Note to white feminists, again, so if this is so lucrative - what happens to 30+, pudgy, coloured women like me... any price for my pussy?
I forgot - I'm not supposed to be educated, sexy or worthy - unless I'm exotic and submissive...
blah blah blah. And so it goes, more churning for the putting out industry. What was the point of this article again.
Seriously, feminists who advocate that sex-work is value-neutral - i.e. 'nothing sexist' exists - seem to think that it operates in it's own little bubble outside of anything else. I.e. though the author pays lip-service to the fact that being '27' is too 'old' - there really is no critique of the fact that that in itself is sexist. So, while taking money is okay - it's as if, this is just some kind of 'simple isolated transaction'. I.e. the objective of the article was economically reductionist in which women's desires, women's age/beauty/SKIN color/ CLASS - i'm sorry but not everyone has $50K+ to spend on getting an MA - play no part in being desired as 'fuckable', let alone by wealthy men. But of course 'sex-positivity' is NEVER holistic. NEVER. It's is fragemented and selective.
Btw - my blog sucks now and I don't even get 25 hits a day, so if you are going to start a 'war', or let's be clear, I don't like your comments (it's my blog isn't it?) - forget it - I'm just not publishing your comments - bite me.
to be a white/middle-class/academic/feminist - or either OR combination of...
It means that these same criticisms are raised by other WOMEN over and over and over again not because we are jealous/crazy/stupid because no matter how hard we try, we are not being heard by you, so for crissakes LISTEN. LISTEN. LISTEN.
Maybe this is your opportunity to LEARN.
Comments closed, please comment directly at the writers' blogs.
Cultural appropriation - is something that is done daily primarily to sell things originating in "third-world" countries for the psycho-social-entertainment of Western audiences. It centres around de-contextualized and ahistorical readings of other cultures for mainly profit incentives. But how is this perpetuated by the "sex industry"? How is this often (not always) supported by "sex radical activists" and academics?
This excerpt is from an article at feministing.com about a new book called "Sacred Sex for the Twenty-first century" (sounds just like the last century to me!):
Tantra was once a supremely revolutionary practice. Tantra in India in its early days probably looked something like the social revolution in America in the 1960s: experimentation with sex and drugs, group ecstatic rituals with music, dancing and sex, loving whomever you chose regardless of race or background, and questioning the moral, ethical, and philosophical precepts of the day. In the twentieth century, Tantra was reintroduced in the West by a few brave sex, gender, spiritual, and political radicals who ventured to India in search of an active spirituality that would embrace and empower everyone in all aspects of life, including the sexual and political. The practice of Tantra today can once again be revolutionary in the face of the current cultural rise of fundamentalist sex and gender politics.
notice the probably? That's a pretty big assumption, cause you know - most of what happened in the 60s in India was often perpetuated by money grubbing upper caste pseudo-gurus to get western ppl's money. Kind of like 'spiritual tourism' - and anyone with even a basic understanding of third world politics of tourism will understand the problematic dynamics there in. In case you don't - here's a lurvly article. Also the 'experimentation' that the author assumes is 'so common' - was not common. It was isolated to very few upper class indians who had money. Such freedoms were not part of the lived experiences of many. So like anything that's about 'cultural appropriation' - it is again white people who define the creativity, the assumption of what was going on 'over there'. I.e. other cultures & other people are generally are only good to white-noeliberalism and commodification (or white politics) as long as they fortify what is being said by the white person/cultural creator at hand. The context/history is lost, and what's sold is 'culture'.
Notice the usage of the word bravery??? And how the people who bravely introduced this were pretty much like past 'pioneers' i.e. colonists. Not really a new dynamic here. Yeah, white ppl looking for a few fuck-ons in brown countries...nothing new here either, the US military has done that in every country they've ever invaded anyways. That's not really 'brave', it's about american entitlement and having mula and lots of it.
It's really interesting because in the previous paragraph, the author mentions the following:
Other people are turned off by the idea of Tantra and Tantric sex because of its image in America as couples therapy for white, middle-aged, middle-class, apolitical, woo-woo, New Age, sarong-wearing workshop junkies. In fact, Tantra is practiced in a wide variety of styles by a wide variety of people, including some of my friends who are young, leather-clad, gender-fucked anarchists who are into BDSM. Tantra embraces all genders, sexual styes and sexual preferences. It is primarily concerned with inner mystical experiences, not relationships and wardrobe.
So though she pays lip-service to 'white middle aged middle class people", which is super-funny because that only absolves her from her own whiteness/white guilt while trying to sell it to another group of white people which is indicated in "other people are turned off".
It's like for chrissakes, do I give a shit if the person next to me is called a 'hippie' or a 'granola'?... same shit, different neoliberal label. I don't care. Only white people are 'individuals' anyways, and from her interview that shines through repetitively.
Whatever, this is not new - and happens ALL the time, for something more local, read here. This was a fiasco that took place about two years ago. It resulted in a massive letter writing campaign by many south asian organizations.
Does Fashion Care about Racism?
"During the featured entertainment, I saw lots of white people with cowboy hats and tattoos with brown powder on their faces and bodies. After Black people have fought long and hard on the racist use of “black face"? in entertainment, I felt disheartened that in 2005, few lessons have been learned."
I will say this though, this is just Pt.1 of cultural appropriation of sexuality and the promotion of it often by white-upper-middle class academic sex positive theorists/white activists/cultural producers etc.... It's interesting because no one seems to be touching upon this element in academia, even though grassroots south asian activists here in Toronto have already drawn attention to the matter themselves. Namely in regards to their marginalization in both the LGBTTTIQ community and the non-profit industrial complex.
Comments closed, I just can't do it right now.
ETA: I removed the previous remark because it was awkward.
I'm not really getting out of e-hiatus, but - I just couldn't resist this discussion here. But the thing is - I should have just taken a hint of advice from the title of the post itself.
I mean this is why the word 'racism' is so problematic IMO, it's such a liberal term solely reserved for 'extreme' situations, so systemic and institutional 'racism' don't get covered... so 'racism' is insufficient really, when it's really about 'white supremacy' (ty to my friend who I had this discussion with the other day!).
Okay - what's my problem right?
The bold parts of this paragraph here, are my problem. Anyone with more eloquence, intelligence, strength and energy want to take it on? Or am I just really going on about nothing (cause at this point, that's how I feel - I don't think I have the energy to talk about anything anymore because I don't even know if I make sense really):
After all, white people have dominated the sciences and arts and humanities in the West for awhile now; they did come up with some useful things in the process, such as computers and penicillin. Unlike some of my more racist brethern, though, I don’t think this means white people are inherently better. I think that if everyone else got access to the education and opportunities white people have hoarded for themselves, they’ll start inventing the next rounds of computers and penicillin. In fact, I suspect that is exactly why white people haven’t shared; we didn’t want to be bested at anything. The downside is that so much squashed potential probably means that many more computers and penicillin that we don’t have.
Some quick notes:
1) Coming from both the 'art's' and 'sciences' - I have to wonder - what are the arts and sciences and what makes them so different from each other? Really, are they THAT different - or are those boundaries artificial? Where do doctors like Paul Farmer fit into this (i.e. someone who's both an anthropologist and a medical doctor)? Or economists like Amartya Sen? Or feminist physicists etc...? Psychologists etc? In places like India - you have doctors who are both students of 'western medical practises' and 'naturopathy/homeopathy'... now - where do those ppl fit?
2) Who created this division between the arts and the sciences? How are the arts and the sciences treated differently, how do they affect different groups of ppl? How do we value certain types of knowledge over others? Why is that a problem? Who produces certain types of 'knowledge' and who's 'type of knowledge' do we value more? Are the producers of knowledge valued more, or are the labourers who work to 'produce' the 'tools' of this knowledge valued more?
3) What is the problem with this idea that progress needs to be measured in terms of how many medicines and technical gadgets you produce? I.e. is your worth as a human being measured in your 'productive' value or your fiscal contribution? Is this the only model of progess that we have? Where do local/indigeneous forms of knowledge or learning fit in here? Or are they just completely useless and therefore must be eradicated?
...been feeling like this lately. Remember kids, if you say anything AGAINST ANYONE - it's WRONG. But when you say things people want you to say YOU'RE RIGHT. Every other fuckin' day of the year - you are a 'freak'. Feminism isn't just some pie in the sky - it's practised. Thanks for showing your true colours Wimmin...
Chasing Moksha and Heart are creating "new theory" over at Heart's space:
And voila - this is what it looks like:
Because of patriarchy’s plot to make her the standard of beauty she is hated, yet other than white woman (WOC) is objectified and raped as well. But still the mass, the objectified WOC and white men seem to be working together (consciously or not) to focus their hatred and cause of all woes on the white woman.
Tres Brilliante! I am floored. I, as a WOC am a tool who is jealous of hot white women....yes indeed.
Heart I asked you kindly to remove my link from your blog and since you didn't listen the first time around (or release the last comment I made at your blog - asking you to do so) - I'll ask you publicly on my blog where you don't have such control to censor me - delink me NOW, I don't mind if I have to devote an entire blog called "heart delink me" and post the samething every single day on that blog - just do it.
ChasingMoksha - I am requesting that you do the same, though I do ask you with a tinge of remorse.
ChasingMoksha's original post:
Wednesday, February 28, 2007 Morphing Into The Oppressor By being told that I cannot speak about race issues that involve blacks and other races on behalf of my husband (who is identified as black by society’s racial constructs), it is an attempt to negate my husband’s agency.
Last time I checked y'all were complaining about how marriage is a patriarchal tradition that removes women's agency by forcing her to be 'one with her husband' as a unit. As I see it, this is still a valid argument of marriage but does not limit the possibilities of what an actual marriage can be. So in this sense the only person 'denying your husband agency' is YOU. Can't your husband speak for himself? If a white man married to an asian woman said "I can't speak about race issues on behalf of my wife because ... etc.." what would you say? Okay... hold on -you have more to say about this.
As a black man, a person who has a stake in racial affairs and as his partner in this life and mother to his child, I have a stake in it too, hence he has entrusted me with his stories.
Like y'all don't trust trans men to speak on behalf of women - how do you know what it's like to live the first 20 yrs of your life experiencing racism? You'll never know the sweet pain of being called the n-word (which I have been called more than a few times), a paki, a terrorist, a chink (I've been called that too!). You'll also never know the sweet pain of being sexually objectified by white men who feel a sort of special entitlement to WOC - and the thing is, I think in your heart of heart's you know that there is just a special place in a white man's libido reserved for WOC. This comes in a myriad of forms where we're (along with ethnic minority white women) racially AND sexually objectified. Or have you selectively forgotten to omit the 'asian in asian p*ssy, exotic in exotic p*ssy, Latina in Latina sl*ts, ebonyin ebony hoes, russian in russian brides, part of the two-part series that is sexo-racism? In fact I feel the same way when I go to lesbian clubs, despite not being a lesbian - many white WOMEN have internalized sexo-racism to the extent where they will go on about how they 'love Indian women'. I have let it slide, I laugh it off - I even giggle - but truth be told I have outright sworn at white men for the same behaviour (of course only to be called a fucking stuck up bitch who's ugly anyways) and very politely dialogued with white lesbians about this - whom I consider my friends and who I give the benefit of the doubt to (and yes, I am being sanctimonious here and I don't care).
It is utilizing his agency to utilize me (with my consent) to bear witness to his racism. He is too busy experiencing the racism and trying to survive in that racism that he does not elect to write, blog, retell the stories of his oppression to others outside our family, therefore I am that person by proxy.
HUH? Okay, chasingmoksha, you know I would totally be cool with you writing about your HUSBAND's experiences with racism - but call me totally heartless, but this seems to me like you've written this stupid-ass whine-fest particularly to talk about YOU, not your husband.
One would have to wonder what is the motive of another who attempts to eliminate my husband’s agency and to negate mine in the process.
One has to wonder what your motive for posting this was? When you've got only ONE post under racism - and though I haven't searched your site fully - I haven't come across any other posts about racism against your husband or children. I agree there is a sensitive way of dealing with this - and your 'race' alone does not disqualify you from writing the experiences of the man you love and his encounters with racism.
I am also finding it deeply troubling that despite some really good anti-racist posts by WOC, rarely radical feminists ever cite those posts unless it's written by a WW or from an argument that supports the 'sexism trumps racism' perspective, I have to wonder why that is.
PS - that Catherine Mackinnon article Heart keeps linking to is such bullshit and can be torn down quite easily. I'm not going to waste my breath anymore on this subject, I think I've done enough - and at this point - I don't have any energy left to devote to this. I also don't like the idea of blogwars, and I feel utterly conflicted about posting this up. But I think it's warranted here as I am increasingly feeling the lack of support when i have commented on Heart's space and have made sure that I do not comment on Heart's space anymore.
Comments are closed. Everyone can banter about this on their own space, rail on me in their own space, piss on each other in their own space, shit on each other in their own space and I just don't give two shits anymore. Thank you.
Update: CM has altered her 'tags' to include more posts under 'racism'. I am leaving my comments above as is.
Update 2: My last & only comment on CM's blog regarding this:
I won't be commenting more than once (I hope) on this topic. I've said what I need to on my own blog.
1) Amy: Quote: "And I think it especially sucks when otherwise intelligent people end up becoming totally reactionary and defending incredibly regressive and conservative politics because, all protestations to the contrary, race trumps everything to them, and they'd rather defend a conservative man of color than a radical white (Jewish) feminist--as recently happened on Heart's blog."
You are referring to ME, just say it. I think as an 'otherwise intelligent person' yourself - you would have thoroughly understood that i made a specific comment about the MEDIA usage of a black pastor commenting on a BLACK woman. I nowhere gave him a free ride to say that 'he wasn't an asshole' - he was. I don't know whether you understand how 'race is played out by the media'. If you don't - maybe you ought to learn more about it, there is in fact a great book on how disney constructs race, class and gender for the benefit of WHITE PATRIARCHAL SUPREMACY. It's a wonderful read - and oh woe is me - it's written by a WHITE MAN. I recommend this to you - cause it's fun, engaging and really gets the idea of WHITE PATRIARCHAL SUPREMACY across: "The mouse that roared" by Henry giroux.
If any comment that I am disheartened by on this comment thread - this is the ONE, beause I do respect a lot of what you have to say. Did I say I was "defending the black pastor"?? Or did I say he was USED BY THE WHITE MEDIA TO PIT ONE BLACK MAN AGAINST ONE BLACK WOMAN? I am dumbfounded that someone as intelligent as yourself would fail to see what I was saying and say something as fucking stupid as "race trumps everything" when in fact, I have done nothing but contribute repeatedly to feminist writing and the feminist blogosphere. So it's fucking insulting as hell that you would 'reduce' my intelligence to being nothing but 'reactionary'!!!! Just because YOU fail to see the INTERSECTIONS of OPPRESSION doesn't mean you have the RIGHT to PROJECT on me! I think I was clear that I BLAMED THE WHITE PATRIARCHAL MEDIA for their CHOICE OF BLACK PASTORS. If you missed that central element in my argument - then that is YOUR problem NOT MINE. In fact, I happen to believe that this was DINES central thesis - and HEART (AS USUAL PER HER ONE - SONG MISSION, misrepresented DINES ARGUMENT). Dines, of course being a WHITE FEMINIST. So the issue is not Dines or Heart's whiteness but rather the stupidity with which HEART posited the thesis of her post.
QUOTE AMY: "I'm wondering also what you mean specifically when you ask if white women "oppress" women of color. My understanding of oppression is that it doesn't primarily happen on a personal scale--that it is a structural phenomenon that happens at the class level."
Thank you Amy, I agree with you - and when you comment on a thread called 'Morphing into the oppressor" one has to wonder who the fuck this oppressor is.
1) it unintentionally starts off with the assumption that WOC, are somehow more "POWERFUL" (i.e. the word oppressor) than WHITE WOMEN. And though white women are not at the top of the food chain, white women do indeed benefit via-the structure of WHITE PATRIARCHAL SUPREMACY more than WOC. This is not THEIR FAULT, but many WW and WHITE FEMINISTS often fail to see their own privilege (i'll get to that later).
Don't you think it's a little more than dishonest to insult 1/4 of the worlds population by saying that they are 'morphing into the oppressor' when they are of the poorest and most marginalized people on earth? So going back to what you said, if oppression is indeed a "STRUCTURAL phenomenon" using it so loosely is fucking insulting as hell. And someone as intelligent as yourself Amy, would clearly understand that.
2) Quote Amy: "And I think of situations like upper class or upper-middle class white women hiring domestic laborers who are Third-World women, and I think that's a choice they should not make--but I also think it's a choice they CAN make because of their CLASS privilege, not their skin privilege."
Who are the richest people on earth? THEY ARE WHITE, or after years of slavery, colonialism did white people automatically lose all the money they stole from 3/4s of the rest of the world? So skin and wealth are often very closely related. This is not to say that the lowest white classes do not share oppression or have similar problems to other poor people's globally. But when we talk about the upper classes and hiring third world labour - it is often closely associated to SKIN privilege. As someone who lives in the empire like yourself - I TOO BENEFIT from third world labour. So you and I do have that in common.
Quote: "AradhanaD, it is really too bad that you cut others off so quickly. It is as if you are saying that if a person is not 100% in tuned with whatever you deem as appropriate and acceptable then they are not allowed to work through it, learn, grow, explore in order to reach the level you are owning to."
Ditto to you - I have the right to cut-off whoever I want, and when you say that WOC are morphing into the "oppressor" i.e. by using a word that has 'powerful' implications so loosely - I have no fucking reason to want to talk to you further until you've understood the implications of what you are talking about. YOU are acting like an MRA "if women get jobs - I won't have one anymore". But instead you and the rest of the bunch here seem to be saying "If WOC say anything critical of white women and their PRIVILEGE, they are taking something away from feminism"... no, we're engging in feminism - unless of course we somehow lose our 'feminist status' by talking about racism too.
No one's said that you don't have a right to talk about your husband's experiences with racism - and I've said so on my blog too. If they have said so - you should be talking about that ONE person in particular and not invoke an entire group of people (in this case WOC) to make an argument. That's dishonest and hurtful - and I'm sure you can understand why.
Quote: "I have very few posts listed as racism because I have only recently started using the tags (around Christmas when I switched to the new blogger). However, throughout many of my posts and loads of my comments around the blogosphere, I have dived into racism quite a bit."
Good, and I said I gave you the benefit of the doubt and didn't go through all of your posts - or did you miss that in my post?
Quote: "Therefore, if you want to insulate yourself further, splinter yourself away from my kind all the while the fucking WHITE MAN gets a free ride because GOD forbid we cannot discuss him when Miss Anne is really the oppressor,"
Because I am pissed off as hell right now, I'm going to just say this - FUCK YOU. I know you've been visiting my blog, I know you know a bit of what I talk about - so really fuck you. Do I link to Alas? Do I comment on Alas's blog? Do I talk to Alas? Do I support pornstitution? Have I metaphorically sucked cock of the white man? Where in the world have I given white men a free ride? This is nothing but a straw feminist.
See the problem with 'radical feminism' is that you see it as a binary system of 'oppression against women only' - when in fact there is a lot more going on. I.e we suffer from racism too - so my framework is "white patriarchal supremacy" (which capitalism is a part of). If you fail to see how whiteness is part of 'patriarchy', including how the world has changed because of COLONIALISM, then that is YOUR PROBLEM and you are giving white men a free ride, NOT ME.
Quote: "I am sorry for it because I do in fact respect your opinions greatly."
This is dishonest, simply because you just called WOC the oppressor - and I am a WOC. Maybe you wrote in haste, maybe you didn't mean it, maybe you are on your own path of learning, maybe I shoudn't be so hard on you - but when someone calls ONE group 'morphing' into the oppressor - I'm going to be hurt - especially when i am a member of said group.
Quote: "What happens to my husband effects us as a family which is in fact about me, I am part of this family"
And again, I've never said you couldn't write about the experiences or troubles that you face as an interracial married couple - or the stares that you get from society, or the difficulties your children might face when they are forced to 'pick sides'... etc... your anger should have been justly directed at ONE person who said this to you - and NOT A GROUP.
Quote: "Also, you are not the authority who dictates who I link to. If my wishes to exercise my agency of voice are not respected then I will play by those same rules. I did not give you permission to use my user name in your post, in your blog."
If I wanted to - I could have just called you a typical white feminist - but I didn't, because I have white feminist friends who are indeed wonderful people who 'get what racism' is and understand the interconnectedness of oppression WONDERFULLY. Actually just yesterday I had lunch with one of them. So I would rather comment on you BY NAME, than as a group. And yes, I have a group post called 'white feminism' under my tags, only because this is a recurring problem in the blogosphere, activism and academia. And you are right - you have the right to link to whomever you like.
Quote:"Yet you took that liberty. I am not some simple and easy white bitch (you know those hoes just pining for a big old MOC dick but cry rape the minute she is hemmed up) waiting to lose my journey in this life for some arbitiary approval that is given and taken away with no rhyme or reason. I got shit to work through. I would end it with a “snarky” little remark like “no love lost,” however, I cannot say that in good conscience."
Strawfeminist, strawfeminist, strawfeminist. Never said you weren't hurt by white male patriarchal neocolonialism capitalism. Never said it.
--------------------------------------
Heart: "You know, what intrigues me is that the more as white women we have rejected our race privilege, the more it has been compromised by the choices we've made to be traitors to whiteness,"
Yes, the entire black race is grateful to you for having sex with a black man. you've said this once, you've said it twice. yes, I'm being a horrible person - here. So what, you wear this like a fucking badge. You're white privilege does not magically erase itself when you partner with a black man. It's as stupid as this fucking moronic post here: http://feet2thefire.blogspot.com/2006/09/sure-more-on-race-why-not-i-mean-more.html
Heart: Quote:"But a white woman whose lived reality gives her insights and experience and knowledge which might actually useful to those who want to do anti-racism work? Hell no, she should keep it to herself."
Poor old robert Jensen, look at how much he tries to be a profeminist man. The dude keeps writing about sex work, writing about porn - and all he does is get shat on - all the time. I am so sorry for Mr. Jensen. Poor white man who keeps writing about sexism and now he writes about racism too. And yet, Mr jensen can still keep getting published. Book deals, money, conference tours etc... Yes sirreee - Mr. Jensen.
Hey even anti-porn feminists like AD hate his work - couldn't be that when he writes he makes it seem like every woman can only be valued via their relation to men. Shucks, even he anti-porn crowd dislike him - and yet he tries SOOOO HARD.
Don't worry CM - I won't be commenting again on this - it's too much work for me.
I too am saddened that there weren't more connections happening. Oh wait, but they are? What? Yeah, they are -- you know when? When people stop calling other MARGINALIZED people 'oppressors' - there's nothing but love.
OVER AND PERMANENTLY OUT.
---------------------------------------------- Update 3: I have recieved a lot of really thoughtful and self-reflective comments from chasing moksha - who do want to build bridges. So much to think about, I think Donna mentioned there's a lot of different related arguments on the net - see also discussions on pass the roti too. It's a good time - we can build e-bridges!!! :)
I really wanted to post something about "blogging against white supremacy" earlier- but have been a little busy, and I've also been debating about what to blog about, considering how wonderful the posts at Yolanda's and elsewhere have been, I just didn't know what to contribute. Anyways, today is a good a day as any to post about this, last time I checked white supremacy was still rearing it's ugly head all over the place.
Originally, I wanted to post about my experiences with racism in "La Belle Province", Quebec, in response to this report in which 59% of Quebecers proudly declare that they are racist (report coincidentally released on MLK's 78th Birthday). It's one thing to say 'everyone is slightly racist', it's another to declare that you are one. Considering that I lived for more than a few years in a small predominantly anglophone town in Quebec, i thought my experiences would be timely for both blogging purposes and as a response to the report.
But, alas, the heavy hand of Germaine Greer has incited me to blog about something I never thought I would blog about - "Bollywood" (or in this case a Bollywood celebrity). I am specifically using the Shilpa Shetty example because a) it's a micro-level analysis that has macro-level implications and vice-versa b) because it's timely c) I was already gonna post about white-supremacy.
I must also first explain why I dislike Bollywood by linking to an excellent "How to read Bollywood" guide here. This is a fabulous resource and if anyone has a similar "Hollywood Literacy guide" site available please post it in the comments.
On with the show:
So this horrible show called "Big Brother" has this huge cast of washed up has-beens, and amongst this list is actually, quite oddly - a not so washed up, not has-been, Shilpa Shetty. You see, even before Shilpa Shetty vocalized her experiences with racism on the set of Big Brother, I was really scratching my head why an A-list Bollywood celebrity (and that too, someone as glamorous as Shetty) would even want to participate in a reality show of all things. It's like putting Julia Roberts or Charlize Theron on Big Brother, it just doesn't make sense.
But then of course neither of those two would ever subject themselves to such humiliation for a measily $600K, whereas in Rs. that's quite a lot. Also, as Indian fetish rises in the "West" someone like Shetty might use this as a 'launching pad of sorts' for a non-bollywood career - as she points out here.
Granted Shetty is kind of full of herself, but seriously which A-list celebrity isn't? But when someone, who I'm starting to believe has it out for "Pakis", Germaine Greer really ought to reconsider what she says here before she goes around peddling the idea that "Shetty brought this upon herself", get this - by being "annoying". Read, "annoying" means 'not being able to come up with actual reasons why Shetty is being hated". Can't fathom why Britons would treat Ms. Shetty as a second-class citizen Ms. Greer???? Here's a clue - could it be about White Supremacy and the feelings of entitlement facilitated by being a co-conspiring imperialist nation, maybe?
So this is where my post is going to get 'messy' because my thoughts are all over the place and I'm really just going to have to put them in point form.
What is "white supremacy," really?
Well, let's say as a general rule it's feeling a sense of superiority to POC and therefore that you as a white PERSON (male or female) deserve more than people of colour. How does white supremacy manifest itself?
At the Macro-level: - in trade policies - free trade agreements - "development" strategies (including 'population control', 'pollution control' strategies only enforced on developing nations) - immigration laws - deportation laws - barriers to education - geopolitical divisions both externally and within White Imperialist Countries, aka 'the West' - 'cultural' imperialism and that includeth the sacared TV (we the enlightened west and you are the backwards 'rest') - allocation of resources - distribution of wealth and a global economic system of domination that does not factor in colonial asset accumulation (both externally and internally) - labour laws both externally and internally (if women are the sex class, POC - all POC, are the 'service class') - entitlement to the natural resources of POC lands (externally and internally) - brute force (torture and violence) - exoticization/devaluation of POC cultures - 'ownership' and 'objectification' of POC bodies (from the slave trade to sex trafficking, slave trafficking, use of illegal immigrant labour) - technocracy - delusions of meritocracy - militarism - the legacy of colonialism and it's newer manifestations of 'imperialism' etc....
At the micro-level white supremacy manifests itself as (and this is where I draw in the Shetty fiasco):
A: By the Supremacist: (To get the full weight of the interactions of the BB household, take a look at the youtube vids in which Shetty stars) - Reaping the benefits of all of the above - insert a tonne of psycho-social benefits as well. - entitlement to harass, intimidate and ridicule a WOC because she is 'below you'. (would the primarily white women of the BB house harass and intimidate a MOC in the same way?) - always questioning the other vs. learning about/from the other, believing mainstream sources of information vs. POC lived experience. - identifying individual POC's strictly on the basis of their 'race' vs. their individuality. (for ex; in one episode one woman says she won't be giving a present to the "Indian" - as though Shetty doesn't have a name) - believing and acting on the ideologies that POC are backward culturally and financially, therefore they should be eternally indebted to white people for whatever they recieve (Shetty claims someone in BB told her 'to go back to the slums'). - accepting POC labour as a 'given' AND ridiculing POC at their 'inability' to 'properly' perform such labour. (a cooking example follows below). Because POC labour is 'worth less' than 'hardworking white people's labour'. - treating POC's needs as invisible. - Claiming cultural 'relativism' when things are and often should be about simple human decency, an example follows below. (POC seldom do this without 'legitimate' reason). -etc...
B: On the POC (and yes, there are many similarities here with other oppressed peoples and of course WOMEN as a group): In this short 1:43 seconds Shetty unintentionally says everything and more (Edited to add: this video was intended as a promotional video to introduce the UK audience to the BB cast, but the funny thing is - it entails a lot of forsight on Shetty's part)..
- feelings of always having to work a lot harder to prove the samething that a white person has accomplished. Shetty says so when she says, "Even if I was a maid-servant I'd want to be the best one". Before you say "that could be any individual", contextualize this into the fact that she says so FOR the BB audience, not for an Indian one. - carrying the weight of your entire race with you - because you are not an individual you are your race. Shetty again says "I'm representing Indian culture". Um, last I checked there were over 2 million South Asians in the UK (the largest population of south asians diaspora), haven't they already done enough representing? No - cause our 'work is never done'. - the above leads into having to qualify the behaviours of your less than 'perfect' counterparts. Like why do 'pakis' breed so much, why do they bargain for cheaper shoes, why do they eat/sit/drink/shit/clean their shit/talk the way they do? - Comparing yourself to the "STANDARD" i.e the white standard, because you know like White people are normal. Shetty says so when she has to 'identify with whiteness' - i.e. "I'm like the Angelina Jolie of Bollywood", you can see the clear look of discomfort as she winces when she says that too, but tries to laugh it off. (I know someone out there is going to say - well, it's only because everyone, knows who Angelina Jolie is - and of course I would say - "why does everyone know who Angelina Jolie is?"). - Having to consistently prove your credentials. Shetty talks about how special she is and how she has an entourage - cause it's almost as if she KNOWS that being in a household with a bunch of washed up white folk who are half as good looking as you, means you're going to be treated like trash. - Wanting a piece of the pie. Really, is there anything wrong with this? No. - Showcasing your culture and trying to get rid of derogatory stereotypes. In one episode Shetty cooks (her service) some Indian 'curry' for the house. After one woman gets 'grossed' out by it (rule #1: eat the curry - don't live with the curry-maker) - Shetty is hurt and tries to talk it over with a friend. Of course his advice is "You're a world apart"... Shetty realizes that asking for 'equal rights' is asking for too much.
Oddly enough Greer acts like the the 'grossed out' white woman at Shetty's cooking because supposedly "Shilpa likes to be seen cooking. She looks utterly virtuous while she is doing it,". You know cause Germaine - women are always 'virtuous' when they are in domestic servitude - right?... I guess the mommy wars are over now, dang those Filipina nannies are just going to have to get "real jobs" now.
This list can go on and on....
To further her argument, Greer does a huge disservice to all feminists, she pulls out the biggest faux-pas, the 'sex-class' trumps the 'service-class' card: " But it's a funny old world, to be sure. You can call her a "dog". Sexism is fine. What you mustn't do is call her a "Paki". As if to be Pakistani was to be worse than being a dog. Our very tenderness on this issue is the flip side of racism, and still part of the same coin."
If I haven't said it before - I'll say it now: I can't peel away the skin off my genitals. So there it is - when people call Shetty 'a dog' it's only because she's a WOC, not because 'she's being insulted as a woman' but because she is being insulted as a WOC. Explicitly they could have called 'Shetty' a "Paki-dog", would that have been clearer to you Ms. Greer? And how do you not get that saying "Paki" is almost like saying the "n-word"? It's not the same as saying "aussie" anyday. Or do you not see how the "n-word" is offensive when used to refer to a colonized peoples?
It's fine when Memoirs of a Geisha (written by a white american guy 'who on a whim can channel his inner Japanese Geisha') sells a zillion copies and re-sells it again in movie-form, but all hell breaks loose when a WOC writes about anything - she must be put in her place, who is she to take ownership of speaking on behalf of the experiences of other WOC? What could she possibly know?
See Ms. Greer, no WOC needs lessons from you on how to 'identify' racism, we know very well what it is - and you as a WHITE FEMINIST (TM) just really ought to be the one taking notes for fuck sakes. Now go on and write for a bunch of pornstubating mantellectuals at Penthouse please. Or better yet, you could continue with taking photos to facilitate a paedophile's wet-dream, like you did in volume 1. You know cuz, taking half-nekkid photos of young boys is really like turning tables on the menz. *rolls eyes*.
The long-standing tradition of how WOC are never believed about anything continues (Greer's example is just a tiny little micron of it), ironically the one thing that is consistent between the Duke rape case, Greer's vision of Shetty and Mineko Iwasaki (the woman 'behind' Memoirs of a Geisha), is the predominant belief that the only reason WOC ever say anything is because they're really the 'vilest of whores' who can be 'bought off' with a quick payment because really that's their main aspiration. Cause you know when we say something - it's only for 'the attention' or the money and therefore our concerns are not 'as legitimate'.
More than 30,000 people have written to Channel 4 complaining about racism, Tony Blair and the Indian parliament have weighed in on this but Germaine Greer sees it fit to 'blame the victim'. The truth is - if white supremacy exposes itself at the micro-level to someone as 'important' as Shetty - how can England keep perpetuating illusions of multi-cultural 'meritocracy' and still reap the rewards of POC labour at the macro-level.
This 'Paki' is out for now, Shubhratri Greer Memsahib.
I am cheating here because this is such a good post that it is worth repeating and distributing, plus there is no way I could ever write/analyze something so critically and honestly:
Just a delicious morsel of the article, so you get a taste:
a) If you are working on a cultural or literary tradition, please make sure that you know about it in all its possible complexities before you begin to work on it or pass authoritative judgements on it.
b) Learn to give other cultures their proper rights of ownership.
c)Please remember that we do not need a clueless white woman like you to prove the relevance of our literary works or to provide their feminist re-interpretations. We have already accomplished those tasks ourselves.
Especially worth reading is the discussion that follows.
If I was to add to this, I would say this is not just relevant to 'literary works' but also anything of 'another culture' that you relay on your blog which you do not 'fully understand' or view in it's myriad complexities and connectivities. This is why "Burqa-gate" was such a complex fiasco.
Comments are off, because you can comment directly on the writer's blog, which I am sure she would appreciate.
Post dedication Yolanda, cause I don't want to see another WOC blogger leave.
Why'd I start this blog?
Actually, I had no intention of starting one because I'm not the best writer, and I read far too many blogs/articles per day to even try to summarize what I want to say. But at a certain point, I realized when I wrote comments on other people's blogs I was either a)muted b)'attacked'/'insulted' by librul white bois c)generally ignored. So, basically I started this blog for some space to call my own as a WOC.
Anyways, despite being 'political' there are indeed some topics I tend to shy away from (again because I don't think I am the best writer and we all tend to believe - 'someone else is already doing it, do I really need to?'). One of these topics I shy away from is the inability of white feminists to understand their own ignorance and perpetuation of 'racism'. Oh shite, shoot me cause I know y'all are thinking "bloody hell, there goes another one of those coloured gals playing the race card". Whine, whine, whine - is this all these coloured gals do?
It's really quite funny because if it wasn't for the internet I would not have any 'white' (white as 'dominant' not ethnic/religious minority) feminist friends. I do indeed surround myself with people of colour (both progressive and non-progressive). Having said that, I'm not a stranger to internet feminist communities and like many of you, I started out by participating at the Ms. Boards eons ago. At that time however, I was not 'officially' a feminist. I was a learner/lurker.
Over the years, one thing has been made clearer to me than ever - it's that the internet is a white space. Yeah, we can harp about how it's egalitarian - promises to be so etc... But anyone who has a site-meter should/can easily figure out which countries their traffic is coming from. Whatever happened to the golden promises of bridging the 'digital divide'... like everything else that's about inequitable distribution it's been thrown on the back-burner.
I digress, if the majority of bloggers are white and male, and the majority of feminist bloggers are white and middle-class it is no wonder that 'we' (WOC) are often discontent with the content of blogistan. Because I am not a separatist by any account and don't want to start a 'fight' (though there shouldn't be any for anything that I'm saying) I am trying to approach this matter as calmly and rationally as I can.
The following are just my suggestions about how you can stop being an ignorant/indifferent white feminist:
1) Stop quoting mainstream white conservative/liberal media for your 'token' race relations post. BUT if you do - try to look at that article from a 'third world perspective'/'Global South' perspective.
No, I'm fucking serious. You're all very quick to dissect mainstream news when they report/misreport some event that happens to any white woman. You instantly call bias when you see it. You're the first to point out "they're insulting said woman because they said this or that" (and I fully support you when you do this). But, don't you think that the same 'biased' lens is used to report on things that happen to the 'poor, oppressed, 'retarded', incapable, hopeless, voiceless' women of colour masses that comprise the majority of the world? You know it was this same 'save the women of Afghanistan' bullshit that was used by the US govt to invade Afghanistan, right? Women's rights didn't matter until GW wanted to invade a country, despite Afghan women who repeatedly called out for help under the Taliban often risking their lives to call out to the outside world.
So this should make you wonder how WOC are used in the mainstream media. Here's a clue, they're primarily used to perpetuate the idea that all MOC are evil-coloured-patriarchs and they're cultures are backwards and stupid. This is called "R-A-C-I-S-M".
I am not saying that you point out the WOC oppression globally in order to perpetuate myths about them, but rather NONE of this 'documentation work' that you do is supported by adequate WOC analysis or references. I.e you post about it - without any contextualization. You rarely do that for ANY articles written about white women. You scoff and laugh at how they are written in favour of patriarchy.
It's easy to point out patriarchy exists everywhere, it's harder to get a clue on how mainstream media rarely points out stories of the strong women of colour that do amazing work ALL OVER THE WORLD. With all these pathetic coloured women that exist globally - you'd wonder how a diasporic south asian woman ever got 'radicalized'... huh?
Indeed, a very nice prof of mine did ask me this very patronizing question once "How'd you ever become a south Asian [emphasis hers] radical feminist?", to which I responded "the same way you became a white one".
So when you post up an article about how the oppressed, miserable coloured women of the world who are dying under evil-coloured-people's patriarchy - try in some form or shape to account for media bias.
2) Read more WOC books. As a WOC I've been indoctrinated into the same white patriarchal BS that all of you have too, and like you it was not by 'choice'. Like you, I too have to do my homework. I've read all the cornerstone feminist books that you have (more or less) - but how many WOC perspectives do you seriously read? Do you own more than 5 WOC books? Do you own at least 2-3 post-colonial feminist readers/compilations? Do you own any third world books written by WOC?
Even if you do, do you feel you thoroughly understand everything that is being said in those books?
Any feminist theory 101 class has that nice little 'minorities' section tacked on at the end, but seriously - do you think your education on WOC extends only thus far? Because if it does, well then - I too should stop reading all the new material that keeps on being added to this body of work daily. "Hey, we read bell hooks' "Ain't I a Woman" back in 1981, that's all the education we need to know. We're down with the you need your own space bit. We also clap when you make some noise too, we're not the R-word."
Like my own process of ridding myself of my own prejudices will NEVER come to a halt, neither does yours. You too must continually 'get with the program' and 'upgrade' your views. As we know feminism is not isolated from the other political/economic/social pogroms that happen in our world.
3) Stop reacting to our requests with knee-jerkedness. We're not attacking you, we're saying this cause we consider you our allies and if you really support women or claim to be a 'feminist' i.e. one who fights for 'women's rights' then you better realize "I am a woman too" or maybe you need to read "Ain't I a Woman" a few hundred times again.
Such knee-jerkedness is similar to the way privileged white men respond to your accusations of sexism. Accusations that we as women also support.
The funny thing is, y'all probably feel you need to walk on eggshells before you address anything cultural/racial... funny thing is as you will see further in this post how much I have had to hold in over the past few months when I visit your blogs.
4) Don't use us as tokens. This rarely happens in blogistan, but it does happen more often than not in the 'real world'. Many of you feminist bloggers are quick to point out that 'your blogs are not educational resources for men', instead men should take it upon themselves to educate themselves about their own privilege. Likewise, you as white women need to do the same. We are not your token pieces. We are not 'obligated' to 'educate' you about race relations or anything else for that matter.
Like you, on some days I want to just 'shoot the shit'. I do not want to post about feminism/racism/whatever else. I too just want to put up a youtube video and bop my head up and down...
5) This should be fucking self-explanatory: Stop tolerating racist shit on your blogs. And by racist, I'm not only talking about 'overt' racism (which should be obvious) - but the kind of ignorant remarks that I do not have the time or energy to respond to but have read on more than one occasion.
As a radical leftist I am usually quite unforgiving and though my little blog does not matter much - there is a reason why your ass will never be on my 'blogroll' regardless of how big/important/analytical/famous it is. Largely it's because you just don't get it. I may link to a wonderful post you've written, I may link to ten of them because the quality of your writing is amazing and I completely recognize that - but I will never put you on my blogroll. ('yeah, yawn whoop dee doo AD, who cares!').
Some examples:
a) Reclusive Leftist: I really don't know why I am bothering when you continue to tolerate such a vile 'troll' just because you two are 'friends'. Disgusting that's all I can say. Poltergeist - don't even f'ing bother posting here - I will indeed delete every single comment you make.
In which there are at least half a dozen really fucked up comments:
Quote: What really annoyed me about all this was the way some Indian men would come to the West, enjoy the sexual freedom offered here and then go back to India to marry the virgin their families had found for them.
Um, sorry lady - it's because women in the west are repeatedly and openly hyper-sexualized (of course not because it's their fault) globally.
In which ANOTHER commenter in the same thread makes this totally unnecessary comparison about a 'middle eastern' person she knew to this 'poor, helpless Indian woman' that was being discussed. I.e. essentially equating 'one brown evil religion with the next'.... Cause you know there are only 2 billion Muslim and Hindu's globally, right? And they're all kinda middle eastern and brownish.
Quote: Within the past five years, a 17-yr-old middle-eastern girl in the vicinity was murdered by her cousins for dating someone other than her intended.
c) Pandagon, Punkass Blog. ahhh, I'm tired - I don't want to say anything past 'burqa-gate' and your totally bitching on WOC in your comments section cause you 'just didn't get it'. (I recognize these have already been discussed to death, but I will use them as examples).
and I'm sure there are a shit load more....
Again, if you are going to come back and attack me about using you as examples - reread #3 again. If you are true to your word about being a feminist, not just a 'white feminist in particular', my criticisms of such behaviour are not unwarranted and you will do what you can to either 're-educate yourself' or to call yourself a 'white feminist' or 'white womanist'.
6) Making culturally irrelevant comparisons (or allow such comments to take place in your threads without drawing attention to them - see above). Wut? I.e. if you are not fully familiar with the context or reasoning of the cultural/racial comparison you are trying to make it is best to refrain from making it and sticking to something in which you are making a more effective, informed and intelligent point.
QUOTE: "Writing in the Australian, Pamela Bone complains that when a bunch of Muslim feminists (Muslim feminists! What’s next, “gay Republicans”?) met in New York last week to fix an agenda for dispelling a couple of anti-Muslim rumors going around (that they’re terrorists, and that Islam oppresses women), the media gave it a big fat pass. Bone thinks it should have been front page news on accounta Muslim feminists have the solution for the war on terror."
What is going on here? Twisty did you KNOW that it was MUSLIM - YES, MUSLIM Feminists who managed to organized to get rid of the bill to pass Sharia in Ontario? And guess who took the media gave the credit too at the end of the day???? White feminist lawyers who assisted the Muslim women's case. Go figure.
Also, many religious minorities (like myself) call ourselves "hindu-atheists" or whatever-atheists in recognition of the fact that we are religious minorities and that religious intolerance at the hands of WHITE CHRISTIANS is something that has happened to us, and continually happens whenever we encounter ignoramuses of whatever religion.
Whatever.... I hate religion as much as the next radical leftist person, but oddly enough if you talk to women who've experienced DV they'll tell you "God helped them to survive". It's a fact. Women can't just 'sod-off god' you know... for whatever reasons.
Twisty, again I repeat I totally LOVE your witty, intelligent and smart writing - but if I don't point this shit out - I will suffocate.
Quote: Like O.J., my ex was a tall, athletic, charismatic, charming, handsome black man. Like Nicole Brown Simpson, I am blonde and Nordic looking. Simpson and I are both mothers of biracial children, both abuse survivors. Just as nobody believed O.J. was an abuser, nobody believed my ex was an abuser either. He was just so charming and charismatic and fun to be around. Except when he wasn’t.
Heart can you tell me what this was about? I really never understood what relevance it was to point out that Nicole Brown and you were both white and blonde and that both your oppressors were black and male. um, so?
What was the point? Unless, you think racial connections have any bearing on male violence.
Look, again I repeat none of this is about 'breaking connections' or 'bitching at people' it is because I am tired of reading bogus on the net. I am tired of being an 'invisible minority feminist'.
We all need each other. In my heart of hearts I truly believe that it is our politics that unite us, because I only know how much it hurts when other minorities ignore racism/sexism/classism in favour of their limited 'privilege'.
Note this has been Edited. PS. Please do not comment because you think 'I'm bashing your enemy'. This is not a radical feminist or white feminist bashing post. Thank you.
