#their sex oppression and actively vote against their rights as women to be racist or transphobic homophobic ableist classist etc | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

that-disabled-radfem · 3 years

Text

Happy back-to-school y’all

I’ve attended and worked at a couple of super liberal universities. I avoid the gender studies departments for obvious reasons and I still had a lecture in which the female prof gave a brief overview of TERFs and proclaimed her hatred of JKR. Being openly critical of gender ideology, the porn industry, kinks, and ‘sex work’ are the kind of things that can ruin your future in academia. Not to mention the fact that any speech or actions that could be labelled transphobic (ie. defining woman as adult human female) can get you a suspension according to many universities anti-hate-speech policies.

So, here’s a list of small and smallish (small in terms of overt TERFery, some may require more effort than others) radical feminist actions you can take as a university student:

(this is a liberal arts perspective so if you’re a stem gal this may not apply. but also if you’re in stem maybe you can actually acknowledge that women are oppressed as a sex class without getting kicked out of school. idk)

(Note for TRAs hate reading this: One of the core actions of radical feminism is creating female networks. This is not so that we can brainwash people into being anti-trans. This is because female solidarity is necessary for creating class consciousness and overturning patriarchy. It is harder to subjugate the female sex when we stand together.)

Take classes with female profs. Multiple sections of a class? Pick the one taught by a woman. Have to chose an elective? Only look at electives offered by women. When classes have low numbers they get cancelled. When classes are super popular, universities are forced to consider promoting the faculty that teach them

Make relationships with these female profs. Go to office hours. Chat after class. Ask them about their research. Building female networks is sooooo important!

Actually fill in your end of year course feedback forms. Profs often need these when applying for tenure or applying for a job at another university so it is very important (especially with young and/or new profs) that you fill out these forms and give specific examples of how great these women are. Go off about what you love about them! Give her a brilliant review because you know the idiot boy in that class who won’t shut up even though he knows nothing is going to give her only negative feedback because he thinks any woman who leaves the house is a feminazi b*tch.

(note: obviously don’t go praising any prof - female or male - who is blatantly racist, homophobic, etc.)

(Also if you have shitty male profs write down all the horrible things they have done and said and put it in these forms because once a shitty man gets tenure they are virtually untouchable)

(also also, leave a good review on rate my profs or whatever other thing students use to figure out if they want to take classes. idc if you copy paste your feedback from the formal review. rave about the class to your friends. do what you can to get good enrolment for that prof for reasons above.)

Participate in class. Talk over the male students. Say what you mean and mean it. Call out the boys when they say dumb shit

Write about women. If you have the option to make a text written by a woman your primary text in an essay, do it. Pick the female-centred option if you’re writing an exam-essay with multiple prompts. (Profs often look at what works on their syllabus are being written about/engaged with as a marker of whether to keep those texts the next time they teach the class. If there are badass women on your syllabus, write about them to keep them on the syllabus) Use female-written secondary sources whenever possible.

(pro tip: many women in academia are more than happy to talk to you about their papers. expand your female networks by reaching out to article authors through email and asking them about their cool shit)

Get your essays published! Many departments have undergrad journals you can publish in. This will ensure more people read about the women you write about and will demonstrate to the department that people like learning about women

Consider trying to publish your undergrad essay with a legit peer-reviewed journal. If you can do it, your use of female-written secondary sources boosts the reputations of the women who wrote those secondary sources. Also this helps generally to increase scholarship about women’s writing!

Present your papers at conferences! Many schools have their own undergraduate/departmental conferences that you can present at. Push yourself by submitting to outside conferences. Bring attention to women’s works by presenting your papers. Take a space at a conference that would otherwise be reserved for mediocre men

Talk to your profs and/or your department and/or your university about mandating the inclusion of female works in classes if this isn’t something they do already

Sit next to other women in your classes. Talk to them. Make friends. Form study groups. Proofread each other’s essays. Give each other knowing looks when the boys are being dumb. Just interact with other women! Build those female networks!

Be generous with your compliments. A female classmate and I were talking to a prof after class and the classmate told me (out of the blue) that I always have such interesting things to say. I think about that whenever I’m lacking confidence about my academic skills. Compliment the women in your classes for speaking up, for sharing their opinions, for challenging your classmates/profs, for doing cool presentations, etc.

Talk to other women about sexist things going on on campus. Make everyone aware of the sexist profs. Complain about how there are many more tenured men than tenured women. Go on rate my professor and be explicit about how the sexist profs are sexist

Be active on campus and in societies. If a society has an all male executive or is male-dominated, any women who join that society make it less intimidating for more women to join. Run for executive positions! Bring in more women!

(Pro tip: Many societies’ elections are super gameable. You can be eligible to vote in a society election sometimes just by being a student at that university — even without having done anything with the society before. Other societies might just require that you’ve taken a class in a particular department or attended a society event. (Check the society’s governing documents.) Use those female networks you’ve been building. If you can bring three or four random people to vote for you, that might be enough for you to win. Societies have trouble meeting quorum (the minimum number of people in attendance to do votes) so it is really super achievable to rig an election with a few friends. And don’t feel bad about this. The system is rigged against women so you have every right to exploit loopholes!)

(Also feel free to go vote “non-confidence”/“re-open election” if only shitty men are running. Too often people see that only candidates they don’t like are running and so they give up. But you can actually stop them getting elected)

Your campus may have a LGBTQIA+alphabetsoup society. That society definitely needs more L and B women representation. It may be tedious to argue with the nb straight dudes who insist that it’s fine to use “q***r” in the society’s posters and that attraction has nothing to do with genitals, but just imagine what could happen if we could make these sorts of societies actually safe spaces for same-sex attracted women and advocated for our concerns

Attend random societies’ election meetings. Get women elected and peace out. (or actually get involved but I’m trying to emphasize the lowest commitment option with this one)

Write for the campus newspaper. Write about what women are doing - women’s sports, cool society activities, whatever. Review female movies, books, tv shows, local theatre productions. Write about sexism on campus. We need more female by-lines and more stories about women

Get involved with your campus’s sexual assault & r*pe hotline/sexual assault survivor’s centre/whatever similar organization your campus has if you can. This is hard work and definitely not for everyone (pls take care of yourself first, especially if you are a survivor)

(If your campus doesn’t have an organization for supporting survivor’s of sexualized violence, start one! This is probably going to be a lot of hard work though, so don’t do it alone)

Talk to your student council about providing free menstrual hygiene products on campus if your campus doesn’t already do this. If your campus provides free condoms (which they probs do), use that as leverage (ie. ‘sex is optional, menstruation is not. so why do we have free condoms and no free pads?’)

If you’re an older student, get involved with younger students (orientation week and such activities are good for this). Show the freshman that you can be a successful and well-liked woman without shaving your legs, wearing heels, wearing make-up, etc. Mentor these young women. Offer to go for coffee or proofread essays.

Come to class looking like a human being. Be visibly make-up less, unshaven, unfeminine, etc. to show off the many different ways of being a woman

Talk to the custodial staff and learn their names. (I know there are men who work in this profession, but it is dominated by low-income women) Say hi in the hallways, ask them about their lives, show them they’re appreciated

Be explicit with your language. When you are talking about sex-based oppression, say it. Don’t say ‘sex worker’ when you mean survivor of human trafficking. This tip is obviously a bit tricky in terms of overt TERFyness, so use your best judgement

That’s all from me for now! Feel free to add your suggestions and remember that feminism is about action

#back to school #university #terf safe #terfs DO interact #feminist action

831 notes · View notes

lesbianfeminists · 4 years

Text

There’s More Than One Way to ‘Erase’ Women

On 28th May Hungary’s Parliament signed a bill into law which ends legal recognition for transgender people. The votes of rightwing Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party pushed the legislation through by a majority in the context of a pandemic in which he is ruling by decree indefinitely. The changes to Hungary’s Registry Act will restrict gender to biological sex at birth, a status determined by primary sex characteristics and chromosomes. All other forms of identification are tied to birth certificates in Hungary so these too will reflect birth sex.

Trans advocacy and human rights groups argue that it will lead to more discrimination because Hungarians are required to produce identity cards on a frequent basis. This means that they will, in effect, be ‘outing’ themselves in everyday situations which may be humiliating, at best, and dangerous at worst. The government say they are merely clarifying sex within the law; a disingenuous claim in a political context in which the traditional family is increasingly being placed at the heart of a ‘white’, Christian nation.

Julie Bindel recently argued that it was unwise of Pink News to look at Orban’s policies in relation to transgender people in isolation. They should instead be conceived of as part of a broader attack on women’s rights and the rights of minority groups.

But Bindel’s advice applies equally to those gender critical feminists, albeit small in number, who are responding positively to the news from Hungary, on the basis that Orban recognises the immutability of sex. Whilst Baroness Nicholson might see no problem in adding Hungary to her list of causes for celebration, feminists shouldn’t lose sight of a much bigger picture.

In 2013, Orban introduced a constitutional reform which enshrined the idea of the family as the foundation of the nation in the Basic Law. Although abortion was legalised after the Second World War, since 2013 the Constitution has stated that “the life of the fetus must be protected from the moment of conception”. Orban has yet to move on abortion but he publically supports anti-abortion organisations and in 2017 he opened The World Congress of Families conference in Budapest. The WCF is a United States coalition is a virulently anti-abortion organisation which promotes Christian right values globally.

By 2018, he was setting out his plan for a new “cultural era” which included amending the kindergarten curriculum so that it would promote a “national identity, Christian cultural values, patriotism, attachment to homeland and family”. (5) In 2019, the government announced a series of pro-natalist measures which included a lifetime income tax exemption for mothers of four children and free IVF treatment for married heterosexual couples. These policies aim to reverse demographic decline and curb immigration, at one and the same time. Orban argues that “it’s a national interest to restore natural reproduction. Not one interest among others – but the only one. It’s a European interest too. It is the European interest”.

In essence, he subscribes to the white nationalist “demographic winter” theory, which claims that the “purity” of European civilisation is in peril due to the increasing numbers of non-white races, in general, and Muslim people, in particular. Orban’s draconian measures against migrants and refugees dovetail with this belief system.

Such policies also cast women in the role of wombs of the nation, echoing the eugenicist policies of Hitler, who also provided financial inducements to bribe Aryan women into motherhood. As Anita Komuves, a Hungarian journalist, tweeted, “Can we just simply declare that Hungary is Gilead from now on?”

Homosexuality is legal in Hungary, but same sex couples are unable to marry and registered partnerships don’t offer equivalent legal rights. Orban’s government has made the promotion of patriarchal family values so central to its cultural mission and policies that anti gay rhetoric amongst politicians has become commonplace. Last year, László Kövér, the speaker of the Hungarian parliament, compared supporters of lesbian and gay marriage and adoption to paedophiles. “Morally, there is no difference between the behaviour of a paedophile and the behaviour of someone who demands such things,” he said. (9) In 2017 the annual Pride event was attacked by violent right-wing extremists hurling faeces, acid and Molotov cocktails at the marchers and police.

Just as Orban has sought to eliminate the notion of gender identity within the law, so too has he gone to war against what he describes as “gender ideology”. In 2018 he issued a decree revoking funding for gender studies programmes in October that year. (10) At the time, this move was welcomed by some gender critical and radical feminists on the basis that postmodern feminism in the academy has contributed to a dogmatic sex denialism which is unable to analyse the basis of female oppression. (11) But, as with the changes in relation to the legal recognition of transgender people, Orban’s reasons were anything but feminist. As one government spokesman explained: “The government’s standpoint is that people are born either male or female, and we do not consider it acceptable for us to talk about socially constructed genders rather than biological sexes.” (12) Gender studies is seen as promoting too fluid an understanding of male and female roles in the place of a fixed social order in which women’s biological destiny is to be married mothers. The decision to withdraw funding from gender studies didn’t come out of nowhere. At a party congress in December 2015, László Kövér, one of the founders of the Fidesz party, stated:

“We don’t want the gender craziness. We don’t want to make Hungary a futureless society of man-hating women, and feminine men living in dread of women, and considering families and children only as barriers to self-fulfilment… And we would like if our daughters would consider, as the highest quality of self-fulfilment, the possibility of giving birth to our grandchildren.”

Orban’s war against “gender” also led to Hungary’s National Assembly recently passing a declaration which refused to ratify the Istanbul Convention, the Council of Europe’s Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence.It was claimed that the convention promoted “gender ideology” and particular issue was taken with the section that defined gender as “socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for women and men.” Hungarian politicians object to an understanding of gender which recognises that women’s ‘role’ can change, even improve (!), as societies change, an unwelcome thought to those wishing to uphold men’s power in the family and discourage homosexuality. As with a number of Orban’s other policy decisions, there was also a racist element to the refusal to ratify the convention. The fact that it would have afforded protections for migrant and refugee women was in direct contradiction to Hungary’s anti-immigration policies. As one far right, Hungarian blog put it:

“By refusing the ratification of the Istanbul Convention, Hungary, says ‘Yes!’ to the protection of women but ‘No!’ to gender ideology and illegal migration.”

(Women’s groups in the UK have long suspected that our government refuses to ratify the Convention as it would bind them to properly funding the VAWG sector.)

Orban’s concern about “gender” and “gender ideology” is shared by other states with a socially conservative programme for women. Some gender critical and radical feminists use this term, as well, which can be confusing when our respective analyses have so little in common. Here, it refers to a set of beliefs that conflate sex with gender and deny the material reality of sex-based oppression. This is a far cry from the definitions shared by the growing “anti gender” movements in Central and Eastern Europe.

These movements privilege biological understandings of what it means to be a man or a woman but only do so in order to insist that our biology should determine (and restrict) our lives.They want to hang on the man/woman binary because they believe that gendered roles and expectations, ones which place women below men, are determined by sex. In short, they deny that gender is a social construct. “Gender ideology”, as a term, has become something of a dustbin category, deployed variously to attack feminism, same sex marriage, reproductive rights and sex education in schools. Trump’s administration is engaged in an ongoing fight to remove the word “gender” from United Nations documents.

In this context, we need to remember that “gender” is still most frequently used as a proxy for women/sex in UN Conventions like CEDAW (The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women). The term is also increasingly – to our concern – conflated with gender identity with all the risks that this entails.

But that fact shouldn’t blind us to the main motivations of those who oppose the use of the word gender at UN level. When conservatives say they want to replace the term “gender” with “sex”, it’s invariably to oppose women’s equality with men and to enshrine patriarchal understandings of women’s place in society. Replacing the language of gender with the language of sex is, in their terms, a route to a biologically driven and restricted notion of reproduction as women’s only fate. Replacing the language of gender with the language of sex is not necessarily a feminist enterprise.

Unless we establish very clear lines between ourselves and rightwing, religious fundamentalists, we are in danger of being swallowed up and used by the most anti-women, global forces, the canniest of which offer themselves as ‘partners’ in the fight against gender ideology: witness several events hosted by the Heritage Foundation, a hugely powerful Christian Right think tank which has platformed radical feminists.

The Heritage Foundation has particular chutzpah. Whilst claiming to be an ally in the feminist fight to preserve female only spaces and sex-based rights, it opposes reproductive rights, lesbian and gay rights and any measures to counter discrimination against women, notably the Equal Rights Amendment. In fact, it blames feminists for the current state of affairs – though Ryan Anderson would never be rude enough to say so at their shared events. “Transgender theories are part of the feminist goal of a sexual revolution that eliminates the proprietary family and celebrates non-monogamous sexual experiences.”

When it’s not cynically partnering with (a small number) of radical feminists as ‘cover’, the Heritage Foundation enjoys the company of the Holy See, the universal government of the Catholic Church which operates from Vatican City State. (20) The Vatican has opposed the notion of gender since the early-2000s, arguing that males and females have intrinsic attributes which aren’t shaped by social forces. Recently, they published an educational document called “Male and female he created them”.

Woman’s Place UK has consistently stated an opposition to working with, or supporting the work of the religious right (and their female representatives). Not simply because it is strategically disastrous but because it is wrong in principle. (22) When we look at what is happening in Hungary it is well to remember that there is more than one way to ‘erase’ women. Andrea Pető, a professor at the Central European University of Budapest, commenting on the official reports that Hungary (and Poland) send to the UN CEDAW Committee, noted, “we see that they replace the concept of women with that of family, women as independent agents are slowly disappearing from public policy documents, behind the single word family.”

https://womansplaceuk.org/2020/06/18/womens-rights-under-attack-hungary/

#rightwing #gender

185 notes · View notes

mgardner21ahsgov · 4 years

Text

Political Party Action

When I went to the Republican link provided, I thought there was going to be a section on racial rights/equality but there was nothing. Not even a sentence saying their TRUE stance on racial rights. I scrolled through the 67 pages and scrolled a couple of times just to make sure I did not miss anything, but there was truly nothing. The only thing that quite literally said the word race was in their “We the People” section, and it said “We denounce bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, ethnic prejudice, and religious intolerance. Therefore, we oppose discrimination based on race, sex, religion, creed, disability, or national origin and support statutes to end such discrimination.” Just because they said that they opposing discrimination and want everybody treated equally does not mean they actually believe this. There past remarks against small groups of people (ie. women, immigrants, African Americans, and more) and their lack of taking action to help these groups show that they do not care as much as they say they do. I definitely do not agree with the nothing they have written and I definitely do not agree with the no action taken.

Opposite of the Republicans, the Democrats basically wrote an essay on how they want to help Black lives but also why they want to. They acknowledge the past and realize that nobody in our modern-day America knows the truth about Black History. Many people just this year, because of BLM, now know what Juneteenth is. Democrats want to educate others so they know what actually happened and what they can now do to hopefully help resolve the issue at hand. “Democrats are committed to standing up to racism and bigotry in our laws, in our culture, in our politics, and in our society, and recognize that race-neutral policies are not sufficient to rectify race-based disparities.” They realize and talk about how the years of slavery and the years of Jim Crow laws affect Black people today by income, jobs, housing, education, and more. Democrats believe that diversity is strength.

Libertarians believe that “Government should neither deny nor abridge any individual’s human right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference, or sexual orientation.” That no matter what you were born as and no matter what is happening in the world, people have inalienable rights and that everybody is equal. The Political Party Green has a huge key value: respect for diversity. They think that “Respect for our constitutionally protected rights is our best defense against discrimination and the abuse of power.” Green supports the action needed to fix and heal discrimination. Lastly, the Peace and Freedom Party want a world free of oppression. They demand “...equal treatment of all people by employers, businesses and government”

From the Democratic, Libertarians, Green, and Peace and Freedom parties, I agree with their stances on Racial Justice.

I identify with the Democratic party the most. This is not surprising because I agree with everything they say and when I see something not right I want to help/fix it. The way I was raised was like that (from my family and from Judaism). Judaism does a lot to help those in need. Ever since I was little I would make lunches for the homeless, donate money to charities, and activate for people who couldn’t. I would most definitely vote for their presidential candidate over Trump.

My civic action issue was a topic during the presidential debate. Biden was saying that the only way to bring people together was to recognize race and talk about it. They need to have a system where people are held accountable for their actions. Trump on the other hand said that he had to end racial sensitivity training because it was too racists and people were asked to do things that were absolutely insane. The point of racial sensitivity though is to acknowledge and learn about all of the racist slurs and stereotypes and try to fix people’s misconceptions about them. What Trump did was add to racism. Both of the candidate’s messages supported their party’s platform.

2 notes · View notes

arcticdementor · 4 years

Link

Understanding what drives the revolution that is destroying the American republic gives insight into how the 2020 election’s results may impact its course. Its practical question—who rules?—is historically familiar. But any revolution’s quarrels and stakes obscure the question: to what end? Our revolution is by the ruling class—a revolution from above. Crushing obstacles to its growing oligarchic rule is the proximate purpose.

But the logic that drives the revolution aims at civilization itself.

What follows describes how far along its path that logic has taken America, and where it might take us in the future depending on the election’s outcome.

…

The U.S. Constitution had codified as fine a balance between the powers of the Many, the Few, and the One as Aristotle may have imagined by arming the federal government’s components, the States, and ordinary citizens (via the first ten Amendments as well as elections) with means to maintain the balance. Its authors, however, were under no illusions about the efficacy of “parchment barriers” to prevent interests from coalescing into factions against the common good. During the 19th century, interests and opinions in the South and the North coalesced into antagonistic ruling classes that fought the century’s bloodiest war. In the 20th, the notion that good government proceeds from scientific expertise, as well as the growing identity between big business and government, fostered the growth of a single nationwide Progressive ruling class. Between the 1930s and the early 21st century, the centralization of administrative power in this class’s hands did much to transform the American republic established in 1776-89 into an oligarchy.

…

The European tradition of government by experts reaches back beyond Napoleon and Hegel to royal techno-bureaucrats. Being essentially amoral, it treats transgressors as merely ignorant. It may punish them as rebellious, but not as bad people. That is why the fascists, who were part of that tradition, never made it as totalitarians. People—especially the Church—remained free to voice different opinions so long as they refrained from outright opposition. America’s growing oligarchy, however, always had a moralistic, puritan streak that indicts dissenters as bad people. More and more, America’s ruling class, shaped and serviced by an increasingly uniform pretend-meritocratic educational system, claimed for itself monopoly access to truth and goodness, and made moral as well as technical-intellectual contempt for the rest of Americans into their identity’s chief element. That, along with administrative and material power, made our ruling class the gatekeeper to all manner of goods.

Progressivism’s foundational proposition—that the American way of life suffers from excessive freedom and insufficient latitude for experts to lead each into doing what is best for all—is the intellectual basis of the oligarchy’s ever-increasing size, wealth, and power. The theme that the USA was ill-conceived in 1776-89 and must be re-conceived has resounded from Woodrow Wilson’s Congressional Government (1885) to the campaigns of Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Barack Obama, and Joseph Biden: “listen to the scientists!” The criticism’s main point has been constant: America’s original conception validated the people’s right to live as they please, and made it hard to marshal them for Progressive purposes.

But the Progressive critique adds a moral basis: the American people’s indulgence of their preferences—private ease and comfort, focus on families, religious observance, patriotism—has made for every secular sin imaginable: racism, sexism, greed, etc. Because most Americans are racist, sexist, un-appreciative of real virtue or refinement (these are somehow rolled together), because these Americans resist knuckling under to their betters, America is a sick society that needs to be punished and to have its noxious freedoms reformed.

…

The moral class critique from above was always implicit. It largely stayed in the background of the campaigns for social improvement into which Progressives have led the American people ever since the 1930s, and especially since the 1960s. The ruling class chided Americans for insufficient commitment to education, to well-being for the poor and disadvantaged, to a healthy natural environment, and to public health, as well as for oppressing women, and, above all, for racism. The campaigns for remedying these conditions have been based on propositions advanced by the most highly-credentialed persons in America—experts certified by the U.S. government, whom the media treated as truth-telling scientists, their opponents as enemies of the people.

But each and all of these campaigns produced mostly the ostensible objectives’ opposites while increasing the numbers of the oligarchy’s members and their wealth and power, endowing them with socio-political clienteles as well as with levers for manipulating them. As its members’ powers grew, they developed a taste for disdaining independent Americans and acquired whips for punishing them.

…

Race (and sex, etc.) is yet another set of excuses for transferring power to the ruling class. The oligarchy is no more concerned about race than it is about education, or environmentalism, or sex, or anything else. It is about yet more discretionary power in the hands of its members, for whom not all blacks (or women, or whatevers) are to be advantaged—only the ones who serve ruling class purposes. In education, employment, and personnel management, co-opting compatible, non-threatening colleagues is the objective. As Joseph Biden put it succinctly: if you don’t vote for him, “you ain’t black.” A ruling class of ever-decreasing quality is a result.

…

I noted that this revolution’s logic leads to no logical end. That is because “the logic that drives each turn of our revolutionary spiral is Progressive Americans’ inherently insatiable desire to exercise their superiority over those they deem inferior.” Its force, I observed, “comes not from the substance of the Progressives’ demands,” but rather “from that which moves, changes, and multiplies their demands without end. That is the Progressives’ affirmation of superior worth, to be pursued by exercising dominance: superior identity affirmed via the inferior’s humiliation.” Affirmation of one’s own superiority by punishing inferiors is an addictive pleasure. It requires ever stronger, purer doses of infliction, and is inherently beyond satisfaction.

In short, the Progressive ruling class’s intensifying efforts to oppress those they imagine to be their inferiors is not reversible. It is far less a choice of policy than it is the consequence of its awakening to its own identity—awakening to the powers and privileges to which they imagine their superior worth entitles them. It is awakening to its deep resentment—indeed, to hate—for whoever does not submit preemptively.

Let there be no doubt: the ruling class’s focus on Donald Trump has been incidental. America’s potentates do not fear one pudgy orange-haired septuagenarian. They fear the millions of Americans whom they loathe, who voted for Trump, who gave his party control of House and Senate, and who will surely vote for folks these potentates really should fear.

…

The people who killed one another in 1861-65 respected each other as individuals and shared standards of truth, justice, and civility. But as our ruling class put the rest of America beyond the proverbial pale, what remained of friendship among the American republic’s components drained away.

By 2016, most Americans preferred either Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders over ruling-class candidates for president. And of course, they increasingly despised one another. In short, the popular basis for constitutional restraint had ceased to exist on all sides. But mostly the ruling class, unaccustomed to outright opposition to its presumption of authority, deemed the voters’ recalcitrance to be illegitimate. That began the revolution’s active phase.

At that time, I wrote that, regardless of who won the upcoming election, the United States of America had crossed the threshold of a revolution, and that though no one could know how that would end, we could be sure only that the peaceful American way of life we had known could never return. Hilary Clinton’s or Donald Trump’s victory in the election would merely have channeled the revolution onto different courses. We would look back on Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as relics from an age of moderation.

…

The oligarchy’s offensive to forcibly disable the voters began as a mere protest against—and explanation and excuse for—the 2016 elections’ outcome. But, as its identity unfolded according its logic of hate, one thing led to another.

Official and unofficial ruling class confluence in the Resistance turned the Democratic National Committee’s July 2016 throwaway lie that the Russians had hacked its emails into a four-year national convulsion about Trump’s alleged conspiracy with Putin. Ruling class judges sustained every act of opposition to the Trump administration. Thousands of identical voices in major media echoed every charge, every insinuation, nonstop, unquestioned. The Resistance made it official ruling class policy that Trump and his voters’ “racism” and a host of other wrongdoings made them, personally, illegitimate. In 2016 Hillary Clinton had tentatively called her opponents “deplorables.” By 2018 the ruling class had effectively placed the “deplorables” outside the protection of the laws. In any confrontation, the ruling class deemed these presumed white supremacists in the wrong, systemically. By 2020 they could be fired for a trifle, set upon on the streets, and prosecuted on suspicion of bad attitudes, even for defending themselves.

This happened because the Resistance rallied the ruling class’s every part to mutually supporting efforts. Nothing encourages, amplifies, and seemingly justifies extreme sentiments as does being part of a unanimous chorus, a crowd, a mob. Success supercharges them. The Resistance fostered in the ruling class’s members the sense that they were more right, more superior, and more entitled than they had ever imagined. It made millions of people feel bigger, and better about themselves than they ever had.

Ruling class violence started on inauguration day 2017 and grew unceasingly, at first an ominous background to all manner of bureaucratic, oligarchic, and media attacks on the election’s winners. But note well that the black-clad burners and looters were the very opposite of a proletariat and that, Marxist rhetoric aside, they never attacked the wealthy or the powerful—not Wall Street, nor major corporations, certainly not any government, never mind Google, Facebook, or Twitter, America’s most powerful monopolies, or corporate officials. Instead, they received financial contributions from these sources. The violent ones were as troops in the service of the powerful, out to crush the spirit of rebellious subjects. Some Marxists!

…

Most remarkable has been the unbroken consistency with which every part of the ruling class’s entourage joined the campaign while piggybacking its own priorities to it—to the complaisance of all the others. That is the meaning of “intersectionality.” Teachers’ unions, for example, conditioned returning to the classroom on the government banning charter schools; Black Lives Matter (BLM) claimed that “White Racism�� must be treated as another public health menace. All other components supported them. All signified solidarity by demanding that all Americans wear masks outdoors, and that those who don’t be jailed. Meanwhile, they insisted that persons convicted of rape, robbery, and murder be released. The world turned upside down.

The riots that began depopulating America’s major cities in late May are intersectionality’s apotheosis. Since blacks commit homicides at five times and other violent crimes at three times the rate of whites, confrontations between black criminals and police are quotidian. Violent reactions to such confrontations are common. Any number of personalities and organizations, mostly black, have made fortunes and careers exploiting them, e.g. New York’s Al Sharpton. Increasingly since 2013 BLM has become the most prominent of these, founded as a project of a hardline Communist organization based in Cuba and funded lavishly and unaccountably by a high percentage of America’s major corporations. Its stated goals of protecting the black community against police brutality notwithstanding, it functions to mobilize black voters on the Democratic Party’s behalf. Along with Antifa, an organization of violent Marxists and anarchists, BLM organized the physical side of the ruling class’s campaign of intimidation against the American people.

The patently counterfactual claim that months of burning, looting and personal attacks by mobs professionally armed, marshaled, and effectively authorized are “mostly peaceful protests” doubly serves the ruling class by warning the victims that they are alone, can expect no help, and that even resenting the mobs is culpable.

Yet the riots may be intersectionality’s downfall because ordering people to tell each other things they know are not true is the most hazardous of political power grabs.

…

The major question overhanging our revolution is how all this has affected the Right side of American society. Since recognizing that the ruling class’s oligarchy surrounded them circa 2008, they sought to keep it at bay. In 2010 their Tea Parties elected the most heavily Republican Congress in a generation. But the Republicans they elected mostly joined the ruling class. Rather than voting for one of them—Mitt Romney for president in 2012—many stayed home.

Then in 2016, sensing that the barbarians were at the gates, they gave short shrift to whoever would not denounce Republicans as harshly as Democrats and elected the loudest denouncer, Donald Trump. By 2020, Trump notwithstanding, the barbarians had proved to be the gatekeepers. They cowed the deplorables, punished them to convince them that they are evil and isolated, deprived them of normal social intercourse, and made them dependent on media that pushed politically correct reality down their masked throats.

The deplorables are angry. But so what?

Why have conservatives mostly obeyed perverted authority? Did the ruling class succeed? Is the revolution over? A minority seem to believe that example may lead leftists once again to recognize their opponents’ equal rights. In short, they are conservatives who yearn to preserve something already gone. They are not yet revolutionaries for their own cause.

…

No one could know for sure how much the empowered oligarchy had cowered ordinary people’s resentment or inflamed it. The fact that some two thirds of respondents told pollsters that they are afraid publicly to voice their views suggests much.

Whatever may happen, it is safe to say that, on the Right side of American life, conventional conservatism is dead, as is political moderation.

…

When the American people vote on November 3, they—like the proverbial husband who walks in on wife in flagrante—will choose whether to believe what they are told or what their senses tell them.

The ubiquity, depth, and vehemence of the ruling class’s denigration of Donald Trump is such as to render superfluous any detailing thereof. Suffice it to note that not a day in four years has gone by without the news media hyperventilating or ruminating on some allegation of Trump’s wrongdoing or wrongbeing. For what? Again, the list of subjects is so exhaustive that it is easier to note that there is hardly any mortal transgression of which he has not been accused. Suffice it to say that, to the extent one depends on the media’s narrative, one cannot help but believe that Donald Trump is the enemy of all good things, that nothing he has done has been any good, that he is responsible for all that is bad.

…

Since 2016 the ruling class have had the luxury of acting as if the deplorables were lifeless punching bags. On November 3 they will find out to what extent that may not be so. Its leaders have already discovered that their “intersectional” entourages are not entirely controllable. After the election, the politicians bidding for leadership of conservatives will make Trump look like milquetoast. As the ruling class tries to suppress them, it will also have to deal with uncontrollable allies, whose violence will spur the conservatives to fiercer resistance.

…

The revolution long since destroyed the original American republic in the minds, hearts, and habits of a critical mass of citizens. They neither want nor are any longer able to live as Americans had lived until so recently. Loudly, they declare that the rest of us are racists, etc., unworthy of self-government. No one can undo that. Chances are against the undoing happening on its own. The longer we pretend to live under precisely the same laws, the likelier we will end up killing one another. We must not do that. And yet regional differences notwithstanding, we are mostly intermingled. Sorting ourselves into compatible groups is part of the American genius and tradition. More of that has been happening and more will happen yet. If we want to live in peace, as we should, we must contrive to agree to disagree to accommodate peace.

#angelo codevilla #the american mind

2 notes · View notes

the-caribbean-society-blog · 5 years

Photo

Geographically speaking, the Caribbean consists of the Americas and a collection of islands surrounded by the Caribbean Sea. In theory, though this may sound simple in definition, the Caribbean space is much more complex. It is a region that many shares experiences through the encomienda system, slavery, and indentureship schemes. These heavily oppressive times, despite being a horrific period for our ancestors, gave way for creolisation and hybridisation to occur and form the “melting pot” that the Caribbean space is known for. However, this has not been an easy accomplishment for the West Indian people. Due to the influence of the colonial powers, it has been ingrained in the minds of Caribbean civilisations that European culture held superiority over all other cultures that existed. This not only led to the detachment with our own roots but also created a divide in the Caribbean society. The influence of the colonial agenda has completely shaped the way individuals think and societies function in the Caribbean. This has led to various forms of prejudice such as racism, sexism, ageism and homophobia. With this in mind, this article seeks to address the extent to which the Caribbean space is characterized by grave intolerance and mistrust at all levels.

To begin, racism can be defined as a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. The origins of racism can be traced to slavery. Slavery was not an invention of the the Europeans. In fact, it had existed long before during times of the Amerindians but became a more organised system towards the end of the fourteenth century when the demand for sugar was high. This led to the European capturing Africans against their will and forcing them to work on the plantations (Plummer-Rognmo) Europeans had always held the belief that their own culture and belief systems were superior. Upon the discovery of the New World and the indigenous culture, the Europeans made it their mission to “civilise” our ancestors. This led to the preconceived notion that those who were not “light-skinned” were inferior. In the past, it was strictly forbidden for those of various races to be associated with one another. Interracial marriages and relationships were heavily punished, while some were even killed for the “offence”.

This led to the formation of racial prejudices and stereotypes which resulted in the most destructive type of discrimination because it affects a wider cross section of Caribbean society than any other form while also inhibiting development. As the lower economic stratum of society is largely made up of people of African descent, race and class discrimination are in many ways inextricably linked. For instance, black culture (literature, music, language and religious forms) has been discriminated against in the Caribbean because it emerged from a race that was historically thought to be intellectually and biologically inferior. Indigenous or creole languages based on Amerindian or African culture are secondary to the primary European based languages spoken on the islands. European dress is mainly seen as acceptable in formal settings, such as for work or Christian worship, while traditional African, indigenous, East Indian and Chinese clothing is usually worn as costumes during cultural festivals or holidays. There is also the implicit acceptance of a historically enriched association of Caribbean people of African descent with criminal activity, violence and deviance which has discouraged many from examining further and remedying the causes of their disadvantaged economic situation and destructive behaviour among black communities. Many conflicts in the Caribbean, starting with the Morant Bay Rebellion and continuing with the Caribbean- wide riots of the 1930s were as a result of racism and classism and led to considerable economic loss among Caribbean economies. Racial Tensions resulting from racist views have led tot the political divisiveness in the Caribbean countries, such as Guyana where the electorate has tended to vote along racial lines rather than for the most qualified, proven leader. Prior to the oil boom of 2019, Guyana was considered to be among the poorest, least developed Caribbean islands (Hookumchand). Despite this, the great strides made by organisations such as the Black Power Movement (1968 – 1970) has created a greater appreciation for our local cultures and has motivated the African communities to fight for their culture and their rights through the promotion of religious festivals, food, clothing and dance (Leslie). It is a stepping-stone for our society in defining our own identity and leaving our colonial roots in the past.

Additionally, another form of stereotyping and prejudice heavily present in the Caribbean is gender discrimination. “Gender discrimination is unequal or disadvantageous treatment of an individual or group of individuals based on gender.” (Langston University). Sexist prejudices extend to both men and women, however, in Caribbean societies women are usually the target of this form of prejudice. The outcome comes of sexism include sexual discrimination, sexual harassment and domestic violence, issues which are heavily present in the Caribbean space. Studies show that most sexist and gender-biased remarks are directed towards women. This is because Caribbean men have historically viewed women as the weaker sex in the European, East Indian and West African traditions. The Caribbean is usually characterized by a patriarchal society led by matriarchal households. Other sexist notions directed at women usually stem from the idea that men are scientifically stronger than men – this is evident where women are rejected as potential employees in industries where the work is physically demanding. Further to this, the labour force is where women feel the effect of sexual discrimination. Men dominate the higher paying jobs and are often denied access to equal pay for equal work. Entire families are affected as most families are single parent headed by a female. As a result, women are faced with a figurative glass ceiling that makes it difficult to attain upward social mobility and thus are faced with a lower quality of life. Sexist attitudes can deter women from starting their own businesses as many Caribbean people are of the view that male doctors, lawyer, engineers, for example, are superior to their female counterparts. This is highly evident in Trinidad and Tobago where many of the flourishing businesses in the country are spearheaded by men. Further to this, the expectations of men that women should be docile and submissive have led to the physical, sexual and verbal abuse of women at home (domestic abuse) and in the workplace. In the Caribbean, an IDB study showed that one in every three women in Trinidad and Tobago experience some for of Intimate Partner violence (Doodnath). Consequently, even in today’s contemporary society, it is evident that women are still heavily disadvantaged. Sexist attitudes infused with patriarchal values aimed towards women who refuse to the sexual stereotypes expected of them in the workplace and wider society result in many highly qualified and capable women failing to achieve their true potential and therefore, their true potential contribution to the economy.

In addition to this, the Caribbean is space has also been known to marginalise members of society based on their age. According to the World Health Organisation, “ageism is prejudice or discrimination on the grounds of a person's age”. It is an institutionalised form of discrimination that is often overlooked in many areas of work and society. Firstly, ageism in the workplace is common. It is widely accepted that the older members of the workforce are laid off and put on early retirement before other staff members. Also, work advertisements are often phrased such that it associates youth with value and potential, for example by a company stating it is “seeking young, energetic and dynamic individuals for the part of…”. In addition to this, the aged are also often blamed for the static growth or the lack of new ideas within an organisation. Younger employees are often used to attract younger customers, thus, assuming that the elderly are not appealing. A prime example of the is within the tourism industry where youths are used to advertise the Caribbean islands as an exotic destination filled with excitement and sexual appeal. Ageism can also appear within other contexts such as social or cultural aspects of life. Older people are often excluded from social activities because of the notion that they will not appreciate current music, games and dress. Additionally, many governments focus on researching illnesses and providing healthcare solutions for the young “productive” members of society (Feasley). The concept that the “geriatric generation” will eventually be afflicted with diseases and disabilities is generally accepted as a natural part of aging that cannot be ameliorated. As a result, in the Caribbean, many old age homes are established where the elderly is placed since they have become burdens on their families. Many of them remain there until there last days where their contributions to society is wasted.

As a result, the failure to recognize the contributions that older people bring to not only the workplace but also greater society excludes potential, expertise and connection. Older generations have years of experience that often surpass years of studying at prestigious universities. In a cultural setting, these older generations form the foundations of our culture. They pass along essential life lessons, traditions, cultural practices, dress, food, religion and other important elements of culture. Consequently, these older generations are a direct link to our ancestors and cultural roots which allow us to create and pass our own, unique Caribbean cultural identity. The cultural heritage of the Caribbean is of utmost importance to the Caribbean economy as it is a major attraction for tourists and locals who pay to attend various shows featuring traditional music, dance and art. Neglecting the oral traditions and other contributions the aged can make to this sector can be to the detriment of many tributary industries that may rely on it.

Finally, homophobia in the Caribbean has become a major issue. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the emergence of free thought and free will has led to those in society to become more comfortable and open about their sexual orientation. Also, an increase in the number of NGOs and support groups such as the Jamaica Forum for Lesbians All Sexuals and Gays (JFLAG) which attend to protecting gays rights has also facilitated this movement. Sexual orientation is a person's sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted. Sexual orientations include gay, lesbian, straight, bisexual, and asexual (Planned Parenthood). Caribbean governments face problems in dealing with these issues because territorial laws (for example the Buggery Act of Jamaica) and many Caribbean citizens who are conservative Christians Muslims, or Hindus are against any act of homosexuality. For instance, in Jamaica, once known as the most homophobic Caribbean island, heavily promotes anti-gay prejudice. This Caribbean island has become notorious not only for its anti-gay laws, political rhetoric and murders, but also for its broad societal acceptance of severe sexual prejudice and openly hostile music (Faber). Homosexual persons are often victims of discriminatory employment practices such as bias in hiring, promotion, job assignment, termination and compensation. In many islands, same-sex marriages, adoption and even inheritances are prohibited by law. Such basic human rights are infringed upon, thus, placing these individuals at a disadvantage in society. They are unable to live their lives freely when compared to the rest of society. Moreover, they may experience a lower quality of life due to the fact they are presented with a glass ceiling within the workforce so they may never be able to escape poverty. Lastly, society must also consider that sexual orientation does not completely define a person. A person’s sexual orientation has no effect on a person’s ability to excel in school or in the workplace. Despite the great strides made by the Caribbean today, the Caribbean mindset still has not accepted homosexuals as valid members of society and continue to ostracise these individuals since they do not meet societal standards. In this respect, the Caribbean can still be characterized as a region of grave intolerance as they continue to ignore the impact their oppressive views have on the lives of others

In retrospect, the Caribbean is a highly diverse space with influence from Amerindian, European, African, East Indian and Asian influences. Despite this however, it is this diversity which has created a great divide between the West Indian people. Over time, this gap has developed a mindset of grave intolerance for any issue which conflicts with the views and standards of our society. In recent times, however, the power of activism has led to the break down of these boundaries in an attempt to create an open, more accepting contemporary Caribbean space. Though, much more work is yet to be done as prejudice against persons based on their race, class, gender, age and sexual orientation still lingers within our society.

3 notes · View notes

crossdreamers · 6 years

Note

What definition of "lesbian" and "feminist" does this blog use? I appreciate that male-inclusionists use the term egalitarian for themselves. Why use feminist for yourselves when you support gender essentialism and refuse to acknowledge sex-based oppression?

On lesbians, transgender people and feminism

What is a lesbian?

A lesbian is normally defined as a homosexual woman, meaning that she is sexually attracted to people of her own gender. I believe that sexual orientation can often be more fluid than the binary this concept grows out of allows for, but for many this represents a perfect description of their sexuality.

Feminism

A feminist is a person who supports feminism. As I see it, feminism should at least include the following:

1. A clear understanding of how our societies (which are dominated by men and the Patriarchy) stop women from from achieving equals status to men as regards real power and influence, employment and salaries, legal framework, social welfare and services, as well as personal respect and validation. Moreover, feminism will have to include political means by which to change this.

But that is not enough. The oppression of women is so effective, because it is part of our language, the mental maps we use to navigate the world, and our institutions. This explains why women sometimes are as strong supporters of the status quo as men are (as in women voting for Trump and Putin).

Therefore feminism must include:

2. The goal of replacing the Patriarchy with a new understanding of biological sex, sexuality and cultural gender where men, women and non-binary people are understood as equals – politically, socially, and culturally. This is a society where being a man is no longer understood to be the default norm for being human, and where men no longer dominate.

Biological sex should be irrelevant. Sexual orientation should be irrelevant. Gender identity should be irrelevant. Everyone should be seen as human first, anything else second. But we are definitely not there yet. I live in a country where the three most powerful politicians are women, but where women continues to be belittled, ignored, dismissed and harassed because they are women.

In other words: As long as women continue to be oppressed in this way, it makes no sense to pretend that everything is all right, because the legal or formal frameworks are supposed to treat men and women in the same manner.

End the misogyny

The Patriarchy is upheld by contempt for women, by misogyny. Even in a liberal and egalitarian country like Norway, young boys and men continues to be socially conditioned to think of being female as something inferior, shameful and embarrassing. Many of those who violate this cultural taboo are called “sissies”, “faggots” or the worst slur of them all: “girls”.

Under the current racist, homophobic and transphobic backlash it is easy to see that this misogyny is part of toxic masculinity that puts dominance, aggression and violence above collaboration and compassion.

Which brings me to your real agenda.

I am, according to you, a “male-inclusionists” and a “gender essentialist".

I am not a gender essentialist

I am not a “gender essentialist”. I do not believe there are unique “female” and “male” brains and that trans women have a “female” brain in a male body.

My own life experience and my reading of current research tells me that “masculinity” and “femininity” – regardless of how you define these diffuse phenomena – are widely distributed among both men women and non-binary people, gay, bi and straight. This is also one of the reasons why I disagree with any attempt to reduce cultural or psychological gender to genitals or chromosomes.

The current consensus among natural scientists studying sex and gender, is that gender identity development in humans is the end result of a complex interplay between genetics, epigenetics, hormones, various environmental factors, social pressures and cultural concepts.

Transgender identities are real gender identities

The very existence of transgender people tells them (and us) that gender identity cannot be explained by social conditioning alone, since we are punished severely if we violate the gender binary and the traditional gender roles.

In spite of all the violence, transgender people consistently and persistently, keep their gender identity, even when they desperately try to live up to the expectations of society. Conversion therapy never works, in the same way it never works on homosexual men and women.

I believe this persistent gender identity has a biological component, but it is real even if it does not have one. It is as real as the sexual orientation of a lesbian, or the gender identity of non-transgender person. This is an observable fact.

My guess is that this “factor X”, if you will, is an inborn drive towards expressing yourself as a woman, a man, or someone non-binary, in the same way cis kids over time develop a need to be affirmed as a boy or a girl. Many girls embrace Disney princesses, not because they are genetically programmed to go for pink, but simply because society tells them that this is a good way to be affirmed as a girl. Through play and conversation, they are trying to find out what it means to be a woman in their place and time. We have to tell teach them that a pink princesses are not the default role models for women.

In the same way some transgender persons embrace stereotypical feminine or masculine expressions, not because they are essentially “queens of the ball” or “lumberjacks”, but because it is a way of exploring their identity in a social and cultural context. Like many cis people, most transgender people find a way of presenting their real personality in their end.

In other words: Biological sex, the gender identity continuum, sexual orientation and masculinity/femininity are four separate, but interacting, dimensions. That explains why you can meet a transgender, femme, lesbian woman.

Women may be diverse, but they have the political struggle in common

The feminist philosopher Catherine MacKinnon has said that “male dominant society has defined women as a discrete biological group forever. If this was going to produce liberation, we’d be free… To me, women is a political group…. I always thought I don’t care how someone becomes a woman or a man; it does not matter to me. It is just part of their specificity, their uniqueness, like everyone else’s. Anybody who identifies as a woman, wants to be a woman, is going around being a woman, as far as I’m concerned, is a woman."

Her respect for the individual’s uniqueness rings true to me. African-American women has a different life experience from white American women, college educated women one that is different from blue collar women, and Norwegian women lives in a different framework than women from Indonesia. Politics and the struggle against the Patriarchy bring them together.

The transgender contribution

The life experience of transgender women can bring new insights into our understanding of the repressive nature of the Patriarchy. Sure, they have in some ways experienced male privilege, but all of them have a system that does its best to beat their real identity out of them, because a "man” is not supposed to feel like a woman.

Many trans women are sexualized, raped and killed, just because they are women and because they threaten the fragile masculinity of men. At least 28 transgender women were killed in 2017 in the US alone, a majority of them black women. The survivors have a lot to teach other feminists about intersectionality and the oppressive power of the Patriarchy.

Trans men can also be of help in the feminist struggle, partly because they have been raised as girls, and partly because they have experienced the contrast between being treated like a woman and next as a man. They might help us develop narratives that make more men understand. The same applies to non-binary people who have actively developed a language that makes it possible to go beyond the binary.

Including men

If you by “male-inclusionists” mean that I think men can be feminists, the answer is yes. In the same way some women uphold the Patriarchy, many men do their best to undermine it.

if you by “male-inclusionists” refer to the idea that trans women should be respected and embraced as women, the term becomes a slur. Trans women are women, not men.

For a constructive butch lesbian feminist take on transgender lives, see this interview with gender philosopher Judith Butler.

Illustrations based on designs by Sonya_illustration and Jorgenmac.

Keywords: transgender, trans, LGBT, LGBTQA, lesbian, homosexual, feminist, TERF, TERFs, masculinity, femininity

21 notes · View notes

teafortwo29 · 7 years

Text

Gloria Steinem says black women have always been more feminist than white women

WRITTEN BY Leah Fessler @LeahFessler December 08, 2017

Gloria Steinem sets the record straight on black women's leadership. (Marla Aufmuth/Getty Images)

Gloria Steinem has been at the forefront of American feminism for a half century. But she’s never seen activism quite like today’s #MeToo movement.

“Clearly, at this moment in time we are gaining our voices in a way that has never happened before,” said Steinem, the co-founder of Ms.magazine and Women’s Media Center, at the Massachusetts Women’s Conference in Boston on Dec. 8.

Many women have found a sense of unity and purpose in #MeToo—a movement launched ten years ago by Tarana Burke, a black activist, and energized this year in the aftermath of sexual harassment and assault allegations against Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein. But while Steinem is heartened by this moment, she believes the quest for gender equality will not succeed if the mainstream movement ignores an essential reality: Black women have always been at the heart of feminist activism.

Speaking with American comedian and writer Phoebe Robinson, Steinem outlined the #MeToo movement’s blindspots, the importance of intersectional feminism, and how to continue dismantling sexual harassment and misogyny in the months and years to come.

Remember black women’s legacy

“We are kind of at a tidal wave point right now. But we need to remember that this all started over 40 years ago with defining the word sexual harassment,” Steinem told Robinson. In 1975, the term “sexual harassment” was coined by feminists at Cornell University. A few years later, feminist activist and lawyer Catharine MacKinnon developed the legal framework arguing that sexual harassment was a form of sex discrimination.

Then, Steinem continued, three black women filed successful sexual harassment lawsuits: two against the US government, filed by Paulette Barnes and Diane Williams, and one against a bank, filed by Mechelle Vinson. Vinson’s case, accusing her former supervisor of repeated harassment and rape, eventually led to the Supreme Court’s unanimous 1986 decision that sexual harassment was a violation of the Civil Rights Act.

“All three of these women were black. And these black women now symbolize the fact that [sexual harassment] is certainly is more likely to happen to people with less power in society than to people with more power,” said Steinem. She went on to note that law professor Anita Hill, also a black woman, brought sexual harassment to the forefront of public discourse with her 1991 testimony against then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas.

Yet more often than not, white feminism and mainstream American culture have overlooked the invaluable contributions of women of color. This injustice has led many, including Quartz’s Corinne Purtill, to rightfully charge that #MeToo hijacked black women’s work on race and gender equality.

Foreground intersectionality

“Women of color fought the battles that brought society to this point, where even the faint hope of change seems possible,” writes Purtill in Quartz. “To use that work without ensuring that this broken system is replaced with one inclusive of race, in addition to gender, is not partial victory. It’s complete failure.”

Steinem echoed the same message when Robinson asked whether today’s feminists fail to uphold the importance of intersectionality—a feminist theory introduced by civil rights advocate and law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw, also a black woman. Intersectional feminism examines the overlapping systems of oppression and discrimination that women face, based not just on gender, but on race, sexuality, socioeconomic status, physical ability, and other marginalized identities.

“The problem and what [many feminists today] are not saying,” said Steinem, “is that women of color in general—and especially black women—have always been more likely to be feminist than white women. And the problem I have with the idea that the women’s movement or the feminist movement is somehow a white thing is that it renders invisible the people who have always been there.”

If you don’t believe her, consult statistics, says Steinem: In the early 1970s, when Ms. Magazine published its first national poll, over 60% of black women said they supported the women’s movement and feminist issues. Just 30% of white women voiced support, says Steinem.

Things aren’t so different today, Steinem explained, pointing out that black women voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election, while a majority of white women voted for Trump. Steinem attributed part of the split to the way that married white women vote “in the interests of their husbands’ income and identity because that’s what they’re dependent on.”

Women of color, by contrast, are necessarily aware of systemic biases in their everyday lives; they are far more likely to actively oppose oppression. Said simply: We are not born sexist or racist. Rather, systemic racism and misogyny socializes us, in Steinem’s words, “to believe that we are ranked, when in fact we are linked.”

Raise our girls to be more like cats

Given the pervasiveness of sexism, sexual harassment, and misogyny, Steinem says we must actively shift the way we socialize young girls and women. Her solution: Raise them to be more like cats.

“Have you ever tried to touch a cat,” Steinem asked me, when I inquired how we should raise the next generation of feminists. I nodded, and she made a swatting motion with her hands. “Cats don’t let you touch them. Cats tell you what they’re going to do, and that’s that.”

What’s phenomenal, says Steinem, is that before children are fully socialized to fulfill traditional gender roles, they instinctively act like cats. “Babies are not born as ‘girls’ or ‘boys.’ Babies are born human, period,” Steinem explained. “And little kids say it so wonderfully when they say things like, ‘It’s not fair,’ and ‘You are not the boss of me.’ Those statements are the basis of every social justice movement. We need to hang on to that.”

Such cat-like instincts were quite literal for Steinem, who did not attend school much until she was 12 years old because her father moved frequently. Subsequently, she says, when someone attempted to kiss her on the cheek as a young girl, she literally bit him, breaking his skin and making him bleed.

But sustaining this attitude is nearly impossible when we constantly teach little girls to be pleasing. “We dress girls in dresses that button up the back, in clothes they can’t even dress themselves in. There’s so much training to be passive, and to wait for somebody else,” Steinem explained. “So we need to look for and demand internal changes in the way we act, and the way we treat our family and friends, in addition to demanding external changes.”

Fight for bodily integrity

The patriarchy will not tumble overnight. Steinem believes that many people still misunderstand what drives sexual harassment. “I think we still have not quite got it out there that sexual harassment and assault are about power, not sex,” she said. Understanding that sexual harassment is about the drive to dominate, humiliate, and demean other people can help provide clarity about what constitutes inappropriate behavior, especially for men who ask questions like, “Can we not hug women anymore?“

“The fact that our bodies belong to us, that’s the beginning of democracy in my view,” said Steinem. “Women have a harder time with democracy because we happen to have wombs, and patriarchy wants to control reproduction. And racial cast systems only make democracy harder for women of color. But the fact is for both men and women, our right to govern our own bodies, and use our own voices is fundamental to democracy. So if we can carry it forward in that way it’s very helpful.”

One of the most important ways to carry forward this bodily integrity, says Steinem, is to acknowledge that not everything is sexual harassment, and that we all are responsible for calling out behavior that feels inappropriate so to ensure lines do not blur.

“If a guy is commenting on our appearance in a flattering but uncomfortable way, if we comment back, they’re shocked, because we’ve taken the ability to define our boundaries and our desires,” said Steinem. “So we need to keep talking to each other—we can’t have men take this moment and say, ‘now I can never interact with women,’ or vice-versa.”

Activism doesn’t stop with social media

Among the many lessons to learn from black women’s leadership in the fight against sexual harassment, says Steinem, is that activism requires real-life, consequence-ridden work. Social media posts followed by complacency does not count.

“Obviously it’s a great gift to be able to communicate [on social media] and know you’re not alone. This is huge. But we also have to remember that pressing send isn’t actually doing anything,” said Steinem. “So we need to focus on the practical steps we take in the world. The obvious ones are how we spend our money, who we reward and who we don’t, and who we vote for.”

This is not to say that tweets and Facebook posts are meaningless. When it comes to real-life and social media activism, Steinem says it’s not an “either-or” situation, because activism is “an arc.” “Consciousness always comes first, before action,” she said. “And consciousness can come from typing #MeToo, and knowing that you’re not alone—knowing that the system is crazy, not you. It’s not about making a value judgment, it’s about seeing a full circle of consciousness, to activism, to change.”

Remember the simple rules of democracy

If you’re not exhausted by today’s political climate, Godspeed. For the rest of us, it’s okay to acknowledge that we’re overwhelmed, and probably craving hibernation, says Steinem. Waves of exhaustion and even hopelessness are inevitable in the fight for social justice, she assures.

However, to prevent ourselves from normalizing sexual harassment, we need to ground our activism in two fundamental values: intersectionality and democracy. Steinem explains:

“If you have more power, remember to listen as much as you talk. And if you have less power remember, to talk as much as you listen. That can be hard when you’re used to hiding. Keep yourself in the present, and don’t obsess over what you should be doing, or could have done differently. Talk to people, don’t get isolated, and remember to empathize, because almost everybody can be changed and transformed.”

https://qz.com/1150028

190 notes · View notes

cartoonessays · 8 years

Text

Identity Politics

One of the big issues in our political discourse is around what are called “identity politics”. To be short and blunt, the way we collectively discuss it is a total fucking trainwreck.

I’ve talked about this issue before in the recent past, but just to quickly recap it, a big point of friction in the Democratic Party primaries between opponents Fmr. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s campaign and Senator Bernie Sanders’ campaign was of the latter’s focus on economic issues and the former’s focus on issues related to race and gender. After Clinton’s loss in the general election, there were several pundits, whose political views range as widely as conservative, liberal, and Marxist, who criticized her campaign’s failure to understand how much of an issue economic disenfranchisement really was for such a large part of the populace, vociferously criticizing its focus around so-called identity politics.

I’ve discussed at length my own major issues in how Hillary Clinton’s campaign discussed issues related to identity, and how it was the most major manifestation in how superficial our broader discourse around it really is. However, the critics suggesting to abandon identity politics in general and focus on economics are just as hopelessly tone-deaf as the Clinton campaign/Democratic Party.

One of the biggest recurring questions in the wake of Clinton’s electoral defeat was “how did the Democrats lose so much of the white working class, especially when so many more of them voted for Barack Obama in past elections?”. That’s a good question to ask, but what absolutely drove me crazy is that nobody seems to inquire at all about working class people of color. True, voters of color went for Clinton over Trump in massive numbers, but those numbers are only among the pitifully small percentage of those populations that actually voted. It’s a problem that nobody ever bothered to ask why so many working class people of color didn’t vote. The only response Democrats seem to have towards non-voters, especially after 2000, is to disparage them as lazy, stupid, and in this past election, sexist, racist, or exhibiting their white privilege (how do all these political experts fail to understand that insulting people you want something from is a shit strategy?).

For critics on the left that criticize identity politics, their whole framing of it is all wrong. Thea Riofrancos and Daniel Denvir have discussed how this divisive debate on the left is oversimplified to the detriment of all sides. Leftist economic wonks, particularly Marxists and socialists, would do themselves some good to get a better understanding of how racial issues intertwine with economic issues if they hope to gain more support from people of color. Another example of this disconnect was highlighted by Johns Hopkins University professor Lester Spence, whose book Knocking the Hustle: Against the Neoliberal Turn in Black Politics criticized David Harvey’s seminal work A Brief History of Neoliberalism for its lack of analysis in regards to race in its critique of neoliberal economics. Spence argues that the people subjugated in a society structured in white supremacy (he focuses on black people) are impacted even more by the effects of neoliberalism than white people. Yet another example, historian Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz discusses economics as they relate to Native Americans currently and historically in her books. Any other critiques of identity politics on the left that aren’t grounded in an understanding of Marxist or socialist theory would do better to start reading up on Marxism and socialism.

Conservative critics of identity politics dismiss the concept of it off-hand as completely frivolous. A distressing number of liberals adopt this critique in this exact same way too. They’re all full of shit, especially the conservative critics. Right-wing politics are just as wedded to identity as much as left-wing politics. The only difference is that right-wing politics focuses on the identities of the dominant class; white, male, heterosexual, economically elite, and Christian.

In her seminal work The Second Sex, the thesis of Simone de Beauvoir’s argument of how women are oppressed is that our society has been structured with men as the norm and women as the deviation to the norm. This analysis can be extended to other identities as well; whiteness is structured as the norm and all other races are a deviation, heterosexuality is structured as the norm and LGBT+ is a deviation (see the term “gay agenda”), Christianity is the norm and other religions are the deviation. These identities as the norm have been so entrenched in our collective consciousness that we don’t even recognize or discuss them as identities.

The point of this blog has been to analyze portrayals related to identity in cartoons, which is only a small manifestation of how it plays out in society. The two Disney films Tangled and Frozen were named that instead of Rapunzel and The Ice Queen because they thought the less gender-neutral names would not appeal to boys. Disney films with more masculine titles like Aladdin, The Lion King, Tarzan, or Hercules are never assumed to be a turn off to girls in their audience. There’s a long history of female characters having more passive roles in comparison to active male characters and existing in relation to those male characters. Media starring white protagonists are viewed as universal while media with protagonists of color are viewed as “niche” or “political”. Media where the main character is supposed to serve as the audience surrogate are almost always white men or white boys.

Gong back to how conservatives adhere to identity politics, another reason that their identity politics aren’t recognized as identity politics is because they have a long history of discussing it using euphemisms. As Republican strategist Lee Atwater explained in a 1981 interview:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968, you can’t say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

As a result, policies that target black people for incarceration are called “tough on crime” or “law and order”. Those black people being targeted are called “thugs” or “criminals” instead of “niggers”. Latino immigrants are dehumanized through terms like “illegal aliens” instead of more direct slurs like “spic” or “wetback”. Arabs and Muslims are dehumanized by the terms like “terrorist”. Meddling and violent regime change in other countries is re-framed as “spreading democracy”. Persecution of LGBT+ in society is re-framed as “religious liberty”. This terminology is the legacy of the “Southern strategy” first adopted by Richard Nixon in order to win over white voters anxious about the demands for racial equality from activist groups, particularly Democratic voters disillusioned by Lyndon Johnson’s passage of the the Civil Rights Act. This was decades before the term “political correctness” entered our political lexicon.

Long before the 1950s and 1960s, presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson spoke out against what they called “hyphenated Americans” as a way of pandering to xenophobic attitudes towards European immigrants (who were not considered “white” in the late 19th/early 20th century). That same Woodrow Wilson screened Birth of a Nation at the White House when it premiered. The characterization of the inhabitants of foreign countries as “backwards” and “savage” in 19th and 20th century literature from the likes of Rudyard Kipling or Ian Fleming were used to justify Western imperialism throughout Africa, Asia, and South America.

Hell, dominant identity politics goes all the way back to Christopher Columbus and Hernan Cortes. Those damn sure weren’t other European Catholics they were conquering, raping, and pillaging in the Americas.

Folks on the left better get a better grasp of what identity politics actually is and how to discuss and advocate for it in a much more productive way because the right sure knows their way around it (no matter how much they deny it). Dismissing it outright or perverting it to take marginalized groups for granted are not the ways to go if you are truly invested in dismantling structural oppression.

Further viewing:

youtube

#identity politics #politics #economics #cartoon essays #just my thoughts

2 notes · View notes

agirlnamedsteve · 6 years

Text

I’m getting published! Cool!

Yesterday I got an email from the main editor of Killer and a Sweet Thang about a piece I submitted saying that they loved my writing and want to publish me in december which is some sort of weird dream for me. Not that it gives me any sort of recognition and it’s a really random website that not many people I know follow, but it’s a really big deal for me! I love online publications and would love to someday create a space like KAAST but mostly just love that I get to contribute something. And it’s a really deeply personal piece. I’ll attach it below. It’s basically just a revised version of a previous blog post. I was reading through the blog and seeing that there was such a wide array of articles, not all of them being about sex, and one of them even had to do with kavanaugh and who he is! I am assuming that the readership of this blog is anywhere from 16-25 ish probably? And I feel like the politics of my body is a way that I conceptualize my political involvement and also make sense of who I am. So I figured I would see if they wanted to publish me. It just affirms to me that this is what I want to be doing! Creative stuff! I like writing as though the world is my public journal. I am such an open book and love that about myself. Can’t wait to get back to school and see if there are any pubs I can get involved in.

“The Politics of My Body: Conceptualizing My Sexual Assault in a Post-Kavanaugh World”

I woke up relatively hungover in my hotel room and checked my phone to see more texts than I was expecting. Being halfway across the world, it’s not uncommon for people to check in on me and reach out during the hours when I’m sleeping since those are peak hours back home. Today was different though.

I was prepared for the news that a sexual assailant was joining the ranks of our oldest and whitest in government. I was prepared for the news, knowing fully well that even my foolish hopes that the outcries of survivors would make an impact on the vote couldn’t save us from this outcome. There was nothing I wasn’t prepared for, since the past two years since I started college and our country began its governance under yet another racist, sexist pig (I miss u Obama) I have felt that every news alert, every oppressive tweet, and every disappointment has just taken my body and thrown it against a building repeatedly. While it doesn’t show on the outside, my internal organs are bleeding and I have a heart that is bruised.

I received texts from friends who are with me abroad offering their support, from my older sister, former partners, and people who love me from all walks of life. I have recently made myself more vulnerable by sharing more personal details about myself on the internet and being much more politically active on my social media platforms regarding the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh and the nuances of women and survivors in a society where politics have never regarded anyone except white males as deserving of full respect. Reading some Brittney Cooper (“Eloquent Rage”) and the words of bell hooks and Cleo Wade and other intersectional feminist writers who I admire and engage with daily had been cathartic for me. It’s put things into perspective for me, and it’s expanded the ways that I go about processing difficult information.

First there’s the knowledge that women of color have always had it this bad. That Dr. Ford was more believable because she’s an academic and a white woman. That Anita Hill never had the chance Dr. Ford was given to be widely supported and believed. I’ve learned more about white feminism, and I’ve learned about who out of the men in my life are interested in speaking out and who will remain silent. I’ve appreciated and admired every person that has spoken out on their social media platforms and every person who had reached out to me and other survivors in any way, shape, or form to acknowledge our humanity and our anger. While it is easy for me to get caught up in the parts of my identity that have been more difficult–– being raised by a single mother, having an emotionally and physically unavailable father, growing up bisexual and struggling with body image, surviving sexual assault–– there are parts of my identity (my whiteness, upper-middle socio-eonomic upbringing, liberal arts college education) which grant me privilege and power that is simply not accessible to all people, especially POC. Additionally and above all, because I have benefitted from my whiteness, I often fail to see the intersections that amplify my power and recognize that regardless of how much I try to engage with female writers and activists of color, I can and should always be working to do better. And to know that I have this privilege, and to use it for the advancement of all people. But I digress…

That week I joined the survivors who came forward with their experiences of sexual assault. It has been two years and a few months, and I just never found the right time. It also took quite a bit of learning and unlearning for me to understand the depth and weight of what had happened to me. It took me a long time to remember that it was due to others not stepping up and sharing their stories and concerns with his behaviors of the past that I was put in the vulnerable position I was to be assaulted that night. He never would have been there in the first place if others had expressed their concerns of his predation. I don’t harbor any resentment for the situation I was placed in. I do, however, feel that it is my duty, as it was the duty of Dr. Ford, to out the people who have harmed us in an effort to make the world a safer and more just place. When I shared my experience, I don’t know what I expected. Learning that the process of due diligence meant that he needed to be contacted about what I had shared caused me immediate panic. I felt so heard and believed when I reported the incident. But I felt conflicted by the news that he would face consequences for his actions, or at least learn that he has had this lasting impact on someone he’s probably forgotten about. While I knew that must be part of the process, I had discounted how much it would affect me that he would have my name spoken to him, my experience relayed to him. I’m not pressing charges, so i’ll never have to sit in a courtroom opposite him and hear his voice, which will likely tell tales of assumed consent and blurred lines. The way I see it now, I was incapacitated, I blacked out during it, I have felt unsafe for myself and others in that space ever since.

On that morning, I drafted an email and decided I was done carrying the invalidation I was placing on myself on my shoulders anymore. In sending that email I didn’t suddenly become free. I didn’t call for celebration and I didn’t even feel different on the inside. But what’s followed has been the daily reminder to myself that I have survived and maybe even grown from my experience. An experience nobody should have to go through. Dr. Ford continues to be harassed daily, while I have been able to share my story in a much more quiet, almost secret in a way.

For people who are struggling with whether or not to share their stories, and those who have been burdened by the social media streams of personal experiences of victims and the reminder that so many people we know have been affected by sexual violence, I see you. I wish you peace. I know that even from my positionality it still took me a very long time and lots of support to come to terms with my experience. I have been realizing more and more that the need for me to speak out came less from a place of personal redemption and more from the understanding that my experience, my sexual assault, was political in and of itself. If we can’t hold men in our own communities accountable for their actions how can we expect that to be reflected in politics? It’s complicated, but watching Dr. Ford come forward with bravery and conviction convinced me that I could do the same.

0 notes

republicstandard · 6 years

Text

Britain won’t Outlaw Caste-Based Racism Because it Might Offend Hindus

When I immigrated to Britain, I thought I had finally left behind the hyper-racism of India’s caste system. I was wrong. A few years ago, after I’d given a lecture on Hinduism at a training course in the Diocese of Southwark, a schoolteacher came up and in a hushed conspiratorial tone whispered a horror story in my ears.

A 7-year-old boy of Indian origin raised his hand in class and said to her: “Miss, I don’t want to sit next to Hema.” When she asked him why he told her in front of the whole class: “Hema is a low caste girl. I am a Brahmin. My parents told me not to sit with her or make friends with her.” This was London, not Lucknow. Can you imagine the outrage if a 7-year-old white boy had said that he did not want to sit next to Lola, because Lola is black?

Suddenly, the sewage from the ugly unsanitary world of the hyper-racist Indian caste system began seeping out from the gutter of British multiculturalism that was so open – it rejected nothing and welcomed even the worst – especially if the social and cultural detritus was imported by minority ethnic or religious groups as part of their heritage. After all, who are we to judge?

Last week, The Hindu, an illustrious Indian newspaper, exposed Theresa May’s government for quietly shelving plans to recognize the caste as a form of racism in Britain’s anti-discrimination legislation. Britain’s Equality and Human Rights Commission attacked the government for ducking the highly contentious issue of caste and pointed out that the government’s actions were “inconsistent with the U.K.’s international obligations to provide for separate and distinct protection for caste in our legislation”.

But Penny Mordaunt, Minister for Women and Equalities (a non-job invented for Harriet Harman under the Labour government), doesn’t want to rock the Hindu boat. She finds caste discrimination “unacceptable” but argues that the Equality Act protects against it.

Here’s what is really sticking in her craw. The Equality Act (2010) under the section on “Protected Characteristics” lists the usual categories of victimhood like age, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc., but is supremely coy when categorizing “caste” under the category of “race”.

Using Sir Humphrey Appleby circumlocution and mind-numbing bureaucratese, it provides for a Minister of the Crown to “amend this section so as to provide for caste to be an aspect of race” or “amend this Act so as to provide for an exception to a provision of this Act to apply, or not to apply, to caste or to apply, or not to apply, to caste in specified circumstances”.

But like Basil Fawlty in Fawlty Towers shouting, “Don’t mention the war,” Penny Mordaunt and the Equalities Act are desperately shushing the controversy and pleading, “Don’t equate casteism with racism.”

Goodness, gracious me, didn’t you know only white people can be racist, not Indians? Where will it all end if we upend the hierarchy of intersectionality by taking down the white cisgender male a peg or two and slotting the high-caste Hindu Brahmin on the same level? How shall we drown ourselves in the oceans of white guilt created by our liberal tears?

Racism has got to be the exclusive privilege of the Western white male, hasn’t it? We can’t share this fashionable entitlement with caste-conscious Indians who oppress everyone from the top to the bottom of the caste ladder, can we? Isn’t this what progressive Penny Mordaunts are telling us?

Under the Equality Act, “race” includes “colour, nationality and ethnic or national origins”. Supporters of the caste system argue that the caste system is not racist because it is not based on color, nationality or ethnicity. They are both right and wrong. The caste system is based on Hinduism’s religious hierarchy of human beings. Louis Dumont thus astutely named his classic work on this stratification Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System and its Implications.

In a hymn from the Purusasukta of the Rig Veda, a foundational Hindu scripture, there are four main categories or varnas of Hindu society – varna means colour as well as class. The highest caste of Brahmin (priest) is born from mouth of the Supreme Deity Brahman, the Kshatriya (warrior) comes next being born from the deity’s arm, the Vaishya (businessman or trader) comes from the god’s stomach, and the Shudra (menial or servant) from the foot of the Creator.

The untouchable or Dalit is the unborn emerging from outside the body of the Creator, with no physical link to the Supreme Being and almost a different species, like an animal. The Manusmriti, another Hindu scripture, describes the untouchable as “polluted” and “unclean” from birth. He violates, by his very existence, the Brahmanical obsession with hygiene and is perpetually filthy, according to Dumont.

The religious texts assign different skin colors to the different castes: Brahmins are white, Kshatriyas are red, Vaishyas are yellow and the Shudras are black, according to the erudite Vedic Brahmin, Bhrigu, in the Mahabharata, Hinduism’s most famous epic. The colours are based on the predominance of a quality or virtue (guna) in their nature (prakrti).

Komar Dhillon in a PhD dissertation subtitled “Pigmentocracy in India” describes how skin colour is intrinsic to Indian racism. “Benefits for those on the lighter end of the skin color spectrum are recognized and leveraged in accordance with the systemic logic of being naturally superior. Conversely, often those on the darker end of the spectrum are perceived as inferior (by others as well as themselves), thus perpetuating the superiority of whiteness,” Dhillon writes.

Scientists of the National Institute of Biomedical Genomics have demonstrated that caste distinctions go back to 70 generations of social differentiation based on genetic lines. Hence caste has a genetic, rather than merely a social or occupational basis, and as such is fundamentally racist in origin, they conclude.

All this is incontrovertible evidence that the caste system is not only racist in terms of discrimination on the basis of pigmentation; it is worse than racist. The caste system is Racism Plus because the discrimination is inextricably intertwined with religion and into the binary division of pure and polluted.

So endemic is the caste system that a number of Indian Christians, Muslims and Buddhists, all belonging to egalitarian religions, succumb to its toxic temptations. I have often pointed out that Christians who support the caste system are doing so in defiance of fundamental biblical teaching in Genesis; where God creates all human beings in his image and likeness, unlike the Hindu doctrine of different castes emerging from different parts of the body of the Supreme Being.

India is the most racist country in the world as the caste system is the longest running system of discrimination anywhere in the world and has been going strong for three millennia. So degrading is the discrimination that upper caste people continue to force untouchables into manual scavenging; the stomach-churning practice of cleaning human excrement from dry toilets by loading it into cane baskets and carrying it away on their heads for disposal, although the system has been outlawed in India.

So what happens when Indians who are deeply entrenched in the caste system cross the ocean and settle down in our green and pleasant land? Do they jettison the age-old practice of Indian hyper-racism and embrace our values of equality and human rights?

In 2015, an employment tribunal ruled in favor of Permila Tirkey, who was forced to work 18-hour days and paid 11 pence an hour because she was from a lower caste. Her employers, Pooja and Ajay Chandhok, kept her enslaved in their home in Milton Keynes for four and a half years. They prevented her from bringing her Bible from India to Britain and from going to church.

The victim’s barrister, Mr Milsom, of Cloisters, said “The government’s original rationale for refusing explicit prohibition of caste-based discrimination was that there was no evidence of it taking place in the UK”. He added that the tribunal’s “damning findings” had left the government’s stance on caste discrimination “untenable”.

The report No Escape: Caste Discrimination in the UK (2006) concluded that 85% of the respondents felt that Indians in the UK actively practise and participate in the caste system. The former Mayor of Coventry, Ram Lakha, faced intense discrimination from upper castes when he stood for election in a largely Indian ward. “During campaigning I was often told that I would not get people’s vote as I was a chamar (one of the untouchable castes). So I filed my nomination in a non-Asian constituency and was able to win. The Indian community in Coventry always felicitates every new Mayor, however, till today they have not done this for me,” he said.

Most participants asserted that Hindu temples in Britain were not open to persons of all castes, with 80% claiming that each temple in the UK only allowed a specific group of people, based on caste, to worship there and that “temples were classified on caste lines.”[18] The reported documented a number of cases of caste discrimination in employment and even in the National Health Service.

Last year, the London School of Economics cancelled a talk by Dr Meena Dhanda from the University of Wolverhampton because her subject on “the challenge of confronting caste-based oppression” was too hot to handle.

But Britain’s Women and Equalities Minister Penny Mordaunt is so politically correct that she won’t mention caste and racism in the same sentence because it might offend Hindus. The Tory government also fears that, “enshrining caste in British law”, could affect Theresa May’s attempts to forge trade relationships with Commonwealth countries, namely India.

Contrast the stance of the present Conservative government with that the British colonial administration in India. Sagarika Ghose underlines the pivotal role of white Western missionaries in destabilizing the caste system under the British Raj. “It would be accurate to say that caste, as a conceptual category, was seriously challenged only after the arrival of the Christian missionaries, who initiated the radical idea of extending education to the Dalits,” she writes.

“The first special schools for untouchables were opened in the 1840s, encouraged not only by the missionaries but also by the British administration,” she notes. Ghose cites a Dalit writer who wrote that “as far as the Dalits are concerned, ‘the British arrived too late and left too early’, a reference to the fact that had it not been for the British colonial administration, Dalits would have never gained the right to attend school.” Ghose acknowledges the contribution of Hindu reformers like Jotirao Phule (1827-90) who “used Christian missionary arguments to ‘reject the fictitious world of Hindu religion.’”

“It is somewhat ironic that the religion most correlated with whiteness would be the catalyst for enacting social change in the realm of education amongst the racialized Dalits,” observes Dhillon in her treatise on Pigmentocracy in India. It is even more ironic that the country that was the catalyst for enacting social change in the realm of education and social policy when it ruled India is now not only importing the caste system from India, but also conserving it for posterity under the banner of the Conservative Party.

from Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine https://ift.tt/2LVu6Vf via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine

0 notes

krypti · 7 years

Link

[CN:Silencing, gaslighting, rape and abuse, rape culture, white supremacy, racist erasure, white privilege, male privilege. This is the first in a 4 part series.]

At first I thought, "Maybe Bernie Sanders has a woman problem."

It boggled my mind to think it. I'd always heard him spoken of as a liberal lion progressive honey badger, a guy who courageously took on unpopular stances, and simply did not give a fuck about conservative detractors. Go Bernie! Like a lot of people, I knew he was a socialist, and an Independent. From the snippets I'd gotten, he seemed to be a mix of Eugene Debs, and Rosa Luxemburg and Tommy Douglas combined, with a little bit of Alice Paul, Harvey Milk, and A. Phillip Randolph sprinkled in.

I thought I knew him. And what I knew, I liked very much.

["Bernie Sanders-Caricature" by Donkeyhotey is licensed under CC 2.0.]

But then came the release of his 1972 essay from the Vermont Freeman, a strange, free-wheeling reflection on relations between a man and a woman that included references to the man sexually fantasizing about women being abused, a woman sexually fantasizing about being raped, everybody wanting to read articles about the sexual abuse of 14 year olds, and a 13 year old girl with a "sex friend." Whut.

As someone who teaches women's history, I know enough about gender relations in 1972 to take it in context. It wasn't totally atypical of the crap some (but not all) male radicals were writing when it came to sexuality and "the revolution." That didn't make it any less awful, or more feminist. I assumed (from what I—vaguely—knew of Sanders) that he'd acknowledge the hurtful language, explain that he'd changed, and apologize. Problem solved.

I was wrong.

Instead his campaign trumpeted every brogressive excuse in the book. "It's a joke!" (But jokes can be harmful, and intent is not magic.) "It's bad 50 Shades of Gray fiction." (But 50 Shades of Gray glorifies abuse.) Then his fans got in on it. "Sanders has good votes!" (True! Which is why I'd expect him to understand the criticism.) "Don't crucify him!" (Criticism from feminists is not a violent attack.)

Silencing, gaslighting, minimizing. Huh?

Then there was his campaign appropriating #BlackLivesMatter to talk about jobs. Then there was Bernie Sanders whitesplaining not only how POC vote, but also how POC should be voting: "You should not be basing your politics based on your color." Here was Bernie Sanders' former chief of staff and close advisor talking about how Democrats really need to be courting white people. And here were his internet fanboys, on Facebook and twitter and in the comments of articles which ask why Sanders doesn't talk about race and gender, telling us to STFU because Bernie is THE MOST PROGRESSIVE. (Since when is that a productive way to evaluate a candidate?)

I changed my question. Does Sanders have a privilege problem? To find out, I went looking for Bernie.

(If you're not familiar with privilege, and its effects, you'll need to educate yourself before reading the rest. If the term only means economic privilege to you, and you've never heard of [among others] white privilege or Christian privilege or thin privilege, or the places where privilege and oppression intersect, then this essay will be incomprehensible to you.)

I went looking in the history, because that's how I understand things. I started at the beginning and went forward. I didn't want to rely on other bloggers' accounts. So as much as possible, I dug into old newspapers. There aren't any archive-only documents here; everything is online, in one place or another. But as much as possible, I've used news stories and items from the time of the events involved, or close thereafter.

I went looking for the activist and politician. So you're not going to find any irrelevant and intrusive nonsense about his personal life, his partners or other family, who deserve their damn privacy. This isn't a hit piece. But maybe it's a corrective, an attempt to bring some reality to the overinflated claims about his psychic ability to always be right about everything progressives care about in 2015. I wanted to look at his story through the lens of intersectional feminism. From that perspective, it matters, a lot, how candidates talk about marginalized groups; it's not enough to have some good votes in Congress if you're also legitimizing oppression in other ways. I've got some particular questions, especially (but not solely) around race and gender; not everyone is equally interested in those questions, but they are central to the purpose of this space.

I went looking for Bernie. And here is what I found.

PART 1: SANDERS '72

[Picture originally published in the Bennington Banner, Tuesday, Sept 17, 1974.]

Let's start with the late 60s and early 70s, since there have been a flurry of pieces recently discussing more of Sanders' early 1970s essays, his general participation in Vermont's radical scene, and his early political life. If you want to know about his earlier years, his time at the University of Chicago, including his anti-segregation work and other activities, has been covered elsewhere. I'm interested in his early political life in Vermont. He wrote for several alternative publications, did some community organizing, and ran for office on the Liberty Union ticket. Like others in his cohort, he was broke a lot, and lived on unemployment, his carpentry, or the sale of his educational filmstrips. Or his writing.

His writings ranged over a broad range of subjects, but when he got the chance, he frequently turned to revolution. Against the establishment, against class restrictions, and against government restrictions on the individual rights. A rejection of Vietnam and other wars, using those monies to address class inequities. The decriminalization of drugs, abortion, and other areas where the government infringes on individual rights. The essays certainly touch on gender issues, but most often as related to broader themes of liberation, including sexual. Sometimes, yes, they are downright creepy. In every case, they seem to reflect a Sanders who cares about equality generally, but hadn't engaged with feminism, or considered his male privilege, at all.

For example, in "The Revolution is Life Versus Death," published the Vermont Freeman in November 1969, Sanders ruminates on the film I Am Curious (Yellow), apparently concerned that those under 18 were not permitted to view the sexually explicitly movie. I think his concern is false modesty and sexual ignorance, because he then muses (in response to an incident at a Vermont beach): "Now, if children go around naked, htey [sic] are liable to see one another's sex organs, and maybe touch them. Terrible thing! If we bring children up like this, it will probably ruin the whole pornography business, not to mention a large portion of the general economy that makes its money by playing on people's sexual frustrations." I really wish he'd put something about teaching children to ask before touching someone else. I don't want to be disappointed so early in my quest.

He goes on to note that "[t]he Revolution is coming, and it is a very beautiful revolution... The revolution comes when two strangers smile at each other. …when a commune is started and people start to trust one another, when a young man refuses to go to war and when a girl pushes aside all that her mother has 'taught' her and accepts her boyfriends [sic] love."

The rape-y logic that a woman "accepting" her boyfriend's pressure for sex is somehow revolutionary was not uncommon at the time. But there were plenty of feminists out there at the time fighting back; the earliest version of Our Bodies, Ourselves spends a lot of time trying to help women work through pressure from both patriarchal tradition and the male entitlement of the Sexual Revolution. Suggesting that a woman is brainwashed by her parents just because she doesn't want to have sex with a dude, as Sanders does, is simply the inverse of suggesting she's a slut if she does. (Bonus gross points for equating patriarchal control with her mother!) I don't see much understanding of feminism here.

Sanders' additional claim that many social ills were related to the sexual repression of young people was also suggested in another 1969 essay, "Society, cancer and disease," in which he muses over a 1952 study that correlated the inability to orgasm with breast cancer; he also discusses a 1954 study suggesting that women with cancer of the cervix tended to have a dislike of sexual intercourse. These aren't Sanders' fantasies; they're scientific studies (albeit minority opinions). But the conclusions he draws are all his own:

…What do you think it really means when 3 doctors, after intense study, write that 'of the 26 patients (under 51) that developed breast cancer, one was sexually adjusted.' It means, very bluntly, that the way you bring up your daughter with regards to sexual attitudes may very well determine whether or not she will get breast cancer, among other things…How much guilt, nervousness have you imbued in your daughter with regard to sex? If she is 16, 3 years beyond puberty, the age at which nature set forth for child bearing, and spent a night out with her boyfriend, what is your reaction? Do you take her to a psychologist because she is 'maladjusted,' or a 'prostitute,' or are you happy she has found someone with whom she can share love? Are you concerned about HER happiness, or about your 'reputation' in the community?

The reference to 13 years being at the age when nature prescribed childbirth is gross. His concern, that teenage women "share" or "accept" love from men, for their own good (cancer!), is some pretty amazing trolling. If the revolution includes this much patriarchy, count me out, Bernie.

Sanders voices concern over men getting cancer as well, but apparently they don't have to blame their sexual attitudes. Rather, it's female authority figures who are to blame:

A child has an old bitch of a teacher (and there are many of them), or perhaps he is simply not interested in school and would rather be doing other thing. [sic] He complains and rebels against the situation, which is the healthy reaction. When a person is hurt, no matter what age, he SHOULD rebel…. Outwardly, he becomes the "good boy", [sic] conforming to the rules and regulations of the system. Inwardly, his spirit is broken, and his soul seethes with anger and hatred, which is unable to be expressed. He has learned to hold back his emotions and put on the phony façade of pleasantness. Thirty years later, a doctor tells him he has cancer.

So, men's anger is suppressed by old women, who represent the oppressive power system that gives men cancer. Considering that anger is one of the few emotions (white) men are traditionally allowed to express in a patriarchal society, this doesn't sound so much revolutionary as reactionary. Was he serious that *men* are the ones obliged to bury their anger "under a façade of pleasantness"? I'm sorry, but this is not the fearless feminist I was looking for.

In fact, Sanders was so far removed from feminist analyses of oppression that he suggested women bore some responsibility for it. While the rapey sexual passages of his 1972 Vermont Freeman essay have been thoroughly quoted, this passage has drawn less attention:

Women, for their own preservation, are trying to pull themselves together. And it's necessary for all of humanity that they do so. Slavishness on one hand breeds pigness on the other hand. Pigness on one hand breeds slavishness on the other… On one hand "slavishness," on the other hand "pigness." Six of one, half dozen of the other. Who wins?

Presenting the oppression of women as somehow resulting from "slavishness," seems to put the responsibility for gendered oppression on women's acquiescence. Women have to take responsibility for bootstrapping themselves out of patriarchy! (The particular use of the word "slavish" is also wince-inducing, considering the racial history embedded in the term. That sort of erasure and appropriation was something that white feminists (like Robin Morgan) were doing a lot, so Sanders isn't uniquely gross here. Ugly white privilege all around.)

Sanders' essay also includes another classic 101-level bit of false equivalency: women's mistrust of men, based on their experiences with oppression from men, is "misandry," and therefore somehow the equivalent of male oppression:

…"But in reality," he said, "if you ever loved me, or wanted me, or needed me (all of which I'm not certain was ever true), you also hated me. You hated me—just as you have hated every man in your entire life, but you didn't have the guts to tell me that…. You hated me not because of who I am, or what I was to you, but because I am a man. You did not deal with me as a person—as me. You lived a lie with me, used me and played games with me—and that's a piggy thing to do.

This kind of false equivalency (addressed by Liss at this blog in "The Terrible Bargain We Have Regretfully Struck") is probably something that 70s Sanders would have immediately recognized, if it were in a class-based analysis. No intelligent leftist of his generation would have accepted to idea that a poor person's suspicion of the rich was equivalent to their oppression of the poor! Yet here we find women being "piggy," a not-too-subtle word choice in an era when "male chauvinist pig" was entering the lexicon.

So, based on a limited sampling of his essays, Sanders is sounding a bit like a Shakesville troll crying misandry. I do not think I would have enjoyed being at a party with early 70s Bernie Sanders! But more importantly, would I have voted for him?

Sanders ran as a candidate in a number of elections for governor and for Senator from 1971-1976, on the Liberty Union Party ticket. (These included two different elections in 1972: a January vote for senator and a November vote for governor.) His campaign rhetoric, as recorded through his own writing and newspaper reports, centered on concerns with the Vietnam war, economic injustice, and Nixon-era government infringements on civil liberties—a fiercely social libertarian stance that rejected government interference in personal liberties. Frequently, these concerns overlapped with gay liberation (as it was then known), anti-racism, and women's rights. So it's important to put those concerns in full context of time and place in order to understand what Sanders was supporting.

For example, Salon recently re-published one of Sanders' 1972 letters to the Vermont Freeman, under the truly embarrassing headline, "Bernie Sanders Supported Full Marriage Equality 40 Years Ago." The article lauds Sanders for being so far ahead of his time and tut-tutting President Obama and Secretary Clinton for not supporting full marriage equality until 2012. Why is this embarrassing? Well, aside from the fact that Sanders was still squishy on his support for civil unions as late as 2000 (more on that in Part 4), it's a terribly ahistorical reading of Sanders' letter.

The goals of most participants in early gay liberation didn't include marriage. Although some same-sex couples did indeed pursue marriage licenses many more activists rejected marriage as an oppressive institution. And also? They were fighting simply to survive, to exist in peace without being jailed or beaten or tortured by "treatment" or locked in asylums. Marriage, that conservative institution, became a more widespread goal in the 1980s. (Here's a brief history of that evolution.) Although some of Sanders' current fanboys seem to view him as a Progressive Messiah, I don't think anyone has seriously suggested he has psychic powers, able to discern that ONE DAY this seemingly conservative cause would become a progressive one. So what was he supporting in the letter?

Writing in support of his own bid for governor, he lists three points of concern. Point 1 is Vermont's regressive tax structure, which Sanders criticizes for taxing consumers more than corporations. Point 2 is about the war in Vietnam, which he acknowledges as a moral and financial problem, specifically calling for its funding to be transferred to affordable housing, dental, and medical care. In point 3, he states that "[p]robably the most alarming concern of the Nixon administration has been the gradual erosion of freedoms and the sense of what freedom really means." He calls for the abolition of "all laws that impose a particular brand of morality," listing among these "all laws dealing with abortion, drugs, sexual behavior (adultery, homosexuality, etc.)" His letter ends asking for support from "all people who are disgusted with the basic status quo and who demand basic social change in this state and this country."

It's notable that Sanders addresses the decriminalization of homosexuality and abortion on a par with drug use, as part of a wider concern for civil liberties generally. That's consistent with his description of Liberty Union's platform in a Bennington Banner article from Saturday, December 11, 1971. (This and most of the other newspaper articles I am referencing are available behind a paywall at Newspapers.com.) In "What the Other Party Offers," John Leaning reports that LU candidates Sanders for Senate and Doris Lake for Congress have four areas of concern. First is the economy, and wealth inequality; Sanders is quoted as saying that "the interests of the 2 per cent directly and entirely control the economy." Point 2 is labeled as "decision making: 'Who makes the decisions in this country…the same handful of men who control the power and wealth. That has to change, because no 10 men should ever be able to control the lives of the rest.'" Third is foreign policy; Sanders decries the post-World War II imperialism of the U.S. Point 4 is freedom: "Sanders said he would seek an end to abortion laws, legalize all drugs, eliminate restrictions on birth control, and end all discrimination based on sex, race, or anything else." Sanders is then quoted going into drug decriminalization in some depth, suggesting that decriminalizing drugs (he specifically discusses heroin) would end the "kick of doing something against the government" and allow "us to know the dimensions of the problem, and be able to deal with it rationally."

Sanders addressed many other issues that campaign, and some of his out-there ideas even won praise from the "establishment." For example, he argued that hitchhiking should not be illegal, and in fact, there should be regular parts of the roadway widened so that those who wanted a ride, and those who wanted to stop to give one, could safely meet. Needless to say, I can't find any other candidates addressing this topic, although it was at that time a very common form of transportation, especially for young people without money for bus or train tickets. The Bennington Banner not only reported this, it wrote an editorial commending Sanders' idea; why have a law that everyone winks at? Sanders and Liberty Union may have been on the fringe, but they did get some positive attention for their original ideas on occasion.

The Bennington Banner also featured stories on Sanders opposing Nixon's bombing raid in North Vietnam on December 30, 1971 (an opinion shared by all but one of the other House and Senate candidates). On January 4, 3 days ahead of the special election for Senate, Sanders toured a state prison in Windsor and made remarks afterwards blasting environmental pollution and saying "...that the 'real criminals' are 'the people who allow and even promote the unemployment which enables corporations to make large profits.'"

He then gets around to the actual prisoners, blaming "the government's economic policy" and racism for joblessness: "He says that when a man who can't get a job because of the government's economic policy or because he is black, steals to get food for his children, that person is put in jail. 'It says a great deal about our country…that the richer our country gets, the more of us there are behind prison bars and that an overwhelming number of those who are in jail are poor, non-whites.'" Then he reportedly moved on to his opponent, Robert Stafford, blaming him for continuing to "vote for every major military appropriation in the last 10 years while he has been in Congress" and adding:

"The criminals who made this war will never be prosecuted," he continued, "but one soldier who massacred two dozen people is put in jail. Why is it a crime to kill one person or several dozen but not a crime to kill 200 people a day in Southeast Asia with American bombs and planes as we are doing right this minute?"

Taken in context, I can only conclude that his remarks refer to Lt. William Calley, who had been convicted in March of the premeditated murder of 22 Vietnamese civilians in connection with the My Lai massacre. The suggestion that Calley was not the only guilty party is nothing extraordinary; numerous other, more senior officers got off scot-free. But the suggestion that Calley did not deserve to be in jail (like the man who steals to get food, apparently), and the math-playing with Vietnamese lives ("One person," "several dozen" "200 people a day") are absolutely cringe-inducing. It's also strange, to say the least, to derail a very important and relevant statement about the racial injustice of American prisons to focus on a white man's imprisonment.

Let me be clear: I'm not saying that Sanders in 1972 was George Wallace, nor that his problems in speaking about race weren't a common problem for white progressives of all stripes at the time. (And it should be acknowledged that Sanders himself, a Jewish man who lost relatives in the Holocaust, has dealt with a wide range of ethnic bigotry. As Paul Kivel has explored, white privilege is complicated for European-descended Jews.) My point is this: Sanders'72 has a hard time keeping his focus on race, or addressing it intersectionally; he immediately goes back to economic hegemonies. And the result? Awkward as a basset on a surfboard.

[Picture originally published in the Bennington Banner, Friday October 16, 1976. Attributed to "Woolmington."]

Racial hierarchies aren't the only ones he has trouble on. He supports an end to abortion restrictions, an incredibly relevant topic in 1972. Roe v. Wade was scheduled to be re-argued that October. In Vermont, the landmark Beachy v. Leahy case had struck down state restrictions on the procedure earlier that year. Beachy v. Leahy was exactly the sort of case that one might expect Sanders to be interested in, since its reproductive rights issues were strongly wrapped up in class: a welfare recipient, in need of an abortion, could not afford to cross state lines to obtain one. Although Vermont law did not make it a crime for women to have an abortion (self-inducement, for example, was quite legal), any Vermont physician providing her medical care could be prosecuted.

But the intersection of class and gender is absent from Sander's remarks on abortion when quoted in a September 1, 1972 article in the Bennington Banner. Instead, he hits on the civil libertarian argument that politicians have no right legislating another person's body: ("[i]t strikes me as incredible that politicians think that they have a right to tell a woman what she can or cannot so with her body." He acknowledges that abortion "brings out deep feelings in people, and I respect the feelings of those who are opposed to abortion on moral grounds," but rejects the idea those are valid grounds for legislation. And then he ends noting that Women in Vermont will have abortion regardless of legal status: "The question is whether they will be forced to go to those states where abortions are legal, or whether they can be treated in their home state."

That's an extremely puzzling conclusion when an entire court case had been built around the fact that some Vermont women could not afford to travel out of state. So why focus on the social libertarian argument about government control?

Even when ostensibly addressing women directly, Sanders '72 seems to have had trouble connecting and staying focused. In a 1972 feature, Crittenden magazine provided A Feminist View of the Democratic and Liberty Union Candidates. (The magazine had previously interviewed other candidates in a separate issue.) There seem to have been some differences in the precise questions asked each candidate, but each responded to broadly similar topics deemed to be of feminist interest:

Bernard Sanders, Liberty Union Candidate for Governor.

ERA-Strongly for it.

Daycare--Should be available to anyone who wants it, with sliding fees based on income. "Day care is important, not only for parents but for kids."

Abortion--a "civil liberty" that government has no business restricting.

Consumer Rights--His view is like Ralph Nader's; he would like to see consumers on the boards of all major corporations.

Welfare Reform--The entire system should be scrapped and replaced with a $6500 income for a family of four. "Poverty is obsolete and should not be allowed."

Women's Liberation--A manifestation of blacks, women, gay people, and others "demanding control over their lives." As for women in politics, he points out that he has a female running mate--Elly Harter--and that the highest vote ever received for a Liberty Union candidate was received by Doris Lake in her campaign for Congress last year. Would he mind having a woman governor or attorney general? "Are you serious?" As for working under a woman's supervision, he points out that he's supervised by Liberty Union Chairman Martha Abbot, and has no objections. Women should have opportunities for top governmental and industrial jobs, but he would "not support someone just because she's a woman." Among steps he would like to see to bring equal pay for equal work is to raise the minimum wage to $2.50 an hour.

(Sanders also responded to a question on the Vietnam War [end it, for economic reasons] and a local environmental initiative.)

It's an interesting collection of responses. His support for the ERA, consumer rights, and abortion rights are clear—but the latter is, once again, very much a "civil liberty" issue. Women's liberation is framed entirely as an aspect of a wider revolution. His welfare reform suggests a commitment to minimum guaranteed income. And he can point to women in his own party with genuine leadership positions—more than the Democratic candidates were able to do. Well done, Sanders '72!

It's also weirdly disconnected. Women should get opportunities in government and industrial jobs, but apparently they needed no special consideration to overcome the overwhelming structural biases stacked against them. Should they bootstrap themselves out of patriarchy? And I'm not clear on how raising the minimum wage was supposed to "bring equal pay for equal work."

But perhaps the female voters responded better to Sanders. Unfortunately there are few records of his interactions with female voters, or any voters for that matter. A December 11, 1971 story about a Liberty Union campaign event, "An Evening with Sanders and Lake," details a first-person account of a reporter's encounter with the two Liberty Union candidates at a small information session. The reporter, Greg Guma (who would cover much more of Sanders in future) mostly discusses his own interactions with Sanders, who was already displaying his now-famous grumpitude:

In answer to a question about his personal political viewpoint, Senatorial candidate Sanders replied: "Obviously you haven't been listening to me. Do you know what the movement is? Have you read the books? Are you against the war in Vietnam?"

"But what do you think?" was the reply from myself. "You're an individual, not a movement."

"You don't understand. It's the movement that's important. Are you for it? If you're not, I don't want your vote."

After Sanders repeated "I don't want your vote," Guma apparently left the meeting. He concludes his article with a comment from an attendee:

The result of the rap session was summed up by Ruth Levi. "You've lost my vote," she said with a smile.

Sanders left his own record of the campaign trail, in a piece for Crittenden magazine, Fragments of a Campaign Diary. It contains sketches of his life on the campaign trail and his own blunt assessments of himself. If your picture of early 1970s Bernie Sanders is informed only by those slightly psychedelic essays for the Vermont Freeman, I'd recommend this to round out the picture. It's a straightforward series of vignettes and reflections that are very human. Here are Sanders and another candidate frugally splitting a fish dinner, down to their last few dollars. Here is Sanders enthusiastic about a "beautiful, toothless old man" telling him tales of Depression-era the socialist meetings. Here's a Vermont Labor Council delegate demanding to know where Sanders' beard was—after all, didn't all radicals have beards? Here is Sanders' frustration with a television interview where he addressed corporate greed at length, and the station "only" played back his responses on marijuana and abortion.

And here is Sanders being hard on himself when he feels he's done poorly.

Spoke to students of St. Anthony's in Bennington—and I did terribly… Spoke right off the top of my head, didn't put two coherent sentences together, and made very little allowance for the fact I was speaking to 17 year olds… I consider talking to young people very important, and it bothers me that I was unable to convey my feelings to them.

…Appeared on "You Can Quote Me" and did horrendously. It was just one of those times that I never got started and was on the defensive throughout…. It was defensiveness from thereonout…I felt disgusted with myself when I left the studio—I didn't handle myself well at all.

...the entire last week of my campaign…was directed toward telling people that they should vote what they believed in and not for what they considered the lesser of two evils. I guess it didn't work, though. On election day I expected 3 percent and was very disappointed with what I got.

(Sanders received 1 per cent of the votes.)

Perhaps the most interesting anecdote, for me, was his encounter with a group of working-class women in a factory—women with whom Sanders might expect to connect, given his interest in economic justice. It didn't quite go that way. He reports:

---Went through a factory in Bennington with endless rows of middle-aged to elderly women sitting behind sewing machines. Horrible. "Excuse me, I'm Bernard Sanders, Liberty Union candidate for governor. Have you heard of Liberty Union? Well, if you get a chance I'd appreciate it if you read this." And out goes the leaflet. A very deadly place. Barely made it through. As I left I heard a few women making snickering comments about Dr. Spock running for president. [ed: Spock ran on the Progressive Party ticked and was supported by Liberty Union in Vermont.] And I thought everybody liked Dr. Spock. I knew I wouldn't get one vote from that place.

I don't know why, exactly, Sanders flopped with this audience, and I'm not sure he did either. Perhaps he was uncomfortable with older women. Perhaps his revolutionary fervor was annoying to women just trying to get through the workday. It's interesting that Sanders thought "everybody liked Dr. Spock," when conservatives were already blaming the doctor-turned-activist/public humanist for ruining America's youth. Maybe these women agreed with that critique. Or maybe they just thought Spock was a mansplaining jackass who could keep his childrearing ideas to himself, thanks very much. But somehow, they connected him with Sanders. And I suspect he was correct—he didn't get one vote from that place.

Sanders would spend several more years running for office and not getting very many votes, before a successful election to the position of Mayor of Burlington in 1981. What happened to turn him from loser into winner? And how did his "white male" problems continue? Those will be featured tomorrow in "Looking For Bernie, Part 2: Mr. Sanders Goes to Burlington."

#bernie sanders

0 notes

tragicbooks · 7 years

Text

16 things you can do right now to advocate for women's rights and 4 you shouldn't.

Practicing intersectional feminism will make a more fair and just world for all.

<br>

So you’re a feminist? That's awesome!

Photo by Emma McIntyre/Getty Images.

Feminism has been one of the most invaluable tools of resistance against fascism, racism, and bigotry. The advocacy work of feminism from decades before has led to voting rights for women, abortion rights, bodily autonomy, and more.

But at its inception, feminism wasn't as inclusive as it could be. The needs of minority women, women of different sexualities and gender identities, and women who were not of the middle and upper class weren't lifted up.

Erasure of the stories of different types of women — all deserving of equality — inspired the concept of intersectional feminism.

The idea behind intersectionality is that women’s overlapping identities — such as race, religion, class, and sexual orientation — affect the way they experience oppression in varying levels of intensity.

Photo by Andrew Cabellero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images.

Women are multi-layered, complex beings with varied identities. We must advocate for all to be able to life live free of the structural and systemic injustices that prevail.

If we limit feminism to white, cisgendered, upper-middle-class women, we continue a violent cycle of white, heterosexual patriarchy that has made the lives of many unnecessarily difficult.

While there are many ways to become more intersectional in your feminism, here are a few steps to get you started.

1. Do stop and listen.

Listen to black women. Listen to Muslim women. Listen to trans women. Listen to lesbian women. Listen to women who are domestic workers.

All of these women and more experience racism, classism, homophobia, and structural injustice in various ways. This year has brought an enclave of racism, hate crimes, and problematic practices to the U.S. government and our communities. The people most susceptible to the consequences of this culture are marginalized women. They have the right to be sad, disheartened, and pretty darn mad. Listen to their anger, their ideas, and the problems that are a part of their identity.

53% of white women cast their ballots for Trump, while 94% of Black women and 68% of Latina women voted for Clinton. http://pic.twitter.com/ZjgtqnAqeM

— LEFT✍🏾 (@LeftSentThis) January 22, 2017

2. Do study intersectional feminist history.

Kimberlé Crenshaw's essay on the intersection of race and sex is a great place to start. Or stop by your local library and look into the works of feminists scholars like Bell Hooks and Audre Lorde.

3. Don't whitesplain.

Whitesplaining is to explain something through the lens of whiteness, often condescendingly. Instead, listen to the experiences, ideas, and perspectives of marginalized women to understand what a more equal world looks like to them. It may be uncomfortable or you may disagree, but don't be defensive. Understanding the stories of the women around you without bias is integral to creating a truly equal world.

Photo by Emma McIntyre/Getty Images.

4. Do read books by intersectional feminists.

Audre Lorde’s "Sister Outsider," Bell Hooks’ "Ain’t I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism," and Roxane Gay’s "Bad Feminist" are just a few of the many books available by badass women to get you started on your journey to becoming an intersectional feminist.

Reading the work of feminist also assists in financially supporting the work of women that, systemically, often make less than white women for their work.

Roxane Gay is one of the most well-known feminist writers and scholars. Photo by Thos Robinson/Getty Images.

5. Do pop that filter bubble.

You can find many women on Twitter that offer their words of wisdom, read articles on websites you don’t usually frequent, and look up information on topics that are new to you to expand you knowledge.

6. Don't ignore hate speech — call people out.

When you hear a friend, family member, colleague, or significant other making problematic statements, say something.

You don’t need to hold an hourlong lecture or break off ties with one another, but directly explain why what they said was problematic and the bigger picture behind their words. We often think that people can’t change, but many times, hearing something from a loved one rather than a social media account goes a pretty long way.

7. Do check out art from marginalized communities.

Art reflects life. It remains one of the most important and timeless outlets for human expression during politically charged times. Go to art shows that are curated by minority and women artists or that feature the work of those artists. Listen to music that discusses the challenges facing our world, and support minorities and LGBTQ musicians, painters, actors, and programming.

8. Do update your media diet by following journalists of color.

Joy Reid, Dylan Marron, Franchesca Ramsey, and Melissa Harris-Perry all have shows, platforms, or social media venues that showcase the experiences of various women and how to best become an ally.

9. Do donate and volunteer with organizations practicing intersectional feminism.

Planned Parenthood has received a plethora of donations (many in the name of feminism "favorite" Mike Pence), but they aren’t the only organization fighting the good fight for women all over the country. Sistersong: Women of Color Reproductive Justice, a Southern-based organization that works to get reproductive justice and human rights to women of color and indigenous women; Central American Legal Assistance, a New York firm that provides "free or low-cost service to immigrant communities"; and the Trans Lifeline, a hotline service run by transgender people for the needs of trans people, are all organizations that are inherently intersectionality feminist and in need of funds to continue fighting for the marginalized.

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images.

10. Do hire women of color, trans folks, and non-binary people.

Whether you’re a hiring manager, a teacher, or a community worker, use your space to advocate for the disenfranchised. This could mean hiring minorities and queer people, protesting in marches that advocate for the rights of communities you aren't necessarily a part of, and spending your money at minority-owned businesses.

11. Don’t speak for groups you don’t identify with.

Trans women can speak for themselves, Latina women can speak for themselves, cisgendered minority women can speak for themselves, and so can every other human. Instead of trying to explain their experiences to other people, let them explain their experiences themselves. They've got this.

Photo by Emma McIntyre/Getty Images.

12. Do remain politically active.

Keep track of how your representatives are voting by using apps like Countable and iCitizen to follow key issues that impact marginalized communities. Attend town hall meetings, call your congressmen, and be vocal when problematic policies are placed on the table.

13. Do understand you'll make mistakes.

Sometimes, you may unknowingly say things that are problematic, myths, and outright wrong. Humans are flawed; it'll happen. But don't let that make you afraid to engage in dialogue out of fear of misspeaking. Instead, listen when someone corrects you, and work on being better and more understanding.

14. Don't spend money with companies that back problematic politicians and policies.

Where you spend your money is a personal choice, but there are several popular companies known to either directly support politicians advocating for discriminatory policies or outright support discriminatory policies. Learn about the history of your favorite companies and the folks who are running it from the top, and use this information to make ethical and well-informed choices.

15. Do buy from companies that support organizations fighting the good fight.

A number of companies use proceeds from sales to support feminism, black people, and other marginalized groups. Support businesses owned by women, minorities, immigrants, and Muslims to financially counter anti-intersectionality.

16. Do understand the lives of people with disabilities.

Learn more about the struggles of people living with disabilities by visiting platforms like The Disability Visibility Project. DVP increases dialogue surrounding issues within the disabled community and leads readers to Twitter platforms and online spaces with key information about ways to help and be an ally.

It's also important to remain vigilant in watching what happens with the Affordable Care Act and how those living with disabilities could be affected by any changes to the law.

17. Do fight for policies that benefit mental health programs.

Women are more likely to experience depression than men, and black women are experience major depression at higher rates than white women. With a rising percentage of hate crimes and uncertain policies ahead, it's imperative to support treatment and mental health programs for those affected most under oppressive policies.

18. Do know the news that affects trans and non-binary communities.

Know how bathroom laws, suicide rates, and poverty affect trans people. You can donate to organizations like The National Center for Transgender Equality, The Trevor Project, and The Human Rights Campaign to support trans kids, teens, and adults.

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images.

19. Do support immigrant women.

Supporting immigrant communities can range from doing activities like fighting against repealing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) to hosting immigrants neighbors for dinner. Continue speaking out against police brutality and unethical deportation practices, and make sure to call out hate speech against immigrants.

20. Do live out your activism.

Resist. Resist racist and homophobic laws. Listen to — don’t argue with — people who tell you that you’re doing hurtful and problematic things. Use your privilege in ways that assist others of different backgrounds.

By living an intersectional life, we give women from all identities and backgrounds the chance to thrive and make the future a brighter place for all.

<br>

0 notes

socialviralnews · 7 years

Text

16 things you can do right now to advocate for women's rights and 4 you shouldn't.

Practicing intersectional feminism will make a more fair and just world for all.

<br>

So you’re a feminist? That's awesome!

Photo by Emma McIntyre/Getty Images.

Erasure of the stories of different types of women — all deserving of equality — inspired the concept of intersectional feminism.

Photo by Andrew Cabellero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images.

Women are multi-layered, complex beings with varied identities. We must advocate for all to be able to life live free of the structural and systemic injustices that prevail.

If we limit feminism to white, cisgendered, upper-middle-class women, we continue a violent cycle of white, heterosexual patriarchy that has made the lives of many unnecessarily difficult.

While there are many ways to become more intersectional in your feminism, here are a few steps to get you started.

1. Do stop and listen.

Listen to black women. Listen to Muslim women. Listen to trans women. Listen to lesbian women. Listen to women who are domestic workers.

53% of white women cast their ballots for Trump, while 94% of Black women and 68% of Latina women voted for Clinton. http://pic.twitter.com/ZjgtqnAqeM

— LEFT✍🏾 (@LeftSentThis) January 22, 2017

2. Do study intersectional feminist history.

Kimberlé Crenshaw's essay on the intersection of race and sex is a great place to start. Or stop by your local library and look into the works of feminists scholars like Bell Hooks and Audre Lorde.

3. Don't whitesplain.

Photo by Emma McIntyre/Getty Images.

4. Do read books by intersectional feminists.

Reading the work of feminist also assists in financially supporting the work of women that, systemically, often make less than white women for their work.

Roxane Gay is one of the most well-known feminist writers and scholars. Photo by Thos Robinson/Getty Images.

5. Do pop that filter bubble.

6. Don't ignore hate speech — call people out.

When you hear a friend, family member, colleague, or significant other making problematic statements, say something.

7. Do check out art from marginalized communities.

8. Do update your media diet by following journalists of color.

Joy Reid, Dylan Marron, Franchesca Ramsey, and Melissa Harris-Perry all have shows, platforms, or social media venues that showcase the experiences of various women and how to best become an ally.

9. Do donate and volunteer with organizations practicing intersectional feminism.

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images.

10. Do hire women of color, trans folks, and non-binary people.

11. Don’t speak for groups you don’t identify with.

Photo by Emma McIntyre/Getty Images.

12. Do remain politically active.

13. Do understand you'll make mistakes.

14. Don't spend money with companies that back problematic politicians and policies.

15. Do buy from companies that support organizations fighting the good fight.

16. Do understand the lives of people with disabilities.

It's also important to remain vigilant in watching what happens with the Affordable Care Act and how those living with disabilities could be affected by any changes to the law.

17. Do fight for policies that benefit mental health programs.

18. Do know the news that affects trans and non-binary communities.

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images.

19. Do support immigrant women.

20. Do live out your activism.

By living an intersectional life, we give women from all identities and backgrounds the chance to thrive and make the future a brighter place for all.

<br> from Upworthy http://ift.tt/2p83NQy via cheap web hosting

#Upworthy

0 notes