Thursday, February 17, 2011

Western Feminism Sucks (or, Phyllis Chesler's misreading of Egypt)

I received an email from The Phyllis Chesler Organization, perhaps because they got my name from another listserv I'm on or a professional organization that I belong to. I admit to being shocked, though perhaps not surprised, by the email, which linked to this blog post: "Is the Arab Middle East Really Ready for a True Revolution?"

I think we can all see where this is going just from the title, hmm? But let's talk about it, anyway.

Chesler writes:
Is the Arab Middle East really ready for a true revolution? A genuine uprising in the Muslim world which does not focus on the issue of women’s rights is not much of an uprising and does not bode well for a true democracy, one defined by the rule of law, a constitutional system of checks and balances, a separation of mosque and state, freedom of religion, a free press, universal education, individual human rights and freedom.

I thought this was particularly interesting given the ENORMOUS involvement of women in the recent Egyptian revolution. This is the first problem with Western feminism: it consistently tries to define for everyone, everywhere, what "women's rights" are. Silly me - I thought that not having a dictator for a leader would be one of those rights of women - along with participating in a "true democracy" by forcing the bum out. And if we look a little deeper, we remember that Egypt is a country whose highly-educated, professional, working women led the struggle for an Islamic, patriarchal society, one in which they are better protected from gropings on the street and public transportation, and one in which they have access to health care, day care, etc., unlike the society they lived in previously that evidenced a separation of mosque and state. (I'll stop here because my knowledge of Egypt is minimal. This paragraph comes from my notes from a recent lecture on Islamist Feminism in Egypt by a well-regarded scholar on this very issue (whose information I will trust over Chesler's).)

Further, I found myself bristling at Chesler's implication that the Middle Eastern revolutions that have been happening recently are somehow fake and not revolutions at all. While I do understand her point in suggesting that women's liberation would be another, necessary, kind of revolution, it is unfortunate that she uses such dismissive language to talk about something that has been so important to men and women all over the world.

Moving on:

Miraculously, amazingly, a Saudi woman or a number of Saudi women have just launched a new and fabulous Facebook page. They call it Saudi Women Revolution. It features a white smurf-like figure joyfully throwing off her chains and has links to the Saudi women’s drive-in and to campaigns against child brides.

They are talking about arranging meetings in Jeddah and Riyadh.

Given what they know can happen to them: divorce, loss of custody, being honor murdered by their families, jail, torture (flogging), and murder (beheading, stoning), I must congratulate them for their awe-inspiring bravery. Alas, we do not have such brave women here.


I think it is great, as well, that Saudi women are launching a Facebook Revolution (though by no stretch of the imagination is the figure on the page a "smurf-like figure"). However, the above excerpt, taken as a whole, seems somewhat patronizing to me. I'm not sure why, exactly, but it has something to do with the last sentence - the notion that Saudi women are terrifically different from women in the West, that they are braver, better, stronger. (Where have we heard that before? Isn't what people say about those whose lives they could never imagine living? It's what White women have said to Black women, what Western feminists say to feminists of the Global South (not sure that makes geographical sense - I might not be using that correctly), what able-bodied people say to people with disabilities. It's not a good thing to say.)

It's also not true that there are no women "here" who are as brave, but perhaps that's an argument to get into at another time. I will simply say that such a statement smacks of romanticization.

Chesler goes on to detail heroic acts by Saudi women in the face of repression, punishment, and murder. She's right to note these acts. However, I wish that she would refrain from using language such as Saudi (and Iranian) feminists stir my imagination. They live as if they know that heroism is their only alternative. The first sentence presents Saudi and Iranian feminists (do they all call themselves "feminists", incidently? It is not appropriate to apply this label to other people who do not claim it themselves) as if they are important because of the impact they have on Chesler. And the second sentence is more of what I've said above - taking what is a life that has to be lived a particular way and making it into an extraordinary life because it seems so impossible to the viewer. The viewer's own beliefs and what they understand to be "reality" and "normalcy" figure heavily in this telling, so that the focus is less on the women and what they are doing and more on what Chesler thinks about them.

And at bottom, what bothers me about this piece is really the way that this story is about Chesler telling it. There are other ways to write about these women. Nowhere in the article does Chesler link to any organizations (other than the Facebook page)...or reference Middle Eastern writers...or place this movement into a larger context of women's reform movements in Middle Eastern countries. Chesler does a good job of sketching for us the dangers of challenging authority, and she gives us a sense of some of the challenges that have come before. Had she done more of this, had she talked more about the ways in which women covertly or overtly challenge authority, this piece would not feel that it is more about Chesler's feelings about these revolutionary women than it is about their accomplishments.

There is some of the same on the Saudi Women Revolution Facebook page. One presumably Western woman writes, "The world will know that all women will be free. America is next. We are behind you, my sisters." America is NEXT? Really? Does anyone else wonder what Saudi women might think about this comment posted on their Facebook page, apparently equating the struggles that American and Saudi women face? Another (Canadian) woman writes: "...I need to be able to read this! Please translate." Perhaps I am making assumptions, but why does she "need" to read what Saudi women are writing to each other? And why do they need to take time out of their revolution to translate?

I am skeptical of Western feminist discussions of Saudi and other Middle Eastern women's revolutions. It wasn't that long ago, remember, that Western feminists were leading the charge to bomb the shit out of Afghanistan, while Afghan women begged us not to. Western feminists - not all of them, but enough - continue to see Islam as always an oppressive force in women's lives rather than understanding the role of culture rather than religion in dictating women's repression or freedom. Now, I don't doubt Chesler's sincerity - or, for that matter, the sincerity of the other women posting on Facebook. However, being true allies means treating each other with respect and allowing each other to define our own issues. It means continuing to respect each other when we disagree. It means not singling out only those women who appear to fit the definition of Western feminism as the true revolutionaries.

Epilogue:
I thought that perhaps I was being too hard on Chesler. But then, I went to her site and read this. So, Chesler believes that women have not been as involved in the revolution in Egypt as they might have been - which is simply untrue, though the West did not run these stories and picture. She believes that their wearing of hijab is, in itself, oppressive and that it is the decision of the men in their families, though this is historically not the case in Egypt. And she reads photos of women in hijab in very powerful poses as, instead, women being oppressed and weak and in danger. This is more than Western feminist ignorance - it is Western feminist Islamophobic ignorance, and an almost willful misreading.

Further Epilogue:
I foolishly did not realize that Chesler was part of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Horowitz's gang of thugs does not represent mainstream (or radical) feminism - in fact, it tends to see feminism of any kind as part of a left-wing indoctrination conspiracy aimed at brainwashing college students. For the last few years, though, it has seemed to focus its efforts on fanning the flames of Islamophobia, as is quite evident from the other items on the site (and from the comments on those "articles"). Even so, I would not be surprised to find other feminists making the same claims that Chesler makes. Stay tuned.

7 comments:

Vegibud said...

Dear Blogging While Feminist:

It was extremely gratifying to read that you agree with Phyllis Chesler - in her February 14, 2011 piece, "Is the Arab Middle East Really Ready for a True Revolution?" - on the prime issues involving women's rights in the Middle East. In "Western Feminism Sucks (or, Phyllis Chesler's misreading of Egypt)", your response to Ms. Chesler's article, you wrote:

"While I do understand her [Ms. Chesler's] point in suggesting that women's liberation would be another, necessary, kind of [Middle Eastern] revolution..."

"I think it is great, as well, that Saudi women are launching a Facebook Revolution..."

"Chesler goes on to detail heroic acts by Saudi women in the face of repression, punishment, and murder. She's right to note these acts."

"Chesler does a good job of sketching for us the dangers of challenging authority, and she gives us a sense of some of the challenges that have come before."

"Now, I don't doubt Chesler's sincerity..."

Therefore, I was shocked and dismayed to read some of your other comments in the same article regarding Ms. Chesler, a fellow devoted women's rights activist:

"This is the first problem with Western feminism: it consistently tries to define for everyone, everywhere, what 'women's rights' are."

"Further, I found myself bristling at Chesler's implication that the Middle Eastern revolutions that have been happening recently are somehow fake and not revolutions at all."

"However, the above excerpt, taken as a whole, seems somewhat patronizing to me. I'm not sure why, exactly, but it has something to do with the last sentence - the notion that Saudi women are terrifically different from women in the West, that they are braver, better, stronger."

"However, I wish that she would refrain from using language such as Saudi (and Iranian) feminists stir my imagination. They live as if they know that heroism is their only alternative."

"And at bottom, what bothers me about this piece is really the way that this story is about Chesler telling it."

However, in your "Epilogue" may be gleaned the reason for the harsh criticisms (and your rationalization for writing this piece!):

"This is more than Western feminist ignorance - it is Western feminist Islamophobic ignorance, and an almost willful misreading."

Ms. Anonymous Minnesotan: Isn't this supposed to be about the women???

Bernard Macy
Little Falls, NJ

Plain(s)feminist said...

Hmm. You seem to have the same problem with misreading that Chesler does. No, I do not agree with Chesler.

As for feminism being "about the women" - no, feminism is not merely "about the women," as if anything that focuses on women would then be feminist and anything that doesn't would not. In this case, the women we are speaking of are Muslim, and they get to determine whether or not "feminism" is relevant to their lives and what it means - just like their Christian and Jewish (and so forth) sisters have been allowed to do.

Plain(s)feminist said...

...and that's "Dr." Anonymous Minnesotan.

Vegibud said...

Yes, DOCTOR, I am sure that the Muslim women are thinking all day about whether or not they fit into the label "feminist", while they cannot drive, dissent or go out without their husband's permission -- not to mention, face the real fear of becoming a victim of an honor killing, mutilation, etc.

And, thank you so much for including me in the same category as Phyllis Chesler!

Non-anonymous respondent,
Bernard Macy
Little Falls, NJ

Plain(s)feminist said...

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You are making a lot of assumptions about Muslim women and the role of Islam, as opposed to culture, in their lives. You are blaming Islam for cultural practices, and you are assuming, as did Chesler, that all Muslim women face the kind of oppression that women Saudi Arabia face. They do not. All of your self-righteous outrage is not going to change this fact. And, indeed, the women that Chesler was writing about were Egyptian women - she pulled in Saudi women because she couldn't make her point otherwise.

You seem to be new to the internet and to blogging. Anonymous blogging is the norm rather than the exception. You are certainly welcome to identify yourself however you wish, but it is considered impolite to insist that everyone else identify the way that you would like them to do. (Which is really not so different than the point I was making in my post...)

Vegibud said...

To Blogging While Feminist:

I did not use the word "Islam" once. And, the only time I used the word "Islamophobic", is when I quoted you!

Women are suffering throughout the Arab Middle East, yet you persist in attempting to shift the discussion. Where is YOUR "outrage" -- self-righteous or otherwise?

Bernard Macy
Little Falls, NJ

Plain(s)feminist said...

I did not use the word "Islam" once. And, the only time I used the word "Islamophobic", is when I quoted you!

Women are suffering throughout the Arab Middle East, yet you persist in attempting to shift the discussion. Where is YOUR "outrage" -- self-righteous or otherwise?


First, I am not shifting the discussion. I am *having* a discussion. I'm sorry that it is not about what you want it to be about, but that's how blogs work - sometimes, people will want to have conversations on their blogs that are not the conversations you want to have.

Second, you seem to be missing my point. I am saying that women in the Middle East have been organizing on their own behalfs for some time. When Chesler criticizes the Egyptian revolution for not including what she considers to be "women's issues", but has to use examples from Saudi Arabia, one of the most oppressive regimes for women, to make her point, she is being disingenuous. She is suggesting that all Muslim women are oppressed because they are Muslim (more than suggesting - Chesler says this straight out, and it is a common theme in her writing, as you are no doubt aware). She is also arguing that all women everywhere must agree with her definition of women's rights and must mobilize accordingly, or else their efforts are somehow not "real". That is the critique I am making.

That is not a critique that is incompatible with outrage at women's oppression in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, but outrage is not what I am writing about in this post. As I said, I am having a different conversation. I am afraid I am not going to engage you in the conversation you are interested in having, so you will want to go elsewhere for that.

Regarding your email to me: yes, you are correct that comment moderation is on. This allows me the time to review comments rather than having them automatically post.