feminist blogs

I wrote about Copenhagen on August the 27th predicting that the summit would just be a re-run of environmental commissions, conferences and summits before, such as the WCED in 1987. My doubts that the conference would actually address one of the most important issues of the environmental debate, the North/South divide, have been legitimised, as Copenhagen has been a capitalist showdown. Suggestions from UN chief Ban Ki-moon that long-term financial aid for developing countries may fail to materialise, highlights the precedence of certain countries (developed) interests at the summit.

Brown has travelled over to the Conference to try to provide the discussions some of his ’save the world’ techniques, however, his rhetorical comment…

“If you don’t get an agreement this week, people will doubt whether you can get an agreement at all.”

… can be levelled at all of the summits, commissions and conferences that have taken place regarding the enviroment. All that ever seems to become clear from the discussions is the need for many of the developed countries to compromise their ego to realise that THEIR production, THEIR waste, is the reason that the developing countries are having adverse environmental effects. Not only do the developing countries part take at the lowest levels in the international division of labour, they are also compounded by the environmental effects of those in the highest levels of the division. How is that fair? It is disappointing that the African countries have softened their demands. They should have stayed resilient together, as we all know that the major players need a result from this conference for their own self-seeking ego boasting polls. This is a moral as well as an environmental issue – it simply isn’t fair to exploit the developing countries and then provide them token financial support.

The hype that was created around the possibility of an ‘environment global deal’ being formulated from the conference always seemed to be overrated. There was obviously going to  be massive discrepancies in agreements, with China wanting developed countries to lower their emissions, whilst developed countries (notably USA) want China to lower theirs – for example. With the  summit’s end eminent, it is worrying that there are still many important issues yet to be discussed. It seems that there will be a piece meal set of commitments, but commitments like a marriage, can always be broken… The denial of campaigners such as Friends of the Earth at the summit is another issue that will long be debated after the conference ends. How important parts of our democratic system be cut out of the discussions due to some protesters causing violence is beyond me. However, there is no wonder supporters are getting angry at the level of progress that is being made, when they look back at all the talk around finding so many solutions to so many problems. On aside, I do not agree with the police tactics of spraying people with tear gas and beating them to a pulp, that goes for any demonstration.

Credit to Brown, our government is backing the extra funding for aid for African countries – but we need others. Obviously, USA is a key player here, something which Ed Milliband rightly pointed out. The recent advancement by Japan in relation to aid for developing countries is an important development too.

And what has Mr Cameron been doing? Well he is trying to steal the environmental limelight from the Copenhagen conference in announcing his £20bn initiative to basically get people back to work and off the doll, oh but it is environmentally friendly too. Same old Cameron.

Update: On that note, there is now news that ANOTHER summit will be set up to try to solve the problems that were not solved this time around. I bet I will be citing this blog if that summit does go along. There simply is too much talking and too little action. At the moment, Copenhagen represents a political football game, with the seeds of our future being kicked around the pitch in a self interested manner, only time will tell if this will change…

There are two ways in which I wish to approach this debate. Firstly, marking the passing of the healthcare bill by the US House of Representatives, there will be a consideration of the negative treatment of Obama during his bid to fundamentally change healthcare in the US, so it provides more equality in terms of healthcare irrespective of your income. Secondly, there will be a consideration of the term Feminazi and it’s origins and popularity in USA, as it is a negative word used to link radical Feminism to Nazism.

What is telling about both these situations is how the very extremely offensive comparison to the Nazis is used when actually the reforms aim to make society more equal and fairer. If we compare this to the UK, comparisons to the Nazis are rightfully attributed to the BNP whose policies of ‘bloodless genocide’ basically admit that they are a genocide supporting party. How else would you expect to force people out of their rightful home? The BNP is a fascist party and rightfully deserve to be linked to the Nazis. However, comparing campaigning for equality for women and health to that of a fascist hateful party is absurd and illustrates how hard it is to promote an alternative equality based society in the USA.

It is quite sickening to even consider that the picture to the right, replacing Hitler’s face with Clinton’s, has even been produced. Clinton has stuck up for women’s rights, she is arguably the USA’s version of Harriet Harman – and equally gets the same level of stick that Harman does for standing up for what they believe in – something that most people believe in but then paradoxically bash Feminism, that of equal rights and respect for women.

The worrying omission of abortion options from Obama’s healthcare policies links to the origins of the Feminazi term, as Conservatives said women who wanted to allow as many abortions as possible, were Feminazis. Clearly, this reflects the religious nature of USA. It is quite interesting to consider the work of Gloria Steinem in relation to this, who criticises Limbaugh (the man who helped popularise the Feminazi term due to his Conservative beliefs outlined above) and all those who support the linkage of the Nazis and Feminists, as she says:

“Hitler came to power against the strong feminist movement in Germany, padlocked the family planning clinics, and declared abortion a crime against the state—all views that more closely resemble Rush Limbaugh’s”

Thus, it is interesting to consider why Nazism has become the popular discourse employed in America when wanting to undermine movements that Conservatives believe will threaten the ‘good life’. It appears to me as though it is a popular ideological employment, Nazism has very strong connotations and helps the protesters create a clear message, even though it is ironic and incorrect, it is scary.

Whilst it must be noted that some of the radical Feminism ideas can be characterised as slightly extreme, they are no way shape or form comparable to the beliefs of Nazism. Underling their overall believes is the desire for greater equality, even though I do not believe in their essentialism view of the divides and power differences between men and women, the protests surrounding Obama and his healthcare reforms illustrate how the comparisons to Nazism is something to do with American ideology and culture.

It is worrying that debates around equality are submerged into comparisons with Nazism. Hopefully, the first stage passing of the healthcare Bill is a sign things may be beginning to change. Well, one can only hope.

I recently finished the Purity Myth by Jessica Valenti. It was amazing, definitely a 5 out of 5. 

Valenti writes in a way that I like, sarcastic humour and viewing issues from both sides. Let’s start with a visualization: A world were women are not judged because of whether they have sex or not but whether or not they are good people. Sounds pretty good to me. Though the “Virginity Movement” (to use Valenti’s term) wouldn’t have it that way. They believe in retro gender roles. Surprisingly they don’t really want to get rid of the hypersexualized culture, or rather they could not exist without it. Our culture gives women one of two places, virgins or whores. No inbetween, no grey area, just black and white based on sex. Sounds like fun doesn’t it? 

She spends a good amount of time talking about abstinence-only education. Did you know that over 80% of Abstinence-only programs contain lies (all her stats are for the United States). 

The strangest thing is that though her book focuses on the United States and seemingly ‘radicle’ right wingers I can see the things that she talks about. I grew up in a WASPy little town and to this day I am still startled when I find out that some of my friends aren’t virgins (though after the initial shock it doesn’t matter). And I didn’t even go through the indoctrination that some people go through, just through my interactions with culture. Even my sister, who goes to a Catholic High School, receives an abstinence-only education. This means that she has no working knowledge of birth control, or even avoiding STIs, should she ever need it. Can’t say for certain if they lie, though.

Women need to be judged on moral character, not on sexual character.

Today as I was surfing the net I stumbled across this site: www.takebacktheday.ca.

The website is about what Mother’s Day began as. Somewhat surprisingly it was not invented by Hallmark. It was, in fact, Mothers Day, the realization of a dream of a woman named Anna Jarvis. She and her mother both worked for peace and were social activists.

The inspiration for a national Mother’s Day came from a West Virginian woman and mother of eleven who suffered through the loss of eight of her children. In 1858 at only 26, Ann Marie Reeves Jarvis organized women in her area into Mothers Day Work Clubs to improve the health and sanitation conditions in her county. During the American Civil War, she was adamant her clubs stay neutral, and they courageously nursed soldiers from both sides. When the war ended, she arranged the first Mothers Friendship Day in 1868 to reconcile friends and families torn apart by the bitter conflict, and the holiday was celebrated on several occasions after.

One writer, Julie Ward Howe, wrote a Mothers’ Day Proclamation in 1870. It called on mothers around the world to work for peace:

Arise then… women of this day!
Arise all women who have hearts!
***
And up from the bosom of a devastated Earth
A voice goes up with our own.
It says “Disarm! Disarm!”

Mothers’ Day was recognized as a national US holiday in 1914. Canada, Mexico and 48 states had been celebrating it since 1909. Shortly after becoming a national holiday the apostrophe was moved and it became Mother’s Day, a celebration of individual mothers. Individual mothers who needed flowers, and cards, and jewelry, and as many other gifts as one could think of.

According to the National Retail Federation Mother’s Day is a $15 billion industry in the US alone.

Perhaps it is time for us to take back this day. To put that apostrophe back where it belongs and instead of buying something for our mothers make something, or donate to somewhere, or volunteer. 

We can take back this day from Hallmark and work for peace.