It is rare that armed resistance movements are given positive news coverage. And understandably so when groups use brutal force on civilians. However, the dialog of acceptable and unacceptable moments of violence has been dominated by a history of colonization. Basically, war is only acceptable when it is protecting the interests of rich and white people. But for those of us that believe in a more fair and just world where everyone should have access to the means of production and women should not be enslaved by patriarchy it is good to hear in some places people are fighting for their own rights. I don't support their tactics of hurting or killing civilians, but I do see what they are fighting for.
The women of the PKK (Kurdistan Worker's Party) believe that without a dismantling of patriarchy no one is free. They have been branded as a terrorist organization by NATO, Turkey, Iraq and the United States. The PKK wants an independent Kurdish state in Kuridistan. The women's demands are simple,
"We want a natural life, a society that revolves around women -- one where women and men are equal, a society without pressure, without inequality, where all differences between people are eliminated," says Rengin, the head of a female battalion of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK.
Perhaps this is a leap of imagination for those socialized to think there is only certain types of right and wrong violence. We don't want violence in our communities or anyone else's. But given the context they are working with in, a country ravaged by war and a place where women are subject to inhumane conditions, I can actually empathize with their frustrations.
Revolutionary movements have been around for decades now, both using violent and non-violent tactics to fight for the world they want and generally focused on an anti-colonial stance (one notable example being the Zapatistas, who also believe in gender equity). We may not agree with them, but I think it is important to understand them.
Related:
Kurdish women fighting on the frontlines.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Fighting for a feminist revolution in the mountains of northern Iraq.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/9724
From The Federation of American Scientists website.
...But they're the good guys and gals now, right?
I agree with those who think the Kurds should have their own state, while also recognizing that the semi-autonomy they have in northern Iraq at present is the best the Kurds have achieved since middle eastern boundaries were drawn at the end of WW I. Their autonomy is fragile at best, and allowing the PKK to operate out of territory they control is not going to advance their cause.
That said, the PKK is a terrorist organization. You should be a bit more discerning about who you claim common cause with.
I'm not sure that I understand this comment:
"We want a natural life, a society that revolves around women -- one where women and men are equal, a society without pressure, without inequality, where all differences between people are eliminated," says Rengin, the head of a female battalion of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK.
So... do they want a society that revolves around women, or do they want a society without inequality? Those seem like mutually exclusive ideals.
I didn't say they were the good guys and gals, I was highlighting the context and agenda of what they are doing. Please read the post before you jump to conclusions and thanks for the info.
The US governments invades Iraqi civilians. That is also terrorism. Or is it only terrorism when people of color do it?
Posting this was morally ambiguous, to say it euphemistically.
You are writing about an organization that uses terroristic tactics to push a national and economic philosphy. They consistently break cease-fires.
And in article you posted to it tells you that they use child soldiers. Girls as young as 14 years old.
Compare that to Blood Diamond. RUF was fighting for the people, don't forget. Using child soldiers and attacking the people.
Polite words fail me.
Terrorism in practice is the intentional targeting of civilians or vital infrastructure. It is violence used intentually to sway public opinion.
You can conquer a country and not use terroristic tactics.
You know, I posted this because I thought their gender analysis was interesting. I don't think that in any way shows that I am morally ambiguous. I said in the original post, I don't agree with their violence, but I also recognize that state based violence is much more widespread. I am highlighting a context and trying to have a nuanced conversation.
I recognize that many are not capable of that and since I have to leave my computer for a minute I am going to shut down comments.
"Or is it only terrorism when people of color do it?"
That's really the point I think.
That being said, I think this entry touches on something I've been thinking about a lot lately, and that is whether violence is justified as a means of destroying the patriarchy. More and more, my answer is not only that violence is justified, but that it is necessary on a very basic level in order to protect women's status as full human beings NOW rather than LATER. As advanced living organisms, part of our innate nature is to protect and defend ourselves first and foremost as well as our families/tribes/people. Someone who wants to take away my rights and treat me as less than human is making a direct threat to my physical safety and to that of the people around me and should be dealt with accordingly on a physical level if government/society doesn't have the non-physical tools, ability or desire to do it for me. I believe all humans have that basic right, and for me personally, if feels more and more like a moral imperative every day.
If you're looking to a blog to be a moral compass, you will always be disappointed. She clearly states that we may not agree with it. She didn't join the group, she's telling you about it. Sharing information isn't endorsing it.
No one is innocent. No one has perfect ideals. I only know this because people have been kind enough to share their knowledge with me (and only because I can learn without passing judgment on the teacher).
I enjoy discussion on many topics, discussion shouldn't include questioning the morals of the person that introduced a topic.
I know that was somewhat off-topic, but it bothers me that so many people come here and engage in the sort of behavior that stifles intelligent discourse.
Steven,
Your use of the term "intentional" to condemn Samhita is a means of side-stepping the actual discussion. Samhita was not engaging in a discussion about whether or not the PKK are "terrorists" or "freedom fighters". Samhita was commenting on how cool it is that they have a serious committment to talking about gender, UNLIKE the overwhelming majority of state entitites. Most states only talk about gender relations when they're looking for an excuse to take some kind of power--be it the United States in Afghanistan, the French when they want to keep women of color who are Muslims out of mainstream society or the Turkish secular military infrastructure making talk of a coup in the wake of the victory of the Justice and Development Party in 2007.
Funny story, Steve. Unlike you, I've met people who are in the PKK, I've met people who are in the banned MLK, and I've met people who are in a variety of left Turkish parties--all during the last presidential elections. All of them were young men and women who were considered equals and possessed of no small amount of strong voice and determination and openness (especially considering they were okay with talking to a 20-something American about their work). I have no small critique of tactics that target civilians as part of the revolutionary toolbox, but that's not the relevant point here.
I also find it somewhat sad that you are attempting to excuse state terror through invasions on the ground that all those civilian deaths aren't "intentional". Aside from the sheer stupidity of anyone thinking that invading a country won't kill mass numbers of civilians, it's pretty clear from the "shock and awe" language we used going into Iraq, that terror was an immediate goal required for the invasion's success as far as US generals saw it.
Finally, state terror is always gendered. Aside from war deaths and the destruction of infrastructure taking a disproportionate toll on women, war unleashes intense bouts of extremely masculinized nationalism both on the side of the colonizer and the colonized.
What is impressive about the PKK is that this is a national liberation group (whose tactics of attacking civilians I do not support and I suspect Samhita does not support) who has resisted the clarion call of a return to macho nationalism that demands clear gender roles of men at the front lines and women making babies as so many national liberation efforts have turned into.
So good for them and good for Samhita for talking about this.
Aren't Zapatistas also Marxists? I cast a jaundiced eye at any Marxist group that claims to embrace equality of the sexes because, frankly, Marxists as just as Patriarchal as anyone else.
Speaking of violence, causes, and acceptability - Hamas, anyone?