So, this short post is really a delayed response to some of the anti-feminist (il-)logic that started to appear on my social media feeds after the #BeingFemaleInNigeria hashtag did it what it did (it did all the things, by the way).
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Saturday, 11 July 2015
Friday, 12 June 2015
Why are people putting Caitlyn Jenner and Rachel Dolezal in the same sentence?
I wasn't going to write about Caitlyn Jenner's big reveal because I'm not trans and only have an outsider's grasp of the gender identity/expression issue. However, I changed my mind because it appears that even this basic grasp is more than most have, and if I can contribute to increasing the knowledge pool, I will try to do so. (Also, if I roll my eyes or #headdesk any more than I already have thanks to things I've seen online, I'll probably hurt myself.)
UPDATE: I started writing this piece before the Rachel Dolezal debacle, an issue that allowed people to create false equalisations between race and gender by arguing that it is 'hypocritical' to be accepting of transgender people while rejecting 'transracial' people. Being a Nigerian living in Nigeria, my knowledge of race relations, like my knowledge of being transgender, is the product of research, but I will do my best to tackle this as well.
Before I continue, I have to say: if you're unwilling to accept the humanity of all people, their right to exist, to determine the course of their lives without harming others, and to be treated with respect, regardless of any identity(-ies) that may be different from what you consider 'normal' -- if you ever even feel the need to say that you will never 'accept' another person's existence because it doesn't fit your worldview or beliefs, fix yourself.
If you don't 'accept' the existence of trans people and are unwilling to develop the empathy, knowledge and self-awareness necessary to get you to where you realise that your 'non-acceptance' is actually bigotry, then you are contributing in one way or another to a culture of transphobia that literally ends trans people's lives.
UPDATE: I started writing this piece before the Rachel Dolezal debacle, an issue that allowed people to create false equalisations between race and gender by arguing that it is 'hypocritical' to be accepting of transgender people while rejecting 'transracial' people. Being a Nigerian living in Nigeria, my knowledge of race relations, like my knowledge of being transgender, is the product of research, but I will do my best to tackle this as well.
Before I continue, I have to say: if you're unwilling to accept the humanity of all people, their right to exist, to determine the course of their lives without harming others, and to be treated with respect, regardless of any identity(-ies) that may be different from what you consider 'normal' -- if you ever even feel the need to say that you will never 'accept' another person's existence because it doesn't fit your worldview or beliefs, fix yourself.
If you don't 'accept' the existence of trans people and are unwilling to develop the empathy, knowledge and self-awareness necessary to get you to where you realise that your 'non-acceptance' is actually bigotry, then you are contributing in one way or another to a culture of transphobia that literally ends trans people's lives.
Friday, 6 February 2015
Gender Justice, Intersectionality and What My Feminism Means to Me
That title is a bit heavy-sounding, I realise (and probably a little misleading, as this post will not be the meaty 5000-word essay a title like that would lead one to expect), but I was having a conversation with my colleagues yesterday, and it helped to solidify a lot of things I've only been aware of peripherally in my own journey as a gender justice advocate.
It was announced that Chimamanda Adichie is in the running for a Grammy this Sunday, thanks to the excerpt of her 'We Should All Be Feminists' speech that Beyonce featured in 'Flawless***', and this news sparked an interesting debate about feminism in the African(?) context.
One of my coworkers insisted that feminism is a 'Western' import and has no real relevance here, implying that African feminists are mindlessly replicating a struggle that has no bearing on our lives. I found that incredibly difficult to stomach, because apart from his ahistorical analysis which 'proved' that African women are not oppressed (on the basis of matrilineal inheritance laws that may or may not apply in some communities and events like the Aba women's riots), he persisted in saying that women in African societies are empowered, despite hearing testimony from the mostly female group about how our lived experiences prove the exact opposite.
It was interesting to see how, despite real people providing real evidence to this intelligent person, he refused to even acknowledge that he could be wrong. His worldview and intellectual position on a matter which he was not an authority on (based on the absence of either any real research or lived experience) were more important than the actual reality; it was easier, safer, I will even argue, to hold on to the comfortable and familiar delusion of a world where women of African descent are safe and happy, than to engage with the reality as presented by actual women of African descent.
An interaction on twitter yesterday between Rosie O'Donnell and Lauren Chief Elk ran along similar, albeit more violent lines; Lauren asked Rosie to pose critical questions to a guest billed to come on her show, Eve Ensler. Eve is a prominent White feminist whose work has been critiqued over the years by marginalised women; women of color, trans women and female children have been harmed by the erasure and exploitation that characterises Ensler's activism (see a Google search of 'critiques of Eve Ensler' here).
Rosie's response was violent, disproportionate and racist: she dismissed the (legitimate) questions as being a 'cruel attack', used images of herself with Black girls to 'prove' that she was not racist (as if proximity equals respectful engagement), used a racist slur on Lauren, and even said that she and/or Eve Ensler, both of whom are rich, White, cis-gendered women, have 'done more for women of colour than any woman of colour'.
Needless to say, I was genuinely horrified by her behaviour. But as I thought about it, I realised the parallels between her 'rationale' and my colleague's: We all have biases and prejudices that prop up our worldview which determine whose voice we consider valid/valuable, as well as determining which narratives we dismiss whenever they conflict with our constructed perception of reality. It is my theory that the more privilege one has in an oppressive system, the stronger the effect of these biases on one's ability to reason and to adapt one's ideas upon receiving new information.
I used to get angry with people like my colleague and Rosie, but there are way too many of them in the world. Shit gets exhausting, fam. Now I just use this knowledge to check myself. Oppression is rarely a linear thing; there are intersecting sliding scales of oppression and privilege, depending on the context of any interaction within the system.
Despite being an areligious dark-skinned, unwed African mother uninvested in performing femininity and living on the continent (which therefore places me quite low on the 'value' scale in the neo-colonial capitalist patriarchy that holds sway in most 'Third World' regions and in the White supremacist capitalist patriarchy in the West), I still have privilege based on my status as educated, middle-class, cis-gendered, and urban. There are many, many, many struggles that I can not identify with and in many cases am not even aware of, because they are simply not my story.
Yet, the fact that something is not my story does not invalidate that story, nor does it make it untrue. Gender activism in my region is far from being inclusive (I have many theories as to why this is, but this post is way too long already), and the only truly transformative way we can progress in fighting for 'women's rights' (notice how in activist-speak, 'women' generally means straight and cis-gendered females), the only way we can effectively intervene in the issues affecting marginalised groups that are not like those of us privileged to have the education, resources and platforms that enable us to call ourselves activists, is to share our platform, de-center ourselves when we purport to be allies, and amplify the voices of these groups rather than claiming to speak for them.
In summary, it is vital to listen. Even when it is uncomfortable, we must. Even when it challenges our ideas and shifts what we perceive as 'reality', we must. Progress for some marginalised groups is not progress for all (mainstream White feminists and Real Housewives of the Nigerian NGO, I'm looking at you). We must discard the ridiculous notion that oppression is a binary of powerful and not powerful, and that everyone is always and forever either one or the other. And we must leave no oppressed person behind. This is what my feminism, as an African woman, demands.
What does your activism demand?
It was announced that Chimamanda Adichie is in the running for a Grammy this Sunday, thanks to the excerpt of her 'We Should All Be Feminists' speech that Beyonce featured in 'Flawless***', and this news sparked an interesting debate about feminism in the African(?) context.
One of my coworkers insisted that feminism is a 'Western' import and has no real relevance here, implying that African feminists are mindlessly replicating a struggle that has no bearing on our lives. I found that incredibly difficult to stomach, because apart from his ahistorical analysis which 'proved' that African women are not oppressed (on the basis of matrilineal inheritance laws that may or may not apply in some communities and events like the Aba women's riots), he persisted in saying that women in African societies are empowered, despite hearing testimony from the mostly female group about how our lived experiences prove the exact opposite.
It was interesting to see how, despite real people providing real evidence to this intelligent person, he refused to even acknowledge that he could be wrong. His worldview and intellectual position on a matter which he was not an authority on (based on the absence of either any real research or lived experience) were more important than the actual reality; it was easier, safer, I will even argue, to hold on to the comfortable and familiar delusion of a world where women of African descent are safe and happy, than to engage with the reality as presented by actual women of African descent.
An interaction on twitter yesterday between Rosie O'Donnell and Lauren Chief Elk ran along similar, albeit more violent lines; Lauren asked Rosie to pose critical questions to a guest billed to come on her show, Eve Ensler. Eve is a prominent White feminist whose work has been critiqued over the years by marginalised women; women of color, trans women and female children have been harmed by the erasure and exploitation that characterises Ensler's activism (see a Google search of 'critiques of Eve Ensler' here).
Rosie's response was violent, disproportionate and racist: she dismissed the (legitimate) questions as being a 'cruel attack', used images of herself with Black girls to 'prove' that she was not racist (as if proximity equals respectful engagement), used a racist slur on Lauren, and even said that she and/or Eve Ensler, both of whom are rich, White, cis-gendered women, have 'done more for women of colour than any woman of colour'.
Needless to say, I was genuinely horrified by her behaviour. But as I thought about it, I realised the parallels between her 'rationale' and my colleague's: We all have biases and prejudices that prop up our worldview which determine whose voice we consider valid/valuable, as well as determining which narratives we dismiss whenever they conflict with our constructed perception of reality. It is my theory that the more privilege one has in an oppressive system, the stronger the effect of these biases on one's ability to reason and to adapt one's ideas upon receiving new information.
I used to get angry with people like my colleague and Rosie, but there are way too many of them in the world. Shit gets exhausting, fam. Now I just use this knowledge to check myself. Oppression is rarely a linear thing; there are intersecting sliding scales of oppression and privilege, depending on the context of any interaction within the system.
Despite being an areligious dark-skinned, unwed African mother uninvested in performing femininity and living on the continent (which therefore places me quite low on the 'value' scale in the neo-colonial capitalist patriarchy that holds sway in most 'Third World' regions and in the White supremacist capitalist patriarchy in the West), I still have privilege based on my status as educated, middle-class, cis-gendered, and urban. There are many, many, many struggles that I can not identify with and in many cases am not even aware of, because they are simply not my story.
Yet, the fact that something is not my story does not invalidate that story, nor does it make it untrue. Gender activism in my region is far from being inclusive (I have many theories as to why this is, but this post is way too long already), and the only truly transformative way we can progress in fighting for 'women's rights' (notice how in activist-speak, 'women' generally means straight and cis-gendered females), the only way we can effectively intervene in the issues affecting marginalised groups that are not like those of us privileged to have the education, resources and platforms that enable us to call ourselves activists, is to share our platform, de-center ourselves when we purport to be allies, and amplify the voices of these groups rather than claiming to speak for them.
In summary, it is vital to listen. Even when it is uncomfortable, we must. Even when it challenges our ideas and shifts what we perceive as 'reality', we must. Progress for some marginalised groups is not progress for all (mainstream White feminists and Real Housewives of the Nigerian NGO, I'm looking at you). We must discard the ridiculous notion that oppression is a binary of powerful and not powerful, and that everyone is always and forever either one or the other. And we must leave no oppressed person behind. This is what my feminism, as an African woman, demands.
What does your activism demand?
Friday, 19 December 2014
"Women, Protect Yourselves." (And We Ask, "From What?")
Over the last month I've been in the process of moving into my own place and practising for life without domestic help (my maid leaves permanently next week and it's uncertain when I will find someone else), and so I've spent a lot more time out in the 'real world' than I normally would. I was told, and it made sense to me, that living on my own would be more difficult than the life I was used to, and in some ways I had prepared myself for it. One thing I failed to factor in though, was how unsafe I would feel while just going about living my life.
While I was still living with family, I was often driven around. I also had more disposable income and so could afford to take taxis regularly, but living on your own has its way of forcing you to trim the excess, so I've started taking danfo and the BRT a lot more. I spend more time walking on busy roads and go to the market more; I'm generally in public spaces more. The upshot of all this being out in the world is that I've experienced a lot more street/sexual harassment and sexist (micro-)aggressions in the last few weeks than the entire year prior.
Leaving the house now requires a ridiculous amount of thought. My stress levels are higher when I have to go out because, depending on whether I feel up to standing up for myself or not, I have to carefully evaluate my outfits to ward off harassment. I have to think carefully about routes, be constantly alert when it starts to get dark, try to figure out whether it's safer to ignore catcalling or respond as politely as possible and walk away quickly... In the last month I've had one man pull out his penis and waggle it at me on the street, had a group of men call out to my two-year old daughter about her bum, been followed by several men, and (of course) had sexist slurs shouted at me.
Last night I had to go out around 9pm to buy insecticide. I didn't feel like changing out of the clothes I had on (a loose shirt and mid-thigh bodycon skirt), but I suspected how things would go. I wasn't disappointed. I hadn't walked 15 metres from my street's gate before someone had tried to initiate contact and then proceeded to insult me when I ignored him. Two metres beyond him a group of men on a balcony started to call down to me. Another metre or so in front, some teenage boys walked past me, leering, and once they were behind me began to heckle me. On my way back home one man followed me very closely for over 100 metres, alternating between cajoling and threatening whispers, walking closer to me in the darker parts and drifting away where there were security lights, until I got to my street's gate and the security guard blocked him.
As I walked home I realised that if I told someone about that distressing experience, I was more likely to get a "but why did you wear that skirt?" than a "but why would someone follow a non-communicative stranger home?" Women are told and taught to do everything they can to protect ourselves, yet no one ever seems to question why there is even a need for self-protection. People say, "women, protect yourselves" and stop short of the "from men" part of that phrase. This is why no matter what women do, we continue to suffer all kinds of violence; people choose not to engage with the cause of the violence.
Telling women that we ought to limit our choices and even our lives in order to ward off violence is not and will never be effective in preventing or protecting us from violence, because women's choices, bodies and lives are not the cause of violence. The sense of entitlement, superiority and ownership that men feel over women and our bodies is. The privileging of maleness and male desires over women's safety and agency is. The dangerous man-as-hunter norm that teaches men to ignore consent and the absence of it is. The sexual objectification and commodification of women's bodies for male consumption is. And until society starts to interrogate the reasons behind all of the 'should nots' that are prescribed for women 'for their protection', we will continue to see women 'fail' at protecting themselves.
It was never about women protecting ourselves. It has always been about the men we need to protect ourselves from.
Wednesday, 5 March 2014
Still on the Matter
I watched the 2012 documentary 'Call Me Kuchu' about the LGBTQI situation in Uganda this morning, and it reminded me of the foolishness our legislature passed into law earlier this year. So I did a google search on 'homosexuality in Nigeria' and read a few ridiculous articles rife with religion-based homophobia. By the time I arrived at this article I was just done. I was so completely over the bullshit that I angry-commented, the result of which was three or so paragraphs. So I thought I'd share it, as I've been bogged down with boring work and haven't had any inspired posts pop into my head of late. (I should have known better than to read anything on the Daily Post, by the way).
"This article failed to make any real point. There are far too many social, political and cultural issues that characterize relations between Africa and the West for such a simplistic, reductionist argument as 'the homosexuality campaign is the new face of imperialism' to hold any water.
While I understand your religious bias against SSA, it does not negate the fact that the religious concept of sin does not equate to the legal concept of crime. There are understandable overlaps in the two, but it would require the kind of fantastic cognitive dissonance that you and most religious homophobic Africans display to say that God condemns homosexuality, and therefore so must our laws. What about the other kinds of 'sexual immorality' that are so rampant? What about the rife corruption and greed? Are they not sins too?
It does not matter whether people are born straight or gay, whether it is a mental illness or learned behavior. You do not contest a human's right to life, nor her right to mental illness or learning of behaviors of any kind. At the root of all human rights is the right to choose. Even your God allows free will, does he not?
Homophobia apologists are forever decrying the dangers of homosexuality; it frays the moral fabric, undermines the family unit, it will be the end of humanity as we know it. Yet you acknowledge that it has been around since at least the time of Abraham, and these great evils that homosexuality is said to cause STILL have not overtaken mankind and destroyed us all. I wonder how come!
At the root of any kind of discrimination is hatred. and I'm sure your God does not promote hatred - in fact, isn't hatred a sin? Some friendly advice: maybe you should be the one repenting of your own unrighteousness, instead of announcing to the whole world that homosexuals are on their way to hell. They might very well end up burning there for eternity, but i think you'd better hurry up and repent before you die, or you might burn with them too. And what could be worse than spending eternity next to a homo?"
There is truly nothing sadder than the use of God's name to promote evil. People are literally being killed because of homophobia, and yet they say that God has sanctioned this. It makes me wonder which God these people believe in...
Wednesday, 15 January 2014
Jail the Gays, Nigeria.
Nigeria is in the news again, and as usual, it's not because we've done something right. This time around, a revised secret version of the anti-gay bill has been passed into law, very quietly (so as to prevent another lobby by LGBTQI bodies in Nigeria, I suspect), and our normally unpopular legislature seems to have hit a home run with this move. In one fell swoop Nigeria's generally inept leadership has managed to unify all the different factions and groups warring for supremacy (or at least some kind of majority foothold) in this great nation: Christian, Muslim, PDP, APC, Igbo, Tiv - 90+% of the Nigerian populace is solidly behind them in this incredible violation of human rights because, hey, we never liked the gays anyway.
I'll just ask one question here: how many (out) gay people does the average Nigerian even know? Usually, none. So there is this malicious scourge, this vile, reprehensible minority whose very existence is a stench in the nostrils of the Nigerian populace, never mind that most of the Nigerian populace doesn't know anyone who actually belongs to this group. And just like with every other human rights violation, the (often willfully ignorant, irrationally prejudiced) majority reserves the right to endanger the lives of innocent people because they can. We can oppress the gays and strip them of their humanity and their rights, like historically the blacks, the women, the mentally ill, the lower castes, and any number of other minority or culturally 'inferior' groups was and often continues to be oppressed.
What is it about homosexuality that makes it okay for a failing leadership to latch onto a non-issue, create a human rights fiasco out of it, and still win the praise of its disenfranchised polity? Please be sure to leave comments about how gayness chips away at the very fabric of our great culture and traditional values (because obviously culture is static and the gatekeepers of African tradition are people who dress like Westerners and worship Middle-Eastern deities), how gayness endangers our children (because gayness is a communicable disease), how gayness threatens procreation (because despite environmental issues and overpopulation, what the Earth needs is more people), how gayness offends god (please be specific as to which god you're referring to; there's a ton of them) - please be sure to set your human decency aside and propagate hatred and victimization of innocent people.
For those who will say that Nigeria is a majorly religious nation and in Christian and Muslim doctrine, homosexuality is a sin, I have two statements. One, Homosexuality is not a sin; it is a state of being. No state of being is sinful. Latent sexuality is simply that: latent sexuality. Neither good nor bad. Neither sacred nor profane. How is romantic love sinful? How is sexual desire sinful? If you proceed to say that it is homosexual behavior that is sinful, please read my second point: your religion is yours and yours alone. Religious beliefs are not an absolute standard; they are a personal choice. So if your god, gods or God frowns on same-sex relationships, that doesn't mean everyone's does. Nigeria is a secular state: a religious majority should not mean the criminalization of orientations or behaviors that do not follow the mores of that religion. Otherwise, every single person in Nigeria would be liable for jail time. And that includes you, Soldier in the Divine Army of God.
Truth be told, the general bent of the comments on this issue has been astonishing in the depth of prejudice and ignorance. All you have to be to see that this law is a terrible thing, is a decent human being who is capable of compassion and empathy. Discrimination, persecution and criminalization of any innocent person based on differences in religion, gender, sexual orientation, income level, or whatever else contributes to identity is a violation of basic human rights. You do not get to pick and choose what rights another human being qualifies for on the basis of your personal (or in this case, collective) biases, prejudices, ignorance, intolerance or bigotry. A human being is a human being, regardless of who they love or how they fuck. And it's none of your business, and certainly none of the law's.
PS: the comments on this post will be moderated. If your comment will include accusations of homosexuality, passages of scripture, ignorance, derailment or bigotry, please don't bother.
Further reading:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)