Let’s talk about this quote for a second.
I remember I attended a college lecture about what feminism means in America and how imperial politics and economic gaps between the West and East render what women want and consider pivotal to their feminism as conflicting and even antagonistic to each other.
My feminism, first and foremost, will always be anti-imperialism.
Imperial politics are dangerous and the very essence of narcissism. Imperial politics demonstrated within a feminist frame usually goes as follows: the most privileged women, ie. those who have access to technology, representation, occupy a particular media-friendly image or ideology and have access to those in higher slots in society are allotted platforms to speak about their experiences as women and without question, this gets presumptuously labelled “women’s experiences”. Being that women who are globally bestowed the highest tier are usually allowed such room to speak, their minimal struggles are then homogenized as the quintessential female experience and misogyny is wholeheartedly announced a tangible issue that can be easily eradicated out of modern Western society.
Its no accident that women of color, women in occupied regions and those who face mass political or economic repression and their words which don’t satisfy neoliberal, imperialist gaze are deemed anti-progressive, race baiters, backwards, terrorist apologists, etc. Our complex, multi-faceted struggles within a white supremacist empire tap into too many accepted status quos for the average American moderate. It forces those who legitimize the war on terror and view racism as an entity of the past to confront their own unsightly prejudices and the systematic brutality their nations enacts on various global societies, as well as within its borders. Its easier to find (and fabricate) any reason to demonize the likes of Trayvon Martin and his family for his own tragic demise or deem young Yemeni children necessary collateral damage for “the greater good” than to examine what other oppressions beyond misogyny exist that unquestionably burden the lives of otherized communities, including and especially the women in said communities.
Power feminism expects women to unanimously rejoice in the presidential election of Hillary Clinton, while her administration carries out the same murderous policies as her predecessors. Power feminism labels any legitimate criticism of influential women as inherent egregious misogyny. Power feminism devalues the loss of women’s lives abroad, while infantizling their independent resistance and stripping their agency by shamelessly declaring intervention as saving them. Power feminism within an imperialistic frame needs the hyper-demonization of otherized communities to justify its occupation. Power feminism can be even more dangerous than ruthless misogyny because of its insidious nature and lack of culpability.
THIS POST IS GOLDEN (via wocinsolidarity)
LOOK AT THIS FLY ASS BITCH!!! YOHANNA IS THE TRUTH!!!!
I had this conversation with a few people I know (and like) on the Internet, and basically it revolved around this two ideas:
- That there is a historical reason why the Malays (as defined by the Malaysian Constitution Malays, not the anthropological definition) have this sort of insecurity ingrained in their culture, and quite a lot of the bigoted shit that comes out of it stems from this insecurity.
- The definition of “Malay” is so loose and ill-defined that it’s got to be a social construct! Where did it come from?
Okay, these two ideas have basically sat in my head and I’ve pushed them around, so I might as well dump ‘em here and see what happens to ‘em.
Isn’t it embarrassing that as a site dedicated towards feminism, I still have to broach about selfies? It may not be a huge deal elsewhere but in Malaysia, selfies are something that is actually taken seriously. Just a few weeks ago I saw a discussion between a news anchor and an ustaz concerning selfies on a malay tv channel.
Why did I decided to write this post? Yesterday, a motivational speaker came to my school in order to motivate us(duh) for SPM. He talked about social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and you get it. Then he started talking about selfies among Malaysian girls. This is what he said.
‘Perempuan yang suka ambik selfies ni memang perempuan murahan yang ketagih like’. PEREMPUAN YANG AMBIK SELFIES NI MEMANG PEREMPUAN MURAHAN. PEREMPUAN MURAHAN. MURAHAN. Which translates to girls who take selfies are whores that crave likes.
Needless to say, I was pissed. I don’t take selfies but I don’t detest girls who do. Calling a girl a whore is one thing. But calling a girl a whore just for taking a selfie is a bit stupid and sexist don’t you think? What about boys? Are they going to be excused as usual? I mean, boys are holy beings after all right?
Sad thing is, it’s not just him that have that way of thinking. I have seen enough photos on fb posted by my ’religious’ friends that says girls should never post their photos online. Not even if they are fully covering their aurat. I bet these people have never heard that muslim men should lower their gaze when confronting a woman who is not his mahram.
Not sorry for the rant. See ya
Yours truly, Nur.
Patriarchs hate women and girls who love themselves so much they want to take pictures of themselves. Confident women cannot be cowed, so you have to pull them down by calling them whores for loving themselves.
Under the cloak of philanthropy, American foundations have worked in close liaison with US state department and US academic institutes, on the one hand, and with governments and academic worlds of third world countries, on the other hand, with the objective of spreading US capitalist ideology, through “cultural and intellectual penetration.” This ongoing and self-serving exercise, geared to long range planning, backed by billions of dollars, has been nothing short of thought-surveillance and thought manipulation of the vulnerable poor of the world.
The stated objectives of these philanthropies were to eradicate poverty, improve living standards and aid economic development in third world countries. In every one of these projects they failed miserably to improve living standards. However they succeeded admirably in their unstated objectives which were to create elite networks of knowledge in poor countries that would support “American policies, foreign and economic, ranging from liberalism in the 1950’s to neo-liberalism in the 21st century.”
South East Asia was a rich source of mineral resources, being a storehouse of most of the world’s rubber, tin, tungsten, among other things, and an important market for finished goods. It was also seen ‘as significant to American security as the Panama and Suez Canals’. Equally significantly the ‘growing influence of both communism and neutralism or independence’ were perceived as threats to the US. Ford foundation’s interests in Asian studies was specifically fired by two profound developments: the successful communist revolution in China in 1949, and the outbreak of the Korean war in 1950.
Indonesia’s communist political leadership that had roots in villages was seen as a direct threat to the interests of the Ford foundation. Ford commissioned a survey of Asian studies and spent $52 million from 1951-61. In 1954 Ford started the Modern Indonesia Project (MIP) at Cornell University. The original name of the project was “Techniques of Soviet indoctrination and control in Indonesia.” Parmar details how by 1964 MIP had mobilised a ‘strategically based academic and political elite that was increasingly frustrated with the Indonesian government’s non-aligned, independent, anti-western and pro-left orientation’. A Left wing magazine in 1970 wrote that Ford, Rockefeller and the American state “consciously used its Indonesian programme to train anti-Sukarno economists and social scientists, cadre of leaders who would run Indonesia once Sukarno got out. Large grants had been provided to US universities, chiefly Berkeley, Yale and Cornell and to University of Indonesia (UI) for fellowships to Indonesian scholars to study at US universities. By the early 1960s, of the two dozen Ford scholars 22 had returned to join UI filling key positions and influencing other universities as well as the Indonesian state. Suharto was one of them. After the 1985 US backed military coup a pro-US military elite was installed. Sukarno was replaced with the CIA Ford scholar Suharto. The rest is history. The project to shift Indonesia out of the socialist/Soviet block, economically, politically, ideologically and militarily, into the western world, was complete. Its cost: one million Leftist Indonesians were massacred, one and a half million were imprisoned and the Indonesian Communist party was annihilated. In Ford’s own triumphant internal report the massacre of one million Indonesian communists did not even warrant a foot note, though Ford admits to the death of half a million, in another communication.
Anonymous said: How come u guys stop posting? Come on! We need the power of feminism here ;)
The power of feminism isn’t just in posting in one Tumblr ;) Two of us have been in grad school, one had to deal with job transitioning, lagi satu ade anak, so we’ve been busy surviving our lives while living as feminist as possible.