In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Well, Hey

I just realized that as of yesterday, I’ve been writing for Feministe for a year.

Whee!

It has been quite a ride.

Lesson of the Day: Knowing When to Stop

It’ something that our little friend Gary Miller could stand to learn a little more about. He wrote an asinine opinion column for NYU’s student newspaper, the Washington Square News, about how “girls” who go to clubs are stupid whores. I responded; he had something of a hissy fit in the comments (“Are you pretending your blog is the be-all and end-all of public discourse? Does it even get enough hits for an Alexa ranking?”); he inexplicably brought up Paris Hilton to strengthen his case; and he finally defended the column on the grounds that it initiated discussion — which, as I said in the other post, isn’t exactly a hallmark of fine journalism (the New York Post cover that photoshopped weasel heads on UN members also generated a lot of discussion; hopefully I don’t need to explain why it wasn’t exactly a high point in journalistic history).

And the fun didn’t stop there. Gawker nominated Gary for their weekly Great Moments in Journalism contest; Gary is so special that he won.

You’d think that after being publicly outed as a fool and as an embarassment to NYU and to the Washington Square News, Gary would have tucked his tail between his legs and laid low for a while. But it would appear that the word “humility” isn’t in Gary’s (admittedly limited) vocabularly. No, Gary feels that, after being strung up as a certifiable moron in front of hundreds of thousands of people, it’s probably best to respond by essentially saying, “But blogs are stupid.”

And good God it is glorious.

Read More…Read More…

The Paradox of Veiling

I know it’s felt like hijab month here at Feministe, and that might be getting irritating, as the hijab is really not the biggest issue facing women world-wide, and the Western obsession with it is fairly obnoxious. My only defense is that (1) I’m taking a class that I really love and we’re talking about the hijab this week, so I’m reading a lot about it and I think it’s interesting, and (2) the niquab issue in England has been raised recently, and it’s been generating a lot of controvery.

My professor sent out this article about veiling written by a former nun. She presents a unique perspective, and it’s definitely worth reading the whole thing. An excerpt:

They argue that you do not have to look western to be modern. The veiled woman defies the sexual mores of the west, with its strange compulsion to “reveal all”. Where western men and women display their expensive clothes and flaunt their finely honed bodies as a mark of privilege, the uniformity of traditional Muslim dress stresses the egalitarian and communal ethos of Islam.

Muslims feel embattled at present, and at such times the bodies of women often symbolise the beleaguered community. Because of its complex history, Jack Straw and his supporters must realise that many Muslims now suspect such western interventions about the veil as having a hidden agenda. Instead of improving relations, they usually make matters worse. Lord Cromer made the originally marginal practice of veiling problematic in the first place. When women are forbidden to wear the veil, they hasten in ever greater numbers to put it on.

Thoughts?

The Act of Bearing Witness

Hello, my name is La Lubu, and I will be one of the guestbloggers here at feministe for….well, as long as they’ll have me! My blogging name is a reflection of my heritage—La Lubu, the wolf-woman, the goddess, the one with Blood on her Teeth, the one in the shadows, the one who listens, watches, and howls at the moon. La Lubu is dangerous, not to be trifled with, but She is also a Muse, and a healer, and fiercely protective of her family. I seek to embody this archetype, though like anything else, sometimes I got it and sometimes I don’t. Sometimes the couch calls—but that’s not so different from Lubu’s den, no? You can read more about the why of my nickname over here, and I wrote this in the comments at Hugo’s blog:

“See, I find communication by writing difficult. It’s not a matter of not knowing the right words or how to use them, but of being able to bring sensory imagery into the print—if that makes any sense. I’m more comfortable with the immediacy, nuances and physicality of in-person communication. I think “La Lubu” as a handle provides a pretty good foundation from where I start—indicates a little more of where I’m coming from, without having to go into a whole dissertation or autobiography. It provides clues to the “real me” the same way my physical presence does.”

There’s been a lot of questioning of the use of nom-de-plumes in the blogosphere lately, with disastrous results. While I am grateful for the opportunity for a reason to return to the blogosphere, my presence here is at the expense of a writer I like and admire—zuzu, whose commentary at Hugo’s blog I always enjoyed, going back a couple of years ago. I was happy to see her blogging here, and seriously dug her posts—sometimes serious, sometimes irreverant, sometimes wry—but never boring, even when they were a little New-York-centric at times. I still see her in my mind, sweaty and wearing that hardhat from the New Orleans cleanup effort. She looked like a sister on the jobsite in that gear; a vibe I always got from her posts, anyway. Take a rest, sis, and put your feet up—but don’t forget us. I’m honored to share your front porch.

I think the questioning of this practice—using a nickname, handle, nom-de-plume, guise, alter-ego, however you think of the act—shines a distinct light not only on the relative privileges of some in the blogosphere, but of the general lack of appreciation for the multiverse that is the blogosphere. An effort to homogenize blogging culture, which ought to be obvious as a non-starter. I knew I would use “Lubu” as a handle after a long, kitchen-table conversation with one of my aunts; the kind of talk that alternates between reverie and get-down-ta-business nitty gritty, war stories, dreams, plans for the future (‘cuz both of us were in the midst of struggle at the time). I probably need to mention for clarity’s sake that my parents are the oldest children of larger families, so I have aunts close to my age—-just thought I’d throw that out there lest anyone think this was a teaching moment, rather than an reaching moment, y’know? I deliberately chose it to reflect the culture, my being, that I’ve been told all my life that I was supposed to downplay, supposed to assimilate out of, supposed to suppress my Self. Supposed to forget, to change from, even though my in-person presence gives me away every time. Using this name was my chance to put my whole self into motion on print. On the Internet, no one may know you’re a dog, but goddamnit, I want ’em to know I’m a wolf. It was also a chance to be creative, which is not something I get the chance to do at work, though I do love my job. I think that’s another aspect of it that people can relate to—the option to be creative. Most of us have to compartmentalize our lives such that we have to choose bill-paying over art; the art gets pushed back to the realm of avocation, and even then doesn’t get taken out to play often enough. My name is meant to reveal, not to obscure. I don’t think the proponents of so-called “real names” get that. They must not have been comic-book fans when they were kids. (full disclosure: I wanted to be Lilith, daughter of Dracula, when I was a kid!)

So. Here we are. Where was I? Oh yeah—multiverse and the blogosphere. Would you believe I didn’t use the internet until I was over thirty? I resisted getting a computer; I knew that my reading jones would follow me down the rabbit hole if I did. Well, I got one anyway, and off I went—in search of other tradeswomen and all nature of siciliata. There wasn’t much out there, in fact the only (personal) tradeswoman site I know of is operated by a friend of mine, bluecollargal. To me, the Internet was a window on worlds, a way to break out mentally from the midwest—a midwest I have a love/hate relationship with. See, I always thought I would dust this fucking central-Illinois dirt from off my feet ASAP. I spent my apprenticeship longing for my JW card so I could Hit the Road and be Outta Here, with all due quickness. Conversely, when I did just that, I ended up going not too far away, to St. Louis and the Metro-East, old stomping grounds (though there was no “Metro East” when I lived there, LOL!). And I savored the chance to breathe that river air again (wtf is wrong with me?) and listen to KDHX. I started picking up a jones for jazz, old-school soul-jazz and acid jazz too (that is, when I wasn’t listening to Majic 108). I started reading jazz magazines to educate myself, learn more about the artists. ‘Round about that time, Umar Bin Hassan, one of the Last Poets, had put out his album (yeah, I still call ’em that) “Be Bop Or Be Dead”. So he was interviewed a lot. And in several of those interviews, since he was still feuding with inveterate New Yorker Jalal Nuriddin, he worked in every chance to rep the midwest that he could. He talked about how funk came from the midwest, Chicago blues, kick-ass KC barbecue, how Miles Davis came from the midwest, how the musical influences of the South came up the Mississippi and adapted to factory towns, and how all that art had as its base a certain POV that was distinct to the midwest. That we—midwesterners—had little patience for pretension and glitter, that we had a brusqueness and honesty, that we had a jones for the unfettered truth, the undoctored image, that we still were proud of the dirt under our fingernails. I mean—he went on and on, reminding me of Carl Sandburg (another poet who repped where he was from), and got me thinking how rivers carry ideas, sounds, ways of seeing and being—along with the cargo. It set my mind to flowing. He said somethin’ about how we call out bullshit when we see it, instead of hassling with how to work it to our advantage—that we just hacked it open and showed it for what it was. And for the first time, I started feeling a sense of pride of place—of where I came from. Previously, I’d always separated in my mind the where of where I was from, from my familial/cultural background. I didn’t really accept, or want to accept, the degree to which the place where my feet stood was an indelible influence upon me as well. Which is one more reason I enjoy the hell out of brownfemipower, who has consistently reminded the more cultured, varnished world that the left lives in the blood and bones of the midwest, too. Show her some love every chance you get.

The other night, it was my daughter’s birthday. And since it’s so close to Halloween, there was an opportunity to hear a storyteller, who regaled us with scary ghost stories for a couple of hours. During the intermission, we ducked back into the art gallery to see the latest exhibition, which has been much hyped in the local media. The title? Bearing Witness: The Art of Preston Jackson, which is showing at several venues in the area.

It. Took. My. Breath. Away. I am not educated about art. I would be incapable of having a serious art discussion with anyone even remotely connected with the art world—but this….this just….the depth of vision….the symbology…..I sure as hell don’t know what is says to the folks “knowledgeable” about art, but it got into my bloodstream. I had read the article in the Illinois Times about the showing, and swore I would get out and see it all before it left, but y’know, life gets hectic, and my good intentions were busy paving a road to a hell that involved lots of unfinished home projects, an overflowing basket of laundry, making sure the l’il one’s homework got done, and other mundane shit. This show was the antidote. Preston Jackson’s abstracts don’t conceal, but reveal.

Shame on my ass for not knowing of this man; not knowing that he is an honored person of the Legacy Project. He grew up in Decatur, smelling the same crappy ADM air I get to smell on a bad day when the wind shifts. He is dyslexic, and used that way of seeing to tackle his schoolwork as a child, figuring out a way to make the pieces fit. He still uses that piecework in his art. Go take a walk through Julianne’s Garden. Locally, African-American parent educator C. L. Crockett had a fine editorial on her reaction; she especially related to “Hog Killin’ Time”. I think “Guardian Sacrifice” is another outstanding work likely to intrude into the consciousness of mothers (and others). Take a walk through Bronzeville. Bearing Witness is the work of a master artist, a teacher, who consistently challenges racism and sexism. This is work that is passionate and direct; his subterranean imagery designed to aim straight inward. This is penetrating art that belies his nonchalant, self-described “shy” persona.

We all bear witness, and we do so with our whole selves, our bodies, our minds, our souls. We all speak from where we come from, with whatever voice we can gather, standing on whatever speck of ground we can scratch up. That some use blogging as part of a foundation for professional gain does not negate the need others of us have for blogging as a shout from the shadows and fog in which we find ourselves, at times. There are different ways of knowing, different forms of expression, different cadences, different steps, different languages, slanguages, lingo. Absent that, the blogosphere would hold as much appeal as an actuarial conference.

So. Here is La Lubu. Fucked-up Sunday bed-head and all. Bearing witness.

Breaking up is hard to do

Hi everyone! Greetings from one of your guest bloggers. I’m really excited to be contributing at Feministe, although I do wish it was under slightly more cheerful circumstances. The short synopsis view of me: my background is primarily in bioethics (my name can be found on the President’s Council on Bioethics’s website if you look hard enough), and I’m currently a third year law student, which might help explain why my first guest post here is about divorce.

I’ve been following two very different stories in the news about marital discord: country singer Sara Evans’s recently filed divorce* and the race for Congress in the 10th district in Pennsylvania, where incumbent Don Sherwood (R-PA) has been dealing with the fallout from news of an affair with a twenty-nine-year-old staffer and the allegations that he choked her. Sherwood’s opponent has been harping on the affair in debates and campaign ads. Normally, celebrity divorces and allegations of sexual misconduct by politicians are not exactly news. But I’m writing about these two instances because there’s something kind of strange about each. First is Evans’s husband’s allegations that the singer’s “interest in her “marital roles and responsibilities” declined and she “neglected” their three children after she began appearing on ABC’s “Dancing with the Stars.”” Second is the letter Sherwood’s wife sent out to Republican voters talking about the affair.

A Slight Chill

So I don’t want to make this all about me–which it is, it always, truly is–but if I may, I would like to highlight this comment from belledame in zuzu’s post (emphasis mine):

I am having an increasingly hard time interpreting any of this as “friendly.” Friendly warning; like, “bad things happen. just saying. over and over and over. by the way, I REALLY DON’T LIKE what you just said. oh, and i know who you are. don’t shoot the messenger, though. just…bad things happen, sometimes.” There are words for people who do this; “friend” isn’t one of them.

so, wait, did she SERIOUSLY serve you with papers, or is this all just creepy secondhand wankage so far? Not that i wouldn’t take it seriously, of course, but um. i mean to even hint-threaten to sue *you* of all people…

is she, like, just totally losing her shit?

fuck, am i gonna be slapped with a libel suit just for asking that? It was a question. Not an assertion. Really I have no idea about how much shit she has, or, had to begin with.

Yup!

I mean, yeah, exactly, facetious though the line (mostly) was. For perhaps the first time, I am really feeling worried about what I say here. Intimidated, threatened, anxious, pissed off. And that sucks. Maybe it’s naive on a couple of levels, but that’s my greatest fear about the evil internets, honestly: the worry that we’ll all be too terrified to reveal any personal experience, passionate emotion, or candid opinion for fear that someone will use it against us. What would be the point of a conversation conducted like a job interview?

I’m sorry for zuzu’s trouble, and for whatever part I might have played in bringing it here. And I hope this doesn’t damage feministe, or the excellent commenting community you all sustain.

Why the Headscarf Debate Matters

Not trying to make it hijab day here at Feministe, but Russell sends on this article about Tunisia’s attempts to limit the headscarf in public, and I think it illustrates fairly well why this issue should matter to feminists.

For too long, the headscarf/veil has been seen as synonymous with “oppression.” Let me be clear: There are certainly oppressive aspects to any article of clothing that is required to be worn by women under patriarchal authority. The headscarf is no exception. Certainly, though, Western culture and Christian traditions aren’t free of these things either, and we continue to wage our wars over women’s bodies here, too.

But the headscarf debate matters on both ends: It matters when it’s required of women (socially or legally), and it matters when it’s banned (socially or legally). The reasons why headscarf requirements are problematic have been gone over many times before, and are obvious enough where I don’t feel the need to detail them. But bans on headscarves are equally problematic, but for different reasons. Bans on headscarves, veils, burqas, hijabs, or chadors turn particular classes of women into prisoners of their own homes. It confines them to the private sphere. It blocks them from public participation in the name of “modernism.” It only hurts women and girls, and therefore is no great victory for women’s rights.

A bar on headscarfs in public doesn’t have the effect of women leaving their scarves at home — it means that women who believe they have a religious duty to be covered will not participate in the public sphere. It means they won’t go to school. They won’t run for public office. They won’t work.

I’m not arguing that wearing the headscarf is a choice that’s entirely freely made. It’s made about as freely as my choice to wear moderately modest clothes to class now that I’m in professional school. That is, we’re fooling ourselves if we think that all of us in the West have complete and total freedom when it comes to how we dress, and we’re fooling ourselves if we argue that women who wear the headscarf in countries where it’s not required are making a choice independent of all other social, religious and political fetters. But there is a unique emphasis on the headscarf, from both inside Islamic societies and from outside of them. It’s tied up in culture, religion, sex, politics, and ideology. When it’s required, it largely reflects assumptions about men, their inability to control themselves sexually, and their inherent rights to public participation — that is, since men are naturally deserving of their place in the public sphere, and since men are also saddled with an innate uncontrollable animal sexuality which makes any woman an immediate distraction and a potential victim, the burden should be on women to cover themselves and protect themselves from men, who serve as both protector and aggressor. It’s backwards, but it’s not something that’s confined to any single religious belief. And from this perspective, the headscarf is problematic.

But the headscarf also gives certain classes of women greater mobility in their daily lives. It means that they can walk down the street without being harassed. It means that they can advocate for certain goals — like women’s rights — without having their religious credibility questioned. It means that they can escape being perceived as a sexual object for male pleasure.

None of these things should be viewed as endorsements of the headscarf. The fact that it gives women reprieve from a sexist society doesn’t actually do anything to combat that sexist society — but in the day to day, it makes life that much easier for many, many women and girls. And that matters.

When it’s banned, the only people it hurts are the women and girls who are deprived of education, of work, and of public interaction. It puts all the burden of combating extremisim, embracing enlightenment, and balancing religious belief with modern life on the backs of women. The arguments about it only reinstate the idea that women are what they physically present to the world, and that religious and governmental authorities have the right to dictate how women present themselves, because that presentation is representative of the greater culture and its “values” — which are largely shaped and determined by the men in charge. It treats women as symbols, not as autonomous beings deserving of full and unqualified human rights. And, again, it puts women in an impossible situation, where they must negotiate their religious beliefs, their political persuations, their physical safety, their social standing, and the laws of their country, and make a decision which will inevitably be under attack from someone.

As feminists, we should discuss the various social constraints imposed on women, including our clothing. What we shouldn’t do is support policies which, in the name of “modernism,” only serve to limit the mobility and the public rights of certain women and girls.

I’ll end by borrowing from an incredible post by the incomparable Ms. Lauren:

She answered the other students’ questions patiently. Most of all, she emphasized one thing: Yes, she would don the hijab on Monday. Underlining this statement was that demeanor I couldn’t place before. I could look just like you, she seemed to say, but I don’t want to.

I can’t even comprehend the courage it must have taken to take off that scarf, or the courage it will take to put it back on. I am still completely blown away.

Although I am aware that many feminists question hijab and women’s choice to don the Muslim head scarf, and that I myself have been skeptical of the choice to adhere to religious law associated with the Taliban, consider that in America being “hijabed” may be a radical act, an assertion of identity, willful acceptance of life on the margins in a time of a seeming holy war. Consider wearing the hijab as a feminist act, a performance of aggression against the hypersexualization of young women in America.

Sex, Lies and Feminism

The Rachel Kramer Bussel column-drama just won’t die, will it?

Rachel Kramer Bussel’s Village Voice piece about kinky, slutty sex is stirring ire in the feminist blogosphere. I agree with Pandagon that what women need sexually is a complete range of options. But my experience with women who identify as feminists is that they don’t like me slapping boys around and pegging them any more than they like women acting out rape fantasies. “False consciousness” is the term I’ve generally had assigned to me, which means “You think you know what you want, but you’re deluded. We’re going to tell you how your sexuality should look.”

Which is why, while I actively support just about everything that feminists identify as political goals, I do not call myself a feminist.

Read More…Read More…

On Disclosure

It’s sex day at Feministe!

I wanted to clarify my earlier comments on the “numbers talk” a bit, and flesh out some ideas/questions that came up in comments.

First, the clarification: when I’m talking about a “numbers talk,” I’m talking about the sort of conversation that arises when people have attitudes like this:

Read More…Read More…

BlogHer 2006

In case you missed it, a whole lot of people pitched in to send me to BlogHer Con 2006 in San Jose at the end of July. Allow me to say, Sweet Mother Mary and sliced bread, thank you for sending me on a real vacation!

I will be speaking on Day Two of the conference, from 3:30-5:00pm about my experience blogging, dealing with reader expectations and blogging burnout, and what devious things I’ve been up to lately in the blogosphere. The panel is named “Next Level Naked,” and due to the requests of a fellow panelist, they promise to turn down the lights and A/C just for us. Unfortunately, my panel time means that I can’t go to the Political Blogging talk and watch Lindsey Beyerstein rip Althouse to shreds. Somebody get that shit on YouTube for me.

I’m preparing to blog again at Feministe during and after the conference, when and if I can find a computer handy. When you’re poor enough that a vacation is out of reach, you’re poor enough that a laptop is out of reach. Pray for the kindness of others — and their ability to put their computer-babies into my hands long enough to compose a post or four.

If you’re going to the conference and want to say hello, drop a line in the comments and I’ll keep an eye out for you when I get there.