Welcome to my short form Tumblr blog. My name is Flavia Tamara Dzodan, I am a business developer, writer, public speaker, ideas instigator, content creator, media facilitator and trend watcher living in Amsterdam.
This Tumblr is about the spaces and intersections between politics, culture, race and gender matters with some humor and pop culture thrown in the mix.
My long reads blog is Red Light Politics.
I also blog at Tiger Beatdown.
If you would like to know more about me, visit this page .
Loading Tweet...
I’d be very upset if I worked at Fage USA and had to drive every (Monday) morning to:
1 Opportunity Drive.
I suppose that neighbourhood has...
by Mia McKenzie
Yesterday, I wrote a post called Michelle Obama...
Try not to forget why they came to the United States of America, and though the specific circumstances may differ, you’ll find that hundreds of...
Taken with Instagram
Haarlem, Netherlands (by Epicantus)
223 posts tagged feminism
A couple of weeks ago I extensively ranted about how neoliberal feminism has kind of become the default/ the neutral*. Some people were offended by my statements (I won’t bore you with an account of that as the offenses were mostly taken to Twitter). A week or so later and unrelated to my attempt at analysis of neoliberal feminism, I was told I had to “separate” issues of race, poverty, etc from feminism because they were not related.
This morning I woke up to news of an updated death toll: 1000 people so far, have died in the factory fire in Bangladesh.
In September 2012, when the European Union went through a short moment of outrage at the discovery that people from Bangladesh were attempting to cross borders into the EU, I wrote **:
Here is what neither the WSJ [ED: Wall Street Journal] nor European media or Frontex reports usually address: Bangladeshi migrants are escaping a desperate economic situation brought upon by decades of Western intervention and the perpetuation of an economic model based on sweatshop labor and lack of basic rights to feed the consumption patterns of the US and the EU.
According to a report published by the International Monetary Fund (not exactly a paradigm of humanitarian research), exports of textiles, clothing, and ready-made garments account for 77% of Bangladesh’s total merchandise exports. Bangladesh’s garment exports – mainly to the US and Europe – make up nearly 80% of the country’s export income. The country has more than 4,000 factories employing between two and three million workers and the industry currently employs 1.5 million workers, approximately 80 % of whom are women. More than 4% of the clothes sold in the EU are made in Bangladesh. The conditions in which these clothes are made, with salaries that do not even cover the bare basic necessities, conveniently forgotten when discussing migration patterns.[…]
Women, who make more than 80% of the labor force, are often subjected to sexual harassment and rape.
Here’s the problem I have with this neoliberal feminism: they have traded an in depth geopolitical and social analysis involving gender and the position of women in the West in relation to women everywhere else for the promotion of consumer empowerment dressed up as “choice” and career advancement. “Here, improve your chances at success by wearing the garments of your choice!” or “Here, see the latest fashion trends and pretty outfits! Wear this to succeed in your office job”, promoting this aspirational, mind numbingly decontextualized consumerism. The role models of this neoliberalism parading their manuals to better lean in and “having it all” chants as the only kind of gender analysis we are afforded. As women, we should aspire to rule the corporations that caused this death toll; as consumers, we should aspire to close the wage gap that prevents us from buying more “stuff”, with nary a word about how that “stuff” is produced, by whom and under which conditions. And when faced with over a thousand deaths, this neoliberal feminism will induce us to some form of rightful indignation (OMG all these people died! OMG this is terrible! ad infinitum) while obscuring the root causes of this death toll. Then, when the people that have to live day in, day out in these appalling conditions eventually leave and become undocumented migrants somewhere in a Western country, this very same neoliberal feminists will tell us that “migration is not a feminist problem” and we should “separate” these issues from gender.
To close in another self referential moment, I once said that this feminism thrives to make us better managers of exclusion. Nowhere is this more clear than in the atrocious death toll of Bangladeshi textile workers who supply Europe’s garments. Gender equality, it seems, is all about becoming the CEOs of the corporations that make these living and dying conditions possible.
* Yes, I am self referential today but I can sort of explain that: usually, I go through topics in a more or less long term way, with some of them recurring for years. There are a few themes always underlying whatever topics or news items I explore/ think about. I suppose I could call those the basis of my belief system and politics (notes on racism, xenophobia, immigration, feminism, varying degrees of leftist ideas, etc) and then I tend to spend days, if not weeks, just thinking of topics, even way past the time I posted something. So yeah, I tend to become self referential because those issues occupy a lot of my idle time simply thinking of them or reading further about them.
** See note above about being self referential.
“If you read Nathaniel Rich’s half-skeptical orbit around Y Combinator—one of tech’s trendier cash camps—there’s one important takeaway: the guy in charge really doesn’t like foreign accents.”
Want VC Cash From This Guy? Don’t Talk Like a Foreigner
For the past couple of weeks I’ve been reading the newly resurrected Valleywag blog and today, while reading this awful article, I realized this is the culture in which Lean In was created. I mean, Lean In does not exist isolated from the Silicon Valley sociocultural phenomenon and reading this article that details the racist abuse a Chinese engineer had to endure to get funded made it click. I just wonder why most of the critiques of the book (the feminist ones, at least) are not taking into account this specific culture as well…
@redlightvoices @sunili inequality of women viz each other is certainly a human rights issue but not IMO a “feminist” issue.
— Sarah Joseph (@profsarahj) May 7, 2013
Today in “THIS IS WHY WE CANNOT HAVE NICE THINGS”.
The conversation (I hesitate to use this word to define an exchange that has made me feel despondent) continued when I was informed that inequality among women is simply either a “Human rights issue” or “an HR issue” and not something concerning feminism.
I guess one shared human experience is the desire to be loved. Surely there must be exceptions and I am not implying every person ever has desired this (I am wary of universal axioms) but it does seem that humans, throughout history, have sought associations and forms of organization that hinted at this shared need: we form communities, familial ties (either by blood or affinity or sometimes both), friendships, partnerships, etc. Even the Nation-State is funded on some lose idea of shared love (the love of the land, the love we are supposed to feel for those who share the borders of the Nation-State by virtue of being in the same space and supposedly similar culture). I quite believe that most people do crave some form of experience involving love (not to mention the love one feels for one’s partner or children).
I live in a place where it has been made obviously clear that some of us are not deserving of love. The love that the Nation-State reserves for its subjects is spared to some of us. We are told we are Other. The law codifies our Otherness in no uncertain terms. We are to comply with these marks of Otherness by following specific declarations and pathways. Our children, even if they are born here, will bear this mark of Otherness (they call us “allochtoon”, which means exactly that, “one who is not of the land” and it is not reserved for immigrants, you can be coded “allochtoon” for generations and if you are Black or Muslim, it’ll be for ever). We are not actively hated. There aren’t calls for hunting or open aggression. It’s not that we have to actively fear for our safety on a permanent basis (though that happens sometimes but it’d be disingenuous to claim it’s a matter of policy encouraging it). We are simply unloved. The unloved share a space of “not hate” but “not love” either. It’s this active exclusion that implies we are not worthy of the shared love but it stops right before it actively turns to hatred. It’s the indifference sitting on the shoulders of our Otherness. Most of us also look the part. We can be singled out by visual queues (you are Black; you wear a veil; your hair is “ethnic”; you dress differently; you speak with an accent; your outward markers are culturally alien).
“Sos una desamorada”, my mother used to hurl it like a weapon against me when I acted in an uncaring fashion. “Desamor”, there is no word in the English language that can express this sentiment accurately. Unloving comes close, though. To be unloving is to be careless, to be indifferent, to not acknowledge the bond that should unite us. I didn’t accurately understand the meaning of it until I experienced it. Until, that is, I saw it become the basis of political systems. Unloving, I contend, is the basis of the institutionalized racism, the basis of the exclusion, the root cause of “not being allowed to belong”. “You are unworthy of love; you are unloved”.
You see, I don’t think people around me hate me. Sure, I know for a fact some people who know me most likely harbor some hatred. But I don’t think people hate a priori unless they have a reason to (real or perceived). Of course there are raging racists that are full of hate and will act upon such emotion (I’ve mentioned this before many times, I’ve been physically attacked by such specimens). But there is a spectrum of racism. There is the active hateful white supremacist and then there are those who simply unlove me and those like me. It’s an active indifference, it’s quite a different emotion that allows them to say “you are not one of us”. They can go on with their lives mostly ignoring people like me exist until they are somewhat presented with us in which case, they simply unlove. El desamor.
One of the experiences of knowing I am unloved is the fear. I already know I am not wanted so I constantly have to wonder how much I can say to prevent the unloving from turning into hate. I have established my reputation as a feminist killjoy already which renders me further far from the spectrum of those deserving of love. So I constantly have to ask myself “how much will I push?”. I crave the recognition and the love just like every other person. Yet, being Other means I know the recognition is absent unless I prove myself. I started writing online because I hoped I could talk about the things I couldn’t say in my immediate surroundings. If I write, I thought, others might find value in it, perhaps I won’t be alone anymore. And yet, what I found was that online was every bit as unloving as my immediate surrounding. Every instance of speaking out pushes me further away. Now, I don’t just fear alienating my fellow inhabitants of this country, now I know I have the entirety of feminism to estrange as well. Do I talk about this? Do I alienate more people? Do I speak out? Can I say this without closing more doors? This and a dozen more questions come out every time I am about to write something, every time I seethe with anger about something I have read. You are already unloved, Flavia, I tell myself, do you really want to be hated now? And that, which I don’t say becomes the burden of the unloved. We spend our lives fighting against an environment that doesn’t want us while pointing out every instance in which we are not wanted becomes further proof of our unloveability. Online, offline, wherever… you are Other no matter where you go.
Here’s what I don’t understand about the internet at large: someone who self identifies with a woman’s name leaves a pretty insulting comment on my critique of neoliberalism and white supremacy (I say “self identifies” because I cannot discount this being some dude trying to troll). The comment in question is an insulting tirade calling my analysis “self serving”. If anything yes, my “stuff” tends to be self serving in one way or another in so far as it attempts to articulate strategies that hopefully might serve women like me, in the sense of migrant WoC or women struggling with issues of race, economic disadvantages and West/ South policies, etc. So, calling whatever I write “self serving” is quite baffling to begin with. How would we call 99% of feminist theory if not “self serving”?
Now, to the perplexing part, when I delete that annoying yapping because it serves no purpose other than to put me in what the commenter surely believes to be “my place”, the person in question comes back leaving a new round of insults claiming I am censoring them. What kind of entitled hell do these people inhabit that they think they have an inherent right to insult bloggers/ writers/ whoever publishes something and have said invectives posted, no questions asked? I need to understand the thought processes of such entitlement. Perhaps I should start a feminist role playing game where eventually I get to UNLOCK: WHITE SUPREMACY and gain wizard status that grants me special super powers to reign over patriarchy.
“Bangladesh is a lot poorer than the United States, and there are very good reasons for Bangladeshi people to make different choices in this regard than Americans.”
Matt Yglesias peddling the lawless, libertarian capitalism @ Slate
In my previous post about this very same piece of trite, I failed to make a note about the poignant use of the word “choice” while promoting this lawless, asinine de-regulated form of capitalism. I cannot think of a better illustration for the gripes I tried to convey in my last piece about neoliberal feminism. As we know, there are so many choices a person can make when presented with the possibilities of abject poverty possibly leading to starvation or unregulated, unsafe sweatshop labor for the benefit of Western consumers. Surely that “choice” must be as valid as any other, non? That, in a nutshell, is my problem with all the theories behind “choice”.
I laughed out loud at the comments left on this Jezebel story about a group of women who got together to experiment on safe use of psychedelic drugs (which they administered vaginally because they wanted to try and document the effects). What made me laugh about the comments was the overall derision and contempt the commentariat had for these women: WHO ARE THESE WOMEN?! ARE THEY GROWN UPS?! (hint, the article itself said they were between 24 and 42) and similar mockery. Now, one would expect that a commentariat that praises itself (read: regularly engages in self congratulatory circle jerks about their professed feminism), they would not be oblivious to the long history of a very well documented tradition of witchcraft and the vaginal administration of psychedelics. Two points worth mentioning:
1) the old representation of the witch riding her broom comes from early depictions of witches (or to be more accurate, midwives and folk medicine practitioners in Europe) using their brooms to insert doses of belladonna up their vaginas. Science Blogs has an account from 1324, by Lady Alice Kyteler, on how this was done (and how, in turn, the practice sprung the old depiction of the witch riding her broom):
“In rifleing the closet of the ladie, they found a pipe of oyntment, wherewith she greased a staffe, upon which she ambled and galloped through thick and thin.” And from the fifteenth-century records of Jordanes de Bergamo: ‘But the vulgar believe, and the witches confess, that on certain days or nights they anoint a staff and ride on it to the appointed place or anoint themselves under the arms and in other hairy places.’ It also explains why so many of the pictures of the time depict partially clothed (or naked) witches astride their broomsticks.”
2) The Inquisition specifically targeted these “Akelarres” (as the gathering of “witches” was known) who were precisely getting together for ceremonial use of hallucinogenic plants via vaginal insertion.
White people have been traveling to Mexico for decades (and in turn they have depleted entire regions) to consume hallucinogenics in sacred environments pretty much leading to desertification of areas and to the loss of indigenous traditions that had been practiced for millennia. The women in Jezebel’s story instead, chose to explore a practice that was not only culturally relevant to them but that has been the basis of woman centered spiritualities in their own culture and the reaction from the supposedly feminist commentariat is to laugh at them, mock them and question their maturity. What a short sighted and ahistorical feminism that must be.
“The result of this constitution of neoliberal feminism as “the neutral” or the default, has also led to a sense of “amplified agency”. We are told to “maximize our freedom”, we should “brand ourselves better”, we should “choose our choices” and demand a better distribution of the resources. In the process, we are left with a feminism that imposes on us the moral task of maximizing our own value. This is a feminism of the individual with an inflated sense of the self that is devoted to the creation and administration of individual business opportunities in detriment of systemic change or, at the very least, in detriment of an analytical approach that examines our individual relations as part of a whole and our interactions and participation in a system of inequalities we cannot escape.”
Tiger Beatdown › Choice, neoliberal, libertarian feminism and intersectionality bullies
I wrote about (what else?) feminism of choices and neoliberalism.
“What I have tried to do is to use the stories as my explanatory devise, so at one level it is about the use of policy to keep doing things as they always have been done. It is very hard to get organizations to change fundamental habits. Secondly what we, diversity workers, are trying to do is to redistribute social privileges. It is not only about organizational change, we are also thinking about how worlds become more open to some more than others. And any work that is challenging privileges is going to come up against a brick wall because privileges can be used to defend privileges. People do not want to hear about racism or inequality; they want to hear much happier stories and there is a whole emphasis on toolkits, policies and techniques rather than the description of the problem.”
Interview with Sara Ahmed - University of Gothenburg, Sweden
I really like this statement about how institutions would rather focus on toolkits and techniques rather than descriptions of the problem (the problem being white supremacy and lack of diversity/ representation). Mostly because this narrative based on solutions rather than on “stories” (which is what problems are) also allows for a seemingly “neutral bureaucratization” that removes the human component. It’s like a whisper of “we are giving you solutions so why do you still have an issue?”.
I live in cracks and nooks. I exist nowhere and everywhere. My feminism is a territory cast aside from the big island that is Feminism, at least, the feminism that everyone has been discussing regarding #femfuture.
There is this US territory, not coded as such but as “online feminism” (presented as neutral, deterritorialized, homogenous) but this construction is not online feminism, it is American or perhaps North American, or should I go all Latina and just call it what it is: Anglo feminism and then there is me in the sidelines. So, when Jessica Luther wondered out loud what I thought (there have been a lot of polemics about the report), I sincerely have no thoughts because I don’t belong in this.
To call what is going on in an Anglo centric environment “online feminism” is to cast me (and millions like me) away from the umbrella. We live elsewhere. We communicate in English but we are not part of the culture that is being discussed. We are the outsiders that have issues that are alien to this “online feminism”. I highlight the attack on reproductive rights going on in the US as much as I can, but this is not my personal fight; I point to the need of US immigration reform as much as I come across topics that cover it, but my reason of existence is EU immigration reform and its intersections with gender; when something that happened in the US needs denouncing to harness the collective attention, I gladly lend myself to it because I believe feminism is not a zero sum game (i.e. if I spend a few minutes or hours talking about an issue in North America, it doesn’t detract from my long term goals about policies, racism and gender in Europe). However, that’s not my “online feminism”. I might get lumped into the term because I communicate in English but my reality is rather different: I live in Amsterdam.
And here’s what happens when you inhabit these cracks: you pretty much don’t exist. Years ago when I started writing publicly, I made the decision to write in English (instead of Spanish or Dutch) because a) it’s the language most spoken in my surrounding and b) my written Dutch is appalling. I lack nuance, I lack depth, I have the vocabulary of a child and quite frankly, it’s a language that limits my ability to communicate on the level I wanted to. Besides, when in 2002, the Euro came in, I quickly threw myself into the political consequences of this Union and I thought I’d be more effective writing in a language that is widely spoken within the area. However, because I am simultaneously in (i.e. part of this online feminism by virtue of writing, blogging, creating media, etc in the English language) and outside (i.e. I live in Europe and the bulk of what I write and communicate is about WoC living in Europe), I get pretty much ignored. When feminist organizations in The Netherlands organize events, they do not know I exist. Sure, I know for a fact I am read by some (in fact, the biggest feminist NGO in the country has me listed in their blogroll), but I do not speak the “local language”. Oh I do speak Dutch all right. But I speak of a feminism that is practically alien to them. I shout about immigration reform and death of WoC, I yell about State violence directed at WoC, I insist on the hierarchical nature of a White Supremacist Patriarchal State… all the topics that local feminist organizations won’t touch with a ten foot pole. So, I simply do not get invited. They will happily bring Caitlin Moran over from the UK to give a talk (they did last year) but those like me simply do not exist locally.
Then there is the American version of online feminism, which has other realities and other goals and other culturally relevant issues, to which I do not get invited either because frankly, I have nothing of meaning to contribute (thousands of WoC are doing that locally and passionately, so why would anyone bring me over to talk about what people with better local knowledge and ideas are already doing?). In the UK, the online feminist discourses seem to be dangerously US centric as well. The exception being Black feminists who are contributing a wealth of knowledge and creating their own epistemic histories but that is not (yet) mainstream UK feminism. Mainstream is, once again, Caitlin Moran. Online, British feminism looks either inward (rightfully so, because they are focused in their local issues) or towards the US (as if the US was the feminist Mother Ship one should aspire to) but there isn’t much in terms of a European focus. “Things” happen either in the UK or in the US and once again… I inhabit another space.
So, all these talks about #femfuture are certainly not about me. If anything, I try to firmly stand my ground so as not to be colonized by this increasingly US centric version of online feminism. My resistance ends up being a double bind: I need to resist the policies, racism, discrimination, etc of a State that considers those like me disposable and I need to resist the absorption of the “Mother Ship” that owns the discourses around which feminist issues matter the most. In the meantime, I can tell you this much: my #femfuture is about yelling louder. Because really, there isn’t much else I can do, further than assimilating (which, no) in order to create the awareness I believe is needed.
Oh look! Something new that has never happened before in the history of feminism! White radscum mocking me and some of my theories/ ideas around WoC to advance their trans* misogynist rhetoric.
Because, you know, when a WoC resists the appropriation of ideas thought out and theorized to explain her life and the lives of women like her, the best way to respond is with racist mockery of said ideas. That’s some feminism you got there, buddy!
“I used to hate my name. Not the name per se, but the way it was used against me, to admonish me, to tell me how I was bad. Inherently bad, Flavia es una hija de puta, he, they, many said. I was then my mother’s daughter. The daughter of. I hated the sound, I hated being named, I hated the way my name was pronounced to imply discipline, to coerce, to subdue.”
Let’s Talk About Names: Flavia
Today I’m part of the “Let’s talk about names” roundtable, talking about names, State violence and the Nomen Nescio (N.N) of Europe.
“The internet loves Jon Hamm’s penis. Women, I am told, heterosexual women, that is, cannot stop gazing Jon Hamm’s penis. Even feminists seem to love Jon Hamm’s penis! The penis is courted by underwear manufacturers to showcase their “product”. The penis is said to be too big for clothes! So much so that it needs airbrushing! It’s like a penis for every woman’s taste, a penis of mainstream appeal, a penis, if you will, to end all man hating feminist penis envies!”
Tiger Beatdown › Enough with Jon Hamm’s penis already!
Wherein I try to insert some historical context involving race, compulsory heterosexuality and the history of women’s sexuality in regards to… Jon Hamm’s penis.
“Let me get this out of the way: I don’t like Adria Richards. I think I have good reason to not like Adria Richards. So I should be feeling some major Schadenfreude right now. Instead, though, I think what’s unfolded in the developer community in recent days has been a tragedy.”
Adria Richards, PyCon, and How We All Lost | Amanda Blum
Notice how almost all the comments, even those in favor of Adria Richards, many of them (as the one I am quoting here), from White women defending Richards are all about disciplining the uppity Black woman.
They don’t like her tone. Her vocal antics are improper. She didn’t deserve to be fired but… It always boils down to it: the misbehaved Black woman should have known better. Even ostensibly feminist blogs are giving space to such opinions.
This is what happens when WoC do not play by the rules of patriarchal White Supremacy: the racist version of “slut had it coming”. If only she had not been so outspoken, if only she didn’t expose stuff she doesn’t like… if only she had been docile.
Anyone trying to unpack this disaster from the perspective of sexism in the tech industry, I’m afraid they are missing the point entirely; as usual, it is about the racist sexism in the tech (and non tech) world. Adria Richards is now its latest victim.
“I’ve had to start differentiating between feminism – good honest feminism in all its manifestations from Luce Irigaray, to Greenham Common, to Andrea Dworkin and even (although the Lord knows, she’s not to my taste) Camille Paglia – and what I’ve started calling the Online Wimmin Mob. The latter is meant to sound insulting. Borderline misogynist if you like, and there’s a reason for that: the Online Wimmin Mob don’t seem to like feminism. There’s not much evidence that they like women very much. Perhaps this is the reason that they don’t want you to be a feminist either”
There’s no point in online feminism if it’s an exclusive, Mean Girls club
Yes, yes New Stateman, “good honest feminism” = all White feminism from the 70’s and 80s. I’m going to take your word for it, also considering I am part of this Online Wimmin Mob that tried to get you to apologize (LOL of course you didn’t) when your publication plagiarized my work without so much of an acknowledgement. Because, apparently, that’s “good” feminism, and the rest of us are part of the mob…
Loading posts...