“Your Women Are Oppressed, But Ours Are Awesome”: How Nicholas Kristof And Half The Sky Use Women Against Each Other

With regards to the picture, I really don’t understand how it’s problematic (well, the version of it that I saw specifically referred to Saudi society). Would you call it problematic to state that women in the US have more rights than in Saudi Arabia (or Afghanistan)? I guess I just don’t interpret it as “your women are oppressed, but ours are awesome” but “Aspects of our society are a lot better than yours.” Which, I think, is a fair statement.
I’m not saying that perceiving it as ‘problematic’ (and the more I use it, the more I dislike that damp milquetoast of a word), I just don’t get the chain of associations that lead to “women from the Global North allow[ing] ourselves to be used as (actual and metaphorical) weapons of war against women from the Global South”

A lot of people, including myself, believe in the notion that we are all in this together. The picture doesn’t allow for global sisterhood. The picture leads to “otherization” which allows for things like hate and war. http://www.smi.uib.no/seminars/Pensum/Abu-Lughod.pdf The link in the article wasn’t working, hopefully this one will work.

Dear dersk, thanks for you comment. In writing a piece like this, my goal was to contribute to the ongoing discussions, thoughts, and critiques out there. My reaction to your question is this:
1. These women’s bodies ARE ostensible weapons of war against Afghani women (if the implication of the caption is to believed, I don’t know where these pilots are going, or when, or even if this image was taken in wartime!). They – or pilots like them – are engaging in warfare in these women’s countries and potentially against them or their communities.
2. The assumption that ALL U.S. women are “better” or at least “better off” than ALL Afghani women is (to use a milquetoast word), problematic. Which women? By whose standards? Is a, say, sex-trafficked and impoverished U.S. women better off than an educated Afghani woman who is running a school for girls? What does “better” mean?
3. Ultimately, I think such assumptions are harmful to the women of the Global South (ie. Afghani women) but ALSO to the women from the Global North. These constructions help people ignore gender violence in our own locations – for instance, given the recent findings about sexual assault in the U.S. Military it is likely that some of these pilots might have been sexually assaulted by their own colleagues and superiors – see the film “The Invisible War” for more on this: http://invisiblewarmovie.com/
4. What does “our women” and “your women” mean? To me, this too is unsavory – are women belonging to the men of their respective societies?
I hope that these comments, as well as the argument in the rest of the piece about how constructions of “oppressed” vs. “non-oppressed” women are detrimental and contribute to xenophobia and imperialism.
Thanks again for your comments!

“Hey Taliban, look up in the sky… Your women can’t drive, but ours can!”

This statement is also written to and for men. Who are the Taliban? And who is meant by “ours”? Also, “your women” and “ours” imply possession.

Thank you for the comment, Sara. Even the issue of “saving” implies top down vs. what Paul Farmer has called “partnership in health” (not that Farmer is without critique, but I think being conscious of that approach is key.) It’s very much like that saying “If you have come to help me, you are wasting your time. But if you have
come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work
together.”

which is attributed to Lilla Watson, an Aboriginal Austrailian woman addressing a missionary serving in her country

This piece makes some great points, there is a lot of uncomfortable “White gaze upon a zoo” in documentaries such as these. However, regardless of where, this stuff is *happening* and we need to acknowledge that and call it what it is. Many people like to hide behind cultural relativism when nonsense like Purdah goes down, but it’s not ok and needs to be shamed and stopped, whether it’s extreme homophobia in Russia, or fgm in Somalia.

I am so glad to read this article. My own reaction to the film clips I saw was outrage and upset at the cultural imperialism, objectification of (third world) women, and presumptions galore. We need another and a better story!

For me, the first argument is really all you need. Being part of the military industrial complex is NOT liberating to anyone.

Thanks for your comment. Gender violence IS happening – you are absolutely right – and EVERYWHERE. But I think that allowing activist women’s groups FROM THE COMMUNITIES IN QUESTION to set the agendas and set the lead in these struggles is key (as this film does, in fact, take a step in doing. it just then undermines that very gesture by some other decisions). Solidarity and partnership, not ‘saving’ is the key, at least to me.

I have a mixed response to this article. I recorded the documentary but have only watched about five minutes of it and those five minutes dampened my enthusiasm for watching the rest of it, for the same reasons discussed here. Nonetheless, I just returned from a trip to a third world country. I was impressed both by the strength of the women I met and the overwhelming poverty of the country (with all its predictable social problems). Upon my return, I couldn’t stop talking about it, it worked itself into every conversation for days. And this is a situation I hear often from people I know who work internationally. Cross-cultural encounters and talk about them are inherently complex, both when you are the more or the less privileged party in the encounter, or how one measures privilege. Critique is always in order, but it should also acknowledge that it has no solution to offer, or a better way that won’t itself be subject to other critiques. It’s not just difficult to speak FOR another, but also OF another, and yet I’m still a firm believer in open borders and encounters that push us beyond comfort and compel us to want to talk about it far beyond our ability to speak authoritatively or even cogently.

I completely agree with the critique. I went to see a screening of this film at my school with my roommate and I was very uncomfortable the whole time. The part that DasGupta mentions about Kristof asking the African girl about her experience with rape seemed extremely disrespectful and invasive. I also agree with your point about the way it made men in these countries look. It also made me wonder about why these women were so trusting of Kristof, or rather why Kristof expected these women to be so trusting and open with him given their prior negative experience with men. I also found its implicit juxtaposition of western “civilization” against the “barbarian” nature of people (esp. men) of color was very problematic.

And I’ve got female enlisted friends who were raped by their “comrades in arms.” Do my anecdata outweigh yours?

I have mixed feelings about the documentary, but none about its intentions. Evil flourishes in the dark, and as imperfect as this documentary is, it does shine a light on children having their clitoris and labia carved off and their vulvas stitched into chastity belts from which urine and menstrual blood leak out very slowly, all month long, and makes childbirth incredibly dangerous. It does shine a light on little girls and their mothers being kicked out of their homes and ostracized from their communities for attempting to prosecute a rapist (which was very recently a common occurrence in this country). It also shines the light on forced prostitution (which is prevalent in this country, as well) and on the lack of educational opportunities for girls (which is also prevalent in this country). The film needed to address the fact that many of the struggles women in the developing world are facing are struggles we face in the West as well. The documentary failed to do that, which is a shame. Because this did result in a “Superior Us/Inferior Them” message. Still, I hope such documentaries will continue to be made. There is no greater form of oppression than having your suffering ignored.

My girlfriend and I are both childhood rape survivors. We started trying to watch that program from the beginning, but it was way too triggery for us. We could not get through the first half-hour of it. We had to shut it off and deal with some very painful flashbacks. We wish it had come with a trigger warning.

Thank you for your comment Penny. I agree that having one’s suffering ignored or silenced is a part and parcel of oppression. However, I think a really important question to ask is – ignored by whom? Because the thing that we in the West often forget is the fabulous and important on the ground work going on in various countries – which, to it’s credit, this film tried to actually highlight. I was once on a panel with Egyptian feminist activist, physician and author Nawaal El Saadwi. She said something really interesting about female genital cutting. She said that Western feminist were in fact undermining the attempts of local (Egyptian, other African) feminists to organize around the issue because 1. local feminists were now faced with their communities thinking of them as slaves to imperialist forces, and therefore their message was less likely to be heard 2. local feminists themselves felt this need to ‘defend’ their communities to the outside world from charges of ‘backwardness’, etc. I think this is a really important point – that sometimes the outrage of outsiders actually undermines the very goals they are seeking. Sometimes it’s just as important to listen, follow, and economically support the efforts of local people (like Edna Adan) as it is to speak. (I’m not saying NOT to speak, rather, to listen first, so we can figure our how best to speak, or to speak in different ways…)

thanks for your comment, Jeannette. I think solidarity is important, of course, and part of solidarity is self-examination. Have you seen the tumblr “oppressed brown women doing things” it’s very much in line with your comment… http://oppressedbrowngirlsdoingthings.tumblr.com/

Thanks so much for this critique, Sayantani. I watched part of the film (the America Ferrera and Olivia Wilde section) and had to stop because I felt it just exacerbated all the worst parts of the book.

My other concern with both the text and this film is how prevalent it’s becoming in feminist teaching. I was required to teach this book when it came out to my intro class and, at least amongst my program’s administration, there was no question of the very deep problems both in the structure and the content, most of which you have very eloquently laid out here. Even the points that are most directly aimed at undergrads underscore the Western supremacy of the writing; for instance, Kristof emphasizes that college students should consider studying abroad in a country with systematic oppression against women…as if they’re not already living in that country. Not to study abroad because they have an interest in a country’s particular culture, history or language. But to study abroad so they can help women. Cambodia will do just as fine as the Congo.

At the time I taught the book, there were a few op-eds critiquing some of the more blatant acts of white saviorism in Kristof’s columns (like where he ‘buys’ two Thai prostitutes out of sex slavery), but there wasn’t very much else. I’m glad to see that your article and other pieces have started to raise the very real pitfalls of this kind of ‘global’ feminism.

I know, I do realize that now – for some reason I missed that the first time I watched it! But I still think the overall point, that focusing on outside actresses and their reactions, was less than ideal. but I do thank you for your comment!

I’m so sorry. Jannah, I agree

Thank you for your comment, Fahima. Yes, as several people have pointed out, it’s so critical to look at the whole picture – discuss oppression in structural and not individual terms, therefore understanding gender violence not just in terms of “backward culture” (which I felt this film kept falling into) but global economics, histories of violence and invasion, imperialism, and yes, additionally, patriarchal cultural beliefs (which all countries of the world manifest, in various ways…) Perhaps by doing so, Western activists could realize why loud, vocal, public support of feminist causes in countries of the Global South might undermine the very causes they seek to support, putting feminists in the Global South in a real bind in doing their critically important work!

absolutely! thanks for your comment..

I am from Kenya and have worked with immigrant women in the US for many years. They told me stories that reflect what i saw in Half the Sky.
Kristoff used celebrities because people watch celebrities, so he used that to spread the word. If George Clooney had not been involved in Darfur, less people would know about the genocide there.

The issues Kristof reported on are real issues and yes i personally think that women in the Global south do not have as many rights, are abused, etc etc, They definitely are worse off than women in the Global north.
So let’s call it what it is. We should be focusing on how we can help the women who are in those situations, now that Kristof has brought it to light for many more folks than the “enlightened” few who seem to be critical of his film.
We cannot have it both ways. If people ignore what is happening in the Global south, its because they are self involved and don’t care, etc. If they do report on, albeit in ways that you may not like, we focus on irrelevant details rather than the issues at hand.

I do agree think that the four blond pilots and the caption is not helpful. That is very different from Kristof’s film.
Izzy

I would argue that “you as an American … have a choice” is a bit of a mirage. We *think* we have choices but our culture has pre-determined for us what we will decide on such issues just as the Moslem Kenyan woman’s culture has done. She doesn’t want to be a single woman in NYC and neither does Liberalcurmudgeon want to be a burqua-clad wife “protected” by her menfolk in Kenya. How much “choice” do each really have? Could “Liberalcurmudgeon” or the Kenyan woman survive happily in each other’s shoes? Not likely. Why? Because neither one has any real choices about such hugely disparate lifestyles as each other’s.

Thanks for your comment, Clare – I’ve been trying to respond consistently to comments (if you read above) and have some suggestions – but overall, to me, it’s about solidarity not ‘saving.’ It’s about letting women in their own contexts define the parameters and set the agendas and then, as outsiders, following their lead. Which, to it’s credit, this film does to some extent by highlighting local advocates and activists. But as I say, there’s a lot of other things that happen that undermine this good work.

Absolutely, Lee! I wasn’t necessarily the one who picked that caption and will mention to the editor (if we don’t know her name, that’s certainly something to point out). Thanks for your read and comment!

Absolutely, thank you for bringing this important point us, Arsian! Yet another way that Kristof’s reporting of sex work (primarily in Asia, Africa) underscores (consciously or unconsciously) notions of these continents being full of impoverished ‘backward cultures’… Thanks for your read and comment!

Thanks for the support Jeanne – Yes, I’ve come to the conclusion that most people think that to critique something is to say it shouldn’t exist altogether. Whereas, I think an insightful critique is actually a way of being a responsible reader – a way of saying “how can we do this better?” As opposed to something that has NO redeeming value, I think that there are critical issues about women’s lives being discussed here – it’s simply the HOW that I take issue with. Sometimes the very way we frame something undermines our original intent… Anyway, long way around of saying thank YOU for your comment! (and yes, I know the baby kitten fur handbag feeling!

For someone interested in international activism, what would be the best way to present these issues to a Western audience without, well all the fail of this venture (or Kony campaign, dear lord that was so bad…)

I assume for starters a grassroots method would be good so people of these regions have their own agency? As opposed to White Dude coming in being like, “ermehgerd poverty!!!!”

From learning about the the issues facing Palestinians, I noticed that the best modes of activism are headed my Palestinians themselves. I assume this would be the same for other global issues?

Is it even possible for the privileged to be involved telling these women’s stories and still have it be for these women?
Ugh, as a White westerner I find these things so embarrassing :/

I would really like to know how many people who have responded here have actually read the book versus the movie (which I have not seen). The book is full of statistics about the scale of the problem of violence against women all over the world. The book focuses on the people, mostly locals, who are doing something to combat that violence. There is no other word for the massive scale of the violence but horrible. I am well aware that violence against women exists in the US, but it was not my impression that the authors would ever have wanted us to help abroad to the exclusion of helping here. Both are needed. And real global leadership from both South and North cannot come fast enough.

Great article! I really appreciate the critique of the ‘white male savior’ and the extension of the discussion to ‘the Global North Savior.’ Writing from a US perspective, I am very challenged by the fact that there is an incredible amount of gender violence occurring around the world and in my own country, and where my place to intervene is. I am of the opinion that white folks from the US really shouldn’t be going on any sort of rescue missions to other countries, but should be working on their own contributions to the problem (US global conquest, colonialism, etc.) and supporting the efforts of those within communities in the Global South when asked. I also struggle with a feeling of US centric thinking when I recognize these issues are happening in my own country, and think that I should be focusing on that and not focusing my energy abroad. How can folks in the US work on issues of global gender violence on our land and within our own systems while still connecting (talking, sharing ideas/stories/experiences) with, learning with and supporting those in the Global South? Is it ever appropriate to enter a country in the Global South as a citizen of a country from the Global North? How is allyship formed around these issues?

The problem part is the “ours”- If it was “women in our society” then it would be fair as it doesn’t imply that women in the US “belong” to men. Now, the Taliban really do believe in possessing women, and just about everybody in US society feels disgusted by the Taliban, so if the “possession” was removed the poster would be better

This was such an interesting critique to read. Thanks! Made me think of the Jodie Bieber Time Magazine cover photo from 2010 I believe. It was a photo of an Afghani girl who was the vicitm of a brutal crime and the headline was “What Happens If We Leave Afghanistan”. I’m not sure if I 100% agree with every point here but I do think this was a great piece.