Archive for the ‘Feminism(s)’ Category


In her article “The Prophet and Hadith,” Fatima Mernissi revisits the prophet Mohamed’s sayings. She starts by providing a general biography of the prophet, before he was a messenger of God, and then his journey in spreading Islam. She states that “the story of Islam is the saga of a happy man.” She mainly focuses on the social aspect of his life, with his wives, his companions, and even his enemies. Mernissi narrates his story from when he was first born in Mecca circa 570 AD till his death in Medina in 632 AD. After the death of Mohamed, there was dissention concerning the successor, which caused a division in the Uma (Muslim nation).

The next article entitled “A Tradition of Misogyny” is basically an analysis of the source of this hadith: “Those who entrust their affairs to a woman will never know prosperity.” Mernissi shows that the narrator of this hadith, Abu Bakra, is not a qualified person. She profoundly studies this hadith and its narrator asking the question “who uttered this Hadith, where, when, why, and to whom?” She first puts a context for when the hadith was spoken by the prophet. And then she analyses Abu Bakra’s reputation as a companion of the prophet. By the end, she argues against Abu Bakra, stating that “he would have to be immediately eliminated,” she goes on to add that according to Malikite Muslims Abu Bakra “must be rejected as a source of Hadith.”

Throughout her analysis, she backs up her argument with verses from the Quran and Sunna (Prophet’s biography) which gives authority to her writing. This is not fiction, but rather a factual and critical analysis of what has been taken for granted.


Read Full Post »

CasaNegraCasanegra (2008) is a Moroccan film directed by Nour Eddine Lakhmari, it has represented Morocco widely in many festivals and obtained many Awards. The movie is seen as a “success” though it has been greatly criticized for the uncomfortable “street” language used in it. Others, however, agreed that this is the Moroccan reality, the daily language that we usually hear in the streets, so nothing new. The film is given an ironical title: Casanegra which literally means the black house; it gives a pejorative image of Casablanca, the real name of the city which literally means the white house.

It is an alternative cinema, for the protagonists are marginalized characters. Much space is devoted to the people who are put in the periphery, which empowers them and gives them an opportunity to express themselves and tell their, untold, stories. We see Casablanca city through their eyes and hard circumstances, what probably makes it a black place. Interestingly, most of the scenes are shot in the dark, at night, a technique used by the director to reflect the characters’ interior anxieties.

Casanegra reflects reality, the Moroccan reality with all its contradictions. It deals with different social issues such as: poverty, social hierarchy, prostitution, homosexuality, drugs and violence. The dramatic story revolves around two ordinary young men who are put in the margin of the society. Adil suffers from his violent stepfather, who always beats his mother. This pushes Adil to stick to his dream, manifested in a postcard, and eventually plans to leave his “Casanegra”. Karim is a little more optimistic; he is more concerned with his family and falls in love with a woman, but later he suffers from love deception. Nevertheless, what unifies Adil and Karim is their attempts to do the impossible through all the means to better their social life.

Nabila (I will use the name she is given on the movie’s profile: Nabila, though she was only once referred to as Nabila by her friend) represents a modernized icon in the Moroccan society. The criteria of her modernized character are: speaking French, driving a car, wearing western clothes, going to the night club, smoking, and the fact that she is a divorced woman. To what extent does her modern and liberated life empower (or disempowers) her as a woman? And has she succeeded in creating a Third Space between tradition and modernity, Morocco and the West?

The woman in the store is westernized; there is almost nothing about her that reveals her Moroccan identity. Perhaps, this is the reason why she remained unnamed throughout the two hours movie. She has a confused Moroccan identity with a Western one; she is a ‘neither-nor’ character. This inbetweeness creates a kind of ambivalence in her personality; she is torn between two different worlds. She lives a librated western life in a Muslim country, attempting to live the West in the East, (that is, if we regard Morocco as an Eastern country, geographically speaking.) The West is mainly a modern secular world and Morocco is a Muslim society. She is flowing back and forth between two different worlds trying to create a Third Space. The woman working in the store is a westernized character par excellence, but since she lives in Morocco, so somehow she managed to live a Third Space.

Some Moroccan women take the journey of modernization, and eventually, start to criticize and be ashamed of their own culture and identity. They observe their society from dual positions: being superior looking down upon their own culture from Western lenses and being in an inferior position vis-à-vis the West. Returning to Nabila, her mimic of the West is manifested in the use of the French language and her Western clothes. Adil was making fun at his friend Karim asking him to “teach some Arabic” to her; because she uses mostly French, the language of the West. Actually, pretending to look modernized (in certain cases even superior) is the reason why some people prefer to speak French, or at least code mix French and Arabic.

Interestingly, the woman in the store is usually looked at from the outside speaking to her clients. Her voice is not heard. She is the subject of the man’s gaze and surveillance. Karim is attracted to her beauty; he sees her only as a body, as a woman who should submit to him and to his desire. He does not care about the social “hierarchy” between them although his friend, Adil, keeps advising him not to have a relationship with this woman, but he ignores him.

Nevertheless, Nabila seems to represent the bright side of Casablanca. She is an optimistic character. We never hear her saying Casanegra. Unlike Adil who is always screaming Casanegra which he has been using throughout the movie. This could be explained that she is living a happy luxurious life, away from the “dirt” of Casanegra whereas Karim and Adil’s life is full of unhappy events that cause them to see Casablanca through their hard circumstances. Basically, the choice of such linguistic forms reflects their psychological interior anxiety. And it could be seen as a disempowerment for them, a failure to face life so they escape in drugs and drinking alcohol for instance.

Karim at night goes with Adil to a corner in a very high building in the center of Casablanca, Adil screams “Casanegra”. Afterwards, Karim goes with Nabila to the same corner in the very high building, she was climbing even higher, wearing very tight clothes showing freedom, and she screams Casablanca with a very loud voice, trying to make herself heard; or as if she is trying to change the “black” reality of Casablanca. She calls for change, a change that “everyone is afraid of” according to Mernissi; probably because it is a change that seeks to decentre those who are already in the centre.

As stated before, Nabila goes to the night club with her friends. What is worth mentioning is the song she is dancing on with Karim in the night club; an optimistic song by Oum, a Moroccan westernized singer who sings in English. The song is entitled Hamdoulah (Thanks God in Arabic). The refrain goes as follows: “hamdoulah, for blessing my face, blessing my soul, giving me a piece of mind …When I’m feeling down, when I smile giving me strength, this is my dancing”. The song reflects the mood of the Moroccan woman living freedom.

The woman or chikha working in [Zrirek’s] night club is also portrayed as a, somehow, librated character, yet in a Moroccan traditional way in comparison to the Nabila. Chikha or chikhat (plural) are the kind of women who sing and dance in night clubs, some even smoke and drink alcohol, the case in the movie. But generally they have a bad reputation within the Moroccan society, therefore they are not respected. They are the type of women who are only for temporal fun, extremely objectified.

The language and taboo words the chikha in Casanegra uses as well as her actions (smoking and drinking alcohol) reveal her carelessness of what people think of her as a woman, a Moroccan woman. She has thrown values and social norms aside ignoring the extremely cultural power of hchouma [shame]. This latter seems to be a block of the freedom of Moroccan women. So by rejecting it they are free, at least from their perspective. She is defending chikhat when Adil criticizes them, so she seems proud of herself and profession. She is defined in the movie in relation to her profession.

She is a tough woman and very responsible as Zrirek says that “without her the night club wouldn’t keep going.” This might be motivated by having interest in the club for she will be the wife of the owner, Zrirek. Thus, is she really liberated? Or enslaved by man?

Ironically, the name of the night club where she works is: au Tout va bien (where everything is okay). It implies that outside is “Casanegra” and inside, the night club, everything is okay. Everyone escapes inside and forgets about the troubles of “Casanegra” by drinking, smoking, dancing and having fun.

In au tout va bien night club, a chikha is singing “kill me kill me, and close the door on me, till al Harizi (the man) comes and opens the door for me” (my translation), this indicates that even some Moroccan popular songs give power to men. They show how women are so dependent on men, and importantly the woman who is singing it, as if she is unconsciously disempowering herself.

Let’s not forget that the chikha remains throughout the movie inside her limited sphere, the night club; we never see her outside. So, is she herself escaping a bitter reality outside? Is she hiding inside the walls of “au tout va bien” and giving the illusion that she is all right? Would she be careless and not affected by hchouma when having a direct encounter with the society outside?

The actor who presented the chikha character is highly criticized; because women are usually expected to speak a good selective language and to behave in a certain way. The Moroccan audience seems shocked to see such behaviors on the Moroccan Cinema screen. The movie Casanegra is mostly watched individually; it is not a family movie. There is a great use of taboo words. The director explained this unexpected use of “street language” that it is the language of the ‘real’ Morocco, the language that we are confronted with in our daily life. He states that “we watch western movie which are full of worse insults and behaviors, still we like them and we don’t complain.” (In an interview with him in Mubachara ma’akum on 2m). The question that imposes itself here is, knowing that the scenarist and director of the movie is a Moroccan man who has lived in Norway for 20 years: Is the movie Casanegra itself a mimic of the west? In a Moroccan program where he was interviewed about Casanegra, he said that he was “disturbed by the postcards that represent Morocco in a folkloric way;” therefore, he wanted to show the ‘real’ Morocco, from his own perspective. Then, to what extent has he succeeded in representing the ‘real’ Morocco in the film?

In the movie, the mother of Adil is represented as a weak woman, victimized and silenced, we rarely hear her voice. Her first husband died, Adil’s father, and she got married again. Perhaps because she couldn’t resist living alone as a widow in the Moroccan society, so she got married seeking protection of man. This reminds me of a pertinent Moroccan proverb which states that “the shadow of a man is better than the shadow of a wall”, but is not the shadow of a wall better than the shadowing shadow of a man! Some men are in the family just the ‘present-absent’ subjects.

She is leading a miserable life with her second husband who mistreats her and uses her. She is a working woman; he beats her and takes the money she earns in order to buy alcohol. He treats her as a piece of furniture. He is much trivialized as a character; he cares about his little TV more than anything else; he threatens Adil to “cut him into pieces if he touches his TV.”

The woman, on the other hand, is very much victimized; portrayed as helpless. All she can do is cry. Her screaming seems not to be an act of rebellion but an act of defeat; when she couldn’t stand her husband beating her son, Adil. She is generally silent and when the violence causes silence, (one) must be mistaken. So who is to be blame here? The woman who submits to her husband and hopeless before him or the man who resorts to his physical strength to silence and domesticate the woman?

Adil is ready to do anything to defend his mother. While her husband is beating her, Adil defends his mother and hit his step-father with a chair on the head, which causes the fall of the authoritative aggressive man. However, and unexpectedly, the woman is yelling at her son who was trying to help her from the hands of her savage man. Naively, she is reminding her son not to “forget this man is my husband” and asking him to go away. As if it is her husband’s right to beat her, something expected and taken for granted. Probably, this is the reason why his violence is not resisted and fought against.

Adil encourages his mother to resist, and to go to declare all what her husband does to her in the police station. However, she is too vulnerable and frightened to suit her husband, though she admits that “she couldn’t resist (him) more.” Adil suggests that she goes to Taounat (A small town near Fez city) to his grandmother, and he finally could convince her. He provides her with all the money he has earned (or stolen). But she remains hesitative and anxious not to be called a “maskhouta” (Moroccan Arabic which means a naughty woman) in her village; for this is the second husband she escapes from. Actually her first husband died, as if it is her fault and she is the one to blame. She is afraid of the return, returning ‘home’. Her family will not understand her suffering and will only criticize and blame her for leaving her husband behind. Why is it a shame for a woman, but never for the man, to get divorce in the Moroccan society?

She is afraid to escape or get divorce from her husband. It is very likely that the audience would have been complaining or wondering why did she have to stay with him and stand all his dehumanizing? The wife usually sacrifices her life for the sake of her children, but this woman has no children with this husband. Is it because of a financial need of man? But she is the one who provides him with money, not the other way around; or perhaps an emotional attachment? The fear from the society and all their surface judgments could be another reason why she had to endure. When she has left, her husband asks Adil about her, and Adil replied him saying that “he brought shame to men.”

Society and the social norms have always preached that women’s space is limited in the domestic sphere: the house, it goes even further: kitchen. Besides, woman is expected to be dependent on man, simply because it is the man who is the lord of the house and the means of providence of the whole family. So everyone is under his mercy. In [Karim’s family], however, the standardized traditional spaces are somehow reversed, though the woman remains in the house – kitchen throughout the movie. Yet, it is the woman who is the lady of the house; her husband is very sick and the elder son, Karim, is not capable enough to take the family’s responsibility.

According to the Moroccan standards at least, she is an ideal Moroccan woman. She portrays a good image of a mother as well as a wife. Her husband is so sick, almost disable, and she has three children, among them Karim her elder son. She succeeds in doing her ‘duty’ as a woman in raising a good family.

Usually she gives advice to her son Karim and has authority over him in the kitchen where her voice can “be heard more easily (…) because under the patriarchal division of labor this is the space in which she [as a woman] has the greatest authority.” (Blunt, Alison. Writing Women and Space: colonial and postcolonial geographies. P: 2. 1994.) She encourages her son to get the job by el-Hajj [cleaning fish] to help supporting the family.

A woman taking responsibility in the family is not an easy task. Yet it is common in some Moroccan families. We often hear in the Moroccan society statements like: “a woman with no man is worth nothing.” But in Casanegra we see that the woman is almost everything and the other way around “a man with no woman is worth nothing.”

Karim is aware of the importance of educating girls. He brings an English dictionary to his sister because she needs it for school. Although he was made fun of when was seen with a book in his hands, he didn’t care. He did the impossible to bring the book to his sister. Importantly, it is a dictionary; a book which she would use to explain some complicated terms and concepts. Dictionary is the symbol of knowledge and learning, not any regular book. Likewise, he cares for the education of his little brother; he asks him whether he has gone to school that day. Karim is helping his sister and brother to learn and study, the thing that he seems to have been deprived of and missed.

The mother of Karim has a strong personality, unlike the mother of Adil who is completely submissive. She cares for her family. She cares for the reputation of her family. She does not have a narrow vision. She gives advice to her son. She questions the money that her son gives her; she does not accept whatever is given to her though there is a financial need in the family. Karim kissed her head showing respect; she is like a saint. She is rarely seen in the movie, yet she occupies an extremely important role.

She is not simply a passive woman in her kitchen cooking. She interacts and takes part in her family; she asks about her children and cares about their education, she makes decisions. When she is talking about her son’s friends, Adil, she addresses Karim saying “and you call (Adil) a friend”, this shows that she is not ignorant. She examines the friends of her children. She doesn’t believe the lies of Karim. She has a strong opinion. As a caring mother, she confirms the quote that “while men are concerned with an ‘ethic of justice’, women are more centered on an ‘ethics of care’.” (Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. P. 288) This is not the traditionally known “male-headed” family where there is “mastery” and “superiority”. But I would rather say a “female-headed” family.

As a conclusion of the second part; both women are unnamed. They are different women. One is submissive to her husband and not able to challenge him. The other is capable to take care of the whole family and take part in decision-making and lead a challenging life.

In the conclusion of my analysis of the Casanegra and the representation of women, I conclude that we cannot generalize and universalize Moroccan women experiences and differences. There are different categories of women: Nabila who is leading a Western life and independent from men, Chikha who ignores the society and its power, the good mother and wife who serves her family, and the woman who is re-married.

The women in the film are somehow empowered, Nabila has the power to control the fate of the man, while chikha intrudes the male space. The mother of Karim is not a passive woman who obeys men, but she controls the family. And the mother of Adil, who might look a victim, the fact that she left her husband behind reveals her power. The prostitute, who is defending the homosexual, is very important as well; she sees it as her duty to help the ‘man’. Although the movie has no feminist agenda, but it suggests reconsidering and revising the idea of the passive woman, the woman who is imprisoned in her house, or veil and is disempowered by men.

Read Full Post »

Bab as-sma Maftouh (A Door to the Sky) is a 1988 Moroccan feature film, directed by Farida Benlyazid. The film has been widely watched and written about. In this article I will focus mainly on the issue of gender in the film focusing on the protagonist Nadia, the voice of religion and tradition Kirana and Bahia as a former self of Nadia. In the light of Suzanne Gauch’s article “Now You See It, Now You Don’t: Transnational Feminist Spectatorship and Farida Benlyazid’s A Door to the Sky.”

From the very beginning we understand that the film has a spiritual agenda. The setting is in the Moroccan spiritual city: Fez. The protagonist, Nadia, returns from Paris to Fez where her father lies dying. Soon after, in the funeral, where we see only women, Nadia is wearing a white jellaba and covering her hair and listening to Kirana’s chanting of the Quran. Eventually Nadia develops a close relationship with Kirana, who, interestingly, represents traditions and religion.

Under Kirana’s guidance, Nadia gradually discovers and later embraces her Moroccan Muslim cultural and spiritual heritage, leaving behind the Western French identity, knowing that she was living in France and is from a French mother, which is manifested through breaking up with her French boyfriend. Nadia in the beginning used to smoke and drink alcohol, later we see her praying.

Nadia decides to turn the family house into a zawiya, a shelter and spiritual center for women. Her siblings, however refuse and prefer to sell it because “it needs a lot of restorations.” Towards the end of the film, the spirit of Ba Sissi, an old friend of the family who died years ago, leads Nadia to a treasure buried in the garden, which will allow her to purchase the house. Later Nadia discovers her healing powers as a shrifa (a descendant of the prophet Muhammad), she uses this gift to cure the ill women whose problems are seemingly resolved once they are in the zawiya. Bahia, a hippie-like Moroccan girl, is introduced to the zawiya. Bahia, as Gauch argues, is a reflection of Nadia’s past. Unlike all women in the zawiya who are wearing traditional clothes and veils, Bahia is very westernized coming from France, she speaks French and has tattoos. She is looked down upon in the zawiya, only Nadia who sympathizes with her and invited her to her room.

In the end of the films, Nadia leaves the zawiya because her spirit cannot flourish there. She and Abdelkarim leave the zawiya and the city of Fez.

Benlyazid presents us with a spiritual transnational form of feminism where she develops the protagonist as an individual. She offers a soft version of Islam away from the political radical one. This explains why the film has widely circulated in the West and was praised by western feminists including Ella Shuhat. It is perplexing, however, that the film is not available in Morocco. Gauch similarly argues that the film is for a Western audience where it is recommended to be taught and to be watched by foreigners coming to Morocco. The film, for Gauch, becomes like a tourist guidebook.

Hamid Tbatou, a Moroccan cinema critic, believes that the film folklorizes (and Orientalizes) the Moroccan Culture through architecture, exotic places such as hammams and souks. The film provides images that please and flirt with the western expectations, and presents Islam as little more than magic.


Read Full Post »

I. The double colonization of African women and the ambivalent position of the black feminists

Feminist theory and postcolonial theory have much in common; women and the colonized races and cultures both share the politics of oppression and repression. Women have always been represented and mis-representated in literary texts, and African literature is no exception. Kirsten in her essay “First Things First” opens her argument with a poem called “letter to a Feminist Friend,” by the Malayan poet Felix Mnthali:

I will not pretend

to see the light

in the rhythm of your paragraphs:

illuminated pages

need not contain

and copy-right

on history

My world has been raped


and squeezed

by Europe and America

and I have been scattered

over three continents

to please Europe and America


the women of Europe and America

after drinking and carousing

on my sweat

rise up to castigate

and castrate

their menfolk

from the cushions of a world

I have built!

Why should they be allowed

to come between us?

You and I were slaves together

uprooted and humiliated together

Rapes and lynchings –

the lash of the overseer

and the lust of the slave-owner

do your friends ‘in the movement’

understand these things?

No, no, my sister,

My love,

first things first!

Too many gangsters

still stalk this continent

too many pirates

too many looters

far too many

still stalk this land –

When Africa

at home and across the seas

is truly free

there will be time for me

and time for you

to share the cooking

and change the nappies –

till then,

first things first!

Petersen, Kirsten. “First Things First.” The Post-colonial Studies Reader. Ed. Ashcroft, Griffiths, Tiffin. London: Routledge, 1995. Pp.252, 253.

Omar Sougou comments on this poem saying that it clearly “puts cultural liberation first and attacks Western feminism. It recalls the rape and looting of Africa by Europe and America, from which Euro-American women have profited. The voice considers Western feminism as synonymous with castration, and laments” (Writing across Cultures, p. 22) While Ogundipe debunks “the male-centered perspective of the poem, which phases women out of the victimization of Africa and black people by Western imperialism, and of the social formation itself.” (ibid)

“Women writers are involved in this process of themselves creating and recreating a history within their communities. They address specific issues pertaining to their own social situation, such as gender politics. In their writing, woman as subject is a focal point, but it is dealt with in conjunction with other problems of national interest. It is a truism that African men and women alike are subjected to imperialism, but women are subjected to male dominance on top of this.” (Writing across Cultures. 2002. P. 21). And here Peterson wonders “which comes first, the fight for female equality or the fight against Western cultural imperialism?”

African and black women carry a doube yoke (23). They are confronted with the implications of their need to liberate themselves from societal structures and of societies grappling with imperialism; which leads to an ambivalent position (24). The blackness of African women writers disturbs the mainstream feminist outlook and look, since blackness has always been associated with inferiority.

Kirsten Holst Petersen’s essay “First Things First” addresses the question from this angle. She criticizes Achebe’s treatment of female characters, “his traditional [Ibo] women are happy, harmonious members of the community, even when they are repeatedly beaten and barred from any say in the communal decision-making process and constantly reviled in sayings and proverbs. It would appear that in traditional wisdom behaving like a woman is to behave like an inferior being.” Petersen, Kirsten. “First Things First.” The Post-colonial Studies Reader. Ed. Ashcroft, Griffiths, Tiffin. London: Routledge, 1995. P. 253.

Kirsten focuses on Ngugi. This writer earns her approval for his radical view of the position of women, whose exploitation he links to their class or colonial exploitation (Writing across Cultures, p. 21). Kristen states that “Ngugi’s ideological starting point seems to me ideal.” ‘No cultural liberation without women’s liberation’ (Petersen, Kirsten. “First Things First.” The Post-colonial Studies Reader. Ed. Ashcroft, Griffiths, Tiffin. London: Routledge, 1995. P. 254). She stresses the role of women as active agents in contributing to liberate their society from imperialism, which will, she believes, be fruitful.

II. Spivak’s ‘Critique of Imperialism’ and the notion of ‘feminist individualism’

Imperialism is seen as England’s social mission. And the 19th century British literature plays an effective role in the production of cultural representation and imperial project, which “should not be ignored”, as Spivak states in her essay “Three Women’s Texts and a Critique of Imperialism” (1985). Spivak, the postcolonialist and feminist theorist rejects imperialism, because, like patriarchy, is a phallocentric, supremacist ideology that subjugates and dominates its subjects. The oppressed woman is in this sense similar to the colonized subject. She offers sustained intellectual critique against the domination of western colonialist thought and structures.

In the previously mentioned essay, Spivak examines three novels by women: Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre, Jean Rhys’ Wide Sargasso Sea and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; basically to reveal the manner in which imperialist ideology structures the expression of 19th century feminist individualism. Spivak argues that the feminist ‘program’ of Jane Eyre, which has become a ‘cult text of feminism’, is also closely allied with imperialist ideology. “Sympathetic U. S. feminists have remarked that I do not do justice to Jane Eyre’s subjectivity. (…) feminist individualism in the age of imperialism, is precisely the making of human beings, the constitution and ‘interpellation’ of the subject not only as individual but as ‘individualist.’” (Spivak, Gayatri. “Three Women’s Texts and a Critique of Imperialism.” 1985, p. 244) “As the female individualist, not-quite/not-male, articulates herself in shifting relationship to what is at stake, the ‘native female’ as such… is excluded from any share in this emerging norm…  In a reading such as mine … the effort is to wrench oneself away from the mesmerizing focus… of the female individualist.” (Ibid, pp. 244- 245)

She gives ‘worlding’ as an alternative to the so called ‘the Third World’ which connotes the inferiority of the “native” who is considered as object for enthusiastic information- retrieval and thus denying its own ‘worlding’. The notion of ‘the Third World’ connotes a classification of the world into First, Second and Third, and of course from a Western perspective. She goes further to criticize feminists who reproduce the axioms of imperialism.

“We must rather strategically take shelter in an essentialism which, not wishing to lose the important advantages won by U.S. main-stream feminism, will continue to honor the suspect binary oppositions-book and author, individual and history-and start with an assurance of the following sort: my readings here do not seek to undermine the excellence of the individual artist.” (Spivak, Gayatri. “Three Women’s Texts and a Critique of Imperialism.” 1985, p. 244). Spivak puts the feminist “cannons” into question. They universalize their western feminist experience. They homogenize using ‘WE’!!

Read Full Post »