Community hubs

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.

Share this fundraiser with friends online using ChipIn!

Support Feminist Bloggers!

Feminist Blogs depends on contributions from readers like you to stay running. We're doing a fundraising drive for the months of February and March.

Donations provide for the costs of running feministblogs.org and provide direct financial support to active Feminist Blogs contributors. See the donation page for more details.


Posts tagged human rights

Utah Criminalizes Illegal Abortion Charging Criminal Homicide.

After removing the word "reckless," this appalling bill has been signed by Governer Gary Herbert in Utah. The language of the bill was edited but originally proposed that "reckless and unintentional" death of a fetus would be criminalized, as in, a miscarriage.

Gov. Gary Herbert signed into law Monday a bill that would allow a woman who arranges an illegal abortion to be charged with criminal homicide.

The new law is in response to a case last year where a 17-year-old pregnant girl paid a man $150 to beat her in hopes of inducing a miscarriage. A judge ruled there was no law on Utah's books allowing the mother to be charged with a crime.

This language isn't really much better. Instead of recognizing that it could only be the most oppressive circumstances that would lead a young woman to have someone beat her in hopes of inducing a miscarriage, and therefore creating legislation that protects young women, they legislate against women.

Categories: 91

International Women’s Day

Last year, on International Women's Day, I wrote in support of the work of activists addressing Haiti's high incidence of rape. Today, the survival and well-being of women in Haiti remains high on the agenda of activists in the region and allies all over the world, especially in the aftermath of the earthquake. The women I've spoken to there are more focused than ever on rebuilding their country and their lives, and on continuing to work on securing safe, dignified, productive lives and livelihoods for all people. They inspire me not only to join them where they are, but to intensify my own work in Barbados and the Caribbean.

I see a lot of young women in my neighbourhood, on the streets every day, out and about everywhere, engaged in the business of growing up and figuring life out. And every day I'm reminded of how much there is to navigate, as a girl, and how overwhelming it can become if no one is creating the space needed to get through it all. That involves listening and encouraging their creative efforts and all these great things. But it also involves more tangible support, that has to do with their health care, their sexual and reproductive rights, their education, their safety and economic security. I don't have children. And even though I may at some point, and though I love my friends' children, I need not look that far into the future for my motivation to make things better now. I'm looking all around me, out my window right this minute, at the girls and women who depend on all our support to make their lives better today.

Happy International Women's Day.

Blog for International Women’s Day

Banner for Blog for International Women's Day. Banner consists of an image of planet Earth, tinted purple, on a black background. Beneath the globe reads the words "Blog for International Women's Day", and "Equal Rights, Equal Opportunity".Today, March 8, is International Women’s Day. Gender Across Borders is hosting a Blog for International Women’s Day, and one of their prompt questions asks: What does “equal rights for all” mean to you?

I, for once, will keep it relatively short.

International Women’s Day is essentially a day of symbolism. Many use it as a day of activism, solidarity, or reflection, but the world cannot be changed in a day. So symbolism is still at its core. In its own way, that can certainly be a valuable and worthwhile thing.

But it is useless for even that much if it does not recognize and center all women, including and especially those who are most vulnerable and commonly forgotten. International Women’s Day is useless if it does not recognize and respect both the womanhood and humanity of women who are trans, and dedicate to fighting for their rights and basic safety. International Women’s Day is useless if it does not include and remember women who have disabilities, and work for their essential rights and towards creating greater inclusion and accessibility within our own communities. International Women’s Day is useless if it does not center poor women all over the globe, including those in developing countries, who are struggling against hunger and violence. International Women’s Day is useless if it overlooks the rights and safety of those suffering the greatest violence, including (in addition to those listed above) sex workers, trafficking victims, and slaves. International Women’s Day is utterly pointless if it does not include and explicitly welcome women of all races and ethnicities, sexual orientations, ages, immigration statuses, religions, and nationalities; remember that women have multiple aspects to their identities, and “woman” does not necessarily come first; support the work that women are already doing; and give the bulk of its attention to those who need it most.

In other words, International Women’s Day is useless if it does not include all of the women who are reading this blog right now. And International Women’s Day has failed worst of all if it only includes women who are able to read this blog right now. Because a day that is not about equal rights for all is a day that is necessarily not actually about women, but a day about only some women.

And that is something that all of us can stand to remember in our daily activism, as well.

Check out the full list of blogs participating in the Blog for IWD and/or sign up your own blog as participant.

CSW 2010: Why This U.S. Based Feminist Gives a Damn

Flags of many nations outside the United Nations building

This week marks the kickoff of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), a 2-week, woman-focused conference that takes place annually at the United Nations (UN). Basically, this means that for the next two weeks, THE principal global policy-making body will be dedicating itself exclusively to the pursuit of gender equality and the advancement of women. Pretty exciting stuff, right?!?!?

*Cricket Chirp* *Cricket Chirp*

Wait....what? You're not falling over in your chair with excitement about this event? Come to think of it, where's the buzz around the domestic U.S. feminist blogosphere? Shouldn't we all be as excited about this as we are about, say, Lady Gaga? Can't help but pull a Hanson here and ask..."Where's the love"??? (for C-S-dubs?)

Although it's disappointing, I'm not too surprised when I hear folks express apathy/cynicism towards the UN in general and the CSW in particular, especially since I myself have harbored those same kinds of feelings towards the UN in the past. It can seem like with all the acronyms and jargon being used, many delegates don't want members of civil society to get involved, or that they are creating a deliberate barrier for non-UN folks to get to the content. It can also sometimes feel like the progress being made there isn't real or important, since things. move. so. slowlyyyyyyy. sometimes.

But I'm one U.S.-based domestic feminist who is now sold on the importance of these two weeks, and I've worked with many international advocates who are as well.

Here's why.

First of all, documents that come out of these meetings are often used by women on the ground to fight for their rights. Even though this year's CSW will adopt a declaration rather than an outcome document, they will still be affirming important principles that women can use as reference points to hold their governments accountable. As a domestic advocate, I can appreciate the importance of empowering women to stand up for themselves, so I support this process for them.

Secondly, the CSW is an opportunity for U.S.-based feminists to connect with international feminists and see the intersections of their work. I can think of so many examples of women's issues that transcend the international/national distinction, and I have truly come to believe that CSW is a fantastic opportunities for real feminist activists to come together and parse out these issues in a way that is truly beneficial for the world's women. My experiences working on these issues at home and abroad has convinced me that systematic oppression of women comes from the same basic source, no matter where it happens, or in what cultural context. As the president of the NGO where I work pointed out at a UN event last week, "at the heart of both empowerment and equality are a person's fundamental right and ability to control her own body including her sexuality." I've found that this is true both in the United States, and abroad. So have others, like Michelle Goldberg.

Lastly, I support the CSW because it is supportive of movement building. As Jessica put it in her recent Washington Post article, "this isn't a zero-sum game, and we can fight for our rights while fighting for women internationally as well...It's time to do away with the either-or mentality that surrounds domestic and international women's rights." I completely agree, and in my eyes, the CSW is an excellent starting place for that, and it's my hope that over the next few weeks, feminists from all corners of the globe will discover more of their shared interests, common experiences, and great shared potential.

I'll be attending the CSW on and off for the next 2 weeks as part of my day job, and I'll be covering the main goings on, as well as a few side events, for Feministing as best I can. You can also get updates from an international team of Inter Press Service journalists here.

I'd love to hear your thoughts about the next two weeks as well. Are you bored by the UN? Impressed? Intimidated? Disillusioned? Cynical? What are your hopes and expectations for this year's CSW? Leave your impressions and experiences in comments, or just email me at Lori@feministing.com with your thoughts. And let's together make sure this crucially important world conference on women gets the attention from U.S.-based domestic feminists it needs and deserves.

Building a Stronger Movement: Lessons from the Northeast Regional Conference

 

I was delighted to attend the Northeast Regional LSRJ Conference at New York Law School on February 13, 2010. Leigh Campbell and Courtney Patterson did an excellent job organizing.  The theme was “The New War on Reproductive Justice: The Changing Tactics of the Anti-Choice Movement.”  The following are the primary pieces of information I took away from each informative panel.

 

Jordan Goldberg from the Center for Reproductive Rights and Alexa Kolbi-Molinas from the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project discussed the importance of acting on a state and local level, rather than focusing only on Supreme Court decisions. The state representatives are much more likely to listen to individual members of their constituencies, meaning that time spent contacting legislators is certainly not wasted.  Currently, there is legislation in many states throughout the country aimed at redefining life and personhood.  If this legislation is passed it could effectively outlaw abortion, many forms of contraception and emergency contraception in that state. Additionally, it would open the doors to criminal charges on behalf of the fetus.  Needless to say, the implications are staggering and those developments are worth following.

 

Sabrina Shulman, the Political Director at NARAL Pro-Choice New York, talked about the latest strategies of the anti-choice movement.  Ms. Shulman described the movement as being an “under-the-radar campaign of fear and intimidation.”  The most startling aspect to me (more…)

Medea and Criminal Liability

Euripides' Medea has defined the modern perception of her. Some time age, the Teatro Instabile Di Aosta presented, in Delhi, a contemporary revisiting of Euripides' Medea in a play based on the texts of Euripides and Pasolini revolving around “discriminations and forbearance, power and revenge, and the meeting of two extremely different worlds; the one that is logical and rational, and the other one that grapples with the possible reality of mythology and ritual,” as the brochure said. The performance was meant to portray the universality and power floating in the story culminating in the “terrible decision that Medea comes to as a result of her painful suffering.”

Her “painful suffering” was the suffering which her husband Jason inflicted on her by being unfaithful to her and marrying Glauce, a princess to further his political ambitions. He justified himself by saying that he could not pass up the opportunity to wed a princess, and Medea was, after all, a barbarian woman, never mind that she was a barbarian woman who'd given up family, home, and homeland for him. He ultimately, apparently, planned to "unite" the two families -- his family with Medea, and with Glauce -- and turn Medea into his mistress.

Medea's "terrible decision" was the plan she decided to execute to revenge herself on Jason -- she killed Glauce (and, Glauce's father, Creon) using a poisoned dress, and killed the two children she had had with Jason in order to spite Jason and cause him as much pain as possible, or so one interpretation runs. Whether or not she should have been held accountable is debatable though.

Jason had supposedly remarried so that he could have children with Glauce. And when Glauce and her father-in-law were murdered by Medea, he apparently rushed to find the children he had had with Medea so that they would not be subjected to revenge because of their mother's act. It could well be argued that one of Medea's aims in killing her children was to spare them death at the hands of her enemies.

Then again, by killing the children, she effectively killed a part of Jason. And perhaps that was the ultimate revenge: Jason wanted children, and she not only deprived him of the possibility of having children with Glauce but also killed the children he had already had with her. To kill the children for a reason that was anything but altruistic would involve viewing the children not so much as individuals in themselves but as extensions of their father, which perhaps could be understood given that contemporary Greek society was intensely patriarchal, and viewed women mainly as breeders and chattel.

Contemporary Athenian law also allowed a man to marry and have children by a citizen woman while keeping a foreign woman who was not a citizen, in this case, Medea, as a concubine. And as far as divorce was concerned, all a man had to do was formally repudiate his wife, and send her back to her father or other male guardian with her dowry. There were two reasons who this did not apply to Jason and Medea though: firstly, Medea had contracted her own marriage, and as such, she had no one she could be "returned to". Secondly, Jason had sworn to be wed to Medea before Zeus and Hera, and as such, by divorcing her, he had in fact, broken an oath to the Gods.

Whether on not Medea is, or should be, criminally culpable is an open question though lying on thoroughly ambiguous moral ground. Medea was obviously distraught at the time she developed her plan for revenge. The murders were premeditated to the extent that she did not commit them on the spur of the moment. However, she developed the plan at a time when she was quite obviously not emotionally stable. And the duration of the time from when she first conceived of the plan to the time when she executed it was short.

In addition to this, there is the question of provocation. In law, if a person commits a crime in consequence of being provoked, their criminal liability could be diminished to the point of being non-existent. It isn't clear whether Jason's conduct would be viewed as "adequate provocation" to cause Medea to commit multiple murders -- presumably, it was not unheard of conduct at the time the play was written -- although it would be difficult to argue that Medea's committing the murders had nothing to do with her being cast off, and banished. She lived in a society in which she seems to have had no recourse to any form of justice, as a "barbarian" woman she was especially disadvantaged, and being exiled would have left her in an entirely hopeless position.

Medea states in the play that she knows her own mind, and that she knows that what she is doing is wrong. However, given that the act which seems to have spurred her to commit the murders is her banishment with immediate effect by Creon, Glauce's father, it is unlikely that she did actually know her own mind.

She managed (by being manipulative) to get a twenty-four hour grace period from Creon, during which time she both planned and executed the murders. Jason arrived to meet her after Creon left her, and insulted her. It was in these twenty-four hours that she planned and committed the murders. In the play, she is simply not decisive with regard to murdering her children until the last possible moment.

Medea unequivocally states in the play that she is an autonomous individual -- an assertion which in itself would have been questionable especially given that women were subject to the rule of men in a very literal sense with little autonomy of their own. Perhaps in the way that Glauce seems to have been little beyond a pawn in the schemes of her father and Jason, and who died because of those schemes.

Medea, however, managed to thoroughly subvert Jason's schemes, and escape the consequences of her actions. At the end of the play, she is shown escaping in a chariot provided by the Gods -- leaving no doubt of whom they supported. She speaks in a voice which is reminiscent of that used by the Gods, cold and distant. Driven to murder by Jason, she is ultimately far removed from emotion itself, it would seem.

Image: Medea by Sandys from WikiCommons


Nicaragua: “pro-life” a cruel misnomer

A woman in Nicaragua has a pregnancy growing inside her.  She also has cancer growing inside her.  Who or which is more important?  Shocking the world, the answer has been that both the cancer and the pregnancy are more important than the woman, who is bound to fall gravely ill or possibly lose her life [...]
Categories: 91

LSRJ Chapters Celebrate V-Week


 

Law Students for Reproductive Justice at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, CA held “Violence Awareness Week” (or V-Week) between February 15 and February 17 to raise awareness about domestic and sexual violence faced by women around the globe.  We used the three days as both an awareness campaign and as a method to collect toiletries to donate to a local women’s shelter. A large colorful poster bearing violence-related statistics was on display behind our table, and handouts were available for those wishing to learn more.

 

Each day we posted a different question passersby could answer in an attempt to win a prize. The prizes were shirts that read “Don’t Turn Your Back on Violence Against Women.” One question was “what percentage of women are physically or sexually assaulted each year by either a husband or intimate partner or someone they know?” While a handful of people attempted fair guesses each day, the question on the last day (a nod to this being “National Condom Week”) yielded the most responses: a jar containing condoms was on display and students were urged to guess “how many condoms are in the jar?”

 

Finally, our members asked students to take a picture for UNIFEM’s Get Crossed campaign, which urges people to take a stand and “Say No to Sexual Violence in Conflict.” A large red canvas sheet that read “Stop Rape Now” was the backdrop for the pictures where people stood with their arms crossed in the shape of an “X” to demonstrate their solidarity with the campaign. The week of activities was a huge success for our chapter as it garnered a substantial amount of attention from students and faculty.

 

Jenn Kish

Acid Attacks and Real Nightmares

How can one deal with experiences that cross the borders of language?

Yesterday my friend Vijaya, an experienced medical social worker at the J---- Hospital, baldly described the trauma of a patient. The 'sweet-looking young girl' was brought from Pune to the J---- Hospital in Mumbai in a Sumo, crouched on her hands and knees on the floor of the vehicle for four hours. "She couldn't sit," said Vijaya, matter of factly, "because her buttocks were on fire." I felt a band of steel grip my forehead, even before Vijaya started narrating the sequence of events, which brought this girl-wife across the threshold of the hospital. "A few weeks ago, her husband, who periodically tortured her, threw acid on her private parts, then inserted a bottle of Vicks VapoRub into her vagina before having sex with her. You should have seen her condition two weeks ago. It was horrible!" and Vijaya's face puckered in a ghastly grimace. "Her pelvic region and buttocks are covered with huge sores and boils. But today she seems a little better. She will pull through".

"Her pain was so great that she barely remembered crawling out of the house on her hands and knees. Her neighbours refused to come to her aid. How she reached her sister's home is anybody's guess. The police refused to register an FIR and S---- Hospital closed their doors on her.

In desperation she was brought all the way from Pune to J---- Hospital – her private parts, a mass of burnt flesh." "But her face is so pretty and untouched," she concluded. "And nothing has been done to arrest the husband. That psychopath is still at large! Dr. D----, the head of the Gynaecological Dept is reluctant to allow reporters to interview the girl though the ---- correspondent has managed to see her in Ward 32 of the hospital!"

After Vijaya left, my mother and I watched part of Schindler's List. How could one put into words what the victims of brutality on such a vast scale had suffered? Even personal suffering, on a very modest scale, seems to freeze one into silence. Perhaps Vijaya's tale, and Schindler's List together proved too strong a dose for me and the horror brought on the old, familiar, nightmare which used to haunt me a few years ago, when I had come face to face with a woman whose face was a ghastly mesh of scars, eyeballs bulging out of their sockets, a mouth without lips with protruding teeth, cheeks, neck and shoulders a mass of raw, burnt flesh—the victim of an acid attack. She was standing on the overbridge spanning Queen's Road. As I hurried past her, our eyes interlocked. I could not fathom their expression as they bored into mine. Was it pain, despair, detachment or utter numbness? I stumbled down the steps, feeling giddy and nauseous.

That night I dreamt that acid had been thrown on my face. I could not recognize myself. I knew I was me, but who was I? " I know who I am." I went on proclaiming to myself, hysterically. But I could not identify myself with that ghastly image and if I could not accept that image as myself, then, I was not 'I'. In my dream, I distinctly remember covering myself with a sheet from head to foot. If I could not see myself and no one could see me, then, perhaps, I could be me. I awoke feeling hot and feverish, grateful to see my face unscarred.

Last night, I again dreamt of an acid attack. This time I was given a choice—your face or your vagina. I shielded my face with both arms, screaming, begging, pleading to spare my face. If my face went "I" would be snuffed out. I woke up with the shrill ring of the alarm before I could clearly articulate my choice. I lay quietly in the dark, knowing I would protect my face at all cost because I would not be able to bear the rejection reflected in the eyes of others. What could be covered and hidden could be denied but the denial of oneself by others would be unbearable.

This post was written by Aban Mukherji in 2006. It speaks of a domestic violence incident which involved an acid attack and describes the author's reaction to it.

Published with the author's permission.


Black and Blue

In every book you read, there's almost always that one line buried somewhere deep in the text of the book which will strike you.

Reading Black and Blue by Anna Quindlen, for me, that line was: "Nobody can tell me different," in a conversation between a mother-in-law and her daughter-in-law who had been subjected to domestic violence by her son:

"I want to ask you something," I had said that day to Ann Benedetto. "What was your husband like?"
"What kind of question is that?"
I didn't know what kind of question it was. It was maybe the first direct one I'd asked Bobby's mother, but I was emboldened by the tenderness in my elbow where I'd hit one of the dining room chairs after he shoved me, after I said I wanted to stay home Sundays, not go to Ocean Avenue.
"Was he good to you?"
"He was my husband."
"Did he ever hit you?"
She narrowed her eyes to look at me, and her dislike was an atmosphere, too, as thick as the isolation the two of in that clean, clean room, our distance from each other and from the man outside, calling to his son.
"My son is a good man," she said. "Nobody can tell me different."
Her face was hard then, and it was hard when opened the door to find me standing on her concrete steps, clean the way steps are when someone sweeps them everyday.


The book not only describes the violence in detail but also the woman's falling in love at the age of 19, the way her husband acclimatised her to his violence and tested how far her could go, the emotional upheaval, the effect of the violence at home on their son, her fleeing from her husband with their son, her new life without her husband in which she always had to keep looking over her shoulder, her falling in love again with a non-abusive man, her husband's eventually finding her and their son, his leaving her for dead (after assaulting her) and taking the child away, her inability to use the law to claim custody of her child, her husband's cutting her off from their son by remaining constantly on the move and not staying near anyone including his own mother, her son's trying to get back in touch with her without any success.

All of that, and the one line which I distinctly remember is: "Nobody can tell me different." A mother refusing to acknowledge that her son could be abusive. A mother-in-law effectively blaming her daughter-in-law for what had happened. A woman refusing to support another woman in crisis. Two mothers both cut off from their their sons because one of them was abusive.


Tagged with: , ,