Posted by Bitch Lab at 10:01 pm and filed under Misc, So 1998 ::
Share with social bookmarking sites or email this post
:: 1 Views
I swear, I jelqed nothing! Welcome Wagon Thoughts
Possibly Related Posts
For what itâs worth, I donât like Bitch Lab, I donât read her, I donât think sheâs very bright, and I think the main thing she piggybacked on recently was a comment thread to a post she didnât author. Nice appropriation, that.
So: Donât like Bitch Lab? Join the club, and donât read her. Read the women she rips off instead. Theyâre better.
So: Donât like Bitch Lab? Join the club, and donât read her. Read the women she rips off instead. Theyâre better.
10-05-2006
Just go ahead and bitch
Skip all this. Take me straight to the comment form »
Trackbacks
[...] brownfemipower first bashed Amanda in a post that can be described with every Orwellian compound - duckspeak, doublethink, blackwhite, and so on. Bitch | Lab then upped the ante and claimed that Amanda was oppressing nonwhite women because the Taliban came to power with the help of the US. [...]
[...] And then there’s the feminist blogosphere veil/burqa thing - an evolution of last month’s Boob Thing. [...]
Leave a comment, a trackback from your own blog, or subscribe to an RSS feed for this entry.
Leave a reply
Aw, fuck, BL, you are amazing sometimes. Just when I want to shoot myself for even making an effort to communicate, you come and hit me with a thoughtful and spot on post.
HAve we not played a role in causing econmic, political, social, and cultural turmoil in every single one of these countries where we feel we need to wring our hands over the fate of little brown women at the hands of little brown men?
On, no no no, my poor little Bitch|Lab. That wasn’t “we”, that was “them”. You know, THEM. The evil doers. I didn’t sign onto that. I didn’t bomb them. I don’t believe in hegemony and so I am innocent and above repute. Because my heart is in the right place, I get a pass on any blame for what evil befalls the world as a result of the leaders of my country.
And, god fucking dammit, you had better give me credit for being better than all that. I don’t intend to do harm. Really I don’t.
blah fucking blah.
Remember when I said I was an optimist? I admit it. Sometimes, I’m not.
Oooh, I’m loving this post, because I have been thinking a lot about these exact points, since I am the one (or one of the ones) who made these comments. I’ll respond in a couple of separate submissions since I think I’ll be lengthy.
On the idea that the Taliban was making the burka a symbol: One of my first reactions to the idea that westerners made the burka a symbol of oppression was: No, the Taliban did that. My thinking was that the Taliban imposed a particularly restrictive and inhumane and hateful set of restrictions on women — the most visible and obvious of which was the burka. I still think that, regardless of how the Taliban came to power, the responsibility for misusing the burqa to torment women lies with the Taliban. (That position has nothing to do with my opinion of U.S. action in Afghanistan. It may be our fault that the Taliban came to power, but it was still the Taliban that imposed the burqa.) Nonetheless, I did rethink my statement on this. In trying to figure out why people had a problem with what I said, this is what I came up with:
– That it was the Bush administration and its supporters who touted this symbol of burqa as a justification for its actions in Afghanistan, actions which caused deaths and suffering to many of the women the U.S. was supposedly trying to liberate. I didn’t think about this at first because, as a feminist who has been upset about the Taliban since LONG before Bush or his invasion, the burqa had already become a symbol of the Taliban in my mind without Bush’s assistance. That’s why the idea of Bush making the burqa a symbol of oppression for his own ends didn’t really enter my consciousness — but I get why people are angry about that angle.
– More compellingly though, I thought that people were objecting to the notion of the burqa as a symbol of oppression because there may be plenty of women out there for whom the burqa may have other, more positive meanings. (I have no idea if there are women who like the burqa but I am assuming there are because I know there are lots of women out there who choose other forms of full body covering prevalent in other parts of the Islamic world.) Just because the Taliban tainted the burqa by misusing it doesn’t mean it’s fair game for others to compound the Taliban’s misuse by using the burka as a symbol of Taliban oppression. By continuing to use the burqa symbolically in this way, westerners are falsely cementing the impression that all women in burqas are oppressed victims. Doing this renders invisible and insults those women who perhaps choose to wear burqas for reasons that have nothing to do with the Taliban. This counterpoint to my original statement makes the most sense to me, I think.
(Although, ack, as I am typing this I am starting to think of counterpoints to this counterpoint, but I haven’t quite thought them through and I don’t think I am quite ready to go to that next level yet.)
HF –
ahhhhhhh. the sign of a most excellent attorney. when i went through my divorce, i took up their offers of free consultations as I’d read in my feminist guide to divorce in NYS — I think that was the title of the pamphlet my mother actually used also to insist that my father pay her for housework in the settlement. :)
what I realized listening to attorney after attorney was the best damn one was the one who could psyche out their opponent. ha.
While the conflicting imperial rivalry between the US and USSR holds most of the responsibilty in destroying Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were more directly involved in installing the Taliban. Also philosophically speaking the Taliban are basically a derivative of Saudi Wahhabihism, which extisted before western colonialism.
So while US war mongering needs to be opposed so does Islamist fundmentalism and various third world (sub)nationalisms like the Iraqi “resistance” and hezbollah.
drydock –
yes. wahhibism existed before colonialism. and at that point, the US was a sparkling example of women’s rights.
in the context of a discussion where opposition to Islamist fundamentalism is a given, why bother to remind me or anyone else. it’s statments like that do not help a conversation — because they seem rather inattentive to what was actually said. as if I have to ritualistically condemn Islamist fundamentalism to prove my street cred. why can’t it simply be taken as a given that I do and that I must be reminded otherwise.
that continually happened in those threads and i was utterly baffled by it: every woman who lodged a post colonialist critique was implicitly read as some kind of covert supporter if she didn’t ritualistically bow down and condemn Islamic fundamentalism.
I guess I’m trying to find out *why* folks feel compelled to bring it up.
And probably sounds hostile. Trying not to be.
oh and now that I see your handle I also must apologize profusely for not replying to you.
Blonde moment,
BL
Yes, Bitch Lab, it’s the curse of the attorney. Point/counterpoint/counter-counterpoint/counter-counter-counterpoint and on and on and on until you drive yourself batty. Anyway onto the next thing:
On finding commonalities among women and women’s issues around the globe
I definitely agree that it is presumptuous to assume that we are all completely alike or that our issues are the same. But I still think finding commonalities is important. But perhaps talking about them in the wrong way or stressing commonalities too much can be problematic too.
My biggest passion as a feminist and as a blogger is talking to people who are not very aware of feminism or women’s issues. Most of the people with whom I talk are westerners (and I have a special interest in talking with extremely conservative Christian women). Maybe it’s a sad comment on human narcissism and self-centeredness, but I tend to think that people empathize with and understand someone else’s experience more if they can compare it to their own experiences. I include myself in this statement. The problem with that is that you don’t want to make it okay to disregard people whose experiences and problems are not comparable to yours at all.
Not to tout my own blog, but here’s an example of the kind of comparison I’m talking about. This post is an imaginative exercise about what it must be like to be a feminist when one’s own culture is hostile to women in many ways. I compare what it would be like to be a Saudi feminist to my attitudes about my family as an abused kid. Maybe that was presumptuous of me (and I have no idea if a Saudi feminist would agree with what I was saying) but I was trying to wrap my mind around the whole concept of identifying with a culture that seems hostile to you. Yes, I read articles by feminist women from other cultures, but the only way I felt I could even begin to really understand was in terms of my own experience. (And yes, I recognize that our culture isn’t exactly woman-friendly either).
I also have to cop to using the experiences of women abroad to try to shed light on what’s going on here. That’s what screwed me up in burqagate. People in the U.S. get so complacent about women’s rights here that I sometimes use the examples from abroad to point out that women’s rights are never to be taken for granted. The emphasis (I thought) was to say, “We are wrong in our frequent assumption that our culture is so much more enlightened than [insert name of a non-western culture here].” The danger is that it comes out sounding like, “OMG! We’re practically like those crazy Muslims!”
Another point I try to make is, “Holy crap — why are we taking western women’s relative freedoms and privileges for granted when the time and place we are living in is so much freer than women’s experience throughout history and in many parts of the globe today . . . why do we assume that our gains of the past 30 years will persist when they are at odds with centuries of history and with cultures around the world including our own?” Of course, the danger with this approach is that it may de-emphasize ways in which non-western women DO experience freedom and opportunity. It may play into the stereotype of the totally oppressed and beaten-down non-western woman.
And finally, I love talking about examples of women from all sorts of different backgrounds taking action on their own behalf. I think it is just plain inspiring — but also it shows that non-western women are NOT okay with injustice. It answers that obnoxious assumption I have heard over and over that certain sex-based atrocities and injustices are somehow okay because it’s another culture. And it shows that paternalism towards women, including western women, is wholly unnecessary.
Despite the problems and dangers, I persist in my belief that these kinds of comparisons can be useful teaching tools– if done correctly and sensitively. I am willing though to be persuaded otherwise. (Please bear in mind as well that I am a passionate believer in feminism but not a trained educator or someone with any academic background in feminism.) And yeah, using other cultures to make a point about the west can backfire big time and seem awfully presumptuous, especially when many non-western women are worrying not just about sex but also about race and poverty and bombs falling on them and lots of other things besides the particular category of oppression that is also experienced by rich, white women in the U.S.
So yeah understanding differences is important if we are going to avoid doing more harm than good in efforts to “help” these women. I have not stressed those differences in my writing much and I can see why that can be misleading and can be a deficiency.
Aaargh — apologies for length. I really appreciate your inviting this discussion.
You (BL) said, ââŹĹExcuse me? Why did the Taliban come to power in the first place?ââŹÂ
And I answered. Somewhat simplistically but pointing out that religious totalitarianism thought can exist autonomously of western imperialism and also that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan had more of a direct role of installing the Taliban than the US, though discussing the various state actors interrelations would be a lot longer and deeper conversation.
You seemed to have a little to much of “it’s all the West’s responsibilty/fault” analysis IMHO.
I wasn’t looking for a denunciation of Islamist fundamentalism from you, I already assumed from reading your blog that your against it. However I wouldn’t take it as a given that all “post-colonial” feminists are against Islamic fundamentalism. Parts of the hard left such as feminist Arundhati Roy have called for supporting the Iraqi “resistance”.
In other words, for most of us, we think that everyone must know that the woman of color critique of white feministsââŹâ˘ univeralizing demands for solidarity and the search for commonalities to oppression across cultures and histories. We are sometimes shocked that, after 30 years of such critiques, itââŹâ˘s still not out there enough that people are actually cognizant enough about the issues to avoid the terms in the first place if that is not their intention.
A lot of what I am seeing in other threads is anger that people aren’t getting this after it’s been said so much. But, yes, this week is the first time I have heard anything like this — despite the fact that I have considered myself a feminist since childhood, despite the fact that I grew up in Africa and Latin America, despite the fact that I have known many non-westerners including non-western women whom I think can fairly be characterized as feminists, and despite the fact that I went to a women’s college with a strong feminist and international sensibility.
I chalk it up to my never having been part of organized feminism and having a very classical/traditional education as an undergraduate. I took a lot of global history and literature courses and none of this stuff came up, although I certainly learned the history of colonialism. Not trying to make this about meeeee. Just trying to explain that even if you haven’t been living under a rock, this stuff isn’t as far as I can tell commonly known. I literally had no idea that I was making a statement that went directly to things that people have been majorly criticizing for ages. Doh!
I guess I need to get out and about more.
drydock –
i personally think that, as a US citizen, it’s my responsibility to deal with the government and what it does. i’d rather spend my energies where i can actually *do* something. i don’t, therefore, much give a shit about the USSR becase I can’t freakin’ do anything about the USSR.
Given that so few freakin’ people actually want to examine the role the US has played, that means I do have to emphasize it — to correct the imbalance. I have no patience with ritualistic bowing down to make rightwingers happy — b/c they won’t be happy anyway. It’s their special little logical fallacy and I won’t play their game.
Arundhati Roy? The hard left? HA. You haven’t met Yoshie Furuhashi, have you?
I don’t have a lot of love for Roy but, I don’t know, some days, I confess, after facing down the government of NYS once, with their guns pointed in my face during a protest, I remember thinking: You know, if these fucks want to kill us that badly for fighting for our rights, I’m right to give my life right here. Because it’s not worth living to have to live under these conditions.
So, you know what? Sometimes I say Viva La Resistance. Because if some country invaded this one, I’d be fighting my ass off like the dudes in Red Dawn fought the commies. HA the irony — a commie pinko fan of Red Dawn.
And that is the position I took directly after 911 too. No need to invade another country. If we really are bad ass cowboys, tell ‘em to come and get us on our turf.
So, while the pragmatist in me knows that the whole situation sucks rocks, I get so pissed off about what we did to Iraq, I just don’t give a crap. The Iraqi resistance will do it’s thing without our support. Which is why I think Roy is a joke: what the hell does she mean by support? Sign a fucking petition? Oh, that’s some support.
HF –
damn HF. I heart you so much for that last one. You have made me so happy I can’t stand it. I want to reach through the screen and hug you. I want to jump up on top of my blog and say, ‘See look! We are talking!”
Really, thanks. Just thanks. More tomorrow.
I’m showing my age in finding it perfectly natural to use that initialism and not thinking it archaic.
And I answered. Somewhat simplistically but pointing out that religious totalitarianism thought can exist autonomously of western imperialism and also that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan had more of a direct role of installing the Taliban than the US
So let me check, America directly funds the taliban, and some of the other far right islamic totalitarian dictatorships in the region which america funds and maintains also funded the taliban, ergo America isn’t really too much at fault for the creation of the taliban state in afghanistan?
There’s a logic flaw here, yet I can’t quite put my finger on it…
If the U.S. government had not meddled in Afghanistan in the first place as part of the Cold War against the USSR, the Taliban would never have come to power and we never would have heard of burqas.
If U.S. feminists really want to help Third World women, getting our government to observe the Prime Directive should be a top priority.
>So while US war mongering needs to be opposed so does Islamist fundmentalism and various third world (sub)nationalisms like the Iraqi ââŹĹresistanceââŹÂ and hezbollah.>
The problem is this: How does one, as a U.S. citizen/dweller who is against the war, “oppose Iraqi resistance”? for example. say, gee, I heartily disapprove of the fundamentalists? well, yeah. Now what?
“We’ll never know” Simone Weil wrote decades ago (paraphrasing now), “what European civilization might have become had it not been contaminated by Roman ideas of dominance and the Roman destruction or absorption of non-Roman cultures.”
We can adopt this formula, run it forward through the time machine. We can say, “we’ll never know what Iran might be today if the 1953 CIA engineered overthrow of Mossadeq hadn’t happened.”
On cue, a clever chap, a “decent liberal” speaks up: “well yes, yes of course but you don’t mean to say that the US specifically and the West generally is responsible for all the darkness do you?”
It’s a good diversion, an excellent ’swerve’ as pro wrestlers say backstage - but it misses the point doesn’t it? It misses the point as surely as near-Earth asteroid 2004 MN4 missed us a few years back (the bugger’s coming back though…maybe our problems will go away then).
Of course the US isn’t responsible for all the badness only the direct and causality-linked consequences of the actions Washington has taken.
Now this is a very long list; yes, an impressively long list. Empires tend to collect mounds of smashed skulls - it’s what they do.
So many of the terrible things, including Islamic fundamentalism - which, mostly, is the last refuge of those for whom the political route has been cut off (see, for example, the history of Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, formerly of Egypt, now a freebooter) come from plans, strategies, games and meetings issuing forth from Washington like the poisoned gifts of Pandora’s box.
And drydock, with all due… I think I’ll defer to people such as Nir Rosen regarding how to think about Hezbollah which needs neither our furrowed brow ‘opposition’ nor our naive ’support’.
I mean, certainly no one is arguing here that said areas were bastions of human rights and feminism before this latest mess, or even the one that led to the creation of OBL and the Taliban (say, the enemy of our enemy is our Fwiend! never mind what might happen down the road; never mind taking a good hard look at what exactly these “freedom fighters” we’re funding are all about, death! to the Commies! we can worry about the rest later).
for that matter: “blame” is in a way sort of beside the point. yeah, what’s done is done; the question is, what do we (”we”) do now? Seriously. I mean, it -starts- with taking a good hard honest look at exactly what our (”our” going all the way back to colonial adventures that happened before any of us were born, yes) part in creating all this. And yes, it also takes into account, no, at this point, simply withdrawing is not going to turn all the raving slavering fundamentalist zealots into fluffy little harmless bunnies.
But wrt Iraq in particular: the phrase “you broke it, you bought it” comes irresistibly to mind.
i mean, the -last- thing we should all be concerned about is our fercrissake -ego- in all of this.
which does tie it back to the subject at hand: the problem here has been the knee-jerk defensiveness of the “well-meaning” mainstream folks, always. “What d’you MEAN?!? I’m not a racist! I didn’t enslave anyone! -I- don’t go around suicide bombing people! I didn’t vote for this war! say! whaddya trying to SAY about ME, huh?”
…and so on. not helpful.
…and of course, even so: “not bastions of feminism and human rights” doesn’t necessarily mean “couldn’t have been, weren’t made one fuck of a lot worse by this latest adventure.”
see: http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
(who has been distressingly quiet for a while)
for example.
Hm… It seems to me that even though the Taliban came to power as a direct consequence of foreign (western AND nonwestern) meddling, there’s no reason not to hold them accountable for their own actions — which doesn’t mean also denying the complicity of the meddling. Otherwise it strikes me as yet another variation on the white man’s burden, and “those poor dears who can’t possibly be expected to understand the problems with their actions.”
BTW, love the “this blog is a natural product line”!
dwayne –
yes yes yes. because, ultimately, what underlies it is people’s sense that, ultimately, the West is Best, and “they” couldn’t be trusted to get it right.
Why the incessant need to toss arsenic into the wells of discourse by trotting out the, “are you maybe not be tough enough on the brown people? maybe you actually have sympathies with them and their evil cultural ways. figures.”
it is, plain and simple, a dishonest form of discourse that has been recognized as such for 2500 years.
anon –
“ââŹĹthose poor dears who canââŹâ˘t possibly be expected to understand the problems with their actions.ââŹÂ”
you are n00b to the Bitch Rodeo ain’tchya? I recommend reading This Whammydine Guide before proceeding with great caution.
anon:
HmââŹÂŚ It seems to me that even though the Taliban came to power as a direct consequence of foreign (western AND nonwestern) meddling, thereââŹâ˘s no reason not to hold them accountable for their own actions…
….
Just so.
However, to avoid the “White man’s burden” fallacy you correctly highlight as being a danger (even if no one here is guilty of falling into the liberal interventionist trap) I’m strongly inclined to listen to the appeals and analyses of Afghanis (for example, RAWA) which provide us with an Afghan perspective on both Taliban oppression and Western meddling free of American preoccupations.
Because of course, there are always local voices we can tune-in if we would but shut up and hear.
And that’s the point really…less hand wringing about what “we” need to do, more listening to the people actually in the countries in question.
General Note of Caution –
I’m Behind the Pulpit in the Church of Flame now. I will try to avoid friendly fire, just yell at a Bitch and kick in the ass if she accidentally torches anyone who doesn’t deserve.
(Yo! R hand me the ACME s00per d00per spotter scope for the sniper flame rifle, would ya? And while you’re at it, would you spot me a pair of night vision goggles? Mine are being retrofitted in a swank new techno design)
dwayne –
you know, i don’t get out much. are the liberals who actually do this?
otherwise, spot on. as far as i’m concerned, it’s not my job or our job as a
countrynation to run around making sure other countries are taught a lesson about their misogyny. my job is to recognize that there are already women in those countries doing a perfectly fine job of holding them accountable for their actions.(it never ceases to amaze me that USers would perfectly well resent it if the countries who have better abortion policies than we do, if the rest of the members of the g8 got together and decided to hold “US dudes” accountable for their actions — even if only rhetorically. Most USers would feel their chains yanked immediately and would not throw flowers and candy at their saviours.
I mean, just read the PNAC crowd on the pansy assed French. That one PDF from years ago would have actually been funny if were written by some far rightwing group holed up in the mountains of Idaho. (sorry R)
A few things:
Destabilization as a consequence of the cold war led to the Taliban taking control. That is the bottom line. Of course, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia did the dirty work of actively seeing that they took control, but since both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have a long and tangled history of entanglement with the US, in a sense they acted as proxies. The truth is that the US didn’t give a flying fuck who was in control there, as long as it wasn’t the commies and that they could be hopefully bribed by american corporate interests. I imagine they thought that since Saudi Arabia which is every bit as oppressive as the Taliban except for the fact that there is not war and poverty there, so what if the Taliban came to power. And it is a known fact that even well into the Clinton and Bush II admins, there were efforts to negotiate oil pipelines from the former soviet “stans” there was hope that the Taliban could be “dealt with.” Bin Laden and Al Qaeda was a wild card that they did not see coming, even though they easily could’ve and should’ve — but didn’t simply because of hubris.
I lived in Iran in the 70s and actually visited Afghanistan for a week - and while there were many women who did not wear them, one did see burkas during that time, just as many women wore a chador (time to insert pet peeve: I wish people would learn the definitions of the following words: “burka”, “chador,” “abaya” “niqab” and “hijab.” All of the first four are forms of hijab, but they are not the same.) in Iran and in northern (Shi’ite, farsi speaking) Afghanistan.
Iranian anti-imperialist radicals, which like those in Afghanistan who overthrew the monarchy in the 70s, were deeply informed by a marxist perspective. (it is also worth noting that many women in Iran began to wear the chador as a symbol of solidarity with the the Islamicists in their common struggle against the Shah). The US attitude at the time was the enemy of my enemy (communism) is my friend, which included facist dictatorships (like the Shah of Iran) and religious dictatorships and monarchies, as in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. For that reason, I see the US intervention in Afghanistan as THE reason the Taliban eventually rose to power.
Now one can argue until the cows come home about the culpability of the Soviets for invading Afghanistan, but I am old enough to remember that during the 80s that there were good number western feminists who decried the US support of the mujahadeen (with its imperialist objectives) because it was obvious that the fate of women would be worse under them than they would be under a marxist regime. Just as the lives of Iraqi women was vastly better under Saddam than it will be under any concievable Iraqi gov which is likely to come to power in the foreseeable future (with the possible exception of the Kurdish region if it manages to become Kurdistan).
The history of the Soviet-American face off in Afghanistan is not yet old history. It would also do a lot of good for people to really look into the long, tangled and sordid relationship between the Saudi royal family (who have funded the expansion of wahhabism throughout the Islamic world) and the US. Yes, wahhabism existed in some parts of Saudi Arabia (primarily the Najdi region, which included Riyadh) but other parts of Saudi Arabia, particularly the Hijaz (Mecca, Madina and Jeddah) were not historically as conservative and as oppressive towards women.
I have also lived in Saudi and have known a wide variety of Saudi women–it is worth noting that they are not some kind of monolith. They especially do not want the pity of western feminists, and in fact are highly offended by it, nor do they want us meddling in their struggle. Some (not all) are happy when the injustices perpetrated against them are publicized, but they really do not want to be told how to manage their own struggle, which they do see as unique.
Typing to fast up there: I didn’t mean to say that the mujahadeen had imperialist goals, rather that the US did/does.
Some (not all) are happy when the injustices perpetrated against them are publicized . . .
That’s interesting because I have heard that sentiment expressed by Saudi women before. But how does one publicize Saudi gender injustices (say on one’s blog) without causing the problems of setting oneself up as the enlightened westerner talking about “those” people, or causing some of the other problems that arose during burqa-gate?
Hmmm . . . thinking out loud, I suppose the best way would be to quote Saudi feminists and talk about what Saudi feminists are doing. In the past (not recently) I have looked for information on Saudi feminism on-line and have not found much. Probably not looking in the right places.
The Taliban made the burqa an instrument of oppression. (With the usual qualifications: they didnââŹâ˘t make it one out of nothing, there having been a long history of oppressive enactments of hajib; & they had help from the liberal universalist West.) They didnââŹâ˘t make it a symbol of anything in Western discourse. They didnââŹâ˘t & don’t control Western discursive practices. If Westeners had ignored Afghan gender relations 1996-2001, as they selectively ignore other instances of oppression, nobody would have made the burqa a symbol of anything at all. And when Westerners freely chose the burqa as the ultimate symbol of womenââŹâ˘s oppression, was their choice really dictated by the objective facts? Is culture really on so short an empirical leash? An itââŹâ˘s not minimizing the TalibanââŹâ˘s crimes to ask whether the burqa really was the the ne plus ultra of womenââŹâ˘s oppression in the world. The world is full of ghastly crimes against women, & of visual evidence of them. If the Horn of Africa were entering the 6th year of a bloody US military occupation, I suspect more people would name clitoridectomy as the ultimate symbol of womenââŹâ˘s oppression. Even within Afganistan, the Taliban did worse things to women than put them in burqas, including things, like stoning them, that arenââŹâ˘t so highly marked as culturally specific & that are intrinsically, not just contingently, connected with coercion. If weââŹâ˘re really univeralists, what offends is the injury thatââŹâ˘s beyond culture, the way the stone hits a womenââŹâ˘s head, not the colorful native garb of stoner or stoned. The selection of symbols is governed by factors other than the ones offered to justify it.
After weââŹâ˘ve decided what those other factors are, maybe someone can explain the joke portion of the joke. We can ask ourselves why some symbols of oppression are thought appropriate raw material for comedy & others less so. For example, whoââŹâ˘d take the punch line of her joke about someoneââŹâ˘s criticism of Affirmative Action, something like this: http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tiet.....nching.jpg
Funny? ItââŹâ˘s partly the old story that tragedy is when I stub my toe & comedy is when you fall in a sewer & die. Different jokes offend different people, &, as burqagate reminds us, comedy regulates boundaries between groups.
KH –
thanks for saying that. i had been contemplating how odd it was to think that the taliban made it the ultimate symbol of oppression since the taliban prob. doesn’t see it has such. but more that western feminists have made it the ultimate symbol *for western feminists* and no one else.
i was also thinking, speculatively, how if I’m not mistaken, what used to be the ultimate symbol of oppression used among feminists was chinese footbinding.
in women’s studies and feminists spaces throughout the 80s, I never heard about FGM or Hajib (never mind burqas), but I heard plenty about Chinese Footbinding.
That may have been due to Mary Daly’s influence.
But such a symbol gets picked up and circulated with enthusiasm because it resonates for a reason. In this case, I’m thinking that the specter of Asia’s economic threat was much more seductive at the time than the specter of S. Africa or Saudia Arabia or the Middle East more generally.
Happy Feminist, do you know about Lubna Hussein — who has been fearlessly writing about the oppression of women in KSA? Here is an article by her in today’s Arab News: Message from Water Crisis: “There are No More Men.”
Yes, a Saudi woman is actually mocking men in a daily newspaper. Unthinkable even 2-3 years ago. (background, there has been a water shortage in Jeddah due to badly maintained de-salinazation plants which has led to minor riots and black marketering. Very tense, considering that it is Ramadan.)
KH — yes, the whole question of “veils” as a western symbol of oppression is extremely interesting.
It is worth noting that the practice of veiling a women’s face predates Islam–and was generally considered a sign of rank. (this is reflected in Islam, when only the wives of the prophet were actually required to cover their faces) It is also worth noting that in terms of traditional clothing in that part of the world, it makes a lot of sense, due to the intensity of the sun, to cover as much skin as possible. Everyone wears one (even men, if you really look at their clothes) — the argument within Islam, is just how to wear it (in addition to the question as to whether it is necessary, Islamically, at all). Many very religious women from that part of the world move seamless to “less veiled” when traveling outside Saudi and being fully veiled within Saudi, and a) view the traditional dress of KSA as the least of their problems and b) see no conflict in their willingness/ability to adapt to the culture they either live in or are visiting. For many of them the entire issue is just a red herring.
Though I should also note that many women in KSA are beginning to rebel, by refusing to cover their faces in places like Riyadh (which was unheard of when I was there 10 yrs ago) and even (according to some women I correspond with), in some instances — their hair. And are willing to yell back at the muttawa (the religious police) when harrassed by them.
Oooh, I love it Sunrunner. I used to read Arab News all the time and it’s linked on my blogroll, but I haven’t been reading it lately. That’s fabulous!
HF –
I didn’t want you to feel ignored. I tend to like to think through lengthy posts pretty carefully before I respond.
But one thing your last post reminded me of was the time a prof friend invited me to a conference while I was an undergrad. There I am, this n00b to such things, and the conference was on the issues of identity, essentialism, universal claims in feminism, who can and can’t speak for whom, etc.
The day was filled with nothing but increasingly heated debates and I’m understanding the whys and wherefores of these intense feelings 50% of the time if I was lucky. It’s a wonder I continued to find feminism interesting and didn’t immediately run far, far away.
At any rate, at that conference, there was a speaker who everyone felt sort of stepped back and clarified everything for us, Linda Alcoff. Not in terms of provided absolute answers, but simply framing what was going on in a coherent way.
The published version of the paper is here, The problem of speaking for”
R Mildred Actually the US didn’t fund the Taliban, they funded the mujahedin. The Taliban were mostly orphans of the 80’s war Afghanistan. They grew up in Pakistani religious madrasses funded by Saudi wahabbi money. Sunruner asserts that the Saudis and Pakistanis acted as proxies for the US to install the Taliban to keep the commies out.
This is obviously wrong. When the Taliban took over around 1996, it was long after the collapse of the USSR and long after they had left Afghanistan. The evil empire threat at that point was zero.
Some western leftists fall into the embarrasing trap of blaming the US (or maybe Israel) for every evil in the world. They just can’t fathom that some brown skinned third worlder might have some independent oppressive ideas pumping through their head.
drydock –
take a hike. yo u have no clue about the people here and you haven’t bothered to try to have clue.
instead, you’ve decided that everyone fits into a shoebox so you can fuck their skeleton.
RMildred isn’t even in the US for starters. Second, I know a lot of these people and have known some for years. None of us fit into the “some leftists” trap you describe — most hilariously not even your commie pink hard left hostess.
You can either engage here, avoiding poisoning the wells of discourse, or wander on back to the frat house to your once a month duty as urinal cake changer for the beer bash.
so far, you’ve proved yourself completely incapable of not insulting people with logical fallacy instead of an actual argument. (feel free to call people names though. at least that, people can see — and it might even be entertaiing. But logical fallacies are simply an insult to your and everyone’s else’s intelligence.
My luck with other western white feminists at finding universalities has been poor, and we have theoretically shared daily cultural experience.
So my universalities have been stripped bare: Right to personal & physical self, right to believe and think, right to own property, right to do, right to be treated as human. Healthcare, shelter, food, social groupings, freedom of choice in the bigger sense (not constrained to abortion).
How this plays out is necessarily individuated. I think of my own experience dealing with sexual exploitation and rape - I’ve worked crisis lines. Everybody had the universal crime - the violation of the right to our own bodies because of the anger and whim and powerplay of someone else.
But the actors changed all the details; and sometimes the details were more important to the victim. In broad strokes, there were matters of race and class, sex work, gender identity, sexual identity, familial politics, cultural politics. In terms of race, I think it’s pretty obvious that if a white man rapes a black woman, she often *deals with shit in the aftermath* that doesn’t go down for white women. And that very well may be the major hurt of the experience for that woman - the act of rape means something different to individuals given their contexts.
If I am raped by a boss it’s different than being raped by a friend.
But, even those narrower experiences are not a universal - since there are differences in community and experience, and sometimes relationships between the people. You can’t throw all transgendered people into a neat box and say: Here is the transgendered experience of rape.
So the universal does not encompass the totality of the crime, nor the way the crime is felt or processed. I would suggest this is true for any crime: but a need for universality fighting crimes against women causes us to want to put a template down.
So I’m left again with the need for narrative and openmindedness; that we listen for each other’s truths, and when they’re not direct comparisons, we acknowledge the difference.
I know that’s getting pretty close to admitting I’m a choice feminist. GROAN! I’m a context feminist. I see no other way to recognize that women are, in fact, people.
Does it mean that we cannot address universalities? No, it doesn’t. We can, because the most basic universalities aren’t particularly charged. In our society, we can raise our voices together against raping or beating with stones. But what rape or beating with stones MEANS in a given person’s life is variable, and that must be honoured. Or we’re doing more damage. We’re merely imposing another system.
I think that the “personal is political” is being misused. Going from personal to political is one thing.
But what I see happening is that the political has become personal.
And that’s the wrong direction, because some of us DO have class and educational and racial privileges, which empowers our templates. Makes our voices stronger than the panopoly of experience there is.
I can abhor the killings of women without having any knowledge of burqas. I cannot ignore that the women in the burqas are living their own lives, though. They’re not overwritten by political realities, subsumed and destroyed personally ’til there’s nothing but blank and broken cringing victims. Women have been, are, stronger than that; we’re people. People do what they can with the cards they’ve been dealt, and have lived through atrocities unthinkable for all time.
If there is to be movements of liberation, political action must come from the personal stories of the women in the burqas - with western women sending money, or writing letters, or doing what we can to help when asked - but we cannot get too obsessed with finding commonalities that we can’t know: we’re subsidiary because western women (generally) don’t know if the burqa could be subverted or used positively or is a necessary camoflauge at this time. Y’know?
We don’t have sufficient information.
Bellademae:
the problem is this: How does one, as a U.S. citizen/dweller who is against the war, ââŹĹoppose Iraqi resistanceââŹÂ? for example. say, gee, I heartily disapprove of the fundamentalists? well, yeah. Now what?
Let me say I agree with the idea that we should mainly be working against are own government. However there are international acts of solidarity that probably are worthy of support such as western feminists raising money for RAWA. Or US trade unions who raised funds for Iraqi trade unions, whose leaders have incidentally have been murdered and tortured by the Iraqi “resistance”.
I think I was tying to get at the idea that certain positions floating around the American left need to be rejected, particularly some of the more noxious variants of “anti-imperialism”.
drydock –
then please get thee to a blog where ppl are actually advocating those views. THISisn’t it.
argue with what people are actually saying. if you are not sure, then ask. but stop fricking assuming.
I have hung around the people you describe. they are the teeniest tiniest minority of truly hard leftists. go seek them out and educate them.
THIS is not your blog to do that. so please knock it off.
one more BS comment like that and I’m through. capiche?
Yah, A.N.S.W.E.R. is over thataway. right next door to the Argument clinic.
>RMildred isnââŹâ˘t even in the US for starters.
she’s not? missed that one. where is she?
not that i obviously have any problem with supporting RAWA (for example), but i get BL’s frustration; there’s been enough straw floating around all ’round lately to build an entire fucking scarecrow army.
great post, KH, as per usual.
>The Taliban made the burqa an instrument of oppression. (With the usual qualifications: they didnââŹâ˘t make it one out of nothing, there having been a long history of oppressive enactments of hajib; & they had help from the liberal universalist West.) They didnââŹâ˘t make it a symbol of anything in Western discourse. They didnââŹâ˘t & donââŹâ˘t control Western discursive practices….
right.
and right on point wrt
> If weââŹâ˘re really univeralists, what offends is the injury thatââŹâ˘s beyond culture, the way the stone hits a womenââŹâ˘s head, not the colorful native garb of stoner or stoned. The selection of symbols is governed by factors other than the ones offered to justify it.>
Hello.
and
>Funny? ItââŹâ˘s partly the old story that tragedy is when I stub my toe & comedy is when you fall in a sewer & die. Different jokes offend different people, &, as burqagate reminds us, comedy regulates boundaries between groups.>
EXACTLY.
Either it’s Deadly Fucking Serious or it’s not. If the burqa is the -ultimate- symbol* of oppression then why is it acceptable to use it (and by extension the women suffering under it) as the punchline of a joke? As you say: are clitoredectomies funny? Is lynching funny? Ever? Right! So: one of these things is apparently not like the other, correct? So:
*and finally: y’know what, ultimately, it’s not really about SYMBOLS for the actual oppressed, really; that is sort of the whole fucking point?
>
I think that the ââŹĹpersonal is politicalââŹÂ is being misused. Going from personal to political is one thing.
But what I see happening is that the political has become personal.>
*nod* *nod* *head falls off*
(as BL would say, heh).
and i like “context feminist.” “Choice feminist:” to me, yet more straw.
and really: all this bashing of “cultural relativism” (which, as has been pointed out hither and yon, does not mean what people think it means) keeps making me wonder if I’ve stumbled into a room full of Republicans. Hasn’t that been one of the things that’s gotten their panties in a wad for years now?
To BL at 32,
I wasn’t feeling ignored at all — far from it. Again, thank you so much for writing this post and providing this thread. I’m running around today but am looking forward to reading the article you linked!
HF –
Linda is one of the loves of my life, btw. I actually sat next to her at the conference, but didn’t know it ’til she spoke. It was a room full of mostly women dressed, well, pretty dressed down. lots of what a friend used to call courdoroy dykes, but also people dressed in what was a kind of uniform at the time (I thought): long flowy cotton skirts, peasant blouses, dangly earring, earth tones.
in walked linda, just before her presentation, with a lovely turquoise skirted suit, transclucent white hosiery, fingernail polish, plucked brows, and make up! It was the first time I’d seen a feminist in make up — one who was in a position of authority. i’d seen women my age, college students, in make up.
and what really rattled me: she didn’t shave her legs. of course I learned later she was from Panama.
Like I said, I was a n00b to a wider world of feminism outside of local activism where people were mainly lefties from the new left with its forcus on workers. you know, people who’d done time n the sixties and were famous in town for having brought radical changes to bear there.
so, it gives me goosebumps when others read her because I was so freakin’ confused that day and she just cleared it all up. Not with absolute answers, but just elucidating the major battles.
and she was so excellent at not getting flustered when, for instance, Kwame Ahtnony Appiah rasied the point that Quakers in the US ’spoke for’ the enslaved — and what if that hadn’t happened? What if they’d been constrained by concerns abotut “epistemic privilege.”
Maybe not getting flustered seems trivila, but on a day when everyone seemed to be on the verge of tears, it was remarkable.
regarding 33, 34, 36, 37
I agree with drydock the left’s excesses are to be educated against and not encouraged; goes right along with critiquing fundametalisms, they are practically twinned where extremes meet and they do (at great policing costs in recent years, bycause our tastes for extremities is so poor; i’d keep it simple and go for extremely wet meets extremely dry, eat rock drink water spew mud and honour the lord of animals, underworld and rich by yondered beleaf.
Likewise, no matter how wrong and overblown, passively warmongering and what not a core text is, if a large following accrues to it you can be sure the majority will be easygoing and not aware of their own contribution to the violence potential. Lots of time gets wasted splitting hair(coverings) but to think through the concept of cover through the aeons up to and including what it covers concretely now seems beyond you all.
I mean, look at a lefty riot site and compare with your average arab protest / riot do da
Here’s what i wrote yesterday:
http://www.omnipresence.mahost.org/
they don’t know the first thing about (primordial meanings for) ‘radical’ of course (let alone they’re in any ’state’ to honour that ’state’ or recognize a ’state’ that does) but i am tired of writing critiques and doling out the proverbial pearls.
You just need a little scapegoat every now and then like everybody else. Someone to be stern with, threatened by, overcome, send packing.
Well, perhaps we might examine the provenance of averted threats a little closer, just as the search for true bounty, accurately and all round vivifyingly sourced, could be just the thing to revitalize some suffering segments of our identity.
Over the last few years, since Pim Fortuyn’s death, I have written reams and reams of little comments (mostly in dutch) pointing to extreme environmental hardship starting to cycle viciously with patrist intended to cope with it but ending up aggravating stuff with supression resulting.
Here’s a oneway system:
Loss of soilcover and loss of soil itself = disappearance of fertility = wet towel on head, burqa to stop dust or cover the occasional incognito terrorist, etcetera).
Where’s the other way?
My conviction I had cracked not just any secret but the almost stupidly simple (and yet applicable in the most commonly possible ways) one, proved inversely proportionate to my ability to use words that really help see things through my eyes easily enough, unfortunately.
And that’s your problem with drydock? He ain’t easy enough and hasn’t proven himself adoring and loyal enough yet to simply ignore/tolerate him and stop scolding?
“R Mildred Actually the US didnââŹâ˘t fund the Taliban, they funded the mujahedin”
That is half correct; they funded the mujahadeen, massively and openly during the para terror war to overthrow the Soviet backed military government and expell the Soviets, which happened in 89, and they funded the creation and training of the Taleban covertly, who were trained by the CIA’s client secret service, the ISI in an effort to stabilise the country under a government which could be internationally recognised and thus legally empowered to make the pipeline deal. The Taleban proved to be disobedient and unworkable for developing US purposes in the region. They appear now to be a candidate for client again.
The ISI’s extensive intelligence military-network was not dismantled in the wake of the Cold War. The CIA continued to support the Islamic “jihad” out of Pakistan. New undercover initiatives were set in motion in Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Balkans. Pakistan’s military and intelligence apparatus essentially “served as a catalyst for the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the emergence of six new Muslim republics in Central Asia.”
Meanwhile, Islamic missionaries of the Wahhabi sect from Saudi Arabia had established themselves in the Muslim republics as well as within the Russian federation encroaching upon the institutions of the secular State. Despite its anti-American ideology, Islamic fundamentalism was largely serving Washington’s strategic interests in the former Soviet Union.
Following the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989, the civil war in Afghanistan continued unabated. The Taliban were being supported by the Pakistani Deobandis and their political party the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI). In 1993, JUI entered the government coalition of Prime Minister Benazzir Bhutto. Ties between JUI, the Army and ISI were established. In 1995, with the downfall of the Hezb-I-Islami Hektmatyar government in Kabul, the Taliban not only instated a hardline Islamic government, they also “handed control of training camps in Afghanistan over to JUI factions…”
And the JUI with the support of the Saudi Wahhabi movements played a key role in recruiting volunteers to fight in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union.
Jane Defense Weekly confirms in this regard that “half of Taliban manpower and equipment originate[d] in Pakistan under the ISI”
In fact, it would appear that following the Soviet withdrawal both sides in the Afghan civil war continued to receive covert support through Pakistan’s ISI.
In other words, backed by Pakistan’s military intelligence (ISI) which in turn was controlled by the CIA, the Taliban Islamic State was largely serving American geopolitical interests. The Golden Crescent drug trade was also being used to finance and equip the Bosnian Muslim Army (starting in the early 1990s) and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In last few months there is evidence that Mujahideen mercenaries are fighting in the ranks of KLA-NLA terrorists in their assaults into Macedonia.
No doubt, this explains why Washington has closed its eyes on the reign of terror imposed by the Taliban including the blatant derogation of women’s rights, the closing down of schools for girls, the dismissal of women employees from government offices and the enforcement of “the Sharia laws of punishment”.
Michael Chossudovsky
http://www.globalresearch.ca/i.....cleId=3198
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq2.html#3
The only countries that openly accept the Taliban as AfghanistanââŹâ˘s legitimate government are Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates - all of which happen to be Western clients and, in particular, obedient US servants.[35] If the West exerted political or economic pressure on these countries to cease their well documented sponsoring of Taliban terrorism (via arms, for instance), it is highly likely that they would willingly acquiesce, simply because they are virtually absolutely dependent on Western - particularly American - aid.[36] Indeed, while sometimes condemning atrocious Taliban policies in rhetoric, the West turns a blind eye to the actions of its own regional clients, who are actively supporting these same policies, thereby effectively giving a ââŹËgreen lightââŹâ˘ to the Taliban to pursue its policies. Barry Rubin of the CFR reports that the professed US policy of promoting peace in Afghanistan has ââŹĹsuffered from a variety of internal contradictions. US policy toward Iran conflicts with US stated policy toward Afghanistan and is one of the reasons that many in the region believe the US supports the Taliban.ââŹÂ Rubin notes: ââŹĹIf the US is in fact supporting the joint Pakistani-Saudi backing of the Taliban in some way, even if not materially, then it has in effect decided to make Afghanistan the victim of yet another proxy war - this time aimed at Iran rather than the USSR.ââŹÂ AmericaââŹâ˘s professed commitment to supporting the UN as the means of creating peace in Afghanistan is similarly highly flawed: ââŹĹUS support of the UN as the proper vehicle for a negotiated settlement of the Afghan conflict is undermined by congressional refusal to allocate funds for UN dues or the US share of peacekeeping expenses.ââŹÂ Moreover, ââŹĹThe US has not described and criticized in a straightforward manner the specific types of external interference occurring in AfghanistanââŹÂ, from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for instance. ââŹĹPublic statements by the State Department condemn such interference but never specify who is undertaking itââŹÂ, effectively annulling the whole purpose of condemnation, thereby strongly suggesting the aforementioned tacit ââŹËgreen lightââŹâ˘ to the TalibanââŹâ˘s sweep across the region - an issue which we shall be investigating in further detail.[37]
Furthermore, expressing the conclusions of the majority of Afghan analysts on current US-UN policy, former Afghan commerce minister (1965-69) Dr. Noor Ali notes other vast internal contradictions in the approach. Highlighting the UNââŹâ˘s claim to have ââŹĹmediated the withdrawal of foreign (Soviet) forces from AfghanistanââŹÂ, Noor Ali notes that the policy only succeeded in ââŹĹplanting and strengthening the warring factions and factionalism in Afghanistan.ââŹÂ ââŹĹFor in connection with this mediation there is a question: mediation between who and who? Normally, logically, and legally, it should be conducted between Afghanistan and the former Soviet Union, and the Geneva Accords should be concluded accordingly. Scandalously and shamefully, the mediation took place among all the interested parties, but in the sheer exclusion of Afghanistan. And the accords were signed between the delegate of the Soviet-installed government in Kabul representing the former Soviet Union and that of the Government of Pakistan representing somehow the Government of the United States.ââŹÂ This peculiar form of ââŹĹmediationââŹÂ, which deliberately excluded Afghanistan, indicates the ââŹĹUS AdministrationââŹâ˘s policy - implemented by the United Nations - to deny Afghanistan its right for a national government representing its people in its relations with foreign nations, letting other powers decide its fate.ââŹÂ Furthermore, this state of affairs has continued with all factions in Afghanistan being funded by foreign powers. ââŹĹThere is no doubt that the presaging has been confirmed by the subsequent development: No national Afghan government has yet emerged; the country is fragmented and no longer independent; its fate is in the hands of alien powers; all its social, political, and administrative services are abolished; the warring factions and factionalism - introduced by the US Administration and maintained by the United Nations - are prevailing.ââŹÂ[38]
The Western powers therefore remain content with primarily ignoring AfghanistanââŹâ˘s humanitarian catastrophe, refraining from implementing any significant action. One then wonders why the West is so willing to impose massive pressure on a country such as Serbia for its human rights abuses against Kosovans, when it refuses to impose a comparable kind of pressure on the Taliban, although the Taliban follows through with the same brand of mass abuses, yet on a much more brutal and extensive scale. This exposes the selective disparity of alleged Western concern for promoting democracy and protecting human rights. Such Western indifference is probably linked to the fact that, as Ben C. Vidgen remarks: ââŹĹIn Afghanistan and Pakistan fundamentalism could not have bloomed without the CIAââŹâ˘s covert assistance - a fact that is apparent when one examines the history of the areaââŹÂ.[39]
VI. The Covert-US Taliban Alliance
Western motives become clearer when one recalls that it was the US that originally trained and armed the faction in Afghanistan - even ââŹĹlong before the USSR sent in troopsââŹÂ - which now constitutes the ââŹĹleaders of AfghanistanââŹÂ.[40] The record illustrates the existence of an ongoing relationship between the United States and the Taliban. AI reports that even though the ââŹĹUnited States has denied any links with the TalebanââŹÂ, according to then US Assistant Secretary of State Robin Raphel Afghanistan was a ââŹĹcrucible of strategic interestââŹÂ during the Cold War, though she denied any US influence or support of factions in Afghanistan today, dismissing any possible ongoing strategic interests. However, former Department of Defense official Elie Krakowski, who worked on the Afghan issue in the 1980s, points out that Afghanistan remains important to this day because it ââŹĹis the crossroads between what Halford MacKinder called the worldââŹâ˘s Heartland and the Indian sub continent. It owes its importance to its location at the confluence of major routes. A boundary between land power and sea power, it is the meeting point between opposing forces larger than itself. Alexander the Great used it as a path to conquest. So did the Moghuls. An object of competition between the British and Russian empires in the 19th century, Afghanistan became a source of controversy between the American and Soviet superpowers in the 20th. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has become an important potential opening to the sea for the landlocked new states of Central Asia. The presence of large oil and gas deposits in that area has attracted countries and multinational corporations… Because Afghanistan is a major strategic pivot what happens there affects the rest of the world.ââŹÂ[41]
RaphelââŹâ˘s denial of US interests in the region also stands in contradiction to the fact that, as AI reports, ââŹĹmany Afghanistan analysts believe that the United States has had close political links with the Taleban militia. They refer to visits by Taleban representatives to the United States in recent months and several visits by senior US State Department officials to Kandahur including one immediately before the Taleban took over Jalalabad.ââŹÂ The AI report refers to a comment by the Guardian: ââŹĹSenior Taleban leaders attended a conference in Washington in mid-1996 and US diplomats regularly travelled to Taleban headquarters.ââŹÂ The Guardian points out that though such ââŹĹvisits can be explainedââŹÂ, ââŹĹthe timing raises doubts as does the generally approving line which US officials take towards the Taleban.ââŹÂ[42]
Amnesty goes on to confirm that recent ââŹĹaccounts of the madrasas (religious schools) which the Taleban attended in Pakistan indicate that these [Western] links [with the Taleban] may have been established at the very inception of the Taleban movement. In an interview broadcast by the BBC World Service on 4 October 1996, PakistanââŹâ˘s then Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto affirmed that the madrasas had been set up by Britain, the United States, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan during the Jihad, the Islamic resistance against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.ââŹÂ[43] Similarly, former Pakistani Interior Minister, Major General (Retd) Naseerullah Babar, stated that ââŹĹ[The] CIA itself introduced terrorism in the region and is only shedding crocodiles tears to absolve itself of the responsibility.ââŹÂ[44]
continued:
In light of BrzezinskiââŹâ˘s testimony, the establishment of this Western link with the Taliban - as well as other Afghan factions - was initiated even prior to the Soviet invasion. Similarly, Vidgen reports that ââŹĹthe corporate media have… remained silent in regard to AmericaââŹâ˘s involvement in the promotion of terrorism. On the issue of right-wing terrorism, little has been reported. On AmericaââŹâ˘s intelligence connection to ââŹËIslamicââŹâ˘ guerrillas (and their manipulation of Islam), nothing has been said. Yet, the truth is that amongst those who utilise religious faith to justify war, the majority are closer to Langley, Virginia, than they are to Tehran or Tripoli… In a move to recruit soldiers for the Afghanistan civil war, the CIA and Zia encouraged the regionââŹâ˘s Islamic people to think of the conflict in terms of a jihad (holy war). Thus was fundamentalism promoted.ââŹÂ[45]
William O. Beeman, an anthropologist specialising in the Middle East at Brown University who has conducted extensive research into Islamic Central Asia, points out: ââŹĹIt is no secret, especially in the region, that the United States, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have been supporting the fundamentalist Taliban in their war for control of Afghanistan for some time. The US has never openly acknowledged this connection, but it has been confirmed by both intelligence sources and charitable institutions in Pakistan.ââŹÂ[46] Professor Beeman observes that the US-backed Taliban ââŹĹare a brutal fundamentalist group that has conducted a cultural scorched-earth policyââŹÂ in Afghanistan. Extensive documentation shows that the Taliban have ââŹĹcommitted atrocities against their enemies and their own citizens… So why would the US support them?ââŹÂ Beeman concludes that the answer to this question ââŹĹhas nothing to do with religion or ethnicity - but only with the economics of oil. To the north of Afghanistan is one of the worldââŹâ˘s wealthiest oil fields, on the Eastern Shore of the Caspian Sea in republics formed since the breakup of the Soviet Union.ââŹÂ Caspian oil needs to be transhipped out of the landlocked region through a warm water port, for the desired profits to be accumulated. The ââŹĹsimplest and cheapestââŹÂ pipeline route is through Iran - but Iran is essentially an ââŹËenemyââŹâ˘ of the US, due to being overtly independent of the West, as shall be discussed later. As Beeman notes: ââŹĹThe US government has such antipathy to Iran that it is willing to do anything to prevent this.ââŹÂ The alternative route is one that passes through Afghanistan and Pakistan, which ââŹĹwould require securing the agreement of the powers-that-be in AfghanistanââŹÂ - the Taliban. Such an arrangement would also benefit Pakistani elites, ââŹĹwhich is why they are willing to defy the Iranians.ââŹÂ Therefore, as far as the US is concerned, the solution is ââŹĹfor the anti-Iranian Taliban to win in Afghanistan and agree to the pipeline through their territory.ââŹÂ[47] Apart from the oil stakes, Afghanistan remains a strategic region for the US in another related respect. The establishment of a strong client state in the country would strengthen US influence in this crucial region, partly by strengthening Pakistan - a prime supporter of the Taliban - which is the regionââŹâ˘s main American base. Of course, this also furthers the cause of establishing the required oil and gas pipelines to the Caspian Sea, while bypassing Russia and opening up the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) bordering Russia to the US dominated global market.
Strategic interests therefore seem to have motivated what the Guardian referred to as ââŹĹthe generally approving line that US officials take towards the Taleban.ââŹÂ CNN reported that the ââŹĹUnited States wants good ties [with the Taliban] but canââŹâ˘t openly seek them while women are being repressedââŹÂ - hence they can be sought covertly.[48] The Intra Press Service (IPS) reports that underscoring ââŹĹthe geopolitical stakes, Afghanistan has appeared prominently in US government and corporate planning about routes for pipelines and roads opening the ex-Soviet republics on RussiaââŹâ˘s southern border to world markets.ââŹÂ Hence, amid the fighting, ââŹĹsome Western businesses are warming up to the Taliban despite the movementââŹâ˘sââŹÂ institutionalisation of terror, massacres, abductions, and impoverishment. ââŹĹLeili Helms, a spokeswoman for the Taliban in New York, told IPS that one US company, Union Oil of California (Unocal), helped to arrange the visit last week of the movementââŹâ˘s acting information, industry and mines ministers. The three officials met lower-level State Department officials before departing for France, Helms said. Several US and French firms are interested in developing gas lines through central and southern Afghanistan, where the 23 Taliban-controlled statesââŹÂ just happen to be located, as Helms added, to the ââŹËchanceââŹâ˘ convenience of American and other Western companies.[49]
An article appearing in the prestigious German daily Frankfurter Rundschau, in early October 1996, reported that UNOCAL ââŹĹhas been given the go-ahead from the new holders of power in Kabul to build a pipeline from Turkmenstein via Afghanistan to Pakistan. It would lead from Krasnovodsk on the Caspian Sea to Karachi on the Indian Ocean coast.ââŹÂ The same article noted that UN diplomats in Geneva believe that the war in Afghanistan is the result of a struggle between Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Russia and the United States, ââŹĹto secure access to the rich oil and natural gas of the Caspian Sea.ââŹÂ[50] Other than UNOCAL, companies that are jubilantly interested in exploiting Caspian oil, apparently at any human expense, include AMOCO, BP, Chevron, EXXON, and Mobile.[51]
It therefore comes as no surprise to see the Wall Street Journal reporting that the main interests of American and other Western elites lie in making Afghanistan ââŹĹa prime transhipment route for the export of Central AsiaââŹâ˘s vast oil, gas and other natural resourcesââŹÂ. ââŹĹLike them or not,ââŹÂ the Journal continues without fear of contradiction, ââŹĹthe Taliban are the players most capable of achieving peace in Afghanistan at this moment in history.ââŹÂ The Journal is referring to the same faction that is responsible for the severe repression of women; massacres of civilians; ethnic cleansing and genocide; arbitrary detention; and the growth of widespread impoverishment and underdevelopment.[52] Despite all this, as the New York Times similarly reported, ââŹĹThe Clinton Administration has taken the view that a Taliban victory… would act as a counterweight to Iran… and would offer the possibility of new trade routes that could weaken Russian and Iranian influence in the region.ââŹÂ[53]
continued:
In a similar vein, the International Herald Tribunal reports that in the summer of 1998, ââŹĹthe Clinton administration was talking with the Taleban about potential pipeline routes to carry oil and natural gas out of Turkmenistan to the Indian Ocean by crossing Afghanistan and PakistanââŹÂ,[54] clarifying why the US would be interested in ensuring that the region is destabilised enough to prevent the population from being able to mobilise domestic resources, or utilise the regionââŹâ˘s strategic position, for their own benefit. P. Stobdan reports that ââŹĹAfghanistan figures importantly in the context of American energy security politics. UnocalââŹâ˘s project to build oil and gas pipelines from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan for the export of oil and gas to the Indian subcontinent, viewed as the most audacious gambit of the 1990s Central Asian oil rush had generated great euphoria. The US government fully backed the route as a useful option to free the Central Asian states from Russian clutches and prevent them getting close to Iran. The project was also perceived as the quickest and cheapest way to bring out Turkmen gas to the fast growing energy market in South Asia. To help it canvass for the project, Unocol hired the prominent former diplomat and secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, and a former US ambassador to Pakistan, Robert Oakley, as well as an expert on the Caucasus, John MarescaââŹÂŚ The president of Unocol even speculated that the cost of the construction would be reduced by half with the success of the Taliban movement and formation of a single government.ââŹÂ Worse still, this corporate endeavour backed wholeheartedly by the US involved direct military support of the Taliban: ââŹĹIt was reported by the media that the US oil company had even provided covert material support to help push the militia northward against RabbaniââŹâ˘s forces.ââŹÂ
“After weââŹâ˘ve decided what those other factors are, maybe someone can explain the joke portion of the joke.”
Thanks for that point, KH; it is the heart of the matter which all the defences ostentatiously ignore.
Amanda said in her self-justification (the indictment of her critics for dishonesty, depravity and ‘cultural relativism’ disguised as an apology) she saw the burqa as representing something a woman must wear “on pain of death” and intended it to be read thusly. Then she said she used it to construct for “a joke”, a “cheap shot at the misogynist nags around the world”. Clearly this can only be explained, the intermediary steps between the evocation of this horror and the laugh, either by an assumption that the woman who is wearing the burqa on pain of death is a fictional character or a person whose death is for some reason trivial enough to be amusing.
What the defenders did was actually understand that Amanda was lying when she said she intended the burqa to conjure something so serious as the idea of “on pain of death” for real living people. The defenders understood, rightly, the whole ‘explanation’ was incoherent because it was wholly disingenuous, and that part in which she claimed to be conjuring “on pain of death” was a dishonest riposte to the charge of othering and racist contempt in her image choice. That part was inventd after the fact to parry the charge that she saw the islamic custom of veiling in general in an Orientalist frame. She invented retroactively this intended meaning “on pain of death” to say “no, the burqa signifies an objectively objectionable practise, coercion by threat of death.” But if she had really thought this and intended this, there could be no instrumentalisation of that meaning for the (any) joke. We don’t make jokes about people living under “the threat of death” unless we despise and loathe and fear them. In seperately parrying each angle of criticism, she made herself out to be worse - more consciously racist, hateful and offensive - than she was.
She probably didn’t see the burqa as suggesting anyone’s death and intended it to mean precisely what her critics alleged: the risible other’s general degradation for lying outside ‘our enlightened culture’. The barbarity of other people, the benighted beings of the dark corners of the earth. She saw the burqa empty, merely picked it up out of an existing joke vocabulary on television, felt nothing but amusement and contempt looking at it, and employed it casually as referring to nothing significant, or nothing whose significance could compare to her cleverness and its triumph over a rival blogger. Her racism was not the extreme and extraordinary deliberate malicious enjoyment of - a deliberate attempt to induce others to laugh at - other women’s deaths, or the threats of death under which other women live, but the more common imperious and masterful disregard of other women, the masterful right to create and define and ignore and deploy others as mere toys of her intellect at will, undergirded by the more common racism that latches onto and feeds on mere white middle class spectatorial solipsism and egotism and invests little in any particular racist construct other than white individuality and perpetual white bumpkin innocence.
But in mounting her defence of herself, this very egotism itself required she pose not only as innocent of bad intent but especially righteous and more noble than her accusers. They had to be the ones afflicted with flippancy, selfishness and insufficient principle, and she boldly standing up for Woman against not only what she described as the “patriarchal urge” to demean and shame women exhibited by Althouse but against the Threats Of Death to which Althouse’s remarks are precisely equivalent in her view. She had to elevate her enemy in this instance to justify and ennoble her gesture from “a joke” to daring knight errantry. Rather than admit to an all too common class supremacist disregard, the result of indoctrination and television watching, she inadvertantly condemned herself as positively maliciously racist in her confused and hasty attempt to portray herself as the daring chivalric saviour of the women whom she disappeared not really out of malice but out of instinctive contempt nourished by egotistical self-involvement.
This would be trivial if it were not such a detailed and elaborate example of a ubiquitous process.
Furthermore the belated significance of “coercion by threat of death” attributed to that element of her picture is a cranking up of the egoistical pathos generated by the manoeuvre of surrogacy the picture involves. The first obvious articulation is “Althouse is trying to cover my face!”; she ramps this up to “Althouse is trying to murder me!” The disappeared women in burqas are fungible carries of her own victimised self, appointed her surrogates, and their pain is co-opted and claimed, thus justifying Amanda’s anger, self-pity etc. She herself (through BurkaGurl via “Woman”) is threatened with death by another blogger. How can you demand her rhetorical disarmament in such a situation? If she must use racism, if she must sacrifice Afghan women, or you, in her war against Althousian terror, she must. She is engaged in urgent and desperate self-defence.
really amanda and althouse are a pair, unwittingly conspiring to conceal reality, belittle important matters by inflating trivia, in order to maintain the bedrock of US empire apology. In a pr event for Clinton, they both see in his toadies nothing but an opportunity to argue about the comparatively trivial matter of women’s attire, to toss hyperbole back and forth, to display their own ‘political’ views as t-shirts and lifestyle choices. It is not a unque case: Amanda is also fascinated, as instructed by teevee to be, with Foley’s sexual conduct. She shows no interest whatsoever in what may be his role in the support for Wahhabist regimes or anything else of moment; that he may be a mass murderer of women is not a concern; she is interested in his sexual conduct because that’s what’s on television. That’s ‘the news’. That’s what may decide which Taleban general becomes the next White House Taleban Chief. She writes that Foley ‘preys on children’. Children. Well, if we’re really talking about sexuality outside Althouse’s neo-victorianism, why does Amanda characterise sixteen year old males as children, in sexual terms? Are males reaching puberty at seventeen these days? In this context children is a tendentiously chosen term for minors. Children of sixteen, that is, young men of the same age as a considerable number of Taleban fighters whose threats to Bill Clinton and the American establishment must not be underestimated….
Piet –
the ppl drydock complains of a teensy weensy little minority. they have zippo in terms of power. THEY ARE NOT HANGING OUT AT THIS BLOG.
my rule here is: you discuss what we are discussing; you talk to us and not your fantasy. drydock did the same thing as greenunconsciousness (linked to on the Open Mock thread). Her and drydock’s enemies are elsewhere. They need to go there and argue with them.
My rule here, then, is: using logical fallacy repeatedly — *especially* poisoning the wells of discourse — will get you booted.
What always cracks me up about you piet is you’re constantly chastizing ME — you have web pages devoted to scolding me dude — for not being concerned enough about war and etc.
fuck off.
Aaaah, but i brought you chabert diddunai? That connection worked as easy as the abc of a little strategic crosslinking. Now we’ll wait and see what i may have left to be pissed off about. You not following up quietly dropped hints perhaps, about Andrew Lehman, Lawrence Chin, Robert Sapolsky, Chris Knight, Chris King .. .oh, i got a nice one for ya by way of him (who’s group called sexualparadox is on hiatus by the way):
The more I hear about the prevalence of female bisexuality the more it makes an interesting comparison with bonobo society. Female-female pleasuring has very different social and reproductive implications than male homosexuality. Much more integrated into the strategies between the sexes. Female bonobos bond and it alters the whole sexual reproductive strategy of the species, in favour of female coalitional power, without any issues of exclusive homosexuality entering into the picture. The females have orgasmic mutual contact but the males just do a bit of penis fencing, and rub their scrotums together to appease and ease tension. The question is how much human evolution was affected by female bisexuality as a bonding resource strategically between females, and how much overall this freaked the men in terms of power play. Even 27 times more likely is still only a moderate percentage even in a society claiming to make an issue out of sexual exploration so it may not have had a defining effect … but still … It’s a different situation from the claims of born-again male homosexuality which don’t stand up to very close scrutiny as only 21% of male gayness can even indirectly be attributed to genetic effects through the fertile mother and serial brother effects. -
“What always cracks me up about you piet is youââŹâ˘re constantly chastizing ME ââŹâ you have web pages devoted to scolding me dude”
shekes, ain’t that just like a woman, twisting admiration (of a beauty found in her words and the reach out, not to add the hopefully finishing touch for perfection but just to bring fuel to a very efficient fire) into a verbal assault. So ‘ll go some find some other shit to help biodigest with my soggy logs, scuse me, i scurry i scoot, i hurry i loot, i chastise i boot . .. off. Time’s up to day.
The upshot of “the joke” is a joke on all of us, politics as a joke, as a glossy magazine political quiz, with menu; you make your choices to adorn yourself in politics, in t-shirt ideas. Answer these questions and then rate yourself on the scale below!
Question 1: If offered the honour of dining with former President Clinton, what ought a feminist wear?
and so forth.
Since we have now satisfactorily distinguished ’symbols’ and ‘instruments,’ I’d like to focus on ‘ultimate’ for a second. I expect that women in Afghanistan experienced more violent oppression from the utter destruction of the economy and the intense militarization of life during the war than they did from the burqa. There still appears to be no economy and the militarization continues unabated. The armed coercion of the Afghanis into the the global circuits of commodity production looks to me like the most salient issue for folks in the U.S. who want to support Afghani women’s struggle against oppression.
And since there people who know more than I do about these subjects are participating in this discussion, isn’t islamic affinity of the Taliban more Deobandi than Wahhabi?
The money and the politics are from the Washington Christian-Wahhabist alliance.
Theologically, I really know zip, but it could be that Mullah Omar is no greatly respected Islamic scholar either. The madrassas in which the Taleban train were established not by scholars of Islam but British and American secret service people. Paramilitary science was undoubtedly dominant over theology in the education of Taleban.
Here is something mebbe useful. I posted from the article above but it seems not to have been approved:
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq2.html#3
III. The Taliban: An Islamic Movement?
A full refutation of the notion that the Taliban is an Islamic movement would require an extensive discussion of Islamic principles based on authoritative scholars and sources, compared to the documented facts of Taliban policy. Unfortunately this important issue falls beyond the scope of this paper, and so cannot be tackled here with the necessary depth.
However, it may still be noted here that the TalibanââŹâ˘s status as a genuinely Islamic movement is at the very least highly questionable ââŹâ there are very few Muslim scholars who would agree that the policies discussed above constitute Islamic policies. As pointed out by former US Congressman Paul Findley ââŹâ Chairman Emeritus of the Washington-based Council for National Interest and Chairman of the Illinois-based Human Relations Commission - the Taliban ââŹĹcalls itself ââŹËIslamicââŹâ˘, but its regulations directly violate some of the most cherished principles of the Islamic faith.ââŹÂ[25] Indeed, most Muslim scholars do not ratify or condone Taliban-like repression or atrocities. For instance, the Pakistani newspaper, the Daily Star, reports that ââŹĹIslamic scholars in neighbouring Pakistan say the TalibanââŹâ˘s laws reflect tribal traditions more than Islamic tenets.ââŹÂ[26] Abdullahi An-NaââŹâ˘im, a Muslim and US-based legal scholar, challenges the Taliban claims that their edicts come from the QuââŹâ˘ran. He writes, ââŹĹUnless Muslims [condemn these policies and practices] from an Islamic point of view as well, the Taliban will get away with their false claim that these heinous crimes against humanity are dictated by Islam as a religion.ââŹÂ[27] Indeed, the Associated Press further reports the little known but important fact that while the ââŹĹTaliban have imposed their harsh brand of Islamic Laws on the 90 per cent of Afghanistan they ruleââŹÂ in actual fact, ââŹĹIslamic scholars elsewhere say that the TalibanââŹâ˘s laws are based more on tribal traditions than the Koran, IslamââŹâ˘s holy book.ââŹÂ[28]
In a useful study of Taliban policies in comparison with a wide-ranging survey of Islamic thought and culture, American journalist Robin Travis points out that ââŹĹas to whether the TalibanââŹâ˘s practice of Islam is the pure form of Islam, we can see that there is much debate on the interpretation of the QurââŹâ˘an…. Thus far, we have been able to determine that there are many interpretations of the QurââŹâ˘an and many definitions of the religious practice of Islam. What we can also see here, is that the majority of those who practice this religion, do not interpret the QurââŹâ˘an as endorsing oppression and abuse of women.ââŹÂ Travis thus concludes from her ââŹĹresearch and discussion of the practice of the Islamic faith that the Taliban are practicing an extreme version of Islam, because other forms and practices do not include the oppression of women… The Taliban has clearly manipulated the QuââŹâ˘ran to serve its own purposes in causing abuse and hardships on women.ââŹÂ[29]
The Muslim WomenââŹâ˘s League concurs with this analysis, observing that the ââŹĹTalibanââŹâ˘s insistence on secluding women from public life is a political maneuver disguised as ââŹËIslamicââŹâ˘ law. Before seizing power, Taliban manipulated and used the rights of women as tools to gain control of the country. To secure financial and political support, Taliban emulated authoritarian methods typical of many Middle Eastern countries. The TalibanââŹâ˘s stand on the seclusion of women is not derived from Islam, but, rather, from a cultural bias found in suppressive movements throughout the regionââŹÂŚ The QurââŹâ˘an and the examples of the first Muslim society give the Muslim WomenââŹâ˘s League a voice to state that the current manipulation of women to serve geo-political interests, in Afghanistan or elsewhere, is both unIslamic and inhumane.ââŹÂ[30]
A representative example of the TalibanââŹâ˘s actual contempt for basic Islamic edicts is one of the numerous issues noted by the United Nations Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights, in Afghanistan: ââŹĹThe Special Rapporteur was informed by scholars that it was a religious obligation in Islam to acquire education and that deprivation of education constituted a disobedience of Islamic principles. The view was expressed that the motivations for banning female education on part of the Taliban were neither legal, financial or based on security but were probably politically motivated. One of the most serious consequences of the conflict in Afghanistan was the brain-drain of its educated people.ââŹÂ[31]
The authoritative UN report further confirmed: ââŹĹIt should be recalled that the Taliban have a highly idiosyncratic vision of Islam that has been disputed by numerous Sunni Islamic scholars as representing at best a tribal rural code of behaviour applied only in some parts of Afghanistan of which only one aspect is being exploited.ââŹÂ[32] Elsewhere, the report points out again that, ââŹĹThe Special Rapporteur heard persistent affirmations from qualified sources that the policies applied by the Taliban in the areas under their control did not constitute a correct interpretation of the Shariah (Islamic law) but were at best a narrow tribal and rural code of conduct in limited parts of Afghanistan.ââŹÂ[33]
Of course, the repression of women in Afghanistan is not something that was solely introduced by the Taliban, but had existed long before the concrete existence of this faction. Nevertheless, Taliban rule certainly led to the exacerbation of this repression.
Perhaps we should just call it a sect of American paramilitary terrorism with faintly pashtun inspired motifs .
[...] brownfemipower first bashed Amanda in a post that can be described with every Orwellian compound - duckspeak, doublethink, blackwhite, and so on. Bitch | Lab then upped the ante and claimed that Amanda was oppressing nonwhite women because the Taliban came to power with the help of the US. [...]
All I can say is, whoever this abstrac nonsense blogcharacter is, it is from that excerpt in 55, another fine example of what to call it: a complete failure to ‘get it’
all i can think of right now is the time someone joked about raping Amanda and the uproar that caused.
there, it was perfectly well understood that the guy who did it — jeffy poo was it? — didn’t understand that he was participating in a wider discourse.
here, on this issue? complete cluelessness!
blah.
there, on the rape issue, men would whine that women were hurting their fee fees by saying they were like rapists. Feminists in turn smacked down that nonsense.
here, on this issue, whites whine that peple are hurting their fee fees and that brown people have a lot of power tohurt their fees fees and they are abusing that power.
my head is spinnning again. where IS the freakin wrench to make is stop.
love,
Linda Blair
piet –
Aaaah, but i brought you chabert diddunai? …
———————————-
I believe BfP brought chabert here. Which is to say, chabert and BfP found one antoher, my posting at BfP’s place, and then me heading over to chabert’s (who I’ve know about BECAUSE of BfP since last NOVEMBER).
Shorter BitchLab: don’t flatter yourself.
*running and ducking*
“all i can think of right now is the time someone joked about raping Amanda and the uproar that caused.”
Maybe they just forgot to work in a burqa; without a burqa, rape is just rape. Boh-Ring!
It’s only funny if Amanda gets raped repeatedly, each time she goes up to Bill Clinton’s office, and each time after she is raped, she puts on more clothes. Sort of like Richardson’s Clarissa defending herself from Lovelace but with more rapes. Photoshopper, help! Make this visual sequence: You see Amanda: mini skirt, rape, jeans, rape, pannier hoop and corset, rape, combat fatigues, rape, spacesuit, rape, then finally the penultimate visual is Amanda in front of her computer, at that very online catalogue from which she has photoshopped before: you see the picture of the burqa, and her hand on the mouse, she fills in the “quantity box” with the number 7, and then clicks “order”. Then the last visual, Amanda’s now famous photoshop.
You see? You have to know your audience. The burqa is the wit. In itself it’s not a very funny story but with the burqa, you get the laugh.
Of course I intend no offence.
hey, what would you call longwinded inkguzzling differentation between degrees not very far apart on a real/wide sprectrum? Looks like the deeply personal (supersubjectivity training) Gchat has been joined by the a split second snaphot type take on the hairsharesplitsplat geopoli shityouwayshun.
Again, where’s that balancing point/region sharpness/expanse?
Gradualism ruling planets left the galaxy and forget to take their champion with them?
Why can’t i shake the feeling nobody (but me) dares take a step back for (despite/thanks to such detachment, more inclusive and allrounder ((than))) Spinozan take? Cause i am shying away from (real contact with) people more and more? Don’t nobody else trust their mental lense polishing skills or is this farther and farther divergence through further and further mediation inherently a curse on those who deal with distance other than primitivists and tribaloids that have developed and/or preserved enough permacultural tricks to tread lightly and or hardly have any detrimental impact at all do?
Then again, i could be suffering from a curse of some kind. Think Paul Laffoley on Gaudi’s basque/gypsy guernica type magnitude curse on the pre-WTC-site developers. His work to build some kind of seashell there early last century was broken off by (financier)folks whom he subsequently suspected of being out to steal his ideas ((something to do with bentonite sludges used to drill holes and then allowing concrete mixes to displace them, a process which allows hi-rise building to emerge from non solid ground which is odd enough (in the light of my ideas regarding rock dust ((ad))ministry). PL wants Gaudi’s design to go up as a way to end the curse and start the tangible part of its history thus inaugurating a revival of how he worked his crews and what i will call ‘to cure and mature technology’.
PL too has been uniquely free to get waaaay too much ahead of the pack to still (or again) be in sight (lapping us already) no matter how much and long ON allpixelnoplain site already.
ps: knowing about vs talking to (let’s split the differential, cleave the clinkon, cleart the air, stop the bommobbinge, raise, not raze, trees to very mature and ripe old age), love and understand me a bundle back, it won’t hurt; our psychic connection has potential cause you are every woman to me (though i sure wish i knew what you looked like).
Burqa on brown skin is not such a burden when understood as protection against (over)exposures such as (sandy) storms, too intense a dose of sunshine, etcetera.
Wit = pointing the way home and knowing you are making progress? No, that be joy, let’s try again .. . . pointing at childish rebellions .. . .or .. .a nervousness regarding the fact that you have to (or gladness you did just) manage to argue as if you never left home despite all hardship missing it causes, a thankfulness for memory and memorializing (memo realizing).
homestead = seashell = birthright ???
burqa === burden === birthing duty!!!!’
unfamiliar (and/or alienated AND/OR alienatING) wild as threat
befriended/reconciled/rescuing wild as protection
[...] And then there’s the feminist blogosphere veil/burqa thing - an evolution of last month’s Boob Thing. [...]
perversatility by burqa
http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/018558.html points to
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/a.....78,00.html inmate escapes under cover of burqa
subtext: burqa is cover for transies and homosexuals
Amongst the many virtues of the burqa are many that facilitate sexual freedom since males with all sorts of orientations can dress in ‘m too.
Today the big belligerent and bloodlusty blog ‘geenstijl’ — literally ‘no style’ with the connotation of being tasteless, which is a clear instance for one of those famous ‘geuzennamen’, nicks adopted with pride though originally scolds, in this case bycause they pay amateurs for ordinary row and riot footage and are creatively ‘grofgebekt’ (rough in the mouth - use coarse language). Besides all that they are car, money and israel lovers, though last mentioned love least explicit — shows a naked man with erection below lifted burqa made of american flag.
One line in the original text worth translating:
Maar is travestie na de good old pederastie niet de meest zuivere vom van homosexualiteit binnen de Islam?
But isn’t travesty after the good old pederasty, the most pur form of homosexuality inside Islam?
I’m enjoying the discussion here. I’m afraid I thought it was counterproductive elsewhere. The argument seemed to boil down to three points: 1. Amanda is white, 2. Colonizers have often rationalized colonialism by pointing at human rights, 3. We live in a world shaped by colonizers and dominated by their discourses.
To which my question is: “So what?” I don’t mean this flippantly. What does this mean, for those of us of all colors and ethnic backgrounds who want to talk about sexism and/or colonialism? To say that we live in a world shaped by colonizers just raises the question of how to reshape it. Stating these three points above, IMO, serves only to raise a whole bunch of questions and begin a discussion, not end one or get people to shut up.
About the burqa: I’d just like to say that it can’t be dismissed as a “garment” because it’s incredibly mobility-restricting (and it’s telling that it’s mostly worn in places where women are forced to wear it). It’s distinct from the hijab (plain old headscarf). So a burqa would be more along the lines of an extremely tight miniskirt that prevents you from walking, or ultra-high heels, or foot-binding–a physical impediment and imposed disability rather than a different form of dress.
Hi The Grouch!
Just want to be sure I understand, you are saying that it’s important to talk about all thee issues — 1 through 3 and have a conversation. Yes?
I’m rilly rilly tired, so I just wanted to be sure.
I think the person who did a really great analysis of this is Sunrunner at Majikthse’s thread (Lindsay)
She explained that hijab is the covering and the burqa as a variant of hijab.
And yeah, I think everyone here is really familiar with the restrictions on mobility and this really isn’t the issue.
What was an issue though, was the restrictions on mobility were THE primary focus when no one thought about bombs at a restriction on mobility. When Clinton was standing in that room, trying to get bloggers on board to help War Mongering Hillary, it is hard to understand why the biggest threat to women’s freedom wasn’t represented in the form of a gang rape of Jessica.
After all, it is a way for men to control women’s bodies and punish their sexuality, correct? After all, women are being raped in those countries (as they are here. But in this case, they are bing raped by US soldiers deployed to “save them”
Thus, in my view, the ultimate symbol of women’s oppression would have required the pic be photoshopped with J being gang raped.
Not funny, huh?
Just want to be sure I understand, you are saying that itââŹâ˘s important to talk about all thee issues ââŹâ 1 through 3 and have a conversation. Yes?
Yes.
About the burqa: I brought it up because some people (on this thread, I believe, but it’s possible I’m getting mixed up–it could have been at Happy Feminist’s blog) dismissed it as something like a fashion trend.
it is hard to understand why the biggest threat to womenââŹâ˘s freedom wasnââŹâ˘t represented in the form of a gang rape of Jessica.
Because it would be hard to Photoshop? Because it would be TOO real and TOO unfunny and TOO harsh?
I don’t think the burqa picture was meant to be laugh-out-loud funny, mind. I think it was meant to be the sort of biting satire that hurts. (It appears to have missed the mark!) And yes, the “ultimate symbol” of women’s oppresion would have been gangrape, but then that’s why someone who’s trying to be funny/snarky wouldn’t ever use an “ultimate symbol” of oppression. It’s sort of why Hitler moustaches are funny, and even swastikas can be incorporated into jokes if it’s done with care, but under no circumstances would a picture of a concentration camp ever be funny. I don’t think this is a sign of colonial mentality necessarily–isn’t it part of the nature of trying to deal with political subjects through humor?
And to clarify, I’m not saying that BfP is completely wrong to react how she did, or that her analysis was 100% unreasonable or anything. I’m just putting out another explanation.
Possibly I’m imagining things, but I’m seeing a Pile On Amanda! mentality here and elsewhere, and I have to wonder if some of that isn’t internalized misogyny directed at a prominent and loud-mouthed feminist. Of course Amanda’s not above criticism. I would be the last to say that. But it seems that there’s a personal tenor, especially in the light of your above posts, to these arguments. And I don’t mean “personal” in the sense of “taking racism personally,” which is justified and right. I mean “personal” in the sense of having something against Amanda personally and wanting to take the most uncharitable interpretation of whatever she says, possibly because of past arguments or personality conflicts. I don’t want to reduce the whole issue to a matter of trivial jealousies and hurt feelings, because it’s not, but at the same time blogging is a highly personality-saturated affair. And Amanda has a very distinct, vivid blog-personality. Which leads me to look askance on some of this criticism.
The Grouch –
you wrote: “internalized misogyny”
I know i’ve seen your handle. Is it at HF that I read you a lot or elsehwere?
I’ll try not to type reams. *grin*
1. what is being said, the enemy is White Mainstream Feminism which is actually simply a signifier for the Hegemony of Whiteness and Middle Classness in society and, in turn, in feminism — and thus the blogosophere.
2. I think that if you talk to and/or read the blogs of everyonein this discussion, they are people who are not white or not middle class or not heterosexual or some combination.
3. Awhile back Feministe was attacked for same. piny replied. piny took wee misstep. piny listened.
piny prob. listened because piny is not heterosexual and is a transman. piny has an experience that helped him *see* that the problem women face is *not* redicible to gender.
which is why i plucked out “internalized misogyny”.
not surprsingly, if a multiple system of oppression come to bear on your life there are more explanations that “internalized misogyny”. there are things such as race, class, ethnicity, imperialism, GLTBQ, disability and that the explanation for what is emerging as a *systematic* schism here devolve around those issues. Amanda’s critics are members of groups that are not oppressed by gender alone. “internalized misogyny” can’t explain it at all and is an attempt to explain it away. (not that you intend to do the latter, but there are feminists out there who’ve tried to make the same claim)
And while I welcome dialogue from people who really understand that this should be an opening to more discussion, I guess that at this blog, that’s pretty much where we’re at. the blog is specifically about how class, race, gender, ability, heterosexism, etc are integrated systems of oppression — though it may not be obvious to folks not familiar with a critique that was lodged at Mainstream White Feminism as early as 1979 with the publication of the The Combahee River Collective’s Statement. (there were actually earlier crits, but they were shoved aside by White Feminists who wrested control of the movement away from people who saw race and class and imperalism (there was a war going on!) as an important issue
hope that clears stuff up a bit.
and that was crap full of typos, but i was tired and couldn’t see ‘em if i tried. i should get a profrider to do it for me. *g*
You’ve probably seen me at HF.
ââŹĹinternalized misogynyââŹÂ canââŹâ˘t explain it at all and is an attempt to explain it away. (not that you intend to do the latter, but there are feminists out there whoââŹâ˘ve tried to make the same claim)
Oh, it wasn’t an attempt to explain it all away or provide a full explanation of any kind. But it seems to be PART of it. And it probably doesn’t exist apart from the (understandable) resentment about the co-option of feminism for imperialism by white people, including many white feminists.
Basically what I’m saying is, instead of people saying “I find this problematic in the light of the history of white imperialism’s tendency to justify itself through feminism,” I found many people saying/hinting “Amanda’s just a liberal colonialist, a White Mainstream Feminist ™ with no real respect for the concerns of women of color.” And I don’t think that’s at all fair or true. And I wonder if what leads people to make that judgment is a personality-based dislike of Amanda, whose blog personality is particularly distinct.
The Grouch –
I guess you can keep on wondering. When I find someone with a patent on mind-reading, I’ll let you know.
In the meantime, attributing personal animus or even hinting at as you do now, is a form of logical fallacy: an ad hominem argument (or hint at one as a form of rheotrical cleverness.) Typically, ti’s understood as a dishonest discourse that cannot be pressed into the service of constructuve engagement.
In the meantime, attributing personal animus or even hinting at as you do now, is a form of logical fallacy:
Sure it is. That’s why I didn’t say that whatever feelings they have for Amanda invalidate their arguments.
But feelings and motives are part of the subject of this argument over burqa-gate–namely, Amanda’s feelings, the feelings and motives of her defenders, and the feelings and motives of her critics. All of these have been dissected and argued over, by people who don’t know how to mind-read any more than you do. So, sorry, but I think it’s perfectly appropriate to ask what’s motivating so many of Amanda’s critics.
Iow, it’s illogical to bring up attacks on people’s motives–except for when the discussion itself is about motives. Which this discussion has been about. Should it be? Maybe not. But it has been.
The Grouch –
It is inappropriate to ask. If you want to engage an argument, then you engage it. You don’t suggest that they people are acting out of personal animus and you don’t insult their intelligence by stepping to the brink of logical fallacy by asking the question. It’s a rhetorical device that people flatter themselves with.
It’s not going to wash here. So, read the blog, find an argument, and argue with it. But suggesting that there are personal animuses involved is silly.
red the post on the main page right now. maybe you will ‘get it’. Am I regular reader of HF. Why yes I am. Did I link to her blog long before she linked back. Why certaintly.
I still criticized her for engaged in class bigotry. She’s quite admirable like that. We never came to any resolution at all, ind you. But it was clear to me that she wasn’t completely impervious to a discussion.
Finally, maybe you’ve not noticed, but this issues has been going on for a year now. Blow outs have happened at any number of blogs.
I have been accused of the same things. We all have. brownfemipower has to deal with her own bigoted ideas, etc.
Thus, it makes incredibly little sense — given that we’ve actually held each other’s feet to the fire — to actually make the accusation you made — let alone hint at it.
If you really want productive conversations, then you actually have to work at having them. Siddling toward unproductive commentary about people’s personal motivations, states of mind, petty jealousies, whatever is considered dishonest discourse and it has been recognized as such for 2500 years.
see also, poisoning the wells of discourse.
Oh, please. I understand quite well what the ad hominem fallacy is. I also understand that it doesn’t apply when you’re trying to make people’s feelings, consciousness, motives and prejudices the subject of the argument. Which you are. Which makes your feelings, consciousness, motives and prejudices fair gam. Don’t like it? Don’t speculate about what’s in people’s heads.
I’m way the fuck to the left of International ANSWER, thank you very much.
I understand quite well what the ad hominem fallacy is. I also understand that it doesnââŹâ˘t apply when youââŹâ˘re trying to make peopleââŹâ˘s feelings, consciousness, motives and prejudices the subject of the argument. Which you are. Which makes your feelings, consciousness, motives and prejudices fair gam. DonââŹâ˘t like it? DonââŹâ˘t speculate about whatââŹâ˘s in peopleââŹâ˘s heads.
I completely agree with the Grouch on that. The ad hominem is a fallacy when it’s a personal attack that doesn’t pertain to the argument. In this case, the very argument is that Amanda is white, and so has been insensitive. If she were Afghani, blogging about the Jessica Valenti issue from Afghanistan, well perhaps some Afghanis would still have been offended, but I don’t know if American women of color would have been.
It’s not a one-way street. You’re appealing to people’s sensitivity to other groups and their feelings (”fee fees”), but then you say that people who are called racist are “whining about their fee fees!” when they feel hurt by that (the wussies! what hurts about being called racist?). It’s hypocrisy. “Aww! Poor baby!” You don’t think the word “racist” is a word that cuts, or that you shouldn’t scream “racist criminal!” without good reason?
This happens too often to dismiss in some facile way. We could script it by rote: 1) comedian (or movie, book, article, whatever) makes joke that touches on race. 2) Source of joke is called “racist.” 3) Source of joke is angered at being called racist, feels policing will leave him or her the puppet of anyone who feels like calling “racist,” whether it’s well-grounded or just someone who likes to control-freak people.
Now, can we please re-write 4) ? Because for each side to simply scream that the other is stupid (or that the other is proving that they are obviously racist or a control freak) gets absolutely NOTHING accomplished. A better idea might be to reflect that, since this happens constantly, there may be more sensitivity required on both sides. On the bad side, we have racist people in the world, who spread hatred with comments about people’s race. We also have comedians, like Richard Pryor or Lenny Bruce, if you don’t like Amanda, who need to push people’s comfort zones about race. I feel that, far from excusing them as bad people with explanation, no: They’re a positive good; comedians or satirists _need_ to do that, because without some danger or some pressing the comfort zones, we would have no humour at all allowed. We need them, in my opinion.
On the other hand, we have thoughtful people of color who do feel disrespected at real racism, and then on the bad side, we do have people who will take any excuse to yell someone down as racist or sexist, because it makes them look righteous or because they want to control-freak people, but who leave no dignity for the people they’re attacking. You can’t argue for respect by disrespecting people, or just repeating that those who disagree just must be too stupid to “get it.”
I understand that you’re on the lookout for racism too, and it’s hard to argue both for respect and dignity for people of color and for respect and dignity for the Lenny Bruces of the world to be able to open their damn mouth in the way they choose like a man or woman should be able to do, as long as they’re not criminal. But I think we have to increase respect for both sides, not just one.
“Productive conversations” must consist of listening to people, not just declaring those who disagree bad people. On the Majikthise thread, I began by being incensed that someone couldn’t tell a lousy joke without the world coming unglued, and got _really_ pissed off that the knee-jerk charge RACIST! was screamed at me. All that did was make me feel like lashing out in return. But the person who really made me think (sylviasrevenge, toward the end) was the person who very calmly SPOKE to me, but LISTENED to me as well, and addressed my thoughtful points with respect (although she doesn’t agree with me), which I hopefully did with her as well, after I calmed down. So the person who gave respect when calling for it turned out to be the best person on that thread, and certainly did more to increase respect than anyone else. We should all take her advice. Let go of this need to attack people. If they’re really the jerks you think, there’s no use talking to them; but if they’re not, then you’re doing them wrong to talk to them like they’re stupid lynch-rope toting racists, and you’re failing to convince people that might have become your allies instead of your enemies, people who you might have led if you had treated them with the respect and dignity you want them to give you. Assume the best of people instead of jumping to think the worst.
If that seems condescending in any way, I’m saying that as someone who started out on this very angry and even disrespectful too, from the other side, because I felt that instead of being really concerned with racism, someone was trying to make Amanda their bitch, and then me their boy, when I spoke out about it. But the discussion only became productive when people from each side began speaking to one another with respect, as one of my opponents in the debate was able to do. As one former hater to another, I suggest we all follow her path–you can’t increase the respect in the world by using disrespect, and you can’t fight hate with hate, as someone said.
and then on the bad side, we do have people who will take any excuse to yell someone down as racist or sexist, because it makes them look righteous or because they want to control-freak people, but who leave no dignity for the people theyââŹâ˘re attacking.
Oh–and in case that sounded racist, those people, as we’ve seen, are as often white as people of color.
no, you just seem like a jerk, not a racist.
as for the rest: feel freee to read BfP’s post and then summarize what she was saying and argue with it. until you do that, and do it by putting her argument in the best light possible, suck the 2 inch long hair growing out of the mole on my left labia.
its’ fuck feminists week here at bitch lab. join the Pah-Tay !
I never said anything about wanting to be entertaining. All I said was that people who live to increase the amount of mindless hatred in the world have no business lecturing anyone about anything.
‘k, thanks for sharing! “We value your opinion.”
btw, BL, this one isn’t a feminist he (?) sez.
but sie is very invested in not being anyone’s “bitch.”
apparently among the many many things sie has either not read or not really quite tweaked: the name of this blog…
p.p.s. 1984, dewd:
“You missed the funny part.”
Or, to be fair, perhaps I did. Famously, I have no sense of humor whatsoever.
some kind of award for getting through all of that without once (that I noticed) uttering the phrase “politically correct,” though.
All I said was that people who live to increase the amount of mindless hatred in the world have no business lecturing anyone about anything.
Did you ever actually read 1984? Cuz I remember something about doublethink and doublespeak in that, could you only get your hands on the cliff notes or something?
get up. shower. make coffee. look at mail. open bitchlab mailbox.
1984 and Belledame shoulda gotten a room. :)
It’s a constant source of amusement to me how many people think Orwell is their, like, partron saint or something, when they clearly don’t get his deal any better than they would’ve if they had been reading teh Babel translation via ancient Sumerian and Swedish Chef and then back again.My favorite is/are the right-wingnuts who think he’s all about BAD COMMIES! FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BETTER, yesyesyes.
“YES! WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!”
so, like I don’t know, but why isn’t 1984 blogging under zie’s Real Name ™.
like blogging under a nym just seems sooo dissruppppteeve to me.
Just so everyone on this thread knows, my web host decided to solve a problem we were having by moving the blog to a different server. about 35 posts were nuked during the transfer, including ones I’d made. I have copies of them in my bitchlab email, but I am far to lazy to edit the database to put them up at the mo’.