardian. The source of this proscription for veiling is the very conservative Wahabi Islam that is integrated with the power of the monarchy. In Afghanistan, the burqa is the proscribed form of the veil. In the past this was instituted by the Taliban which went as far as to prevent women from going to school, and would have morality police that would beat women and punish their husbands if their veiling was deemed insufficient. There is still an on-going issue in Afghanistan regarding the behavior of women that some groups find to be "impious," leading to horrible actions, like throwing acid on women who dare to attend school. Finally, in Iran, the chador was introduced as a required dress for women whenever they left their homes. This began as part of the movement that eventually led to the Islamic revolution. It was considered to be a way of rebelling against the influence of the west on Iranian culture and the sexualization of women for profit. It later became a way of showing ones obedience to the government. If a woman is not veiled properly, she can be arrested on indecency charges and be given a years-long prison sentence. The severity of how this is enforced waxes and wanes depending on current political tides.
These three locations have a few obvious things in common, the first of these being the government enforcement of dress using the excuse of “morality,” the second being the penalties for violating the dress code. All three use the previously discussed religious texts to justify these policies. The second two have one more thing in common. In both Iran and Afghanistan, these policies came as a reaction to the increasing encroachment and interference of the west on these specific countries.
On the flip side, there are countries that have outlawed the veil in the past and continue to actively discourage against it now. One is Turkey, a country that is based in Ataturk’s vision of a completely secular state. Ataturk himself put legal limits on religious dress during his lifetime. These laws have been revoked for the most part, but one is still hard pressed to find a woman in a position of political or social power in turkey who actively veils in public. Here have also been several movements in Egypt to block the veil, and in response veiling has grown as a sign of political protest.
In conclusion, it is obvious that with the complexity of the practice of veiling it is foolhardy at best and completely ignorant at worst to make assumptions about a woman who veils or doesn’t and about her impetus for doing so. As far as my personal opinion on the practice, I feel that it can be an important form of identity assertion and a way to express oneself socially, politically and religiously. That being said, I support the practice, provided it is a choice. If it is forced it loses all meaning except the political and that does nothing but cheapen the religious and cultural reasons for choosing it. In the flip side of that argument, forcing a woman to remove it when she does not wish to shows the same disregard for her agency as forcing her to wear it does, and as a double strike, is able to be couched in supposedly progressive rhetoric which, under the surface, has very little to do with "progress" and has everything to do with control. In the next section of this series I will address a deeper analysis of this practice, and the western equivalents thereof.
So, we are finally gonna start with this conversation, mainly because it seems to be the hugest issue that your average non-Muslim westerner will bring up regarding women in Islam. This took forever to actually put together, so pay attention.
Welcome to the first section of Part One in my Veiled Contempt series.
The veil.
This particular subject in itself is huge, and how it is addressed is rarely unproblematic for the people actually faced with the prospect of wearing something that has so many shades and degrees of meaning from place to place.
Very often, at least in a good deal of the popular culture that I have seen, the concept of veiling is either painted as absolutely oppressive, all the time, no matter what, or as an object of ridicule.
This part of this series will serve as a sort of primer on basic veiling names and facts, as well as dispelling some myths about the practice itself. I will add a disclaimer, this information should not necessarily be considered comprehensive. It is based on a few years of research on my part but there is a huge wealth of information on this topic. This piece barely scratches the surface.
First thing that must be understood: not every Muslim women veils. Not every predominantly Muslim country requires it either. Most don't require anything in the way of head covering for women, in some Muslim countries the practice is discouraged or outright banned in certain areas and even in the countries where it is required, veiling as it is recognized by non-Muslim westerners, and even some Muslim westerners, is a largely urban and recent phenomenon that has a huge variance from country to country, ethnic group to ethnic group.
Next thing that must be understood: there are many different variations of veil, all of which have their own name, and their own history, locality and meaning.
The headscarf, or hijab, is the most ubiquitous symbol of female Muslim identity to outsiders. There is no doubt in your mind when you see a woman wearing any one of the possible variations of the veil as to how this woman identifies herself. However, there are a multitude of questions as to why a woman would identify herself so openly in this way. In response to that, there is a multitude of reasons for wearing it, dependent on factors such as location, culture and interpretation of religious texts. Depending on where the woman is currently located, and where she is originally from, the veil can have many meanings, many purposes and many “why’s” attached to it. In today’s world, the veil has significant social, religious and political implications.
There are different variations of the veil, each of which has a slightly different implication. To list them fairly quickly, there is the hijab or headscarf, which can be found throughout the Middle East as well as in Turkey; there is the jilbab, often associated directly with the hijab; the niqab, which is not only the jilbab and the hijab but also a covering for the face which leaves only the eyes showing; the chador, or “sheet” which is a large piece of fabric, or a cloak that is wrapped around the body and head and is found mainly in Iran and Pakistan; the burqa, which is usually a large tent-like garment with a screen to allow the wearer some vision, and is found mainly in Afghanistan; and lastly the abaya, a flowing garment which is normally black that covers from the head to the ankles and can be found all over the Middle East. The style which is used to wear and decorate the various different methods of veiling can be an indicator of regional origin. The niqab can be as simple as a black outer garment worn when one goes out, to an elaborately decorated headdress made with leather and sewn on metal decorations. The simpler version generally indicates an urban dweller, whereas the more elaborate niqab is an indicator of a smaller, more rural village dweller. The style in which a hijab is wrapped about the head is also an indicator of regional origin. Hijabs in Egypt are very different from hijabs in Turkey.
The obvious meaning of the veil is to establish visual evidence of differentiated roles for males and females within Islamic culture. The actual source of the veiling tradition pre-Islam is unclear, but there are many theories. One theory is that women would cover themselves in the desert to prevent the dust and sand from ruining their clothing, or to prevent them from being made a target for raiders. In a strictly Islamic interpretation, it indicates something quite different. There are clothing and headwear prescriptions for both men and women within Islam, but they have one major difference. In every mention of men covering their heads it is with some reference to the divine. Men were to cover their heads to show a relationship to God, whereas women were to cover their heads as an indication of separation from certain aspects of social interaction and as an indication of modesty.
There are religious writings that have been used by many different groups and individuals to enforce a version of the veil on women. Two Surahs specifically indicate that a woman should cover. Surah An-Nur (24:31) advises women to “draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husband’s sons, their brothers or their brother’s sons or their sister’s sons, or their women or the slaves whom their right hands possess or male servants free of physical needs or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex.” Essentially, this Surah dictates that women should only show their “beauty” to their husbands or to those who are ineligible to be their husbands. This Surah has been used to not only make the argument for veiling, but to make the argument for nothing more than modesty. It has been taken to the other extreme as well, and has been used to justify extreme examples of veiling, which will be discussed later.
There is also Surah Al-Ahzab (33:59), which delivers a more direct command: “O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters and the believing women that they should cast heir outer garments over their persons [when abroad]: that it is most convenient that they should be known [as such] and not molested: and God is Oft-forgiving, most merciful.” In this passage, the word “outer garments” used here is jalabeeb, plural of jilbab, which is a long gown covering from the neck to the ankles. This Surah is also used to justify extreme veiling.
The current trend of young, second generation Muslim women in western countries beginning to veil when it had not been a well observed practice in their families has been attributed to these two Surahs, the translations of them in English and the interpretations thereof. Many of these young women are interpreting veiling as fard, or religious duty. This has become more important in recent years as the popularity of multiculturalism has expanded. There has always been an attitude of assimilation for immigrants to America due to how recent immigrants ahve been and are treated as "other" and marginalized, and in the late 80’s/early 90’s it wasn’t seen as very “cool” to be anything other than mainstream, so immigrants to places like north America were more likely to try and assimilate in order to gain social recognition and reduce the “otherness.” In the last decade or so being ethnic in some way has become more fashionable and therefore more desirable. With the idea that asserting ones ethnic identity is a way of gaining social status, it has become important to some women to assert a specific part of their identity. Since it is a bit more difficult to assert a specific ethnic identity and still maintain a fairly decent social circle without being deemed racist, it has become easier to bring a religious identity more to the forefront and to still be inclusive. It has even gotten to the point where instead of trying to blend into the usual social hierarchies in school, or in public, it is easier to carve out a specific social niche in which everyone who is part of the group shares some visible evidence of their identity. This particular evidence has become so popular that there is a fairly brisk market for these culturally specific garments and businesses have sprung up amidst the demand.
The veil also has social implications, which are very dependent on the location and culture of the veiler. The most common social implication of the veil is the protection from harassment. Many women who choose to veil have found that by asserting their identity as a pious Muslim woman, they are either left alone when it comes to unwanted sexual advances, or they are able to take a higher moral ground because of it. In my own experience of wearing a veil her on the streets of Philadelphia, I did notice a difference in the way I was treated by men. I found that I was stared at less, and the cat calls that have been a fact of my life since the onset of puberty had all but stopped. It has been stated in several different studies on the choice to veil that many women witnessed a reduction in how much they had to deflect unwanted advances once they assumed the veil.
However, this does not always apply. In a conversation on NPR that I had with Azar Nafisi, the author of Reading Lolita in Tehran, I asked her about this in regards to the forced veiling of Iranian women. She said that while that was used as the official justification for enforcing the veil, in her experience it only made street harassment worse. According to her, this was mainly because the assumption of the veil was compulsory and had many different veins of logic behind it, not the least of which being the assumption that women were inherently a temptation to men and had to be covered to protect men from their “seductive powers.” This mindset, even under the guise of protecting the women, only served to put them at greater risk. Mrs. Nafisi emphasized that the important part of this was the choice to veil. When veiling no longer becomes a choice and is compulsory, it loses any moral high ground or credibility because it is no longer a sign of the individual woman’s piety, but a social mark of inherent licentiousness.
Another social implication of the veil is the reactions of western non-Muslims to women who veil in their midst. There are a great many assumptions about the veil and the purpose of it in the west, and there have been some recent negative reactions to veiled women in supposedly “liberal” countries.
The first and most obvious example is the French ban on obvious religious clothing or symbols in public schools. This ban states that religious headwear is not allowed in a publicly funded institution. The argument is that because France is so secular, and assumes that a great deal of its citizens are also secular, they do not want to be seen as endorsing any particular religion. There is also the argument that the veil is something that is forced on women by their fathers, husbands, or other family members and the government has to be willing to protect them from that. This is an understandable desire, however, the premises that it is based on are false. The vast majority of women who live in western countries who veil do so by choice. Their families often resist them in their decision to veil, as a part of not wanting to stand out as ethnically different and because of the implications of identifying openly and visually as a Muslim in a world where there has been a great deal of violence attributed to Islamic fundamentalism and where many people assume that “Muslim” and “terrorist” are synonymous.
Another case is Britain. A few years ago a British elected official began to insist that if any of the veiled Muslim women in his constituency wished to speak to him, they would have to remove their face veil. He called it a “visible sign of difference” and insisted that he would not accept people trying to separate themselves from the rest of the world. If they wanted his attention, they had to remove their veils. It was obvious that he had no idea what he was asking and had no idea about the significance of the veil. He too, assumed that it was something forced on these women by possessive husbands and exclusionary cultures. It did not cross his mind that perhaps this woman chose it for herself and sees it as a sign of her devotion to God. He assumed, like so many others, that he was “saving” these women and giving them a chance at being “free.” Quite often, as I mentioned earlier, veiling is chosen. There are only a few countries that require women to veil and even in those countries there are rural areas where it is not observed as extremely as it is in the city centers. Some cultures that have a large Muslim population do not allow women to veil, so when they come to a western country that prides itself on freedom to worship, they choose to worship in a way that was denied them before. If a woman is from Indonesia or Turkey and chooses to veil when in a western country, this is most likely because in her country of origin, she is either socially discouraged, or outright denied the choice.
Possibly the largest implications connected to the veil are the political implications. Politically, the veil can function in many ways, but the ones that I will discuss here are the uses of the veil as a sign of either obedience or defiance of the government, and the veil as a sign of protest against the West.
There are at least three major countries in the Middle East that strictly enforce a veiling policy for their female population, Iran, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Each of these countries policies has their roots in various political and religious justifications. In Saudi Arabia, the niqab is the required form of veiling for any time that a woman leaves her home. The restrictions go much deeper than that, and extend to women’s ability to travel alone or obtain anything without the permission of a male guardian. The source of this proscription for veiling is the very conservative Wahabi Islam that is integrated with the power of the monarchy. In Afghanistan, the burqa is the proscribed form of the veil. In the past this was instituted by the Taliban which went as far as to prevent women from going to school, and would have morality police that would beat women and punish their husbands if their veiling was deemed insufficient. There is still an on-going issue in Afghanistan regarding the behavior of women that some groups find to be "impious," leading to horrible actions, like throwing acid on women who dare to attend school. Finally, in Iran, the chador was introduced as a required dress for women whenever they left their homes. This began as part of the movement that eventually led to the Islamic revolution. It was considered to be a way of rebelling against the influence of the west on Iranian culture and the sexualization of women for profit. It later became a way of showing ones obedience to the government. If a woman is not veiled properly, she can be arrested on indecency charges and be given a years-long prison sentence. The severity of how this is enforced waxes and wanes depending on current political tides.
These three locations have a few obvious things in common, the first of these being the government enforcement of dress using the excuse of “morality,” the second being the penalties for violating the dress code. All three use the previously discussed religious texts to justify these policies. The second two have one more thing in common. In both Iran and Afghanistan, these policies came as a reaction to the increasing encroachment and interference of the west on these specific countries.
On the flip side, there are countries that have outlawed the veil in the past and continue to actively discourage against it now. One is Turkey, a country that is based in Ataturk’s vision of a completely secular state. Ataturk himself put legal limits on religious dress during his lifetime. These laws have been revoked for the most part, but one is still hard pressed to find a woman in a position of political or social power in turkey who actively veils in public. Here have also been several movements in Egypt to block the veil, and in response veiling has grown as a sign of political protest.
In conclusion, it is obvious that with the complexity of the practice of veiling it is foolhardy at best and completely ignorant at worst to make assumptions about a woman who veils or doesn’t and about her impetus for doing so. As far as my personal opinion on the practice, I feel that it can be an important form of identity assertion and a way to express oneself socially, politically and religiously. That being said, I support the practice, provided it is a choice. If it is forced it loses all meaning except the political and that does nothing but cheapen the religious and cultural reasons for choosing it. In the flip side of that argument, forcing a woman to remove it when she does not wish to shows the same disregard for her agency as forcing her to wear it does, and as a double strike, is able to be couched in supposedly progressive rhetoric which, under the surface, has very little to do with "progress" and has everything to do with control. In the next section of this series I will address a deeper analysis of this practice, and the western equivalents thereof.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
My Mouth is a Vagina of DOOOOOM!
Abby O'Reilly over at The F-Word blog has an interesting piece up on fellatio and where it fits in feminist sexuality. She argues that while fellatio has long been considered an act of either submission by the woman or domination by the man, it can be feminist. She draws a parallel between the vagina dentata myth (the myth of fanged hoohas used to discourage men from sleeping with strange women, in the same vein as "if you don't stop playing with it, it'll fall off!" threats) and fellatio; the mouth has a similar function to a vagina in delivering pleasure to the penis, but has the threat of teeth as well, therefore a woman pleasuring a man orally can be an act of power because she could choose to bite it off if she wanted to.
I'm not totally comfortable with this conclusion.
Sure, if we could completely remove a cultural context of male dominance, find a man who doesn't have warped expectations about sex and his pleasure versus hers, and pretend we have an even playing field in regards to sexual power dynamics, then her conclusion might be true. Hell, I would love to live in that world and fade into irrelevance with my crazy-lady rantings and ravings, but to the best of my knowledge, that world has yet to exist.
In current reality, we live in a world where female sexual pleasure is considered "dirty" even in pornography. How often do we see sex in porn that involves a woman actually receiving pleasure instead of kneeling in a circle of men with semen all over her? yeah, she looks like she enjoys being splattered in the eye with sperm, but I can tell you, that shit burns. We have (in the US at least) a public education system that only tells you not to have sex, and precious few resources talking about how to enjoy your body, so we learn from pop-culture and porn about how sex works.
I can't tell you how many guys I have dated who enjoyed fellatio not because it felt good so much as because it made them feel powerful. One of them specifically could not get off from a blow job unless I was on my knees or we were driving and he was forcing my head into his crotch.
The "power" that comes from the threat of harm is also problematic in Abby's piece. Women live in a culture that teaches us to submit to sexual advances regardless of our own feelings about it because we are taught that not submitting can lead to violence. I personally don't want to wield that over someone else. Its an abusive dynamic to fall into.
However, more importantly than that, we still live in a world where the penis is worth more than a woman. Think of Lorena Bobbitt. When she cut her husband's member off because he had been raping her, what did everyone focus on? The fucking penis. Nevermind this woman who had been abused for years, she dared to harm the almighty wang, and is now practically the devil, with horns on her head and a fanged vagina, no doubt.
I'm not totally comfortable with this conclusion.
Sure, if we could completely remove a cultural context of male dominance, find a man who doesn't have warped expectations about sex and his pleasure versus hers, and pretend we have an even playing field in regards to sexual power dynamics, then her conclusion might be true. Hell, I would love to live in that world and fade into irrelevance with my crazy-lady rantings and ravings, but to the best of my knowledge, that world has yet to exist.
In current reality, we live in a world where female sexual pleasure is considered "dirty" even in pornography. How often do we see sex in porn that involves a woman actually receiving pleasure instead of kneeling in a circle of men with semen all over her? yeah, she looks like she enjoys being splattered in the eye with sperm, but I can tell you, that shit burns. We have (in the US at least) a public education system that only tells you not to have sex, and precious few resources talking about how to enjoy your body, so we learn from pop-culture and porn about how sex works.
I can't tell you how many guys I have dated who enjoyed fellatio not because it felt good so much as because it made them feel powerful. One of them specifically could not get off from a blow job unless I was on my knees or we were driving and he was forcing my head into his crotch.
The "power" that comes from the threat of harm is also problematic in Abby's piece. Women live in a culture that teaches us to submit to sexual advances regardless of our own feelings about it because we are taught that not submitting can lead to violence. I personally don't want to wield that over someone else. Its an abusive dynamic to fall into.
However, more importantly than that, we still live in a world where the penis is worth more than a woman. Think of Lorena Bobbitt. When she cut her husband's member off because he had been raping her, what did everyone focus on? The fucking penis. Nevermind this woman who had been abused for years, she dared to harm the almighty wang, and is now practically the devil, with horns on her head and a fanged vagina, no doubt.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Holy Shit!
I GOT MY WISH!
Well, one of them anyway, the Global Gag Rule is fucking GONE! At least until the next anti-choice president reinstates it. Seriously, can we get some legislation on this already? We are talking about women's lives here, not some fucking ideological disagreement.
There has been some annoyance on my side of this issue about why President Obama (GOD but writing that feels good!) waited til the day after the anniversary of Roe v. Wade (when this was initially scheduled) to do this. While I can understand that annoyance, I don't share it. He fucking DID it people, and he did it in a way that doesn't have anti-choice assholes losing their shit.
As painful as I know this is, because we have been waiting for 8 fucking years for this, we can't afford to just upend the power structure that has been built over that time. Why the hell should we subject those who disagree with us to the same treatment we have been subjected to? What purpose does that serve except to foster more resentment that there already is? That and the bat-shit crazies that feel threatened by a liberal president who is also a POC don't need any more encouragement at this point.
Compromise doesn't have to mean what we have been told it means for so long. Progressives are regularly told to back down a little bit so we and vicariously, our message, will be more acceptable. The demand of compromise has regularly been used to silence us and block our efforts. So-called compromises have been made on their terms, and usually include us giving us the very issue that is central to our struggle (Example: civil unions instead of marriage for queers) while trying to placate us with crumbs from the table. That is not true compromise, and it never has been, but this troll's bargain has been dressed in the language of "reasonable compromise" for so long and used to paint progressives a rigid and inflexible, that any compromise is suspect. Any admonition to respect the other side is possibly a way to get us to shut our collective face and know our collective place.
This DOES NOT have to be the case. We can define compromise as well, in a way so that our needs and rights are respected. We don't have to become what we despise, and we don't have to become what the other side wishes we were.
We won this one for now. I am content with that and ready to keep working.
Polish those teaspoons people, we have an ocean to deal with.
(and thanks Sady for getting my wheels spinning on this)
Well, one of them anyway, the Global Gag Rule is fucking GONE! At least until the next anti-choice president reinstates it. Seriously, can we get some legislation on this already? We are talking about women's lives here, not some fucking ideological disagreement.
There has been some annoyance on my side of this issue about why President Obama (GOD but writing that feels good!) waited til the day after the anniversary of Roe v. Wade (when this was initially scheduled) to do this. While I can understand that annoyance, I don't share it. He fucking DID it people, and he did it in a way that doesn't have anti-choice assholes losing their shit.
As painful as I know this is, because we have been waiting for 8 fucking years for this, we can't afford to just upend the power structure that has been built over that time. Why the hell should we subject those who disagree with us to the same treatment we have been subjected to? What purpose does that serve except to foster more resentment that there already is? That and the bat-shit crazies that feel threatened by a liberal president who is also a POC don't need any more encouragement at this point.
Compromise doesn't have to mean what we have been told it means for so long. Progressives are regularly told to back down a little bit so we and vicariously, our message, will be more acceptable. The demand of compromise has regularly been used to silence us and block our efforts. So-called compromises have been made on their terms, and usually include us giving us the very issue that is central to our struggle (Example: civil unions instead of marriage for queers) while trying to placate us with crumbs from the table. That is not true compromise, and it never has been, but this troll's bargain has been dressed in the language of "reasonable compromise" for so long and used to paint progressives a rigid and inflexible, that any compromise is suspect. Any admonition to respect the other side is possibly a way to get us to shut our collective face and know our collective place.
This DOES NOT have to be the case. We can define compromise as well, in a way so that our needs and rights are respected. We don't have to become what we despise, and we don't have to become what the other side wishes we were.
We won this one for now. I am content with that and ready to keep working.
Polish those teaspoons people, we have an ocean to deal with.
(and thanks Sady for getting my wheels spinning on this)
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Blog for Choice day
Its Blog For Choice Day.
The 36th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade is traditionally marked by anti-choice(I categorically reject the term "pro-life" to describe these people. Anyone who supports laws that kill women and do not save fetuses is not "pro-life.") advocates widely protesting the fact that women are still worth more than an unborn fetus. Today, there are anti-choicers marching in DC showcasing "Women Who Regret Their Abortions." The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Not only are these... people... doing just that, they are running this campaign on faulty information.
Say it with me kids: THE NOTION THAT WOMEN ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTED MENTALLY BY HAVING AN ABORTION HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY DISPROVED.
Saying otherwise over and over again with no solid proof is the same as smashing your head against a brick wall: its pointless, and proves no other point than that you are a moron.
The concept of medical choice covers more than just abortions, more than just reproduction. It means that as human being we have the right to decide what will medically be done to our bodies. It all comes down, as Liss at Shakesville put it, to trust. I trust people to make their own medical decisions. I apply this universally: I trust people to decide when to have children, I trust people to decide if ther bodies are right for them, and I do not trust someone who doesn't know me or mine to make that choice for me.
What I want to see from our new pro-choice President is the end of the Global Gag Rule that pulls American federal funding from any organization that dares to think the word abortion and results in the maternal mortality rate world-wide going up. I want to see the end of the DHHS regulations that allow medical providers to refuse necessary services based on being offended. I want to see the end to the so-called "partial-birth" abortion ban. I want safe, affordable access to contraception, and abortion, as well as comprehensive sex-education programs.
Its not enough, but dammit, we deserve to be treated like people, not fucking brood mares.
The 36th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade is traditionally marked by anti-choice(I categorically reject the term "pro-life" to describe these people. Anyone who supports laws that kill women and do not save fetuses is not "pro-life.") advocates widely protesting the fact that women are still worth more than an unborn fetus. Today, there are anti-choicers marching in DC showcasing "Women Who Regret Their Abortions." The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Not only are these... people... doing just that, they are running this campaign on faulty information.
Say it with me kids: THE NOTION THAT WOMEN ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTED MENTALLY BY HAVING AN ABORTION HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY DISPROVED.
Saying otherwise over and over again with no solid proof is the same as smashing your head against a brick wall: its pointless, and proves no other point than that you are a moron.
The concept of medical choice covers more than just abortions, more than just reproduction. It means that as human being we have the right to decide what will medically be done to our bodies. It all comes down, as Liss at Shakesville put it, to trust. I trust people to make their own medical decisions. I apply this universally: I trust people to decide when to have children, I trust people to decide if ther bodies are right for them, and I do not trust someone who doesn't know me or mine to make that choice for me.
What I want to see from our new pro-choice President is the end of the Global Gag Rule that pulls American federal funding from any organization that dares to think the word abortion and results in the maternal mortality rate world-wide going up. I want to see the end of the DHHS regulations that allow medical providers to refuse necessary services based on being offended. I want to see the end to the so-called "partial-birth" abortion ban. I want safe, affordable access to contraception, and abortion, as well as comprehensive sex-education programs.
Its not enough, but dammit, we deserve to be treated like people, not fucking brood mares.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Fuck You, You Fucking Fuck
President Bush declares January 18th to be "Sanctity of Human Life Day".
Because women aren't human.
Because POC aren't human.
Because anyone of the LGBTQ, especially T, community isn't human.
Because Iraqis, Palestinians, Arabs in general, and Muslims are not human.
Only a (middle to upper-class white) fetus is human and has a right to live and this deserves a fucking holiday.
Fuck you Mr. Bush. You have overseen some of the most egregious actions and inactions by the US government resulting in the loss of human life that have happened in my lifetime, and you have the fucking nerve to pull your pud over the actions you took to treat women as incubators with legs.
Please let the door hit you on the ass on the way out the door, repeatedly if you don't mind.
Because women aren't human.
Because POC aren't human.
Because anyone of the LGBTQ, especially T, community isn't human.
Because Iraqis, Palestinians, Arabs in general, and Muslims are not human.
Only a (middle to upper-class white) fetus is human and has a right to live and this deserves a fucking holiday.
Fuck you Mr. Bush. You have overseen some of the most egregious actions and inactions by the US government resulting in the loss of human life that have happened in my lifetime, and you have the fucking nerve to pull your pud over the actions you took to treat women as incubators with legs.
Please let the door hit you on the ass on the way out the door, repeatedly if you don't mind.
The Crime of Being
Okay, this has been sitting in my head for way too long. I'm prone to depression and tend to end up in this strange fugue state where all I can do is play mindless free flash games online and try to pretend that the world is not as scary as it actually is.
What scares me?
Many things scare me; spiders, plane crashes, driving too fast (its an anxiety thing due to fear of police), losing my front teeth, water where I can't touch the bottom or see it (pools are okay, oceans and lakes? fuck that noise), getting cancer...
However, none of those things holds a candle to the fear that I feel for the lives of people that I love. I come from a position of relative privilege to them. First, my gender presentation and my body(along with the social assignment of my gender based on secondary sexual characteristics) generally match, and second, I'm white. For these people who are very dear to me, one or both of these things are not true. And what terrifies me more than the idea of driving too fast in a car filled with spiders, while on the phone with my doctor who is telling me I have cancer, just as a plane crashes in front of me, making me swerve into a bottomless lake and knock out my front teeth on the steering wheel, is the idea that for people like my friends who do not share my whiteness or my apparent cis-ness, they can be murdered for simply daring to exist, and their murderers excused because we live in a world that does not value the personhood of their victims. We live in a world that constructs my firends as mutilated freaks, sexual deviants and "faking it". They can't even lobby for laws to protect their ability to go into the bathroom that they are less likely to get assaulted in without being conflated with perverts, pedophiles, and sexual predators.
If you go back and look at the list of the dead for the Trans Day Of Remembrance, you may notice that when discussing violence against transpeople, we are talking about more that transphobia, transmisogyny, or homophobia. Considering that approximately 70% of the names on the list belong to women of color, we are also talking racism.
These cases are often treated with boxing gloves by the media and general public, with the assumption that a black transwoman must be a sex worker, and that she was probably killed when her john discovered her penis, and the persistent use of incorrect pronouns by the media, which is a basic journalistic no-no indicating more the refusal of the "journalist" to overlook their own biases while reporting. With the prevalence of the "trans panic" defense and how it seems to fly pretty well with the media and sometimes the court system, it seems pretty clear that black transwomen's lives are less valuable than the offended manhood of some schmuck that thinks that the appropriate way to react to a situation like this is killing someone. They are killed for not being the "right" kind of woman.
The media and general public opinion seems to want to construct these women as "bringing it on themselves" for "lying" about "what they really are," as if your very existence and the fact that it triggers some homophobia in the person who decided that murdering you is the only way to deal with it is your fault. When police in a city assault a black transwoman and she is later found dead, and in the same city, another transwoman is found shot three times there is clearly no official justice for these women.
In actuality, the lives of transpeople, especially transwomen of color, are in more danger than the average cis-person. Constructing transpeople as some sort of dangerous menace, beyond being insulting as hell, is factually inaccurate.
Even the cis-partners of transpeople are considered legitimate targets for this hate violence.
I have an obligation, to my friends and to my morals, to not be silent. To not let the hate of the world keep me hidden in my home, frozen and unable to act. These women were someone's daughter, someone's sister, someone's lover. They could be mine, or yours. regardless of their bodies and the social constructions that others must cling to so tightly that life no longer has value, they deserve to be valued.
I will not be silent about their lives. I will not be silent about the loss of them.
What scares me?
Many things scare me; spiders, plane crashes, driving too fast (its an anxiety thing due to fear of police), losing my front teeth, water where I can't touch the bottom or see it (pools are okay, oceans and lakes? fuck that noise), getting cancer...
However, none of those things holds a candle to the fear that I feel for the lives of people that I love. I come from a position of relative privilege to them. First, my gender presentation and my body(along with the social assignment of my gender based on secondary sexual characteristics) generally match, and second, I'm white. For these people who are very dear to me, one or both of these things are not true. And what terrifies me more than the idea of driving too fast in a car filled with spiders, while on the phone with my doctor who is telling me I have cancer, just as a plane crashes in front of me, making me swerve into a bottomless lake and knock out my front teeth on the steering wheel, is the idea that for people like my friends who do not share my whiteness or my apparent cis-ness, they can be murdered for simply daring to exist, and their murderers excused because we live in a world that does not value the personhood of their victims. We live in a world that constructs my firends as mutilated freaks, sexual deviants and "faking it". They can't even lobby for laws to protect their ability to go into the bathroom that they are less likely to get assaulted in without being conflated with perverts, pedophiles, and sexual predators.
If you go back and look at the list of the dead for the Trans Day Of Remembrance, you may notice that when discussing violence against transpeople, we are talking about more that transphobia, transmisogyny, or homophobia. Considering that approximately 70% of the names on the list belong to women of color, we are also talking racism.
These cases are often treated with boxing gloves by the media and general public, with the assumption that a black transwoman must be a sex worker, and that she was probably killed when her john discovered her penis, and the persistent use of incorrect pronouns by the media, which is a basic journalistic no-no indicating more the refusal of the "journalist" to overlook their own biases while reporting. With the prevalence of the "trans panic" defense and how it seems to fly pretty well with the media and sometimes the court system, it seems pretty clear that black transwomen's lives are less valuable than the offended manhood of some schmuck that thinks that the appropriate way to react to a situation like this is killing someone. They are killed for not being the "right" kind of woman.
The media and general public opinion seems to want to construct these women as "bringing it on themselves" for "lying" about "what they really are," as if your very existence and the fact that it triggers some homophobia in the person who decided that murdering you is the only way to deal with it is your fault. When police in a city assault a black transwoman and she is later found dead, and in the same city, another transwoman is found shot three times there is clearly no official justice for these women.
In actuality, the lives of transpeople, especially transwomen of color, are in more danger than the average cis-person. Constructing transpeople as some sort of dangerous menace, beyond being insulting as hell, is factually inaccurate.
Even the cis-partners of transpeople are considered legitimate targets for this hate violence.
I have an obligation, to my friends and to my morals, to not be silent. To not let the hate of the world keep me hidden in my home, frozen and unable to act. These women were someone's daughter, someone's sister, someone's lover. They could be mine, or yours. regardless of their bodies and the social constructions that others must cling to so tightly that life no longer has value, they deserve to be valued.
I will not be silent about their lives. I will not be silent about the loss of them.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Veiled Contempt - Introduction ( aka The "Why I Opened This Can o' Worms" Edition)
I seriously doubt that this is a concept that has not been spoken of before, but I have never talked about it here, so it is new in one way at least.
When Islam and women in Islam are discussed in Western classrooms, or at dinner tables, or even in foreign policy discussions, what are the first things that are mentioned?
Usually, its one of two things: Hijab(often mistakenly called Burqa and generally falsely conflated with Saudi or Iranian forced dress codes) and "honor" killings. Both are pointed out as examples of exotic otherness and supposed Muslim/Arab (another false conflation, but I digress) savagery in comparison with supposed Western "liberal" attitudes towards women, gender "equality" and moral superiority. "Well, WE don't treat OUR women like THAT." Generally, much nodding of heads back patting and ego fellating ensues.
This attitude amuses me (and by "amuses me," I mean it makes me want to repeatedly bash my head into a wall) because of one underlying flaw in the rush to promote ourselves as superior whiteness/Westerness, namely that Western women are treated very similarly, the only difference being the exact way that sexism is expressed. The underlying attitudes, about a woman's place, her function, what she should look like, her responsibility for participating in the public sphere, and her punishment for violating the patriarchal demands placed upon her, are almost exactly the same and differ mainly in degree of severity. The only other major difference is the form of support that our judicial systems grant these actions. Again, the rationalizations are eerily similar, and the only difference in support is whether it is tacit, or open. Even in the law, the only differences become a matter of degree.
So, I decided that I had too much to say (no surprise there) about all of these subjects, so I would start a series. At this moment, its only this introductory post and two subsequent posts, but I'm flexible. I will be drawing from a variety of sources, including blogs like Muslimah Media Watch, news sites, feminist theory, and my own observations in both the Middle East and the US. My intention is to make clear that when it comes to sexism and treatment of women, no one has the moral high ground. This can end up opening into an on going series if the information is available.
So, be on the lookout for my first post, probably sometime next week.
When Islam and women in Islam are discussed in Western classrooms, or at dinner tables, or even in foreign policy discussions, what are the first things that are mentioned?
Usually, its one of two things: Hijab(often mistakenly called Burqa and generally falsely conflated with Saudi or Iranian forced dress codes) and "honor" killings. Both are pointed out as examples of exotic otherness and supposed Muslim/Arab (another false conflation, but I digress) savagery in comparison with supposed Western "liberal" attitudes towards women, gender "equality" and moral superiority. "Well, WE don't treat OUR women like THAT." Generally, much nodding of heads back patting and ego fellating ensues.
This attitude amuses me (and by "amuses me," I mean it makes me want to repeatedly bash my head into a wall) because of one underlying flaw in the rush to promote ourselves as superior whiteness/Westerness, namely that Western women are treated very similarly, the only difference being the exact way that sexism is expressed. The underlying attitudes, about a woman's place, her function, what she should look like, her responsibility for participating in the public sphere, and her punishment for violating the patriarchal demands placed upon her, are almost exactly the same and differ mainly in degree of severity. The only other major difference is the form of support that our judicial systems grant these actions. Again, the rationalizations are eerily similar, and the only difference in support is whether it is tacit, or open. Even in the law, the only differences become a matter of degree.
So, I decided that I had too much to say (no surprise there) about all of these subjects, so I would start a series. At this moment, its only this introductory post and two subsequent posts, but I'm flexible. I will be drawing from a variety of sources, including blogs like Muslimah Media Watch, news sites, feminist theory, and my own observations in both the Middle East and the US. My intention is to make clear that when it comes to sexism and treatment of women, no one has the moral high ground. This can end up opening into an on going series if the information is available.
So, be on the lookout for my first post, probably sometime next week.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Defining Sexism
A comment on this entry at Shakesville really tweaked my interest. First, the comment:
This poster isn't the first to make this spurious argument and zie won't be the last.
Disagree however you want, but the prejudice+power definition of -isms are sociological in nature and correct. The "vast majority" of people can use a technical term however they want, that doesn't mean they are using it correctly. Perfect example: paradigm shift. This is a technical term, used in scientific disciplines to indicate a sudden and complete change in how the world is viewed by a sub-group of humanity, and in Western culture, can be applied directly to inventions of mass media and mass communication and the effect this had on how the culture as a whole related to the world. In popular lexicon, we use it to indicate a change in how we behave personally, akin to "changing gears" or changing the flow of our lives. It has also been appropriated by motivational speakers for large corporations as a term to get corporate teams to expand their way of working. If one compares the two usages, they seem to have the same basic meaning, but one is technically correct within the context that spawned it, and one is popular misconception and appropriation of the first.
By referencing "every dictionary under the sun", I assume that means zie has read every dictionary under the sun. I doubt this, mainly because if zie had, zie would have noticed that most regular dictionaries are mainly catalogs of common usage in a specific arena, and do not mean the be-all end-all of a word. There is a reason that we have medical and legal dictionaries, as well as dictionaries for different disciplines. These dictionaries may have a word that is spelled the same in each of them, but based on the context, has a differing meaning. Hell, the meaning of a word can differ across languages. Some words don't translate directly from language to language, and some languages have words that others do not. Does this mean that the basic concept does not exist from culture to culture? No, it means that the concepts are viewed differently through different cultural lenses.
Suggesting that your preferred definition of isms is inherently more correct at all times is intellectually dishonest.
In actuality, you can indeed see the binary hierarchies almost world-wide, with adjustments of the standard to the specific group. Example: racial binary, between "white" and "non-white" does exist in most places that I have studied or visited. White in some areas may not look quite like it looks here, but it plays the same role. It can be found echoed through out most institutions and sub-cultures to a greater or lesser degree. The binary hierarchy of sex is also present world wide to differing degrees, even with differences in the definition of masculine v. feminine.
This poster seems to desire the simpler explanation at the expense of dismissing actual intellectual effort on hir part to challenge hir own small view of how the world works.
Sexism is not in the eye of the beholder
Let it be assumed for the purposes of this space, that the definition of -isms are the power+prejudice equation.
"A little off topic, but I just wanted to jump up and down a little waving my arms in frantic protest over [another poster]'s insistence that various "isms" - sexism, racism, what have you - are monodirectional.
For one thing, it's problematic because this isn't the way the vast majority of people use these words. For just about everyone (not to mention every dictionary under the sun) racism (to choose an example) is prejudice or discrimination based on race, full stop. Limiting the word to institutional prejudice or discrimination against specific racial groups in specific cultural contexts creates all kind of confusion - not least because not all the world is made up of the kind of neat binary hierarchies of oppression this kind of definition demands.
For another, society is not a monolith. Even if racism is by definition cultural and institutional, the idea that every institution and sub-culture within a society shares the same biases isn't really tenable.
To return to sexism, far simpler to say (as the OED does, actually) that it is sex-based prejudice and discrimination almost always directed against women."
This poster isn't the first to make this spurious argument and zie won't be the last.
Disagree however you want, but the prejudice+power definition of -isms are sociological in nature and correct. The "vast majority" of people can use a technical term however they want, that doesn't mean they are using it correctly. Perfect example: paradigm shift. This is a technical term, used in scientific disciplines to indicate a sudden and complete change in how the world is viewed by a sub-group of humanity, and in Western culture, can be applied directly to inventions of mass media and mass communication and the effect this had on how the culture as a whole related to the world. In popular lexicon, we use it to indicate a change in how we behave personally, akin to "changing gears" or changing the flow of our lives. It has also been appropriated by motivational speakers for large corporations as a term to get corporate teams to expand their way of working. If one compares the two usages, they seem to have the same basic meaning, but one is technically correct within the context that spawned it, and one is popular misconception and appropriation of the first.
By referencing "every dictionary under the sun", I assume that means zie has read every dictionary under the sun. I doubt this, mainly because if zie had, zie would have noticed that most regular dictionaries are mainly catalogs of common usage in a specific arena, and do not mean the be-all end-all of a word. There is a reason that we have medical and legal dictionaries, as well as dictionaries for different disciplines. These dictionaries may have a word that is spelled the same in each of them, but based on the context, has a differing meaning. Hell, the meaning of a word can differ across languages. Some words don't translate directly from language to language, and some languages have words that others do not. Does this mean that the basic concept does not exist from culture to culture? No, it means that the concepts are viewed differently through different cultural lenses.
Suggesting that your preferred definition of isms is inherently more correct at all times is intellectually dishonest.
In actuality, you can indeed see the binary hierarchies almost world-wide, with adjustments of the standard to the specific group. Example: racial binary, between "white" and "non-white" does exist in most places that I have studied or visited. White in some areas may not look quite like it looks here, but it plays the same role. It can be found echoed through out most institutions and sub-cultures to a greater or lesser degree. The binary hierarchy of sex is also present world wide to differing degrees, even with differences in the definition of masculine v. feminine.
This poster seems to desire the simpler explanation at the expense of dismissing actual intellectual effort on hir part to challenge hir own small view of how the world works.
Sexism is not in the eye of the beholder
Let it be assumed for the purposes of this space, that the definition of -isms are the power+prejudice equation.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
What?!
(h/t to almost every progressive blog I read)
I saw this last week and had to take a second to put my jaw back in place. Christ. How fucking EDGY is The Advocate! Conflating the black civil rights movement with the LGBTQI movement and it's oh-so-important fight for marriage equality.
Look, I'm queer. As queer as a $3 bill. HOWEVER, I am not so arrogant as to believe that my relatively privileged fight for the right to marry someone of the same legal sex as myself is the last great civil rights issue! Not when institutionalized racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia (to name only a few) are issues that are causing people to live in poverty, face threats of and actual physical and sexual assault from not only other individuals but from law enforcement officers, face court battles to even have their victimizers recognized as such, and...lessee...um...oh yeah! FUCKING DEATH!
Don't get me wrong. I would love it if people like me could just hang up our activist badges and go home, if there really was something that was really the last civil rights struggle ever ever ever. However, as pointed out above, this is patently untrue.
Suggesting that "Gay is the new Black" ignores the existence of queers who are also of color, who have to face racism, homophobia and sexism. It also ignores the fact that a good deal of the queer community is not served by the fight for marriage equality, and effectively disappear their members who are in need of things that are more essential than marriage.
This cover implies that all other civil rights movements are over and unimportant. The only purpose something like this will serve will be to alienate members of the POC community as well as any other groups that are not served by the marriage fight. It doesn't help that the article that this cover is in reference to is actually a decent article. This cover is a disservice to the author, and to the queer movement as a whole.
In short, fuck whoever at The Advocate thought this would be a good idea. Nice breakin' it "hero."
I saw this last week and had to take a second to put my jaw back in place. Christ. How fucking EDGY is The Advocate! Conflating the black civil rights movement with the LGBTQI movement and it's oh-so-important fight for marriage equality.
Look, I'm queer. As queer as a $3 bill. HOWEVER, I am not so arrogant as to believe that my relatively privileged fight for the right to marry someone of the same legal sex as myself is the last great civil rights issue! Not when institutionalized racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia (to name only a few) are issues that are causing people to live in poverty, face threats of and actual physical and sexual assault from not only other individuals but from law enforcement officers, face court battles to even have their victimizers recognized as such, and...lessee...um...oh yeah! FUCKING DEATH!
Don't get me wrong. I would love it if people like me could just hang up our activist badges and go home, if there really was something that was really the last civil rights struggle ever ever ever. However, as pointed out above, this is patently untrue.
Suggesting that "Gay is the new Black" ignores the existence of queers who are also of color, who have to face racism, homophobia and sexism. It also ignores the fact that a good deal of the queer community is not served by the fight for marriage equality, and effectively disappear their members who are in need of things that are more essential than marriage.
This cover implies that all other civil rights movements are over and unimportant. The only purpose something like this will serve will be to alienate members of the POC community as well as any other groups that are not served by the marriage fight. It doesn't help that the article that this cover is in reference to is actually a decent article. This cover is a disservice to the author, and to the queer movement as a whole.
In short, fuck whoever at The Advocate thought this would be a good idea. Nice breakin' it "hero."
Friday, November 28, 2008
Your Intrepid Explorer Risks Eye and Sanity...
okay, I did a bad thing...
I went over to Glenn Sacks' blog, mainly because it is rude and fallacious to criticize someones position without actually knowing anything about their position. I am not going to link to it, simply because its not hard to find on your own, and because the last thing I need right now is a deluge of some of the people who read those blogs. I am not in the mood to heavily moderate comments to maintain a safe-space.
When I was there, I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt, because as much as I have a serious problem with MRAs, there are inequalities that men face that I am against. I mainly disagree with the source of these inequalities, and the technique for solving them that most MRAs seem to advocate. They want to blame feminism, or feminists, which ends up turning into a fight against the very group of people with the history and experience to solve the inequalities they are being blamed for.
I only managed to really analyze one thing before the whole space started to really bother me, so I will make this a gradual thing. I will start with one, and if I can stomach spending more than a few minutes over there, I may do this again.
An ad that occurred right after the first article:
To be fair, many blog ad programs simply search keywords and post ads that match. We find that on feminists sites as well, a discussion of eating disorders or fat acceptance flanked by diet ads, a discussion of porn or sex-workers rights surrounded by ads for "free" porn sites, discussion of abortion rights bringing up ads for pro-life services. This is why a good deal of feminist bloggers have very limited ads, and tend to stick to ads that they can approve pre-posting. It is possible that this is what is happening here. Make of it what you will.
I am skeptical, mainly because all of the other ads seem directly applicable to the content of the blog.
I have heard a lot of excuses from MRA's about how they aren't anti-woman, they are just anti-feminist, or even how they aren't anti-feminist, just anti-radical misandrist feminists. I personally do not see that distinction being made here.
Keep an eye out for later posts examining the inner-workings of the MRA blogosphere...
I went over to Glenn Sacks' blog, mainly because it is rude and fallacious to criticize someones position without actually knowing anything about their position. I am not going to link to it, simply because its not hard to find on your own, and because the last thing I need right now is a deluge of some of the people who read those blogs. I am not in the mood to heavily moderate comments to maintain a safe-space.
When I was there, I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt, because as much as I have a serious problem with MRAs, there are inequalities that men face that I am against. I mainly disagree with the source of these inequalities, and the technique for solving them that most MRAs seem to advocate. They want to blame feminism, or feminists, which ends up turning into a fight against the very group of people with the history and experience to solve the inequalities they are being blamed for.
I only managed to really analyze one thing before the whole space started to really bother me, so I will make this a gradual thing. I will start with one, and if I can stomach spending more than a few minutes over there, I may do this again.
An ad that occurred right after the first article:
Discover how she has 'played' you. For the first time ever, a book that tells you exactly how manipulative and deceitful women win against their unsuspecting prey--and there's detailed information about what you can do about it. Read Roy Sheppard and Mary T Cleary's book "Venus: The Dark Side".An alternate title for this book, when you follow the ad's url, is "That Bitch" (You cannot make this shit up.) It was changed because the authors wanted to reach as many people as possible with their message of "evil conniving" women who victimize "innocent" men. If Mr. Sacks and his movement are not interested in demonizing women, why have an ad for something so flagrantly anti-woman? ETA: Since it came up in the comments, when was the last time you saw a book about abusive men titled "That Asshole"? Even more than that, was it advertised on a site run by gender equality activists?
To be fair, many blog ad programs simply search keywords and post ads that match. We find that on feminists sites as well, a discussion of eating disorders or fat acceptance flanked by diet ads, a discussion of porn or sex-workers rights surrounded by ads for "free" porn sites, discussion of abortion rights bringing up ads for pro-life services. This is why a good deal of feminist bloggers have very limited ads, and tend to stick to ads that they can approve pre-posting. It is possible that this is what is happening here. Make of it what you will.
I am skeptical, mainly because all of the other ads seem directly applicable to the content of the blog.
I have heard a lot of excuses from MRA's about how they aren't anti-woman, they are just anti-feminist, or even how they aren't anti-feminist, just anti-radical misandrist feminists. I personally do not see that distinction being made here.
Keep an eye out for later posts examining the inner-workings of the MRA blogosphere...
Quick Hit: Gender games
One for the "You've got to be fucking kidding me!" file:
C'mon ladies, and girly-men, you always knew you had to leave the world domination stuff to the manly manly men, didn't you?
'Scuse me while I go barf.
C'mon ladies, and girly-men, you always knew you had to leave the world domination stuff to the manly manly men, didn't you?
'Scuse me while I go barf.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)