RR, DD and the scarf
Racheal Ray was stumping for Dunkin Donuts and had on a scarf that looked similar to a Keffiyeh, a scarf worn by muslim men. You've seen them, they are wrapped around their heads while they stand in front of a video camera talking about killing infidels.
The saudi's wear them while they shake hands and kiss President Bush.
Anyway ... they are creeping their way into western fashion, and people like Malkin don't like them and think that wearing them is tantamount to agreeing with honor killings and sharia law.
I'm an RR fan. And while I suspect she's a bleeding heart liberal who is not yet popular enough (or arrogant enough) to spout liberal fantastic from her TV shows yet, I don't think she knew that the scarf worn around her neck was basically telling the Israeli's she's on the other side of Gaza.
Dunkin pulled the ad, I suspect because Malkin is usually such a strong supporter of theirs, and well ... much as liberal's don't like to think so, conservatives hang out at the same coffee shops that they do. And they have money to spend.
Anyway, I'm glad they pulled it, because words have meaning, and visuals have meanings. I'm not all up in arms and it wasn't enough for me to boycott, mostly because I don't drink coffee. :) But if they took a second look and saw a problem, good for them.
A blogger over at Blog Her has this to say though, about Malkin and her opinion regarding the now apparently fashionable, Keffiyeh thing.
I don't think this is what feminists had in mind when we encouraged women to add their voices to political discourse.
Hahaha. So funny. She doesn't like what Michelle is saying so she wants her to "sit down and shut up." Or at least, that's the implication. And it's precisely what I see as wrong with the current state of "feminism." If you don't agree, if you go against the party line, you're not doing what feminism had in mind.
The saudi's wear them while they shake hands and kiss President Bush.
Anyway ... they are creeping their way into western fashion, and people like Malkin don't like them and think that wearing them is tantamount to agreeing with honor killings and sharia law.
I'm an RR fan. And while I suspect she's a bleeding heart liberal who is not yet popular enough (or arrogant enough) to spout liberal fantastic from her TV shows yet, I don't think she knew that the scarf worn around her neck was basically telling the Israeli's she's on the other side of Gaza.
Dunkin pulled the ad, I suspect because Malkin is usually such a strong supporter of theirs, and well ... much as liberal's don't like to think so, conservatives hang out at the same coffee shops that they do. And they have money to spend.
Anyway, I'm glad they pulled it, because words have meaning, and visuals have meanings. I'm not all up in arms and it wasn't enough for me to boycott, mostly because I don't drink coffee. :) But if they took a second look and saw a problem, good for them.
A blogger over at Blog Her has this to say though, about Malkin and her opinion regarding the now apparently fashionable, Keffiyeh thing.
I don't think this is what feminists had in mind when we encouraged women to add their voices to political discourse.
Hahaha. So funny. She doesn't like what Michelle is saying so she wants her to "sit down and shut up." Or at least, that's the implication. And it's precisely what I see as wrong with the current state of "feminism." If you don't agree, if you go against the party line, you're not doing what feminism had in mind.
Comments
Also, to put Suzanne's BlogHer post in context, what she said was,
"[I]f the point of feminism is that women should be heard, how do we encourage women to share their views and experiences when we sometimes disagree with them? Who decides what is appropriate and what should be condemned? How does culture fit into the picture? Gulfs between us appear on all sorts of topics, not just whether a scarf resembles a keffiyeh or someone issues a call to arms. For example, I've vehemently disagreed with other American women on whether abortion should be legal, if I am obligated to vote for Hillary Clinton, and whether Brazilian waxes were some sort of sick manifestation of a return to childhood. Thanks to some of these discussions, I've learned a lot and changed my stance on some issues (although not my personal blog's title). On others, I've wanted to clamp my hands over my ears and tell people to stick it where the sun don't shine."
She wasn't telling anyone to sit down and shut up. She was saying, "How do we deal with the conflict between wanting women to speak up and being displeased when everyone doesn't think as we do?"
Which is a question I find myself thinking about frequently.
From her blog ... the implication is she's wondering if it's okay to tell MM and those that agree with her, to sit down and shut up. Phrasing it as a question is a nice way of seeming on the fence about the issue, but I'm fairly confident I can interpret it to mean she'd really love to put some duck tape on MM.
I read the whole article, and this is what I took from it: she doesn't agree with Malkin's ire about the scarf issue, so she thinks she should shut up. She's thinks she's ignorant and racist. As evident by her comment about Malkin's book regarding the Japanese Internment Camps.
And she compares MM - a conservative blogger - to a woman jihadist? Does that seem ... accurate? Do we really think that conservative bloggers are as bad for feminism as women jihadists?
And I think it *is* ignorant and racist to call something a terrorist symbol when a) it isn't even the type of scarf worn by terrorists and b) it's worn by a whole lot of people who aren't terrorists too (i.e. much of the Arab world). It's like saying everyone who wears jeans is a dumb redneck. Or everyone who joins the military does so because they're not smart enough to get into college. It might be true for a small minority in either case, but it's extremely offensive to assume those things about either group as a whole.
Although she couched her idea in terms of feminism, I think the deeper point applies to free speach in general. Free speach is a beautiful, beautiful thing when people are being logical and saying well-reasoned things, but it can get ugly quick when people are being hateful and stupid (e.g. the female jihadist and Michelle Malkin). While I absolutely think it's better to let such statements fail on their own lack of merit rather than restrict them, sometimes it makes for hard waiting.
"I don't think this is what feminists had in mind when we encouraged women to add their voices to political discourse."
These are her words. And she uses “we.” Thus clearly opening an “us” versus “them.” Them would be MM and ridiculously, El Aroud. “Us” (we in this case) would be Suzanne and other feminists. And while she takes MM's remarks on the Keffiyeh as "condemnation of an entire people and culture", MM does not see it that way. I'm not arguing for it or against it, as it doesn't bother me. But lots of things bother me that don't bother other people: peace signs, for one. (More on that at the bottom.)
But the opinion on the Keffiyeh representing terrorism is MM’s, and it's her right to have it. If RR had been doing a commercial and had a swastika on her lapel, that symbol would have a meaning. Just because the Keffiyeh does not mean anything to you or to me or to Suzanne, doesn't mean that it doesn't to someone else. To say that MM's opinion isn't furthering the conversation or helping feminism is dishonest. Because really what it isn’t further is a conversation that Suzanne thinks is worthwhile.
And the whole point of even mentioning Suzanne’s post wasn’t about the Keffiyeh or arguing for or against it. It’s more as an illustration of how feminism often tries to squash dissenting opinions.
Is it really the same thing, writing an article that articulates a position (against the Keffiyeh, in this instance) and rallying men to become suicide bombers in the name of jihad? Are these really two things that deserve equal condemnation?
And MM didn't even call for a boycott on DD. All she said was that she didn't think RR knew what she was wearing, and that the Keffiyeh is creeping into western culture. In fact, MM is a strong supporter of DD, and drinks their coffee. The people responsible for pulling the ad were DD themselves, for their own reasons. And it was just an internet ad, and they couldn’t have been that attached to it. MM’s blog went up on the 23rd of May. The ad was pulled almost immediately. Her syndicated column came out on the 28th talking about the Keffiyeh in western pop culture. Hardly enough time for a full on, raging tirade by anyone. Much less Malkin. Who’s only point is that these items of clothing are traditional of Arab men, and can be seen in the hostage videos when our soldiers have been killed, and was popularized by Yassar Arafat. For those reasons, and others, she doesn’t like them. It’s her right.
I didn't misunderstand what Suzanne was saying. I just don't agree with it. Or I think it’s stupid. Her premise is when do feminists have the right to tell other women to quit talking. Or do feminists have the right to tell other women to quit talking? I can not be the only one who thinks that’s a little bit melodramatic and wrong even to propose.
And I definitely think it wrong to compare Malkin with El Around, and her readers and fans to those that follow El Aroud. Maybe I take that one too personally. But I think I’m meant to. In Suzanne’s world, she wants me to be shocked by the comparison and thus rethink my reading habits. Because maybe, had I known that reading Malkin is tantamount to following a pro-murdering jihadist, well maybe I wouldn’t be doing it.
"Again, if the point of feminism is that women should be heard, how do we encourage women to share their views and experiences when we sometimes disagree with them? Who decides what is appropriate and what should be condemned?"
It’s a stupid proposition. Because clearly, no one gets to decide. If you agree, you agree. If you disagree, you disagree. There isn't a governing board that gets to decide who is right and who is wrong. MM has as much a right to talk about anything she wants to as anyone else. Including Suzzane. I’ve never heard MM write anything like this: “Feminism values women's voices; it understands that, in general, the more discourse happens, the more people can understand one another. However, what happens when some women use their voices to oppress others? Is it ever OK to tell a woman to sit down and shut up?” The mere idea is … oppressive. And to me, puts Suzanne in the same category she puts MM and El Aroud. She wonders if it’s ever okay to oppress other women … if there isn’t a clear answer to that …. Pot, meet kettle.
Peace signs to me, represent the 70s and how awful some people were to my dad and military soldiers returning from Vietnam. It was incredibly unpopular to date / marry military men in the 70s, and my mom did it anyway. Peace signs are a representation of those that gave them a hard time. Now to others, they are like white doves and mean prosperity, peace and justice. Not to me. For myself, that symbol has a different meaning than was intended.
Although I disagree with you as to your end result (or the idea that Suzanne somehow gets to speak for all feminists), I think we agree on the general point that free speach is a good thing.
MM is free to spout out what ever she wants, I'm free to say she needs to do some research and think about the full implications of her words before she speaks if she wants to be taken as a credible commentator. Yay democracy.