Please reblog so I can follow you.
This is not to say that I won’t continue to work until everyone, from every walk of life, is able to enjoy all the rights and privileges that a human being deserves. This is also not to say that I will be identifying myself with any anti-feminist movements. I am simply going to strive to be a compassionate person. It’s funny, actually. It seems that there needn’t be a movement for that at all, rather it should simply be the way things are.
Lately, I have noticed that the feminist movement has really diverged from my initial understanding of it. Many feminists are arguing back and forth, or with potential assets, over what is politically correct and what is offensive. Feminists claim to fight for sympathy, compassion, understanding and equality, but I’ve noticed that a large amount of discrimination and accusation actually comes from a lot of feminists. This place should be an outlet for discussion, but it’s really just a battlefield disguised as one!
Do you see what you are doing? You have one of the greatest tools in the history of the world at your fingertips. You have the power to reach out to thousands of people with your words in less than 24 hours! Lucretia Mott and Emma Goldman would have lunged at the opportunity to spread awareness through such an incredible tool as the internet. Do you think they would have used their words as hateful artillery toward people who only wanted to help, or even to those who disagreed? I doubt it.
One thing I would like to address, as I have previously, is the use of the word “privilege” as an argumentative strategy. I think it is important to make you all understand how that turns a person off to your movement, and how not only is it a fallacious argument — it is completely antithetical to the principle of understanding, which is so important if you want to spread your ideas to others. You can’t really begin to understand a person’s privileges until you understand them as a person.
Someone being a white male does not automatically make them “privileged”. Someone having a job does not make them “privileged” by default. Until you have asked about a person’s struggles, you cannot accuse them of being “privileged” based solely on the fact that they are able-bodied.
I have discussed this in detail before, but a lot of people have accused my boyfriend of being “privileged”, and yet he does still identify with the feminist movement. People have used this term without asking him about his life. Did they know he was homeless for a time? Did they know that he suffers from an anxiety disorder? Did they know he experienced some abuse in the home when he was a child? Or do these things not matter, simply because he is a white male who now has a home, with food on the table?
Some people are discriminating against some very valuable assets, and I for one consider it a miracle that these assets have chosen to remain with the movement.
What is the point of trying to convince us to join your movement if we are not allowed to speak because we are somehow “privileged”? What is the point of a movement at all if you cannot allow discussion?
I seriously doubt that this letter of renouncement will have much effect on the feminist community. But, I do feel that I am representing a large group of voices who have gone silent because of the staggering amount of in-fighting in the movement.
These are very real issues. Being a feminist doesn’t mean you can’t be a prejudiced shit head sometimes. Worth the read.
Sad, but I understand. I still call myself a feminist (well, sometimes) despite these issues, but it does bother me a lot.
I disagree with the OP’s definition of privilege (though I do agree that the ‘privilege card’ is overused and derails a lot of discussions), but otherwise this is spot-on. It’s good to know I’m not the only one who feels this way.
Arab women met on Thursday in Jordan to warn that religious fundamentalism poses a threat to women’s rights. As Ayaan says, “Radical Islam will be defeated by the emancipation of women.”
A very interesting article for all my feminist followers.
It is time for those who love liberal democracy to join hands with Islam’s reformists. Here is a clue to who’s who: Moderate Muslims denounce violence committed in the name of Islam but insist that religion has nothing to do with it; reformist Muslims, by contrast, not only deplore Islamist violence but admit that our religion is used to incite it.
Please read the whole article by extraordinary lesbian feminist and Canadian Muslim Irshad Manji before reacting to the quote above. I cannot wait for her new book, Allah, Liberty & Love.
If you feel too lazy to read a whole article, on the link there are also 3 short videos you should make sure to watch.
SNAP. SNAP. SNAAAAAP.
So much win.
|—||Ayaan Hirsi Ali|
Noor Al-Maleki’s murder was without honor, Steinle said. She was like any other 20-year-old woman whose desire for independence caused tension with her parents. Her father reacted with hatred rather than understanding, Steinle said.
He recounted lessons from Buddhism, Islam and Christianity, which preach forgiveness and compassion.
"For someone to say this crime was committed to restore someone’s honor, they really do not understand what religion is all about," Steinle said.
When I first read about Noor Al-Maleki I simply broke into tears. I am glad the father will have some time to think about what he’s done and question the concept of honor and shame that is unfortunately so prevalent back in his home country.
If you read this, please have a minute of silence for Noor Al-Maleki.
I’m always caught off guard by the support that Islam gets from liberals/progressives, when the tenets of Islam and the ways Muslims live today are very conservative in nature. Islamic societies are societies where women are stripped of their sexual and medical rights and treated as second-class citizens, where facts are ignored in favour of holy words, where conflicts are solved not by debates and concessions but by violence, where the poor are continuously exploited and deprived of opportunities and knowledge.
I understand the defense, though; Muslims and Middle Easterners in general are exploited and discriminated against by the “first world” and, in particular, there have been various military atrocities committed against them by America and Israel. However, we have to be able to draw the line between protecting innocent people and their freedom vs. protecting their backwards, harmful ideologies.
Modern Islam is conservative extremism.
*(Islam as it is in the world today, I don’t want any ridiculous culture vs. religion arguments)
Thank you, thank you, thank you. That said, I not only hope that my fellow Leftists go back on the track of protecting all women (not making an exception to certain cases because they happen to be Muslim, which to me is racism), but I also hope for more Muslims like The Fatal Feminist.
Anonymous asked:I keep seeing this photo around Tumblr and I’d like to see what you think of it: CFWG, or something more? Personally I’m torn. I think the photo stands to make an important comment, however when re-posted with comments like “The woman on the right is more oppressed”, I think people are taking it a step too far. The photo itself doesn’t ask who is more oppressed, it just places the two women side by side in a very interesting and though provoking manner.
She is and she isn’t. If I understand correctly, the point of her being blindfolded is to highlight just how ill-informed westerners are about islam. The figure’s blindness is a metaphor for the western world. And her naked body represents the embarrassment we should feel from our ignorance. I suppose you could also view it with a CFWG lens: here’s this chick who is blindfolded because she doesn’t care to see the rest of the world. Regardless, I don’t find it particularly evocative or interesting, so, I dunno.
I think it’s interesting how they’re inversions of each other. The Muslim woman is completely covered except her eyes, and the Western woman is uncovered and exposed except for her eyes.
Random tangent, but it reminds me of that song, Just a Girl by No Doubt: “Take this pink ribbon off my eyes; I’m exposed, and it’s no big surprise.”
I think this can definitely be a depiction of the issues of both, maybe even a sort of common basis for both cultures because both, in their own way, oppress women. Women in the West are told to be free and “allowed” to a certain degree to flout and embrace their sexuality, but they will still be judged and our society will maintain a sort of ignorance over them, this Western lens that completely blinds them to other ways of life, faith, thinking they’re free when really they’re still facing objectification and undermined for their sexuality.
Whereas, on the other hand, the Muslim woman is completely covered, discouraged from showing her body, taught that it is indecent because it tempts men and that her honor comes from keeping it concealed. She can see, but it’s still through the lens of her culture, and she can’t speak out about what she does see. I also think it illustrates the way they see each other based on how both cultures view womanhood and sexuality as well as tradition. Where a Muslim women might see Western women as being sexualized and dehumanized or even blindly participating in their own oppression, Western women may overlook the identity of a Muslim woman and see only an oppressed person hidden from the world and given no identity, regardless of if her garb is meaningful her, chosen, or not. Both, if biased by their own culture, would probably see the other as forced or coerced to make such dress decisions rather than making their own for their own reasons. Both are in the public eye, being looked on, being judged by others. Heh, the fact that people make value judgments on who’s more oppressed could actually be interpreted as a nasty attitude the picture is exposing. Bodies turned political and stripped of identity and autonomy.
So there’s bias in both directions really, and a message of institutional oppression in different forms as perceived by opposite parties. Pretty thought-provoking picture, I would say, and clearly controversial in its complexity.
Right now, thousands of Egyptian women who gathered to commemorate the centenary of International Women’s Day in the newly liberated Tahrir Square are being assaulted, harassed and brutalised. Not by Mubarak’s thugs, but by the men who lately stood beside them as equals on the barricades. As I write, images and reports are coming through on Twitter from women fleeing male aggression in the symbolic heart of what is already being called the Arab Spring. Speak it aloud, let it ooze over your tongue: how bitter does it taste?
“During the revolution, women weren’t women — they were simply Egyptians,” writes Egyptian journalist Ethar El-Katatney. “They stood right next to men to liberate their country… women will not — and cannot — go back to being silent.” It appears, however, that many Egyptian men would prefer their women to do just that — to shuffle back to their kitchens and stop demanding silly things like social equality and political representation in the new secular constitution of the country they have just reclaimed.
Solidarity has been the watchword of this global resistance movement, but some men seem slow to understand what that word really means. One cannot reserve solidarity for members of one’s own gender. The vomitous hypocrisy of turning patriarchal violence against one’s comrades in the same space where you fought state violence together just weeks previously should be obvious even to the mobs of men and boys currently chasing women through the streets of Cairo.