Comments on: On the Map: Liberation Won’t Be Gained On Behalf of ‘Others’

By: Davina

Davina — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:21:30 +0000

Patronising posters yes, why not just be honest and explain that in western culture only guilty people cover their faces. This simple honesty would do more than fake paternalism. When people ask me why some women cover I say why not ask them? But most of the women who cover won’t talk to strange men so the men ask the girls who don’t.
I would never cover my face unless a man expressly forbade it. Like most people I don’t like being told what to do.;)
If you don’t show your face No-one can tell if you’re smiling or not so they end up not talking to you. Which is a bit sectarian. If in the West it’s worth mixing a bit – or just wave and nod. But at least try to talk to the locals. If not in the West it’s not our business ;)

By: Zahra (with a Z)

Zahra (with a Z) — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:10:59 +0000

Nicely written here. I like the critique of the paternalistic and insulting flaw in the entire setup.

By: Joseph Shahadi

Joseph Shahadi — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:08:37 +0000

I continue to find it fascinating that western liberal sentiments in regard to the women in the Middle East (and/or Muslim women in the West) is wholly dependent on their imagined silence.

A few weeks ago I suggested to a group of white western feminists that if they were so concerned with the position of Muslim women (vis a vis the veil–yawn) then perhaps they might actually ask Muslim feminists what they thought about the practice… and then listen to the range of their responses before advocating on their behalf. This suggestion was met with fury and the insistence, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary, that such women are literally incapable of speaking for themselves. They argued passionately that “we” must speak FOR “them.”

It seems clear that Western discourses on the Right AND Left depend on the silence of Muslim and Arab subjects, especially women.

By: RCHOUDH

RCHOUDH — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 11:01:22 +0000

Thanks for this informative article. I agree it’s very problematic that they feel they must speak up “for” someone rather than “with” them. And what’s with all these images of “silenced and veiled” Muslim women being chosen? Do the judges seriously think there are no other women in the world who need to be spoken up “for”?Like women in China and North Korea for example? How lazy and unoriginal!

By: Ivan

Ivan — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 00:00:09 +0000

This article expresses an important idea. The “helping” assumptions of white-western universal enlightenment thought can act as a “progressive” wing of imperialist culture. This article made me think immediately of Egypt as example: http://tinyurl.com/y8mtyys The voices of women who feel *silenced* by anti-hijab ordinances by the US-friendly Mubarak state counteract the universalist assumptions of white secularists who insist on a single road to womens’ liberation.

By: Stasha

Stasha — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 20:40:51 +0000

“Surely being impartial and non-judgemental goes hand in hand with advocacy work?” Ideally, Sumera. Unfortunately I’ve seen just as much racism/sexism/classism/paternalism within non-profits and among “progressive activists” as within mainstream society.

By: softestbullet

softestbullet — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 17:53:53 +0000

YIKES. The first two posters are so explicitly White-centric and White supremecist…

In what universe is a White person speaking for and writing over a (gagged?) Black person a good illustration of “FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION”??

By: Sumera

Sumera — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 12:41:42 +0000

If they are meant to be advocates, then surely propogating stereotypes is just a slap in their own face? Surely being impartial and non-judgemental goes hand in hand with advocacy work?