In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Where are you from? Part 3

Previously: Part 1 and Part 2.

Who gets asked where they’re from?

My mother is asked this all the time by strangers in the street. And she’ll answer, hesitatingly, with the country in which she lived prior to coming here, because that’s what people want to hear, satisfied they’ve correctly deduced her accent. (Or they’ll push for more, because her looks say something else.) But I’m not all too sure she thinks that that is where she’s “from”. It’s telling that this is generally asked by those with what are here the dominant background and the “right” accent.

Sometimes, I’m sure, it’s a question intended to be polite, interested, and inclusive. It’s not for people like me, however; it’s as loaded as a question can be. When I’m asked where I’m from, I feel my confidence and belonging drain from the atmosphere into a tight little ball in my belly. The way that I and many other non-white people experience this question is of extreme rudeness. The asker is trying to mark out our difference for their own curiosity, out of sheer entitlement. We must become all about our otherness, our elsewhereness.

Because the crux of “where are you from?” is that the person being asked is assumed to be from elsewhere. We are never allowed to belong here, and it’s only our history elsewhere, which may or may not exist, that matters. We’re always other. Upon being asked this question, I feel as though my life lived here doesn’t matter, that I’ve been presumptive in taking on any kind of identification with where I live. This town, this country: only for the white folks. Asking this question is a way of levering someone out of their space and belonging.

If you live in a space like I do, where there is a strong sense of a singular national unity and identity, there’s a whole other set of implications.

Read More…Read More…

Where are you from? Part 2

Previously: Part 1.

Just asking some questions by way of bringing the thinking behind where one might be from to light…

How do you figure “fromness”? If you’re ever asked where you’re from, how do you answer?

Is it a matter of…
where you are?
where you’re a citizen?
where you identity as someone who belongs?
where you were born?
where your people are from?
where you’ve felt like you’ve belonged?
where you spent the longest stretches of time?

A year ago, following on from Jill’s 2007 post, I asked you ‘where you’re from and, if it differs, where you live’ in Feministe All Over the World Redux. With Lauren, we made a map of the most magical places we know, and with Ariel we plotted the places about which we feel strongly. For the posts Jill and I wrote, what kinds of thought processes went into responders’ determinations of where they’re from? For Lauren’s and Ariel’s, are those places ones we feel we can belong to, or belong to us, or do those magical and emotive qualities make them far off from “fromness”? Are the magical places of our lives, those invested with feeling, here, or where we’re “from,” or inevitably somewhere else? How do we value where we’re from, and where we are? Are our places beautiful or mundane?

“Fromness” doesn’t particularly need to be national, of course. Perhaps it’s about belonging to a specific region or town or even building. It doesn’t have to be about a place, even. Perhaps you’re from a group of people. Because the idea of home can be as much about people as place; with whom do you belong might even be more important than the where of it. Home is where the heart is, after all.

What’s important in determining where you’re from?

Where are you from? Part 1

I want to begin a project about, for lack of a term, what I’m calling “fromness”. That is, the sense that you belong somewhere, there is a beacon calling out to you, a sense of home. Perhaps you don’t have that sense, perhaps you crave it, perhaps you miss it, perhaps it doesn’t really figure large in your life.

I’m constantly preoccupied with longings for home. My family has a rather transnational history and, although I personally have lived in Australia all my life, it’s a foreign country to my family. I don’t think I could belong anywhere else, either. Even if in fragmented, alienated ways, this country is what I’ve grown up with. But Australia is never going to be a good enough answer to ‘Where are you from?’. I don’t belong here – and never will – because I’m not accepted here, because this is not where my familial history has been, and always, always because my being here is predicated on the deaths of people who were here before me, and the continued marginalisation of Indigenous Australians.

I dream of being from somewhere, of being comfortable, of being at home. Not being from anywhere, never being able to belong anywhere: that’s something that makes me feel fundamentally insecure.

I want you to begin thinking about what the question ‘Where are you from?’ means to you. And we’ll go on a journey.

Reconsider Columbus Day

In the U.S., today is the National Observance of Columbus Day. While perhaps the least celebrated of all U.S. public holidays, its continued existence and observance is incredibly disturbing, as the video above by Reconsider Columbus Day notes. Transcript:

The black and white video features a number of alternating unidentified individuals facing the camera and speaking a single line at a time:

October 12th is Columbus Day
A day that our government has deemed worthy of remembrance
But with all due respect
With all due respect
With all due respect
There’s an ugly truth that has been overlooked
For way too long
Columbus committed heinous crimes
Against the Indigenous people of the Caribbean
And millions of natives throughout the Americas
And Columbus set the stage for the slave trade in the new world
So please
Please reconsider if this is a man that you want to honor
Reconsider if you want to celebrate the crimes of Columbus
It’s not your fault
It happened a long time ago
But remaining neutral
And pretending like it didn’t happen
Or that it doesn’t still impact us today
So please
Take the day to learn the whole story
Celebrate the people who were here first
Petition for a nationally recognized Indigenous holiday
So please
Reconsider how you plan to spent October 12
Reconsider the story of Columbus
Visit ReconsiderColumbusDay.org

The petition is available here, and here is a list of the Reconsider Columbus Day partners that could use your support.

Cleveland American Indian Movement (AIM) also has more information and resources on why Columbus Day should be opposed. And Jessica Yee has written a post at Racialicious on the subject of Columbus Day and Canadian Thanksgiving, which is also today. Please feel free to leave additional resources about Indigenous rights and/or Columbus Day specifically in the comments.

Raising the dead

originally published at What Tami Said

I’ve been trying to raise the dead. With faded photographs, copied records, old death certificates, family hearsay and e-mails from long-lost cousins. I am an amateur family historian. And this is what I do.

Here is one rule of resurrection. It is easier to bring a dead man to life than a woman. The men—you find them in military records, land deeds, court records and prominent in the memories of their descendants. The women—they prove more elusive.

In a short biography of one family patriarch, William Staples, another family historian tells how, as a young boy, William was sold for a small sum of coins, how he grew to be “tall and strappingly built,” how he earned a reputation of being bold and courageous, how he served in the Civil War, how he crafted and sold baskets into his golden years. Of William’s wife Abbey, who worked alongside him and bore him 12 children, the biographer says only: “She was a good wife and mother, an excellent homemaker, a midwife and a quilt maker.”

But my foremothers mean the most to me. We are all women. History tells me that their lives were harder and much different than mine, but I wonder if any of our hopes, dreams and worries are the same. What part of them remains in me? Are my wide hips like Josephine’s? Am I tall like Lucinda? Am I independent like Violet? Do I walk like Maggie? So I dig, and with the scraps of their lives that I can find, try to assemble a woman. And I imagine my ancestors peering over my shoulder as I work, like ghosts waiting to materialize.

Here is what I know.

Josephine was born in 1893 in Christian County, Kentucky, to James and Alice Taylor. Folks called her “Josie.” Josie married a boy named Otho Tillotson, who lived with his family just down Bradshaw Road. I have a photograph of them together. Josie, beside her handsome, baby-faced husband, has full lips, a cloud of hair and deep-set, almond eyes. Josie had six children—just one girl, my grandmother, who she named Georgia Alice, after her mother and mother-in-law. She did not live to see those children grow to adulthood. Josephine Taylor Tillotson, my maternal great-grandmother, died of pyemia at age 30, just months after giving birth to her youngest son.

Lucinda Fortson was born into bondage in 1835. I don’t know to whom she belonged. It may have been W.H. Fortson, who owned a large plantation in Christian County and held some 30 slaves. Lucinda had at least three children. Only the last, my maternal great-great-grandmother, Georgia, was born free, in 1866. Georgia’s father was named Abe Holland. Were Abe and Lucinda ever allowed to marry? Was he sold to some far-flung plantation? Did the War take him? Or did he walk away? Whatever Lucinda’s relationship with Abe Holland, by 1870, he was gone, and Lucinda was living with her three children and working as a servant in the home of the Massey family. Like many former slaves, Lucinda could not read or write. The 1870 census taker left a perfect check in the 18th column next to Lucinda’s name, labeling her (and her eldest child) either “deaf and dumb, blind, insane or idiotic.”

I found an old photograph of Violet’s master, Absalom Farrar Winfrey, sitting in front of his home in Poplar Creek, Mississippi. There, behind the grim, plain-faced plantation owner and his family, is Violet, her face in shadow, only her long, white dress visible, half-materialized in the doorway like a phantom. My paternal great-great-grandmother, Violet, was born in North Carolina, but soon separated from her family and shipped to Mississippi and servitude with the Winfrey family. In 1859, she married Constantine, who was also owned by the Winfreys. Violet and her husband served the family until emancipation came. Once free, and given a chance to choose a last name, Constantine chose “Winfrey.” Violet; however, seemed never to have a last name, or at least not one that was recorded. In some sources she is listed as “Violet A. Violet.” I like to think that made her doubly her own woman.

My paternal great-grandmother, Maggie, was born in 1881 in Mississippi. By 16, she was a wife and soon-to-be mother. Some records list Maggie as “black,” some “mulatto.” Her grandson, my father, remembers very little about her, except that she was “quiet and had pretty, grey eyes.”

I’ve been trying to raise the dead. Because I want my foremothers—Abbey, Josephine, Lucinda, Violet and Maggie—to live in the hearts and minds of their descendants. These women will never know the personal freedoms and successes that I enjoy, but they possessed courage that I can never imagine. They are courageous simply for being wives, mothers and black women in a time when their race and gender made them vulnerable fourth-class citizens. So I continue on with my faded photographs, copied records, old death certificates, family hearsay and e-mails from long-lost cousins. I am an amateur family historian. And this is what I do.

We’ve come a long way, baby?

The other day, I woke up and threw on running shorts and a sports bra and went for a jog. I’m in Boston for the summer, so I headed towards the Common which takes me by Copley Square. There’s a big marble circle in the ground with all the names of the Boston Marathon winners and for some inexplicable reason (read: it was 90 degrees at 7 a.m. and I couldn’t breathe), I decided to stop and look.

So sometimes there are moments when completely ordinary facts jump up and hit you in a totally extraordinary way. This was one of those times. Looking at this circle, I was suddenly struck by how old the Boston Marathon was (1897!) and the long list of winners names threw something into stark relief: women’s names only began appearing 45 years ago.

Obviously this is something I knew, but standing there in just a sports bra and running shorts, with people rushing past on the way to the T, I was suddenly struck by how much has changed in such a relatively short period of time. I couldn’t help thinking to myself: Holy shit, 45 years ago, I could definitely NOT have just walked out my door in a sports bra and shorts and gone for a jog. Or been one of those women in a suit on their way to work. Or a lot of things really.

This is not to say that I then picked myself up, jogged home smiling, declared feminism a WIN and resigned my membership. On the contrary, I can’t even begin to list all the work yet to do for gender rights. And more than these kind of moments, I usually have “My God, did he/she really just say/do that incredibly anachronistic sexist/misogynist thing? Don’t they know it’s 2010?” But, BUT, I’ve found that sometimes it’s nice to remember how far we’ve come, while gearing up for how far we have to go.

Anyone have similar stories?

Supporting Abortion from the Shadows

Over at The New York Times’ Magazine, Emily Bazelon has a must-read article on the future of abortion providers in America. There’s a lot to digest and think about in the piece, but for those of those familiar with the dismal statistics on abortion providers (a 1992 survey of OB/GYNs found that 59% of those age 65 and older said that they performed abortions, compared with 28% of those age 50 and younger), Bazelon offers more upbeat news: there’s a whole cadre of people who have “quietly worked” for access to abortion.

There’s one word in that last sentence that has me uneasy: quietly.

While it’s great that Bazelon exposes a hardy network handing off the torch of abortion-provision to the next generation of OB/GYNs, she describes a community that has been forced into the shadows by anti-choice terrorists. Many of those interviewed in the article use pseudonyms, fearing reprisal or violence. Practically, Bazelon describes a system that in the years since Roe has been forced out of hospitals (which performed 80% of abortions in 1973) to small, camouflaged clinics (by 1996, 90% of abortions were being performed in clinics). And those who fund abortion rights efforts, often do so anonymously.

As much as I want to embrace Bazelon’s optimism — I guess secret abortion access is better than no abortion access — the fact that the Randall Terrys and Operation Rescues of the world have forced the pro-choice community into semi-silent advocacy doesn’t seem like that big of a win: If we make the abortion rights movement secret, how will we keep it going?

Google Says the World Was Made, Made Pretty By Men

Like Frau Sally Benz, I was excited to see Frida Kahlo in all her beautiful, feminist glory on the Google homepage today – I love her!

Then I had to ask the question I always ask: “How many women versus men has Google honored this way?”

As often happens, the answer made me want to lose my lunch.

It turns out the special logos are officially known as Google Doodles. The tradition began in 1999 when the Google founders added a stick figure to the regular logo to signify their attendance at the Burning Man Festival. It was so well received they decided to ask Dennis Hwang, then an intern and now “chief doodler”, to create a logo for Bastille Day 2000. A tradition was born and to date Google claims to have created 300 doodles for the United States and 700 internationally that honor holidays and “creativity and innovation.”

According to Google’s design team, women lack both. Of 109 innovators, artists, revolutionaries and creators designated important or interesting enough for a doodle, only 8 have been women. It took eight full years for the Google team to find a woman worthy of the honor, which finally went to French pilot Hélène Boucher in May of 2008. Her doodle could only be viewed on the Google France homepage. The first woman to receive a global doodle was Beatrix Potter, best known as the author of the Tale of Peter Rabbit series, and the second was Mary Cassatt, an American impressionist painter. The third, it seems, is Frida Kahlo.

With all that feminists need to focus on achieving for women in the world – equal pay for equal rights, bodily autonomy, political representation at all levels, actual recognition of women’s humanity – why waste time on who gets a little drawing on Google?

Because we’ve lived with the myth that men created the world and everything good in it for long enough. As long as men get to designate who and what in history is important, young women will continue to learn that all their sex has contributed throughout all of history is their wombs. If we can’t see ourselves as the inventors, artists, revolutionaries and creators that came before, how the hell are we supposed to fashion ourselves into the modern versions? Schools certainly aren’t doing a very good job in this department and since it processes over a billion searches a day, Google plays an increasingly important role in how and what young people learn.

Google, I’ve got some suggestions for you. What about Ada Lovelace, the woman who was the world’s first computer programer and, conveniently, has a whole day dedicated to her celebration? If the guy who created the first nuclear facility in China gets a doodle, Marie Curie certainly deserves one. If you honored the birth of realism, you should also honor the (flawed, yes) godmother of feminism, Mary Wollstonecraft. What about some of the women behind the great social movements in the United States, like Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks and Dorothy Height?

Women also make art and music and write, and not just in the United States. What about Italian Baroque painter Artemisia Gentileschi, the first woman to gain entry into the Accademia di Arte del Disegno in Florence? Bengali writer Ashapoorna Devi wrote appeals for gender and religious equality in widely read novels for both children and adults. Why not honor Miriam Makeba, known as “Mother Africa,” for her cultural role in ending apartheid in South Africa?

Who would you have Google honor with a doodle? I know my suggestions are Western and cis centric at best, so leave your suggestions in the comments – I’ll be sending this post along with the list of names to the doodlers at Google, who claim they take suggestions from the public seriously. I, for one, will be watching.

Oscar Grant, Audre Lorde, Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche and the question of loving our enemies.

[Trigger Warning: discussions of sexual assault and deadly State force.]

Love your enemies.

For feminists, is there any phrase more terrifyingly reactionary?

Love your enemies. Even the one who assaults you in private and reaps accolades as a brilliant community organizer in public. (One of my mom’s former boyfriends.)

Love your enemies. Even the ones who throw cherry bombs at you in the school bathrooms. (My dad’s fellow students at Yale, in the 1950s.)

Love your enemies. Even the one who tells you women should be seamstresses, not lawyers. (Opa — my mom’s dad.)

Love your enemies. Even the one who tells you, as a child, to bit down on your lower lip so it won’t grow too big. (Grandma — my dad’s mom.)

Love your enemies. Even the white police officer who shot and killed you while you were lying helpless, face-down on the ground with another officer’s knee on your neck. (Oscar Grant, a 22-year-old Black man killed Jan 1, 2009 in an Oakland subway station.)

Jury deliberations began yesterday for Johannes Mehserle, the Bay Area Rapid Transit police officer who fatally shot Oscar Grant. All of Oakland awaits the verdict. Both police and non-profits are making preparations to quell the “violence” anticipated after this “deadly lightning rod” of a trial.

Deadly? Violence? According to CNN’s coverage, not one single person was seriously injured in the 2009 protests following Grant’s death. Nobody injured, let alone killed. Windows were broken; dumpsters set afire. Is this violence? Sounds more like property destruction to me.

Whatever happens, whether riots flare up or not, things will once again settle, and the ordinary state violence will resume as usual. After all, there’s only one individual on trial — not an entire racist police force armed with deadly weapons. Not an entire patriarchal, militaristic, anti-immigrant, plutocratic (ruled by wealth) law enforcement system. Not California, the US state running “the largest prison system in the Western world.” That won’t be standing trial anytime soon. So what are we supposed to do?

Love your enemies.

What an injunction, huh? Just how are we supposed to achieve this? And why?

The “how” I’ll leave aside for now. Let’s focus on the why.

Why should we love our enemies? Why not hate them? Or at least get angry?

Audre Lorde, one of my all-time favorite feminists, has one answer. With hatred we harm ourselves, and anger only takes us halfway to where we need to go. From “Eye To Eye: Black Women, Hatred, and Anger”:

Read More…Read More…