What We Missed.
Racialicious asks rightly, "Must brown people be martyred for Americans to be motivated?"
Anne Applebaum at Slate takes on why having half your population oppressed creates an unstable society.
"No Matter Who is the President of Iran, They Would Stone Me."
Jezebel asks if the NOW presidency was hijacked by anti-choice Palin supporters.
"An Uncertain Fate for Voting Rights."
I know we missed a lot more than that, so please put in comments. Thanks!
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: What We Missed..
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14544
When I lived in Chicago, I remember when this event took place in the winter of 2007. Many of you have probably seen the surveillance video clip on youtube.
Apparently the verdict got handed down today: http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/06/cop-to-be-sentenced-for-beating-bartender.html
Hopefully the police department won't be so lenient ... :o(
That's awful. I can't believe the judge's logic for a sentence with no jail time, "If I believed that sending Anthony Abbate to prison would stop people from getting drunk and hitting other people, I'd sentence him to the maximum, But I don't believe that is the case." Yes, because a couple similarly sized guys drunkenly getting into it is totally the same as a huge off-duty police officer beating the shit out of a tiny woman after he's knocked her to the ground at her place of employment.
OH. MY. GOD. I am so SICK of this CRAP. I am a young feminist, I have been a NOW member for 8 years, and I was actually at the conference. This is such a non-issue. Seriously. There are like, 5 feminists who have been outed as Palin supporters; they have their reasons, which I do not support, AND NEITHER DOES NOW. And guess what? No one on Terry's slate is a Palin supporter. I was there when there was this big hubbub over it; and several women went up and said they were not supporters, the only thing they advocated was AGAINST the sexism against Palin...which all of us agree with.
People, just SHUT UP about things you know nothing about. I have had it. I've already been on Veronica's blog trying to be cool & nice about this, to post comments that are level headed. But then feministing goes and plugs into this crap.
I did not have my mind made up who to vote for until I heard the speeches at the conference. Latifa was awesome. Her slate was boring. Terry's slate was passionate, specific, and very objective & plan oriented with their answers; they showed to me they had well-thought out actions they intended on completing when in office. I know many others who felt the same. Others had different experiences and so voted for Latifa. But don't go around saying that PALIN SUPPORTERS made this election! I cannot even remember the last time I heard something so LAUGHABLE. Seriously. Laughable. And terribly sad and frustrating. We are all feminists, we are supposed to be sisters in our fight against the patriarchy, but slanderous crap like this only makes some of our sisters look bad, such as everyone in NOW, when the VAST MAJORITY of us have the exact same goals as you.
Feministing, I once was so in love with you. Since the coming of this NOW election, I am losing respect for you on a daily basis and counting. There are several of your readers who are in NOW, and you make us all look bad - even ones who sadly agree with you. And they are also known for not really getting it. Because they don't.
You create this idea that young feminists are not welcome in NOW. maybe it is that attitude that causes people to treat you that way. Because I have NEVER, not ONCE, been treated with anything but welcome kindness, respect, authority, voice, and responsibility in NOW. So my question, every time I hear this, is: who have you been talking to in NOW, and why would they treat you this way and not me? I can't figure it out, unless it's something we are doing differently.
I have to conclude ONCE AGAIN that NOW is a GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATION. If you don't like what's going on, then join it yourself and change it. Seriously. Otherwise, quit complaining about what you think is going on in the organization. It is a group of individuals - there will always be ones who are more ignorant than others. If you want more young feminists in NOW, then young feminists need to join it. If you want more colored women in NOW, then colored women need to join it. Until that happens, yup, you got it: it will be an old white woman organization. Because all of you have that idea in your head.
Also, I was in a young feminist workshop at the conference; not only was it awesome, but there was a great many young feminists at the conference, and there was a large number of older women attending the workshop to find out HOW TO GET MORE YOUNG FEMINISTS TO JOIN AND TAKE ON RESPONSIBILITY AND POSITIONS. Some women there couldn't get young feminists to take on any actual work for the life of them, and we asked her a million questions about what she could be doing wrong.
Sorry for the long rant, and my shitty attitude, but I think this link is shitty.
I have to agree with many of your sentiments. Even though feministing hasn't come out in stating that the vote was indeed "hijacked", the way it's posted implies that perhaps they are viewing it in that light.
The links says
'Jezebel asks if the NOW presidency was hijacked by anti-choice Palin supporters.'
While I appreciate that you're frustrated I don't think that screaming about how you're disappointed in Feministing is particularly helpful. If you disagree with the analysis presented in the link then by all means tell us why. Please don't insult EVERYONE on this website with this 'all of you' garbage.
You don't know all of us or our feelings on this matter. There are more sides than just one to this issue. People can decide for themselves. This time I don't think Feministing was judging. They just provided a link to the source for people to check out. That doesn't assume everyone will agree. You don't assume everyone will agree with you simply because you type it do you?
Your reply is uninformed. There have been several previous references on feministing from the ones who run this site that feministing feels NOW is not a young feminist friendly organization - another example is the linking of Viva La Feminista's blog post about THE SAME THING. Let's see, two out of two posts about post-conference information on the same side of the issue...hmm, that doesn't seem fishy to you? And it was NOT directed at the readers, it was directed at the people who run feminsting, if you try to re-read my post.
The point that people could have other opinions is EXACTLY why i posted what i did. I clearly stated there are other NOW readers on this blog, and I am insulted that feministing would paint such a negative picture of the organization.
You may not think my 'screaming' is helpful, but it really wasn't directed at you. Unless you're one of the people at feministing who linked to either of those two blogs.
Please understand what I am saying before you argue against something I never said.
Where did I say "all of you"? I didn't even say I was disappointed in feministing, let alone "scream about" it.
I was merely stating that I agree with many of era4allNOW's sentiments. If you notice, I also pointed out that "feministing hasn't come out in stating that the vote was indeed hijacked".
WTF?
I also think that the above commenter makes some very valid complaints which I'm sure will resonate with many people around here. Jeez.
I wasn't speaking about you courtship dating. I'm sorry if you thought I was. That was my mistake when I hit reply.
And I don't disagree with some of the points. I just think there are better ways to go about expressing those sentiments that don't include hostility.
I suppose I should stop disagreeing from now on.
Loser_sneeze, I am all ABOUT you disagreeing if you do! I would love to hear what disagreements there are, if any. I haven't heard any substantive yet.
My problem was with these parts of your reply:
"Please don't insult EVERYONE on this website with this 'all of you' garbage."
-I replied it wasn't directed at the readership, or you. I wasn't insulting "everyone".
"You don't know all of us or our feelings on this matter. There are more sides than just one to this issue. People can decide for themselves. This time I don't think Feministing was judging. They just provided a link to the source for people to check out. That doesn't assume everyone will agree. You don't assume everyone will agree with you simply because you type it do you?"
- Again, the first 3 sentences i pointed out are exactly why I posted what I did. So we are in agreement, not difference, from what I can see. The second half makes a false assumption that feministing wasn't judging, when evidence adds up that they are. Evidence shows that when they link 2 of 2 times to blogs speaking of Palin supporters 'swinging' the election, and no link to the contrary, that they probably agree with that sentiment; hence my post.
Loser_sneeze, I am not trying to argue with you; I'm trying to create an understanding here of what I wrote, as it seems I'm being misunderstood given your responses. That is all. I am not against any disagreement you might have; i just don't see that you have one. My anger is not at all with you. Only with the entity that is feministing, not their readership. I hope this clarifies where I'm coming from.
The only thing that was misunderstood was your audience. Please re-read your post and understand where I'm coming from. The hostility starts at the beginning. You don't address the entity of Feministing until much further down. Since this is a public forum the only assumption is that you are addressing the public unless otherwise stated.
I understood everything else. I see your point perfectly. If there is a link to blogs speaking about the election that don't take that same approach then you should post it here. I'd be interested in reading them since I didn't find the link posted particularly persuasive.
Gotcha. Well I'm glad I was able to clear that up. Here's a link for the other side of this debate, and is sadly the only one I could find arguing against the other two blogs (although those two are the only ones i can find on THAT side of the topic, so i guess it's 2 to 1):
http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/
I don't know how to link, so you'll have to copy & paste (unless it automatically creates a link once I post?).
I have got a theory that may answer one of your (perhaps rhetorical) questions! Check it out.
First, you say:
You create this idea that young feminists are not welcome in NOW. ... So my question, every time I hear this, is: ... why would they treat you this way and not me? I can't figure it out, unless it's something we are doing differently.
I think that the hypothesis that you may be doing something differently from the women who feel alienated by NOW is pretty much guaranteed to bear out. And, indeed, in the very next paragraph, you say:
If you want more young feminists in NOW, then young feminists need to join it. If you want more colored women in NOW, then colored women need to join it. Until that happens, yup, you got it: it will be an old white woman organization. Because all of you have that idea in your head.
Ta-da! That's what you're doing differently! Placing the onus of diversifying an establishment's membership on the underrepresented groups instead of being so audacious as to suggest that any kind of outreach or deliberate redress might be necessary.
Remember all the times (by no means are they over) that same argument was used to preserve the status quo of male-dominated groups such as government, corporate boards and various organization leadership caucuses? It was an excuse to shirk responsibility then, just as it is now.
So what you're doing differently is not challenging the NOW status quo, and essentially marking yourself as "one of the good ones."
At least that is my theory!
Sorry to be completely off topic but you and I have very similar names...
Haha wow, we really do! And here I thought I was so original.
Well if you ever feel like someone saying your name a lot in a positive light, this is my website: http://www.dangerously.ca
Wait, you're Jesse Dangerously, the rapper? I just found out about you a few months ago, I've been using JesiDangerously as my online name since like...2004. Anyway, one of my friends told me about you. You're great!
Jesse Dangerously, your theory assumes that there hasn't been any outreach. In fact, in my post I stated an example at the National Conference itself where there was obvious attempts at bringing more diversity to the organization, in particular young feminists. The example pointed to a workshop they had specifically ABOUT recruiting young feminists to NOW, and I also gave an additional example of a specific woman who had tried numerous ways to do so on her own in her own chapter.
I appreciate the input, but I have seen the efforts. Perhaps the efforts are more now than they were in the past, but seriously, there were several workshops at the conference to target these young groups of feminists, including several moderated by young feminists themselves. A lack of technology was also accused of being a fault of NOW, and that is being changed because of the young feminists; there were at least 3 technology-related workshops at the conference (including blog topics, email fundraising topics, etc).
You can fault the 'organization' but to me it doesn't make any sense; we are a grassroots organization and are known for doing things from the bottom up. So who exactly is supposed to be changing the outreach efforts, when it almost really is just a group of individuals that come together for meetings & efforts locally, statewide, and once a year nationally? I truly believe that individuals are the only ones that are going to change it or keep it doing the same old things. There is no person you can say is accountable for the organization. Kim Gandy, for instance, as President of NOW, can't tell members how to act or what to do; she is more or less just the face & voice of the organization, she doesn't run it. The people in the organization do.
I guess I just really feel that blaming the organization doesn't pan out when there is no one group of people or individual persons responsible for the organization; it is each person in the organization, individually and together. The National Board is responsible financially for the national picture of the organization, yes. The officers are responsible for national actions, yes. But none of them 'control' the organization, or have a whole heck of much to do with the state or local chapters. The officers could say 'we need a resolution to bring in more young feminists' but that's not going to change those few ignorant individuals who are going to say to some young feminist that they are tired of hearing from them (or whatever the individual case may be); and that's most of the complaints I've heard, personal interactions with individual members.
I hope this helps clear up some of that theory.
Errr... colored women?
"Today it is generally no longer regarded as a politically correct term, however even that is debatable, due to its continued occasional appearance, most notably its use in the acronym NAACP. Carla Sims, communications director for the NAACP in Washington, D.C.,said "The term 'colored' is not derogatory, [the NAACP] chose the word 'colored' because it was the most positive description commonly used at that time. It's outdated and antiquated but not offensive"
from wikipedia, I checked it out becouse I was curious, when I saw the term "colored women" in the orginal comment it was jarring. personally I wouldn't use it, it's always seemed at best out-dated, at worst, insluting.
maybe not as bad as "oriental" I guess...I had to remind someone once that "oriental" was a fucking rug, not a person.
I profusely apologize for that ignorant term I used. I was not thinking. Period. I was charged up about the topic, and did not check my language - I am sincerely sorry for anyone who may have been offended by my use of that awful term. I understand it is still used by some groups, but I could have chosen a less controversial word that would have offended no one.
Thanks for calling me out.
Thank you so much for this informed and honest response. I too am a member of NOW. I joined a few years ago when I was 26 or 27. The woman who inspired me to join was active in the 2nd wave (she fasted for the ERA in 1982 with a handful of other women) and is now the president of my chapter and is always getting young women to join NOW al the time. She also works with Hollywood NOW chapter president, Lindsey Horvath who is like 25 or 26 years old. Lindsey heads a very active chapter, filled with dedicated young women. Zoe, my chapter president is 60 years old and reads feministing.com. Maybe there are some older women in NOW who want to sit around and congratulate each other on the great stuff they did in the '70s, but I don't know any of them. The women I know are dedicated to change through grassroots work.
If you want to read a nice blog about the National NOW conference and the two slates, check out Zoe's blog http://onlinewithzoe.typepad.com/
Don't leave this site, era4allNOW. You're one of the best commenters on here.
NOW is a grassroots organization, and Feministing is a grassroots website as well. It is also a community. There are not enough feminists out there and we really need to stick together where we can. I agree with you about not giving up on NOW, but don't give up on Feministing either.
Very good point, Qi. This is a grassroots website. I can't say I would ever completely stop visiting the site as I get a lot of feminist news here. My confidence in its reliability now, however, is less certain than before.
Chelsea Morning, thank you for adding to the discussion with your experience with NOW. I believe most of us in NOW feel this way; it is those few individuals, like I said, that have the ability to make us all look bad. I hope the negative publicity that makes these individuals look like the majority is stopped.
era4allNOW, I think you're overreacting a bit - we provided a link and DIDN'T post on this issue specifically because we weren't at the conference. (Though I must tell you, talk of Palin supporters was the least of many disturbing rumors I heard.)
As to the suggestions that we're anti-NOW, if you go back in our archives you'll see we've always posted positive pieces about the organization. Do I think that it's an org run and populated by by middle to upper class white women who are pretty happy with the status quo? Yes, I do. I mean, look at who is allowed to vote - only women who can afford to pay for travel and lodging and go to a conference!
I've also been to NOW conferences, and I've seen how young women on panels were treated, I've seen women of color put in the "women of color" panel, young women in the "young summit" etc. So yes, let's give NOW the credit it deserves for the great work it does, but don't pretend the org doesn't have problems.
I think this really says it all.
So please - I understand that this is was a contentious election - but I would appreciate if you didn't conflate that controversy with us posting a one sentence link.
I certainly agree that there are a lot of problems with NOW. I've volunteered at conferences and have felt out of place (even as a middle class white woman). One of my biggest issues is the fact that only those who can afford to attend a conference can vote. However, the people that I know in the organization feel as strongly as I do about these things and are working to affect change. There is dialogue and action concerning how to better outreach to young women who are not upper middle class and white. But, these are the grassroots people in NOW. These are not the ones who get media attention and who schmooze with politicians and celebrities. There are negative elements in every organization, but I believe that NOW is still relevant and is doing good work.
Also, thanks for pointing out that you're not anti-NOW. Clearly you're not, otherwise you wouldn't have lectured at a NOW convention in Hollywood (last year?), which I attended. I know a lot of young women in NOW who read your blog and really admire you and the website. I always sell out of your books at my bookshop and am constantly finding great new titles to stock that feministing recommends.
So Applebaum's next feature will be the impending fall of US society? Gimme a break. Half the world's population has been oppressed for as long as history.
I see.
Conservative Member of the Alberta Legislative Assembly (MLA) Doug Elniski suggested to girls on his blog that they "always smile when you walk into a room, there is nothing a man wants less than a woman scowling because he thinks he is going to get s--t for something and has no idea what."
He continued, "Men are attracted to smiles, so smile, don't give me that 'treated equal' stuff. If you want Equal, it comes in little packages at Starbucks."
I'm scowling, Doug.
He's since taken the blog post down, but the story had already hit the news in Canada.
Yeah... he also made some pretty homophobic comments about the Edmonton Pride Parade (Which has doubled in attendance since last year, btw - 10,000 strong!) on his twitter, in addition to the "advice" to junior high girls: "Men are attracted to smiles, so smile and don't give me that 'treated equal' stuff, if you want Equal it comes in little packages at Starbucks."
I'm never surprised that people think or say things like this, but I can't help but be shocked that they are dumb enough to create such a public record of it.
I know, right? You think these guys could at least buy some kind of software that would pop up the paperclip guy in Word to ask: "It looks like you are trying to write an inflammatory sexist blog post which may scuttle your political career. Do you want to continue?"
"always smile when you walk into a room, there is nothing a man wants less than a woman scowling because he thinks he is going to get s--t for something and has no idea what."
I'm supposed to make it a top priority in my day to make sure I don't offend or frighten some guy with the natural curve of my face? (In addition to worrying my "poor little head" about whether some anonymous man "wants me" or not?)
Bleh.
Doug this ain't a scowl,
I'm making my "bish pleez" face
at your stupid ass.
This is pretty disgusting: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/21/the-sexiest-peta-ads-of-a_n_217731.html
Tami wrote:
Must brown people be martyred for Americans to be motivated?
"But why does the Western world (and here I refer mostly to the dominant culture, not marginalized groups) have to see these things to be shaken from its complacency?"
I completely agree that the images of Neda Soltani should not be exploited or sensationalized here in the West. Yet I find Tami's statements in some way resonating with what congressional Republicans are demanding of Obama. People in the West most certainly have solidarity towards anyone anywhere whose civil rights are violated. To say that Americans demonstrated no support before Neda's images were shown is untrue. Tami does not mention the fact that Neda's images came from Iranians themselves and was not manufactured in the US. Furthermore, if the United States showed a wholesale support of one side (ie. the demonstrators) and reducing what is happening to a dichotomy of the "good" demonstrators against the evil "government", then this would truly damage all efforts of reformers and of women in Iran. I would ask Tami what sort of Western response does she deem appropriate? We have to be extremely careful about passing judgements regarding events in Iran without being viewed as cultural imperialists. I would say to Tami that the United States has a bad track record in this regard and that Obama's responses thus far have been spot on.
Here's something you may have missed: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071015102856.htm
Feminism And Romance Go Hand In Hand
ScienceDaily (Oct. 16, 2007) — Contrary to popular opinion, feminism and romance are not incompatible and feminism may actually improve the quality of heterosexual relationships, according to Laurie Rudman and Julie Phelan, from Rutgers University in the US. Their study also shows that unflattering feminist stereotypes, that tend to stigmatize feminists as unattractive and sexually unappealing, are unsupported.
They found that having a feminist partner was linked to healthier heterosexual relationships for women. Men with feminist partners also reported both more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction. According to these results, feminism does not predict poor romantic relationships, in fact quite the opposite.
Haha I guess it's a nice sentiment to express, but what a weird article.
"This just in... Scientists have determined that feminists are not necessarily all such unpalatable harpies after all!"
I can't take any article seriously that calls such a very obviously white woman "brown." If anything, the response to her death is likely more intense than it otherwise would be because she is not brown.
Whoe decides who is brown and who is white? Whiteness is fluid, and is more a description of class than of color. For a long time, Irish, Italians, and Jews were not "white." Now, more or less all three are considered "white" in the US. People of Persian descent are certainly much paler than their Arab neighbors, but are they "white" in the global sense? Persians are typically lumped in with Arabs (raise your hand if you knew they are distinct ethnicities), and I would certainly argue that from a US perspective, Persians are "brown." I believe the blogger behind Racialicious writes in the US.
uhhh iranian people are not white. i don't necessarily think that "brown" is accurate either...but they are not white and do not have the same privileges that a person of european descent would have.
the reason that this is getting a lot of attention in the western world is because it is in the united states' best interests to publicize the atrocities being committed against iranian people. the us is fiercely against ahmedinejad and this helps their case. if it wasn't in the united states' best interst, i can guarantee we wouldn't be hearing about it at all.
i think the point of the post, however, was not about how much publicity it is getting but about the fact that we find it okay or less disturbing to watch people of color experience violence (because it is somehow ingrained that it is expected for these groups to be violent, or that they are 'lesser' beings) than white people. i understood the author to be saying, why can't we just read about it and know how horrible and fucked up it is, the way we can when it is about white people? why do we need proof? why is it not enough until we see people dying/being harmed in very serious ways?
I don't know if the article on Neda is entirely in the right. Isn't the reaction to the Vietnam war often cited as stemming from the fact that images of our soldiers being killed were now appearing on TV? The boys used in that footage were young white males, but we needed to see their deaths to be moved from complacency. My eleventh grade history teacher played us the video of the Kennedy assassination multiple times including a frame by frame claiming we had to understand the shock of what the nation went through when they saw this event the first time. If you have ever been to the holocaust museum, the images you see there can make you shake and weep and are certainly shocking.
To say that we only use bodies of color is disingenuous and ignores the fact that we have used images/video this way for a long time. I don't have the answer to why we feel we must see the horror to understand it, but I don't feel it's something limited only to certain bodies.
My guess is that this is one of Samhita's many feeble attempts at being the "Voice of Color" at feministing.
Harsh much? Personal attacks are unnecessary.
Sorry. I didn't mean it that way.
I meant it more as a critique, but I can see it being viewed as a personal attack. Again, I'm sorry.
I agree with you. And it seems to me that it would be infinitely worse for Neda to have died without anyone around the world knowing or caring or understanding through seeing.
Re: NOW "controversy".
Can't we all just get along?
women don't go to movies
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nia-vardalos/women-dont-go-to-the-movi_b_212888.html
I'd hope they don't go
to see Nia Vardalos
shows, for their own sake.
I find the article by Lila Ghobady quite impressive.
She didn’t vote because no matter whom the president is she would be stoned. The solution to finish with the stoning practice (which btw also applies to men), it seems, is to not vote until the ones back in Iran who believe that voting will bring change and who are dying in the streets because they feel their votes were stolen (the same votes that are as irrelevant to Lila as to the regime), overthrow the regime. But she will scream ”Down with dictators!” all the way from Canada shores.
Something is very wrong with this picture.
About the stoning:
"Parliaments judicial commission decided not to put some Islamic punishments including stoning in the (revised) law in line with the interests of the country," commission head Ali Shahrokhi told the agency.
He said the commission is also proposing the abolition of amputation and has considered the idea of a "special court for minors under 18."
Once the commission has finalised the new version of the penal code, parliament will vote on whether to implement the revised law for a trial period.
Afterwards it will be discussed for final approval by the vetting legislative body, the Guardians Council.”
From http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090622-710807.html
This is a little late so I'm not sure if anyone will read it. But re: NOW elections, is it really surprising that a group composed primarily of older women elected an older woman. I know that there are some amongst that group who (foolishly in my opinion) may have voted for Palin out of their desire to see a woman in a high office however I doubt there is a conspiracy by conservative Palin fans to infiltrate NOW.
Did anyone ever stop to think that there might be a little ageism at play amongst the younger feminists? The Jezebel article has a bit of a "can't teach an old dog new tricks" feel to it in reference to technology. In a world that constantly tells women they are irrelevant once they age beyond 30 (with some botox and a good personal trainer you might get a few more years), I can sort of understand these women wanting to see someone like themselves in office.