Race, gender & sexuality - Race Conflict and Change Week 7
•
3 likes•1,085 views
There has been much academic debate over the relationship between race and gender as factors in social, political and economic inequality and oppression and whether a race or feminist gender-based framework is most effective for the study and analysis of inequality and oppression. Taking up feminist critiques of patriarchy, liberal feminism for failing to address the experiences and issues confronted by women of colour, anti-racist activism for failing to address the issue of gender, as well as the question of how racism and homophobia intersect we will examine the relationship between race and gender on several levels: Firstly, we will examine the role and significance of gender and sexuality within racist discourses. Secondly, we will examine how race and gender compare, complement one another, differ or conflict as sites of social-political identification, classification, division and struggle, as factors in inequality, as well as frameworks for analysis. Thirdly, we shall look at the ways in which sexualized stereotyping works in the ‘double discrimination’ of racialized women and/or LGBT people. We will engage with several academic debates on the issue and discuss whether gendered race issues could or should be subsumed under an anti-racist or feminist analysis or agenda or remain distinct in a third category, or alternately how the three frameworks and agendas could co-exist and compliment one another for the most effective analysis and fight against different forms of social-political inequality.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (18)
Similar to Race, gender & sexuality - Race Conflict and Change Week 7
Similar to Race, gender & sexuality - Race Conflict and Change Week 7 (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Race, gender & sexuality - Race Conflict and Change Week 7
- 1. Race, Gender & Sexuality Race: Conflict & Change Week 7
- 2. Overview… • Constructions of race/ gender. • Objectification & stereotyping. • Double discrimination or intersectionality? • Issues in the politics of race, gender & sexuality.
- 3. Constructing race & gender
- 4. Constructing race & gender
- 5. Constructing race & gender • The body as visual signifier.
- 6. Constructing race & gender • The body as visual signifier. • Power & ideology fix meaning.
- 7. Constructing race & gender • The body as visual signifier. • Power & ideology fix meaning. • Engendering race/ racing gender
- 8. Creating objects Racialised women have been objectified and stereotyped in many different ways: •As sexually deviant •As exotic •As submissive •As angry….
- 9. Icons of female sexuality “By the 18th century, the sexuality of the black, both male and female, becomes an icon for deviant
- 11. Deconstructing raced gender stereotypes Submissiveness - the case of Asian women. Beauty ideals - skin whitening.
- 12. Submissive docility 1. Orientalism & the hijab.
- 13. Submissive docility 2.! Asian women and UK immigration policy. http://tinyurl.com/provokedtrailer
- 14. Submissive docility 2.! Asian women and UK immigration policy. http://tinyurl.com/provokedtrailer
- 15. Fair & Lovely? http://tinyurl.com/fairandlovely
- 16. Fair & Lovely? •Whiteness as a yardstick for beauty. http://tinyurl.com/fairandlovely
- 17. Fair & Lovely? •Whiteness as a yardstick for beauty. •Skin whitening products. http://tinyurl.com/fairandlovely
- 18. Fair & Lovely? •Whiteness as a yardstick for beauty. •Skin whitening products. http://tinyurl.com/fairandlovely
- 19. Fair & Lovely? •Whiteness as a yardstick for beauty. •Skin whitening products. http://tinyurl.com/fairandlovely
- 20. Fair & Lovely? •Whiteness as a yardstick for beauty. •Skin whitening products. • Black is beautiful. http://tinyurl.com/fairandlovely
- 21. Fair & Lovely? •Whiteness as a yardstick for beauty. •Skin whitening products. • Black is beautiful. •“Mixed race” women? http://tinyurl.com/fairandlovely
- 22. “Multiple oppression theory” Racialised women & LGBT suffer discrimination in: • Employment • Housing • Education • In the family ! ! ! etc…
- 23. Intersections
- 24. Intersections “We often find it difficult to separate race from class from sex oppression because in our lives they are most often experienced simultaneously. We know that there is such a thing as racial-sexual oppression which is neither solely racial nor solely sexual.” A Black Feminist Statement (CRC, 1977)
- 26. Beyond intersectionality? • Intersectionality critiqued for ignoring sexuality.
- 27. Beyond intersectionality? • Intersectionality critiqued for ignoring sexuality. • “Multiply minoritised” are ignored.
- 28. Beyond intersectionality? • Intersectionality critiqued for ignoring sexuality. • “Multiply minoritised” are ignored. • Race and queer issues rarely meet.
- 30. “Gay imperialism?” • Muslims = homophobia?
- 31. “Gay imperialism?” • Muslims = homophobia? • Saving Muslims - justifying discrimination.
- 32. “Gay imperialism?” • Muslims = homophobia? • Saving Muslims - justifying discrimination. • Building alliances.
- 33. Make me White
- 34. Questions • In what ways are identities of race and gender interconnected? What influences these interconnections (history of colonialism and racism, the media, family and friends…)? • How do ideals of beauty become facets of self- identity for racialized people? • What are the implications of this for overcoming racism? • Why is this a political issue, is it not just a matter of personal choice?
Editor's Notes
- \n
- \n
- We see both race and gender differences on the body.\nRecalling Hall’s work (week 2) on race as a floating signifier, we can seen how “reading the body as a language” is relevant also to the discussion of gender.\nThe body - the visual signifiers of race and gender - is read through our understandings of what each body is mean. This meaning is socially constructed.\n\n2. The social construction of the meaning we attach to the visual signifiers of race and gender are not dissociable from power.\n\nHall argues that the purpose of power and ideology are to fix meaning. So if we think of racism as an ideology, part of its function - if not its entire function - is to define racialised others as immutably so and reduce the racialised to their supposed race. This is seen as their essence. As we have seen, the same process applies to culture - new cultural racism reduces those who we seen as ‘other’ to their culture as if that is what wholly defines them.\n\nThe point, argues Hall, is that meaning is never completely fixed but can always be subverted and can change over time. So, just as race is a flexible signifier that attaches itself to different social and political circumstances over time, so too the meaning of gender is never completely fixed.\n\nHowever, there is a constant drive to fix gender which is very strong. We are all socially driven to work with clear definitions of man and woman with not much room for play in between.\n\nBecause of the need for power to define and classify, race and gender as ways of reading the body have undergone similar processes of fixing AND similar processes of resistance to being fixed. \n\n3. We could argue that, due to the similar ways in which they are socially constructed, it is important to look at race and gender together from a conceptual point of view.\n\nBut also, there are important points where racism and sexism, or racism, sexism and homophobia or transphobia collide. Women and gay, lesbian or trangender people (queers of colour) are often the targets of both racism and sexism. But there are also moments when the alliance between groups fighting sexism and those fighting racism has not been as easy or natural as one may assume.\n\nIn the lecture, we are going to explore some of the ways in which the worlds of race, gender and sexuality come together and pick out some examples of the difficulties raised by the co-existence of both racism and sexism or homophobia. \n\nThere are many many spheres which we could look at simply because almost all of the issues that are to do with racism also affect racialised women and LGBT people (as people generally). \n
- We see both race and gender differences on the body.\nRecalling Hall’s work (week 2) on race as a floating signifier, we can seen how “reading the body as a language” is relevant also to the discussion of gender.\nThe body - the visual signifiers of race and gender - is read through our understandings of what each body is mean. This meaning is socially constructed.\n\n2. The social construction of the meaning we attach to the visual signifiers of race and gender are not dissociable from power.\n\nHall argues that the purpose of power and ideology are to fix meaning. So if we think of racism as an ideology, part of its function - if not its entire function - is to define racialised others as immutably so and reduce the racialised to their supposed race. This is seen as their essence. As we have seen, the same process applies to culture - new cultural racism reduces those who we seen as ‘other’ to their culture as if that is what wholly defines them.\n\nThe point, argues Hall, is that meaning is never completely fixed but can always be subverted and can change over time. So, just as race is a flexible signifier that attaches itself to different social and political circumstances over time, so too the meaning of gender is never completely fixed.\n\nHowever, there is a constant drive to fix gender which is very strong. We are all socially driven to work with clear definitions of man and woman with not much room for play in between.\n\nBecause of the need for power to define and classify, race and gender as ways of reading the body have undergone similar processes of fixing AND similar processes of resistance to being fixed. \n\n3. We could argue that, due to the similar ways in which they are socially constructed, it is important to look at race and gender together from a conceptual point of view.\n\nBut also, there are important points where racism and sexism, or racism, sexism and homophobia or transphobia collide. Women and gay, lesbian or trangender people (queers of colour) are often the targets of both racism and sexism. But there are also moments when the alliance between groups fighting sexism and those fighting racism has not been as easy or natural as one may assume.\n\nIn the lecture, we are going to explore some of the ways in which the worlds of race, gender and sexuality come together and pick out some examples of the difficulties raised by the co-existence of both racism and sexism or homophobia. \n\nThere are many many spheres which we could look at simply because almost all of the issues that are to do with racism also affect racialised women and LGBT people (as people generally). \n
- We see both race and gender differences on the body.\nRecalling Hall’s work (week 2) on race as a floating signifier, we can seen how “reading the body as a language” is relevant also to the discussion of gender.\nThe body - the visual signifiers of race and gender - is read through our understandings of what each body is mean. This meaning is socially constructed.\n\n2. The social construction of the meaning we attach to the visual signifiers of race and gender are not dissociable from power.\n\nHall argues that the purpose of power and ideology are to fix meaning. So if we think of racism as an ideology, part of its function - if not its entire function - is to define racialised others as immutably so and reduce the racialised to their supposed race. This is seen as their essence. As we have seen, the same process applies to culture - new cultural racism reduces those who we seen as ‘other’ to their culture as if that is what wholly defines them.\n\nThe point, argues Hall, is that meaning is never completely fixed but can always be subverted and can change over time. So, just as race is a flexible signifier that attaches itself to different social and political circumstances over time, so too the meaning of gender is never completely fixed.\n\nHowever, there is a constant drive to fix gender which is very strong. We are all socially driven to work with clear definitions of man and woman with not much room for play in between.\n\nBecause of the need for power to define and classify, race and gender as ways of reading the body have undergone similar processes of fixing AND similar processes of resistance to being fixed. \n\n3. We could argue that, due to the similar ways in which they are socially constructed, it is important to look at race and gender together from a conceptual point of view.\n\nBut also, there are important points where racism and sexism, or racism, sexism and homophobia or transphobia collide. Women and gay, lesbian or trangender people (queers of colour) are often the targets of both racism and sexism. But there are also moments when the alliance between groups fighting sexism and those fighting racism has not been as easy or natural as one may assume.\n\nIn the lecture, we are going to explore some of the ways in which the worlds of race, gender and sexuality come together and pick out some examples of the difficulties raised by the co-existence of both racism and sexism or homophobia. \n\nThere are many many spheres which we could look at simply because almost all of the issues that are to do with racism also affect racialised women and LGBT people (as people generally). \n
- We see both race and gender differences on the body.\nRecalling Hall’s work (week 2) on race as a floating signifier, we can seen how “reading the body as a language” is relevant also to the discussion of gender.\nThe body - the visual signifiers of race and gender - is read through our understandings of what each body is mean. This meaning is socially constructed.\n\n2. The social construction of the meaning we attach to the visual signifiers of race and gender are not dissociable from power.\n\nHall argues that the purpose of power and ideology are to fix meaning. So if we think of racism as an ideology, part of its function - if not its entire function - is to define racialised others as immutably so and reduce the racialised to their supposed race. This is seen as their essence. As we have seen, the same process applies to culture - new cultural racism reduces those who we seen as ‘other’ to their culture as if that is what wholly defines them.\n\nThe point, argues Hall, is that meaning is never completely fixed but can always be subverted and can change over time. So, just as race is a flexible signifier that attaches itself to different social and political circumstances over time, so too the meaning of gender is never completely fixed.\n\nHowever, there is a constant drive to fix gender which is very strong. We are all socially driven to work with clear definitions of man and woman with not much room for play in between.\n\nBecause of the need for power to define and classify, race and gender as ways of reading the body have undergone similar processes of fixing AND similar processes of resistance to being fixed. \n\n3. We could argue that, due to the similar ways in which they are socially constructed, it is important to look at race and gender together from a conceptual point of view.\n\nBut also, there are important points where racism and sexism, or racism, sexism and homophobia or transphobia collide. Women and gay, lesbian or trangender people (queers of colour) are often the targets of both racism and sexism. But there are also moments when the alliance between groups fighting sexism and those fighting racism has not been as easy or natural as one may assume.\n\nIn the lecture, we are going to explore some of the ways in which the worlds of race, gender and sexuality come together and pick out some examples of the difficulties raised by the co-existence of both racism and sexism or homophobia. \n\nThere are many many spheres which we could look at simply because almost all of the issues that are to do with racism also affect racialised women and LGBT people (as people generally). \n
- Knowledge created about the “nature” of non-white women has been used to racialise and dominate them in a variety of contexts historically - colonialism, slavery, but also more recently as migrants. \n\nAlthough we might laugh at some of the ways in which African or Middle eastern women were thought about during colonialist times, a lot of these ideas have filtered through into public culture and discourse and remain strong to the present day.\n\nThey are also manipulated by the media - for example, think of the image of black single mothers, portrayed as being sexually promiscuous and irresponsible - having children from multiple fathers.\n\nSimilar stereotypes connect e. European migrant women to the sex industry.\n\nSo where do these ideas come from?\n
- Gilman talks about how a fascination with black sexuality came to determine how 18th and 19th century Europe viewed sexuality.\n\nFor Stuart Hall, the way in which black and “oriental” females in particular were represented in iconography (pictures, painting etc.) of the time is crucial to understanding how the objectification of non-white women works.\n\nIn week 2, we saw how racialisation works through a variety of process including dehumanisation. It was necessary for early race thinkers to construct racial inferiors as “less human” than Europeans in order to justify their domination. \n\nWomen were an object of particular fascination, especially in relation to their sexuality.\n\nGilman shows how a fascination with female Hottentots is exemplary of Victorian obsession with sexual deviancy.\n\nRacial “scientists” like Buffon in France focused on the apparent “apelike sexual appetite” of black women. The icon of the black woman came to stand for black sexuality in general.\n\nThe fascination with black sexuality is linked to the function that the racialised other fulfilled for Europeans - as an object both of disgust and desire. The whole relationship that white Europeans constructed with this other is a double edged sword that both wants and rejects the other. \n\nOn the one hand, they were curious and desirous of that which is different and strange - representing something untasted and therefore, exciting. On the other hand, they are repelled by the difference which is seen as deviant.\n\nSex is the most crucial taboo because it is linked to procreation. The biggest fear promulgated by race scientists was the dilution of the “race’ through mixing - so heterosexual sex with black women or men is dangerous because it was thought it could lead to the weakening of the race.\n\nThe term for this was miscegenation - the pollution of the race through mixing.\n\nGilman argues that by the 18th century, sex with non-whites was thought of in the same way as sex with prostitutes - I.e. as deviant and wrong, leading to both physical disease and moral degeneration.\n
- The example of Saartje Baartman is used. Saartje (pictured) was a Hottentot woman who was brought to Europe to be shown at various exhibitions which were popular in the 19th and early 20th centuries.\n\nAs Gilman argues, the Hottentot was seen by race thinkers as the “lowest rung on the great chain of being”. \n\nIf black female sexuality was seen as the antithesis of European sexual ideas and morals, the Hottentot was the most extreme example of everything that white women were said NOT to be.\n\nEuropeans were facinated with the protruding buttocks of the Hottentot woman (greatly exaggerated by the drawing). This was seen to be a sign of their primitive sexual appetite. \n\nSaartje Baartman - the Hottentot Venus as she was called - was reduced to her sexual parts. Her buttocks and genitalia were the only facets of her being that were of interest to those scientists and members of the public who viewed her.\n\nOn her death, her various body parts were dissected and conserved in the Musee de l’Homme in Paris. \n\nThe image of Lil Kim and Saartje Baartman were joined together by a blogger who was making the point that the way The Hottentot Venus was looked at in the early 19th C. is not that different from the icons of black female sexuality today especially in commodified images (I.e. images used to sell things).\n\nThe blogger, Larry Lyons, says: \n\n“so, i can't look at that picture without seeing Saartjie_Baartman aka "Hottentot Venus". i can't shake it. with each glance, i see the disarming contortions of kim's diminutive form as a (failed) approximation of the curves and the boldness of her similarly exploited ancestor.”\n
- Let us look at how stereotypes around race and gender have impacted on racialised women’s lives…\n
- Hijab:\nOutward visible signs of cultural or religious identity have also been important in processes of racialisation around naturalisation.\nLike skin colour, the Muslim veil can be understood as a racial signification. This is because in the current political climate Muslims are the targets of a particular type of racism, that some people have labelled islamophobia.\n\nRather than being an objection to islam as a religion, Islamophobia (like antisemitism) is based on the association of all Muslims with negative characteristics that are associated with people who are perceived to be Muslim. In other words, you may not have to actually be Muslim to be a victim of this type of racism because when visible signs (such as skin colour) is used to identify people, often brown-skinned people who are not Muslim are also targeted.\n\nThe hijab has been taken to be the symbol par excellence of Islam as a culture. In France, it has been made illegal to wear the hijab in public spaces such as schools and government offices. This has led to girls being excluded from school for refusing to take off their hijab.\n\nIn Britain, last year Jack Straw famously made the remark that the niqab (full face) veil was a visible sign of separation and that women who came to see him should take it off. He associated wearing the veil with a refusal to integrate into British society. In other words, the veil is being given much more importance as a cultural and political symbol than as a religious dress code (such as the Jewish kippa).\n\nThe issue of the veil has united integrationists and those on the left such as some feminists. There is a belief that wearing the hijab is a sign of the oppression of women. It is felt that women are forced to wear the veil by their husbands of fathers.\n\nThis is part of the Orientalist discourse (Said) about “Eastern” women as completely dominated by the men in their lives. The colonialist idea about women from the Middle east in particular as totally powerless has pervaded into our culture aided by stereotypical views of veiled and other “oriental” women as docile and lacking in independence.\n\nIf African and black women were seen as overly sexualised, Indian, Pakistani and Middle eastern women were seen as tantalisingly hiding their sexuality away from western men under their veils.\n\nTody, the rise in the number of women wearing the hijab has to be seen in light of the political context and the growth in Islamophobia.\n\nMany women who grew up in families where the veil is not enforced are choosing to wear hijab as an outward sign of their religious affiliation and as a protest against the culture that - in their view - denigrates the Muslim religion and Muslims as people.\n
- The film Provoked relates to the case of Kiranjit Ahluwalia, an Asian woman, set fire to her husband Deepak in May 1989 after suffering his brutality for 10 years. She was charged with murder and imprisoned for life.\nSouthall Black Sisters, an organisation based in London, successfully campaigned for Kiranjit’s release.\n\nThe British State and its immigration policy has always had a relationship with women from the Indian sub-continent which is mediated by a view of them as docile and as dominated by men. \n\nPolicy reflects the view of Asian women as totally dependent on their husbands. \n\nFor example, women who come to the UK to join their husbands are not allowed to separate from their husbands for a 2 year probationary period. It has to be proved that marriage is the reason for the woman immigrating. However, as Asian feminists have pointed out, this means that women who are in a situation of danger (e.g. domestic violence0 risk being deported if they try to get out of an abusive relationship.\n\nThere appears to be a double-standard built into immigration policy.\n\nThis is ironic because there is also a prevalent belief that Asian women are more likely to be victims of violent abuse at the hands of their husbands or fathers. There are many well-publicised cases of honour killings where girls who have not been deemed to be acting morally have been murdered by the their fathers or brothers.\n\nAs Amrit Wilson argues, the focus on culture (as we saw last week) means that “oppressive gender relations” were seen as part of Asian culture. Asian women were not seen as being able to resist oppression because it was understood to be against their culture to be feminist.\n\nIn fact…\n\nIt is not that honour killings and other abuses do not occur. However, it is a fallacy to think that domestic violence does not exist in the wider society. \n\n150 women die as a result of domestic violence in the UK every year. \n\nAccepting that domestic violence is a problem among some minority ethnic groups, many Asian women have set up refuges and organisations to help women who are facing abuse. \n\nHowever, their funding has been cut back drastically in recent years. As Amrit Wilson points out, this means that there are no spaces for these women to receive help in a safe environment where they do not also run the risk of facing racism.\n\n Secondly, the government appears to be operating double standards, particular with regards to the issue of forced marriages. Multicultural policies, as we saw last week, meant that funding was given per ethnic minority community often leading to a particularly patriarchal approach being taken by community leaders.\n \nThe British state often therefore colluded with religiously conservative Hindu and Muslim organisations.\n\nWhen Asian feminists brought issues such as domestic violence, forced marriages and honour killings onto the agenda, the British state was forced to confront the fact that the community leaders it had been funding for so long were responsible for the silence around these issues.\n\nIn response, the Home office launched an initiative on forced marriages.\nBut instead of looking at the case of women brought to the UK to be married, they focused on cases where British Asian girls (mainly Muslims) were sent abroad to be married. \n\nAs Amrit Wilson remarks, the forced marriage initiative acted to “protect civilised British South Asian women from violence and prevent their exploitation by men from South Asia. This latter group of women ‘belonged’ to Britain - they were seen by the state as ‘our women’ as opposed to the former group who were those ‘others’ from Pakistan, India and Bangladesh.”\n(Case of Molly/Misbah).\n\nThe point is that Asian women’s organisations have been campaigning on these issues for many years. Bu suddenly taking interest in the welfare of Asian women, the government is denying the significance of the work done by these organisations in challenging the patriarchy of Asian community leaders. \n\nIn essence, the system remains the same but migrant women in abusive marriages are being criminalised (by being deported) while British Asian women in abusive marriages in primitive countries abroad (the minority) are being ‘saved’ by the civilised British state!\n
- In Caribbean slave societies, “mulatto” women were seen as more beautiful. Light skinned women were encouraged to marry white men in order to improve their racial and aesthetic “quality”. The beauty of women was seen as a key to social and economic advancement (described by Fanon in BSWM).\n\nThis has not gone away - light skinned and straight haired women are still more desirable in Caribbean culture according to Shirley Tate (2007).\n\nThink of Wilhelmina in Ugly Betty!\n\nShirley Tate argues that beyond skin, the discussion around hair quality is important for defining black women’s beauty. For example, it may be said about a woman that “she is light skinned but her hair is tough/afro/natty/kinky/peppercorn.” Here, says Tate, “her skin saves her from the ugliness of non-straight hair.”\n\nOver 2,400,000 hits for “skin whitening” on Google. Simply a huge market for pills, creams and other treatments including surgery to reduce skin pigmentation. \n\nShow film: this ad from India reveals how ingrained the idea of fair skin being desirable is in the culture. Both men and women are targeted by products like Fair and Lovely.\n\n3. In the 1960s, with the rise of black power, the slogan “black is beautiful” was intended to re-empower black people through valuing their own bodies, hair and skin which for so long had been associated with ugliness and primitiveness in the logic of race thinking. \n\nThis movement brought the afro on both women and men into style. \n\nAfro or cornrows etc. are said to be authentic black styles\n\n4. Shirly Tate’s article “Black beauty: shade, hair and anti-racist aesthetics” discusses the ambivalent position of mixed-race women with regards to the “black is beautiful” agenda. She analyses the discourse of mixed race (lighter skinned) women who see themselves as part of the black anti-racist movement. Their discourse creates a binary between natural and non-natural beauty and style. Therefore, black women who straighten their hair or lighten their skin are seen as unnatural. \n\nAs Tate remarks, although anti-racist black aesthetics are liberating in terms of the hegemony of white beauty, they can also produce their own “normalised racialising standards”. The two mixed-race women interviewed in Tate’s article talk about how other black women can reduce their self-confidence by implying that they are not black looking enough.\n\nAs Tate remarks, although mixed-race seems to be very much in fashion in Britain today (Britain has the highest numbers of mixed marriages in Europe), mixed-race is still interpreted as an absence - never either white or black enough.\n\nTate talks about the need to challenge this so that values of beauty - both white and black - can be reassessed. There is a need to combat the essentialism that determines that there are certain types of looks for certain women and not others. This is ultimately a challenge to a wholly racialised way of looking at standards of physical appearance.\n
- In Caribbean slave societies, “mulatto” women were seen as more beautiful. Light skinned women were encouraged to marry white men in order to improve their racial and aesthetic “quality”. The beauty of women was seen as a key to social and economic advancement (described by Fanon in BSWM).\n\nThis has not gone away - light skinned and straight haired women are still more desirable in Caribbean culture according to Shirley Tate (2007).\n\nThink of Wilhelmina in Ugly Betty!\n\nShirley Tate argues that beyond skin, the discussion around hair quality is important for defining black women’s beauty. For example, it may be said about a woman that “she is light skinned but her hair is tough/afro/natty/kinky/peppercorn.” Here, says Tate, “her skin saves her from the ugliness of non-straight hair.”\n\nOver 2,400,000 hits for “skin whitening” on Google. Simply a huge market for pills, creams and other treatments including surgery to reduce skin pigmentation. \n\nShow film: this ad from India reveals how ingrained the idea of fair skin being desirable is in the culture. Both men and women are targeted by products like Fair and Lovely.\n\n3. In the 1960s, with the rise of black power, the slogan “black is beautiful” was intended to re-empower black people through valuing their own bodies, hair and skin which for so long had been associated with ugliness and primitiveness in the logic of race thinking. \n\nThis movement brought the afro on both women and men into style. \n\nAfro or cornrows etc. are said to be authentic black styles\n\n4. Shirly Tate’s article “Black beauty: shade, hair and anti-racist aesthetics” discusses the ambivalent position of mixed-race women with regards to the “black is beautiful” agenda. She analyses the discourse of mixed race (lighter skinned) women who see themselves as part of the black anti-racist movement. Their discourse creates a binary between natural and non-natural beauty and style. Therefore, black women who straighten their hair or lighten their skin are seen as unnatural. \n\nAs Tate remarks, although anti-racist black aesthetics are liberating in terms of the hegemony of white beauty, they can also produce their own “normalised racialising standards”. The two mixed-race women interviewed in Tate’s article talk about how other black women can reduce their self-confidence by implying that they are not black looking enough.\n\nAs Tate remarks, although mixed-race seems to be very much in fashion in Britain today (Britain has the highest numbers of mixed marriages in Europe), mixed-race is still interpreted as an absence - never either white or black enough.\n\nTate talks about the need to challenge this so that values of beauty - both white and black - can be reassessed. There is a need to combat the essentialism that determines that there are certain types of looks for certain women and not others. This is ultimately a challenge to a wholly racialised way of looking at standards of physical appearance.\n
- In Caribbean slave societies, “mulatto” women were seen as more beautiful. Light skinned women were encouraged to marry white men in order to improve their racial and aesthetic “quality”. The beauty of women was seen as a key to social and economic advancement (described by Fanon in BSWM).\n\nThis has not gone away - light skinned and straight haired women are still more desirable in Caribbean culture according to Shirley Tate (2007).\n\nThink of Wilhelmina in Ugly Betty!\n\nShirley Tate argues that beyond skin, the discussion around hair quality is important for defining black women’s beauty. For example, it may be said about a woman that “she is light skinned but her hair is tough/afro/natty/kinky/peppercorn.” Here, says Tate, “her skin saves her from the ugliness of non-straight hair.”\n\nOver 2,400,000 hits for “skin whitening” on Google. Simply a huge market for pills, creams and other treatments including surgery to reduce skin pigmentation. \n\nShow film: this ad from India reveals how ingrained the idea of fair skin being desirable is in the culture. Both men and women are targeted by products like Fair and Lovely.\n\n3. In the 1960s, with the rise of black power, the slogan “black is beautiful” was intended to re-empower black people through valuing their own bodies, hair and skin which for so long had been associated with ugliness and primitiveness in the logic of race thinking. \n\nThis movement brought the afro on both women and men into style. \n\nAfro or cornrows etc. are said to be authentic black styles\n\n4. Shirly Tate’s article “Black beauty: shade, hair and anti-racist aesthetics” discusses the ambivalent position of mixed-race women with regards to the “black is beautiful” agenda. She analyses the discourse of mixed race (lighter skinned) women who see themselves as part of the black anti-racist movement. Their discourse creates a binary between natural and non-natural beauty and style. Therefore, black women who straighten their hair or lighten their skin are seen as unnatural. \n\nAs Tate remarks, although anti-racist black aesthetics are liberating in terms of the hegemony of white beauty, they can also produce their own “normalised racialising standards”. The two mixed-race women interviewed in Tate’s article talk about how other black women can reduce their self-confidence by implying that they are not black looking enough.\n\nAs Tate remarks, although mixed-race seems to be very much in fashion in Britain today (Britain has the highest numbers of mixed marriages in Europe), mixed-race is still interpreted as an absence - never either white or black enough.\n\nTate talks about the need to challenge this so that values of beauty - both white and black - can be reassessed. There is a need to combat the essentialism that determines that there are certain types of looks for certain women and not others. This is ultimately a challenge to a wholly racialised way of looking at standards of physical appearance.\n
- In Caribbean slave societies, “mulatto” women were seen as more beautiful. Light skinned women were encouraged to marry white men in order to improve their racial and aesthetic “quality”. The beauty of women was seen as a key to social and economic advancement (described by Fanon in BSWM).\n\nThis has not gone away - light skinned and straight haired women are still more desirable in Caribbean culture according to Shirley Tate (2007).\n\nThink of Wilhelmina in Ugly Betty!\n\nShirley Tate argues that beyond skin, the discussion around hair quality is important for defining black women’s beauty. For example, it may be said about a woman that “she is light skinned but her hair is tough/afro/natty/kinky/peppercorn.” Here, says Tate, “her skin saves her from the ugliness of non-straight hair.”\n\nOver 2,400,000 hits for “skin whitening” on Google. Simply a huge market for pills, creams and other treatments including surgery to reduce skin pigmentation. \n\nShow film: this ad from India reveals how ingrained the idea of fair skin being desirable is in the culture. Both men and women are targeted by products like Fair and Lovely.\n\n3. In the 1960s, with the rise of black power, the slogan “black is beautiful” was intended to re-empower black people through valuing their own bodies, hair and skin which for so long had been associated with ugliness and primitiveness in the logic of race thinking. \n\nThis movement brought the afro on both women and men into style. \n\nAfro or cornrows etc. are said to be authentic black styles\n\n4. Shirly Tate’s article “Black beauty: shade, hair and anti-racist aesthetics” discusses the ambivalent position of mixed-race women with regards to the “black is beautiful” agenda. She analyses the discourse of mixed race (lighter skinned) women who see themselves as part of the black anti-racist movement. Their discourse creates a binary between natural and non-natural beauty and style. Therefore, black women who straighten their hair or lighten their skin are seen as unnatural. \n\nAs Tate remarks, although anti-racist black aesthetics are liberating in terms of the hegemony of white beauty, they can also produce their own “normalised racialising standards”. The two mixed-race women interviewed in Tate’s article talk about how other black women can reduce their self-confidence by implying that they are not black looking enough.\n\nAs Tate remarks, although mixed-race seems to be very much in fashion in Britain today (Britain has the highest numbers of mixed marriages in Europe), mixed-race is still interpreted as an absence - never either white or black enough.\n\nTate talks about the need to challenge this so that values of beauty - both white and black - can be reassessed. There is a need to combat the essentialism that determines that there are certain types of looks for certain women and not others. This is ultimately a challenge to a wholly racialised way of looking at standards of physical appearance.\n
- In Caribbean slave societies, “mulatto” women were seen as more beautiful. Light skinned women were encouraged to marry white men in order to improve their racial and aesthetic “quality”. The beauty of women was seen as a key to social and economic advancement (described by Fanon in BSWM).\n\nThis has not gone away - light skinned and straight haired women are still more desirable in Caribbean culture according to Shirley Tate (2007).\n\nThink of Wilhelmina in Ugly Betty!\n\nShirley Tate argues that beyond skin, the discussion around hair quality is important for defining black women’s beauty. For example, it may be said about a woman that “she is light skinned but her hair is tough/afro/natty/kinky/peppercorn.” Here, says Tate, “her skin saves her from the ugliness of non-straight hair.”\n\nOver 2,400,000 hits for “skin whitening” on Google. Simply a huge market for pills, creams and other treatments including surgery to reduce skin pigmentation. \n\nShow film: this ad from India reveals how ingrained the idea of fair skin being desirable is in the culture. Both men and women are targeted by products like Fair and Lovely.\n\n3. In the 1960s, with the rise of black power, the slogan “black is beautiful” was intended to re-empower black people through valuing their own bodies, hair and skin which for so long had been associated with ugliness and primitiveness in the logic of race thinking. \n\nThis movement brought the afro on both women and men into style. \n\nAfro or cornrows etc. are said to be authentic black styles\n\n4. Shirly Tate’s article “Black beauty: shade, hair and anti-racist aesthetics” discusses the ambivalent position of mixed-race women with regards to the “black is beautiful” agenda. She analyses the discourse of mixed race (lighter skinned) women who see themselves as part of the black anti-racist movement. Their discourse creates a binary between natural and non-natural beauty and style. Therefore, black women who straighten their hair or lighten their skin are seen as unnatural. \n\nAs Tate remarks, although anti-racist black aesthetics are liberating in terms of the hegemony of white beauty, they can also produce their own “normalised racialising standards”. The two mixed-race women interviewed in Tate’s article talk about how other black women can reduce their self-confidence by implying that they are not black looking enough.\n\nAs Tate remarks, although mixed-race seems to be very much in fashion in Britain today (Britain has the highest numbers of mixed marriages in Europe), mixed-race is still interpreted as an absence - never either white or black enough.\n\nTate talks about the need to challenge this so that values of beauty - both white and black - can be reassessed. There is a need to combat the essentialism that determines that there are certain types of looks for certain women and not others. This is ultimately a challenge to a wholly racialised way of looking at standards of physical appearance.\n
- In Caribbean slave societies, “mulatto” women were seen as more beautiful. Light skinned women were encouraged to marry white men in order to improve their racial and aesthetic “quality”. The beauty of women was seen as a key to social and economic advancement (described by Fanon in BSWM).\n\nThis has not gone away - light skinned and straight haired women are still more desirable in Caribbean culture according to Shirley Tate (2007).\n\nThink of Wilhelmina in Ugly Betty!\n\nShirley Tate argues that beyond skin, the discussion around hair quality is important for defining black women’s beauty. For example, it may be said about a woman that “she is light skinned but her hair is tough/afro/natty/kinky/peppercorn.” Here, says Tate, “her skin saves her from the ugliness of non-straight hair.”\n\nOver 2,400,000 hits for “skin whitening” on Google. Simply a huge market for pills, creams and other treatments including surgery to reduce skin pigmentation. \n\nShow film: this ad from India reveals how ingrained the idea of fair skin being desirable is in the culture. Both men and women are targeted by products like Fair and Lovely.\n\n3. In the 1960s, with the rise of black power, the slogan “black is beautiful” was intended to re-empower black people through valuing their own bodies, hair and skin which for so long had been associated with ugliness and primitiveness in the logic of race thinking. \n\nThis movement brought the afro on both women and men into style. \n\nAfro or cornrows etc. are said to be authentic black styles\n\n4. Shirly Tate’s article “Black beauty: shade, hair and anti-racist aesthetics” discusses the ambivalent position of mixed-race women with regards to the “black is beautiful” agenda. She analyses the discourse of mixed race (lighter skinned) women who see themselves as part of the black anti-racist movement. Their discourse creates a binary between natural and non-natural beauty and style. Therefore, black women who straighten their hair or lighten their skin are seen as unnatural. \n\nAs Tate remarks, although anti-racist black aesthetics are liberating in terms of the hegemony of white beauty, they can also produce their own “normalised racialising standards”. The two mixed-race women interviewed in Tate’s article talk about how other black women can reduce their self-confidence by implying that they are not black looking enough.\n\nAs Tate remarks, although mixed-race seems to be very much in fashion in Britain today (Britain has the highest numbers of mixed marriages in Europe), mixed-race is still interpreted as an absence - never either white or black enough.\n\nTate talks about the need to challenge this so that values of beauty - both white and black - can be reassessed. There is a need to combat the essentialism that determines that there are certain types of looks for certain women and not others. This is ultimately a challenge to a wholly racialised way of looking at standards of physical appearance.\n
- In Caribbean slave societies, “mulatto” women were seen as more beautiful. Light skinned women were encouraged to marry white men in order to improve their racial and aesthetic “quality”. The beauty of women was seen as a key to social and economic advancement (described by Fanon in BSWM).\n\nThis has not gone away - light skinned and straight haired women are still more desirable in Caribbean culture according to Shirley Tate (2007).\n\nThink of Wilhelmina in Ugly Betty!\n\nShirley Tate argues that beyond skin, the discussion around hair quality is important for defining black women’s beauty. For example, it may be said about a woman that “she is light skinned but her hair is tough/afro/natty/kinky/peppercorn.” Here, says Tate, “her skin saves her from the ugliness of non-straight hair.”\n\nOver 2,400,000 hits for “skin whitening” on Google. Simply a huge market for pills, creams and other treatments including surgery to reduce skin pigmentation. \n\nShow film: this ad from India reveals how ingrained the idea of fair skin being desirable is in the culture. Both men and women are targeted by products like Fair and Lovely.\n\n3. In the 1960s, with the rise of black power, the slogan “black is beautiful” was intended to re-empower black people through valuing their own bodies, hair and skin which for so long had been associated with ugliness and primitiveness in the logic of race thinking. \n\nThis movement brought the afro on both women and men into style. \n\nAfro or cornrows etc. are said to be authentic black styles\n\n4. Shirly Tate’s article “Black beauty: shade, hair and anti-racist aesthetics” discusses the ambivalent position of mixed-race women with regards to the “black is beautiful” agenda. She analyses the discourse of mixed race (lighter skinned) women who see themselves as part of the black anti-racist movement. Their discourse creates a binary between natural and non-natural beauty and style. Therefore, black women who straighten their hair or lighten their skin are seen as unnatural. \n\nAs Tate remarks, although anti-racist black aesthetics are liberating in terms of the hegemony of white beauty, they can also produce their own “normalised racialising standards”. The two mixed-race women interviewed in Tate’s article talk about how other black women can reduce their self-confidence by implying that they are not black looking enough.\n\nAs Tate remarks, although mixed-race seems to be very much in fashion in Britain today (Britain has the highest numbers of mixed marriages in Europe), mixed-race is still interpreted as an absence - never either white or black enough.\n\nTate talks about the need to challenge this so that values of beauty - both white and black - can be reassessed. There is a need to combat the essentialism that determines that there are certain types of looks for certain women and not others. This is ultimately a challenge to a wholly racialised way of looking at standards of physical appearance.\n
- Theories of multiple domination emerge out of Marxist and socialist feminist analyses.\n\nThese rely on dual systems theory to examine the interrelationship between capitalism and patriarchy. \n\nRace was merely added into the mix - therefore, women of colour were said to be oppressed triply - by capitalist, patriarchal and racist structures.\n\nBut, the triple discrimination approach has been criticised for failing to look at the particular identities and problems related to coming from certain positions.\nIn other words, the particular ethnic, religious, national or class background should also be taken into account when seekin to address the specific problems faced by different groups of women.\n
- In the 1970s black feminists, majority worls feminists and lesbian feminists like bell hooks, Audrey Lorde, Angela Davis and Chandra Mohanty started to question the add-on ideas behind Marxist-inspired triple oppression theory.\n\nThe idea of intersectionality emerges out of critical race studies. It seeks to analyse the way in which multiple forms of power (race, sex, class) interrelate with each other, each having an effect on the other continuously and in many different ways.\n\nIntersectionality is based on the belief that you can never really look at the processes of racialisation, sexism or classism as separate.\n\nRather each of these processes of domination constitute each other - they hold each other up and rely on one another in order to function.\n
- In the 1970s black feminists, majority worls feminists and lesbian feminists like bell hooks, Audrey Lorde, Angela Davis and Chandra Mohanty started to question the add-on ideas behind Marxist-inspired triple oppression theory.\n\nThe idea of intersectionality emerges out of critical race studies. It seeks to analyse the way in which multiple forms of power (race, sex, class) interrelate with each other, each having an effect on the other continuously and in many different ways.\n\nIntersectionality is based on the belief that you can never really look at the processes of racialisation, sexism or classism as separate.\n\nRather each of these processes of domination constitute each other - they hold each other up and rely on one another in order to function.\n
- Intersectionality as a concept has been critiqued by people who identify themselves as ‘queer of colour’ - that is gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender people who are also racialised as black, brown, Muslim, etc.\n\nThis is because the question of sexuality has generally been omitted by the feminist critical race theorists who introduced the idea of intersectionality.\n\nThis has been rectified more recently, but critics claim that transgender issues for example have been left out of the equation.\n\n2. Erel et al. in their paper on “The Depoliticisation of Intersectionality Talk” argue that activism based on intersectionality often only pays lip service to the complexity of these intersections.\n\nSo, for example, activism may be based on white gay men and heterosexual migrant women working together, bur rarely are the more complex realities of gays, lesbians and transgender people who are also racialised brought to the fore.\n\nAs Erel and all say in the paper, class too is taken off of the agenda. So, conversations about intersectionality tend to remain among relatively privileged people.\n\n3. Thirdly, Erel et al. argue that both queer activists and black and anti-racist activists generally ignore each other’s issues.\n\nAt one extreme, racialised trans people have been seen as victims of a “white disease” among certain black organisations.\n\nAt the other extreme, trans activism is notoriously white. Rather than working together WITH anti-racists, queer activists often compete with them for minority status!\n
- Intersectionality as a concept has been critiqued by people who identify themselves as ‘queer of colour’ - that is gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender people who are also racialised as black, brown, Muslim, etc.\n\nThis is because the question of sexuality has generally been omitted by the feminist critical race theorists who introduced the idea of intersectionality.\n\nThis has been rectified more recently, but critics claim that transgender issues for example have been left out of the equation.\n\n2. Erel et al. in their paper on “The Depoliticisation of Intersectionality Talk” argue that activism based on intersectionality often only pays lip service to the complexity of these intersections.\n\nSo, for example, activism may be based on white gay men and heterosexual migrant women working together, bur rarely are the more complex realities of gays, lesbians and transgender people who are also racialised brought to the fore.\n\nAs Erel and all say in the paper, class too is taken off of the agenda. So, conversations about intersectionality tend to remain among relatively privileged people.\n\n3. Thirdly, Erel et al. argue that both queer activists and black and anti-racist activists generally ignore each other’s issues.\n\nAt one extreme, racialised trans people have been seen as victims of a “white disease” among certain black organisations.\n\nAt the other extreme, trans activism is notoriously white. Rather than working together WITH anti-racists, queer activists often compete with them for minority status!\n
- Intersectionality as a concept has been critiqued by people who identify themselves as ‘queer of colour’ - that is gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender people who are also racialised as black, brown, Muslim, etc.\n\nThis is because the question of sexuality has generally been omitted by the feminist critical race theorists who introduced the idea of intersectionality.\n\nThis has been rectified more recently, but critics claim that transgender issues for example have been left out of the equation.\n\n2. Erel et al. in their paper on “The Depoliticisation of Intersectionality Talk” argue that activism based on intersectionality often only pays lip service to the complexity of these intersections.\n\nSo, for example, activism may be based on white gay men and heterosexual migrant women working together, bur rarely are the more complex realities of gays, lesbians and transgender people who are also racialised brought to the fore.\n\nAs Erel and all say in the paper, class too is taken off of the agenda. So, conversations about intersectionality tend to remain among relatively privileged people.\n\n3. Thirdly, Erel et al. argue that both queer activists and black and anti-racist activists generally ignore each other’s issues.\n\nAt one extreme, racialised trans people have been seen as victims of a “white disease” among certain black organisations.\n\nAt the other extreme, trans activism is notoriously white. Rather than working together WITH anti-racists, queer activists often compete with them for minority status!\n
- Intro:\nJin Haritaworn, Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem are three Queers of Colour who have recently written a paper condemining the lack of alliance between queer and black or minority activists.\n\nThey can be understood as claiming for intersectionality to be really put into practice by engaging deeply with the situation of queers of colour as subversive both of heteronormative models of sexuality and racialised concepts that divide between human beings.\n\nIn a paper entitled “Gay Imperialism” the 3 authors look at anti-Muslim sentiment among some prominent queer activists.\n\nFor example. Peter Tatchell, a prominent gay and human rights activist and leader of the group Outrage has been highly outspoken in his condemnation of Islam as homophobic.\n\nHe regularly refers to Muslims as “Islamofascists” who are against all gay people.\n\nTatchell, through his foundation, “The Peter Tatchell Human Rights Fund”, sees it as his job to save gay Muslims from the homophobia of their community. He uses language which is reminiscent of the civilising mission which was prevalent in colonial times.\n\nAccording to Haritawon and his colleagues in their paper, gay Muslims are the “ideological token victim who must be liberated from its ‘barabaric, backward’ society, by means that include political and military violence.” \n\nSome gay Muslims have also played this role by speaking out against the Muslim community and condemning it for being homophobic, thus giving weight to the idea that gay Muslims need saving rather than placing the emphasis on the work being done by gay Muslims themselves, often from within the community.\n\n2. The critique that the authors put forward is that this type of discourse - coming from queer activists - is actually deeply similar to that which promoted the war in Iraq and which is used to criminalise all Muslims as potential threats to our security.\n\nWhat is happening is that countries, such as the UK, where equal rights for gay and queer people is actually a very recent phenomenon are rushing to support gay Muslims who are oppressed by homophobic regimes in the Middle east.\n\nThis is quite hypocritical because it assumes that homophobia is a thing of the past in the West.\n\nPart of the way in which the ‘war on terror’ works is to draw a line between liberal and anti-liberal value systems. The idea is that we have to protect OUR liberal values from Muslim extremists including the protection of gay rights. However, if we look at the facts equal rights for gay, lesbian and transgender people are from being universally ensured in the UK.\n\n3. Lastly, the writers of the paper argue that Muslims and queers should not be portrayed as being in competition with each other. This would assume that there are no queers who are also Muslims for example. \n\nJust like black and majority world feminists in the 1970s and 1980s argued against white feminists who saw all black men, for example, as oppressive, queer of colour activists today are looking for solutions within their communities.\n\nThere are several organisations set up in Britain such as Al Fatiha UK and the Safra Project which were established by queer or colour activists.\n\nThey aim to look at the issue of homophobia within their communities as well as tackling racism in the general society. \n\nThey are based on the idea that queer Muslims or other racialised people do not need anyone to speak on their behalf and mis-represent them.\n\nThey are also committed to the idea that racism, sexism and homophobia have to be struggled against together rather than in opposition to each other.\n
- Intro:\nJin Haritaworn, Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem are three Queers of Colour who have recently written a paper condemining the lack of alliance between queer and black or minority activists.\n\nThey can be understood as claiming for intersectionality to be really put into practice by engaging deeply with the situation of queers of colour as subversive both of heteronormative models of sexuality and racialised concepts that divide between human beings.\n\nIn a paper entitled “Gay Imperialism” the 3 authors look at anti-Muslim sentiment among some prominent queer activists.\n\nFor example. Peter Tatchell, a prominent gay and human rights activist and leader of the group Outrage has been highly outspoken in his condemnation of Islam as homophobic.\n\nHe regularly refers to Muslims as “Islamofascists” who are against all gay people.\n\nTatchell, through his foundation, “The Peter Tatchell Human Rights Fund”, sees it as his job to save gay Muslims from the homophobia of their community. He uses language which is reminiscent of the civilising mission which was prevalent in colonial times.\n\nAccording to Haritawon and his colleagues in their paper, gay Muslims are the “ideological token victim who must be liberated from its ‘barabaric, backward’ society, by means that include political and military violence.” \n\nSome gay Muslims have also played this role by speaking out against the Muslim community and condemning it for being homophobic, thus giving weight to the idea that gay Muslims need saving rather than placing the emphasis on the work being done by gay Muslims themselves, often from within the community.\n\n2. The critique that the authors put forward is that this type of discourse - coming from queer activists - is actually deeply similar to that which promoted the war in Iraq and which is used to criminalise all Muslims as potential threats to our security.\n\nWhat is happening is that countries, such as the UK, where equal rights for gay and queer people is actually a very recent phenomenon are rushing to support gay Muslims who are oppressed by homophobic regimes in the Middle east.\n\nThis is quite hypocritical because it assumes that homophobia is a thing of the past in the West.\n\nPart of the way in which the ‘war on terror’ works is to draw a line between liberal and anti-liberal value systems. The idea is that we have to protect OUR liberal values from Muslim extremists including the protection of gay rights. However, if we look at the facts equal rights for gay, lesbian and transgender people are from being universally ensured in the UK.\n\n3. Lastly, the writers of the paper argue that Muslims and queers should not be portrayed as being in competition with each other. This would assume that there are no queers who are also Muslims for example. \n\nJust like black and majority world feminists in the 1970s and 1980s argued against white feminists who saw all black men, for example, as oppressive, queer of colour activists today are looking for solutions within their communities.\n\nThere are several organisations set up in Britain such as Al Fatiha UK and the Safra Project which were established by queer or colour activists.\n\nThey aim to look at the issue of homophobia within their communities as well as tackling racism in the general society. \n\nThey are based on the idea that queer Muslims or other racialised people do not need anyone to speak on their behalf and mis-represent them.\n\nThey are also committed to the idea that racism, sexism and homophobia have to be struggled against together rather than in opposition to each other.\n
- Intro:\nJin Haritaworn, Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem are three Queers of Colour who have recently written a paper condemining the lack of alliance between queer and black or minority activists.\n\nThey can be understood as claiming for intersectionality to be really put into practice by engaging deeply with the situation of queers of colour as subversive both of heteronormative models of sexuality and racialised concepts that divide between human beings.\n\nIn a paper entitled “Gay Imperialism” the 3 authors look at anti-Muslim sentiment among some prominent queer activists.\n\nFor example. Peter Tatchell, a prominent gay and human rights activist and leader of the group Outrage has been highly outspoken in his condemnation of Islam as homophobic.\n\nHe regularly refers to Muslims as “Islamofascists” who are against all gay people.\n\nTatchell, through his foundation, “The Peter Tatchell Human Rights Fund”, sees it as his job to save gay Muslims from the homophobia of their community. He uses language which is reminiscent of the civilising mission which was prevalent in colonial times.\n\nAccording to Haritawon and his colleagues in their paper, gay Muslims are the “ideological token victim who must be liberated from its ‘barabaric, backward’ society, by means that include political and military violence.” \n\nSome gay Muslims have also played this role by speaking out against the Muslim community and condemning it for being homophobic, thus giving weight to the idea that gay Muslims need saving rather than placing the emphasis on the work being done by gay Muslims themselves, often from within the community.\n\n2. The critique that the authors put forward is that this type of discourse - coming from queer activists - is actually deeply similar to that which promoted the war in Iraq and which is used to criminalise all Muslims as potential threats to our security.\n\nWhat is happening is that countries, such as the UK, where equal rights for gay and queer people is actually a very recent phenomenon are rushing to support gay Muslims who are oppressed by homophobic regimes in the Middle east.\n\nThis is quite hypocritical because it assumes that homophobia is a thing of the past in the West.\n\nPart of the way in which the ‘war on terror’ works is to draw a line between liberal and anti-liberal value systems. The idea is that we have to protect OUR liberal values from Muslim extremists including the protection of gay rights. However, if we look at the facts equal rights for gay, lesbian and transgender people are from being universally ensured in the UK.\n\n3. Lastly, the writers of the paper argue that Muslims and queers should not be portrayed as being in competition with each other. This would assume that there are no queers who are also Muslims for example. \n\nJust like black and majority world feminists in the 1970s and 1980s argued against white feminists who saw all black men, for example, as oppressive, queer of colour activists today are looking for solutions within their communities.\n\nThere are several organisations set up in Britain such as Al Fatiha UK and the Safra Project which were established by queer or colour activists.\n\nThey aim to look at the issue of homophobia within their communities as well as tackling racism in the general society. \n\nThey are based on the idea that queer Muslims or other racialised people do not need anyone to speak on their behalf and mis-represent them.\n\nThey are also committed to the idea that racism, sexism and homophobia have to be struggled against together rather than in opposition to each other.\n
- \n
- \n