Fear and Interpretation

Thinking back on the reading tonight, it strikes me how much of the detainees' poetry seems to stem from confusion as often as outrage. Again and again, Allah is invoked not bitterly, but almost wistfully: The poet doesn't need to ask Allah to destroy the unjust; the poet wants God to explain to his family that the disorder created by those who fight "a war for peace" will be made ordered again.

This leads me to an article by Akbar Ganji on women's rights in Iran, published in the most recent Boston Review.

Ganji's argument is against the unequal treatment of women in modern Iran, which is worth several posts of its own. But he touches upon a bigger, more overarching point about Islam and rationality: Various important Muslim thinkers, from the Ayatollah Khomeini way back to al-Ghazali - thinkers both conservative and radical - have pointed out that the most important aspect of Islam isn't the following of any specific rule whatsoever, it's just belief in the merciful God.

Said another way, generalized even further out from Islam, the most important aspect of a religion - of any ideal - is the spirit behind it, not the specific methods by which that spirit is manifested in the world.

Take America's war on terror. Like George Bush and the wardens of Guantánamo, I am against Jihadi suicide bombers, against Osama Bin-Laden, against kidnappers. The spirit - protect life - is the same. But the methods differ. Progressives refer to the law, to rational arguments against torture, while Bush and his cronies maintain a strict, Jihadi-like focus on a ghostly version of efficiency. If they think torture is efficient, torture is in, even if it violates the spirit itself. The methods get ahead of the reason behind them, the reason for using them - the methods eat their own collective tail.

Thinking about the dichotomy between spirit (compassion, mercy, reason) and method (torture, kidnapping, secrecy, willful ignoring of law, lack of respect for others' traditions), the methodological links between the Jihadis and the anti-Jihadis blur the two categories. An Orwellian, frightening state of mind.

The Semantics of the Word "Feminist"

WCS Director Olivia Greer wrote an interesting article about the word "feminist" for YP4 following our "Why Women Center Stage?" event, at which the panelists (Jennifer Buffett, Gloria Feldt, Aisha al-Adawiya, Idelisse Malave, Letty Cottin Pogrebin, and Carol Jenkins) sparred over the relevance/usefulness/relative "good" of the word "feminist."

"Am I a 'feminist?'" asks Olivia, whose article explores the paradox of being white and an activist in the struggle of women's rights, a struggle in which non-white women feel left behind, estranged from the feminism of Steinem et al.

As a pro-rights-for-women dude, I just want to say kudos to Olivia, and to add that of course every person, man or woman, must internalize their own, idiosyncratically-connotative definition of the word "feminist," like any other word.

But as a semantics buff and serious word nerd, I have to point out that the word itself is not the problem; no one is "not" a feminist nowdays, at least in New York. The word "feminism" means simply "the ideology that men and women should have the same rights," or however you'd like to paraphrase it.

Perhaps some Texas good ole boys or Egyptian polygamists might not label themselves as "feminist," but the vast majority of Americans will, do, can, and/or should.

I was not at all surprised when, during the "Why Women Center Stage?" conversation, panelists argued about race. I agree, white ladies have left their not-white sisters in the dirt, in terms of socio-political advancement, work opportunities, etc.

But I grew confounded as the argument seemed to return again and again to that word - "feminist." What does it mean to be a "feminist" versus "someone who believes in equal rights for women?" Why is there so much confusion surrounding what should be a simple ideological signifier?

Think about this in terms of a different argument: When I tell a conservative that I am "pro-gay marriage," he doesn't ask what I mean. He doesn't say, "do you mean that you are pro-white gay marriage, or pro all-gay marriage?" That would seem ridiculous.

Yet many prominent non-white women feel that "feminist" somehow excludes them; they are not "feminists," could never possibly be "feminists," even if they very much self-identify (whether as social or political leaders, like Jenkins and Pogrebin, or as religious organizers, like al-Adawiya) as "believers in equal rights for women."

Here is the crux of the problem: The word will continue to mean just what the word means, for a time, at least. Is is not better to educate people as to the meaning of the word than to abandon the word, invent a new term for the same thing, and thus split the "feminist" old-school white woman-equalists from the "not-feminist" non-white woman-equalists?

I'm not kicking aside the very real problems brought up by those who feel excluded by the F-word; they should absolutely bring their concerns to the forefront of the women's rights debate. But they should also admit that they, too, are technically feminists.

The problem with trying to alter language politically is that, besides from ugly-fying a beautiful natural system of sound and metaphor and meta-metaphor, it doesn't work. In fact, it often backfires.

Think of Russel Simmons' quixotic quest to delete the N-word from the mouths of thugs across America. I still hear the N-word every single day. (Or Germany's campaign to suppress Nazi propaganda, which, while noble in intent, has produced a lot of German neo-Nazis.)

Rather than focus on a problem word, we should focus on problem ideas. Ideological battles cannot and should not be won semantically; that is, if women in the hood feel estranged from "feminism," women in the Upper East & West Sides should explain what feminism, in their view is; the hood women should explain to the rich women their problems with white feminism or what they see as white feminism. I bet the two groups will find more commonality than difference, at least in terms of gender-ideas.

In general, groups fighting for the same important human rights should embrace one another, not divide and subdivide based on, of all things, a four-syllable Latin piece of jargon. New labels and new words should and will pop up, of course. As new ideas come to the front of the collective watercooler debate-circuit, their jargon will replace the previous era's.

But what better option than "feminism" is floating out there right now? Perhaps there is one. If there is, please write to us and prove my earlier argument incorrect (or out of date). But think long and hard: Is being a "feminist" really so much worse than being a "transgenderequalist" or a "equagynovoterist" or a "grrl=boi-er?"

The question could be rephrased: How can we make "feminism" a better idea, and thus a better word, since we all basically agree on what it means and why we will continue to fight for it, in its name, by whichever name it takes?

Words about WCS on Women's eNews; Women on Words

Women's eNews has assigned a blogger to cover Women Center Stage. Thanks, guys.

Also, I ran into a wonderful lit-blog about women authors the other day called Modern Matriarch. Cheesy name; wonderful content.

Concerning literary ladies, all modern supporters of equal rights for both genders should read Woolf's very short, somewhat depressing A Room Of One's Own. (It's free.)

forgiving but not forgetting

this just in from the women of Rutgers and Coach Stringer:

We, the Rutgers University Scarlet Knight basketball team accept — accept — Mr. Imus’s apology, and we are in the process of forgiving. We still find his statements to be unacceptable. And this is an experience that we will never forget. These comments are indicative of greater ills in our culture. It is not just Mr. Imus. And we hope that this will be and serve as a catalyst for change. Let us continue to work hard together to make this world a better place.

Imus is boring; Stringer rocks

C. Vivian Stringer, coach to the Rutgers women's basketball team sums up the state of the union pretty well, I'd venture:

Have we lost a sense of our own moral fiber? Has society decayed to such a point that we can forgive and forget because you know what, it was just a slip of the tongue? I'm going to suggest that bright, thinking people give thought before they speak.

She's right dammit. As tired as I am of all this Imus coverage, I'm equally tired of forgiving and forgetting. Call me PC, call me overly sensitive, but he's a jerk and I'm glad they fired him. Freedom of speech is one thing; turning a blind eye to racist and sexist "casual remarks" is another.

My colleagues may disagree with me...the door is open for debate...

But briefly, on another note, the Duke players were let off this week. It may go down in history as one of the most royally botched cases of all time. It was definitely the right move to throw out the case, but it does raise a red flag for those of us concerned with the cases of future rape victims. As the editors of Salon's Broadsheet write:

Those who see every rape charge as a probable false accusation may read the Duke case outcome as validating their position; assault survivors may worry that the Duke case outcome erodes their credibility...Going forward, we're hoping this unusual, unfortunate case won't become a cultural touchstone for future rape allegations -- but we're not terribly optimistic.

Here's hoping.

Our Only Real Diplomat?

Nagging questions of political decorum aside (and since when did decorum, I dunno, prevent a chlorine bombing?)..., who the fuck gives somebody flak for trying to reconcile hostile powers in the Middle East?

The fact that Pelosi is not a member of the Executive branch merely underscores that branch's failures.

If Bush cannot reach out to "Axis Of Evil" leaders, he cannot hope to entice them to change their policies towards Israel, sectarian rivalry, or falafels, which, as stated earlier, must be safe to eat if the Middle East is ever to recover from its long slide back into Medieval violence and state-choking autocracy.

Anyway, here's a little blurb about our Madam Speaker's controversial trip:

From the NYTimes, April 6, 2007, "Pelosi Nudges Saudi Arabia to Give Women a Role in Politics," ASSOCIATED PRESS:

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, April 5 (AP) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday visited Saudi Arabia’s unelected advisory council, the closest thing in the kingdom to a legislature, where she tried out her counterpart’s chair — a privilege not available to Saudi women because they cannot become legislators.

...

Ms. Pelosi and King Abdullah discussed at length the Arab peace initiative, which offers Israel peace with Arab states if it withdraws from lands seized in 1967 and allows the creation of a Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem. Israel has said it will accept the proposal only if some changes are made.

“I explained to him that this can be a very important and historic proposal if he is prepared for a discussion and a dialogue and not a presentation on a take-it-or-leave-it basis,” said Representative Tom Lantos, a California Democrat and the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who is also part of the American delegation. “His reaction was very positive.”

Of course Bush should value diplomacy, too.

But if he doesn't, I vote we send in Pelosi, Jimmy Carter, the A Team, and Sam Jackson, who, as we all know from Snakes On A Plane, is a master of both conflict resolution and off-the-cuff toxicology.

Also, this is something that should get more attention/political pressure: Many Iraqi refugees in Syria (and probably in Jordan, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Yemen, etc.) are being forced in quasi-slave positions as "cabaret dancers" or domestic servants... So besides the number of deaths/serious injuries in Iraq, one must, when one appraises America's intervention there, consider the number of less enumerable vilenesses that have come to pass since April, 2003.

From the (rather dark, X-Files-chic) CIA website:

current situation: Syria is a destination country for women from South and Southeast Asia and Africa for domestic servitude and from Eastern Europe and Iraq for sexual exploitation; women are recruited for work in Syria as domestic servants, but some face conditions of exploitation and involuntary servitude including long hours, non-payment of wages, withholding of passports and other restrictions on movement, and physical and sexual abuse; Eastern European women recruited for work in Syria as cabaret dancers are not permitted to leave their work premises without permission and have their passports withheld; some displaced Iraqi women and children are reportedly forced into sexual exploitation
tier rating: Tier 3 - Syria does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not making significant efforts to do so

We should engage Syria diplomatically if for no other reason than to pressure them to reform/transform/abolish their domestic servant/sex trade.

dispatch from Nairobi

This is a bit belated - it's a re-post from a piece I wrote for openDemocracy about the World Social Forum in Kenya, which I attended in my capacity as producer of Women Center Stage, Culture Project's annual multi-disciplinary arts festival focusing on women artists who are calling our attention to issues of social justice globally.

Growing up a young white woman in New York City, my world was comfortable, it was integrated, and my feminism was without a name and assumed. I say with not a small amount of shame that it was only very recently that I understood acutely enough that only for white and privileged women is feminism about reproductive rights, glass ceilings and the stiletto-or-not debate. And I am looking for deeper connections, for wider, meaningful work.

In 2007, there is a palpable paradox: women take leadership positions from Chile to Germany, as women from Ukraine to the Dominican Republic are trafficked into prostitution and the right of women in the United States to sovereignty over their bodies is carefully dismantled. Countries like Mexico and South Africa allow employers to keep women from work due to pregnancy; in Morocco, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, women’s legal rights belong to male family members. Each day, in every part of the world, women are beaten in their own homes.

The World Social Forum has made this co-existent diversity and commonality of experience palpable.

Arriving in Kenya, my first trip to any African country, I found myself enraged (at myself? at my schooling?) by how little I know about the world, and even about my own country. I have so little real information, know so little about real people and their experiences. And so I began to understand that my job in Nairobi was to listen.

So I’ve tried to pull out themes that emerged in the sessions I’ve been to:

The first is a call from women in all parts of the world to shake off the limitations implied by our attachment to the language of patriarchy. That, in re-visioning the world, we continue to use and accept assumptions asserted by an old standard. It is within our rights – perhaps our responsibility – to re-work the vocabulary and the assumptions as we work to make change. As a young woman said at a Young Feminists meeting, “we are not just a women’s movement, we are women in movement.”

The second point follows closely: as women in movement, generational disconnects seem to come up again and again. In a youth circle, an older woman thanked younger women for carrying the torch in a long speech, but left the room as soon as younger women began speaking; in a session on women elected leaders, young women lamented a lack of mentorship and begged for more guidance and support; older women observed that younger women don’t seem to have a sense of their history or a tie to any coherent movement. And these things were expressed across barriers of country, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, what-have-you.

A third, related, point is that, as women, we can tend to fight to be in the space we have, rather than fighting to expand the space. Women talked a great deal about competition between one another, and a barrier between generations and classes of women, and called strongly for more solidarity. They brought up, in every session, the importance of “knowing each other better,” learning from each other, and supporting each other – and expanding the space so as to be able to stand together.

Finally, women globally are calling the world’s attention to a wide range of social justice issues in their regions and homes. Women fight side by side with men, and with a unique worldview, in the labor movement, in the environmental movement, in the immigration movement and in countless other struggles of countless other people and communities. The global women’s movement is a call to action for equality and safety for all people, everywhere.

By the closing of the World Social Forum, I felt deeply all the beauty and contradictions of the event. For 7 days, I walked through the most diverse throngs of people I’ve ever seen – people from African countries in tribal dress, people from African countries who would blend in anywhere in the U.S., women in saris, endless types of headdress. I saw a woman in a full burkha, but openly holding hands with the man she was with – no gloves even!

What if the world really looked like this! And of course, it’s a small oasis and not without its problems and complications. Many Kenyans protested the Forum because even the reduced price for them was a day’s wages and not at all affordable. And once we were all safely home, two of these citizens - young boys - were executed for their efforts. Yes, they were executed.

One afternoon, as I was admiring the number of men wearing t-shirts that read “women are not property,” I was approached by a young man from Sierra Leone who wanted to chat. He told me that he works as an anti-mining activist, and we talked about Sierra Leone and the Appalachian coal-mining region in the U.S. And then he said, “I would like to bring you to my country,” to which I replied, “I’d be very interested to see it.” He said, “Yes, you will marry me and come to live in my country.” When I explained that wouldn’t be possible he thought for a moment and then asked if I have a sister. I told him that she is sixteen. “Ah,” he said, dead serious, “the perfect age for marrying. Very obedient. You will give her my picture when you go home.”

But what an extraordinary event this was! I quickly came to relish being in the minority for a period (I’m sure tempered by the fact that it was temporary), reminding myself to listen and not to hold tight to my own views and experience. I loved seeing so many different colored people engaged in real conversations, and to see that there is work going on constantly, at the most local, grassroots level, as well as in global partnerships. As a woman said in the last day's final Women’s Forum, the World Social Forum gives us a moment to take the work we’ve done and put it on the world table. And in the end – to sum up the parts of the whole as best as I can – as we meet and grow in our work, we make another world possible.