gwytherinn.com

I’m burned out after months of nonstop reading blogs/news/nonfiction books/etc and need a break. No mystery that this also comes with the last bit of warm weather, bringing on perpetual crankiness, an understanding of animals that hibernate, and no desire to censor myself at the moment. I can’t resist a few parting shots with the things I’ve been kicking around before the blog goes silent for a bit. So I guess this is kind of messy and unpolished, but whatever.  And who knows, maybe tomorrow I will be miraculously motivated again.

I feel remiss that I did not acknowledge the historical significance of Obama’s presidency at all, despite having a number of fundamental problems with him.

I am bitterly amused that continued outrage is being leveled towards Michael Vick for his torture of dogs, yet we continuously honor men who are rapists and abusers. If I had a dime for every time someone blew off a man’s abuse of a woman to wax poetic about him I’d be rich. (And no, I don’t condone what he did, I think it’s abhorrent. I just wish there was some parity here.)

The conversations going on around me about the auto industry all have to do with those “greedy” auto workers who get paid “too much” for such an “easy” job and how unions need to be weakened. It strikes me as incredibly odd that our remaining factory workers, lionized as models of class mobility and the American Dream, are now bearing the brunt of the blame for reaping the benefits that make those things possible. I feel more like an alien than I thought I could.

In light of that, I liked this post at Socialist Resistance >> America Changing for Real?? and particularly this portion of it:

The ongoing fight over auto is not about saving jobs and communities, or converting the industry to sustainable mass transit. It’s about whether the bankruptcy of the Big Three would be one of those moments of “creative destruction” so dearly beloved by free-market ideologues, whose own lives of course aren’t at stake. It’s about whether the companies will go bankrupt anyway – so why postpone the inevitable? – or whether the impact of their precipitous collapse on the system as a whole is too enormous to risk.

I am frustrated and disgusted at a culture of learned callousness. Going into the city and seeing homeless, the performances they need to put on to solicit people’s kindness, the way people ignore them anyway. If the victim isn’t perfect we knee jerk and withdraw our support. I see this in my own thought patterns when I give them money and hear their stories.

The “it’s my paycheck” bullshit. I abhor this. Your paycheck is earned on the backs of others. You are not a monolith, a person all by yourself that you earn your paycheck in a vacuum, that it is not linked to a local and global community of people. And I do believe that this is one of America’s greatest failings - this teaching of such extreme individualism that so many couldn’t care less about others outside of “their circle”, having no understanding of community and the way one’s actions ripple outward.

I did not drop from the womb with a desire to wear makeup. As someone who was born with a vagina it is not a biological imperative that I put on lipstick. This is not intended to shame women who do so, it is directed towards people who seem to think they can tell me I should do this because I am a woman.

I just finished Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center by bell hooks and well, damn if she isn’t brilliant when it comes to discussions of the way power works.

I have finally put an actual name to that ethereal thing I’ve wanted to study for years and this makes me kind of excited. (Sounds much better than “I am interested in economic tyranny and the way development is a vehicle for neocolonialism.” - which is NEVER this concise when I get asked to describe my primary interest. I feel a little dense that it took me this long to actually find a discipline that has the potential to explore this.)

And a link I meant to quote but never did. I thought there were more, but oh well:

The Sanctuary >> Hate Doesn’t Happen in a Vacuum - A post that details the rhetoric and the hate crimes towards immigrants that have been occurring in the Long Island area. I’m shocked that it’s this extensive in my area and had no idea. I like the way the post emphasizes the importance of the way we speak about issues and how this can create an environment where these things occur - too often we devalue language and its impact.

Yesterday on the radio Steve Malzberg was talking about how they’re no longer educating students about Veteran’s Day in schools - I guess it’s some “liberal plot”, as usual. Great idea Steve. Let’s talk about Veteran’s Day. Let’s talk particularly about the issues that women veterans face. Will you be talking about that?

Helen Benedict cites these statistics in her recent article Why Soldiers Rape: Culture of misogyny, illegal occupation, fuel sexual violence in military. A note at the bottom states: [Editor’s note: This article is adapted from The Lonely Soldier: The Private War of Women Serving in Iraq, to be published by Beacon Press in April 2009.]

Yes, you should read the whole article.

• A 2004 study of veterans from Vietnam and all wars since, conducted by psychotherapist Maureen Murdoch and published in the journal Military Medicine, found that 71 percent of the women said they were sexually assaulted or raped while serving.

• In 2003, a survey of female veterans from Vietnam through the first Gulf War by psychologist Anne Sadler and her colleagues, published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine, found that 30 percent said they were raped in the military.

• And a 1995 study of female veterans of the Gulf and earlier wars, also conducted by Murdoch and published in Archives of Family Medicine, reported that 90 percent had been sexually harassed, which means anything from being pressured for sex to being relentlessly teased and stared at.

• A 2007 survey by the Department of Veterans Affairs found that homelessness among female veterans is rapidly increasing as women soldiers come back from Iraq and Afghanistan. Forty percent of these homeless female veterans say they were sexually abused while in the service.

Defense Department numbers are much lower. In Fiscal Year 2007, the Pentagon reported 2,085 sexual assaults among military women, which given that there are about 200,000 active-duty women in the armed forces, is a mere fraction of what the veterans studies indicate. The discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the Pentagon counts only those rapes that soldiers have officially reported.

Having the courage to report a rape is hard enough for civilians, where unsympathetic police, victim-blaming myths, and the fear of reprisal prevent some 60 percent of rapes from being brought to light, according to a 2005 Department of Justice study.

But within the military, reporting is much riskier. Platoons are enclosed, hierarchical societies, riddled with gossip, so any woman who reports a sexual assault has little chance of remaining anonymous. She will probably have to face her assailant day after day and put up with resentment and blame from other soldiers who see her as a snitch. She risks being persecuted by her assailant if he is her superior, and punished by any commanders who consider her a troublemaker. And because military culture demands that all soldiers keep their pain and distress to themselves, reporting an assault will make her look weak and cowardly.

For all these reasons, some 80 percent of military rapes are never reported, as the Pentagon itself acknowledges.

And another good article from the summer: Homelessness a Problem for Women Veterans

This is a wonderful piece of news:

Argentina: Non-Sexist Language for Reporters

BUENOS AIRES, Oct 21 (IPS) - An organisation of over 100 journalists in Argentina has drawn up ten “commandments” for news coverage of gender-based crimes, which include avoiding expressions like “crime of passion” and incorporating terms like “femicide.”

The document, by the Argentine Network of Journalists for Non-Sexist Communication (PAR), has already been debated in forums and delivered to social and cultural associations and editorial offices. It will be publicly launched on Nov. 25, International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.

Its aim is to combat “invisible discrimination, which is often unintentional, but occurs because it has become natural in daily life,” Liliana Hendel, a psychologist and journalist for the subscription television news channel Todo Noticias, and one of the authors of the ten commandments, or decalogue, told IPS.

“We will uproot from our work the term ‘crime of passion’ to refer to murders of women who are victims of gender violence. Crimes of passion do not exist,” says item three of the document, for example.

According to Hendel, “to call a murder a crime of passion is to presuppose that it is a consequence of love, because ‘he loved her too much,’ which distances it from the concept of crime.”

She added that the idea of “love-sickness” hides the reality of a criminal who abuses power, to the extent that he owns a woman’s life and can kill her.” Statistics quoted by PAR indicate that in 99 percent of murders committed by spouses, lovers or partners, women are the victims.

The Network proposes terms like “femicide” (murders of women) or “feminicide” (crimes of humanity against women just because they are women). Other phrases recommended by feminist movements are “violence against women,” “gender-based violence” and “sexist violence.”

Consultation of female sources is stressed as a key to avoiding gender discrimination.

“Whether or not we are writing about gender issues, it is important to consult women lawyers, historians and women’s groups about their views on events, which will inexorably help us to see what we cannot see because it seems so natural,” Hendel said.

Among other evidence for sexism in news coverage, PAR mentions “detailed descriptions of what a woman was wearing or, in the case of murders committed by women, emphatic indignation because they go against ‘maternal instinct,’ which is a way of sacralising motherhood.”

“There is an exaggeration of the association between motherhood and womanhood, and an underlying need for women to be good,” the journalist said.

Malalai Kakar - “Malalai Kakar, prominent Afghan policewoman. Murdered in Kandahar” - AFP - From the article Women Who Took on the Taliban - and Lost (I am not sure how to cite an AP photo, so gave as much info as possible - but will continue to look for the proper way.)

Malalai Kakar was a police officer in Afghanistan murdered by the Taliban approximately 2 weeks ago. (Couldn’t find an exact date.) I suppose you can say that the US stint in Afghanistan has been a huge success if you think that violence against women and girls and the resurgence of the Taliban is of no consequence. All of these articles about Kakar are worth reading in full, but I’ve excerpted many of them here. Bold formatting is mine.

The first time I saw Malalai Kakar was in Kandahar city, at a women’s conference organised by a group of spirited young Afghan-Americans determined to give the Taliban a symbolic bloody nose in their spiritual homeland.

It was the autumn of 2003 and, as the country’s only policewoman, Kakar was already a celebrity. She walked into the room wearing a blue burqa and, as she began unloading her things, a pistol emerged from underneath the traditional garment, held in a hand graced by immaculate, red fingernails.

It was an arresting, symbolic image.

‘Just another woman who can be killed.’ - Hamida Ghafour

In an attack claimed by the Taliban, two gunmen on a motorcycle shot and killed Afghanistan’s most high-profile female police officer on Sunday as she prepared to leave for work in the southern city of Kandahar. The police in the city said she died instantly from gunshot wounds to her head. Her 18-year-old son, driving her car, was seriously wounded and taken to the hospital.

The police officer, Malalai Kakar, who was in her mid-40s with six children, was an iconic figure among women’s groups in Afghanistan and abroad. Often profiled in the Afghan and foreign news media, she was one of the leading totems for the wider freedoms gained by women when the Taliban, with their repressive policies toward women, were ousted from power by an American-led coalition in 2001.

The attack was the latest in a wave of attacks on women across Afghanistan for which the Taliban have claimed responsibility. After scattering in the wake of the 2001 offensive, the Islamic militants have regrouped over the past two years.

“We killed Malalai Kakar,” a Taliban spokesman, Qari Yousuf Ahmadi, told the news service Agence France-Presse in a telephone call.

Ms. Kakar, with the rank of captain, was head of Kandahar’s department of crimes against women. She joined the police in the city in 1982, following in the footsteps of her father and brothers, but was forced out after the Taliban captured Kandahar in the mid-1990s and barred all women from working.

Taliban Claim Responsibility in Killing of Key Female Afghan Police Officer - John F. Burns

Commander Kakar, 40, knew her work made her a Taliban target. She led a unit of 10 policewomen specialising in domestic violence cases. She was uncompromising with suspected abusers, men who in the past had relied on male police officers to turn a blind eye.

“I’ve been accused of being rough with husbands who beat up their wives” she said. “But I’m angry, we try to apply the law in the right way and the constitution is supposed to protect women’s rights.”

Women who took on the Taliban - and Lost - This article elaborates on 3 of the 5 women in public life they had interviewed when the Taliban was ousted who have since been assassinated. Highly recommended read. (As are all the articles.)

Yesterday, the Taliban claimed responsibility for Kakar’s killing, saying she had been a long-term target. In a perverse nod to gender equality, in killing her, they acknowledged that an Afghan woman can be as deadly an enemy as any man.

Unusual as she clearly was, Malalai Kakar was also part of a long-standing tradition of Afghan women who “outman” their men in bravery. These are women who take sides in wars, taking up arms for or against the government. In the past, such women used to be mainly the stuff of legends. They were admired and held up as role models but not feared, since they weren’t real.

Early Afghan historical works are full of such women. Reminiscent of the epic German poem the Nibelungenlied, these tales of warriors, horses and fortresses feature young women such as Shah Bori, described as a girl with a taste for male clothing and horse riding. She is said to have liked living the life of a warrior, refusing for a long time to get married. She is also said to have died fighting the troops of King Babur, in the 16th century.

Then there’s Nazauna, who, legend has it, single-handedly protected the Zabol fortress with her sword; that was in the 18th century. And in the 19th century, there was the original Malalai, after whom Malalai Kakar was named: Malalai of Maiwand, who turned her headscarf into a banner and led a successful rebellion against the British.

The Fighting Women of Afghanistan by Nushin Arbabzadah

Kandahar’s Woman Detective

I worked very briefly on helping to design an awareness campaign during my time at Human Rights Watch about the Taliban targeting girls’ schools. And yet the dominant narrative seemed to be how much of a success the US tour in Afghanistan was. Not so fast.

Installments on Palin-Mania/Republican hypocrisy is slow going, and at this point I think the intended two part post may go into three.

In the meantime, an incredible speech showed up in my feed from the Association for Women’s Rights in Development. It is about how integral it is for “peacekeepers” in Africa to take stronger measures to STOP the horrifying sexual violence and rape that women are experiencing. It feels absurd that I’m even typing something like that, as if this shouldn’t be obvious or something.

More long quoting, and I’d like to plug the Association for Women’s Rights in Development a bit more. I added their site to my reader a little while ago, but forgot to categorize it so it languished at the bottom…. Noticed it today and have been looking through it… seems like an amazing site with news concerning women all over the world.

The title of this speech resonated with me - “Peace is a mere illusion when rape continues.” I don’t want to belittle what African women are going through. It is a horrific nightmare. But it also made me think about the concept of rape tourism, where white men seek out Native American women on reservations for the specific purpose of raping them - knowing that they won’t have to face any consequences. It made me think about how certain women are deemed “unrapeable” due to their color or their profession. The numerous GANG RAPES that have occurred in the US in the past few years that have gone unpunished. It made me think of the low convictions of rapists in general, how the deck is stacked against a woman who seeks to press charges and the number of women who don’t report their cases at all.

This is terrorism.

So, onto quoting some excerpts of the speech by Stephen Lewis, or read the full text here.

Here is an unassailable truth: if sexual violence is not addressed during the course of a conflict, then sexual violence will haunt the post-conflict period, and make of the ostensible peace a mockery for half the population.

Three days ago, I returned from Liberia. While in the country, I met with President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, with senior officials of the Ministry of Health, with the Minister of Gender, with the leadership of the Clinton Foundation, with the consultant who drafted the legislation for the special court to try sexual offences, with the UNICEF Representative and significant numbers of the UNICEF staff. Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to meet with UNMIL, but the UN Mission in Liberia and its peacekeeping forces were inevitably a part of every conversation.

She was speaking about the contagion of sexual violence that currently engulfs the country and causes such intense concern. The statistics are horrifying: a recent study by UNICEF indicated that more than fifty per cent of all reported rapes are brutal assaults on young girls between the ages of ten and fourteen. The gender advisor in UNICEF felt that the percentage was probably on the rise, and it’s feared that increases in the HIV rates among female youth will not be far behind. The Minister of Gender showed me figures for March, 2008, indicating that the majority of reported rapes in that month were committed against girls under the age of twelve, some under the age of five, and she narrated stories of gang rape so insensate and so depraved that it reminded me of exhibits in a Holocaust museum. A further survey, of all fifteen counties in the country, found that girls and boys were united in their conviction that young girls were the most endangered group in Liberia, and incredibly enough, that there was no place and no time of day or night where adolescent girls could be considered safe.

The context of my discussions is encapsulated in the words of the Deputy UN Envoy for the Rule of Law in Liberia when she said, as recently as May 20th: We cannot expect the future leaders of Liberia, the doctors, nurses, and engineers of Liberia to be brought up amongst men who are rapists and women who are angry, degraded, frightened, depressed, embarrassed and confused. Predictably, President Johnson-Sirleaf is thunderstruck by the force of the sexual violence. In a very real sense she is staking the integrity of her tenure on her ability to confront and subdue the war on women.

—————-

You may succeed in manufacturing a semblance of peace, but for the women of the country, the conflict continues in the most painful and eviscerating of ways.

In the case of Liberia, it isn’t a matter of a contentious mandate: as I said, Resolution 1325 is built into the obligations of peacekeeping. Anyone would argue that when a peacekeeper in the field knows of acts of sexual violence having been committed, or has reason to believe that acts of sexual violence have been or will be committed, then he or she has the obligation to intervene or, to use the language of the day, the responsibility to protect. But let me be even clearer about this. Peacekeepers aren’t mere passive observers of the human family. Peacekeepers move into a country; they learn its social architecture; they watch the roiling political terrain on a day-to-day basis. They come to know the foibles, to know the extremes, to know the anomalies. More often than not, they can tell when trouble is brewing. They can intuit when men might hurtle out of control. They have the pulse of the culture. When it unravels, they’re there to bear witness. I’m saying that when patterns of sexual violence emerge, peacekeepers are rarely surprised. In some cases, they alone have anticipated the atrocities in the offing. And with that knowledge comes obligation. With that insight comes responsibility. It isn’t enough to stop the shooting when the raping continues apace. The only worthwhile armistice restores peace for the entire population, male and female. There can be no satisfaction in claiming a truce or a peace treaty which is soaked in the carnage of the women of the land.

The Greatest Silence: Rape in the Congo will be airing on HBO on April 8th. I just wanted to pull out some of the commentary here, as I find there’s rarely any effort to make connections when you read about these things -

As Jackson shares her own gang-rape story, we’re potently reminded that in America we’re in no position to point fingers. The monstrous escalation of rape in the Congo doesn’t exist in a vacuum; around the world, human beings perpetrate new heights of barbarity - against the planet and themselves.

And in this short article:

Unfortunately, as a human-rights activist notes, good intentions may not be enough to end what appears to be an institutionalized outrage: “The rapists of yesterday have today become the authorities. And they encourage sexual violence because for them it has become a lifestyle. That is why the violence doesn’t end.”

As far as feminism, I really haven’t looked much into the topic. Hence, your allusions to specific ideas are lost on me because of my lack of background. However, many of the arguments I’ve heard for feminism appear to be the search for a skapegoat on which to cast the blame for problems. I can understand and sometimes agree with arguments I’ve heard, but this isn’t a one directional issue. In fact, it’s surprising that there isn’t a loud masculanist movement considering many of the unfair expectations and biases against men. I myself wouldn’t subscribe to any such group, but it doesn’t take a stretch of the imagination to consider its existance.

Consider education. Before feminist movements, males had the large share of educational attention, and had higher scores on average than women. The feminist movement has swung the pendulum in the complete opposite direction, where women are outpacing their male components in academia (at least in early education through high school).Don’t misunderstand the purpose of the statement; the fact that women are performing better in school is an excellent and laudable fact. I’m simply pointing out that there is always injustice and there are always biases, and you must be very careful about which fights you pick.

As you said in your entry, there are so many things wrong with the world, feminism does seem like a narrow focused issue. It’s a real issue (as is, perhaps to a lesser extent, “masculanism”), but is it as bold as the pursuit of more impactful issues such as the World Bank and its impositions on 3rd world countries? Or modern colonialism? Environmental impact and sustainability? Poverty and starvation? Worldwide disease?

I wasn’t quite sure how I wanted to deal with my rebuttal, but I decided that making a post would be nice, as I would like to make you do some work. I’m adding some supplementary posts to what I had to say originally, as there are people who have said things better than I ever will.

First, I’ll address that there is a “masculinist” movement, otherwise known as the MRAs - Men’s Rights Advocates. The idea that we need an MRA movement is pretty much on par with the idea that we need white supremacists. (Please note that I am not equating the two groups, so much as explaining their existence.) While feminists aim to right a VERY REAL power imbalance going on between men and women, the former groups are looking to hold on to their power and the perceived injustices they suffer when this power imbalance is corrected. When you lose the privilege (<— link) you have of belonging to a certain group you are going to have to give things up to right the wrongs that other people suffer on account of that privilege. MRAs demonstrate a severe lack of critical thinking skills, and it’s difficult for me to do anything besides pity them.

We live in a patriarchy. (<— link) This is a cultural construct in which men dominate. Under patriarchy things flow disproportionately in yes, one direction. We live in an incredibly misogynist (and racist) culture. To be honest, although the feminist movement has done a lot I think it’s significantly stalled and undergoing an incredible backlash and assault. I don’t agree with you that feminism has moved the pendulum to the complete opposite direction in anything at all, actually. If you are talking education, just a few years ago we had the president of Harvard questioning women’s biological capacity to do well in math and science. Imagine that, in 2007. And yet many people still espouse views about women’s ability to do things BASED ON the fact that we’re women. You’re incredibly lucky that you’ve never had to deal with that because of your sex, something innate.

I actually found an excellent article awhile back on the hand wringing that has accompanied the “crisis” our boys are currently facing. He also addresses what feminists have to say about men and the ways they are hurt under patriarchy.

A War Against Boys? by Michael Kimmel

I will expand a bit on the way that issues of poverty and globalization effect women. Most of the sweatshops that have proliferated in the third world employ women because they are seen as easier to control. As a consequence, they suffer countless abuses (<— link) and are paid less than their male counterparts would be. Typical patriarchal ideology in which “women’s” work and time are devalued.

A particularly horrific example of what women deal with in the face of increasing globalization is what is happening in Juarez and other towns along the Mexican border. Many corporations moved their factories, otherwise known as maquiladoras down there to take advantage of cheap labor and an exploitable work force. Women, many of them in their teens (The younger they are, the more pliable!) have moved there for work. This has created a perfect environment in which 450 women have been found brutally mutilated, raped, and murdered over the past 15 years. Hundreds more are missing and it still continues today. There has been no justice for these women or their families. Often the police will write off their murders or disappearance to the fault of their own “behavior” much of which is fabricated. (As if a woman deserves that fate because she was out late partying, or was a prostitute.) These attitudes are also prevalent in the US.

More Than 450 Women Have Been Murdered in Cuidad Juarez and 600 are missing. All since 1992

At Your Service: Latin Women in the Global Information Network by Coco Fusco - This is an incredible essay that touches on so many things - corporate co-optation, racial hierarchies, Juarez, misogyny masquerading as art. I saw Ms. Fusco speak. She is simply incredible.

A Small Post at Brownfemipower about the plight of women farm workers.

US: Dyncorp Disgrace - Men from a U.S. corporation enslaving and raping women overseas.

Johann Hari: Why Do We Ignore the Abuse of Women?

And here I’ll sidle into territory where I’ll probably hear from most people “wow Erin, you’ve really lost it this time.” When it comes to the abuse and degradation of women, there are no “bad apples.” This is all part of a continuum. Instances like Juarez are at the extreme end of the continuum, (Dyncorp and BFP’s post, not so much) granted, but they are part of a larger system and pattern. When I see this, it is the result of cultural constructs that categorize women as “other.” It is the result of ideas that brand us as commodities, always sexually available, that we are not full human beings. It is the result of the culturally sanctioned devaluation of women. These ideas are manifesting themselves fully in a place where breaking the law comes with no consequences. Further, though white women have been lucky to at least get their issues out there, women of color are pretty much nonexistent in the greater scheme of things. (Scratch that - women of color are visible when people feel the need to tell them to “stop breeding”, and when they’re generally being connected to harmful stereotypes!)

To me, there are VERY FEW isolated incidents. Perhaps that is my greatest weakness. My love for studying culture and making connections has made it very difficult for me to let the “little” things go. I can not walk past a group of men who are laughing at how wasted a woman got the other night, hear “dude, you should have taken advantage of her” and see this as merely a classless group of guys. I can’t see men belittling and degrading other men by likening them to women - by using words like “pussy”, and not see that as part of a much bigger system that routinely belittles and degrades women in BIG ways, ways that hurt. It continually amazes and disgusts me how misogyny is built into our language and the way we express things. I can’t write off the way that things classified as women’s interests are routinely regarded as frivolous and off limits to men, while it’s perfectly ok for women to take up “men’s” interests that will never have the same stigma. These are the “little” ways that reinforce the structures and thought processes that our lives are built around everyday.

I had a whole laundry list of additional issues, both globally and in the US… but I think I’ll leave you with this post, which will give you just a sampling of some more of the crazy shit that women have to deal with. As well, I like what she has to say about anti-feminists and MRAs!

Thanksgiving, Life and Death, and Anti-Feminism at Reclusive Leftist

And hey, she covers global issues as well:

The U.N. reports that most of the 800 million illiterate adults in the world are women; most of the 100 million children not in school are girls. Women earn three-quarters of what men do and their unpaid labor would, if calculated, equal trillions of dollars. Women hold only 17% of the parliamentary seats in the world, but they constitute 70% of the people living in poverty.

For reference, I am throwing in my response comment to you, since it was meant to go in my rebuttal. As well, I’d like you to think about it.

A big problem is the idea that women are “special interest.” We’re not. We’re roughly half the world’s population. This is part of patriarchal ideology - that issues that effect men are important issues, while issues that effect women are peripheral, “special” and generally ignored. This springs from the pervasive idea that man is default and woman is “other” and part of the reason a person can honestly ponder the idea that standing up for women’s rights is not “bold” enough, not “impactful” enough, or that it’s “too narrow.” What makes standing up for a woman, a human being, and the issues she faces in particular, any damn less urgent than standing up for the environment or poverty? Apologies if I seem combative here, but that idea just really frustrates me. As well, as a side note, if we’re speaking of poverty I can probably make a very good case that it’s women who bear the brunt of the negative effects of poverty worldwide.

And a post that touches somewhat on the issue: Stan Goff: [Prison] Rape

What I’m most interested in at the moment is intersectionality. In short, making connections between these oppressions - of women, people of color, gays, lesbians, transgendered, (Ok, if I wasn’t already a newb in matters of race, I’m a TOTAL newb when it comes to LGBT stuff.) of class matters, of poverty. Etc. etc…. I really want to focus on things where I deal with and try to uproot it all.

I feel like I haven’t properly addressed some of the points you brought up, such as scapegoating etc. But honestly, every time I think of the concept that feminism is merely “scapegoating” my brain implodes. Perhaps I didn’t truly answer your comment either. I feel as though I explained the little things and big things, but didn’t quite connect the two with middle ground. And the argument that things aren’t “one-directional issues”, again, bit of a brain implosion there.

Feminism FAQ 101: What’s wrong with saying that things happen to men too?

I’ll leave you with that, as I’ve proof read and been editing/adding to this thing for about 8 days (it is 6 pages in word) and though I don’t feel like I accomplished my goal, I’m thoroughly sick of this post!!!