Samhita of Feministing has a nice post that, to my mind, suggests why the recent blowup about women of color and feminism and the (sometimes-deliberate)misperception that American feminism (in particular) stints non-white, non-affluent, non-first-world women is relevant.
Health activists in sub-Saharan Africa are seeing that attempts at stopping FGM based on women’s rights isn’t working, so they are turning to the Quran, to find evidence that it is not a religious necessity.
...
I am sure part of the problem is that Muslim ideas and Western feminist ideas tend to run in opposition to one another. The feminist movement, as it is understood world-wide, is considered to be Western and white. It seems almost logical that local leaders would reject the terms of women’s rights if they are based on a Western model of “women’s liberation.”
The point, by the way, isn’t that feminism is inclusive. As Jessica Valenti puts it early in Full Frontal Feminism: A Young Woman’s Guide to Why Feminism Matters, the idea that “Feminism is for Old White Ladies” is a myth.
But like stories about feminists burning bras or all being fat, hairy, ugly lesbians-because-no-man-would-have-them it’s an extremely useful one propagated by those who, like Christina Hoff Sommers of The Weekly Standard and too many conservative fundamentalists of all religions, oppose feminism and dismiss women of color.
Submitted by 1412 (not verified) on Tue, 2007-05-29 21:10.
The disconnect is more than just myth. I think even in America for women of color, our choices were not the same. Feminism as a movement didn't speak to me. Something like title 9 didn't exactly fit. Womens sports were more highly regarded at HBCUs.
This does not mean that all feminist issues were different or that we could not be feminist, but early on their approach seem to be only relevant to middle class white women.
When one is still shown (KKK pamphlet 1970) as a female naked ape person with breast, progeny of an ape and the negro; there wouldn't be much interest in burning bras.
[I remember reading somewhere completely outside the context of race -- something about, I think, disputes about whether "lipstick" feminists were real feminists -- where the author's thesis was that the earliest (publically noticed) American feminists were also staunchly Protestant New Englanders who, as well as agitating for women's rights kept scolding immigrant feminists who in the 19th Century were largely from Catholic countries of origin, for failing to adopt the starched, high-collar black dresses and tightly wrapped buns of their puritanical (and Puritan) "betters." One thing that does seem different these days, as opposed to even the 1980s, is that the dialog that probably should have begun in the 1870s, let alone the 1970s, is finally starting to happen. It's worth pointing out that the original (and as far as I know the only) actual "bra burning" took place in front of a Miss America contest and was a protest against the artificial depictions of women as propagated by beauty pagents. I could be totally projecting here, but I'm pretty confident that if the event were to take place today the disgraceful images projecting black women as apes would be thrown int the bin alongside the (torpedo then, push-up now) bras. One of the real problems, I think, and one that goes back at least as far as Stanton and Douglass, is the idea that one or the other form of oppression is "more important," as if only one could be taken on at a time. Maybe that was true back when old white men controlled the very limited and very expensive to operate set of media outlets. *Maybe.* Thought I sort of doubt it. While it's absolutely true that for a lot of people the internet remains a luxury both in terms of time and affordability. But it's at least created *more* outlets for voices to be heard, and more importantly, for public debate to take place. And, as at least some of the links I posted indicate, it's a debate most people seem to want to have... and, actually, are *going* to have whether they want it or not. Thank you, Five. --fl]
Submitted by 1412 (not verified) on Wed, 2007-05-30 13:26.
Of course I can't see the letters FGM and avoid raising my head.
I would actually dispute that the feminism message isn't working but one approach on its own isn't enough. Engaging the help of Muslim clerics is nothing new - the United Nations Population Fund has been talking about this for ages but as only one of several tactics.
People seem to be oblivious to the fact that FGM is not practised solely by Muslims (it predates both Islam and Christianity), and there are many Muslim countries which don't practise it at all - eg Turkey, Iran, Algeria, so Western feminism running counter to Islam is not entirely relevant in this instance.
What does surprise me is the response to Papillon's blog amongst young immigrant women in France, though very few express feminist views, neither do they mention Islam or any other religion. But they are all intent on surgery to repair or reconstruct. While I've had no corresponding comments on the English translations, I've certainly be having hits from a large number of African and some Middle Eastern countries.
I'll stop now. You should never have made this box so big you know.
[Hell no it's not just practiced in Muslim countries. I was shown a photo of a device from the 1950s, designed by an American doctor, to more quickly remove the clitoris of women with "nymphomaniac" tendencies. (I won't describe it again but the shock burned the image into my brain.) And a bit earlier they used carbolic acid to burn away little girl's clitorises to "help them" keep from masturbating. See also way too many otherwise unfounded hysterectomies committed with the same intention. It's *always* a mistake to believe only "those people" do it -- no matter who "those people" happen to be -- because "those people" are almost never the only ones. Thanks, A. --fl]