The Great Singapore Novel(ist)
Am amazed and somewhat flattered to have scored such a high-profile spell checker. Thank you to Alfian for your comments and correction. I am familiar with Said’s work and, in light of your vehement self-defense, conceed that I may have misconstrued your own (However, citation, dear A.A., is a great way of preventing similar misunderstandings. That was a cheap shot, just to keep things equal. ;D).
Nonetheless, to cast yourself as a feminist might be a bit of an exageration. We all have our pet peeves – patriachy is not yours, to go by the bulk of your work. Identity, colonialism, the Malay question. Yes to all. Not women.
"I doubt you would arrive at these conclusions if you had read one of my plays, 'Madu II', which was a revisionist take on P. Ramlee's own canonical 'Madu Tiga', exposing its sexist constructs. Or anything I'd written about the 'Talaq' issue, which conjured the bogeyman of the 'religiously-inflammatory' to disguise patriarchal power-play. Many other plays I have written, from 'Tapak 7' to 'The Miseducation of Minah Bukit' to 'Selamat Malam Ibu' deal specifically with the experiences of women."
Thank you for pointing out the relevent works - however, this is where we must agree to disagree. Incidentally, I thought P. Ramlee's "Madu Tiga" was deliberately sexist, to reveal the prevailing (and current) sexism. Hence why it was so funny.
In adiition, arguments are not valid or ‘feminist’ by virtue of being made by a feminist (self-declared or otherwise), despite the popularity of this practice (Don’t feel too bad – even academics do it. Oops. Cheap shot number 2. You can make up the numbers the next round.). But if we must play the ‘my balls is bigger than yours’ game, I must conceed defeat, since I have none to begin with. Just taking the piss. To return to my point, I wonder, what sort of a feminist are you? “Islamic feminist”, “Marxist feminist”, etc? American, French or British school of thought? “Black feminist”, perhaps? Beware of the contradictions of your beliefs, if you must defend yourself.
"So many of those I admire are women: Sisters in Islam, Lily Zubaidah Rahim, Salbiah Ahmad, Marina Mahathir, Alin Mosbit, Nirmala Purushotham, Sharon Siddique, Lucy Davis...some have been my teachers as well."
Admiring women not equal to feminism.
Btw, I have sprinkled the above with some more errors (spelling and grammatical! Huzzah!). Have fun finding Wally. :-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addendum:
My comments was not meant as a personal attack, really. Even when I criticise something, I do it tongue-in-cheek. Please take the Nonok comment as such. I do apologize if I had insulted you. That was not my intention.
That said, you might benefit from acquiring a sense of the absurd, A.A. ;-)
And "Oversensitive, hysterical, irrational ex-fan" really isn't me. For one, I was never your fan (nothing personal - my reading/viewing tastes run more towards "Dune" and popular culture. Obscure metaphors are not my cup of tea. Even if I have to study them. :P). For another, having publicly displayed my opinions, I do not have any qualms making more under my own name.
posted by az/fah at
7:48 AM
3 Comments:
First of all, I consider myself a nuanced feminist, as opposed to an absolutist one. I think this is a fair distinction between us. Actually I don't think these categories of feminism are very useful--American and French feminism share similar postmodern characteristics largely indebted to theory, whereas British (socialist) feminism and Marxist feminism tend to be more materialist. Even both Black or Islamic feminisms can be roughly placed under 'Third World' feminisms. And I don't think these categories are mutually exclusive--someone like Spivak, for example, manages to be both Marxist and deconstructionist.
Secondly, I do not make the frivolous claim that my works are feminist by simply declaring myself an avowed feminist. In fact I am pointing out the reverse: careful analysis of my corpus of work will reveal my own feminist orientations.
'Admiring women' was not my point in listing these women--they are also feminists who have greatly influenced my own concerns. It's fine enough to read your Beauvoir and Butler, your Lorde and Kristeva, your bell hooks and your Trinh Minh-Ha, but these women I have mentioned have often taught me many aspects of feminism that have transcended theory. As a matter of fact, some of them identify themselves as feminists first, and women second.
As for patriarchy, you might be interested to know that the critique of patriarchy (and heterosexism) is a dominant feature of any of my queer writings. As a matter of fact, Queer Theory has extended the inquiry of Feminist Theory into gender and subjectivity.
I agree that P. Ramlee's film exaggerated instances of sexism for parodic effect. But I also wanted to examine what lay outside the frame of the film. Much of the action involved the character of Jamil juggling time between his wives and escaping detection. There was some kind of comeuppance at the end, but the resolution was not satisfactory for me. The film, for example, did not play out the actual dynamics of this polygamous setup--unlike, say, Zhang Yimou's 'Raise the Red Lantern'.
I don't think I was as much insulted by what you had written as amused by its absurdity (oh, does that mean I do have a sense of the absurd?). I have spelt out, in perhaps rather laborious terms, my credentials as a feminist. I am not interested in any notions of victory or defeat in this exchange, and will not take it to heart if you choose to remain unconvinced.
i suppose we are all human afterall..
oh idols of clay feet..
and yeah, i am not the writer of this blog..am merely a fan but to be fair, i let myself be purposely misunderstood for my own amusement which this whole exercise is certainly turning out to be :)
"I don't think I was as much insulted by what you had written as amused by its absurdity (oh, does that mean I do have a sense of the absurd?). "
"i let myself be purposely misunderstood for my own amusement which this whole exercise is certainly turning out to be :)"
Hurrah! Glad I could entertain everyone (finally!).
No, Alfian, am afraid it does not mean that you have a sense of the absurd. The phrase refers not so much to the appreciation of the absurd as the ability to laugh at oneself, what is absurd about you (or me, tricky business these pronouns). Not quite about laughing at others.
"Actually I don't think these categories of feminism are very useful--American and French feminism share similar postmodern characteristics largely indebted to theory, whereas British (socialist) feminism and Marxist feminism tend to be more materialist. Even both Black or Islamic feminisms can be roughly placed under 'Third World' feminisms. And I don't think these categories are mutually exclusive--someone like Spivak, for example, manages to be both Marxist and deconstructionist."
On the subject of feminism, I do not think I suggested that the categories are mutually exclusive. I happen to think categories are useful, however. The fact is, you can find distinct differences in the strands of thoughts. It's just a matter of convienience to stick labels onto them; useful as long as one does not think the label defines the thing.
Oh yeah. Am pleased to see you have kept up with the latest fashion in academia, A.A. Gay is the new feminism, as you evidently know.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home