In my last post, I said I applaud Mona Eltahawy for gaining the readership she's gained. Not only that, as explained by Altmuslimah, she got a discussion going. Not only THAT, but I hope she's paving the way for Muslim, feminist journalists and writers on the world stage. That part is only a hope so far because to do so, she can't sacrifice her identity for success. That said, she doesn't need to represent every Muslim feminist out there but selling herself out will likely only cause a barrier for anyone wanting to follow in her footsteps.
I've been thinking recently about gaining a wider readership. And by thinking, I mean thinking of trying to get to that point myself. I don't intend to go via news or publishing corporations. That's not the only way to mass communication. At least, if those corps don't come to own the entire internet, it's not. And I'd like to come at it from a community organizer's point of view, where successful mass communication isn't muddled with the attitude of "trying to make a splash" like it has been for Mona Eltahawy.
In the meantime, I don't want to get lost in Muslim feminism. There's more to me than that. I've had the fortune of growing up in country where ideas flow freely and I can't forget that side of myself. I want to be a part of that free flow of ideas and there's more to my ideas, more to ME than my Muslim and feminist ideas. I want to be a poet so I can take those pieces apart and sew them back together into my favorite outfit. And when I figure out how to be a poet, I want to know how to get people to listen. The people who need it, at least. Who wants to sit around at home in her favorite outfit?
These are big dreams considering my current readership (I appreciate each of you deeply) but I've always been a big dreamer.
To touch base with another side of myself, (but mostly to direct you to something wonderful) I recently watched the premiere episode of HBO's Girls. I had to see what all the hubbub in the female and feminist blogosphere was about. Unfortunately, I was pretty upset about it. I don't even want to talk about it. I'm not watching any more of it if I can help it. I'd rather re-watch ABG.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Who is confused?
I seem to be taking a turn for the topical lately so, yes, let's talk about Mona Eltahawy. While I applaud her for gaining such wide readership, I think she needs to heed Uncle Ben's words that, "With great power, comes great responsibility."
A few weeks ago, I read her article, "Let me, a Muslim Feminist Confuse You," and found it highly relatable. Though she breaks down the Muslim feminist experience into milestones, including a "headscarves and hymens" moment, I don't entirely fit into, I agree that Muslim feminism causes confusion in most people and I like that confusion can and should function positively when it comes to busting stereotypes. For a long time, I wore hijab mainly for the performative aspect. I felt it was my duty to give people the chance to interact with a hijabi with a personality contradictory to the submissive, reclusive, even handicapped woman they perhaps expected. I wasn't sure then if hijab itself is empowering in some way but we can at least safely say that it pushed me to stand for something. From Eltahawy's article, it seemed she stood for something similar.
In the same article, she explains that her experience in Saudi Arabia caused her to be "done with Muslim men." Her Foreign Policy article, "Why Do They Hate Us?" appears to continue that thread of her Muslim feminist experience. However, two paragraphs later in her earlier article she says (emphasis her own),
It's extremely difficult to confront misogyny in someone like you care about. However, if you have a misogynist loved one, it becomes especially difficult to deal with the issue when they are also a member of a minority for which there exists demeaning stereotypes you don't want to further aggravate. Do you help yourself or do you help the minority community? At this point, Muslim feminists should read up on black feminist thought because there's a lot there that's relevant to this conversation. Whether Mona Eltahawy has done so or not remains unclear but her answer seems to be that you save yourself. In my personal opinion, I believe a woman (or man) has a right to chose who to save but that Eltahawy has a point in her inclusive tone if she means we should not alienate those who choose to save themselves.
Minority feminism aside, I have a few bones to pick with Eltahawy. First, the title, "Why Do They Hate Us," rings of post-9/11 "why do Arabs hate Americans." While I don't think believe that question has been properly addressed by anyone, I don't think this is the right place to bring it up. This is a stretch perhaps, but it seems to imply that the real hatred comes from conservative Muslim and Arab men and women and is directed toward progressive, liberal types such as Eltahawy. The implied Muslim/Western separationism also seems to imply liberals/progressives (or "westerners" in general. Or are all westerners liberal/progs?) are free of the yoke of sexism and that is direly untrue. It struck a thunderous chord with me when she says,
We'll talk about why Mona's target audiences needs to hear both from Muslims feminists (the types who oppose niqabs, though) and want to think of Muslim men as criminal others in another post.
A few weeks ago, I read her article, "Let me, a Muslim Feminist Confuse You," and found it highly relatable. Though she breaks down the Muslim feminist experience into milestones, including a "headscarves and hymens" moment, I don't entirely fit into, I agree that Muslim feminism causes confusion in most people and I like that confusion can and should function positively when it comes to busting stereotypes. For a long time, I wore hijab mainly for the performative aspect. I felt it was my duty to give people the chance to interact with a hijabi with a personality contradictory to the submissive, reclusive, even handicapped woman they perhaps expected. I wasn't sure then if hijab itself is empowering in some way but we can at least safely say that it pushed me to stand for something. From Eltahawy's article, it seemed she stood for something similar.
In the same article, she explains that her experience in Saudi Arabia caused her to be "done with Muslim men." Her Foreign Policy article, "Why Do They Hate Us?" appears to continue that thread of her Muslim feminist experience. However, two paragraphs later in her earlier article she says (emphasis her own),
"When I returned to Egypt at 21, I learned Muslim men were not the enemy after all, as progressive, liberal Muslim women and men helped me define my own place in Islam."If that is the case, what can Eltahaway's reason be for taking a leap backwards by reinforcing the stereotype that makes Arab men criminalized others? Because she both her decision to be "done with Muslim men" and later find some of them to be "not the enemy after all" were both out of experiences with Arab men but men from different countries, I have to recognize that she is not creating an evil Arab male monolith. I believe she is addressing a general cultural feeling that pre-dates Islam and expands beyond Arab culture. I have experienced it myself from all kinds of men. And from women, too. It's called misogyny, or the hatred of women.
It's extremely difficult to confront misogyny in someone like you care about. However, if you have a misogynist loved one, it becomes especially difficult to deal with the issue when they are also a member of a minority for which there exists demeaning stereotypes you don't want to further aggravate. Do you help yourself or do you help the minority community? At this point, Muslim feminists should read up on black feminist thought because there's a lot there that's relevant to this conversation. Whether Mona Eltahawy has done so or not remains unclear but her answer seems to be that you save yourself. In my personal opinion, I believe a woman (or man) has a right to chose who to save but that Eltahawy has a point in her inclusive tone if she means we should not alienate those who choose to save themselves.
Minority feminism aside, I have a few bones to pick with Eltahawy. First, the title, "Why Do They Hate Us," rings of post-9/11 "why do Arabs hate Americans." While I don't think believe that question has been properly addressed by anyone, I don't think this is the right place to bring it up. This is a stretch perhaps, but it seems to imply that the real hatred comes from conservative Muslim and Arab men and women and is directed toward progressive, liberal types such as Eltahawy. The implied Muslim/Western separationism also seems to imply liberals/progressives (or "westerners" in general. Or are all westerners liberal/progs?) are free of the yoke of sexism and that is direly untrue. It struck a thunderous chord with me when she says,
"...women are silenced by a deadly combination of men who hate them while also claiming to have God firmly on their side.""claiming to have God firmly on their side"?! Well, a judgmental note like that doesn't seem to imply progressive liberals are on the side of all Muslim women. It seems to imply that being a religious Muslim woman who looks to God for help means you can't be feminist, save yourself, or even have feminists on your side. So much for the confusion you promised, Eltahawy.
We'll talk about why Mona's target audiences needs to hear both from Muslims feminists (the types who oppose niqabs, though) and want to think of Muslim men as criminal others in another post.
Friday, April 13, 2012
For the love of God!
Have you heard of PeaceTV? It's 24 hour Islamic TV station broadcasting in India and Saudi Arabia and also available to U.S. and U.K. audiences. If you're Islamically and politically aware, I can understand your reservations. Though I knew it would probably air fairly conservative Islamic interpretations since it airs in Saudi, I actually liked the idea enough that I gave it a chance. There are definitely some very informative programs, though not very entertaining. It would seem that its lack of entertainment value conveys either a lack of commercial motive or a lack of flair for entertainment. I can look past that. Though there are shows featuring speakers openly claiming to be "fundamentalists," I was glad to hear the phrase " Islamic fundamentalism" reclaimed from the context of violence into one of edification. What's wrong with fundamentals?
But, from a seed of distaste for the network founder and star, Dr. Zakir Naek's pretentious recitation of chapter, verse, and line number with every Quranic reference, I began to wonder if something bothered me about his version of Islam and I had, for the sake of giving the network a chance, channeled my distaste into this triviality.
Dr. Zakir Naek has been accused by feminist Muslims of misogyny. This is to be expected since literal/orthodox interpretations of the Quran have, not to be repetitive here, a long historical tradition of refusing the reformist tradition suggested in contextual readings. In fact, misogyny is practically a prerequisite for ultra-conservative Muslims (and of every other ultra-conservative, it seems). That it can be found in Naek's interpretations and is present in his programming (in which grown women are only ever members of the audience) is just reflective of Naek's target audience. Of course, it simultaneously proliferates misogyny but I think it's more of a side effect. I like that people are speaking out against this misogyny because feminist Islam needs proliferation, and more of it, in my opinion. Still, to a certain extent, I can look past the misogyny, too. Questioning your religion is one of the scariest things a person can do to themselves psychologically and I understand the desire, especially of a religious person, to rely on what appears to be authority.
There is a show featuring, surprise!, Dr. Naek that has so far invited Christian and Hindu religious leaders to debate with audience questions. Not answer questions, but debate the answers. Rhetoric and logic are very big with Naek but, these being Socratic in age, it is not surprising that a network steeped in highly orthodox Islam favors them. Excuse me if I sound impatient here but if you're surprised that Muslims are into logic at all, your brain may be a subject of highly European conditioning. Or, you may be unaware that the Quran commands people ask questions, which are usually formed using logic, and learn. However, the debates in which religious leaders of other faiths are engaged, especially those initiated by Naek fanatics, never have the aim to learn. They only aim to prove themselves correct and those in disagreement incorrect.
When a Hindu guru, Sri Sri Ravishankar, asked the audience not to replace love with logic in their dealing with others, specifically others from differing faiths, a woman from the audience asked how a Muslim, then, is to talk someone known to be plotting terrorism out of it without using logic. To this, the audience clapped. However, the Hindu leader's reply, that people who are at risk of becoming terrorists need a serious amount of love, fell completely flat. This, I refuse to look past.
In, "In A Different Voice," by Carol Gilligan, and in various other essays by feminist writers, the argument that misogyny can be a symptom of a preference for logic and vice versa is compellingly made. The overarching argument questions the surprisingly prevalent idea that unlike logic, compassion is not considered manly. But even logically, it doesn't stand that an effort to distance Islam from terrorists reveals a demonstrated lack of compassion. I have to agree with Sri Sri Ravishankar wholeheartedly on this one, PeaceTV.
But, from a seed of distaste for the network founder and star, Dr. Zakir Naek's pretentious recitation of chapter, verse, and line number with every Quranic reference, I began to wonder if something bothered me about his version of Islam and I had, for the sake of giving the network a chance, channeled my distaste into this triviality.
Dr. Zakir Naek has been accused by feminist Muslims of misogyny. This is to be expected since literal/orthodox interpretations of the Quran have, not to be repetitive here, a long historical tradition of refusing the reformist tradition suggested in contextual readings. In fact, misogyny is practically a prerequisite for ultra-conservative Muslims (and of every other ultra-conservative, it seems). That it can be found in Naek's interpretations and is present in his programming (in which grown women are only ever members of the audience) is just reflective of Naek's target audience. Of course, it simultaneously proliferates misogyny but I think it's more of a side effect. I like that people are speaking out against this misogyny because feminist Islam needs proliferation, and more of it, in my opinion. Still, to a certain extent, I can look past the misogyny, too. Questioning your religion is one of the scariest things a person can do to themselves psychologically and I understand the desire, especially of a religious person, to rely on what appears to be authority.
There is a show featuring, surprise!, Dr. Naek that has so far invited Christian and Hindu religious leaders to debate with audience questions. Not answer questions, but debate the answers. Rhetoric and logic are very big with Naek but, these being Socratic in age, it is not surprising that a network steeped in highly orthodox Islam favors them. Excuse me if I sound impatient here but if you're surprised that Muslims are into logic at all, your brain may be a subject of highly European conditioning. Or, you may be unaware that the Quran commands people ask questions, which are usually formed using logic, and learn. However, the debates in which religious leaders of other faiths are engaged, especially those initiated by Naek fanatics, never have the aim to learn. They only aim to prove themselves correct and those in disagreement incorrect.
When a Hindu guru, Sri Sri Ravishankar, asked the audience not to replace love with logic in their dealing with others, specifically others from differing faiths, a woman from the audience asked how a Muslim, then, is to talk someone known to be plotting terrorism out of it without using logic. To this, the audience clapped. However, the Hindu leader's reply, that people who are at risk of becoming terrorists need a serious amount of love, fell completely flat. This, I refuse to look past.
In, "In A Different Voice," by Carol Gilligan, and in various other essays by feminist writers, the argument that misogyny can be a symptom of a preference for logic and vice versa is compellingly made. The overarching argument questions the surprisingly prevalent idea that unlike logic, compassion is not considered manly. But even logically, it doesn't stand that an effort to distance Islam from terrorists reveals a demonstrated lack of compassion. I have to agree with Sri Sri Ravishankar wholeheartedly on this one, PeaceTV.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Goodbye, old tree.
Our favorite tree, the one in front of the house, is gone. The tree fellers were meant to chop down the one next to my room but they made a mistake. We'll miss the shade in the summer. The roots are probably still growing into our foundation. Maybe it will knock our house down, yet. But now, the light of sunset fills the house through the living room window and the front room is a forecastle on the crest of a wave that is the unin-tree-rupted slope of our front yard.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
My favorite word: Tomato
Lately, I'm all about finding new favorite words. I hear them and they stick in my brain. Maybe it's because I've been doing tons of reading lately. I couldn't really read in college. I will often make the excuse that I was too busy reading other things but I think I was actually too busy thinking more in depth about the (very) few things I read. Through most of my life, I have gone through phases of reading or thinking excessively. After the drawn out period of thinking that was my undergraduate career, this reading phase has been a long time coming.
With words, I really like words with nice mixtures of hard and soft sounds lately. Copacetic (in excellent order), Trantor (ex-capital planet of the Galactic Empire) and now, "tomato" (common variety).
The word tomato is one you could probably guess I've known for a long time. Like many words, I knew the Bengali word for it before I knew the English one. The word for tomato in Bengali is, however, tomato. Where it makes a difference is that when I think about the word twice, I think it the second time in a Bengali accent. I wish I knew enough linguistics to accurately convey it. Maybe like this: say TOUAWGH meh touawgh. Now say it really fast. Now say it twice as fast as last time. Now say it normal speed with the letters still all squished together. I hope you got it. The 'o' sound in the word get transformed into this wonder vowel I can only express using three English one and 3 consonants to help it out.
Since I intend to keep up the reading, my favorite word will probably change again soon. But I wanted to share this one while it lasts.
Another old hat I might pick up: reading pop-psychology, specifically in the vein of cognitive-behavioral theory and therapy.
With words, I really like words with nice mixtures of hard and soft sounds lately. Copacetic (in excellent order), Trantor (ex-capital planet of the Galactic Empire) and now, "tomato" (common variety).
The word tomato is one you could probably guess I've known for a long time. Like many words, I knew the Bengali word for it before I knew the English one. The word for tomato in Bengali is, however, tomato. Where it makes a difference is that when I think about the word twice, I think it the second time in a Bengali accent. I wish I knew enough linguistics to accurately convey it. Maybe like this: say TOUAWGH meh touawgh. Now say it really fast. Now say it twice as fast as last time. Now say it normal speed with the letters still all squished together. I hope you got it. The 'o' sound in the word get transformed into this wonder vowel I can only express using three English one and 3 consonants to help it out.
Since I intend to keep up the reading, my favorite word will probably change again soon. But I wanted to share this one while it lasts.
Another old hat I might pick up: reading pop-psychology, specifically in the vein of cognitive-behavioral theory and therapy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)