I'm sure anyone reading this has heard about Boobquake, which is just a self-aggrandizing bit of culturally problematic slacktivism in response to an Iranian cleric's remarks that womens' immodesty causes earthquakes.
There are a lot of good posts about why Boobquake is both stupid, racist, and offensive, but the best is probably this at SwitchingToGlide:
"I was initially intrigued by the idea as a sort of campy and playful way to collectively disprove an idea, but after about 5 minutes of perusal, it became glaringly apparent that this North American response to an Iranian cleric was more about Islamophobia and ethnocentrism than the rights of Muslim women. The events are a vector for the co-option of feminist rhetoric to further objectify women, and a demonstration of the smug North American sense of moral and developmental superiority over those “other” brown folks in the Middle East."
The author made a very good point about the huge amount of viral support for Boobquake compared to the lack of attendance at a protest against Quebec's racist, sexist Bill 94 which bans the niqab in a ton of situations and is basic religious oppression at its worst. I saw a lot of western feminists whine at this comparison - obviously we can't all get our asses to Quebec to protest, whereas clicking on a Facebook link is easy - but the author's point still stands. Boobquake isn't just popular because it's easy "activism" - it's popular because it cuts across ideological lines to condemn and mock another culture and religion, one that is widely feared and derided in the west.
It reminded me of a recent episode in the Polyamorous community where an Ugandan columnist derided polyamory and all of our favorite Polyweekly contributors such as Datan0de and Joreth went to comment in the most wrong-headed, culturally-insensitive, and privileged way possible.
The issue isn't whether or not in both cases the remarks that spawned the furor weren't bigoted or sexist, as they obviously were. I'm not a complete cultural relativist. But the way largely-white, western activists single out displays of misogyny from other countries instead of critiquing the far more accepted versions in Canada and the US is seriously problematic. It is of no surprise to me that the instigator of Boobquake identifies as an atheist activist, as does Joreth - if there is ever a group that will engage in racist cultural supremacy in the name of their (lack of) religion, it's that one. I know that's quite a bombshell to drop at the end of the post, but trust me, the post about how atheist activism needs to get the fuck out of my feminism and anti-oppression work will be coming shortly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
For your information, I happen to be a Latina female who grew up in the ghetto, so before you start slinging around accusations of white, culturally-insensitive privileged persons, take that into account.
ReplyDeleteTwo questions: What exactly about the boobquake protest told you that it was motivated more by some phobia of Islam and not by concerns about the actual statement made that was denigrating to all women (not just Muslim women)? Is it just because not many people protested about a little known and under reported law in Quebec? Is it only a valid protest if everybody proves their sincerity to you by also protesting something you approve and endorse as valid? Do you think that one odd flashmob style Internet protest is proof of the motivations of all who participated? If so, I would suggest that is an opinion informed by assumption.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that the cleric's statement was about all women, not just Muslim women. As a woman, I find that insulting and will criticize it vocally. Does the fact that the statement was made in a religious context privilege it from criticism?
Second: In what cultures is it brandishing privilege to advocate for atheism? Religious people routinely criticize and denigrate atheism and atheists. I don't know of any atheists claiming that when they do so, they are just culturally insensitive and privileged and should just shut up. Most atheists I know engage in the debate because of a healthy respect for everyone's right to have an opinion. In most cultures, including western cultures, being religious puts people in a position of privilege. Your assertion that atheists have no business criticizing religion from the point of view of their beliefs when religious people routinely criticize atheism and (in this case) atheists from the point if view of their beliefs is a great example of that very privilege in action.
Privilege is not a fixed value. It's a dynamic that we are all a part of. I wonder if you would be willing to examine your own privilege in this position as much as you wish others to examine theirs.
OMG, apparently Joreth googled herself and responded to something written in APRIL by DECEMBER. You should google yourself on a regular schedule. Anyway, "Latina" is a cultural marker that can apply to both white people and people of color but good point, it was foolish for me to assume you to be white based on your ridiculous brand of Atheist activism. That doesn't however get you out of your own cultural and US privilege as it relates to oh, I don't know, the numerous religious communities of color that inhabit this world that you have been so quick to denigrate in your Atheist ridiculousness.
ReplyDeleteAs for Joreth's friends - and since you were all here in an ancient post within two days I assume she linked me on her LJ or something - your questions are stupid. Sorry. Western culture puts one particular TYPE of religious people in a position of power, that is, WASPs. Muslims certainly don't fit under that, what with our rampant Islamophobia and all. I'd be happy to actually engage both of you if you answer me one question: do you believe Islamophobia is a significant problem in the western world?