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

Month: October 2007

Guilty As Charged?

In the same vein as La Lubu, a comment is an inspiration for this post. In my previous post about Firestone, one comment stuck out to me the most. In response to the question (““Does pregnancy or sex comes first for women who desire both?”), Jamie said:

Try asking a lesbian who wants children. I like your blog, but this question is blatantly heterosexist.

The word that sticks out to me here is ”heterosexist”. Is someone heterosexist if they don’t want to see lesbians or gay men kissing in public? I would say that person is heterosexist. I definitely do not see myself as heterosexist but I am sure many times I have done it without even realising it. Do we as heterosexuals take our “luxuries” if they can even be called that for granted?

Words From A Wicked Woman was a fantastic blog from an African-American woman writing from a LGBT perspective. She opened my eyes concerning gay people of colour. One topic she discussed was the struggles of African LGBT campaigners. These campaigner suffer heterosexism due to the harsh and treacherous concept of ‘tradition’. Whenever I go home to Tanzania and discussions of homosexuality come up, no one is interested in hearing about their rights. However, I am interested and deeply. Another one I read is Angry Gay Black Canadian is another great blog from a black gay man in Canada. I love reading his perspective on the meeting of race and sexual orientation.

South Africa did a brilliant thing by passing that legislation but it hasn’t done anything to convince other African countries to wake up from the dead and pass the legislation. Is this because homosexuality is ‘un-African’ as some people maintain? Defining homosexuality in Africa as ‘un-African’ is heterosexist because it assumes that to have ‘African identity’, you have to be heterosexual. I don’t think most people who are homophobic at home care that much because religion and tradition are so fused these days so if you go against that double juggernaut, you are seen as Westernised…and ‘un-African’. (Something which I have been called many times).

This BBC opinion on homosexuality had some harsh views including:

Africa and Africans should not respect or entertain homosexuality in any form or fashion. Gay recognition and rights is a Western thing. African culture and tradition does support nor encourage such things… if I may go further here, neither does almight God support such a sinful act. -Osa Davies, United Kingdom

This sort of belief makes me feel sick. I just don’t understand it. Of course not all Africans who are against homosexuality think like this but I know from what I have heard when I am at home, many do. I would like to see one day where my country Tanzania and the whole continent celebrates all of her citizens regardless of sexual orientation. Sadly, it might not happen soon or the near future.

Trust, Mutuality and Co-creation Within Feminism: The Art of Building a Movement

In the post on Intersecting Identities and Feminist Identification, commenter Tiffany of Houston summed up what I view as the core problem with one salient sentence:

“I can’t take feminism as a movement seriously because I have a lack of trust in it.”

That’s it. Right there. That accurately describes how many women feel towards feminism—a lack of trust. And that lack of trust is a critical barrier to building a movement. A movement that made tremendous strides toward improving the day-to-day lives of women, but whose momentum has withered (in the U.S.) in recent decades. Now, feminism is still kicking ass and taking names; despite the periodic premature announcement of its/our death in the mainstream media. Important work continues to be done concerning domestic violence, (hat tip: brownfemipower, whose blog should be part of your Recommended Daily Requirement of Feminism) reproductive justice, LGBT rights, racial justice, women of color in the media, women in the trades, women at work, motherhood…….all kinds of feminist organizing.

But. Our movement is fragmented. Our power is diffused. Old wounds have been allowed to fester. Old concerns remain current concerns. In fact, many of the same ills that exist within feminist movement also exist within the labor movement (save for one major difference—the labor movement has never been as geographically isolated as the feminist movement). Whining? If so, I’m in damn good company, and plentiful company at that.

And that’s key. Because there is a backlash. We have lost ground. And we cannot return to our former momentum of progress without solidarity. Without critical mass. Healing wounds takes time, and it often hurts. But the benefits outweigh the pain. So, let’s engage in little triage, hmm?

Back when I entered the apprenticeship program in 1988, the IBEW (at the international level, what we call the “I.O”—but don’t get me started on “international” as referring to Canada and the U.S.; that would be a whole ‘nother post) was well aware of losing ground. At the local level, not so much. Oh sure, folks were aware of the nonunion element getting work, but there was a combination of attitudes towards that fact. Among them: an arrogance that we were better electricians, that those who hired nonunion would live to regret their foolishness; a blase, “whaddya gonna do” attitude, a feeling that the pendulum would swing back on its own; a “fuck this shit” attitude amongst the older members close to retirement, ready to jump ship and collect their pension at the earliest opportunity; an apathy endemic to much of the union movement—a sort of just-keep-plugging-along and hope for the best. And of course, the still-present old-school unionism that still believed in organizing the unorganized, as enshrined in the (union) Constitution. In the years before and throughout my apprenticeship, the I.O. took many tacks toward stemming the tide of lost work and lost membership.

And one of them was a novel approach: the COMET classes. Construction Organizing Membership Education Training. The idea being, that the membership within the Locals had to get individualized instruction on what the problem was, why it existed, and how serious it was. COMET II classes were designed to further that education, with tactics for organizing and a framework of strategy to keep the process moving forward. I had my first COMET class with Jeremiah O’Connor, a mercurial Irishman who was the organizer for Local 701 (Brother O’Connor went on to become the Sixth District Vice President, and later the International Secretary-Treasurer. He was instrumental in the creation of the IBEW Women’s Conference).

COMET classes were resisted by the membership, especially by the baby-boom generation. Younger members thought, “yeah, we know, but the political tide has turned and that’s the way it is.” But the boomers? Shit, “we don’t need no stinking COMET classes.” It was bullshit, they said. Buncha blah, blah, blah thought up by too many people who haven’t picked up a set of tools in decades. The goal was for each Local to have every member attend a class. And the boomers unoffically boycotted the classes in droves. But then again, there were some who went—with the purpose of heckling, shouting down, telling why the whole procedure was bogus, why organizing wasn’t going to work.

Yet some people were converted. Even if they didn’t agree with every step in the plan, they saw that the big picture—organizing the unorganized, why that fell by the wayside over the years, and how to return to that critical mass—was central to our survival. Over the ensuing years, the focus changed, and various strategies were developed. Again, it was/is a process. There are organizing initiatives in strategic geographic areas. An army of organizers to carry out the work. The emphasis has switched from “stripping” (taking the workforce away from nonunion contractors) to organizing nonunion shops. There is a greater emphasis on improving the image of the union and its workers—correcting the misconceptions and misinformation perpetuated in the mass media. Also, a greater emphasis on diversity and bilingual information. And it is working. It is having an effect. We are gaining critical mass. Critical mass that will be especially important to political strength. The labor movement has always had its greatest gains—and greatest losses—through legislation.

So, for that matter, have feminists. We need critical mass, and we can get it by taking a few pages out of labor organizing handbooks. What has brought the most historical success for labor organizers? Face time, and a whole lot of it, with the unorganized. Listening to their concerns, and putting their needs on the agenda. Forming coalitions with other labor and/or community groups—and not just by having a few officers sit in on meetings, or take seats on a board—but by rolling up the sleeves and doing the nitty-gritty work. We have to create an atmosphere of trust, mutuality, and co-creation within the movement. Because building a movement is time, labor and money-intensive. It’s a labor of love. If folks feel unloved—well hell, there goes the movement, right out the door.

Again, I cede the floor. What are your thoughts on feminist organizing? If you had two hours a week to devote to feminist organizing, where would you spend it? Who would you spend it with? What area would be your emphasis? How would you fight the negative image of feminism? How would you create a safe space for those who feel like they are on the outside looking in?

I’ll even start: if I had two hours each week to organize for feminism, I’d do it through forming a local group dedicated to getting young women to consider nontraditional work. And because of the strong effects of stereotyping, it would probably be best to start in middle-school/junior high, and continue from there on through high school. And I would talk about feminism within that context, from both a personal, historical, and legislative perspective. I’d want all those young women hungry for the chance to register and vote when they turned eighteen. And I’d want ’em hungry for a chance to continue the process of desegregating nontraditional fields.

FYI

Since I have been laid off, this is my last day at my current job. I’m leaving on good terms, despite having a psycho bully as one boss; the other, a much nicer fellow, just took me out for a last lunch and will give me a reference.

I’ve got two tentative gigs lined up, starting next week; they both involve hours and internet-access situations that will be incompatible with blogging for the time being. So, if I do get one of those, expect to see more guest-bloggers in this space.

Or, they could *both* fall through, and I’ll just be unemployed. Stay tuned!

‘Pregancy is Barbaric’ and Other Firestonian One-Liners

For my feminism class, I have to do some research with a colleague on Canadian feminist Shulamith Firestone’s ”Dialectic of Sex” where she discusses the ”feminist revolution”. First written in 1970, Firestone discussed the barbaric nature of pregnancy, noting that a friend had said it was like ”shitting a pumpkin” and she goes on to hope for artificial reproduction replacing natural pregancy.

Despite its’ age, the work would still be daring in other parts of our world. The only problem I am seeing with Firestone’s approach to motherhood is she assumes that women want to be ”fully free” from children and their responsibilites to their families. What about women who genuinely want children through natural pregnancy? Does this mean that they are advocating its’ ”barbaric” physical nature?

Firestone further argues “what if there is an instinct for pregnancy? I doubt it…we may uncover a sex instinct, the normal consequences of which lead to pregnancy”. This is essentially a tough question. Does pregnancy or sex comes first for women who desire both? What do you think?

If some women want to play the typical mother roles, they would have no place in Firestonian society. Children don’t come under the ambit of one person; everyone has to chip in. Her concept of “households” of large groupings of people living together under ‘contracts’ and licenses overrides the traditional view of biological families that most of are used to. Would these ”households” have more merit and happiness than standard families? I would love to see a modern day experiment of this. Now, that would make good TV.

Firestone’s views are radical but in 2007, they almost seem slightly out of place. Because in a world where we all want it all now and fast, I don’t think people who want children will substitute the chance to have them simply because one person thinks the natural pregnancy is barbaric.

Dear Baby Boomers,

It’s been almost 40 years since Woodstock. The babies conceived there are getting gray hair and crow’s feet and are old enough to run for President themselves. Some of them have kids who are old enough to fight in the current war. Remember that one?

Can we move on, please?

Love,

Zuzu, b. 1968.

P.S. Women weren’t eligible for the draft in 1969, nor for combat jobs as volunteers. Some of your fellow Republicans, however, were.

h/t Mnemosyne.

A Tale of Two B’s: Bitchiness & Bullying

Glossy bitchiness gives television the high ratings it desperately needs: Gordon Ramsay, Simon Cowell to an extent have made their careers by appearing tough and straight-talking but isn’t how they act…”bitchy”? Or is it because they are men that it is purely just aggressive behaviour? Is bitchiness reserved solely for girls? Mean Girls gave an interesting but at times silly looking at the concept of bitchiness. In the film, Regina George only comes across powerful to other people because of how horrible she was. Why do women have to be mean to other people in order to be seen as ‘strong’? Is it the patriarchy’s fault or do we simply just want to climb over each other to be on top?

Workplace environments are noted as being key places for bitchiness and bullying to fester. A year ago, a person was paid £800,000 ($1,641, 537) for workplace bullying. That case happened in London and the victim claimed to have suffered a nervous breakdown. The amount of money that Helen Green, the victim, got was one of the highest payouts in UK history I believe. Does bitchiness stem from bullying or are they separate entities?

According to this article, Only ten per cent of employees said that they would complain to a superior if they became a target of workplace bullying, with four in five workers saying that they had no confidence that their complaint would be treated seriously. What are the main reasons that would stop someone from making a complaint? Is it seen as a ”betrayal” or are you deemed a ”snitch”? These labels are ludicrous. Why is a betrayal to stand up for yourself? Then again, the hypontic power that humans can have over other humans is incredible. I can’t imagine what it must have been like for these people who suffered such terrible bullying.

In my opinion, the desire for power through control seems to be what lies at the core of the publicised bullying incidents in the workplace. That archaic view that ”survival of the fittest” is only achieved through hurting other people clearly still thrives. Bullies are insecure and weak, seeking out their ‘prey’ because they need to abuse in order not to lose. Has anyone been a victim of bullying and bitchiness…how can both realities be curbed in our societies?

Intersecting Identities and Feminist Identification

Although I identify as feminist, there are times when I feel alienated from feminism—or perhaps I should say, some of the narratives of dominant feminism (even when those expressions don’t necessarily come from the mainstream organizations, spokespeople, or media that traditionally represent feminism). I feel like the Outsider in a movement that should feel like home. My view is that our expressions of feminism (and everything else) is intimately connected to our identities; that it is impossible to separate those various facets of identity from one another—that those parts of ourselves are indelibly integrated into a whole; that feminism is necessary for us and the world; and that blogs can be an effective way to parse out our conflicts with one another and bridge the gaps in understanding in order that feminism remain a viable movement for positive change. The key word in that last sentence being “can.” I had a couple of posts here from the last time around titled “Like A Natural Woman”, Part 2 and Part 1, written in response to other posts going around the ‘sphere at the time, and today I want to develop those thoughts a little more. Think of it as on-line, old-school consciousness raising. Not as accusations. That isn’t the purpose. The purpose is, to be real, to be whole, and to have a space to come together with other women on the path of feminism and justice. I want to hear you, and I want to be heard. I want to listen to you, and I want to be listened to. I want to know where we converge, diverge, and cross, in order that we build this movement together. So.

When do I feel this disconnect from feminism (or more accurately, its incomplete representation)?

  • the dominant historical narratives of feminism leave my ancestors out. A whole lot of other people’s ancestors, too. While the abolitionists, Quakers, and temperance activists are always mentioned in U.S. narratives, immigrant women and women in the labor and/or socialist movements do not receive the recognition they should. The effect of colonialism on women and the early feminist movement gets short shrift. What about women who fought against (even took up arms against) colonial masters—where are they? Partisan women? The indelible influence of indigenous culture (especially the Iroquois Confederacy) on the development of feminism in the United States. It’s as if feminism is being described to me as something that others did on behalf of my godmothers,* not as a movement that they also contributed to.
  • the primacy of a narrow definition of reproductive “choice” as meaning “the ability to choose to have an abortion,” rather than the more comprehensive phrase reproductive justice, that encompasses all facets of reproductive choice and parenting. See here for a description.
  • a dismissive attitude towards mothers and our struggles/concerns. The same dismissive attitude toward children. I perceive a certain assumption in some feminist quarters that women who are mothers have acquiesed to “the patriarchy” with our very bodies. I read/see/hear a lot of lip service towards feminist goals specifically pertaining to mothers and children, yet see little concrete action in that direction coming from mainstream feminist organizations. There are marches to maintain abortion rights; why are there not also marches to obtain universal childcare? School hours, especially in elementary school, that matches the typical work hours?
  • unaddressed classism. I cringed/cursed/growled/gnashed my teeth awhile back during threads like this one (and yes, I lost my temper during that one) that intimated that dependent-care deductions “incentivize” having children. Those deductions were a political coup won for all workers by the CIO back in the fifties. That is history that needs to be remembered by feminists. Where was that strong denunciation of welfare deform, that makes it that much harder for a woman on welfare to obtain her best chance at economic self-sufficiency—a college degree? Ask the average working-class woman what is the most pressing concern facing women, and you are likely to receive the answer making ends meet. “An Injury to One is an Injury to All.”
  • unaddressed racism and/or racialized marginalization of other women. I’m not seeing enough prime space devoted in feminist media on issues specific to or primarily concerning women of color—for example, how child welfare agencies work against the interests of mothers of color. How the portrayal of undocumented workers as dangerous criminals is affecting women in immigrant communities (not to mention the separation of families). I’m seeing too many examples of racialized shorthand for women’s oppression, as “hijab” is used to represent an extreme sanction of women, or “machisimo” is used to provide a contrast to the supposedly kinder, gentler white man.
  • the role of men remains unaddressed in most feminist circles. Feminism is in many respects a reaction of women to the increased presence of industrialization/colonization, and the anomie it engendered. It changed the landscape for men also. The labor movement did organize around issues important to men in a way similar to feminist movement (with the best of the labor movement actively coordinating both men’s and women’s struggles into a cohesive whole), yet the destructive impact of the oppression of the labor movement had massive repercussions for labor as a unified vehicle for justice. Why shouldn’t feminism move to bridge that gap? Men can also be co-authors of the movement for justice; men are also subject to oppression(s).
  • the momentum for integrating women into nontraditional fields has dissipated, and mainstream feminism seems to assume that the important battles have been won in that regard; the concerns of the remaining intrepid feminists are strictly minor-league. What happened? Why is this no longer in the forefront of feminist concerns?
  • too much gatekeeping of female sexuality and its various expressions. This irritating facet of antifeminist thought pattern has contaminated feminist minds as well (and how could it not, as we are inundated with negative, even conflicting, messages about female sexuality throughout our lives?).
  • assumptions that religious or spiritual practice/belief is necessarily “patriarchal.” Or inherently antifeminist. Again, yet another form of gatekeeping, or “will the authentic feminist please stand up?” Bah.

    • Now, those are just the critiques of one woman, though I’m sure I’m not alone in holding them. And those critiques stem directly from my intersecting identities; my history, my upbringing, my family of origin, my neighborhood(s), my chosen communities, my various educations and life experiences, and probably also some innate personality characteristics. I maintain that such influences can’t be parsed out or ranked in order of importance; they all come together in my unified Self. Some folks may think it’s telling that in descriptions of myself, I invariably list “Sicilian-American” first, but I don’t know that that particular part of me is the most important—it’s just the most handy modifier for the other descriptions that follow. It has the danger of introducing stereotypes and negative assumptions–some of which I may even be unaware of–yet it remains the best shorthand available for assuring a certain accuracy (even with the flaw of stereotype).

    And why should those identities matter? Because like it or not, they do. I’m bringing my whole damn self to this table, and I’m sitting at this table, not standing in the kitchen (though I may be stirring the pot). I’m still determined to identify as feminist, though I may be viewed by others (with better credentials) as an obstacle to feminist movement, or as disloyal even, for having the audacity to talk out of class. I think it is important to maintain identification as a feminist, and to raise my voice whether in unison or in opposition as a feminist, within feminism. I plan to co-create feminism along with my sisters, and brothers. I may not fit a manufactured image of feminism—but then, who manufactured those images? And who owns feminism?

    Questions: Do you identify as feminist? If so, why? If not, what would have to change within feminism to gain your full participation?

    I now cede the floor.

    *shamelessly stolen from Lucia Chiavola Birnbaum, and used in place of “foremothers”

    All I really need to know about this book, contained in one Q and A

    From an interview with Kingsley Browne, author of the upcoming book “Co-Ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn’t Fight The Nation’s Wars”:

    What “new evidence” are you offering to show that women aren’t fit for war?

    The evidence comes from the field of evolutionary psychology, which recognizes that the human mind is a product of our evolutionary history. The reason men don’t like women comrades in dangerous situations is they don’t trust them when the shooting starts, and that is probably because women don’t possess whatever cues evoke trust in men. And trust is central to combat cohesion. Men don’t say, “This is a person I would follow through the gates of hell.” Men aren’t hard-wired to follow women into danger. It is largely an emotional reaction.

    And men hunt giraffes and women get infections every month!