news

woo hoo, la chola is back online!

and INCITE! launches a new website!

boycott nestle

find out why on the baby milk action site

nonviolence again: activism and women's roles

here's another book on a subject i touched on in the "nonviolence, a dangerous idea" post:

from where we stand:
war, women's activism and feminist analysis
by cynthia cockburn

the description sounds great:

Why do so many women organize against militarism and war? And why, very often, do they choose to do so in women-only groups? This original study, the product of 80,000 miles of travel by the author over a two-year period, examines women’s activism against wars as far apart as Sierra Leone, Colombia and India. It shows women on different sides of conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Israel, refusing racism, enmity and collective guilt, working together for peace with justice. It describes transnational networks of women opposing US and Western European militarism and the so-called ’war on terror’.

Women are often motivated by adverse experiences in the male-dominated anti-war movements, preferring to choose different methods of protest and remain in control of their own actions. But like the mainstream movements, women’s groups differ. They debate pacifism - must justice come before peace? They differ on nationalism, some condemning it as a cause of war, others seeing it as a legitimate source of identity. Yet despite women’s many different perspectives on war a coherent feminism emerges from the movement, and it suggests a radical shift in our understanding of war, linking the violence of patriarchal power to that of class oppression and ethnic ’othering’.

Contents: Introduction 1. Different wars, women’s responses 2. Against imperialist wars: three transnational networks 3. Disloyal to nation and state: antimilitarist women in Serbia 4. A refusal of othering: Palestinian and Israeli women 5. Achievements and contradictions: WILPF and the UN 6. Methodology of women’s protest 7. Towards coherence: pacifism, nationalism, racism 8. Choosing to be ’women’: what war says to feminism 9. Gender, violence and war: what feminism says to war studies

from zed books, via resistingwomen.net, via londonfeministnetwork

it's entirely relevant here, but i wanted anyway to quote this pretty concise and excellent column written by rosemarie radford ruther, whose views on feminism and peace i mentioned in that other post - this is also important history to know, and it raises several important issues to keep in mind:

Feminism must rediscover pacifist roots

In the first feminist movement in 19th century America, it was widely assumed that feminism and peace were closely connected. This view was rooted in the Quaker theology of early feminists, such as Sarah and Angelina Grimke and Lucretia Mott. In this Quaker theology the original equality and harmony between men and women was broken by the “usurpation of power of some over others.”

From this original sin of usurped power flowed all forms of oppression and violence: slavery, male domination of women and war. In this Quaker take on original sin, it was not women who were scapegoated for the sin of “disobedience,” but rather dominating men who were blamed for seizing unjust power over others.

This did not mean that Quakers thought that women were simply innocents in this primal sin of dominating power. Women had been distorted into passive dependents and ruling class men into aggressive oppressors. Conversion meant a transformation of both men and women. Women were enabled to “stand upright on that ground which God has designed for us to occupy,” as Sarah Grimke put it in one of her 1837 letters “On the Equality of the Sexes and the Condition of Women.” Men overcame the patterns of violence and abusive power for mutual partnership with women. Liberating all peoples from slavery, blacks, women, Indians and overcoming war, were linked together.

This link between feminism and peace continued in American feminism through the 19th and into the 20th centuries. Some men argued that the goal of suffrage, women’s vote, was illegitimate because the right to vote and to defend one’s country in war were linked together. Since women didn’t go to war, it followed that they also could not exercise the vote. Leading feminist pacifists, such as Jane Addams, replied to this claim by asserting that war itself was a barbaric and outdated way of settling conflict between nations. Civilized nations should settle disputes through negotiation and arbitration, not war. It was the task of women, once they acquired the vote, to use it to end war. Addams founded the Women’s Peace Party in 1915 to carry forth this task.

When women won the vote in the 18th Amendment, this movement was renamed the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. This organization became consciously international, creating links between newly enfranchised women in America and Europe. They looked to the League of Nations as the place where arbitration might replace war as a way to settle international disputes. They themselves sought to create public conversations between women on different sides of conflicts, such as English and Irish women. Their rule was that women on the more victimized side of a conflict should define the issues and women on the more aggressive side listen and try to understand their views. Through this process they developed proposals they sent to the League of Nations, in hopes of serving as models for conflict resolution.

This world of early 20th century feminist-pacifism seems very far away from us now, as the rule of violence as the only way to settle conflict drowns out all other voices. The idea that the ultimate goal of feminism is to end war has been almost entirely forgotten. During the Gulf War in 1991 we were treated to scenes of women military pilots kissing their children goodbye as they went off to war. Young girls vindicating their right to attend military academies against male-only traditions were hailed as the cutting edge of feminist progress. The military touted its own progress in teaching men to accept women as equals in the military. In Afghanistan, the United States justified the success of its military assault in part through picturing Afghan women happily shedding their burqas, although there was no interest in Afghan women’s oppression before we started to make war on this country.

Feminism has perhaps long been divided between two different goals. For many the primary goal is simply dissolving those male-exclusionary traditions that prevent women from entering any profession they want. In this view of feminism, women becoming equals with men as warriors would seem to be the last frontier to be breached. As war becomes less and less hand-to-hand combat and more and more technological, the goal of which is to kill “them” without putting any of “us” “in harm’s way,” clearly women can push those buttons as readily as men.

But for many of us getting women to do the same things as men, while also doing most of the child care and housework, has never been the goal of feminism. Rather the guiding vision is one of a deeper transformation of both men and women. The underlying patterns and cultures of violence and oppression need to be transformed into relations of mutuality. Feminism is integrally linked to anti-racism, ecology and peace because all these movements have to do with changing the patterns of relationship from exploitative abuse of some by others to just and harmonious mutuality.

This is a vision that constantly gets lost for short-term goals. Equality is interpreted as a few of the excluded being included in the same exploitative activities as the present dominators. This is touted as overcoming racism or sexism.

This, of course, never ends exploitation, but simply includes a few token outsiders on the inside or creates new outsiders. In a system based on exploitation, most people must fall on the side of the exploited so that the few can benefit excessively. This is the basic nature of structures of antagonism, which we constantly deny in our claims that we are progressing toward “equality.” As earlier feminist-pacifists understood clearly, one can only end violence and abuse by changing the whole system that privileges some at the expense of others.

This message needs to be remembered today, now more than ever.

finally, this report from a war resisters' international conference called "asking the right questions: gender and nonviolence" is also full of useful ideas on the topic: web version | pdf version.

i will come back with a review of from where we stand, after i've read it.

speaking of consumption...

The Story of Stuff will take you on a provocative tour of our consumer-driven culture — from resource extraction to iPod incineration — exposing the real costs of our use-it and lose-it approach to stuff.

ch. 1 - introduction


ch. 2 - extraction


ch. 3 - production


ch. 4 - distribution


ch. 5 - consumption


ch. 6 - disposal


ch. 7 - another way

The movie is just the beginning of the story.
Share it, learn more and get involved.

jack writes about s.o.s. at angrybrownbutch and on feministe (see comments).

the s.o.s. blog is here.

on sustainability of meat consumption and veganism

i never put a link to it here, but this year's report from worldwatch institute (state of the world 2008: innovations for a sustainable economy) includes a chapter titled "meat and seafood: the global diet's most costly ingredients" (pdf). a sampling:

... For the poor, whose diets might be confined to starchy staple crops, meat and seafood bring both increased status and added nutrition. For the wealthy, a meal is not complete unless it includes chicken, pork, or beef, while health-conscious consumers often replace the traditional meat serving with tuna, swordfish, or some other seafood. But consumers need to rethink their relationship with all these foods in order to keep them on the menus in fine restaurants as well as on the plates of people in the developing world.

Under this new food paradigm, people will need to reconsider the place of meat in their diets. Raising animals outdoors on grass will necessarily mean that there are fewer of them to eat, and higher prices for sustainably and humanely raised meat will mean shifting this from the center of each meal. The same is true for seafood. Fish, especially the big, carnivorous species, will not be as readily available, and consumers will have to eat fewer of them and more of certain other fish. Chefs, large food buyers, and consumers will need to explore less well known fish species and choose seafood that is lower on the marine food chain.

Many consumers are giving up meat altogether as the health and environmental benefits of doing so become clearer. And it is becoming easier to obtain meat alternatives. Researchers at the Vrije University of Amsterdam, for example, are developing alternative meats based on peas and other legumes that are highly nutritious, extremely economical, easy to prepare, and—perhaps most important—tasty. And consumer perception of these products has been positive, especially when people learn more about how their meat is raised and the ecological impact of raising animals in a densely populated nation like the Netherlands.

While the growth of industrial meat and seafood production is likely inevitable in the developing world, livestock producers and fishers everywhere have an opportunity to improve meat and seafood. When it comes to producing meat, eggs, milk, and seafood, bigger does not necessarily mean better—or even more profitable.

For both meat and seafood, eating lower on the food chain generally reduces the harm done by these products. In the case of fish, the smaller, herbivorous species (shellfish, anchovies, catfish, and tilapia) are less endangered and fished in a less destructive way than the larger, carnivorous species (tuna, swordfish, and shark). For meat, eating fewer animal products in general and eating eggs, beef, pork, and chicken from animals raised on a natural diet of grass is healthier for people, for the animals, and for the environment. ...

it's all very reasonably and convincingly argued. of course, the ultimate answer given by worldwatch is that there is such a thing as ethical "meat and seafood" consumption (personal nitpick: you know, seafood is meat too), which might be sustainable for the planet. but there's no question that the overwhelming push should still be to minimize all that consumption and to encourage various agricultural practices diametrically opposed to what the animal industries are pursuing right now. and i concur.

in a similar vein and tying in the recent food riots, there's this article by george monbiot: "the pleasures of the flesh. if you care about hunger, eat less meat."

i agree with these arguments and the worldwatch position. but i also agree with this excellent essay from an animal-friendly life (written for earth day this year):

... Now, as people are becoming more aware, one of the greatest environmental moves we can make is to consume less, period. And because vegan diets generally require one fourth the energy as meat-based diets, that is similar to switching from an SUV to a Prius. ...

... if everyone was vegetarian, apparently we'd be able to accommodate 8 billion people on planet earth. Not sure what that world would look like but, then, 8 billion vegetarians don't seem likely any time soon. Perhaps this is why you hear some people arguing the need to go vegan for the environment. Vegans more fully offset meat-eaters, or so the thinking might go. Certainly I don't fault those of us with the luxury of controlling their diets for adopting veganism out of environmental and social justice reasons (though I can count on one hand the people I've met who've considered this their sole purpose for being vegan).

After all, nearly a billion people on this planet lack food security, and riots in Egypt, Haiti and elsewhere are bringing the problem into sharp relief. Meanwhile, China and India are rapidly increasing their intake of animal products, with China recently surpassing total U.S. consumption, which has been relatively more stable in recent years, if absurdly high. The neediest on our planet are becoming even more directly harmed by the consumption habits of the wealthiest, as 760 million tons of grain is fed to animals instead of directly to humans, not to mention the 100 million tons of grain being diverted for biofuels this year.

There can be no question that more hunger can be alleviated with a given quantity of grain by completely eliminating animals [from the food production process]. About 2,000 pounds of concentrates [grains] must be supplied to livestock in order to produce enough meat and other livestock products to support a person for a year, whereas 400 pounds of grain (corn, wheat, rice, soybeans, etc.) eaten directly will support a person for a year. Thus, a given quantity of grain eaten directly will feed 5 times as many people as it will if it is first fed to livestock and then is eaten indirectly by humans in the form of livestock products... -- M. E. Ensminger, Ph.D., former Department of Animal Science Chairman at Washington State University

So, hey, it's understandable if you want to go vegan for environmental and social justice reasons. According to Plan B 3.0, a vegan diet is more sustainable than even a Mediterranean diet. It's just that I don't see many true eco-vegans. Veganism isn't a costume you step into when you feel like being trendy. What's to keep a self-described environmentalist from eating a steak carved from the body of an organic, free range, locally raised sentient being as part of a special occasion? After all, there's no harm in doing so once in a while, right?

Well, maybe not environmentally. That is, if we listen to Michael Pollan, George Monbiot and the others clamoring for us to rush down the "food chain" (only not too far). But of course there is harm in eating animals, and that's where we get into animal ethics... It is good that growing environmental awareness is prompting so many people to examine the consequences of their choices, particularly with respect to the growing appreciation for the impact of their food choices. But, if we want people to go vegan--and to stay vegan--ultimately it's got to be about the animals. ...

(do read the whole thing)

racism in sports, campaign against roma discrimination

the following press release is from a couple of weeks ago, but this is an ongoing campaign that's making great strides (h/t to crina for the links):

On April 20, 2008, around 900 people participated in a run against xenophobia, racism and discrimination on the streets of Bucharest. The event, organized by the European Roma Grassroots Organisation, the Italian Union Sports for All and the Open Society Institute’s Roma Initiative Office, was called “Run against Racism and Discrimination” and formed part of the largest intercultural run in the world, Vivicitta. The event was also an initiative within the Decade of Roma Inclusion.

The main focus of the event in Bucharest was to raise awareness about the xenophobic incidents at the end of 2007 in Italy which led to an unwanted increase in interethnic tension between Italians and Romanians.

further info on the ERGO site

--
for background and details on the campaign:

The "Racism Breaks the Game" campaign, started in Romania in 2006, approaches the issue of racism through sports. Because football is the most popular game in Europe, associating anti-racist messages with football offers a way to reach a wide audience and achieve a significant impact.

The main idea behind this campaign is to disseminate a general anti-racism message—one that, in contrast with Roma-focused campaigns, has the potential to be supported by a large majority—and to introduce a visible, but not explicit, Roma element.

to download the video clip and for more information about "breaking the game" and its achievements so far, see the decade of roma inclusion site.

having seen the bad shit

another great woc blog [blackamazon's having read the fine print...] is down.

and it's a damn shame and a damn loss for everyone.

... meanwhile, those who don't have reasons to feel treated unfairly, offended, ignored, disrespected - those who are not the ones despairing and/or just plain sick and tired - those remain; they can get away with only a tiny amount of damage control, but in the end it's no skin off their nose, really. (and they can rest assured they'll still be able to count on all the "love and respect" they just don't deserve at this point - no matter how unforgivably they've treated others and how badly they continue to fuck up at this movement thing.)

so what else is new?

hunger, poverty, population growth...

the latest from the e2 - eye on earth | worldwatch institute blog:

"in the philippines, less of what women want" by r. engelman

One of the dozens of countries around the world where hunger is back in the news is the Philippines, where soaring rice prices and long-standing reliance on imported food are raising an old question many people thought was buried for good: Does population growth eventually run into the limits of food production?

In More: Population, Nature, and What Women Want, I suggest this question will never be put to rest - not, at least, until populations stop growing. And, in fact, the recent surge in food prices is beginning to spur stories in the news media suggesting that population growth is indeed an important factor-perhaps especially in the Philippines. See, for example, this recent story by David Montero in The Christian Science Monitor. But let's leave that debate aside for a later blog, and focus for a moment on another aspect of human numbers in the Philippines.

The country's high population growth rate of 2 percent annually stems in large part from governmental hostility to modern contraception. That point is documented in another recent newspaper story, this one by Blaine Harden of The Washington Post. It's hard to believe that in 2008 a national government would try to quell the use of oral contraceptive pills, IUDS, and condoms. Most women and their partners around the world use these devices, and most sexually active people in wealthy countries take their availability for granted. ...

more on access to contraception in the phillippines (and here)

about the worldwide food riots (or here)

later add (h/t feministe):

food is a feminist issue @ diary of an anxious black woman

the rising cost of food = very real hunger @ feminocracy

nonviolence, the most dangerous idea

i recently finished nonviolence: the history of a dangerous idea by mark kurlansky.

a main point advanced by the book, and one that i find immensely important and compelling is that human societies have never had a word for "nonviolence" that's positive as opposed to adding a negation to the word for violence. it's a very simple observation with huge implications. we obviously think of violence as the default condition - and stop short at imagining anything else... what's more, when faced with this "something else" we consider it uncomfortable and dangerous.

the 11 chapters are as follows:

i. imperfect beings
ii. the problem with states
iii. the killer peace movement
iv. troublemakers
v. the dilemma of unnatural people
vi. natural revolution
vii. peace and slavery
viii. the curse of nations
ix. a favorite just war
x. the rule of thugs and the law of gravity
xi. random outbreaks of hope

and at the end, kurlansky provides a summary with these 25 "lessons":

1. there is no proactive word for nonviolence.
2. nations that build military forces as deterrents will eventually use them.
3. practitioners of nonviolence are seen as enemies of the state.
4. once a state takes over a religion, the religion loses its non-violent teachings.
5. a rebel can be defanged and co-opted by making him a saint after he is dead.
6. somewhere behind every war there are always a few founding lies.
7. a propaganda machine promoting hatred always has a war waiting in the wings.
8. people who go to war start to resemble their enemy.
9. a conflict between a violent force and a nonviolent force is a moral argument. If the violent side can provoke the nonviolent side into violence, the violent side has won.
10. the problem lies not in the nature of man but in the nature of power.
11. the longer a war lasts, the less popular it becomes.
12. the state imagines it is impotent without a military because it cannot conceive of power without force.
13 it is often not the largest but the best organized and most articulate group that wins.
14. all debate momentarily ends with an "enforced silence" once the first shots are fired.
15. a shooting war is not necessary to overthrow an established power but is used to consolidate the revolution itself.
16. violence does not resolve. It always leads to more violence.
17. warfare produces peace activists. A group of veterans is a likely place to find peace activists.
18. people motivated by fear do not act well.
19. while it is perfectly feasible to convince a people faced with brutal repression to rise up in a suicidal attack on their oppressor, it is almost impossible to convince them to meet deadly violence with nonviolent resistance.
20. wars do not have to be sold to the general public if they can be carried out by an all-volunteer professional military.
21. once you start the business of killing, you just get "deeper and deeper," without limits.
22. violence always comes with a supposedly rational explanation – which is only dismissed as irrational if the violence fails.
23. violence is a virus that infects and takes over.
24. the miracle is that despite all of society’s promotion of warfare, most soldiers find warfare to be a wrenching departure from their own moral values.
25. the hard work of beginning a movement to end war has already been done.

it's probably one of the most currently relevant, interesting and well-constructed historical analyses you will find. reading this work, i revisited some concepts and ways in which nonviolence has been applied in the past... and at the same time, i learned new things about the history of nonviolent resistance - for instance, about bacha khan, a muslim pashtun indian and pacifist, collaborator of gandhi's though much lesser-known (in many ways his background and approach diverged from gandhi's - but he was as dedicated to nonviolence) or about te whiti o rongomai and the nonviolent struggle he led against the confiscation of maori land by the new zealand government in the 19th century.

which brings me to a significant criticism i have towards this book: it's structured around the work and personalities of a few "heroes." it makes sense that it would be, as this is simply the typical way of looking at history... but given how this book's very project is to offer an atypical look at history, at what "counts" and who "wins" and why, i found it pretty jarring. howard zinn was able to do things somewhat differently in his a people's history of the united states... or jamaica kincaid with her history of antigua in a small place...

and this is where my second major criticism of the book comes in: from the premise of the project as a criticism of social interactions being defined by those who conquer and subdue to the analysis of the ways in which nonviolent resisters have been viewed by the majority and ultimately trivialized, gender issues are always just beyond the surface of much of what's being said in this book... however, kurlansky never touches upon that explicitly. very little space is given to any nonviolent resistance by women - and there's no analysis of the intersections between violence, militarism, war etc. and gender. and that's a pretty mindboggling omission.

i think wilpf is mentioned once. and it's not nearly enough, especially as there's nothing on ecofeminist history, no exploration of women's roles in peace and pacifism and the gender-dimension of war (or other accepted aggression) at all.

just one resource (a recent link that was brought to my attention, actually):
"war and gender: how gender shapes the war system and viceversa"

ps: i was very happy to see dave dellinger mentioned quite extensively! in 2000, i attended a talk of his, which he followed up with this great article: "if you love peace, hate injustice" [starting on p. 3 of the pdf]... and, yeah, he's a perfect example: we'd be in such a different place now if our history were defined by people like him and their work, by vvaw, and kathy kelly and voices in the wilderness, and the narmada bahao andolan, and women in black, and act up, and the ruckus society, and fight like a girl!, and nuns protesting at missile sites or civil disobedience in support of the e.r.a., and greenham common, and the catholic worker movement, and refuseniks, and women of zimbabwe arise. the list - oftentimes without specific names of leaders and heroes - goes on!

some more nonviolence resources

other bibliographies @:

• peace education | nonviolence
• "women and peace" course syllabus
• eve online ecofeminist-friendly books 1 and 2
• "ecofeminism: historic and international developments"

pps: i'm not going to discuss the other obvious connection that his book failed to address: the intersection between the history of nonviolence and the histories of vegetarianism and environmental justice activism... instead, i'll just suggest that it be read in parallel with the heretic's feast by colin spencer and earth democracy: justice, sustainability and peace by vandana shiva.

-----
and to link this subject to the last few posts, on the dangers of appropriating other people's movements, of trivializing issues and causing real harm through blindness to privilege, but also to stress the importance of true solidarity, dedicated alliance building and nonviolence-as-action, i recommend the essay "privilege, non-violence and security" by noel sturgeon; a few extracts:

I want to concentrate here on the idea of privilege and its relation to knowledge, to consciousness. Originally, that is essentially what this article was going to be about, to explore why white middle-class ecofeminism, often in well-meaning ways, repeatedly appropriates the environmental activism of women of color and poor women. Problematically, I think, ecofeminism often assimilates that activism to an idea-list understanding of women united to save the environment which obliterates the class and race divisions which may matter most to women of color environ-mentalist activists. ... I wanted to make that analysis more contemporary by applying it to the coalition work we see in the present anti-corporate globalization movement, to warn against assuming that ecofeminism is a welcome label to Third World activists, because of this history of white ecofeminist appropriation. I intended to explore how white privilege can operate to prevent those of us who are white feminist environmentalists from thoroughly understanding the ways in which environmentalism for non-dominant others is so deeply entwined with questions of economic justice. And I wanted to critique the tendency of some U.S. feminists to continuously and ruinously present "classism" as though it is a matter of personal prejudice rather than a structural foundation for other forms of inequality. I hoped that this analysis would help us to move away from understanding the problems we face in ways that reduce inequality and injustice to mistakes of feeling, politics of identity, abstractions, or ideologies rather than effective, concrete systems of exploitation and profit from which many of us benefit.

Nonviolence is the key to social change, to feminist environmentalism, but it must be a militant nonviolence, an uncompromising nonviolence, a persistent nonviolence, a massive nonviolence. It must be a nonviolence on the side of liberation movements against colonialism, against economic exploitation, against environmental catastrophe. We must recommit ourselves to nonviolence, to remember and revitalize the feminist analysis of the connections between violence, masculinism, brutality, economic exploitation, and oppression. We must reject the puerile imitation by protestors of police and security forces, under the illusion that meeting force with force is efficacious. Yet we must insist on the importance of the difference between human beings and property, and not give in to the idea that all protest is violence, that non-violence is never angry, never furious, never militant, never causes discomfort.

"Your security depends upon peace for every being on the planet. Your life is connected to all life on earth. What you do has ripples around the world. You need to know everything about how different people are living today, the rich, the poor, and the in-between, and to make sure that you are not benefiting, even indirectly, from someone else’s pain. If you find that you are, you need to work with like-minded people to reject those benefits, stop that pain, right the wrongs done in your name. But never accept the idea that you must cause pain and suffering, death and destruction, in the name of justice. A great woman, Audre Lorde, once said: ‘The Master’s tools will never dismantle the Master’s house.’ And another, Alice Walker, said: ‘Only Justice will stop a curse.’ ... I am joined in this resolve by millions of other committed people in this world. It is the greatest work we have ever done together. And we must succeed."

indeed, one of the essential points when it comes to nonviolence (a point that kurlansky stresses also) is the distinction between nonviolence and passivity. the very idea that advocating non-violence is neccesarrily equivalent to being passive, and especially the automatic disdain towards nonviolence based on the assumption that only violence can constitute true action, enables the violence-begetting-more-violence vicious circle of the patriarchal status quo. of course, in a context where our social systems rely on maintaining society's tacit acceptance of the superiority of anything considered instrinsically masculine, that which challenges violence (as the most "masculine" trait of all) must be put down or made invisible - and what better way of doing that than reducing it to a uniquely "feminine" trait?! by calling all nonviolence "passivity," violence is glorified all over again. counter-violence as a tactic is obvious and, yes, sometimes imperative in a society that oppresses and terrorizes the most vulnerable of its people through violence, but it's simply not true - as history has shown - that the only option we have at our disposal is fighting fire with fire, nor that the violent way works better than other options towards producing lasting change (in his book, kurlansky explores this point a bit - for instance in relation to the effectiveness of violent vs. nonviolent resistance to nazi persecution of jewish people). at their core, both the anti-sexist and anti-violence movement arise from a critique of the patriarchal way of doing things - establishing hierarchies of worth among people and systematically relying on violence towards those at the bottom in order to keep these hierarchies in place. which can only work if everyone agrees that violence is legitimate as long as it's used by the "right side." and that means we have a paradigm in which hierarchies are natural, and one side must dominate. as rosemary ruether details in "feminism and peace":

The exaltation of war in male culture has typically been accompanied by a strident sexism. The slogan of the Italian fascist writer Filippo Marinetti in the 1930s, "We are out to glorify war, the only health-giver of the world, militarism, patriotism, ideas that kill, contempt for women," vividly illustrates the emotional and ideological connections between supermasculinity, violence and negation of women or the "feminine." In macho mythology, women stand for a feared weakness, passivity and vulnerability which must be purged and exorcised from the male psyche through the rituals of war. Feminists have pointed Out the close connection between military indoctrination and sexism typical of the U.S. Army’s basic training. A key element in the rhetoric of basic training is the put-down of women, and, by implication, all that might be "womanish" in the recruit who is being trained. The recruit is shamed by being called a "girl" or a "faggot," thereby inculcating a terror of his own feelings and sensitivities. Through his assault on his fears of weakness, a psychic numbing takes place which is then intended to be turned into aggressiveness toward a dehumanized "enemy."

The emotional identification of the male sexual organ and the gun is a recurring theme in basic training rhetoric. The U.S. Army training jingle "This is my rifle [slapping rifle]; this is my gun [slapping crotch]. The one is for killing; the other’s for fun" makes the psychological connection between violence and sexual dehumanization of women clear. The role of rape or the capture of women as part of the spoils of war can be illustrated by virtually every war in recorded history, not the least of which was the Winter Soldier Investigation of combined rape and violence toward captured Vietnamese women in the war in Southeast Asia. Patriarchy turns the sexual relationship into a power relationship, a relationship of conquest and domination. Women are the currency of male prowess, to be protected and displayed on the one hand; to be ravished and "blown away" on the other. The linking of male sexuality to aggression is the root of both patriarchy and war.For many contemporary feminists, the response of women to male violence cannot simply be a contrary assertion of feminine values of love and nurture. These qualities themselves have become distorted in female socialization into timidity and vulnerability. Women are not so much peacemakers within the present order as they are repressed into passive "kept women." They acquiesce to male violence in the home and accept it in society. The first step for women, therefore, is to throw off these shackles of fear and lack of self-confidence. Feminists have pointed out that, although most women are of slighter build than most men, physique does not mean that women need be passive victims to every random male assault. Training in martial arts could equip women to defend themselves in many situations. Women who have gone through such training find that the greatest gain is a new sense of self-esteem. They no longer feel helpless before the possibility of attack. In the very way they now carry themselves, they signal to the male world that they are no longer an easy prey.

True nonviolence must be based, first of all, on a secure sense of one’s own value as a human being. Violence toward others, far from being an expression of self-worth, is based on a repression of one’s sense of vulnerability which then translates into hostility toward others. The most violent men are those with the deepest fears of their own impotence. Training in nonviolence must be based on spiritual or personal development and empowerment of the self. An empowered self will not accept its own degradation, or that of others.

At this point, it becomes possible to forge new links between feminism and peace. Feminism fundamentally rejects the power principle of domination and subjugation. It rejects the concept of power which says that one side’s victory must be the other side’s defeat. Feminism must question social structures based on this principle at every level, from the competition of men and women in personal relationships to the competition of the nations of the globe ... We seek an alternative power principle of empowerment in community rather than power over and disabling of others. Such enabling in community is based on a recognition of the fundamental interconnectedness of life, of men and women, blacks and whites, Americans and Nicaraguans, Americans and Russians, humans and the nonhuman community of animals, plants, air and water. Nobody wins unless all win. Warmaking has reached such a level of destructiveness that the defeat of one side means the defeat of all, the destruction of the earth itself. Feminism today sees its links with the cause of human survival and the survival of the planet itself.

Biophilic values, therefore, cannot remain the preserve of women or women’s supposed special "nature" or ethics. As historic victims of violence and repression, as well as those socialized to cultivate supportive roles -- but in a disempowered sphere -- women may have a particular vantage point on the issue. But they are not immune to expressions of hostility, chauvinism, racism or warmongering, even if their role has more often been to be the backup force for the main fighters. Conversion to a new sense of self that wills the good of others in a community of life must transform traditional women as well as traditional men.

Both feminism and peacemaking need to be grounded in an alternative vision of the authentic self and human community ... we must oppose all social systems that create wealth and privilege for some by impoverishing, degrading or eliminating other people, whether they be the systems of domination that repress or assault women, or the systems that plan nuclear annihilation in a futile search for security based on competitive world power. Only on the basis of such an alternative vision can men and women join together to rebuild the earth.

-----
edited to add: 3 relevant articles from the latest issue of Feminist Review:

• "The gendered embroilments of war"
  
• "'New wars' and gendered economies"
  
• "Gender, war and militarism: making and questioning the links"
  

various vegan goodness - and teese!

1. random goodness

[fried breaded tofu and asparagus with lemon-mustard-pinenut sauce]


[chocolate cake with pecan-coconut-caramel cream]


[grilled marinated tofu, bellpepper, onion and mushroom shish kabobs]


[fajita filling made from the BBQ left overs, fried with rice and spices]


2. different pizzas with the new yummy melty vegan cheese TEESE inspired by mozzarella di buffala - all made by f., who's from the land of m.d.b.:

1st trial

[fresh plum tomatoes and arugula]


[pizza margherita with arugula]


[zucchini]


2nd trial

[mushrooms and mashed potatoes - this pizza rules the world]


[fresh tomatoes and arugula again]


[margherita with chilli, marinated mushrooms and arugula]

before going in the oven:


after:





[BONUS: pizza fritta = fried bread = deliciousness personified]

not "a feminist" but advocating feminism

thinking about this and a bunch of related discussions, i realize it's time for my annual "i advocate feminist movement, not 'feminist' as some kind of label" moment (a la bell hooks). from me last year:

this is such an amazing post! the whole thing. and it's so relevant to the question of who is/isn't a feminist, and why. i think i might stop using "being a feminist" as a meaningful term and only say "supporting feminist movement" or "advocating feminism" when needed or applicable. i did this before, and always used to make a point of NOT making the statement "i'm a feminist" in any exclusionary way, because i truly believe that feminism is not a club. i suppose at some point i got all optimistic and careless with that - or perhaps felt forced back into it by post-/anti-feminism. but the card-carrying club-belonging just-right-behaving thing seems quite strong among "feminists" these days. and so many concerns are forgotten, so many women condescended to, so many voices silenced or cut or disregarded. especially on the internet. but also in real life activism, which i saw recently - maybe when i have some time i'll get into that, as i have thoughts.

or this: "story and critique time" - which is also about the damage done by the whole concept of feminism as membership to a club and my own point about radical feminist movement as dependent on extending solidarity and compassion.

which in turn reminded me of a post from a while ago, with some really relevant quotes from gloria anzaldua on alliance making, movement building, shifting power etc., elaborated around the following essential points:

• passionate rationality as impetus for action towards social change
• necessity of both rational and emotional action
• politics of emotions and political context of personal experience
• injustice as emotional and political wounds, alliance making as healing wounds
• importance of openness and working out of personal problems
• covertly exercising power over someone by “stepping on” them
• moving out of conditioned oppressor/oppressed roles as both personal and political act
• addressing power dynamics by evaluating the positions from which you/others speak
• personal perspective as “mouth with feet”; “speaking from where you’re standing”

as well as these from a text on indymedia (and gender) but generally applicable:

• new/feminist definition of power as “power with/to”, not power over
• ability to have a “voice” as indication of level of power held or exercised
• mind/body, public/private, political/personal dichotomies are based on “gender discourse”
• further, gender discourse plays a role in devaluing the “feminine” end of these dichotomies
  

  "... challenging gender discourse requires more than making sure that women’s voices are heard. It must also include an analysis and understanding about how certain ways of thinking become devalued and silenced, an active recognition of these patterns and processes, and the presentation of alternatives that can challenge them."

- "give me passionate rationality"

update: blackamazon's post linked above is no longer available as she took down her blog, unfortunately.

further reading:

• lots of good food for thought, and a take on privilege/oppression that's similar to the gloria anzaldua analysis mentioned above (with reference to work by patricia j. williams): "Talking About Privilege" @ reality-based ravings of a suburban revolutionary


• about the limits of the term "patriarchy" - and "kyriarchy" as a better word that explicitly recognizes the existence if interlocking oppressions (word coined by feminist theologian elisabeth schussler fiorenza): "Accepting Kyriarchy, Not Apologies" @ A Womyn's Ecdysis

it's about movement building and justice

prologue -- must-read text: "on prisons, borders, safety, and privilege: an open letter to white feminists" by jessica hoffmann

so. a prominent feminist blogger (amanda of pandagon) writes a story about sexism affecting immigrant women in the u.s. - an important issue that's been under the radar on big (white) feminist blogs while others like brownfemipower (of women of color blog/la chola) have been covering it faithfully and thoroughly for a long time. recently, brownfemipower even focused on this in a speech at the women, action & the media conference (part of the session on "immigration in the u.s.: the women’s rights crisis feminists aren’t talking about"). amanda's article didn't mention or reference any of those voices that have brought attention to this issue before her - and then when called on it, responds with stuff like "The larger picture is something I can only care about if the people who want to draw attention to it don’t put their need to tear up someone’s career to get some frustration first. Sorry.", "If you have to unfairly malign someone’s reputation to make your point, then you have to reconsider if you have a point." and a generally infuriating self-involved, entitled, "i'm hurt by your accusations and that's all that matters" stance.

"don't hate; reappropriate." by sylvia/m provides all the references that could/should've been there - if those links still worked [not wanting to be in the middle of this crap, brownfemipower took down her blog]!

for more: "stealing other people's stuff is not cool" by rebecca and "this has not been a good week for woman of color blogging" by holly

i can't even understand amanda's "approach." i don't read her much, but from what i gather she's a good writer and usually quite sharp - it would've been so easy to react differently and fix some of the problem at least, but she only digs herself in deeper, not understanding any of the criticism and inconsistently arguing that "... it quickly became evident that accusing me of plagiarism wasn’t going to fly, because it’s an unprovable assertion. Then it became “appropriation”, which only makes sense if you think immigration is a topic not covered in the media or conferences. In all honesty, my views on this were mostly drawn from speakers I’ve seen at the NOW conference and the ACLU conference, but not BFP." and "I’m sure BFP is a giant in your world on the subject, but seriously, she’s not the only person out there doing the work." and "If I had gotten my ideas from BFP, I would have linked her." and "I make a point of linking anyone that I think made the argument I’m making and borrowing." when the thing is, her article doesn't reference anyone (except for two big newspapers and endabuse.org)!

so besides the fact that for some reason she's dead set against admitting she was influenced at all by brownfemipower's posts covering all of the stories/points she incorporated in her alternet piece (though she says she was a reader of brownfemipower's blog), she's obviously not giving a thought to the fact that in that piece she didn't mention the name and work of a woman of color she does admit influenced her. ("The speaker who really impressed me was Nina Perales of an organization called MALDEF, who made a really great case about how illegal immigration is a cover for large scale racist disenfranchisement of Hispanic Americans, because it created this cover story that leads to dumping many legal citizens from voter rolls. I thought, “This is an important angle that I need to incorporate into my writing.” When I saw the story about a legal immigrant who was raped with her green card used against her as blackmail, I thought that was the perfect opportunity to bring that analysis in.") and yet somehow it's not obvious to her that she is appropriating and slighting certain voices left and right...

*amanda m. direct quotes found in the comments section @ feministe

it's just so painful! as is seeing the many comments in support of amanda that boil down to the most privilege-blind position ever: "well, even if 'they' had a point, they could have said it in different words/more nicely/less personally and then amanda might've listened"... right, because as any woman knows, when someone takes your criticisms of stuff they do that affects you and first makes it all about them and then informs you that they might listen to you if only you didn't make them so uncomfortable by being too passionate, aggressive, unladylike (or whatever it may be), it's not that they're acting on privilege, dehumanizing you and trying to put you in your place at all. no. they might listen! so thread carefully and perhaps you'll get some crumbs. it's not at all a "subtle" reminder that because you're you (i.e. their identification of you), what you have to say doesn't really matter so you might as well act like they want you to. (see also "wite-magik: the drowning maestro" from the unapologetic mexican glosario)

and then there's an even more fundamental point. from another post by sylvia @ problem chylde ("a note (and then hiatus)"):

Regardless of whether or not Amanda outlined the article prior to the speech, her refusal to include WOC who obviously wanted to be included in the discussion is the real issue here.

Oh my Jesus, no. It’s not. It’s really not.

The real issue is the work of women of color gets trivialized or rendered invisible every time our feminisms intersect.

I don’t know how anyone could read the Seal Press situation as a request for inclusion unless they have a highly inflated sense of their worth. “Fuck Seal Press” is not a cleverly short and provocative book proposal, not a plea for love, or a request for respect. It’s a dismissal. Though it may lack context in the post it’s written in, it is NOT without context in Seal Press’s decline in incorporating and publishing works by women of color.

I also don’t know how anyone can read this situation as a request for inclusion into dialogue. It is about work and respect for that work which is ongoing, with or without the weigh-in of white mainstream feminists. Just tossing our names in isn’t enough. But it’s a start in showing that the ideas that you’re presenting are not novel and that they have a foundation beyond the “zeitgeist” of the time. This is not a new concept. It’s called appropriation. May not have the force of “stealing” or “plagiarism” but it’s much worse in its impact.

That’d take knowledge and engagement with the idea that women of color do feminist work, anti-racist work, work involving people with disabilities and LGBT that decidedly does not depend on white feminists noticing them. Yet the ideas and information from the work of women of color find its way into the books and articles of white feminists without attribution.

Feminism is not limited to one action or conceptualization. There is not only one movement. We are not trying to join anything or to have ourselves included in anything. Once again, please stop ego tripping. There are publishing houses, copyrights, programs, networks, opportunities and consciousness for women of color. We pour our experiences and our passions into the work we present, the work we do, the work we live everyday. We want credit for what we’ve done and what we’re doing when it trickles down and through to white middle-class feminism.

We don’t want disembodiment from issues that affect us because it reached someone [else] later than it touched us. We don’t want our bodies and our lives and our truths dependent on whims and zeitgeists and bound to arbitrary timelines. Our strongest claim to these issues beyond dates and clear similarities of theory and synthesis is we live in them and they live in us.

The red herrings tearing this discussion away from this fundamental request for respect are galling.

(for the "seal press situation" see "that's all she wrote" by blackamazon and linked from there: "on seal press and the fucking of same" @ bitch magazine)

the "bigger picture" that should be talked about right now, though? it's this (from brownfemipower's own post, now only in net archives):

... I don’t give a shit about being published, I don’t give a shit about the interviews or the jobs or the fame–I DO give a shit that a Chicano is reading a white feminist talking about immigration and politely distancing himself from a gendered analysis of immigration because the author exhibits no historical or contextual awareness of women of color led feminist interventions into immigration.

I give a shit about that because not only does this erase the work that women of color are doing within racist white dominant structures, but it erases the work we are doing within our own communities. It makes it ok for men of color to dismiss the need for feminist interventions into our communities–AND it makes it ok for white women to continue beating up women of color with the idea that showing any concern for what happens to men in our communities is ridiculous, because, see, they don’t approve of feminism!

Poof! Just like that, feminists of color are made invisible even as we are the ones laying our bodies down for the foundation of the communication between men of color and white women.

I had thought at one time that feminism was about justice for women. I had thought it was about centering the needs of women, and creating action in the name of, by and for women. I had thought that feminism has its problems but it’s worth fighting for, worth sacrificing and sweating and crying and breaking down for.

It was all worth it to me, because it meant that I existed and my daughter existed and the women I love existed and we had the right to demand the violence committed against us ends.

I see now that feminism is nothing more than erasure. A conversation between white women and men. A commitment to the safety and well being of people who are never women of color.

But all the while–even as there is a studied avoidance of the women of color in the room, the women of color are there nonetheless. They are working and agitating and moving and changing the world–and they are doing all this without money, without support, without mainstream media, without jobs, without praise and admiration. And to me, it’s a sin and disgrace to force such an unworthy label on them–they who wouldn’t steal food from a neighbor if they haven’t eaten all day.

the saddest part of all is that brownfemipower took down her blog... hope it'll be back, because her voice and her writing are very much needed!

oh, and one more thing...

added 18.4.2008: also read some final words from BFP (lots of good stuff there, including a lot about indy-media/media justice and how it plays into all of this... IMPORTANT.)

i also changed the title of this post to better reflect the content.

added 25.4.2008: well, apparently amanda marcotte's much-touted "feminist" survival-guide book includes these images. i guess by now i'm not surprised - though i don't really understand how anyone ever supported it at all... what's with that title, anyway? isn't it problematic (and symptomatic of these issues) in and of itself? am i missing something? holly does a write-up on all this @ feministe, and it's really good: "i guess it's a jungle in here too, huh?".

above, i said that "i can't even understand amanda's 'approach'" to the whole controversy and why she's dead set against acknowledging that she did something wrong in not referencing women of color and their work. obviously, it really doesn't have anything to do with being sharp or having good writing skills (as i'd already figured out). it's because she's clueless, entirely wrapped up in her own importance and oblivious to her/white privilege and matters of racism in general. also, i've been disappointed with jill from feministe from the start - when she didn't post anything on the controversy herself, and then once holly posted her excellent and truly "fair" analysis, jill's own first/only comment of substance was essentially a defense of amanda and amanda's feelings; it was a show of solidarity to exactly the wrong side. sadly. but at least she's addressing that now.

sexist campaigns & where the problem lies: the sexist majority, catering to the sexist majority, or rather misogyny towards women who participate?

two links:

-- an article that proposes we stop supporting non-profits that use misogyny to promote their causes: "who is this supposed to help?" - charities are using increasingly offensive images of women to promote their causes, such as peta highlighting pig welfare. [julie bindel]

-- a letter-to-the-editor from "the 'heavily pregnant' woman who kneeled nearly naked in a metal stall to remind viewers of how mother animals are totally commodified, abused, and denied their every desire on factory farms": "listen to our body language" [noemie ventura, campaign coordinator, peta uk]

and my reaction, from a recent response i sent to a list where those were linked:

i for one am an animal righter who's very much against peta and their sexist tactics - but i do think that the discussion around women who work for peta and participate in these kinds of campaigns, and their position, is a worthwhile one to have. the letter from that peta staff person is important to take into consideration (and i'd like to point out that it's rare that the actual women who participate in those campaigns express their personal opinion - it's usually a p.r. person trotting out the peta party line). my personal view is that when protesting these kinds of campaigns one should be careful to address the issue and not make it about shaming the women who use their bodies; because it's not that a woman goes nude to attract attention that's the problem, but rather the fact that women are expected to use their naked bodies even when the message sent is at the expense of their own dignity: peta wants people to start treating non-human animals with respect, but doesn't think it's a problem to use women's bodies in a demeaning manner to "appeal" to the public. the thing is, those campaigns rely on demeaning somebody - and so the message sent is the opposite of what peta thinks (or pretends) it sends.

so my answer to the question in the title of this post is: all three. but at the same time, criticizing a woman for getting naked "for a cause" is different than criticizing the fact that in our dysfunctional society it takes naked female bodies to draw the public's attention to justice issues. the former can be a misogynistic stance, because it focuses on a particular woman and can become about shaming her and thus not condemn but rather support the system at work, which treats women badly. but that's the whole point of protesting a sexist campaign: to say no to using and abusing women. it's what any organization dedicated to social justice should do on their own; and holding a group accountable for not only being oblivious to this problem but actually profiting from it means taking a feminist stance.

i think a woman who decides to go naked to draw attention to the plight of animals is choosing to do whatever it takes to draw that attention. as noemi ventura says, she "can decide how she wants to express herself" (and what she expresses). it's her activism - as long as it's just hers; nobody says that every woman on this planet should only do stuff that has a certain message. but when it comes to a group like peta, one expects something from their message. that it be ethical and self-consistent, for one. the problem is, if in this case a pregnant peta employee "kneeled nearly naked in a metal stall to remind viewers of how mother animals are totally commodified, abused, and denied their every desire on factory farms," then what is the message really? perhaps the peta employee, who embraces animal rights, may think that "being compared to [animals] is no insult"; but most people aren't there yet (that's why we need activism and awareness campaigns in the first place, right?). i disagree that peta campaigns "force people to look, think and, most importantly, take action" - actually, with a campaign like this one peta accomplishes nothing except to show the public a naked pregnant woman in a cage and compare her to an animal; which doesn't challenge or inform the public about anything at all, so they can go right ahead with both their sexist and speciist views.

but i still can't articulate the point any better than it's layed out in the following comment which i already quoted in a previous post:

It would be worthwhile to demonstrate how cruel the meat industry is to animals by tapping into empathy, using humans to draw a parallel. But the thing is, you have to do something that evokes feelings of outrage and shock. To draw the parallel, the viewers have to feel empathy for the human stand-in in order to then apply that to animals.

That’s not accomplished with putting women naked in cages or painting them up like tigers. In a society in which that is so closely related to images in a great deal of pornography, the display is likely to elicit sexual excitement or moral scolding than outrage on the behalf of the woman.

tenure for andrea smith

ACTION ALERT!
Support Assistant Professor Andrea Smith
Program in American Culture, Native American Studies, Women’s Studies
University of Michigan

On February 22nd, 2008 the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts gave Professor Andrea Smith a negative tenure recommendation. At the department level, Women’s Studies gave Andrea Smith a negative tenure recommendation and American Culture granted Dr. Smith a positive tenure recommendation. Dr. Smith’s case is now under review by the LSA Provost.

Help us support the Program in American Culture’s positive recommendation for Dr. Andrea Smith’s tenure! Write letters asking Michigan’s Provost office to uphold the Program in American Culture’s positive recommendation for Assistant Professor Andrea Smith’s tenure case BY MARCH 31st 2008!

for info about andrea smith, native american scholar, author and activist, and co-founder of INCITE!, see materials on the Campus Lockdown conference site

more here @ superweed

hold the presses - a. bourdain hates "romanian experience"... after first making sure it'd suck

oh, great. one of my favorite celebrities ever decided to go to romania for an episode of his food show and is now wondering "romania: what the hell happened?." jeezus. i don't really have time to look into the whole story, but i was forwarded this article [in romanian] - and i have a couple of reactions (though even without knowing too many details about this particular controversy i could write several entire essays on 1. the problems with anthony bourdain and his "no reservations" show in general, 2. what bourdain should've avoided when going to film the show in romania - he should've totally asked me in advance! - 3. the romanian context: the huge chasm between the front put on by officials and actual reality in all respects, what people there think about foreigners and about how they should be best dealt with and "impressed," etc. and 4. romanian food - the real deal vs. what foreigners get to experience most of the time). my first comment is: wait a second, isn't this show called "no reservations?!?" then, what the hell were they doing getting involved with the romanian government and thus making much more than... "reservations?" i think they basically defeated the whole purpose of the show from the get-go, in this case. so that's part of "what happened." then, i remember how disdainfully bourdain talked about romanians a while ago, for no apparent reason: i mentioned that oh-so-nonchalantly semi-anti-romanian comment of his here, and i would venture to guess that bourdain was both uninformed about romania and at least a little bit prejudiced against romanians befo