feminist blogs

President Obama did the right thing at first by essentially saying that he supported (or at least was not opposed) to the building of a mosque a few blocks away from “Ground Zero.”  But then, unfortunately, he attempted to distance himself from his remarks by saying that he had only meant to voice his support for freedom of religion and was not taking any stance on whether building a mosque there was the right thing to do.  This led CNN to publish an article titled “Critics say Obama’s message becoming ‘incoherent’.”  And, then, Senator Harry Reid took the political stance of saying that he does not think a mosque should be built there, thereby starting a probable trend of other Democrats distancing themselves from Obama’s first remarks.  (Can anyone imagine a time when politicians do what they think is right rather than do what they think will get them reelected?)

All of the people who are against the mosque are doing so without adequate facts to back them up.  The following facts paint a different story than the sound bites voiced by opponents of the mosque.  First, the mosque is blocks away from Ground Zero.  Second, there is an existing mosque that is about the same distance away.  Third, the proposed mosque is more than a mosque; it is planned to include a fitness center, swimming pool, basketball court, bookstore, performing arts center and food court.  And, according to Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, most importantly, the mosque’s organizers have “made clear that the whole point of the project is to provide a high-profile platform for mainstream, moderate Islam — and to stridently reject the warped, radical, jihadist worldview that produced the atrocities of Sept. 11, 2001.”  Daisy Khan, one of the organizers, has said that “[the mosque] will have a real community feel, to celebrate the pluralism in the United States, as well as in the Islamic religion.  It will also serve as a major platform for amplifying the silent voice of the majority of Muslims who have nothing to do with extremist ideologies. It will counter the extremist momentum.”

So, the real fallacy of the opponents’ argument is that they equate the 9/11 terrorists with ALL Muslims.  They think that anything related to Islam (as opposed to the tiny subset of Muslims who happened to be terrorists) should be nowhere close to Ground Zero.

Many are quoting a CNN poll that showed 68% are opposed to the mosque.  But this is how the poll question was worded:

As you may know, a group of Muslims in the U.S. plan to build a mosque two blocks from the site in New York City where the World Trade Center used to stand.  Do you favor or oppose this plan?

68% said they were opposed and 29% said they were in favor.  But, as Eugene Robinson said in his column today, imagine how different the poll results might have been if the question was something along the lines of whether “a group of Americans” should be allowed to build “a center promoting moderate, peaceful Islam.”  It seems to me that the CNN poll is showing the same bias as the opponents of the mosque, that is, equating all terrorism carried out by a tiny number of Muslims with the entire (multi-billion) Muslim population.

In perhaps the most telling example yet of the consequences of the Taliban’s increasing return to power, a 19-year old woman and a 25-year old man were stoned to death pursuant to Taliban orders.  The two were in love.  They eloped when the man was unable to persuade family members to allow him to marry the woman.  The woman was engaged to marry a relative of her lover, but was unwilling to do so.

The death sentence for adultery was imposed by a religious “court” under Shariah law.  Horribly, the deaths were carried out by hundreds of the victims’ neighbors and even family members.  All of the people doing the stoning were male.

While many authorities condemned the stonings (A spokesman for the provincial government said: “It is against all human rights and international conventions.  There was no court. It was cruel.”), the supposed “mainstream religious authorities” in Afghanistan appear to be cowering to the Taliban.  In one example, a local head of the national Ulema Council said that stoning to death was the appropriate punishment for an illegal sexual relationship.  And, on August 10, a group of 350 religious “scholars” and government officials issued a joint statement “calling for more punishment under Shariah, apparently referring to stoning, amputations and lashings.”

Of course, none of this should be surprising.  The Taliban and their religious law were horrible when they were last in power.  When they started to resume power, they promised to curb their worst disgraces and then (certainly not surprisingly) resumed the oppression and brutality.  The Afghani government has made overtures to reconciliation and giving the Taliban even more power.  Maybe these stoning deaths will quash those overtures.

This is a photo of a class at a girls’ school in Qaysar in the northern region of Afghanistan.  For those of you who think that wearing a burqa is a woman’s choice rather than cultural and religious oppression, just ask yourself if you would like to be like these Afghan girls.

But, actually, these girls are lucky to even be able to go to school since the Taliban has been moving into many areas of Afghanistan and closing girls’ schools.  The cry for President Obama to get the United States out of Afghanistan is getting stronger all the time.  I agree that the U.S. should leave, but my belief is always tempered by the knowledge that the Afghan people will suffer even more.

I saw this on Feministing, and thought it was pretty interesting. This domestic violence awareness campaign from London puts a specific emphasis on the responsibility of those who might hear or witness this type of violence to call 911 (or 999 in England) for someone who might not be able to.

They also use an interactive video to convey this message -- depending on if you "choose" (by clicking) to call the police or not, you will get a different ending to the video.

Trigger warning.

I mentioned the other day that I was fortunate enough to recently revisit Melbourne, my favourite city in all the world. (Not that I’ve left southeastern Australia since I was about… four.) I love it for its friendliness, its food, its gardens, the amazing little alleys, the artiness, the FAIRY PENGUINS and, well, not so much that crisp wind coming off Antarctica.

What I want to know from you, Feministers, is if you have a favourite place to go. Perhaps it’s where you live or where you’re from, or somewhere you visited just the once. Or perhaps you’ve not done much or any travelling and there’s a place you like the sound of. Links to pictures (with descriptions) are requested!

Via Broadsheet comes incredibly disturbing news out of Uzbekistan. Human rights groups, victims, and health officials are accusing the government of sterilizing hundreds of Uzbek women without their knowledge and against their will in an attempt to lower the birthrate.

From the Associated Press:

Human rights advocates and doctors say autocratic President Islam Karimov this year ramped up a sterilization campaign he initiated in the late 1990s. In a decree issued in February, the Health Ministry ordered all medical facilities to "strengthen control over the medical examination of women of childbearing age."

The decree also said that "surgical contraception should be provided free of charge" to women who volunteer for the procedure.

It did not specifically mandate sterilizations, but critics allege that doctors have come under direct pressure from the government to perform them: "The order comes from the very top," said Khaitboy Yakubov, head of the Najot human rights group in Uzbekistan.

While Uzbekistan may be the only country where forced sterilization is government policy, in reality far too many governments have been supportive of the practice. The AP mentions that Amnesty International has accused authorities in China of pushing coerced sterilizations. And Ryan Brown at Broadsheet reminds us that this practice is very much a part of recent U.S. history:

In our justifiably horrified response to this piece of news, we should keep in mind that 60,000 Americans, primarily the mentally ill, have been legally sterilized against their will. And I'm not talking ancient history -- the procedure was performed in several states well into the 20th century, with the last recorded legal forced sterilization taking place in Oregon in 1981. That means there are still Americans living with the brutal consequences of their government's belief that the decision to reproduce did not belong to them, a burden that they now allegedly share with hundreds of women half a world away.

Via Broadsheet comes incredibly disturbing news out of Uzbekistan. Human rights groups, victims, and health officials are accusing the government of sterilizing hundreds of Uzbek women without their knowledge and against their will in an attempt to lower the birthrate.

From the Associated Press:

Human rights advocates and doctors say autocratic President Islam Karimov this year ramped up a sterilization campaign he initiated in the late 1990s. In a decree issued in February, the Health Ministry ordered all medical facilities to "strengthen control over the medical examination of women of childbearing age."

The decree also said that "surgical contraception should be provided free of charge" to women who volunteer for the procedure.

It did not specifically mandate sterilizations, but critics allege that doctors have come under direct pressure from the government to perform them: "The order comes from the very top," said Khaitboy Yakubov, head of the Najot human rights group in Uzbekistan.

While Uzbekistan may be the only country where forced sterilization is government policy, in reality far too many governments have been supportive of the practice. The AP mentions that Amnesty International has accused authorities in China of pushing coerced sterilizations. And Ryan Brown at Broadsheet reminds us that this practice is very much a part of recent U.S. history:

In our justifiably horrified response to this piece of news, we should keep in mind that 60,000 Americans, primarily the mentally ill, have been legally sterilized against their will. And I'm not talking ancient history -- the procedure was performed in several states well into the 20th century, with the last recorded legal forced sterilization taking place in Oregon in 1981. That means there are still Americans living with the brutal consequences of their government's belief that the decision to reproduce did not belong to them, a burden that they now allegedly share with hundreds of women half a world away.

Over the past few weeks, I've been following the Lebron James story with great interest. For those who don't follow sports (or live under a rock), Lebron recently announced that he would be leaving the Cleveland Cavaliers to play for the Miami Heat, after much hype, speculation, conspiracy theories, and an hour-long ESPN special. That's all fine and good. I'm not foolish enough to try to opine on such a still touchy subject in a public forum.

What I WILL talk about is the fact that for months, the critical backlash against Lebron has involved blatant, disrespectful, and anti-feminist slut-shaming of his mother based on rumors that she slept with Delonte West, another player on the Cleveland Cavaliers.

The rumors have inspired such jabs as the shirt pictured ("You can head south but your mom is riding west") as well as countless sites, articles, and street corner conversations claiming to verify or dispel the rumors, pondering their effects on Lebron's game, and employing various other methods of ridiculing him for the alleged indiscretions of his mother. The rumor has grown to be so ubiquitous that when you type "Lebron" into google search, the second thing google suggests is "lebron james mom delonte west". Dang. You don't even need to type his last name.

So..why do I care about this gossip-fueled rumor about some basketball player and his mother, neither of whom I've ever met? Because the underlying cultural attitudes are dangerously anti-woman, and represent the same misogynistic attitudes about women, honor, sex, and bodily autonomy that lead to rights violations, violence, and even death for women here in the U.S. and all over the world.

The concept of female sexual behavior bringing either honor (with purity and celibacy) or shame (with sex or too much perceived sexiness) upon her family is nothing new. For one, it's common in hip hop culture, with verses by some of the most famous rappers of all time being populated with what amounts to glorified "yo momma" jokes in lyrical form. ("mess around you'll find my silk-boxers in your mommas hamper", etc.) But this attitude isn't restricted to the realm of hip hop, or the music industry, or even to the American context. And despite the seemingly innocuous nature of a "yo momma" joke, such attitudes can have very sinister consequences for women all over the world.

Perhaps less conspicuously than Lebron' James' mother, another woman halfway across the world was also being ridiculed and shamed for her alleged sexual relations over the past few months. Buried amidst the Lebron coverage, the New York Times reported a few weeks ago on the story of Nirupama Pathak, 22, who had recently announced she was secretly engaged to a young man from a caste lower than hers, and was found days later dead in her bedroom. The police have arrested her mother, Sudha Pathak, on suspicion of murder, while the family contends that the death was a suicide.

From the article:

"One thing is absolutely clear," said Prashant Bhushan, a social activist and lawyer now advising Ms. Pathak's fiancé. "Her family was trying their level best to prevent her from marrying that boy. The pressure was such that either she was driven to suicide or she was killed."

When we do things that enable members of society to feel entitled to control the women's bodies, women get hurt. They get hurt when their name is gleefully dragged around in the mud to shame, embarrass, and dishonor their family, and they get hurt when their families take matters into their own hands to prevent that same shame, embarrassment, and dishonor from coming to be associated with them. I'm not saying that telling a "yo momma" joke is akin to performing an honor killing. But I am saying that, in the case of those who titter at the thought of embarrassing Lebron by commenting on the sexual behavior his mother may or may not have engaged in, the underlying assumptions are the same as those of someone who chooses to undertake an honor killing- a woman's sexual decisions are not her own to make, but rather, criteria by which to measure the "honor" of her and her family and the ability of the men in her life to maintain control over her body, her actions, and her sexual autonomy.

Over the past few weeks, I've been following the Lebron James story with great interest. For those who don't follow sports (or live under a rock), Lebron recently announced that he would be leaving the Cleveland Cavaliers to play for the Miami Heat, after much hype, speculation, conspiracy theories, and an hour-long ESPN special. That's all fine and good. I'm not foolish enough to try to opine on such a still touchy subject in a public forum.

What I WILL talk about is the fact that for months, the critical backlash against Lebron has involved blatant, disrespectful, and anti-feminist slut-shaming of his mother based on rumors that she slept with Delonte West, another player on the Cleveland Cavaliers.

The rumors have inspired such jabs as the shirt pictured ("You can head south but your mom is riding west") as well as countless sites, articles, and street corner conversations claiming to verify or dispel the rumors, pondering their effects on Lebron's game, and employing various other methods of ridiculing him for the alleged indiscretions of his mother. The rumor has grown to be so ubiquitous that when you type "Lebron" into google search, the second thing google suggests is "lebron james mom delonte west". Dang. You don't even need to type his last name.

So..why do I care about this gossip-fueled rumor about some basketball player and his mother, neither of whom I've ever met? Because the underlying cultural attitudes are dangerously anti-woman, and represent the same misogynistic attitudes about women, honor, sex, and bodily autonomy that lead to rights violations, violence, and even death for women here in the U.S. and all over the world.

The concept of female sexual behavior bringing either honor (with purity and celibacy) or shame (with sex or too much perceived sexiness) upon her family is nothing new. For one, it's common in hip hop culture, with verses by some of the most famous rappers of all time being populated with what amounts to glorified "yo momma" jokes in lyrical form. ("mess around you'll find my silk-boxers in your mommas hamper", etc.) But this attitude isn't restricted to the realm of hip hop, or the music industry, or even to the American context. And despite the seemingly innocuous nature of a "yo momma" joke, such attitudes can have very sinister consequences for women all over the world.

Perhaps less conspicuously than Lebron' James' mother, another woman halfway across the world was also being ridiculed and shamed for her alleged sexual relations over the past few months. Buried amidst the Lebron coverage, the New York Times reported a few weeks ago on the story of Nirupama Pathak, 22, who had recently announced she was secretly engaged to a young man from a caste lower than hers, and was found days later dead in her bedroom. The police have arrested her mother, Sudha Pathak, on suspicion of murder, while the family contends that the death was a suicide.

From the article:

"One thing is absolutely clear," said Prashant Bhushan, a social activist and lawyer now advising Ms. Pathak's fiancé. "Her family was trying their level best to prevent her from marrying that boy. The pressure was such that either she was driven to suicide or she was killed."

When we do things that enable members of society to feel entitled to control the women's bodies, women get hurt. They get hurt when their name is gleefully dragged around in the mud to shame, embarrass, and dishonor their family, and they get hurt when their families take matters into their own hands to prevent that same shame, embarrassment, and dishonor from coming to be associated with them. I'm not saying that telling a "yo momma" joke is akin to performing an honor killing. But I am saying that, in the case of those who titter at the thought of embarrassing Lebron by commenting on the sexual behavior his mother may or may not have engaged in, the underlying assumptions are the same as those of someone who chooses to undertake an honor killing- a woman's sexual decisions are not her own to make, but rather, criteria by which to measure the "honor" of her and her family and the ability of the men in her life to maintain control over her body, her actions, and her sexual autonomy.

Elaine Villasper is the Vice Chair of Education for GABRIELA USA, the North American chapter of the Filipino women's rights organization. Gabriela, an alliance of over 200 Philippines-based women's organizations, has been agitating and organizing for women's rights in that country for almost three decades. GABRIELA stands for General Assembly Binding Women for Reforms, Integrity, Education, Leadership and Action, and was named in honor of Gabriela Silang, who protested against Spanish rule of the Philippines in the eighteenth century.

GABRIELA USA's affiliate organizations are largely based on the west coast - Pinay sa Seattle in Washington and Babae San Franscisco and Sisters of GABRIELA Awaken in California - with one affiliate group, Filipinas for Rights and Empowerment (FiRE) in New York. Villasper helps to teach basic organizing skills, trains young leaders and helps to educate the local community about issues that affect Filipino and Filipino-American women. GABRIELA USA runs a number of cultural and artistic programs here in the US, as well as the Back to the Motherland program, which enables Filipino-Americans to travel to the Philippines to gain a better grasp of the pressing political, socioeconomic and human rights issues on the ground there. Here in the US, the organization works on issues like domestic violence, workers' rights, immigrants' rights and political representation for the Filipino-American population.

It was a real pleasure to speak with Villasper, and to able to hear from her about the issues she works on, which too often don't get the attention they deserve.

And now, without further ado, the Feministing Five, with Elaine Villasper.

Chloe Angyal: What is GABRIELA, what do they do, and how did you come to be involved with its American chapter?

Elaine Villasper: GABRIELA is based in the Philippines. It's an organization, but also an alliance of over 250 women's organizations on the archipelago of the Philippines. It is now in its twenty-sixth year, and it was founded in a time of martial law. Back in the 1970s, we had a dictator, and a lot of people but particularly women were trying to fight for their freedom and for liberation. GABRIELA was born when several women's organizations decided to join together and harness the power of women's organizing in one space. I am a member of GABRIELA USA, the first international chapter of GABRIELA Philippines, and as a chapter we are about two years old, but we had been supporting GABRIELA Philippines for several years before we were an international chapter. I'm also a member of Babae - Babae is a term for "woman" in Tagalog. I was a founding member in 2005, so I've been in support of and working with GABRIELA Philippines ever since I got involved.

When I first got involved with GABRIELA, I was in college. I was really shocked by the issue of sex trafficking and how Filipinos are affected by sex trafficking. When I first started college, I didn't know that Filipino women were affected by so many issues. I had grown up in the US undocumented, so I didn't have a lot of access to information or even just basic history of Filipinos and Filipino-Americans, until I got to college. It was the first time I was learning a lot of these things, that there was a sex trade, and that people were making money off of it, off of the bodies of women. And it really struck me because at the time I was thinking, "that could be me." These women, they're me. They're my age, they could be my cousins, my family. Any of us could easily have fallen into the sex trade or been victimized in the same way, because I lived in the same conditions that these women are living in right now. So when those realizations came to me, that was when I decided that I had to do something.

CA: Who is your favorite fictional heroine, and who are your heroines in real life?

EV: In the Philippines there's this cartoon that they call Filipino Wonder Woman. Her name is Darna. I would have to say her because she was the first example of an empowered woman I ever met. As a six- or seven-year-old girl, there weren't very many empowering characters that you can look up to in media, and she's definitely not perfect. She's still in that bra, in her underwear, but at the time I thought she was so amazing. She was this woman, she kicked butt, and she saved people from danger, and that really struck a chord with me when I was really young.

My heroine in real life is definitely my mother. The more I grow up, the more I understand the sacrifices she has made to come to the US, to rebuild our life here. Growing up, I didn't understand that, and I had a lot of struggles with my mom as an adolescent, but now I have a huge amount of respect for the way she's been able to provide for us, for our family, and the things she had to give up in order to do that.

CA: What recent news story made you want to scream?

EV: Locally, here in San Francisco, it's been the budget. I work at a non-profit here in San Francisco, and the mayor has been balancing the budget on the backs of working families, immigrant families and low-income communities. He was really fighting for his own interests and what he wanted to fund, and so many non-profits, not just the one I work for, but other non-profits that provide services to low-income communities here were suffering. That was something that got me really frustrated, knowing these people were down at City Hall fighting late at night, arguing back and forth to balance the budget, all because the mayor wanted some concessions before he would give us money. That was so frustrating, especially, knowing what the cost of that would be, not just the monetary cost, but the loss of services if we don't give money to the basic services that are serving the community.

CA: What, in your opinion, is the greatest challenge facing feminism today?

EV: I think there needs to be more spaces where different kinds of feminists, and different organizations, come together and share our lessons. I don't necessarily think it's a huge challenge, but it's not happening. I think we are also busy doing our work, and it's really important that we remember to build bridges and creating avenues where we work together. Especially with heightened US militarization outside of the country, with this economic downturn, women, especially immigrant women and low-income women, are feeling that brunt of that crisis, in the US but also outside of the US. It's a really important time for us to come together as women and to talk about how, as women, we can create a better future.

CA: You're going to a desert island, and you're allowed to take one food, one drink and one feminist. What do you pick?

EV: Water, rice and the former Secretary General of GABRIELA Emmi de Jesus. She just got sworn in to Congress in the Philippines and she's been a mentor to me ever since I met her in 2006. former Secretary General of GABRIELA.