One of the most recent controversies in the feminist blogosphere is over the photo-shopped picture that Amanda over at Pandagon posted. Apparently, the young women who was in the front of the picture, Jessica Valenti, was criticized by conservatives for her informal attire and her breasts and I’m sure some other completely irrelevant things (Elayne alerted me to this debate earlier.). The conservative commenters also seemed anti-Semitic, as well. In response Amanda photo-shopped the picture to make it seem like Jessica was in a burka.
Not everyone took kindly to the use of the burka as the ultimate symbol of patriarchy. Brownfemipower at Women of Color Blog, R. Mildred, at Punk Ass Blog, and Sly Civilian called Amanda out on her use of the burka as the ultimate symbol of oppression. R. Mildred was quick to point out the sort of Western imperialism associated with framing patriarchy as something that comes from “the third world” or the “Muslim world.”
You see, one of the ways the islamic patriarchy pushes hijab onto women who would otherwise prefer not to wear head scarfs or burkas or any of that stuff is to use the KultureKampf that western imperialists are waging against muslims as an excuse to guilt trip young muslim women into donning the patriarchy uniform that goes with the particular family’s cultural background.
And brownfemipower elaborates on how this sort of joking at the expense of women of color (in particular women living under a history of colonialism) is harmful.
Because it *is* pretty funny isn’t it? The comparing of an asshole to the Taliban. But in Pandagon’s rush to make a cheap joke at the expense of women of color (because good lord, the *real* problem with anti-sex feminists is that they want to turn white women into the OTHER), Pandagon forgot something small but very important: they are feminists from and blogging within a colonizing nation. A colonizing nation that is in the process of bombing the holy hell out of the very women that they find so easy to make fun of.
In defense of Amanda, she was quick to apologize, which I think is a relatively good response, considering many of the defensive reactions we have seen from liberal/progressive white bloggers lately.
This whole debate reminds me of an article I have my students read when I teach “Race, Ethnicity, and Gender.” The article is called “The Burka and the Bikini” and the authors are Joan Jacobs Brumberg and Jacqueline Jackson. The article was published in the Boston Globe just after the fall of the Taliban in 2001. In this article Bumberg and Jackson argue:
THE FEMALE BODY – covered in a burka or uncovered in a bikini – is a subtle subtext in the war against terrorism. The United States did not engage in this war to avenge women’s rights in Afghanistan. However, our war against the Taliban, a regime that does not allow a woman to go to school, walk alone on a city street, or show her face in public, highlights the need to more fully understand the ways in which our own cultural “uncovering” of the female body impacts the lives of girls and women everywhere.
Taliban rule has dictated that women be fully covered whenever they enter the public realm, while a recent US television commercial for “Temptation Island 2” features near naked women. Although we seem to be winning the war against the Taliban, it is important to gain a better understanding of the Taliban’s hatred of American culture and how women’s behavior in our society is a particular locus of this hatred. The irony is that the images of sleek, bare women in our popular media that offend the Taliban also represent a major offensive against the health of American women and girls.
During the 20th century, American culture has dictated a nearly complete uncovering of the female form. In Victorian America, good works were a measure of female character, while today good looks reign supreme. From the hair removal products that hit the marketplace in the 1920s to today’s diet control measures that seek to eliminate even healthy fat from the female form, American girls and women have been stripped bare by a sexually expressive culture whose beauty dictates have exerted a major toll on their physical and emotional health.
The authors are by no means defending the burka, but they note how American and western ethnocentrism do not allow us to see our own oppressive symbols:
Whether it’s the dark, sad eyes of a woman in purdah or the anxious darkly circled eyes of a girl with anorexia nervosa, the woman trapped inside needs to be liberated from cultural confines in whatever form they take. The burka and the bikini represent opposite ends of the political spectrum but each can exert a noose-like grip on the psyche and physical health of girls and women.
In many ways the burka and the bikini have similar outcomes. They can both be seen as symbols of the oppression of women. Unfortunately, Brumberg and Jackson don’t talk much about how colonialism and capitalism intersect to place women in poorer countries in an vulnerable position compared to their counterparts in wealthy countries.
I struggle with this sort of ethnocentric thinking all the time in my classes. The ability to look inward at one’s own culture or group is very difficult, especially for those of us who live in the United States. The US has garnered such global domination that our norms are frequently understood and embraced by people in other countries.
The tension between feminism, cultural relativism, and ethnocentrism is real. Cultural relativism asserts that each culture should be judged by it’s own norms, and ethnocentrism is the idea that one’s own culture is normal, natural, and superior. On the one hand, as a feminist, I would like to be able to criticize the oppression of women everywhere, not just in my own culture, and cultural relativism in it’s most extreme form would not allow me to do that. On the other hand, I don’t want to be ethnocentric by ignoring the patriarchy in my own culture because it is so much more normalized to me. Beyond cultural relativism and ethnocentrism, I also need to be conscientious that as an American woman (and especially an American white woman) my ability to shape feminist discourse and ideology is much greater because of the current hegemonic position of the US. I think it is very important for women in a position like mine to avoid a patronizing “let’s help those poor women who can’t help themselves and save them from their evil patriarchal men” sort of attitude.
My sense is that this is all about a balancing act. If we find it easier to critique patriarchy in other cultures or are so self absorbed that we don’t even have a clue what issues women in poorer countries are facing, then our ethnocentrism needs to be put in check. On the other hand, if we stand back and say well that’s just their culture who am I to judge, then we really need to question our feminist credentials. I think one way for those of us in a more dominant position in the world system it is essential to avoid these traps is to listen to our fellow feminists in these countries and to ensure that leadership in our organizations is not dominated by western women. Additionally, (and I’m sure this is much more controversial) Western women also need to evaluate our position in relation to men in those poorer countries. The tendency to see ourselves as victims of patriarchy while ignoring or downplaying our nations’ dominant positions in the world system is a real problem. This is exacerbated when we fail to look inward at American patriarchy and global hegemony. Brownfemipower’s comments in the latter half of her post really exemplify a good critique of many of the types of problems that arise when we fail to balance relativism, feminism, and hegemony. (For clarity’s sake, I am not critcizing BFP here. I am supporting her critiques.) She says, referring specifically to Amanda’s post,
So when you go back to that picture, the manufactured one that centers the “humor” of a veiled woman of color, you start to notice things:
Like the fact that a feminist has otherized a woman of color to “defend” the sexuality of a white woman.
Like the fact that a veiled woman is understood to be so inherantly asexual that she stands in no danger of being sexually advanced upon by the former head of a colonizing nation/state.
Like the fact that the greatest “danger” being read into the picture is that white women will someday be devoid of her sexuality.
Like the fact that Arab men are positioned as what white men are in danger of turning into.
Like the fact that a female who is in no danger of having her skin melted off by a colonizing country’s bombs is using the otherization of a woman of color who lives daily with the threat of bombs destroying not just her, but her family as well, to make a “feminist” point.
Like the fact that feminist bloggers who are blogging out of Afghanistan and Iraq right now are taking considerable fucking risks to their lives and the lives of their families to get their word out, and yet fellow “sister” bloggers are using imagery of their subjugation to have a good laugh.
Typically, I focus more on race, but in these sorts of situations I think both race and western imperialism intersect in the process of marginalizing women in poorer nations. When I teach about this subject, there is not a big divide between US born white people and US born people of color. The bigger gap is between students from immigrant backgrounds (where either they or their parents were born outside of the US) and those from nonimmigrant backgrounds. Moreover, people have to be very careful, when we are talking about imperialism not to enforce our American definitions of race on people in other countries. The notion of a white/non-white dichotomy” doesn’t necessarily exist in every country of the world. I’m not saying race doesn’t matter; I am saying that being a citizen of the US and having all of your relatives reared or living in the US does tend to encourage this sort of hegemonic (domineering) mentality that accompanies ethnocentrism.
So back to those bikinis and burkas, is it fair to say that they are both used to promote patriarchal images of women? I think the answer is yes, but I also wonder if there is anything inherent in either item that makes them oppressive. I’m not sure if it is the object itself or the ideology that these objects are used to promote. The manifestations of sexism often vary across cultures, and we (women in wealthy nations) need to continually remind ourselves that our culture’s sexism is hard for us to see because it is so normalized. it doesn’t mean we can’t critique other cultures, but it does mean we need to listen and incorporate the perspectives and experiences of women in other cultures, especially non-western cultures and poorer nations.
I don’t have any simple answer that solves this whole problem, but I just wanted to give some food for thought. (Plus, I need to practice my lecture for next semester’s “Race, Ethnicity, and Gender” class.) The tensions between US hegemony, ethnocentrism, cultural relativism, and feminism are very real.
Bibliography
Brumberg, J.J. and J. Jackson. 2003. “The Burka and the Bikini.” Pp. 212-214 in Estelle Disch (ed.) Reconstructing Gender: A Multicultural Anthology, 3rd. ed.
Daran wrote:
Okay, so you think what you wrote should be read in a way that gives you the benefit of the doubt. Fair enough. But later in the same post….
Not a moment is spent considering whether or not this “unstated” premise is actually a premise that Blackamazon believes in – even though it’s extremely doubtful that she believes it. So the benefit of the doubt that you (Daran) think should extend to what you wrote, you don’t extend to what Blackamazon wrote.
“Typical” feminists don’t get into these arguments with MRAs at all. I have no idea what your measurement of “typical” is, but I suspect it boils down to something like “those feminists who most offend, and thus attract the most attention from, MRAs.”
Because you see all feminists as the same, without actually knowing much about feminism, your criticisms tend to be hamhanded and offbase. For example: Black feminists – and in particular those who describe themselves as womanists, as Blackamazon does (comment #44) – have historically positioned themselves against separatist feminists over the question of how to think of men (among other issues, most importantly the issue of racism within the feminist movement). The idea that men are always the enemy, and never victims of oppression, is an idea that womanists have argued against — while still criticizing misogyny and sexism among men.
Pingback: Denying, Dismissing, Minimising, and Ignoring the Harm to Men « Creative Destruction
curiousgyrl, I’ve replied to you here. It’s too long for a comment here, and I’d only be accused of hijacking the thread anyway.
Ampersand:
Hold on a mo. I did not retreat from the wider interpretation, despite it not being what I originally meant. I’m prepared to defend it; I merely asked you to clarify my burden of proof.
The premiss is implied by what she wrote. In rejecting the proposition that “we should support this war, expand it into Iran and Saudi Arabia, blow up the patriarchy everywhere possible”, she listed her objections through a serious of rhetorical questions:
She could have said “hundreds of thousands of men and women”, but she didn’t. over 90% of the deaths in Iraq do not feature in her objections.
On the contrary. Feminists who engage with “MRAs” tend to deny, dismiss, or minimise”. When not engaging with “MRAs” they frequently ignore.
A typical feminists is anyone you agree is a feminist. (So it excludes McElroy, Young, etc.). I asked you a while back if you could identify any feminist who had blogged honestly about the targetting of men for slaughter in Iraq, and you admitted that you couldn’t. The challenge is still open, but I would exclude your own blogging since then.
In my [recent post on Creative Destruction], I gave examples of how feminists do each of the four behaviours I outlined – denial, dismissal, minimisation and ignoring. You say that feminists aren’t all the same? I say that, whatever other differences there may be in this respect they are the same. I’ve produced examples. You haven’t come up with a single counterexample.
Pingback: The SmackDog Chronicles » Blog Archive » On Boobs, A Boob, A Really Bad Burqa Joke, and Liberal Cultural Imperialism (Part One)
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive »
Pingback: Bitch | Lab » It’s open mock at Bitch | Lab
Pingback: Bitch | Lab » Saving brown women
Pingback: Feminist Critics