This is the global Feminist Blogs aggregator. It collects articles from many smaller community
hubs within the Feminist Blogs network. For stories from particular places, groups,
or other communities within our movement, check out some of these sites.
I’d really rather stop writing about this - I have a post about compost (a com-post?) that’s been sitting on the backburner for about two weeks now - but I’ve been absolutely gobsmacked by the tropes people are pulling out to defend Helen Thomas’s statement, and I’ve noticed that they fit into an exhaustingly familiar pattern, so I want to say one more thing.
If you’re a blogger and you find yourself writing anything even remotely resembling the following:
“We must allow groups to define their own oppression! We must listen to and respect the lived experiences of everyone! Except Jews/the disabled/trans folk/this group/that group/whoever’s in my blind spot today. They don’t know what they’re talking about and they need me to tell them what should and shouldn’t offend them.”
…then please stop typing, dunk your head in some ice water, get out of the house for a bit, and try again.
Trust me, it’ll be better for everyone.
It is completely, 100% possible to talk about Palestine/Israel while ignoring the lived experiences of neither Jews nor non-Jewish Arabs. Not only is it possible, it’s quite easy. So what does it say about us as activists, radical or liberal or anything in between, that we still can’t get the hang of it?
One question I’ve seen come up again and again this week is, why has Egypt’s Mubarak regime been blockading Gaza — an extraordinarily unpopular move not only worldwide, but within Egypt? The best answer I’ve seen comes from Issandr Amrani, who blogs at The Arabist, in his excellent Foreign Policy article about Egypt’s collaboration with Israel on the Gaza blockade:
Firstly, the Egyptian regime has been concerned about the precedent that Hamas’ political electoral success in Palestinian elections in January 2006 set for the region, particularly after Egypt’s own Muslim Brotherhood secured an unprecedented 20 percent of parliament. It wants Hamas to fail.1 [...]
Secondly, Egypt’s ties with Israel and the United States have been prioritized over the Palestinian cause, even if this comes at a domestic cost. Between 2006 and 2009, the U.S. Congress aggressively pressured Egypt to do more to constrain weapons smuggling to Gaza, with military aid threatened for the first time. In 2009, U.S. and Israeli lobbying resulted in the construction of a metal wall at the border and the intensification of operations against tunnel smugglers. There has been a concurrent increase in support for the Mubarak regime in Washington, notably once the Obama administration came into office: not only have pressures on human rights and democratization vanished, but backlogged military purchases such as a multi-year $3.2 billion F-16 deal have been approved by Congress. While this is in part because of the new administration’s wish to distance itself from Bush administration policies, it is also due to its perception that Cairo is a crucial ally in its handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Of course, Egypt also has legitimate security concerns about Hamas’ control of Gaza. It is concerned about radicalization of the territory and believes that Gazan groups more radical than Hamas may have provided training for the terrorists who carried out three major attacks in Sinai between 2004 and 2006. (It is generally believed Hamas has imposed order in Gaza and checked smaller radical groups and criminal gangs.) The issue of weapons smuggling not only affects Israel’s security, but also Egypt’s, as stockpiles of explosives discovered in Sinai over the past year suggests. The dismantling of a network of Hizbullah network last year, recognized by Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah to be involved in smuggling to Gaza, has also raised concerns that Egypt could be drawn into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even worse, officials fear a plan to “dump” the problem of Gaza on Egypt’s lap, something Israeli strategists have contemplated for decades. Already facing tense relations with the Bedouin population of Eastern Sinai, the regime has no desire to become responsible for Gaza, one of the most radicalized places on the planet.
But perhaps most importantly, it is the Mubarak regime’s own security that is threatened. During the Gaza war, Nasrallah made an unprecedented call for the Egyptian military, as well as citizens, to force the regime to open the border. Many officials I spoke to during the war felt that the “resistance front” of Iran, Syria, Qatar, Hizbullah and Hamas — as well as pro-Palestinian activists around the world and media outlets such al-Jazeera or al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper — was waging war on Egypt as much as Israel.
The Obama administration’s position is interesting; they are simultaneously pressuring Egypt to keep the blockade up and pressuring Israel to end the blockade. This makes sense politically — it would be very bad politics for the US and Egypt to end the blockade over Israel’s objections — but it’s also warped.
In reaction to the deaths of flotilla activists, Egypt has partly lifted the blockade on Gaza — at least for now. But the lifting of the blockade is incomplete, and Egypt has not made any commitment to lifting the ban permanently.
Note: Hamas, the government of Gaza, is part of the Muslim Brotherhood. –Amp
1. Jews have lived continuously in Palestine, in varying numbers, since before the destruction of the second temple. To say that Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine” implies that the actions of the Israeli government warrant the expulsion of Jews who have lived in what is now the state of Israel for generations, even centuries.
2. I can’t believe I even have to take the time to write this, but not all Jews who immigrated to Israel came from Germany and Poland - or even from Eastern Europe, or even from Europe at all. About half of Israel’s Jewish population is made up of Jews from the Middle East and North Africa. From the late 19th century to the mid-20th, between 800,000 and 1,000,000 Jews left or were expelled from Middle Eastern and North African countries, and most of them went to Israel.
3. This should be made apparent by item #2 and some knowledge of the Holocaust (including the Zionist movement’s part in strong-arming Holocaust survivors into immigrating to Israel), but not all Jewish immigration to Israel has been fully voluntary. Without even getting into the issue of Jewish descendants of immigrants, it’s pretty hilarious to suggest that a Jew who was forced to leave their country of origin should just pack up and go back.
What we need to talk about when we talk about Palestine is the ethnic cleansing that started with the first actions of political Zionists and Christian Restorationists and continues as I type this sentence. Sweeping, ignorant, and offensive proclamations that Jews should go back where they came from (an idea that, by the way, helped catalyze the Zionist movement in the first place) will not secure freedom for a single Palestinian.
A few weeks ago, a new television advertisement in the UK started to stir up controversy. The ad simply features the question “Are you late?” As well as, the phone number and website for the sexual and reproductive health care provider, Marie Stopes International. This is the first television ad for an abortion provider in the UK.
Abortion is legal in the UK (except Northern Ireland where the ad will not be seen) if two doctors give consent. They must state that ending the pregnancy is in the best interest of the woman and would cause either physical or mental health issues. This law was enacted in 1967 and many reproductive rights advocates believe it should be updated to make the process of obtaining reproductive services easier for women. Still, approximately 200,000 abortions are carried out in Britain each year
Marie Stopes International is similar to Planned Parenthood and was founded in 1976. It grew out of an organization originally set up by Ms. Stopes in 1921. At that time, it served as a resource center for married women and advocated for reproductive rights. Their current mission is simply” children by choice not chance.” Health screenings, education, birth control access, abortion services, an adoption helpline and advocacy campaigns are some of the many activities this organization does worldwide.
This is a huge milestone that a mainstream media resource is being used to advertise an abortion provider. However, this commercial exemplifies how much further society needs to go to making language surrounding abortion less taboo.
Emotions tend to run high around discussion of reproductive health, especially abortion. This is true of both sides. Open dialogue needs to happen in order to make sure everyone is aware of facts and services. Maybe a commercial like the one in the UK will begin to slowly open up the discussion, but I wish it wasn’t quite so cryptic.
The language in the ad leaves the subject very understated. Not once in the ad is there mention of abortion, any other option or choice. In some ways, it reminded me of posters I’ve seen for pregnancy crisis centers in the U.S. These places claim to provide comprehensive resources for pregnant women, but instead provide coercion and often false information.
Of course, anti-choice groups have reacted poorly to the ad. LIFE (a UK anti-choice group) has issued a letter to the UK’s FCC equivalent (media regulation) protesting the commercial. They claim the ad should feature a warning about the physical and mental risks of abortion despite no significant scientific evidence asserting these risks.
So what are you opinions about the ad? Does it go far enough? Too far? Would you like to see similar ads by Planned Parenthood here in the U.S.?
I feel like it is a good start and maybe more dialogue about reproductive rights is on the horizon.
Lombardy Region authorities, right on the border of Switzerland, recently approved a five million euro fund to provide assistance to low-income women who would otherwise have opted to terminate their pregnancy.
The fund would grant about 4,500 euros ($5,500) a year to a woman who changes her mind about having an abortion because of economic reasons. The woman would receive 250 euros ($306) a month for 18 months, according to the site.
“We want to help the family, maternity, and birth rate, removing the obstacles as much as possible, beginning with those of an economic nature that make it more difficult to choose in favor of life,” said the region’s president, Roberto Formigone.
The option of accepting the check will be presented to women in abortion clinics during the consultations they have prior to having an abortion, the site said. The region’s health department said economic reasons were the predominant reason that woman have abortions.
According to the Italian Health Ministry, roughly 128,000 abortions are performed in Italy each year. The so-called purpose of this measure is to decrease the number of low-income women who opt for abortion because of economic reasons. Women will be offered this incentive outside of clinics during the consultation period.
There are two major problems with this program in my mind. The first being that it is nothing more than an anti-choice public relations strategy. Exchanging economic benefits in order to coerce women into giving birth seems to indicate that the priority here is the fetus, not the woman. I also worry about what kind of hell these women will go through if they turn down the anti-choicers convincing them to take the check outside of the clinic.
Additionally, as accurately identified by critics in the Italian Media, this is nothing more than a short-term solution. Assuming that women will somehow be able to lift themselves out of abject poverty within 18 months is absurd. It ignores the reality that there is a larger socio-economic marginalization of women that leads them to opt out of an unplanned pregnancy. That economic disenfranchisement can’t be solved with an 18 month incentive to “choose life.”
1. If Israel has completely withdrawn from Gaza, as Israel apologists are so fond of saying, then Israel does not have the right to control Gaza’s borders or unilaterally coordinate and deliver humanitarian aid. Either you acknowledge that Gaza is under your control, or you disengage from the coast. Either Gaza is a hostile foreign entity and the coast is a closed military zone, or you’re claiming ownership of the territory.
2. If rockets are still being fired at Israel from Gaza, then the blockade is not working, and another strategy needs to be developed. I don’t care that rocket attacks increased before the blockade was started; the point is that they’re still happening, and the harm to Palestinian civilians vastly outweighs the benefit to Israeli civilians, which means that the blockade is a net negative.
3. How exactly does sending aid to Gaza de-legitimize Israel? If I drive some canned goods twenty minutes up the 405, am I de-legitimizing Los Angeles? Explain that one to me, because I must be pretty fucking stupid not to get it.
4. Who is this a “life and death” situation for? Who is “us?” Hamas’s rockets are dangerous, but last I heard, no one seriously believed they were going to wipe Tel Aviv off the map.
5. A recent New York Review of Books article stated that “for several decades, the Jewish establishment has asked American Jews to check their liberalism at Zionism’s door, and now, to their horror, they are finding that many young Jews have checked their Zionism instead.” I have no interest in this brand of Zionism. No interest at all. Bye.
Comments denying the humanity of Palestinians and/or Free Gaza activists will be deleted.
Despite the fact that Russia decriminalized homosexuality in 1993, intolerance and homophobia remain rampant in the social, cultural, and political sphere. This didn’t, however, keep the gays from maneuvering a wild goose chase to keep the local police force off their trail as they proceeded to protest homophobia in Moscow. Twenty-five gay and lesbian activists strategically lured hundreds of riot police and undercover officers to an incorrect location so that they could chant and protest in peace.
Gay and lesbian activists are celebrating a success of sorts after holding their first ever peaceful protest in the Russian capital.
In previous years the gay pride march has ended in violence as riot police, nationalists and ultra-Orthodox believers have sought to break up the demonstration.
British gay rights activist Peter Tatchell says organisers had to lure police to different locations to avoid persecution.
The guerilla like maneuvering was necessary in order to prevent the type of violence and backlash that has been pervasive in the past. Just days before a gay and lesbian gathering in Moscow last year, police arrested and detained close to 40 activists. Moreover, attempts by Russian gay and lesbian activists to petition western embassies for a safer protest location were denied.
Gay activists had asked Western embassies to host the protest but they said their proposal was either ignored or turned down by envoys from the United States, Canada and major European Union states.
“The EU and Western embassies are hypocrites,” said British gay rights activist Peter Tatchell, who traveled to Moscow to join the protest.
“We are being hounded and hunted by the police and the FSB Security Service all because we want to hold a peaceful gay rights protest.”
Of course, the Moscow police have declined to comment. The mayor, on the other hand, made his opinion blatantly clear as he so eloquently identified the gay and lesbian protests as “satanic.” I think what is actually “satanic” is the pervasive ultra-Orthodox belief that LGBT citizens should be “punished or treated in hospitals for their illness.” Gay protestor, Nikolai Bayev, stated that “Russia is where most Western countries were in the 1970s when it comes to gay rights … We are only just starting to really come out.”
I have to applaud the creativity and innovativeness of the gay and lesbian activists in Moscow. Despite incredible resistance and homophobia from the public and the law, they used some good ol’ strategic thinking to distract the police for just long enough to get their message out.
Homophobia is incredibly rampant throughout the continent of Africa. As evidenced by the ‘Kill the gays’ bill in Uganda, the lives of LGBT citizens are incredibly precarious around the world. A similar case of legal persecution has surfaced in Malawi, where a Judge has convicted a gay couple of indecency for conducting a public ceremony celebrating their engagement to one another. That’s right folks; two men face years of prison time for publicly expressing their love to one another. Tiwonge Chimbalanga and Steven Monjeza, both in their twenties, were arrested a day after they celebrated their engagement with a party.
Undule Mwakasungula, a gay rights activist in Malawi, said the couple’s decision to declare their relationship with an engagement ceremony appears to have been personal, not political. Others have been prosecuted under the law but this case was different because the two men were open about their homosexuality, Mwakasungula said.
The couple were convicted of unnatural acts and gross indecency under laws dating from the colonial era. Blantyre Chief Resident Magistrate Nyakwawa Usiwa said the sentencing will take place on Thursday and they could be imprisoned for up to 14 years.
The verdict is “extremely disturbing,” said Michaela Clayton of the Namibia-based AIDS & Rights Alliance for Southern Africa, saying it could encourage anti-gay sentiment in the region as well as set back the fight against AIDS.
Clayton is absolutely correct here. The possible consequences of this kind of legal persecution are devastating for more than just LGBT citizens; it also impacts the health of the entire continent. Nearly twelve percent of the population in Malawi lives with HIV/AIDS. That’s nearly a million people. The more gay people are forced underground in Africa, the less likely it will be that they seek counseling and treatment for AIDS. Furthermore, legal discrimination of LGBT citizens trickles down into socio-cultural marginalization and violence.
Homosexuality is illegal in at least 37 countries in Africa including Malawi. In Uganda, lawmakers are considering a bill that could sentence homosexuals to life in prison and includes capital punishment for “repeat offenders.” Even in South Africa, the only African country that recognizes gay rights, gangs have raped lesbians.
Mwakasungula said the two Malawian men were concerned that if they were released, they could be attacked by Malawians who have threatened them. But given the laws and the climate in Malawi, he said a guilty verdict had been expected.
It’s also important to recognize that this is not an isolated form of discrimination by the state. In fact, Malawi Church leaders are playing a major role in shaping the social, political, and cultural fear of homosexuality throughout the region.
The one bit of good news is that the Malawi couple, according to the South African Litigation Centre, can appeal the conviction on the ground that it violates the countries 1994 constitution. Unfortunately for Tiwonge and Steven, their lawyers previous attempt to have the case thrown out on these exact grounds was rejected.
It looks like the issue of abortion has taken center stage in the debate over constitutional reform in Kenya. Although the updated draft of the constitution still unfortunately maintains a legal ban on abortion, conservative Christian organizations are causing a ruckus over the exception for a mothers life. Apparently, protecting the health of women, in any circumstance, is against their religious beliefs. Furthermore, despite the fact that 60% of the public approves of the new draft, Kenya’s powerful churches are standing in the way of constitutional reform.
Yet local Christians say the provision for abortion, even in emergency circumstances, is antithetical to their beliefs. And they have received a kind of hallelujah chorus from likeminded conservative Christian groups in the US, including Rev. Pat Robertson’s group, the American Center for Law and Justice.
“It opens the door to abortion on demand, which is why Christian organizations who are pro-life are so opposed to that provision,” Jordan Sekulow, international director for ACLJ, told the Associated Press in an interview earlier this year.
In Nairobi, and throughout the country, religious activists have started a leaflet campaign to winnow away support for the draft constitution. One letter, signed by senior Pentacostalist church leaders, says, “we shall not endorse a constitution that has grossly overlooked justice and concerns persistently raised but ignored by the review organs for the warning in the Bible is very clearly recorded in Exodus 21:2 – ‘Do not follow the crowd in wrong doing. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd.’ ”
Delaying the new constitution is pretty problematic for the survival of the country, especially considering the recent outbreak of violence that materialized out of frustration with corruption in the election process. Of course, I wouldn’t expect fundamentalist Christian organizations to put the health of the country over their own ideological agenda.
Two years after mob violence killed nearly 1,300 Kenyans and forced 300,000 others from their homes – in the wake of an election that appeared to be deeply flawed and manipulated by Kenyan politicians who had extraordinary powers over the judiciary and the supposedly independent electoral commission – many Kenyans say that passing a new constitution is necessary for the country’s very survival.
And it gets even worse. Three U.S. congressmen (Republicans of course) have banded together to request an audit of U.S. government funds to Kenya in hopes of preventing constitutional reform. The justification: to prevent the ratification of a constitution that would quote, “encourage Kenyan women to have abortions.” Because apparently allowing any exception in the case of a mother’s health would open the floodgates to an abortion frenzy. Ugh.
In their May 6 letter to the US State Department’s acting Inspector General, a copy of which has been obtained by the Monitor, Rep. Chris Smith (R) of New Jersey, Rep. Darrell Issa (R) of California, and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R) of Florida requested an audit of US government funds on the basis of a US law that states that “none of the funds made available under this Act may be used to lobby for or against abortion.”
The lawmakers’ efforts come amid an initiative by powerful Kenyan churches to battle what religious leaders see as an opening to abortion.
Mexican abortion laws are becoming more restrictive despite recent gains in the region. In 2007, Mexico City with a population of nearly nine million people decriminalized abortion. This happened after the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights granted a young woman reparation for being denied information on legal abortion services and care. This marked the first time in Latin America that abortion access was acknowledged as a human right by a government body.
Now the Mexican State of Quintana Roo on the Yucatán Peninsula (Think Cancun) is in the media spotlight. Public officials are accused of denying and an eleven-year-old girl information that would have allowed her to get a safe abortion. She became pregnant after being raped by her stepfather and state law allows abortion in cases of rape.
Like many other countries, Mexico needs more access to and education on abortion services, not less. Some women resort to crossing the U.S. border into Texas and other southwest states for the purpose of obtaining safe abortions. “Indeed, a 2009 report from the Guttmacher Institute clearly demonstrates that despite abortion being essentially illegal in virtually all of Mexico, abortion is 40 percent more prevalent in that country than in the United States.” (Marcy Bloom)
Despite this obvious need for reproductive rights, women aren’t getting the respect for their bodies they deserve. Instead they are being met with criminal charges, social stigmatization and a lack of information.
For example, “in the state of Jalisco, a minimum of four to 12 month sentences are imposed on women for having an abortion if they meet four conditions: they have a “bad reputation,” (note from this writer: who gets to judge that?), sought an abortion as result of an “illegitimate union,” attempted to hide the pregnancy, and had the abortion within the first trimester. If one of these requirements is not fulfilled, then the sentence is doubled. If two are not met, it is tripled.” (Marcy Bloom)
Sometimes the fight for reproductive justice seems impossible when every victory is met with backlash. Anti-choice advocates are always ready to fight and we should be too. We need to ensure our rights here at home and for the women across borders.
