Daniel Trilling at the Rationalist Association blog offered their position on gender segregation today. He started with Gopal’s article.
The piece raised concerns about the motivation of the pressure group Student Rights, which has been campaigning on the topic, and the way in which the story had been picked up by the media, but argued that such concerns should not prevent people from criticising the policy.
No, not exactly. Gopal was exceedingly unclear that her concerns were only with Student Rights and the way the media picked up the story. Exceedingly unclear. It was not at all clear that she wasn’t talking about the people who organized and publicized the December 10 protest that triggered the media coverage. If that’s really all she meant to say, she did a very clumsy job of it.
Take the third and last sentence of her opening paragraph for instance.
For us, it is especially difficult to practise a commitment to gender equality and social change in a context so heavily shaped by an intolerant Western ‘liberalism’ passing itself off as ‘secular’, ‘enlightened’ and more knowing-than-thou.
It is just not self-evident that that is not aimed at secular liberals who protested the UUK’s guidance. I still think that looks as if she has exactly those people in mind.
Her next sentence, in the next paragraph, is the one where she gets her facts so wrong, and says Student Rights brought the issue to national attention, with a link to the channel 4 story on the December 10 protest. That link has now been removed, but it was there before, so that is what she thought.
No, it won’t wash. It’s really not that difficult to be clear about what you mean. I know this. I’ve done a lot of editing of other people’s writing, and I know the difference between clarity and the absence of it.
Back to the RA.
Regrettably, our initial choice of headline gave the impression that the piece criticised the whole range of groups who have spoken out on the issue. This includes groups we respect and support, such as the Council of Ex-Muslims and Southall Black Sisters, and a range of other individuals. The protest directed at Universities UK that took place on 10 December was broad based and worthy of support. We’ve now altered the headline but would like to apologise for any misunderstanding.
It wasn’t just the headline though. It really wasn’t.
Back to revisiting Gopal.
In the wake of Student Rights’ aggressive campaign, which clearly targeted Islamic student groups, Universities UK – not a body known for championing social justice – issued guidance indicating that gender segregation of an audience at the request of a speaker at guest lectures was acceptable. The advice was withdrawn when the Equalities and Human Rights Commission deemed this advice discriminatory. The battle lines were drawn once again between so-called ‘muscular liberals’ (generally, in fact, deeply conservative white males with a commitment to the idea that West is Best) and defenders of the rights of minorities to their own customary or traditional practices.
Again – it is far from obvious that she is raising concerns about Student Rights while not doing so about the CEMB or One Law for All or Southall Black Sisters or LSESUASH. It is far from clear that she didn’t mean the snide “muscular liberals” to apply to all opponents of gender segregation, or that she wasn’t herself siding with defenders of the rights of minorities to their own customary or traditional practices.
After that she goes on to point out the obvious, which is that the silly two choices that she herself isolated are not the only possible choices, but she did that only after poisoning the well with all that belligerent rhetoric. If that’s not what she meant to do, she’s just not a good writer. She’s not dense or difficult, she’s just bad at it.
And on it goes.
Easy enough to ask for clarification.
It was quite clear to me that she was not (and that she was challenging the idea, peddled by religious segregationists and by bigots, that minorities are monolithic). It really seems like you took offense to her characterization of the campaign and that colored your reading of everything else.*
*And you know I’ve agreed with you about this issue from the start and expressed appreciation for your work on it.
I guess what I’m finding hard to grasp is that when so much of the criticism has stressed “Her characterisation of the ‘muscular liberal’ right doesn’t describe these activists”, the first instinct seems to have been to interpret it as referring inaccurately to them, rather than accurately to other people. It was more intuitive for me to conclude from how Gopal’s comments about rightists didn’t describe the people in Tavistock square that they weren’t meant to.
So, SC, you’re concerned that insufficient care was paid to Gopal’s writing, and that when viewed in context, Ophelia and others should simply have understood the problem and that it was limited to the general responsibility to refuse to allow themselves to be used by racists?
As I understand it, and according to things of Maryam’s I’ve read, there were no reasons to connect her to the right wing, nor that protest to the right wing. It seemed like they had done their job fairly well in crafting an anti-racist or non-racist message.
I’m happy to concede on specifics if I’m wrong there, but thing I’m curious about is this:
If Maryam, Ophelia, and other do understand that responsibility and do try to meet that responsibility, when what additional responsibility do they have to someone who erroneously insists that they haven’t met that responsibility?
@Alex:
Okay, but do we have a moral responsibility to have good linguistic intuitions?
And if you were Maryam and had been repeatedly been straw manned as a disgruntled ex-muslim cooperating with the imperialist and racist West – in other words, when such a mistake is made, in Maryam’s experience on a regular basis – why should her intuitions based on her experiences be replaced with yours?
Finally, suppose (and I don’t know this) that Ophelia didn’t just read this while thinking about things Maryam had said in the past about being portrayed inaccurately, but actually spoke to Maryam and had Maryam say specifically that Gopal got her wrong, did you read that sentence? Did you see that link?
Why should Ophelia not stand beside Maryam when Maryam’s intuitions as a reader (not to mention the *actual link*, over which you gloss) lead her to a different conclusion than yours?
Okay, so the writing was ambiguous and one interpretation gave you the author’s intent (retconned intent or not we can’t be sure and it doesn’t matter) and others do not.
Where is the moral issue in having used intuitions different than yours in arriving at interpretations other than the author’s intent?
Hell, shouldn’t Gopal be aware of the plight of atheists and apostates and write with care so as not to repeat – intentionally or not – the harmful straw manning Maryam has experienced?
Me I see good people all the way round. I see bad communication. I see the writing is sloppy. And I see that people did the best that they could with what they had.
It really seems like you just happened to have a take that more accurately reflected the authors (retconned?) intent, and you’re applying moral significance to it.
If the interpretations of Maryam and Ophelia were correct, they would have been write to write as they did. There is no indication that they maliciously formulated knowingly false interpretations. it may have ended badly, but what is the reason for the critique? They already know what Gopal says was intended. What does the moral/ethical argument bring?
Also, keep in mind that Maryam has looooooong and irritating experience of this – of people who see themselves as being on the left, attacking her for “Islamophobia” and all the bullshit that goes with it.
And that Gopal was rude and contemptuous toward the CEMB forum on Twitter yesterday.
Oh; Crip Dyke said it first and better.
Well… again, I can only say that I don’t see why someone who wasn’t conservative, white or male would read descriptions of conservative white males doing similar things and think they were the one being discussed. I’m not trying to be blameful – I just can’t really empathise with that reader-response.
Alex – as I said: for instance, she started off with “an intolerant Western ‘liberalism’ passing itself off as ‘secular’, ‘enlightened’ and more knowing-than-thou.” No I don’t think that describes me, but I know perfectly well that there are people who do think it does, or who pretend to.
Maybe I have more experience than you do of being misdescribed by hostile witnesses.
Well, we should all understand and openly recognize the problem of bigotry and the Right’s exploitation of these issues to advance it (and their own authoritarian agenda). I hope you’re not claiming that this problem isn’t real, and I am concerned that people find it so difficult to acknowledge even when it’s pointed out by its primary victims.
No idea what you’re asking here. I think Alex Gabriel and I both summarized her argument pretty well at his blog, and he’s said that Gopal has confirmed that reading. If it was unclear to people, again, they could have asked for clarification.
Read Gabriel’s post and the comments there (including the one by Nick Gotts).
I haven’t really seen that, to be frank. In the response to Gopal’s post, in the unanswered comments here that I quoted at Gabriel’s blog, or in this making a big deal over Gopal’s insufficient awareness or attention. There’s a lot of “she ought to know we’re her allies” and very little in the way of demonstrating that we’re allies by being open to her perspectives, experience, and concerns.
Weren’t you just writing at Ed’s (and I appreciated much in those posts) about how you feel like you want to openly claim your Jewish identity because you feel part of a group that’s been subjected to intense discrimination and violence? Don’t you see that what Gopal is talking about is the difficulty for people subject to bigotry and focused on fighting it to join campaigns – even important ones – in which the bigoted Right has a strong presence (even if other groups are also involved)? And her argument is that even in the face of that they SHOULD get involved! And this is being greeted with multi-post parsing and hostility. It’s bizarre.
The fact that the original post had a link to the protest organized by Maryam et al might have had something to do with it…that was sloppy work.An acknowledgement of that error wouldn’t hurt.
From Gopal’s piece (keep the intended audience in mind):
No, the entire article isn’t unambiguous. But it certainly makes its commitments clear enough to be the basis for a respectful exchange.
I have acknowledged it many times.
It’s funny (or something) that your final paragraph puts it so much more clearly than Gopal did.
I can do bolding too.
Ours is not an easy moment at which to practice a simultaneous commitment to anti-racism, equality and social justice. It’s a particularly testing time for progressive people who affiliate in some way to Britain’s ethnic and religious minority communities, among whom Muslims are under unprecedented attack. For us, it is especially difficult to practise a commitment to gender equality and social change in a context so heavily shaped by an intolerant Western ‘liberalism’ passing itself off as ‘secular’, ‘enlightened’ and more knowing-than-thou.
…
In the wake of Student Rights’ aggressive campaign, which clearly targeted Islamic student groups, Universities UK – not a body known for championing social justice – issued guidance indicating that gender segregation of an audience at the request of a speaker at guest lectures was acceptable. The advice was withdrawn when the Equalities and Human Rights Commission deemed this advice discriminatory. The battle lines were drawn once again between so-called ‘muscular liberals’ (generally, in fact, deeply conservative white males with a commitment to the idea that West is Best) and defenders of the rights of minorities to their own customary or traditional practices.
Those of us committed to both anti-racism and feminism must ask, however, whether we are really constrained to make our choices within this exhausted binary. We can note that Student Rights is a reactionary and opportunistic formation – silent about far more widespread forms of gender and economic segregation including the private, often single-gender schools for the wealthy – while at the same time examine whether gender segregation in certain contexts is not problematic or, at the very least, worthy of scrutiny. The fact that the issue was hijacked by conservative newspapers and politicians does not mean that the issue itself is irrelevant or cannot be addressed through nuanced and historically informed debate.
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice that she doesn’t say a word about any other groups involved. She cites Student Rights and no one else. Notice that she doesn’t mention any liberal or left newspapers and politicians, or even the damn Today programme. Notice that she talks about being able to “examine whether gender segregation in certain contexts is not problematic or, at the very least, worthy of scrutiny” – thus tidily disappearing the many people who have been doing that for months.
I know you have, but generally abstractly, because you’re not a woman in these communities. It’s one thing to recognize it in general and another to recognize the complexities of the situation this puts women from minority communities in and to be open to their arguments even when you think you’re being characterized unfairly or treated “rudely.” Whether she’s right or wrong, she knows more about being a minority woman than we do, and she’s speaking in that post primarily to others like her.
I’m sure you can. But I thought your argument was that her piece was unclear. Are you acknowledging her central thesis is as Gabriel and I have understood it (despite whatever difficulties of interpretation you think the writing caused), or are you claiming that this interpretation is wrong? Because it seems to me this is the central point. Unless, for some reason, you want to continue an endless discussion about her alleged clarity and presumed knowledge. I think it’s more productive to move on from that, and I know how much you hate it when it’s done to you.
Oh FFS.
Possible response to her post:
“So glad to hear from more women like you. You don’t seem to be aware, but the groups you describe, though they do get a lot of attention, aren’t the entirety of the campaign. Several other organizations who don’t share those views organized a demonstration blah blah blah links. I hope you can publicize and join us at future events, perhaps as a speaker?”
What do you mean “oh ffs” – why would that not matter? She portrays the situation as if on the one hand there is Student Rights, and on the other hand there is…nothing, so it’s time for her to suggest that people start to examine whether gender segregation in certain contexts is not problematic or, at the very least, worthy of scrutiny – quite as if no one had done so yet. Why am I not supposed to object to the way she ignores people like Maryam and Chris and Abhishek?
@SC, #10:
You’ve missed all their activism around this issue then?
To clarify, I was speaking of their actual efforts in response to UUK. You say that people should recognize a responsibility to be an ally. I think that the activism has so far shown them to be making a good attempt at doing antiracism, feminist, pro-immigrant work in the style of confluence. They may not always succeed, and I’m very open to evidence on that, I’ve read a lot but not everything.
But I think that the evidence shows that they are aware of that which you have asked them to be aware: a responsibility to kick up, not down, to be aware that action that is nominally feminist can be disguised racism and that nominal anti-racism can be disguised sexism.
My hypothetical question is:
In a world where they do recognize this responsibility, what additional responsibility is there to correctly understand a piece that, we can all agree, provoked multiple understandings?
If they are in general “aware” of the burden of which you asked them to be “aware”, how does that translate into excluding a specific interpretation of Gopal’s article?
Personally, I would have been inclined, had I encountered Gopal before Ophelia on Gopal, to have interpreted her as not criticizing Maryam and those who stood with Maryam, including Ophelia. …except for the link. Once that was there, i would have strongly questioned that interpretation, though it might not have been enough for me to reverse it. Nonetheless it’s hard to conclude that the demonstration and its organizers **aren’t** being criticized in the original text unless you look back post-facto with new information.
But Maryam has been subject to sexism disguised as anti-racism, sexism disguised as defense of religious liberty. Does she not have a right to expect Gopal to be aware of how her work will be misused?
I got from what you and Alex were saying that Gopal “should” have been interpreted a certain way.
I think things went wrong. i’m not happy they wen’t wrong.
I just don’t see a “should”. I think Maryam has reason to be defensive and you aren’t adequately appreciating those reasons. I think Ophelia’s take is informed by her friend’s, and that there’s good reason for that.
I’m sad about the episode, but it feels like – and maybe I’m wrong – but it feels like you’re saying more than just “Oh, drat.”
It feels like you’re saying, “Oh, drat, certain people had a responsibility to do this better and failed, and that has moral/ethical implications.”
i think the mistakes made have tenuous ethical implications at best, and that those ethical implications are best worked out by the individuals since they’ll be better at understanding their own thought processes and how they got to write/read what they wrote/read.
If all you’re saying is that a moral responsibility to be an ally exists, but that general responsibility does not compel a specific interpretation of a specific text from a woman constantly accused of racism in an effort to deflect her feminism, then we are in full agreement.
If you’re saying something more, we don’t yet agree (though perhaps I could be convinced).
I think they were demonstrating they were her allies by the anti-UUK organizing itself. The blog posts critical of what they thought was Gopal’s misunderstanding were not demonstrating being an ally, but they’d already walked the walk – at least it seemed that way to me – do they get no down time to blog the blog?
Otherwise, I think this is covered by the larger section above, but I want to leave the quote here, despite my short response, in case you believe I haven’t covered it, because I’m acknowledging this is important.
end of Ophelia’s 15 and the entirety of SC’s 17:
While #17 came in while I was writing, I totally saw it coming.
From Maryam’s point of view, accusations of racism coupled with sexist dismissal would seem familiar and might incline her to a certain perspective.
From SC and Gopal’s perspective, the lack of other mentions is indication that no one else is criticized.
It’s painful to watch this.
My problem is that this makes no sense in light of the redacted link.
Try not to make comments this ignorant, please.
Then you’ve missed my point.
I think the basic principles of epistemic justice apply. More prosaically, why wouldn’t people just interpret charitably and ask questions if they don’t have reason to assume that a specific person has dishonest or hostile intent?
As I’ve said, though, this goes beyond the interpretation of the post and into our larger actions. We should leave no doubt whatsoever that we don’t share the views of the Right/bigots. We should be careful never to use their rhetoric or allow ourselves to be perceived as allying with them. And we should (and this comes back to the above) make an effort to listen to people affected by racism, even when they’re angry, and to understand their experiences. This is exactly the same effort I expect of men in the atheist movement when they’re responding to a post by a woman that addresses an issue other than sexism but also talks about how a misogynistic environment complicates the situation. I don’t see how it’s controversial.
I’ve said several times that you could have just asked her about it or had a respectful exchange about it. I don’t get why you’re so fixated on this to the exclusion of the larger issue and her larger argument.
For the record, I don’t agree about that. I think Gopal’s basic point was pretty easy to see.
I love the idea of a “respectful exchange” with Gopal who has been abusing everyone on Twitter.
SC:
You really see no problem with someone claiming that one side in this battle “generally” consists of (a subgroup of) white males? Really? What would “asking for clarification” look like? “Hi there, are you pretending to be unaware of the fact that a lot of non-male and non-white people have been part of this campaign, or are you just dismissing their contribution as unimportant?”
SC: “because you’re not a woman in these communities”
I think that really says it all – Ophelia can’t speak up against bigotry because she isn’t from the right “community”.
Sorry SC, you are a bigot, and clearly can’t be taken seriously..
And we could turn it around. Gopal isn’t “a woman in the community” of ex-Muslims, for example, so she can’t blah blah blah blah.
when “muscular liberals” are conservatives and defending the muscular conservatism of islam is liberal it seems these silly labels have finally lost all utility.
When the comments reach this level of ridiculousness, there’s little point in continuing.
(I’ll note that the LSESU ASH Twitter account is also calling Alex Gabriel racist. Whoever is making these comments, you aren’t doing the reputation of your organization any favors.)
I didn’t study Derrida so when I saw Gopal dismissing those opposing segregation as so-called ‘muscular liberals’ (generally, in fact, deeply conservative white males with a commitment to the idea that West is Best) while giving absolutely no counter examples I assumed she was dismissing opponents of segregation as so-called ‘muscular liberals’ (generally, in fact, deeply conservative white males with a commitment to the idea that West is Best).
Of course I could have asked for clarification on Twitter but it seems like she’s even more vague and abusive when limited to 140 characters or less.
@sc, starting with me:
Then you can’t read.
i didn’t say it easily provoked multiple understandings.
I didn’t say it intended to provoke multiple understandings.
I didn’t say it reasonably provoked multiple understandings
I said it provoked multiple understandings. You, yourself, are pissed that others didn’t read the piece as you did.
You couldn’t **have** this anger unless you had one understanding and believed at least one person to have at least one other understanding.
While 2 isn’t a lot, it is the minimum needed to qualify as “multiple”.
And you blow me off?
but wait, it gets richer…
…You’re only here reading this and having this conversation because you think that someone misreading someone else is a moral failing and indicative of a failure to perform a duty of care.
Brilliant, SC. Just brilliant.