Sarah El Deeb is a journalist with the AP in Cairo; she tweeted about the protest against violence against women, and then about the attack on the protest. Before the attack she posted a nice hopeful photo –
That was before a mob of men attacked them.
The voice of women must always be the voice of revolution. The voice of humanity must be the voice of revolution. Revolution must never stop. We can never rest on our laurels, never take anything for granted, because complacency is exploitable, and opportunism is human.
Slavery was never defeated without a fight, not anywhere. Women must learn to fight, and to do that they must learn to coordinate their actions. It has to be made clear to the whole world that women are slaves, and that slavery is an intolerable wrong. Every form of indoctrination is against them, but that is how slavery works: by posing as morality, and making it hard for victims to know what else can be right. And it poses as morality because people who cannot escape their condition are forced to rationalise in order to make their lives supportable, and inevitably indoctrinate their own children in order to protect them — and the children pass it on as simple truth. To escape from slavery means to put aside all those cherished notions of humility and the nobility of servitude and the rights of the naturally privileged, and this is very nearly impossible, especially when the privileged have god on their side.
I also think that these men who attack women have no excuse. We cannot say that they also are victims of their conditioning, of their “culture”, because morality depends on holding one another to our choices, and those men have made their choices. The fact that their “conditioning” acts in their favour, and the fact that they have every means, even in Islam, of knowing better, of knowing and believing in justice and mercy, deprives them of any excuse they can make. They can help it, they ought to do better.
Gordon:
I so love it when d00dz presume to tell women what we “must” do in order to enjoy our basic human rights. Because women aren’t already fighting for them? What about you, Gordon? Are you standing up for our rights, or are you just pontificating over the fucking internet?
Oi! That was totally uncalled for!
No, Ms Daisy, of course I’m not pontificating. I’m only saying that if people want to be free from oppression they have to fight for their freedom. Would you disagree? How else do you suppose freedom will happen? After thousands of years of oppression, thousands of years, millions of women’s lives? When the hell are you going to stand up for yourselves and stop complaining that others are telling you what to do? When the next teenager is stoned to death, will you say that at least no one treated her as an immature child unable to make her own decisions? What the hell do you think war is? You seem so determined to be independent that you regard all support from “d00dz” as an insult. That is frankly stupid. Put your fucking arrogance aside and start caring about real lives.
“Totally uncalled for”?! Why? Because I didn’t stroke his ego for vomiting up a huge wall of dudesplainin’ text about what women should do? Without calling him any names, I might add?
Hey, Gordon, how about answering my question about whether or not you think women already are fighting for our freedoms? I’m sure you’ve heard of feminist organizations, which have been fighting for women’s rights for decades now? And which have an infusion of fresh blood from fourth-wavers in their 20s?
I already do. Again, what the hell are you doing to support freedom, other than lecturing women on the internet?
Why: for jumping on him so hard for just saying something. Comments are invited, you know! And it wasn’t anything outrageous. If you object to the word “must” you could just say that; there’s no need to blast him.
Oh, I’m so sorry, was my tone too harsh? Should I be more ladylike about objecting to condescending tomes from men about what women should do?
You’re being foolish, Ms Daisy. And I repeat my charge. If you think I am lecturing women on the internet, then you are a fool. And I consider that what I say is a positive and determined blow for women’s freedom. Your attitude is selfish and ultimately destructive.
Oh, if it’s just about “must”, that is really stupid. I mean “must”, definitely “must”, and furthermore, I mean absolutely necessary. If Ms Daisy doesn’t like my opinion, that is just too bad. It’s her choice if she regards “must” as patronising.
It is patronizing, Gordon, because you’re coming from the position of privilege telling the underprivileged to just work harder themselves and stop bothering you, the Privileged Person, for help.
They are fighting. You’re just being a dimissive asshole by moving the goalposts.
—
Ophelia #7:
Uh. This doesn’t address any specific part of the post as excessive, or explain what was excessive about it.
On the other hand, GordonWillis did use a common silencing tactic in calling upon the marginalized group (women) to fight harder, as if they’re not fighting hard enough.
…
…move to strike as non-responsive =/
It is patronizing, Gordon, because you’re coming from the position of privilege
Nothing I can do about that.
telling the underprivileged to just work harder themselves and stop bothering you, the Privileged Person, for help.
Do you realise you’re just making this up?
On the other hand, GordonWillis did use a common silencing tactic
Absolutely denied.
as if they’re not fighting hard enough.
Nowhere near enough, yet. Everything done so far is only a beginning. What is more, I think — no, am certain — that the battle is of a kind that will always have to be fought, and we can never at any time assume that it has been won.
GordonWillis #12:
How do you expect to conduct a discussion if your only response to being called out on something you did is “NUH-UH”? Come on, how old are you, five?
Move to strike as non-responsive. You, the Privileged Person, are not affected by these issues; it is your privilege that allows you to dismiss them. By telling the Marginalized Person that they need to fight harder for themselves, you are furthering this dismissal by refusing to leverage your own privilege in support of the marginalized, not to mention being lazy. You are exercising your privilege to, in effect, stop yourself from having to address it.
You have privilege failed. Please answer or admit to this charge. Further condescending dismissals will be taken as an indication that you are not taking me seriously, which will cause me to stop taking you seriously in kind.
Do you realise you’re just making this up?
Possibly not, then. I repeat: you’re making this up. Something else you should consider: identity is other people. And, skirmishes like this are part of the problem.
Just saw this when looking to see if anyone else had blogged on this awful attack. I was amazed by the @Ms Daisy and @Setar comments against another commentator who at least reveals his true identity. Gordon has written nothing worth this attack and these others really just seem to want us to make it all about them.
This is a serious human rights issue and both wish to make it about silly semantics. Nonsense. Hundreds of women were assaulted and most sexually abused for being on the street doing what most of us, possibly them included, take for granted. Protesting. Getting perspective isn’t a forte for either of these serial blog bombers.
Back onto the post and the need for awareness of what is happening in the wake of the so called Arab Spring or Arab Awakening. Not much for women has changed and is if not worsened by the political vacuum which results. Islamic political and social interests are filling this vacuum or attempting its reinforcement which causes backlash. Opportunistically we are seeing a reinforcing of Islamic, Koranic teaching. It will be a hard road for Egypt’s female population and a backward step for Egypt. I think it is fair to state most reading Ophelia’s blog are in support of and in solidarity with them.
Thank you, Lee-Anne, and Ophelia, too. Ms Daisy and Setar are of course right in one thing: I am not doing nearly as much as I could, and I need to reorganise my life so that I can do more. Of course, I said that women must unite, etc, but my perception is that there are too many women in the world who so take their own privileges for granted that they do not care to consider the plight of others, or they think that it is less important than it is. I know people like this, unfortunately. Probably nothing can be done about women who oppose women’s rights, but something must be done about the former. All the work of women (and men, too) so far is not enough, not yet, and we have to be prepared never, ever, to put down our weapons. After millions of people have died for democracy, democracy is still under threat, even increasingly so. So it will always be with human rights.
Sorry, Im distracted here — a friend’s cat has been run over. But perhaps I’ve pontificated enough. I completely agree with your other remarks, Lee-Anne. Back later.
Oy.
[note: oy is different from oi. Oi! is like Hey! Oy is a groan.] [Just in case you think I’m confusing my interjections.]
Daisy Cutter, Setár, no, sorry, I don’t see anything in Gordon’s comment that warrants all this outrage, and I certainly don’t think feminist women need to reject feminist men as allies.
Ohphelia: Well, you can count me as another who’s unimpressed by Gordon’s “Well, what you little ladies need to do is…” His original comment reeked of ignorance about what women’s movements actually do, and tried to explain patriarchy to women. That is sexist as hell, and certainly not the behaviour of someone supporting feminism. (This Onion piece came to mind: http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-finally-put-in-charge-of-struggling-feminist-m,2338/)
And then he dug in deeper by refusing to acknowledge that despite whatever intent he may have had *ahem*, and then said “Well, so I have male privilege, what can I do?”. How about not condesplaining to feminists?
I know it seems like some of us have really high standards for allies and supporters. To me, that is perfectly reasonable. Supporters, well, support. As opposed to providing attacks from the inside. Allies should know enough about the subject to be allied.
Lee-Anne: I love how pointing out privilege, and that feminists already exist is an “awful attack”. Poor little man, getting such treatment. As for pseudonyms, they’re hardly uncommon, and many people, especially many women, have damn good reasons for using them.
Thanks, HS and Setar.
Lee-Anne:
Yes, of course, by objecting to men who take the opportunity of a post on women’s rights to intone about women “should” do, we’re being selfish and divisive and alienating our allies.
I don’t usually blogwhore, but I suppose I should thank Gordon for inspiring this post of mine.
That’s just it, though. You read Gordon’s post as a dismissal when it appears to have been meant to be an acknowledgement. Sure, men can do more — he admits as much himself. That doesn’t change the reality that the most effective actions and leadership in feminism have always come, and will continue to come, from women.
One other point: saying men are unaffected by these issues is just false. Patriarchy affects everyone, directly or indirectly.
If you are actually alienating allies, then isn’t there a problem with that? Selfish and destructive is taking it too far, but this is sidestepping the issue with concern about tone and declarations — something I don’t expect you in particular to do.
I doubt that anyone would argue that Gordon made the best possible effort; that there’s nothing left to improve in his sentiments. However, he was at least trying and reading that as a malicious attempt to marginalize women’s voices is going too far.
Further, I will say that it’s useless and counterproductive to respond to an over-reaction with another over-reaction, and much of Gordon’s response here had that sort of defensive nature.
Honestly, Happiestsadist et al. No, seriously, you are just not hearing anything. You have an agenda, it’s clear, which is more important than what you ostensibly support. Also, as you are now becoming entrenched it is time to state that I have no intention of backing down on this. I have found before that some of my ideas create animosity, and there is no point in pretending that I profoundly disagree with what you appear to stand for — which I believe to be mostly about your feelings. If you did me the courtesy of taking what I said as exactly what it purports to say, and stopped reading in things that are not even implied, you might find yourselves with less cause to feel offended than you thought. Perhaps you are at the moment too lit up by short mental circuits to do anything except blow fuses. But I wonder if the real motivation for all this is not what I said so much as who said it.
What you are saying about me is nonsense from beginning to end, and is completely imaginary. What is more, there is a tendency to add things. On the other hand, it is also extremely interesting, and makes me more inclined to think that I am on the right track. Also, I must point out that in reading the above comments I have just spotted what seems to me a possible or incipient agenda working out on the other side of this irritating fracas, so at present I don’t feel exactly optimistic. More of all that when I’ve thought some more. For now, at least, I am not going to say any more on this topic because it will only annoy you, so you may reserve your contempt for a future occasion, or rage for as long as Ophelia is willing to put up with it.
Dude, when a whole bunch of people are “misreading” you all in the same way, it might be a worthwhile idea to consider that perhaps either you’re fooling nobody or not that great at putting your point forward and should work on that. Saying that we all have “an agenda” (We do, it’s feminism.) and that you won’t back down on your previous statements isn’t exactly the sort of thing men who genuinely care about what women and feminists feel frequently say. We all took your statement exactly as you said it. Saying our pink fluffy ladybrainz just don’t get and we’re too emotional and irrational it isn’t exactly making you look good. Nor is your apparent belief in a larger conspiracy to do…something.
You’re on the right track for being a sexist dude. Not for standing with women for feminism.
Dude, it’s not “a whole bunch,” it’s three. Three people do not a whole bunch make.
Honestly, there is nothing to object to in Gordon’s comment except “Women must learn to fight, and to do that they must learn to coordinate their actions.” And that’s not much! Yes ok it comes off as faintly bossy, and as fixing something that’s not known to be broken – but taken with the rest of the comment even that doesn’t seem like the right reading, and anyway one sentence is not worth all this mishegoss!
Out of curiosity, how many people are required for a bossy, fixing something that is not known to be broken comment to be properly objected to?
Now cut that out. Objecting to is one thing, and pitching a fit is another. The reaction was totally out of proportion.
And the question about how many is how many get to be called “a whole bunch.” I would say more than three. I don’t have a precise number. Cf Sorites paradox.
Well, you can add one more to the bunch. Saying that all women need to do is fight harder is so very problematic. Just looking at what this topic is about proves that. These women went out to protest, to fight discrimination. What happened to them? What happens so often when women try to fight?
And furthermore, women have been fighting for years. Peacefully, violently, by themselves or in coordination with each other in worldwide events, activities. What exactly is it that Gordon thinks we need to do exactly? Gather all the people with regressive opinions in one place and nuke them?
Please forgive the exactly redundancy. :/
Judging from his comment, he seems to be hoping for more awareness of the global opposition to women’s rights particularly among Western women who, for whatever reasons, haven’t paid these issues much mind or feel they’re relevant to them.
Really don’t see what was wrong with it. A lot of women (in the West and outside of it) shrug this sort of violence off. I understood faulting women for their own oppression and putting the onus on them to resolve these situations is problematic, but there’s nothing wrong with raising awareness of these issues or calling people out on their complacency.
Ms. Daisy: I find myself in the unusual position of disagreeing with you, about your interpretation of Gordon Willis’s comment.
I get where you’re coming from, since I’ve seen plenty of bossy ignorant “Women should just do X, Y, and Z!” comments, often from men.
But that’s not how I read Gordon Willis’s comment at all.
I read it as, basically, a restatement (and a rather eloquent one; I actually liked it) of the very old idea that power is never given up by the oppressor. It has to be wrenched away by the oppressed.
Saying “it has to be” or “it must be” (or “the oppressed must…”) isn’t actually a command. Nor is it a statement that the oppressed aren’t trying to take power. It’s just a statement of necessity. It’s necessary for the oppressed to do this. They might already be doing it. The old maxim isn’t saying that they’re not, and neither is Gordon, as I read him.
Nor do I read Gordon as saying that women don’t already know that we must wrench power away. He’s just…making a comment. Not informing people, or claiming a voice of authority. I don’t see anything like that in his comment.
Yes, allied men must also help us. But ultimately no social change has ever happened because the oppressors spontaneously decided, out of the goodness of their heart, “Gee, that’s wrong, let’s give up our power!” That’s all I saw Gordon as saying.
In any case, I do agree with Ophelia and kagerato that one possibly-condescending sentence doesn’t deserve all this fuss.
Julian,
You say you don’t see what’s wrong with it, but further down saying there’s something problematic about it.
Otherwise, I agree that global awareness is a good thing and people are generally complacent. However, I don’t think that the women on this site are, for the most part, the women who are ignoring worldwide violence and oppression against other women.
I find it somewhat ironic that people who are saying that women should fight harder are the ones who are objecting when women “make a fuss.”
What is it? Should we oppose at all levels what we think is wrong, should we fight? Or should we shut up because it’s not such a big deal?
Yes, I know, pick your battles. Maybe some people see the little things as something worth examining and confronting too.
But Gordon didn’t say that. Jeez. You peeps are reading stuff in and then reacting to what you read in. It’s ridiculous!
Wtf? Who are these people? Do you mean me? Are you seriously saying that I’m objecting when women “make a fuss”?
I think you’ve all eaten of the insane root, that takes the reason prisoner.
Maybe I’m just consistently reading and interpreting it wrong, but that’s what I’m taking away from it. Not the only thing though, he had some good things to say.
“Wtf? Who are these people? Do you mean me? Are you seriously saying that I’m objecting when women “make a fuss”?”
Well…you are. I’m not saying you blanket do it all the time, or that you’re wrong to do it now based on your perceptions, however women are saying they have a problem with what they perceive him as saying, and you’re saying they shouldn’t be making that big a deal of it/they are incorrect. So…technically so if not in any other way. But yeah, that comment was not made with you specifically in mind.
And just because people have opposing opinions, it doesn’t mean they are insane and devoid of reason. That’s pretty insulting.
What do you mean that’s what you’re “taking away from it”? It’s not what he said. It’s hardly fair to denounce people for something you “take away” from what they said as opposed to what they said.
I’ve been accused more than once of failing to obey the philosophical principle of reading charitably, and so far, at least, it has always irritated me because I have read what was said. The demand that I read charitably always involved reading in something extra that was not said. Now I’m getting it from the opposite direction – I’m getting people insisting on getting angry at things that the commenter did not say. It’s nuts.
Ok this –
Do you take me to be not a woman? Do you take “women” to be saying they have this problem because two women are saying it while two aren’t? That’s not much of a case. Are you counting four women on your team? But those are some pretty genderless nyms.
Anyway. It is not the case that I have a policy and practice of objecting when women “make a fuss.” That’s actually a pretty idiotic thing to say, frankly – I mean it’s not even compatible with the fucking post, or didn’t you notice?
Besides that, this is my blog, and I do the moderating of comments. I intervene when someone jumps hard on another commenter for an unbelievably trivial reason.
All of you have now totally derailed this thread, which was about something a little more important than the outrageous horror of Gordon Willis using the word “must” in a casual way which meant nothing in particular.
Blargh.
I didn’t say you were insane and devoid of reason. I said you’ve all eaten of the insane root, that takes the reason prisoner. That means it’s temporary and uncharacteristic! It’s a quotation – Shakespeare, though I don’t remember where.
Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.
I’ll have to close comments on this one before I leave. It’s a complete dog’s breakfast.
I want to emphasize that point about moderating comments. I want to emphasize it because there seems to be some misunderstanding.
I’m not just arguing here, I’m moderating the thread. The moderating is prior in this case. I jumped in with comment 3 because comment 2 was angry and rude way out of proportion to any conceivable wrongdoing in comment 1. Gordon is a longstanding commenter here and I’m not going to have reasonable commenters jumped on for no reason!
Yes, it was a woman doing the jumping. So the fuck what?
I hope that’s crystal clear.
I did not denounce the man, I denounced something he said. I admitted I could be wrong in my reading but that I didn’t currently feel that way.
How does me saying you objecting to the viewpoints of other women in any way suggest that you are not a woman or that their views override yours? Even if the other commenters were not women, I am and I disagree with a point of his comment. I don’t really know what you’re arguing about here, a woman, or a few women, said they didn’t agree with something someone said. I refer to myself as a woman disagreeing. Where is the problem.
“Anyway. It is not the case that I have a policy and practice of objecting when women “make a fuss.” That’s actually a pretty idiotic thing to say, frankly – I mean it’s not even compatible with the fucking post, or didn’t you notice?”
And you talk about reading what people say accurately? I blatantly said I was not in any way suggesting you had a policy of objecting to women! Or that you were wrong to do so in this case! Wow.
Jaclyn – you said
Then when I asked you confirmed that you meant specifically me.
You weren’t just making a factual statement that one woman was saying X about other women – you were making a political point – in other words accusing me of being anti-feminist.