And the end bit of Sisters in Arms (http://dsudis.livejournal.com/495600.html#cutid1):
"It's different here?" Sam asked. "Women aren't allowed to fight?"
Sha're looked up at that, and gave a wry smile--not the least bit downtrodden, not remotely oppressed and seeking to be made free, not again. She looked proud, and weary, and said only, "We have our own battles. We carry other weapons."
From a liberal American perspective, where all women are characterized as completely equal and identical to men - ideally, anyway - or the oppressed needing to be "freed", like the author said... it's interesting.
From a liberal American perspective, where all women are characterized as completely equal and identical to men - ideally, anyway - or the oppressed needing to be "freed", like the author said... it's interesting.
Yeah, there are fundamental problems with just about everything in that liberal ideal/goal for women, from what different groups of women with varying levels of privilege actually want "equal" to mean for themselves and for each other, to the anti-trans implications in strict nurture-over-nature interpretations of gender held by a good number of the people calling themselves radical feminists (I would not consider anyone feminist, period, who clings to transphobic views; I have failed at exactly that type of intersectionality before and have since repudiated that transphobia)... the themes of "Sisters in Arms" remind me strongly of what's covered in "How to Write About Muslims (for real)" (http://muslimahmediawatch.org/2009/03/04/how-to-write-about-muslims-for-real/) at Muslimah Media Watch, especially
Rule #1: Don’t assume that Muslim women need to be saved, or that you know how to save them.
By making this assumption, what one is essentially doing is:
* Assuming that all Muslim women are somehow oppressed at the hands of their fellow Muslims. The Muslim community is just as diverse as any other. By generalizing in such a way, one maligns the entire community, including the women. This is offensive to the many women who are treated with respect and equality by their fellow Muslims, including Muslim men. This assumption also ignores the forms of oppression that Muslim women may be facing from outside of the Muslim community, such as racism and Islamophobia (or even war and occupation, in cases like Iraq and Afghanistan), which for some women can be much more disastrous than anything they experience from their Muslim community. * Assuming that Muslim women can’t take care of themselves. This is very patronizing. Muslim women have agency, and a great deal of it. Throughout history and today, Muslim women have been taking various forms of leadership. In situations where women are being oppressed, they are resisting in all sort of ways that the media doesn’t always think about. Additionally, most Muslim countries have Muslim women’s organizations that are working hard to support themselves and other women. * Assuming that what you’re going to do for them is going to be helpful. The assumption is that you know better than them what’s good for them. It also suggests that you are actually in a position to help them, which might not be true.
(More on that from another MMW writer at "Truth or Propaganda: Muslim Women Need to Be Saved" (http://muslimahmediawatch.org/2009/01/21/truth-or-propaganda-muslim-women-need-to-be-saved/) and "We want more of the oppressed, helpless Muslim woman." (http://muslimahmediawatch.org/2008/07/16/we-want-more-of-the-oppressed-helpless-muslim-woman-2/))
All told, this kind of thing is why I've come to distrust liberalism in general (as opposed not to conservative but to progressive or radical or liberationist, as Jessica Hoffmann notes in her last footnote to "On Prisons, Borders, Safety, and Privilege: An Open Letter to White Feminists" (http://avp-virginia.blogspot.com/2008/04/on-prisons-borders-safety-and-privilege.html)), and also a lot of white middle-class feminism (a good example of this is popular white fantasy author Tamora Pierce's post complaining about some women of colour choosing not to call themselves "feminists" after some massive examples of racist fail in feminist blogging and publishing; Seeking Avalon's May 1, 2008 entry under this tag (http://seeking-avalon.blogspot.com/search/label/respectfully%20disagree) is a short but powerful open-letter response by Avalon's Willow, who identifies as black, an immigrant, and gay).
I've read the open letter before and you're right, it's several punches to the gut.
Of course, the other nasty bit about the American view of Muslim women - i.e. backwards and oppressed - is that the real problems about gender inequality in the Muslim community - as Faith said, the things that need to be given a "cold, hard look in the mirror" about - are so often used as excuse for American behavior towards Muslims, and conduct in the Middle East, but ignored when it's not profitable to us. We invaded to bring democracy and freedom! Or something. Because the Taliban oppress women (true) and they wear those scarf things and have oil! So there.
Of course, the other nasty bit about the American view of Muslim women - i.e. backwards and oppressed - is that the real problems about gender inequality in the Muslim community - as Faith said, the things that need to be given a "cold, hard look in the mirror" about - are so often used as excuse for American behavior towards Muslims, and conduct in the Middle East, but ignored when it's not profitable to us. We invaded to bring democracy and freedom! Or something. Because the Taliban oppress women (true) and they wear those scarf things and have oil! So there.
Indeed.
On Darfur, for example: silence.
We don't invade Darfur.
Yeah. Interestingly enogh, a while ago I was reading this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301714.html) in the Washington Post on post-colonial portrayals of Africa in Western humanitarian campaigns and news media.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Re: oh, I forgot to note: SCC episodes are .avi format!
Date: 2009-05-02 02:37 am (UTC)"It's different here?" Sam asked. "Women aren't allowed to fight?"
Sha're looked up at that, and gave a wry smile--not the least bit downtrodden, not remotely oppressed and seeking to be made free, not again. She looked proud, and weary, and said only, "We have our own battles. We carry other weapons."
From a liberal American perspective, where all women are characterized as completely equal and identical to men - ideally, anyway - or the oppressed needing to be "freed", like the author said... it's interesting.
"We have our own battles. We carry other weapons."
Date: 2009-05-02 06:01 am (UTC)Yeah, there are fundamental problems with just about everything in that liberal ideal/goal for women, from what different groups of women with varying levels of privilege actually want "equal" to mean for themselves and for each other, to the anti-trans implications in strict nurture-over-nature interpretations of gender held by a good number of the people calling themselves radical feminists (I would not consider anyone feminist, period, who clings to transphobic views; I have failed at exactly that type of intersectionality before and have since repudiated that transphobia)... the themes of "Sisters in Arms" remind me strongly of what's covered in "How to Write About Muslims (for real)" (http://muslimahmediawatch.org/2009/03/04/how-to-write-about-muslims-for-real/) at Muslimah Media Watch, especially (More on that from another MMW writer at "Truth or Propaganda: Muslim Women Need to Be Saved" (http://muslimahmediawatch.org/2009/01/21/truth-or-propaganda-muslim-women-need-to-be-saved/) and "We want more of the oppressed, helpless Muslim woman." (http://muslimahmediawatch.org/2008/07/16/we-want-more-of-the-oppressed-helpless-muslim-woman-2/))
All told, this kind of thing is why I've come to distrust liberalism in general (as opposed not to conservative but to progressive or radical or liberationist, as Jessica Hoffmann notes in her last footnote to "On Prisons, Borders, Safety, and Privilege: An Open Letter to White Feminists" (http://avp-virginia.blogspot.com/2008/04/on-prisons-borders-safety-and-privilege.html)), and also a lot of white middle-class feminism (a good example of this is popular white fantasy author Tamora Pierce's post complaining about some women of colour choosing not to call themselves "feminists" after some massive examples of racist fail in feminist blogging and publishing; Seeking Avalon's May 1, 2008 entry under this tag (http://seeking-avalon.blogspot.com/search/label/respectfully%20disagree) is a short but powerful open-letter response by Avalon's Willow, who identifies as black, an immigrant, and gay).
Re: "We have our own battles. We carry other weapons."
Date: 2009-05-02 08:49 pm (UTC)Of course, the other nasty bit about the American view of Muslim women - i.e. backwards and oppressed - is that the real problems about gender inequality in the Muslim community - as Faith said, the things that need to be given a "cold, hard look in the mirror" about - are so often used as excuse for American behavior towards Muslims, and conduct in the Middle East, but ignored when it's not profitable to us. We invaded to bring democracy and freedom! Or something. Because the Taliban oppress women (true) and they wear those scarf things
and have oil! So there.On Darfur, for example: silence.
We don't invade Darfur.
Re: "We have our own battles. We carry other weapons."
Date: 2009-05-02 09:28 pm (UTC)have oil! So there.Indeed.
On Darfur, for example: silence.
We don't invade Darfur.
Yeah. Interestingly enogh, a while ago I was reading this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301714.html) in the Washington Post on post-colonial portrayals of Africa in Western humanitarian campaigns and news media.