On my blog, I had just linked to an excellent and common example by BrownFemiPower of white women getting credit for helping women at large when they’ve actually done a lot of harm to women.
White feminists were getting mocked by conservatives for not criticizing misogyny conducted by non-whites against non-whites strongly enough.
White feminists wrote a nationally publicized letter saying, “We do too! Hell, we FOUND that misogyny and were the first to tell the non-white perpetrators that they should stop it!”
BrownFemiPower retorted (unfortunately, in a venue that isn’t nearly as highly publicized) that
they shouldn’t even worry about whether they’re criticizing misogyny conducted by non-whites against non-whites until they’ve spent a heck of a lot more time criticizing misogyny conducted by whites against non-whites (usually through foreign policy) and
they did NOT find the non-white-on-non-white misogyny mentioned by conservatives and they were NOT the first to tell the perpetrators of that misogyny to stop it–the VICTIMS did both.
Quotes from BFP’s post:
her little list of wrongs that “American feminists” stand against was the most irritating…
Hm. Who could Ms. Pollitt *possibily* be talking about here?…
Do you think it’s the U.S. government that is currently enforcing horrific immigration laws that are degrading and violating women and their families–-IN KATHA’S OWN DAMN COUNTRY?…
Why the particular emphasis on “Muslim countries?” Does Ms. Pollitt think that “Muslim countries” are particularly hostile to women’s rights for some reason?
Even as her own country imprisons 8 year old girls and deports their mothers?
Fact: it’s feminists who first identified atrocities against women around the world–female genital mutilation, forced marriage, child marriage, spousal violence, rape– as violations of human rights, not family matters or customs of no state importance.
Actually, Ms. Pollitt–it was the women who *experienced* those actions that first identified the violence being committed against them.
—————————————
Please, please, please, please, please–if you’re a white feminist, consider my suggestion for action instead of signing Ms. Pollitt’s letter:
Next time you’re around white feminists who are upset that the right wing is saying, “You don’t do enough to stop non-white violence against non-white women!” STOP them from retorting with a, “Look at all we’re doing!” and, worse yet, a resurgence of interest in taking that kind of action.
Tell your white feminist peers only to tell the right wing commentators, if they must retort at all:
“I’m sorry, but you’re wrong to assume that that is our job. Our job is to stop white violence against white women and white violence against non-white women. And we will work on those issues in the proportion that they exist today.
“Though we may lend time and resources when and to the extent that they are asked of us by non-white women, we refuse to claim that it is our job to ’stop’ non-white violence against non-white women.
“Thank you for listening, and please follow our bulletin for the amazing work we are doing stopping white violence against white women and white violence against non-white women in the coming months!”
A trend that you can’t help but notice if you follow any sort of racial issues is that when white people do something racist, they almost always include in their apology, “I’m not a racist”. Most of you should know the Michael Richards “but I’m not a racist!” protest in his apology after he was caught on tape being racist. But it’s not just the celebrities who pitch this line, it’s average people as well.
Case in point: a bunch of white people posted pictures and a video of them performing a reenactment of the Jenna 6 incident while in blackface. If that weren’t bad enough, when the woman who posted the media on her Facebook page got caught, this is what she had to say [emphasis mine]:
Smith, who did not respond to a TSG e-mail sent to her school address, apologized for the images in several recent Facebook postings. “We were just playin n the mud and it got out of hand. I promise i’m not racist. i have just as many black friends as i do white. And i love them to death,” she wrote. She added in a later message that her friends “were drinking” and things “got a lil out of hand.”
People who aren’t racist would own up to their racism in their apology, not try to erase the reality of the racist act with the “I didn’t mean it” plea. People who aren’t racist wouldn’t use excuses like “some of my friends are black”, “we were just playing”, and “we were drinking” in order to try and downplay the impact that such displays of racism have. People who aren’t racist would not have thought to do such a ‘reenactment’ in the first place, much less thought it was ‘funny’ enough to post on Facebook.
So, yes, Ms. Smith, you are racist. But, you know, that in of itself isn’t a damnable offense. I’ve said and done racist things before, as have all white people. It’s an unfortunate product of our culture, because — by virtue of our whiteness — we are both enabled and encouraged to enact out varying forms of racism in our everyday lives.
But what separates the allies from the racists is that, when the allies fuck up, we admit it. We don’t try to minimize what we did, but we own up to our own mistakes, fully and without reservation, and then we go educate ourselves in an effort to not fuck up again. We don’t insult the people who we’ve hurt by saying things like, “I’m not racist” because we realize that, especially after committing a racist act, we are the last people who have the authority to decide such a thing.
So, to Smith and all the other white people out there who think “I’m not racist” is an acceptable thing to come out of a white person’s mouth: if you have to say it, chances are you are, in fact, harboring a lot of unaddressed and unacknowledged racism. If you truly don’t want to be seen as racist, then the first thing you need to do is to take a hard look at yourself and the world around you, and then start educating yourself on what it takes to be anti-racist. The information is out there, but you’re the only one who can get yourself to take that step and use it.
Is the vocabulary to properly talk about our own bodies too sophisticated a topic for children to be introduced to as early as kindergarten? Bill O’Reilly seems to think so, at least in regard to the word “uterus”, which apparently the mere knowledge that a woman has one is enough to “blast” a child out of their childhood.
It’s interesting how taboo words get rationalized by terms like “sophisticated” and stigmatized as being harmful for kids, especially when a basic knowledge of the term (that babies come from a part inside a woman called a uterus, for instance) is something that can help build a strong foundation for us to know our own bodies and what they do.
What do y’all think? Should we introduce children to the correct terms for their bodies, even the taboo parts, early on, or should we use/invent sanitized words that mean the same thing (like “wee-wee” instead of “penis”)?
Folks talk about campus violence like it’s perpetuated by a few bad apples, tgise disenfranchised men and boys who play too many violent video games. What the mainstream doesn’t talk about is campus violence like violence against women or police brutality by campus police. Why? Because these forms of violence are institutionalized, and unfairly biased against people because they are women and people of color.
Professor Angela Davis spoke on my campus yesterday about the Prison Industrial Complex and prison abolition, and at a question and answer with students she talked about yesterday’s shooting. I’ll share a bit here, typed from what I took on my digital recorder.
I’ve always been interested in what I call circuits of violence, the ways in which certain modes of violence feed into and reproduce other modes of violence. We like to think of domestic violence and intimate violence separately from military violence, or separately from state violence. I think it’s really important to think of these forms of violence together and ask how they mutually reinforce each other and how the individual agent of violence, situated in a larger context where violence is so easily used by the state, has a certain level of comfort, a certain level of feeling that this is the way things are supposed to be done.
It is a tragedy anytime anyone is murdered. I don’t know what experiences fueled Cho Seung-Hui yesterday at Virgina Tech, but he was an immigrant and a person of color living in a country where those communities are routinely victims of institutionalized violence. That doesn’t justify killing, but I don’t think we can understand one form of violence without looking at the greater culture and institutions that normalize and perpetuate it.
Saturday morning, Hillary Rodham Clinton officially announced her candidacy for President.
[…]
So, I’m finally starting a political blog, so I can follow the media coverage and the public reaction to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and examine the sexist attitudes that surface during the Democratic primaries (and beyond, should she get the nomination). I’ll also probably blog about how people regard other women in American Politics.
If no sexist attitudes surface, this should be the last post of the blog.
More likely, though, there will be way too much sexism for one person or one blog to analyze.
If you want to help out with the blog, she’s requested that you get in touch with her. More details here.
On a related issue, Fox News contributes to the skyrocketing divorce rates with this insulting piece. Seriously, if their relationships are that bad that they believe that kind of BS, why are they married in the first place?
So, December is right around the corner and it seems like it’s that time again. Yes, time for the fundamentalist Christians who are hell bent on giving all Christians a bad name, interpreting “freedom of religion” as “freedom for my religion only“, and in general asserting their Christian privilege in an attempt to oppress non-Christians.
In the past two days, I’ve gotten two pieces of near-identical spam hawking the same product.
Here’s the first one:
A new comment on the post #93 “The War Against Non-Christians” is waiting for your approval
http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2005-12-20_93
Author : Bruce (IP: 70.92.97.82 , cpe-70-92-97-82.bak.res.rr.com)
E-mail : [xxx]
URI : [don’t want to accidently advertise for them]
Whois : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=70.92.97.82
Comment:
Speaking of the war on Christmas, Best Buy has just dug their heels in and returned to the trenches by banning the greeting, “Merry Christmas” from their advertising campaign this Christmas.
I’ve been fighting back with this song (feel free to use it in your campaign if you like it):[cut because I’m not actually endorsing the spamming]
Here’s the second one:
A new comment on the post #186 “When will I get arrested for “driving while atheist”?” is waiting for your approval
http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-26_186
Author : Dr BLT (IP: 70.92.97.82 , cpe-70-92-97-82.bak.res.rr.com)
E-mail : [xxx]
URI : [don’t want to accidently advertise for them]
Whois : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=70.92.97.82
Comment:
Thanks for keeping the spirit of Christmas alive. Believe it or not, blogs like these empower soldiers fighting for Christmas. I’ve been fighting on the Best Buy front on the war on Christmas with an original song that seems to be generating lots of interest.
As you may know, Best Buy banned the use of “Merry Christmas” in their ads this year. It caused me to wonder what kind of an Inn Best Buy would be if it were an Inn, and not a department store, back in Bethlehem when Jesus was born. That thought gave birth to this song: [cut because I’m not actually endorsing the spamming]
I’m very glad to hear that my efforts to expose the “War on Christmas” as the oppressive, anti-freedom of religion BS that it actually is “empower[s] soldiers fighting for Christmas”. Onward Christian soldiers! Fight against those fundamentalists besmirching your good name! Fight for inclusive language such as “Happy Holidays” that acknowledges that not everyone is a Christian, nor does everyone celebrate Christmas! Go, fight, win!
When discussing what he calls “covering” (the pressure to assimilate into the privileged “default” ways of acting, thinking, etc), the Harvard law professor and queer theorist Kenji Yoshino makes this observation:
Who wants to be a stereotype? Who wants to live in a box? But, of course, right, I mean if we just live our lives inverting stereotypes about our group, we’re just as controlled by those stereotypes as a photograph is controlled by its negative. Right? If we just reverse every single term of the stereotype then we’re just as controlled by the stereotype.
It has come to my attention recently that the term “choice feminism” is gaining popularity in the feminist blogsphere, used by feminists on feminists. This has got to stop. Why? Simply put, there are some words that should not be in the feminist lexicon. “Choice feminism” is one of them and I’m going to tell y’all why.
First, some backstory. One of the widely accepted terms that feminists do not lob at each other is “feminazi”. There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, the term was coined popularized by Rush Limbaugh specifically to discredit feminists. [Note: the term was actually coined by Tom Hazlett. I apologize for my mistake.] Through its usage, it has gained enough popularity to be listed in dictionaries such as Dictionary.com.
Secondly, because it is used to describe “extreme feminists” — which is itself a very subjective term — it is commonly used to reinforce the strawfeminist version of femiism: that we’re all angry, hairy legged, militant man-haters. For reasons like these, if feminists use that rhetoric against each other, we all lose, so, as a matter of principle, most of us don’t use it.
Now, as for “choice feminism” let’s first look at the origins. Linda Hirshman — who I have criticized for her anti-feminist rhetoric — coined the term specifically to create this pretend group of feminists who she could then attack.
So, parallels to the term “feminazi”. Created with the intention of discrediting certain feminists? Check. Is a term that no feminist self-identifies as, but rather is designed to create a strawfeminist that can be used to attack anyone who disagrees? Check. The popularization of it is contributing to the bad rap that feminists get? Well, no hard evidence on that one, but I personally think so.
Not to mention that the terminology tars with a rather large brush — to those unfamiliar with the nuances of the word, it is all too likely that they’d assume that any feminist advocating free choice as a driving factor of feminism is part of this crazy “choice feminism” that so many feminists have been ragging on.
The bottom line is that we don’t need any more terms used to attack feminists by creating these imaginary groups that don’t really exist. We don’t need to give our opponents more fodder, or give non-feminists yet another reason to distance themselves from us. And we most certainly don’t need any more divisive tactics.
So, I’ll say it again, if you’re a feminist who uses “choice feminism” please drop it from your lexicon. You’ll be doing us all a big favor.
In a nutshell, Connie Rosenquist, the letter writer, is angry over Jefferson County’s decision to have a GLBT Month. My mother said that most of the responses to the original article were positive, but this negative one pushed her buttons for a reason she couldn’t name. I read it and knew immediately what it was; it was the same attitude that opponents of this proclamation in the original article expressed. An attitude that oppression activists are intimately familiar with.
I’m talking about privilege.
In this case, the ability to believe that one’s privileged state is the “default” and therefore see any attempt at equality as the non-privileged groups to get “special” rights, or to see them as trying to shut you out of “your” community. I’ve taken this on from the perspective of helping potential allies, but now I want to examine exactly why these attitudes are actually harmful to the expressed goals of equality, neutrality, and inclusion.
In a move that is surprisingly good, Glamour has published an extensive and well written article that covers the governmental assault on women’s health. From the FDA to government funded abstinence only ed, the article is a long read, but well worth it.
An excerpt:
“Abstinence is a laudable goal,” says Deborah Arrindell, vice president of health policy for the nonpartisan American Social Health Association, an STD-awareness group. “But it is not how young women live their lives—the reality is that most women have premarital sex. Our government is focusing not on women’s health but on a moral agenda.” Consider this a wake-up call.
Now I just want to know why the editors thought that a naked woman’s backside was the most appropriate picture they could think of for a health related article. I mean, maybe it’s just me, but when I think “assault on women’s health” I just don’t think “woman butt.”
vegankid has an excellent post over at Ally Work debunking the myth of lazy “welfare queens”. The post traces the history of welfare, brings up statistics, cites sources… all you could want from a topic like this and more.
Here’s an excerpt:
Martin Gilens, in Why Americans Hate Welfare, finds that “the belief that blacks are lazy is the strongest predictor of the perception that welfare recipients are undeserving.†In a mid-90s study titled “White’s Stereotypes of Blacks: Sources and Political Consequences,†researchers Hurwitz and Peffley found that White people agree that most Black people are lazy (31 percent), not determined to succeed (22 percent), and lacking in discipline (60 percent). It was these stereotypes that fueled the racist attacks on welfare despite the fact that at the time, the majority of welfare recipients were White wimmin. By catering to racism through imagery and rhetoric, those with the agenda of wiping out welfare could convince the largest recipients of welfare (economically-poor White people) that it was a good idea.
All to often, people (white people especially) seem to conflate issues of race with class. But, really, they aren’t the same. At all. Anyway, vegankid says it better than I ever could, so go read the post.
Via one of my friends, A Chink in the Armour is a light hearted documentary that explores the stereotypes about Asians (specifically Chinese) in North America (specifically Toronto). There was a lot of fluff in it, but I think it would make a nice segue into talking more about racism against Asians in Western culture. (Hint, hint)
So, apparently the University of Minnesota did a study that found what every American atheist, and really anyone who keeps up with the Religious Wrong, already knows: Americans hate atheists. And think that religion is the only way to have morals. Because, you know, people are only interested in being good human beings when the threat of punishment looms over them.
If you’re wondering about the snarky title to this post, however, it’s a reaction to the title that UMNnews choose to put on the piece: “Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority, according to new U of M study”. While the people taking the survey apparently put atheists at the bottom of their list (below “Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups”) in terms of “sharing their vision of American society,†I don’t think that’s enough to qualify us as the “most distrusted minority”.
Just a guess, but I’d say it’s less that we’re actually the most distrusted minority and more that people feel okay in admitting they are prejudiced against us. Which is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, they don’t have any reason to even pretend to respect us. On the other, they, well, don’t pretend to respect us. But, really, just because someone thinks that they aren’t prejudiced against other minorities, doesn’t mean that it’s the case. So, I’ll think I’ll bow out of the “which minority is the most distrusted” game and simply say that, you know, life isn’t as simple as one survey makes it seem.
My feminist activism is far from isolating. I meet and connect with great women and men who are my peers on campus or online in the blog network. But I sometimes feel disconnected from the people beyond my immediate circle; I feel that the ways in which I’m a participant in a global world are invisible to me. In my Global Women class this quarter, my classmates and I tried to see some of those connections. As university students in the United States, we are privileged to ignore them. For my own term project, I chose look to into who grows the organic, local produce I enjoy so much. I wanted to know: who grows it, and why didn’t I know already?
This just in… a Christian who said “Happy Holidays” was read her rights by an angry God Warrior.
dear customer: when i am ringing you up, i do not say happy holidays to upset you. i do not hate christmas. i celebrate christmas myself. i can’t WAIT til christmas comes. i am EXCITED about christmas. but you might not be, and i DON’T WANT YOU TO FEEL EXCLUDED. it’s not because i hate your holiday, your religion, your people or your general welfare. it’s the EXACT OPPOSITE. i care enough not to ass-ume that you are one thing and not another.
i am so, so fucking sick of the asinine phrase “PC”. i am not being POLITICALLY CORRECT, i am being considerate of the fact that BILLIONS OF PEOPLE DO NOT CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS. that goes for ANY term “pc” term. yeah, i say mailperson, not mailman. sometimes when i refer to god, i say she. sometimes i say he. sometimes i say (zomg!) IT. i say handicapped instead of disabled.
By now, I’m sure y’all have heard about the so-called War on Christmas. Because, you know, Christians in America are an oppressed group. Unlike Jews, Muslims, pagans of various stripes, or atheists. It’s not like their God is in the pledge that children have to speak every day… oh, wait, it is. Well, it’s not like the majority of their religious holidays are national holidays… oh, wait, they are. Uh. Er. They’re oppressed, really! I mean, prayer in school has been outlawed, evolution is taught in science class, the god-given commandments are not allowed to be in public buildings, and now… now they have to put up with “PC” phrases such as “Happy Holidays” and “Season’s Greetings” being said alongside “Merry Christmas”. If this continues, people of other faiths (or lack of faith) might start thinking that their beliefs are equal to those of the God Warriors!
I, myself, became a casualty of this vicious war when I was dealing with a credit card issue just a few days ago.
I was on the phone with the representative and after we had resolved everything she said, “Ha… Merry Christmas.”
I replied, “And a Happy Holidays to you.” Truth be told, what I really had wanted to say was, “Where the hell do you get off assuming that I celebrate Christmas?” But, really, it might not have been the rep’s fault. From the way she started saying something else, it sounds like it’s company policy. And that, my friends, is just not cool.
