When I got on my feeder thingy this morning, I was greeted with this image (which is, of course, a play on this image) below.

Pandagon created the image to make a point–Pandagon says in reference to the picture:”One also does wonder if those hypocrites would be able to applaud it if she’d dressed how they want:”

Yes, Pandagon used the image of an Islamic woman to make a point about how Jessica from feministing was unfairly targetted for “being a woman” while attending a meal with Bill Clinton.

Because it *is* pretty funny isn’t it? The comparing of an asshole to the Taliban. But in Pandagon’s rush to make a cheap joke at the expense of women of color (because good lord, the *real* problem with anti-sex feminists is that they want to turn white women into the OTHER), Pandagon forgot something small but very important: they are feminists from and blogging within a colonizing nation. A colonizing nation that is in the process of bombing the holy hell out of the very women that they find so easy to make fun of.

“Even as the Victorian male estabilishment devised theories to contest the whims of feminism, and derided and rejected the ideas of feminism and the notion of men’s oppressing women with respect to itself, it captured the language of feminism and redirected it, in the service of colonialism, toward Other men and the cultures of Other men. It was here and in the combining of the languages of colonialism and feminism that the fustion between the issues of women and the culture was created. More exactly, what was created was the fusion between the issues of women, their oppression, and the cultures of Other men. The idea that Other men, men in colonized societies or societies beyond the borders of the civilized West, oppressed women was to be used, in the rhetoric of colonialism, to render morally justifiable its project of undermining or eradicating the cultures of colonized peoples.” Ahmed, Leila, Women And Gender in Islam: Historical Roots of a Modern Debate pg 151

Yes, indeed, colonialism and feminism have a long history of intersecting in such a manner that feminism of the metropole (i.e. colonial feminism or feminism used against other cultures in the service of colonialism), is absolutly implicated in the violent subjugation of brown women across the globe.

Ahmed continues:

Broadly speaking, the thesis of the discourse on Islam blending a colonialism committed to male dominance with feminism–the thesis of the new colonial discourse of Islam centered on women–was that Islam was innately and immutably oppressive to women, that the veil and segregation epitomized that opression, and that these customs were the fundamental reasons for the general and comprehensive backwardness of Islamic societies…Veiling–to Western eyes, the most visible marker of the differentness and inferiority of Islamic societies–became the symbol now of both the oppression women (or, in the language of the day, Islam’s degradation of women) and the backwardness of Islam, and it became the open target of colonial attack and the spearhead of the assault on Muslim societies. (pg 152)

In other words, a “feminist” understanding of veiling has been used as an excuse by multiple Western countries over multiple generations to incite and JUSTIFY violence and imperialism against multiple Islamic (i.e. brown) countries.

So when you go back to that picture, the manufactured one that centers the “humor” of a veiled woman of color, you start to notice things:

Like the fact that a feminist has otherized a woman of color to “defend” the sexuality of a white woman.

Like the fact that a veiled woman is understood to be so inherantly asexual that she stands in no danger of being sexually advanced upon by the former head of a colonizing nation/state.

Like the fact that the greatest “danger” being read into the picture is that white women will someday be devoid of her sexuality.

Like the fact that Arab men are positioned as what white men are in danger of turning into.

Like the fact that a female who is in no danger of having her skin melted off by a colonizing country’s bombs is using the otherization of a woman of color who lives daily with the threat of bombs destroying not just her, but her family as well, to make a “feminist” point.

Like the fact that feminist bloggers who are blogging out of Afghanistan and Iraq right now are taking considerable fucking risks to their lives and the lives of their families to get their word out, and yet fellow “sister” bloggers are using imagery of their subjugation to have a good laugh. Oh, and are going out to eat with a former head of the same nation/state that is colonizing their countries and are part of what is making it so difficult to blog.

What is clear here, more than anything else, is that all the indignation and talk of racism and inclusion and diversity that Pandagon issued in the wake of fall out over the orignal Clinton picture was bullshit. When it really boils down to it, racism is preventing a black or Latina woman (because women of color only consist of black women–Latinas if you wanna get picky) from participating in the Democratic Process of Colonization. Racism is not colonization itself or (god forbid) a white woman defending the sexuality of another white woman at the expense of a woman of color’s sexuality and liberatory feminist movements. Racism is not the continual shaming of Arab women by colonizing feminists for (in the eyes of colonizing feminists) being victims. Racism is not the refusal of Western feminists to challenge their own government’s policies beyond abortion and equal pay. Racism is not the call for “sisterhood” when white women lose another court battle for “choice”.

Sly Civilian called it like it is, “Yeah, burqas are funny. Especially when the consistant use of them as a bat to whack the fundies places an image of the veiled muslim woman as the gold standard of helpless and oppressed, and lets the thugs turn around and freaking invade and colonize Iraq and Afganistan with the trumped up concern for women’s rights. Yeah. It’s pretty freaking hilarious.”

Pretty freaking hilarious, indeed. May I never be subjected to such humor.