the section TA read through my paper, making occasional comments. it was when she got to the third paragraph that her forehead creased and her expression changed. "What have you done!" a relativist may at this laugh in amazement, "Culture is not a shape-shifting demon, or an impulsive chameleon, or a fickle woman." she underlined the last part twice and tightened her lips.
watching her, the fascist within me crowed in glee.
and then our exile
Wednesday, September 21, 2005 at 9:12 p.m.
said...
You're so getting an F on that paper.
What's up with u lot and chauvinistic remarks?
Thanks to you we probably have another non-Muslim thinking Muslim men are wife beaters and their women and oppressed
~
basit said...
when i get to know some nonmuslims better, i tell them straight out: i beat my four wives before breakfast, lunch, and supper - and i also keep a camel in my basement, and feed it oats and caramel.
the point here is that it is delicate irony - as a muslim man i am expected to behave this way, it is what 'they' want to see of 'me'. i don't, of course, beat my four wives thrice a day - i only do so twice a day. i don't, of course, feed the camel oats and caramel - i feed it hay and caramel. the paper, until that point, made some universalist assumptions but had been mostly on topic, somewhat dry, and complicated. the demon, chameleon, and woman added colour, the lack thereof, and beauty (respectively).
: what i consider irony is not always taken because it uses stereotypes - so some may think i am accepting the stereotype instead of making fun of it.
while biking i say along the lines of "i nearly got run over by a hot fast car. it must've been a black guy driving." - at this, you can say to yourself "my god, he is such a racist", but that is not what i meant by saying that.
by the time i left the TA's office she understood i'd said things "for fun". i'm still going to take those few words out, i'd always meant to - i can't count on everyone understanding what i was trying to say. but the point remains - i apologize if anyone was offended, but not for the words themselves, because i intended them differently. i'll let you know what i get on the paper--give me till next friday.
...
in the same class, actually, an example was raising possible objections to the argument we must intervene in societies to prevent oppression. a girl in the front row raised her hand. "well, couldn't you have differences in like the definition of oppression? like i have this friend, she doesn't like wear the berrka, but she does wear like something on her head, but she doesn't see that as like oppression or anything, like. but we here would. like."
ideas of the "other" are so blatant, sometimes.
~
basit said...
^ that was a very long counter-comment, because i figure i might as well say it all at once.
^^ it would be interesting to know what the gender split on reading this is. ie. how many femaloids take offence vs. those that don't. and secondly how many of those know me in person.
i will guess all the male-people and most of the female-people who know me in person will see it as irony, while most of the female-people who do not (and some who do) will be up in arms.
what you think of the irony itself is another issue. "there's no accounting for taste."
^^^ the three anecdotes above (camel-in-basement, black-guy-driving, like-berrka-like) are true but paraphrased.
^^^^ by 'the fascist within' i mean the facetious quality that revels in this. i have dubbed him mussolini.
~
said...
~
said...
this is where the printed word loses. there is a lot to be said for audible inflection.
so unless you're willing to backtrack, you're going to have to spend precious letters explaining what is obvious when said.
it would appear writers have less control over their words than speakers do, though these be the same people.
and i'm always wary of this person "anonymous." having never been anonymous myself, perhaps that's understandable.
but surely it is somewhat yellow-tinted to give judgements while remaining nameless?
and you see, that last sentence could have been seen as racist, when really i was working with popular metaphors.
your pre-defined assumptions dictate what you read.
~
said...
"fickle woman"
anonymous sister: you shouldn't label someone a chauvinist merely because he's laying down universal truths with the writtend word.
~
said...
you should allow comment editing BIqbal because I have made a spelling mistake above. :|
~
said...
women ARE fickle...so what's the big deal?
~
basit said...
today my sister told me that though she understood what i was trying to say she would still rather not have me use such. so there we have it - the definitive response.
pretending-to-be-anonymous - yes, really. and pedalling with one's mouth open leads to swallowing bugs. (:
fathima - i don't want to backtrack...but to spend many letters explaining things isn't something i want to do either. nor do i want to be accused of things i'm not meaning to say. can you choose between these kind of options?
pre-defined assumptions dictating what we read, just like prejudice informing the line between fact and fiction.
it gets worse when there are more than one anonymous(es).
taqa - you are telling me what i should do with my comment box - this from the beta who, when he had an operative blog, refused to allow comments at all? yeah right.
ad hominem attacks are undervalued.
sammerai - do i know you?
anyways, big deal is from that we are of the enlightened age of post-liberalism, and so are to be beyond making that kind of generalization. because men are fickle too, etc, and that although i will let the fascist within use these stereotypes i won't make the generalizations myself.
~
said...
I don't understand why women can't be more upfront about things which happen to be in our nature. We are naturally more emotional, because of that, we're naturally more fickle, and we also like to say "awww, that's sooo cute." It's part of what makes us "feminine."
As for this enlightened age of post-liberalism, then I say phuey! to it. From all the idealistic concepts and precepts that the enlightened age set out to attain a utopia, today-our present, is the fruit of which they have planted. It has gained them anything but a utopian society.
I don't think you know me.
~
said...
Touche touche.
You speak what I wish to say but when I talk only thinly veiled tongue-in-cheek "chauvinistic" remarks come out.
~
basit said...
sammerai - so is this nature or nurture? an ugly clichee, but sometimes clichees will suffice. i'd say "femininity", at least the way we see it today (which, again, generalizes.), is a social fact built atop a biological foundation. that is very vague, but i think it makes sense.
on another note, usman (who's three.) said jum'ah next to me on friday, and i was told later that some of our MSA sisters said 'awww, that's soo cute.' i was also told they were most probably referring to usman and not to me, but either way.
taqa - i told you to be consistent. come out of the closet, my good friend.
~
basit said...
--blogger needs comment edits. /prayed/ jum'ah, not /said/
~
said...
You're right. It is both nature and nurture.
~
morally © basit // Blogger via Blogger templates