gdp's Comments

Womanist Musings : burqas are all the rage

Sat, 23 Oct 2010 22:21:29 +0000

She was using the word the way it's generally used in discussions on multiculturalism. By default, we ought to use words according to their general usage, unless we have reason to do otherwise (words gain their meanings from their usage, after all). I don't know if Okin expects women to walk away from their communities. She's arguing against multiculturalism as a political process. If at any point she tells WOC to walk away from their cultures without showing any respect for how difficult that can be for many women, or how many women have no desire to do such a thing, then I'd like to see the evidence for it. Point me to a citation or something. The marketplace of ideas is NOT a capitalistic notion. It is a term that originated with Plato's dialogues, which predates capitalism by a long while. Further, the value of it is objective, and not temporally determined: thus, even if it was 'capitalistic' that would not discredit it in the slightest. Okin can use the marketplace of ideas to criticizes 'cultures of colour' (there's no such thing, it should be 'cultures inhabited largely by people of colour' or something) if she wants to, and her contribution is valuable. I value and agree with her criticisms. She may not have ignored Spivak: she may just not value her ideas or her approach. Not everyone looks at the world the same way, and not everyone shares a postcolonial ideology (which is perhaps what you think 'multiculturalism' means). I do not value Spivak, Edward Said, or any postmodern philosopher. You may have just ignored the brilliance of Plato, but ideas have an objective existence and objective worth, and simply 'locating' them adds nothing to the dialectic; rather, it takes away from it through detraction and a category mistake. Let the subaltern speak as much as they want. It's when they start policing other people that I have a problem.

Womanist Musings : burqas are all the rage

Sat, 23 Oct 2010 22:10:28 +0000

I will continue to use 'idiotic', because I do not agree with the arguments against its use. If this 'space' is primarily one where 'marginalized people' feel 'safe and valued', then that shows something very wrong with the people who created it and the so-called 'marginalized' people who would feel devalued by something so trivial. A place of discussion should be primarily intellectual, with some basic norms of civility. But the use of 'idiotic' does not violate those norms. It is excessively sensitive to be bothered by such words. People with nothing better to do and no sense of priority give importance to such things. We should have free speech, and if we don't, then that's something that should be changed. It's not 'without consequences', it's with consequences that are not worth stifling free speech for. I am all for people developing the virtue of compassion, but the virtue of resilience and stoicism are equally important. The problem with people like you (and other postmodern, identity-politics people) is that you do not help in people's growth, which requires the development of that latter set of virtues. People cannot live in cocoons, given the illusion that the world caters to their every sensitivity. People like you think you're compassionate, but in fact are only interested in the complete destruction of the human spirit, especially of those who are 'marginalized'. Stop patronizing people and let them grow up, if you really care about them.

Womanist Musings : burqas are all the rage

Sat, 23 Oct 2010 21:59:31 +0000

I also do not share a libertarian conception of freedom, and I don't know if Okin does. But either way, her arguments do not have to be based on your idea of liberation. They're based on HER idea of liberation. And not being genitally mutilated or forcibly married off to some man you have never met is at odds with it. Given that she's not a relativist (and if she was, I'd have no respect for her whatsoever), she's not going to talk as if freedom means only what people think, any more than she would as if 1 + 1 equals whatever people think it does. As far as basic liberalism goes however, I share her ethic, and for her to show a lack of concern for women of colour's freedoms could potentially show the racism of lowered expectations, which is a patronizing and inconsistent attitude.

Womanist Musings : burqas are all the rage

Sat, 23 Oct 2010 21:52:10 +0000

No it isn't actually. Your use of the word 'multiculturalism' is entirely different from Okin's, or Kymlicka's for that matter. People who have written about multiculturalism have tended to define it as a political process of granting group-differentiated rights, and considering some societies (multicultural societies) a collection of smaller communities. If you want to use the word differently, then that's just a semantic disagreement, and not a substantive one. White feminists can talk about whatever they've studied, whether it's within their culture or not. She, and everyone else, deserve the freedom to participate in the marketplace of ideas and fulfill their intellectual potential. But that can't be done if she places reigns on her mind and considers herself 'unworthy' of talking about something because of her race. Every claim she makes about other cultures is backed up by evidence. Her claims are true based not only on my own experience, but on all the data there is on the subject. Her position is not demeaning to my feminist politic, but your stifling of her freedom of thought and speech is.

Womanist Musings : burqas are all the rage

Sat, 23 Oct 2010 21:47:28 +0000

I consider 'idiotic' a fine expression and will continue using it for as long as I can. You should reconsider your use of the word 'unsafe'. Your policing of other people's speech makes this 'space' unsafe for everyone, as everyone benefits from free speech.

Womanist Musings : burqas are all the rage

Sat, 23 Oct 2010 20:14:35 +0000

"Thanks, but, as a woman of color, I would much rather fight for equality WITH my community than prostrate myself before the white racist liberal state." And as a woman of colour, I refuse to prostrate before the misogynists within my 'community'. You can be stuck to the hips of misogynists because their skin is nice and dark, but I value my own freedom above all else.

Womanist Musings : burqas are all the rage

Sat, 23 Oct 2010 20:09:30 +0000

Are you serious? She can't criticize other cultures because she's White? That's just ad hominem, and I disagree strongly. I think you should address the merits of the arguments, not the person who's making it. Multiculturalism and feminism are conceptually distinct. It's no more smug to distinguish between the two than to distinguish between cats and dogs. She's not saying one can't be a person of colour and a feminist at the same time. But obviously multiculturalism and feminism are not the same, as the former is an ideology of group-differentiated rights on the basis of ethnic or cultural identity, and the latter is an ideology of women's emancipation. You can hold both ideologies, but to distinguish between the two is neither smug nor inaccurate. In fact, to not distinguish between the two is idiotic. Why shouldn't a non-Muslim White feminist criticize other cultures? Give me one good reason. You're committing the genetic fallacy by implying that she's wrong because she's White. Even if her criticism smacks of 'imperialism' -- which it doesn't -- that says nothing about whether it's true or not. More on the genetic fallacy: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-... Also, don't bother with the 'I'm an XYZ therefore I'm right'. It won't work on me. Not only is it fallacious, unvirtuous (being narcissistic and self-pitying, an attempt to arouse sympathy in the other person like a shameless child showing off a wound in order to get more pocket money), but I'm also completely immune to it given MY identities (although I think identity is complete bullshit, obviously). I am also a Third World woman of colour (and a lesbian too, so that's even more points), and I think her argument is utterly brilliant.

Womanist Musings : burqas are all the rage

Fri, 22 Oct 2010 19:00:53 +0000

This comment expresses what I think about this issue as well. Men object more to the veil than to pornography, though the latter is more misogynistic. The reason is, IMO, that women exposing themselves to men gives men greater control. The veil challenges their sense of access to women's bodies, and pornography does the exact opposite. That isn't to say that the veil isn't oppressive in its origin. We just have to keep both things in mind.

Womanist Musings : burqas are all the rage

Fri, 22 Oct 2010 18:53:13 +0000

It's the old colonial rhetoric of 'rescuing' brown women from their savage men. It combines the sexist theme of the damsel in distress (which involves denial of women's agency) with the racist theme of a civilizing mission. Using women's bodies as a battle-field may be an appropriate image. However, we need to also be careful not to dismiss the issue of genuine misogyny in different societies (including Muslim ones) and in Islamic law. It's just that the way many WhiteMen address the issue is clearly paternalistic, and is not the proper way. As an example of a good, non-patronizing feminist critique of various practices (including ones practiced in Muslim communities), I would recommend Susan Okin's criticisms of multiculturalism.

Womanist Musings : Missy Ann Syndrome: Purse Grabbing White Women

Fri, 3 Sep 2010 01:34:01 +0000

White women are evil, evil EVIILLL! My recent post Chomsky on Social Democracy and Markets

Womanist Musings : I am neither male or female, but I have tried to be both

Wed, 1 Sep 2010 03:35:58 +0000

Ok, fair enough.

Womanist Musings : I am neither male or female, but I have tried to be both

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:24:55 +0000

Lol. These aren't 'musings' you ignoramus. And yes, everyone has more than a slight idea about the identity of others, otherwise we would have no theory of human nature and no ability to anticipate human behaviour.

Womanist Musings : I am neither male or female, but I have tried to be both

Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:43:34 +0000

The entire 'identity politics' movement (of which this blog is a good example) is partly at fault for these kinds of confusions. I am also gender-neutral, but this has caused me no problems at all. This is because we only make a thing of it when we're in a culture where we're encouraged to make a thing of it, where we have a politics that considers being 'gay' or 'trans' or whatever a source of identity and a politically important fact, rather than a mistaken attachment like all identities. The soul is gender-neutral, and God is gender-neutral. Feminine and masculine are entirely political constructs, created for the oppression of women. Realizing this one is freed from gender generally, which includes transgenderism. Consider yourself lucky that you can see through gender, at least more than the average person. My recent post

Womanist Musings : Seth MacFarlane Really Needs A Mute Button

Thu, 12 Aug 2010 03:10:04 +0000

It's not the talking about I'm worried about, but the fact that hours are spent watching and then discussion some of the stupidest shows in the world. I understand if someone comes across something during the course of other activities, but going out of the way to watch it is another story. My recent post Part II

Womanist Musings : Seth MacFarlane Really Needs A Mute Button

Thu, 12 Aug 2010 03:06:37 +0000

Because watching it is a waste of time? Because watching it is bad for your soul? Because watching it shows an interest in a popular culture that is inherently problematic, not to mention mindbogglingly stupid? Talk about it all you want. But going out of the way to watch and then critique it? Really. There are even more important things than TV, believe it or not. My recent post Part II

Womanist Musings : Seth MacFarlane Really Needs A Mute Button

Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:17:28 +0000

I don't know what 'oppression Olympics' is supposed to be, but I think it's telling that so much focus is on the treatment of transpeople and not on misogyny, whereas all 'homophobia' and 'transphobia' comes down to misogyny ultimately. The way I feel about this is the way you'd feel if a person incessantly talked about radical feminism and never acknowledged that racism exists. I'm not demanding that you write about anything, I'm just noticing something that I thought was worth mentioning. I have my own blog, but I don't blog about TV. I still hold that not watching shitty TV is more radical than watching it and complaining about it later. My recent post Part II

Womanist Musings : Seth MacFarlane Really Needs A Mute Button

Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:33:57 +0000

Seth McFarlane is not 'fauxgressive', he's a right-wing libertarian. Libertarianism is a type of conservatism, and one should not expect more from White male libertarians in the mainstream media. I think some elements in the Left spend too much time critically analyzing television. There is obviously a lot wrong with the content of television shows, but the very fact that people are watching it so much seems to go by unnoticed by those who sit for hours -- absorbed in what they're watching -- and later critique what they see. How about not watching shitty television as a radical change? I also think it's interesting that nobody on this blog particularly critiques the misogyny on this show. The misogyny is much more vicious and frequent than transphobia -- and there is no homophobia, as far as I can tell -- yet it goes unnoticed. Apparently defending mere deviance from social norms is more important than protecting a group of people oppressed as a class, in a systematic way. Quite typical, really. My recent post Part II

Womanist Musings : Keep Your Cum To Yourself.

Thu, 5 Aug 2010 19:01:38 +0000

This isn't merely disgusting, it's patriarchal and is part of the idea that men ejaculating onto something is marking their territory. Since women are -- on the patriarchal view -- objects that men are entitled to, ejaculating on them 'makes sense' to a patriarchal-minded person. This theme is prevalent in pornography. My recent post The Innocence of the Philosopher and the Necessity of Platonism

Womanist Musings : "Christian Beliefs" of Homophobia and Gender Determinism

Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:27:02 +0000

I know correlation is not causation. I am saying that the choice explanation fits in with the evidence on gender non-conformity and homosexuality. Such a correlation exists, and demands an explanation, which the choice hypothesis provides. The genetic hypothesis doesn't provide any explanation whatsoever, but merely dismisses this enormous correlation as a coincidence, or else proposes an even more implausible hypothesis that requires its own evidence. My recent post An Interesting Article on Gender Policing in Cuba

Womanist Musings : "Christian Beliefs" of Homophobia and Gender Determinism

Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:19:34 +0000

No, I am not assuming that. My position is not based on my experience alone. It is based on a lot of things, my experience just happens to be consistent with those things. My recent post An Interesting Article on Gender Policing in Cuba