Islamophobic rhetoric becomes hardest to challenge when feminist spokespersons adopt it

Evidence

However, the picture is more complicated, and anti-Muslim neoconservative rhetoric can be difficult to separate from secular feminist discourse that sometimes but not always aligns itself with neoconservative agendas regarding Islam and Muslim communities. It is at the more complicated intersections, when secular American feminists decide to become spokespersons for Muslim women and against their oppression, that Islamophobic rhetoric and expression becomes somewhat more difficult to debate. Well-intentioned and yet patronizing discourses on “white women saving brown women from brown men” abound and have a distinct history of their own. — Carl W. Ernst, Islamophobia in America_ The Anatomy of…, 560

Categorization

• XREF: Spivak’s ‘white men saving brown women from brown men’ and Abu-Lughod’s ‘Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?’ — both named echoes; also reads as the ‘frightened/imperial subject’ pivot the reader is tracing. — connects to: Feminist group’s mere office-sharing triggered the smear branding Almontaser a jihadist
• SEED: The ‘hard case’ for dismantling Islamophobia: when should sincere allyship claims be treated as machinery feeding the discourse? An essay on adjudicating good-faith feminism from imperial feminism.