Taking a break from writing (duh) but when I am back in six weeks, I am planning posts about my new obsessions (selfies, Game of Thrones, 1970s Iranian pop music) along with More Things I Am Angry About and pop culture stuff!!

On intersectionality

As I spent part of my Religious Studies lesson complaining with Anna and Lucy about the ridiculous actions of many prominent left-wing journalists over the last few months, I realised pretty quickly that a lot of the people around us had no clue what we were talking about. Therefore, to make what I'm talking about more clear to people that don't spend waste as much time as I do on twitter, here are a few pieces that illustrate the issues that have been rumbling for a while:

On intersectional feminism: Stop me if you think that you’ve heard this one before.
Please, No Moore: a snapshot of transphobia in Britain’s broadsheets
Clumsy language and equality

I have felt very frustrated recently, and I feel like a lot of it has got do with trying to reconcile myself with my identity as a British Iranian girl - especially with how I often feel uncomfortable in feminist spaces that I'm involved in. When I say "my feminism will be intersectional, or it will be bullshit", I am not saying it as something that has no impact on my life. No, I need my feminism to be intersectional. To quote Barbara Smith:

“Feminism is the political theory and practice to free all women: women of color, working-class women, poor women, physically challenged women, lesbians, old women, as well as white economically privileged heterosexual women. Anything less than this is not feminism, but merely female self-aggrandizement.”

Suzanne Moore said this in one of her recent articles in the Guardian: “Intersectionality is good in theory, though in practice, it means that no one can speak for anyone else... It refuses to engage with many other political discourses and becomes the old hierarchy of oppression.” The Vagenda wrote a piece along the same lines a couple of months ago that can be summed up as "but intersectionality is hard" as a defence of Caitlin Moran.

That's... not what intersectionality is. As Bim Adewunmi illustrates with this excellent quote:

I am a woman, a black woman born in London to Nigerian parents, a Muslim woman (who does not wear a hijab or veil). I am educated and self-employed but relatively low-earning. These things, as standalones or collectively, define how I see the world. One often bleeds into the other so comprehensively, they seem almost interchangeable. This is, in its most basic form, what we call intersectionality: the idea that we wear a lot of caps, and often in challenging one wrong, we are challenging many. In reading that Moran tweet, my first thought was: “I cannot afford to take off my ‘race cap’ and focus just on the plain ol’ sexism that plagues the television industry; and nor do I want to.”

I have witnessed countless instances of feminists failing to acknowledge intersectionality and for all their talk of solidarity, I can't see an awful lot of "sisterhood" when instead of asking Muslim women from the Middle East about their experiences of sexism, western feminists with no experience, understanding, or knowledge of the region or religion claim that Middle Eastern women need "saving" in order to become "liberated" like them. The idea of asking Middle Eastern Muslim women about their experiences seems utterly remote.

Intersectionality is not saying "no one can speak for anyone else ever, no one is allowed an opinion ever" - it's common sense in standing in solidarity with someone. Will a white, western woman understand the lived experience of a Muslim Middle Eastern woman? Probably not. Would it make more sense to ask them about what they think about a certain issue? Yes. I'm struggling to find the link but I remember reading an article about rape culture in India by a Western feminist. Swell - except instead of including a single quote from an Indian feminist, all of those quoted were also Western feminists. Instead of speaking for people, it would be far better if Western women made space for the voices of non-Western women to be heard.

The fact is that "mainstream feminism" seems to often only think about the views of a certain type of woman, and a lot of the "left" think about the liberation of a certain group of people, as seen in the attitudes of a lot of left-wing journalists recently:

"Freedom for all! Liberation to everyone! Ahem. Did we say everyone? We meant all the white, western cis people, everyone else later.We're fighting for equality! But intersectionality is too hard to think about! It's so hard being "PC" and like, trying to be respectful to minorities. We're on your team, and the Tories are the Real Enemy so don't call us out because you're breaking up the left. Never mind the fact that we're silencing and hurting groups of people who are oppressed by society already. While we think we're revolutionaries, we're actually just maintaining the same systems of oppression. You're being so "silly" and "ridiculous"! We're a part of group X, which basically gives us a pass to use slurs against group Y (as well as decide what group Y can care about and be offended by)."

Vive la révolution? This is the sort of attitude that a lot of people have to being "called out". I know it's not fun but the most important thing to recognise when you've been told that something you've said, done, or written is problematic is that if you are a true "ally", if you are truly on the side of the oppressed, then you are not going to throw a tantrum about being told this. Empty apologies do nothing if you don't learn, understand and try to do better next time.

"Power to the people" means power to all the people. It means listening to those who are oppressed by society. It means adjusting your life (including perhaps your use of language) and acknowledging the privileges you do have in society to make your movement more inclusive. We're not going to get it right every time. Lord knows I've made my share of mistakes. But it's about being willing to apologise and admit our mistakes, to listen, to learn and re-learn, to accept critiques - of ourselves, and especially our idols.

On Giving a Damn

I am sick of being chastised for giving a damn about things that I think are important. I think I am quite a passionate person, to the point that my entire voice shakes with rage as I rant incoherently because I care so much about something. Despite being fairly miserable, I cannot be apathetic and I guess I try to fuel my dissatisfaction with the world before me into trying to learn and unlearn as much as possibly can. I cannot deal with the "whatever, it doesn't affect me so I don't care" school of thought, because it's important to care about the lives of your fellow human beings because when there is pain and suffering in the world, we should not accept it because "that's just the way it is". If on the whole, all we'd done for the last few hundred years as accept the world has it was handed to us, then our progress would have been ridiculously limited. 

But also, I cannot just want to change things that are "in my bubble". I am exhausted of seeing feminists that are in the movement solely for their own liberation (and care little about the oppression of others), or leftist guys that say their struggle comes first, with everyone else later. You shouldn't be a trickle-down revolutionary that fails to understand that you are perpetuating the same oppressive structures as before if you're (for example) a feminist that doesn't care about the lives of WOC. You know "until we are all free, we are none of us free". If you want real change, you should be willing to challenge the structures of oppression, even the ones that you may benefit from.

I guess if you stay silent, you can avoid conflict - if you don't call people out because they're your friend, if you refuse to hold powerful figures accountable for their actions, if you let "casual" discriminatory actions slide because you don't want to cause a scene, and so on and so forth. It eats away at your humanity when you focus on staying in your own comfortable bubble. I'd honestly prefer to be known as a "bitchy feminist" because I'm willing to discuss and argue and even lose friends over things that I think are important than stay quiet because it's far easier.

So I am not going to shut up about issues that I feel are important, and I have no time for those who criticise me for doing so. I'm going to share something that is very close to home for me and I hope you'll read it. Give a damn.

Today Iranian artist Sanaz Sohrabi—with the co-sponsorship and help of Havaar and Sanctioned Life—brought a unique performance project to the streets of Manhattan. 

Iranian civilians are increasingly feeling the effects of a strict U.S.-led sanctions regime that has severely curtailed economic activity in Iran (the economic mismanagement of the Iranian government is exacerbating the situation). One of the most devastating effects is a lack of access to crucial medicines. Patients suffering from cancer, hemophilia, multiple sclerosis, and other ailments which require drug regimens in order to be treated are finding those medicines increasingly unavailable, either due to shortages or to large price increases that make them unaffordable. The result has been significant suffering, including the recent death of Manouchehr Esmaili, a 15-year-old boy with hemophilia who passed away last month when his parents were unable to find the medicine he required. 

To communicate the severity of this situation, Sohrabi engaged in a performative art piece which involved filling thousands of transparent pill capsules with messages from actual Iranians describing how sanctions have had an impact on their health or the health of loved ones. These capsules were then spread out on the streets near the United Nations and also handed out to passersby who were encouraged to read the messages inside. Sanaz Sohrabi dedicated her piece to the memory of late Manouchehr Esmaeili.

A WOMAN'S WORTH IS NOT DEPENDENT ON HER ATTIRE (ft. quick commentary on the Church of England and slut shaming).

I wasn't planning to write anything on here until all my tedious university interview work was done, but a discussion in debating society yesterday really aggravated me. I don't have an enormous amount of time (I'm supposed to be writing my English coursework actually) so I apologise for only writing a short, incoherent rant.

The motion was supposed to be "this House would disestablish the Church of England", and bless sir for trying to get us all back on track after everyone ended up clutching their pearls and reaching for smelling salts over the picture of Rev Sally Hitchiner in the Evening Standard - even though only a couple of people in the room had actually bloody seen it, but everyone had an opinion based on a grossly exaggerated description.

The way this picture was introduced by someone was that "SHE WAS WEARING FISHNET TIGHTS, KITTEN HEELS, TONS OF MAKE-UP - IT WAS SO INAPPROPRIATE" etc. People refrained from using words like "slut" or "slag" in front of our teachers, but you could see their masked slut shaming behind their false concern over Rev Hitchiner's faith. This is what she was wearing:

"Many people are scared of priests who look imposing and not like everyone else in society. I dress my age, in Topshop and Zara. One person on the internet has started trolling me, saying priests shouldn’t look like normal people. But it’s important that the Church reflects the range of people in society."

I guessed that the reason that the Evening Standard chose to run a huge image of her in the article was because she's an attractive young woman, and they wanted to provoke a reaction from people that focused more on Rev Hitchiner's attire than her opinion on the church - which I think says more about how the media manipulates the public rather than how devout we guess Rev Hitchiner is from what sort of clothes she's wearing. I looked Sally Hitchiner up on Twitter and she mentions that the images were "manipulated" as well as presented in a way different from discussed (note: I think they were originally taken for the Daily Mail).

After I was infuriated with people's comments, I pointed out that a) I had actually seen her outfit and it wasn't as "inappropriate" as it was made out to be, and b) it's sad that instead of remembering her deep disappointment about the outcome of the church's vote and what she had to say about women in the church, everyone has focused on judging her character from her outfit. I felt pretty appalled by the sentiment in the room which seemed to put equality under a condition pleasing to sexist attitudes - "if women want to be bishops in the church, then you have to conform to X, Y and Z, otherwise you can't expect equality!"

A thirty minute discussion in a London classroom filled with lots of sixteen and seventeen year olds, mostly girls, sadly demonstrated how people feel that they can determine how "good" or "pious" or "respectful" or "worthy" a woman is from her clothing. No one gave a damn about her opinion on the church, the people who'd actually read the article didn't remember her words but exaggerated her outfit - but instead, they wanted to judge her commitment to her faith from her outfit, instead of listening to her demonstrate her faith through her words. 

Where I Rant About Things You're Probably Sick of Hearing About

I really think that this has been spoken about by several excellent people already, making this kind of useless, but considering that I've written a tiny bit about it on here, more for the school paper that got seriously cut down, and a furious rant on my angsty teen girl tumblr, I feel like I ought to collect it all in one neat piece of writing. (My previous post about Girls is HERE.) So here you go: a long rant about Girls, Lena Dunham, Caitlin Moran, and Elementary.

Lots of television shows set in cities like New York lack diversity despite being set in diverse environments and/or make use of racial stereotypes whenever there is a non-white character in the cast (like 2 Broke Girls, How I Met Your Mother, etc). Some people perceive that Girls has been "unfairly" attacked for its lack of diversity because of the "look at all the other shows that have all-white casts!" defence but to put it bluntly: as "feminists" you ought to be doing better. A show that's supposedly All About Real Women Beyond Stereotypes only featured non-white characters as passing stereotypes.

Just last year, Shonda Rhimes (creator of Grey's Anatomy) criticised the show Bunheads for its lack of racial diversity. Do you know what Amy Sherman-Palladino's response was? "I’ve always felt that women, in a general sense, have never supported other women the way they should." I am really sick of people refusing to accept any legitimate criticisms from other women on issues such as race because we're supposed to be part of some sort of magical sisterhood. 

On the issue of diversity on television, the thing that annoys me just as much as all the problematic things related to Girls is the unwavering defence of it by lots of supposed feminists. Lots of the articles I've read on places like the Guardian by the Vagenda (more on that later) and Feministing making a passing comment about these criticisms and basically say that the "real issue" is the lack of positive representation of women in pop culture so we ought to shut up about wanting more diverse representations of everyone because isn’t it swell that we have a couple REAL (WHITE) FEMALE CHARACTERS ON TV?

I understand that not everyone will necessarily have the same privileged experiences as the girls on the show, but being shut out means that Girls is not the radical "voice of a generation" that it's hailed as. The great issue with Dunham's work isn't just because she excludes people of other races in developed roles (even though duh, a non-diverse New York is not realistic) but when she does include them, they're blatant racial stereotypes that exist for the sole purpose of being contrasted with her character. 

So, now it's time to look at the issue surrounding Caitlin Moran's tweets. A lot of people have tried to pass off her initial tweet where she said she "literally couldn't give a shit" about all the racial issues around Girls as being "out of context" or whatever, but she made her point seriously clear by saying that "asking every female artist to represent 3.3b women in every project she does is a crippling and unfair request" and really doesn't seem to understand why the exclusion of marginalised people is discriminatory, as seen where she compares the lack of representation on television with "not having someone Chinese" in her house.

It's disheartening to see all the people who really don't "get" the issue of lack of positive representation of minorities on television. To quote an excellent piece on the issue by Bim Adewunmi: "Is it unfair to ask Dunham to represent all of womanhood onscreen? Of course it is. But here’s the thing: no one did. We merely asked that she take a step back and question the underlying reason for why Girls looks the way it does." 

Graham Linehan tweeted that people are "actually DEMANDING tokenism" and if that's all you've picked up from this whole debate, then you really haven't been listening. No one is asking for "token" POC characters (we're seriously not). Asking for more positive representation in the media shouldn't be this horrible stifling burden. The excuses people come up with for lacking well-written POC characters are ridiculous. If you can't do it, hire staff who can. Though to be honest, if you can only seem to write POC characters as token stereotypes and not portray them as the developed human beings that they are, you probably suck as a writer. 

Feminists like Moran, Dunham, and Arfin dominate the portrayal of "mainstream feminism" and promote a brand of feminism that only really thinks about their needs. A lot of the feminists like them promote "equality for some women now, everyone else later!" - and when they fuck up because they've continually refused to understand issues surrounding their privilege, they don't actually LEARN from their mistakes. And they will continue to be praised by liberal outlets as the "face of modern feminism".

The way that feminism ought to move ON from being limited to the needs of certain types of women is that feminists should listen to critiques of problematic aspects of it. It's not feminists calling out other feminists for problematic shit that's dividing feminism, it's feminists that stifle the voices of other people within the movement and refuse to listen, learn, and acknowledge their privilege that make lots of people uncomfortable  about identifying as a feminist. Why should they have to identify as feminists, if their existence isn't even acknowledged by the most dominant voices in the movement?

So the Vagenda saying instead of fighting the patriarchy, "we're in-fighting" about the Dunham-Moran situation is absolute bullshit because if you're not going to acknowledge why all the things that Moran said were hurtful to women of colour who always tend to be sidelined in "mainstream feminism", then you're not bloody fighting for all women. You're really just upholding the same oppressive standards as before. I'm both amused and annoyed at Moran and the Vagenda, who talk about how men patronise women about sexism, but don't see themselves doing the same thing as white women to women of colour. 

The Vagenda also wrote an article in the New Statesman as a defence of Caitlin Moran where they dismiss intersectionality as something too academic to comprehend and claims that "Moran at least speaks a language that we all understand". As the post on intersectionality by stavvers sharply counters: "If by “we”, they mean the privileged women with a national platform, then yes, they understand it. But not if you’re one of the groups Moran doesn’t give a shit about. At best, it’s dismissive. At worst, it’s actively oppressing others."

In the film A Girl Like Me, an experiment is conducted where African-American girls are asked to choose between a white doll and a black doll. The majority of the children chose the white doll, giving reasons like the white doll is "pretty" or "good", and the black doll is "ugly" or "bad". Pop culture influences us so when everything from children's shows to teen dramas to adult sitcoms lack diversity - or only perpetuate harmful stereotypes - then we shouldn't become shocked that these stereotypes become a part of the way we think. We shouldn't dismiss a problematic part of pop culture as just a film, or just a television show - there's no "just" about it. Pop culture does not exist in a vacuum as it relates to reality, to human history and human experience. 

I've only seen the pilot episode of Elementary so far, but I quite enjoy it as a modern adaptation of Sherlock Holmes. "What about the modern day television show starring Benedict Cumberbatch and his cheekbones?" you cry. Sherlock is quite problematic with regards to its portrayal of women and minorities, and some of the cast and some of the writers seem to often spout a lot of questionable things, so despite enjoying the show, Sherlock does make me feel uncomfortable at times.

I think it says a lot that Sherlock Holmes has been portrayed as a mouse, but apparently it's a cause for panic if there's an adaptation with an Asian-American woman playing Watson. It's set in New York and it's cast is representative of that. Lucy Liu's Joan Watson and Jonny Lee Miller's Sherlock Holmes are portrayed as real human beings, and not reduced to stereotypes of Asian-American women or recovering drug users. Furthermore, the show presents non-white actors playing complex characters just as realistic and deeply human as the white characters because they’re a part of the real world, not just to be contrasted with the show’s hero.

On Joan, Lucy eloquently said: "It’s nice to be able to portray an Asian-American on camera without having an accent, or without having to be spoofy. And I think that’s a big step forward, because there are still representations of people that are more comedic. And that’s not what I’m playing. I’m just playing somebody who represents anyone else who would be living in America or outside of it, who is just a regular person."

I enjoyed Elementary because I thought it was witty and smart (with two very beautiful people in the lead roles), but also, watching a show that manages to portray women, people of colour, drug users, the mentally ill, as ACTUAL REAL HUMAN BEINGS is something that's unfortunately rare in pop culture. Girls could improve its characterisation of minorities, or Elementary will resort to stereotypes, perhaps making Watson and Sherlock a couple (please no), but right now, the discussions surrounding these shows are crucial - and everyone should be paying attention, no matter how uncomfortable the harsh truths may make you feel.

FURTHER READING: "Dear Vagenda Editors", "Why I Didn't Run the Caitlin Moran Interview", "What the Girls spat on Twitter tells us about feminism", "A problem that stubbornly refuses to budge".

I mentioned it in the post, but "How to be better: on intersectionality, privilege and silencing" is a worthy read.

On HBO's Girls

A sickening amount has been written about HBO's new show Girls to the extent that you may be sick of the hype and its creator Lena Dunham before it's even aired in the U.K; if you fall into the category of people that are tired of hearing about this show, then I apologise but I feel the need to vent about some of the failings of Girls' staff along with some of the mainstream feminist community's response to it.

The show has been critcised for the lack of diversity in the cast; in the show's pilot, the only POC were the minor, passing characters of a black homeless man, a black taxi driver, and an Asian girl who was good with technology. For a while, I was naively willing to give Dunham the benefit of the doubt when she said she wants to "address" the lack of women of colour if the show has a second series, but you know what? The constant repeated instances of ignorance from the show's writing cast in conjunction with the whitewashing of New York shows that it's highly unlikely Dunham is ACTUALLY assessing her own privilege after each instance that she or the show is called out.

For instance, Lesley Arfin, one of the show's writers, is the one who said "What really bothered me most about Precious was that there was no representation of ME" and said something ridiculously absurd about using the N-word. So by the time that Lena Dunham wrapped a scarf around her head and tweeted "I had a real goth/fundamentalist attitude when I woke up from my nap", I really wasn't surprised when I found myself rolling my eyes at something that's a ridiculous comment to make all year round but stings particularly after the Mosque bombing in Misouri and the Sikh temple shooting in Wisconsin. As Racialicious said so excellently about her "apology":

By “bad time,” she referred to the assault on the gurudwara in Oak Creek last week. So it only took people getting shot and killed by an apparent white supremacist–and using a pretext similar to Ashton Kutcher’s defense for those pro-Penn State tweets, if you’ll recall–for her to issue a non-apology. It wasn’t that the joke itself was lazy; it’s that she didn’t pick the right day to foist it upon us.

As for the rest of her argument, if she hasn’t learned about “boundaries” after being critiqued regarding her show’s casting calls–what, Donald Glover is supposed to be a salve?–or her staff’s stabs at hipster racism, then it’s not hard to imagine anybody holding their breath to start showing more sensitivity now.

But you know what insulted me as much as the ignorance behind a show that is supposed to be "all about real women"? Articles like the one published by Feministing that ask: "Does Lena Dunham’s “casual racism” matter?" Well, yes. DUH. The author says "I wouldn’t say this tweet and pic is obviously racist, as much as it is annoying and ignorant (and Islamophobic)" but in Western society, racism and Islamophobia are linked as in our public consciousness, we need to be wary of the "scary brown evil Muslims". “But, I’m fascinated by how much people are focused on her political representations since she’s essentially a comedy writer and comedians say racially offensive things all the time" - oh, okay! So by that logic, as many comedians say sexist or cissexist or heterosexist things, we should never call anyone out on it, right? Well, no. That's obviously not a sound argument to make.

Oh, and let's not forget the part that makes me rage: "I think the outrage ends up scrutinizing her personal behavior instead of looking at the real problem–the lack of diverse representations of women in popular culture." Seriously? I don't see how criticising Dunham's insensitive and ignorant tweet has anything to do with the lack of representation of women in popular culture. Calling Dunham out doesn't equal anything like "girl hate" or being unsupportive of women in the media, especially when she's had such an influential opportunity to do something powerful in the media. People defending her talk about the lack of racial awareness in other New York based shows (2 Broke Girls, How I Met Your Mother, Friends, etc). I mean, Gossip Girl is pretty much about Rich White People Problems but it's marketed as such and forgive me for hoping that a show about the lives of young women written by a FEMINIST wouldn't totally suck at intersectionality and inclusiveness, or wishing that feminist circles wouldn't equate calling racism out as being unsupportive to other women.

I fairly enjoyed the first season but I really don't know if I'm going to have the patience to watch the second, and I feel so uncomfortable thinking about Girls airing here in the U.K. this autumn and having everyone laud it as being SO GREAT FOR FEMINISM when all these issues exist. I think that Lena Dunham should watch this and maybe learn a thing or two: