Femagination » Multicultural

A Saudi Woman Speaks Out

Ellen Keim — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 20:55:01 +0000

Non-Muslims see Muslim women as oppressed, especially in countries like Saudi Arabia, where grown women have male guardians, are not allowed to drive and are required to cover themselves totally whenever they leave the house. That’s why it’s particularly surprising to run across a Saudi woman like Buthayna Nasser. She wears the full abaya (although not the niqab, or face veil) in her job as a television newscaster.

It’s a misconception that Saudi women don’t work, let alone have careers. Apparently, they have voices, too, judging by this video:

What Makes Eve Ensler Ill: Cancer or the Congo?

Ellen Keim — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:00:40 +0000

I just found out that Eve Ensler has uterine cancer. Her prognosis, she reports, is good, but uterine cancer is nothing to fool around with. If caught early, 5-year survival rates can be as high as 96%. Ensler does not share at which stage her cancer was detected. At any rate, she has been through hell physically for the past few months. But, she insists, it is nothing compared to the hell she goes through every time she hears of the latest atrocities being committed in the Congo.

In her article, which appeared in several newspapers simultaneously, she writes:

The stories of continued rapes, machete killings, grotesque mutilations, outright murdering of human rights activists – these images and events create nausea and weakness much worse than chemo or antibiotics or pain meds ever could. But even harder to deal with, in the weakened state that I have been in, is knowing that despite the ongoing horrific atrocities that have taken the lives of more than 6 million people and left more than 500,000 women and girls raped and tortured, the international power elite appear to be doing nothing.

She describes all the attempts she and her foundation, V-Day, have made to interest world leaders in the plight of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and how those appeals have fallen on deaf ears. When she appeals to Michelle Obama (through a high-end official), she is told that “femicide was not her ‘brand.’ Mrs. Obama was focusing on childhood obesity.” (Ensler’s reaction? “It surprised me that a woman with her capabilities lacked ambidextrous skills.”)

I realize that the U.S., or any one entity, for that matter, can’t solve all the world’s problems. But does that mean that we should ignore them? Women and children are the real victims of war. But the revenge-rapes and brutal massacres, not to mention being left without husbands and fathers, are largely written off as “collateral damage.” The death of soldiers is tragic enough, but women and children don’t even have any means of defending themselves.

If the Congo were in our own back yard, we might be moved to do something about the conditions there. But because it is half a world away, we feel that we can put it out of our minds. But Eve Ensler, even though you might think she has more important things to worry about, can’t put it out of hers.

For more background on the situation in the DRC, read Ensler’s article from a year ago, “An apathetic, greedy west has abandoned war-torn Congo.”

What’s With Arizona??

Ellen Keim — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 10:00:33 +0000

Arizona State Flag

Maybe it’s in the water. Maybe it’s the heat. Whatever it is, it’s bringing out the worst in the people of Arizona. I didn’t even realize that the governor, Jan Brewer, signed a bill into law last September denying benefits to domestic partners of state employees. The new law, which takes effect October 1, redefines “dependent” and excludes coverage for domestic partners, including heterosexual partners, children of domestic partners, disabled adult dependents, and full time students over 22 who are claimed as dependents.

Interestingly enough, the University of Arizona has decided to reinstate benefits to domestic partners, using funds separate from state money, in order to remain competitive in attracting talent. According to the Arizona Daily Star, about 20 employees of the University left because of the repeal of domestic partner benefits and some job offers were rejected for the same reason.

I’ve always seen the offering of benefits to domestic partners and other dependents as a way to get more people insured in America. Without those benefits, many people will not have health insurance at all. Why shouldn’t a person be able to cover more than herself on her policy if she is willing to pay the family premium? In fact, I think insurance policies ought to cover adult children indefinitely. There’s a terrible gap in insurance coverage between 22-year-olds and those who have finally established their careers to the point where they get employee benefits.

Nor do I think people should be forced to marry just so they can share a family insurance plan. It’s not the place of the state to pry into what kind of relationship domestic partners have.

This stinginess on the part of the Arizona legislators is only part of negative picture being painted of Arizonans. Besides signing into law the new immigration law that allows law enforcement officials to request proof of legal immigration, residency, or citizenship of anyone they suspect might be an illegal immigrant, the governor also signed a bill that bans ethnic studies classes in the state’s public schools. The new law (see PDF) bans classes that “promote the overthrow of the United States government,” “promote resentment toward a race or class of people,” “are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group,” or “advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.” (In Tucson alone, where the school district is 56 percent Hispanic, there are approximately 1,500 high school students enrolled in ethnic studies classes.)*

In other words, students are going to be discouraged from being proud of their ethnic heritage. I’m assuming that anything that might promote resentment toward the majority (white) population will also be discouraged (such as telling the truth about certain parts of history). And since when did ethnic study classes promote the overthrow of the U.S. government? I thought it was mainly the Christian militia nuts who advocated that.

As if all this weren’t enough, there is the recent brouhaha over one public elementary school’s decision to paint over the faces of “ethnic” schoolchildren on a mural outside of the school so that they would all be white. Why? Because people were yelling racial epithets at it as they drove by. (Drive-by harassment.) Apparently that action has been reversed, but the fact that they would do it in the first place is beyond belief. Mind you, these were pictures of actual students who attend the school. (See Huffington Post story for more details.)

I realize that the eyes of the media are on Arizona right now and that equally absurd things go on everywhere, but it does seem that Arizona has a racism (not to mention a homophobia) problem. And the fact that it has a high number of immigrants shouldn’t be an excuse for the prejudice. Some (most) people don’t like change, and this is a changing world. In spite of the United States’ relatively restrictive immigration policy, it still has a lot of immigrants. And they are having babies. OMG!

Soon whites won’t be the majority anymore, and then what will they do?

I guess what they are trying to do in Arizona.

* Source: Feminist Majority Foundation’s Feminist News

Friday Videos: Fully Realized Women

Ellen Keim — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:00:39 +0000

Kavita Ramdas talks about three powerful women who walk the line between modernity and tradition in their attempts to make a difference. Ramdas is the President and CEO of the largest non-profit organization in the world exclusively funding women’s human rights, the Global Fund for Women.

Fashion: A Sign of Liberation or Oppression?

Ellen Keim — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 22:48:41 +0000

In an imagined essay* by Carrie Bradshaw about her trip to the Middle East, she writes:

We felt just awful for those poor Arab women. We saw the way they looked longingly at our glamorous and vibrant couture. The difference between those women and us is that we look fabulous under oppression! We can get through the world of men getting us down because at least we can pick our clothes and drink cocktails by the pool. We didn’t really get to talk to many Arab women on the trip, but the ones that rescued us were completely jealous of the fact that we could leave the house in our couture and they couldn’t.

This post is not about defending Muslim women and their way of life. What it is about is the idea that Western women feel free because they can dress and behave however they want.

You’re probably thinking, Exactly!

But think about it for a minute. What’s the main reason we think that that Muslim women are oppressed? Because of the way that they dress. We don’t know, and don’t care to know, the first thing about their lives besides what they wear. The mere fact that they cover up convinces us that they must not be free to do the things that Western women take for granted.

But if we think that being “allowed” to sit around the pool in our bikinis drinking cocktails means that we’re not oppressed, we’re sadly mistaken. We’re just distracted from noticing it.

Some Muslim apologists insist that it is Western women who are enslaved by their culture and its demands on them to be sexy and Muslim women who are liberated because they don’t have to worry about what they look like. There’s some truth in what they say, but they’re missing the point. It’s not what women wear that signifies oppression or freedom. It’s whether or not they have the same opportunities that men do.

Some (usually younger) feminists are practically giddy about what they see as all their options. “The real feminist is not the woman who rejects her femininity; it’s the woman who celebrates it!” they cry. They think that spending loads of money on their hair, make-up, pretty little frocks and designer shoes and bags is a sign of self-esteem—and liberation. They see “old-fashioned” feminists in much the same light as they see Muslim women: as being trapped by their own values into becoming mere shadows of real women.

They may have a point as well. But the truth is, as long as women are kept busy debating fashion, they’re not noticing the real oppression in their lives. The female professional may make enough money to afford her physical upkeep, but is she making as much as the males alongside her? Is she getting promotions at the same rate and for the same, or even better, performance? Is she held back when she has children (or even just because she can have them) in a way that men aren’t?

Being well-dressed doesn’t mean we’re not oppressed.

* “The Lobby for Abu Dhabi – An Essay by Carrie Bradshaw” by Sara on Muslimah Media Watch

Phyllis Chesler, Feminist and Islamophobe?

Ellen Keim — Thu, 27 May 2010 04:34:37 +0000

Phyllis Chesler

I hate sentences that start with “most” and end with some ridiculous pronouncement about what “most” are doing. Phyllis Chesler appears to be a prime offender, judging by her article on Muslim women and the veil. She writes: “Most Muslim girls and women are not given a choice about wearing the chador, burqa, abaya, niqab, jilbab, or hijab (headscarf), and those who resist are beaten, threatened with death, arrested, caned or lashed, jailed, or honor murdered by their own families.” She also writes that “Most Muslim girls and women are impoverished and wear rags.”

These statements are typical of a person who cares more about justifying her own prejudice than in adding something constructive to the debate. Not only that, but they’re just plain ignorant. Chesler cites examples coming out of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan as being typical of the entire Muslim world. She also equates Muslims with Arabs, when in fact this only applies to 20% of all Muslims.

I especially love this statement of Chesler’s: “It is well known that the Arabs and Muslims kept and still keep sex slaves–they are very involved in the global trafficking in girls and women and frequent prostitutes on every continent.” Where does she get her ideas??

But of course Chesler doesn’t care about being objective—or even factual; she has a career to think of. Dr. Chesler (she has a Ph.D in psychology) is primarily a writer and is the author of thirteen books and numerous articles. (Check out her web site for examples of her writing.) She is also a psychotherapist and an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies at the City University of New York (CUNY). By her own account, she was “held captive” in Afghanistan when she went to visit her then-husband’s family, an experience that she says made her an ardent feminist. It also appears to have made her into a rabid Islamophobe.

In a 2003 review of one of her books, Publishers Weekly concluded that “Chesler’s tone and lack of intellectual rigor will not help her ideas to be heard by those who do not already agree with her.” (Source: Wikipedia.) From the samples of her writings, particularly those about Islam and anti-Semitism, I concur.

But what about Chesler’s feminism? Is she really a feminist or a neo-con masquerading as one?

From what I can gather, Chesler is the kind of feminist who blames the victim. One of her books, Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman, more or less says that women are just naturally competitive with other women, resulting in back-stabbing and general meanness. There is no recognition that women are socialized to be competitive by a patriarchal society that encourages them to stake their identities on the men they can “catch.” (Full disclosure: I haven’t read the book, just this USA Today interview with Chesler about it, so I realize I may be misrepresenting her views.)

Yes, I know I’m dangerously close to saying that there is only one way to be a feminist or that there is a set platform all feminists have to espouse (pro-abortion, anti-pornography, pro-gay rights, etc.). Although, like all people, I am more comfortable with people who have the same views I do, I recognize that we all have our own versions of feminism, just as we all have our own versions of religion. Dor instance, Sarah Palin calls herself a pro-life feminist. Some feminists are supportive of pornography and sex work. Many women who hold feminist views don’t identify with the feminist movement because they feel that it is too upper-class and white.

Me? I’m just a feminist who believes that feminism is—or should be—incompatible with any kind of racism, prejudice or hatred. For this reason alone, I find it hard to believe that Chesler is a true feminist.

Sorry, no related posts yet.

Watching “Babies”

Ellen Keim — Tue, 11 May 2010 10:00:42 +0000

Yesterday I went to perhaps a perfect film for Mother’s Day: Focus Films’ “Babies,” which follows four babies from different parts of the world from birth until they begin to walk. The film has absolutely no commentary: all the audience knows is what it sees. And there is a lot to look at.

The babies grow up in radically different environments; the two that are rural—Namibia and Mongolia— are less affluent than the two that are urban—Tokyo, Japan and San Francisco, California and there is a wide variety in toys and child-rearing techniques. But what struck me the most was how similar the babies’ development was. I came away from the movie with the impression that all babies are pretty much alike: adorable.

The only problem that I had with the film was its limited scope. There were no explanations whatsoever. We’re not even sure if two of these babies have siblings (although the child from Namibia had no lack of playmates.) But then the focus was meant to be on the babies and as long as you’re okay with that, you’ll enjoy the movie immensely.

Tuesday Tirade: Tough Talk About Immigration

Ellen Keim — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:15:05 +0000

Imagine you come from an area in Mexico where hundreds of women have been murdered over the last couple of decades. Or that you live in a neighborhood where you have to worry about gunfire as you take your children to school. You want a better life for yourself and your children. You decide to emigrate to the U.S. But doing it legally could, and often does, take years. Your children are young now.

Personally, I think immigration policy in this country is, and always has been, too restrictive. We are a huge country, with plenty of room and resources to support many more people than now live here. We just don’t want to share. We don’t want to have to make accommodations. And we most certainly don’t want to take on the problems of other countries.

Well, guess what, folks? We’re going to be affected by world-wide events whether we like it or not. Take Arizona for instance. From what I’ve read, Arizona has good reason to fear the violence coming over its borders from the south. But is the answer to stop any suspicious person on the street, demand identification and possibly arrest them? All we can do is deport them. What does that solve?

We need to work harder to forge alliances with the countries we interact with so that we can aid them in their efforts to better their situations. Instead, we stick our noses in their business, stir things up and then refuse their people access to our country when they find life untenable in their own.

Take Iraq for instance. I’m against the war, and always have been. But even if I were behind it, I would still feel that we need to help those whose lives we’ve disrupted. Instead, we make it next to impossible for an Iraqi to emigrate to the U.S. Even those who have served as translators for the U.S., and are at risk from reprisals, find it difficult to find refuge in America.

There are several issues related to immigration that we need to come to terms with:

Racial profiling, both here in the States and overseas. Our immigration policies favor certain ethnicities and nationalities. If we don’t like them, we don’t let them in. And once they’re here, we make them feel unwelcome.
Self-interest. We ask not what we can do for others, but what they can do for us. That’s the bottom line. And we consider ourselves a Christian nation.
Favoring the most fortunate. Instead of offering refuge to those who are most vulnerable, we leave women and children, for example, in the lurch. Too bad for them.
Being influenced by fear-mongers. Those who whip up anti-immigrant sentiments usually do so with fear tactics. We never stop to ask ourselves if their tirades have any basis in fact.
Thinking that there is only one kind of acceptable ‘American.’ We all have this ideal in our minds of what makes a true American and if a prospective immigrant doesn’t fit the profile, we don’t want him or her.
Being selfish. We just don’t want to share even though we have more to offer than almost any other country in the world. Part of the problem is that we use more resources per capita than any other country in the world. We don’t know how to, or don’t want to, divvy up our resources.
Arrogance. We assume that everyone in the world would storm our borders if we had a more open immigration policy. Well, guess what? Not everyone wants to live in in the U.S., often for very good reasons. Contrary to popular belief, there are other quality places to live in the world.

I don’t propose to be an expert about immigration, and I’m sure there are plenty of people out there who would like to set me straight. I’m also sure that I would be labeled a “bleeding-heart liberal.” If that means that I think our country should put its resources where its values are, then I’m guilty as charged.