Showing posts with label sexism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexism. Show all posts

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Fundamentalism, feminism and anti-fascism

The following of interest from the london anarcha feminist koelektiv:

June saw the fascist and undeniably opportunistic English Defence League (EDL) announce plans to march through Whitechapel in apparent protest at a planned United Kingdom – Islamic Conference (UK-IC) at the Troxy Centre, a conference which would see extreme Islamic fundamentalist speakers espousing their hate of Jews, women and homosexuals. Past years have witnessed the growth of Saudi-funded political Islam in Tower Hamlets, oppressing local Muslim communities and destroying Asian cultures, promoting repression of women, and beginning to dominate the local authority.

The rise in religious fundamentalism, whatever the religion may be, poses a serious and very real threat to women, who are seen as crucial in representing and transmitting the supposedly unchanging morals and traditions of the whole community. Women who fail to conform to so-called traditional family values are portrayed as placing the honour, well-being and future of the whole society or community at risk. The control of women’s minds and bodies is, therefore, at the heart of fundamentalist agendas everywhere and is something that must be challenged.

In the run up to that Sunday in Whitechapel, women’s bodies became a battleground on which both sides fought. “They (Muslims) want all women in burqhas” proclaimed the EDL and “we’re not fascist, we’ve got a LGBT division, we just care about the wimmin”. Anti-EDL groups and individuals also used women in their ideological battle; rumours were circulated that local Muslim women had been attacked and raped by the EDL, resulting in a large angry turn-out when the EDL youth division came for a “quiet” drink in Whitechapel.

A group called Women Against Fascism in their call-out on Indymedia for the mobilisation against the EDL, recognised how women are used in this battle without challenging these pervasive paternalistic attitudes to women. “The women who are against fascism are the friends, girlfriends, wives, sisters, aunties, grandmothers and mothers of young men who feel that they are being provoked into violence by the EDL. Boys of school age feel that they have to defend their mothers and sisters etc from the EDL who want to demonstrate in Whitechapel.” Their call-out made no mention of the UK- IC speakers.

Unite Against Fascism also concentrated solely on the EDL in their mobilisations against the far-right, ignoring the woman-hating, homophobic ideology of the right-wing Islamists and calling all those who pointed out the bigotry of the UK-IC speakers, and the need to oppose both sides equally, including anarchists, as islamaphobic and racist.

The UK-IC conference was thankfully cancelled and the EDL called off their planned demonstration in the area. The UAF still marched, unsurprisingly refusing to critique or even acknowledge the fundamentalism of the UK-IC or the right-wing islamist ideology of some of those who marched with them.

The EDL are a serious threat. Fascism must be challenged and stopped, but we cannot do this at the expense of challenging those with fundamentalist agendas. Fundamentalism and fascism both deserve our contempt, and this is the position that anarchists must take.

Class struggle, community cohesion and militant physical opposition are the only effective means to repel fascism and the conditions in which it flourishes and this may mean making political alliances with those who we consider to be religious moderates or even conservative secularists. But how do we as feminists/ anarchists navigate the awkward space between our secular views and those of even moderate religious persuasion? Paternalistic, misogynistic attitudes to women and homophobia are not just confined to realm of religious fundamentalism, it is unfortunately prevalent across all sections of society, including among those who consider themselves moderates, progressives or secular. Can we really, as anarchist women, work with and ally ourselves with those who have anti-woman, anti-queer attitudes, traditions and practices even if it is with the purpose of coming together as working class people to fight fascism?

Perhaps we need to use these times when we do connect with our neighbours over a common enemy despite religious, cultural or political differences, to raise our concerns about and contempt of misogyny, racism and homophobia, as well as pushing an anti-capitalist class-based critique of the state. In this battle against fascism, we must take care that we do not reinforce or accommodate patriarchal attitudes and so must confidently encourage dialogue that confronts and challenges the sometimes anti-women, anti-queer attitudes of even moderate people of faith and secularists.

.

Now is the time for discussion on fundamentalism and fascism and how we can organise and oppose both in an anti-sexist, inclusive way. Feminists must, while fighting all forms of religious fundamentalism, develop targeted feminist campaigns to take on the growth of political Islam and its misogyny, authoritarianism and distortion of the genuine variety of Muslim cultures. We must provide young people with alternatives–feminist, anarchist, secular and participatory–to the great big reactionary mosques and synagogues and churches. In our fight against fascism, we’ve got to be prepared to take on all forms of religious fundamentalism and manifestations of misogyny in everyday life.



Monday, July 19, 2010

From Palestine to France, Muslim Women Under Attack



One thing about the global polarization between western imperialism and Islamic anti-imperialism, factions in each camp rely upon and feed into the ongoing subjugation of women, especially women of color. Opposing sides in a unified system of exploitation, the dynamic tension created by their mutual hostility takes form in various moves to control women's choices over their bodies, their attire, their lives.

This week Hamas, the duly elected government in Gaza, announced a ban on women publicly smoking the hookah. According to government spokesman Taher Nouno, "The government made the decision in order to restore the religious rules and traditions of the conservative Palestinian society, which doesn't allow for women and teens to smoke the shisha in public places."

Last fall as part of its "virtue campaign" Hamas passed a ban on women riding behind men on motorbikes. "To preserve citizen safety and the stability of Palestinian society's customs and traditions," they said.

This "traditional conservatism" is in fact being imposed, as a distorted vision from a non-existent past, on a dynamic society - when a society is as frozen-in-time as these right-wing men like to pretend, there is no need for new laws and edicts to "restore" these religious rules. But when a society is traumatized by violence as the Palestinians have been, ever since the nakba, and the worldwide left that was tied to the Soviet camp has disintegrated, men like that find that they can get their way.

At the same time, imperialism - which in a shakespearean kinda way is actually responsible for the rise Hamas as the symbol of principled resistance - is busy working out its anxieties about women and cultural predominance by imposing bans on various forms of Muslim attire across Europe. France and Belgium have both passed laws banning the burka in public (expected to come into force in the fall), similar legislation is expected to be passed in Spain (where it already exists in Catalonia and Andalusia), and there are calls to extend it to England and other countries, too.

Imperialism dresses itself in the liberal garb, claiming that such legislation is intended to "free" women and counter "Muslim sexism". Some leftists actually believe this, and go for the ride (ten years ago the French anarchist newspaper le monde libertaire even carried the banner headline "Ni Dieu Ni Voile"), but in doing so they're ignoring whose tune they're dancing to. As in the case of Palestinian women being told what they can do and what they must wear, the regulation and control of Muslim women in Europe is a symbolic way for particular nations and classes to mark their territory, to show that they're the ones who say what goes. And once they feel they have the power, "our" bigots will gladly show themselves to be "real men", just like their brothers on the other side of the imperial divide.



Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Anja Röhl: "The Time is Right to Talk About Paedophilia"

What follows is a text by Anja Röhl, the stepdaughter of Ulrike Meinhof, in which she details a childhood of sexual abuse at the hands of her father Klaus Rainer Röhl, the founder of the important New Left magazine konkret.



The Time is Right to Talk About Paedophilia
by Anja Röhl, May 11, 2010

One of the most important men to openly defend paedophilia was a member of my family: his name was Klaus Rainer Röhl, and he was my father. He's still alive, but the words "He is my father" will never cross my lips.

When I was still little, long before I reached puberty, he was always telling me what sensuous and erotic skin children have, "completely different from women who are older than thirteen." He only found children younger than thirteen attractive, in any case. He laughed about this and tried to have his fun with me. He "slapped" me on my cheeks. He even seemingly accidentally "slapped" (that's what he called these blows) my thighs - both of them, usually until I could no longer bear the pain - until I specifically told him, "Stop, daddy, that hurts." His answer to this was that I shouldn't make such a fuss: "a German girl" doesn't cry.

He told me early on that he had found me erotic on the diaper changing table, and frequently discussed with me his theory that it is better for young girls to be deflowered by older, experienced men, as younger men were, for the most part, too inexperienced. The idea of concepts such as erotic, deflowering, sensuous, etc. being discussed openly and in detail with children may seem peculiar, but that is really part of the game through which we children were ensnared, so that we didn't see what was happening as being at all out of the ordinary.

After I turned eleven, he often showed me large numbers of erotic photos, some of which he would select for the magazine konkret,[1] explaining to me that the most important thing was that the girls look innocent and coy. That's what the readers liked best.

From my earliest childhood, he would often bring me alone with him on his short holidays in Sylt. On the beach, he would take me by the hand and we would go "check out women." Even then, the most important criteria for him was youthfulness. I got to have "my say" about which of them was the "most sensuous," although it goes without saying that none of them could ever compete with girls younger than thirteen, who simply had the most sensuous skin, who had not yet been kissed, had not yet experienced arousal, which gave them the greatest allure - something they were of course fully aware of.

When I was fourteen years old, he openly began a relationship with a sixteen-year-old in my presence, although at the time he had a steady girlfriend in Cologne and two other casual relationships in Hamburg.
My father often spoke of women as "sluts" or "whores." Those were his favourite words, especially when talking about former, discarded girlfriends, or in reference to a current girlfriend if she irritated him in even the slightest way. In arguments, he always used these words. I heard these words, along with the word bitch, directed at my mother during arguments as far back as I can recall. Ulrike [2] was the only woman against whom he seldom dared use this word as a weapon.

Both of my aunts witnessed such scenes as far back as the 50s, and as young girls were subjected to my father's sexual innuendos.

The sexual innuendos were passed off as jokes when other people were around. What defined them was a combination of admiring, lyrical phrases, on the one hand, and derogatory and humiliating phrases, on the other. I myself have heard nothing but derogatory statements come out of my father's mouth about discarded girlfriends, as well as about my aunts long after they were adults. These put-downs were always sexist, nasty and hurtful.

Later, it was similar for my siblings and I. While he was extremely flattering to me as a child, when my siblings were "older than fourteen," he treated me, even in front of other people, in an extremely disparaging way. This, above all, took a sexist form - focussing on outward appearance, in any case: I had greasy hair, legs that were too fat, lips that were too thin, even unattractive.

My aunts also witnessed him having loud and abusive arguments with my mother, during which he raged, sobbed and screamed - he would overturn my crib, and then calm me by smothering me with kisses, claiming that this baby was the only person who understood him.

When I was five, I went with my father on a fourteen-day winter vacation in Rottach-Egern. During the holiday, we shared a double bed in a hotel room. Following pancakes and the ensuing stomach-ache, which triggered an intense fight in the room, I burst into tears. He hugged me, began to cry, referred to himself as an arsehole and vehemently begged my forgiveness. Later on, during such "forgiveness scenes," he would call me "his only woman" and "his beloved and the only one he had left," eliciting feelings of intense pity on my part. Under the pretext of taking an afternoon nap, he asked me to get into our large bed. When I was almost asleep, he pushed against me from behind and I felt something hard, while he embraced me and moaned ... when I was older, I realized that he had masturbated on my body, while desperately trying to hide this fact by crying.

My father, as he frequently stated in front of witnesses, acted on the assumption that girls wanted to seduce their fathers and were perfectly aware of the desires they were provoking. He called girls between the ages of five and twelve "little Lolitas" and described them as "coquettes" and "coy." I heard him say that sort of thing about a twelve-year-old, and he would often call my half-sister Bettina the "most sensuous baby that he had ever known."

My father was capable of wild silliness and could quickly charm children with games, rapidly gaining their trust, their love and their affection in the process. Once he had them, however, it didn't take long before he found them annoying and would provoke conflicts with them, just as he did with adults, which would always be followed by the same pathetic forgiveness ritual. This was his constant routine in the children's rooms when saying goodnight, if there were no other adults around to witness it. During these forgiveness rituals he would place the child on his lap, double himself over, cry, sob and imperceptibly squeeze the child against his genitals.

I can't count the number of times from my earliest childhood until I was fourteen (once I was fourteen, his attitude towards me changed, and he left me in peace) that after such conflicts he would talk about what an arsehole he was and how abysmally bad he was, never without hugging me tightly, progressing from sobbing to embracing, to caressing, and then to saying that I was "the only woman (!) he could love."

When I was twelve years old, he was sitting in his living room with a "discarded sweetheart" (so he had told me): love songs on the turntable, candlelight. Soon he wanted her to move closer on the couch, and soon I saw his hands on her breast. Out of fear of being in the way, I bumped into a lamp and got an electric shock. My subsequent screams drove him into a rage, during which he was very loud and abusive. Crying, I ran upstairs to the attic where I sometimes slept, and not long thereafter, he came up after me.

I was gripped by fear as soon as I heard his steps on the stairs. He came in and said that H. had sent him, and that he had behaved badly and should be more patient with me. Now he wanted to do that. With those words, he moved closer in the dark room, sat down on the edge of my bed and began to babble about being sorry. It was obvious that he became immediately sexually aroused whenever he apologized for something, which caused him to become even more insistent, more vehement and more into it, and soon he was talking about being an arsehole, asking me to forgive him, to please, please forgive him! The intensity of it seemed to make him restless and he fidgeted with his hands and didn't seem to know what to do with them. The entire time, I was dying of fear and laid there frozen. Suddenly, his hands were under the blankets and he was taking possession of my still childlike body. At this point, without speaking - he was very quiet about it - he began to caress my barely developed breasts. He caressed my belly, my hips...

This quieted him down. I lay there as if I was dead. He spoke some more about his monstrousness and about wanting me to forgive him, and he acted like nothing unusual had happened. It took a long time for him to finally leave me. Why had he behaved that way? What had he done? Why had he touched me in the most intimate of places? What was he trying to achieve? The whole time I was in the grip of the most immense fear and was unable to move. Weighed down with shame at the time, I felt like I was experiencing something no one should ever have to go through. In my mind, I repeated over and over again, "This shouldn't happen to anyone." What he did didn't hurt, but I didn't want it to happen. Yet, he acted as if I had clearly consented. He acted as if he were doing it for my sake. The entire time, he reasoned with me, spoke pleasantly about forgiveness and patience, played the loving father, while under the covers he was groping my body as if it belonged to him.

For hours after he finally got up and left my room, I was terrified he would return. Something bizarre had happened to me: my body had become alien to me. It was not that anything hurt: it was that he had made me his property. My body hadn't belonged to me: it had belonged to him. I hadn't wanted it, but my body had remained motionless. Why had it not been possible for me to say "NO!"?

For the rest of the night, I lay awake haunted by thoughts of how I would face him the next morning over breakfast. I would have liked to sink into the mattress forever.

Later, I told Ulrike about this experience, very carefully, in a coded way. I trusted her a good deal and had been very close to her from the age of five. I wrote to her about it in a letter from college about a year later, in 1969. I did so to explain why I could never move in with my father, in response to an invitation from her to live with them in Berlin if I wanted to. Attorney Heinrich Hannover [3] returned this letter to me decades later. He told me that she had wanted to use it to prove that it would be dangerous for her children to be turned over to their father and that he had paedophile tendencies. Often when he grabbed our thighs under our dresses as if by accident, as he constantly did, I would hear her tell him that he shouldn't "eroticize" us that way.

Under the pretext of showing me what it was like to be kissed on the mouth, he approached me for the last time on a moonlit night on a pier when I was fourteen years old. He explained to me that to make it more exciting it was very important to begin by gradually opening your mouth. As he demonstrated, gently pushing his tongue into my mouth, I felt like a cold piece of iron was being screwed into my mouth and shuddered with revulsion and shame.

Later on, if I saw my father casually sitting with a small child on his lap - he often sat his girlfriends' children on his lap and played horsey with them - I would gag.

One could describe all of this as "mild abuse." I will gladly leave it to others to come up with the appropriate term. A well-known book about abuse documents the case of an adult woman whose father was a very likeable fellow who was widely considered to be completely trustworthy. She was clearly his favourite child, and she felt that he loved her like no one else in the world. When he deflowered her at the age of twelve, it was a tender experience for both of them. It is true that her father was jealous when she had her first boyfriend at the age of seventeen, but eventually he integrated him into family life as her husband, demanding only regular visits and devotion. When, as a result of subconscious traces of the experience in his wife's dreams, her husband figured everything out and threatened to expose her father, the dutiful daughter went into the basement, got an axe and killed, not her father, but her husband. It was only ten years later, during so-called ongoing therapy, that everything came out, with the daughter arriving at the horrifying realization and confronting her father about it during a visit. A trembling old man stood before her, offering not a word of apology, but fearfully begging her not to tell "her mother" about those "things," no matter what.

When we think about abuse, we mostly think of threats, punishments and violence. In real life it's more complicated than that. The victim is often rendered dependent and docile with tenderness and love. The more gently it's carried out and the greater the degree of seeming consent on the part of the victim, the stronger the victim's tendency to succumb to maintaining lifelong silence and denial and to identifying with, if not idealizing, the offender as the model for the constantly sought after beloved.

Recently, there has been a discussion about the "Left-Wing Paedophiles" (taz, April 22, 2010). Given the Odenwaldschule [4] and the Indianerkommunen [5], it is important that these themes be addressed. In these places, paedophilia and the idea of "sexual liberation" were dealt with as if they were necessarily connected. I believe that these ideas were beside the point and that other factors have played and continue to play a significantly larger role.

My father was forced into the war at fourteen years of age. As a child, he developed a steely resolve as a result of constant humiliation and beatings. Could these things have anything to do with how he sees women, with his constant use of his favourite insult "slut" for women and girls, with his habit of involving helpless and defenceless children in masochistic forgiveness rituals following fits of rage and violence, accompanied by sexual arousal? I don't want to forgive it. I broke with my father a long time ago. I don't forgive him, but it is imperative that we understand the phenomenon. We must learn from it.

Even in the days of an ostensible tolerance of paedophilia as a "gentle," tender form of abuse based on the child's "consent" to sexual activity with adults and carried out with protestations of love, there existed, as taz reported, women's groups that violently protested this, finding it extremely dangerous. Were they in some way prudes or opponents of sexual liberation? No, they weren't, but they knew from their own painful experiences that this had nothing to do with liberation. To have an agreement with the offender - whether openly, as in the case of the "Indianerkommune," or secretly, as in the case of the aforementioned family - can seriously damage a child's inner self. They must not only defend, cover up and excuse the offender's abnormal desires, but unconsciously, as outlined above, they either deflect, redirect or transfer all their fear and any anger they feel onto others, or else have it rebound back upon themselves.

My alleged consent with my father, my alleged willingness, was the result of an unidentifiable fear. During all of these incidents, I was seized by an enormous fear. It left me frozen, shut my brain down and made time stand still. This fear wasn't the fear of pain or violence. This fear came from the sexualisation of tenderness - the tenderness that I experienced from my father, as part of a forbidden love. I was still a child, neither coquettish nor coy, neither seductive nor slutty, neither sensuous nor erotic. What my father believed I was, what he ascribed to me based on his sickness - for which he required treatment - makes up the core of my fear. There was an accusation behind it, an accusation that, in the midst of an apparently gentle act, I was unable to escape. My father surrounded me with this fear, and it will be with me until the end of my days.

German original: http://www.anjaroehl.de/die-zeit-ist-reif-zur-padophiliedebatte/



Footnotes
N.B. All footnotes in this document were added by the translators. None are originally from the document itself.
[1] konkret was an important magazine for the West German New Left, founded by Klaus Rainer Röhl in 1957. The magazine initially received secret funding from the illegal Communist Party, but this was cut off in 1964 due to political disagreements with Röhl and Ulrike Meinhof, the magazine’s editor-in-chief. At that point, in order to make up the shortfall, Röhl arranged for the magazine to begin featuring photos of scantily clad women – its circulation almost tripled.  [return to text]
[2] A reference to Ulrike Meinhof, Klaus Rainer Röhl’s wife from 1961 until 1968 and a founding member of the Red Army Faction.  [return to text]
[3] Heinrich Hannover represented Ulrike Meinhof in her efforts to overturn the conditions of intense isolation she was held in after her 1972 arrest.  He also acted on her behalf in her efforts to prevent Klaus Röhl from gaining custody of their twin daughters Bettina and Regine after she went underground.  [return to text]
[4] Odenwaldschule is an anti-authoritarian boarding school, founded in 1910.  In the 1990s, former students accused the Director Gerold Becker of systematic sexual abuse throughout the 70s and 80s.  [return to text]
[5] The Indianerkommune (Indian Commune) was a paedophile adult and youth housing collective, initially located in Heidelberg and later in Nuremberg.  It contextualized itself as a “sexual liberation” organization and was the source of much debate and conflict on the German left in the 80s.  [return to text]



Sunday, June 17, 2007

The Militarization of Montreal's Metro System: Now We Get Cops With Tasers...



Over the years i have seen quite a bit of violence against youth, and most specifically against Black youth, dished out by the security guards who patrol the Montreal metro system.

It generally starts with someone being boisterous - once, for instance, a young Black guy happily shouted "Jah live!" to passersby on christmas eve - when a duo of guards will approach, aggressively demanding that the "suspect" give their name, empty their pockets, etc. If the "suspect" doesn't do exactly what they're told quickly enough, the guards will start getting physical, any resistance or even flinching on the part of their victim being an excuse for them to escalate matters.

In the case of the young Black guy on christmas eve, he didn't resist physically so the guards waited for the police to arrive... the kid was then taken out of villa maria station and made to lie down in the snow; when he protested he was pushed down and a cop sat on him for fifteen minutes as several other Black people tried to get their badge numbers.

Lying face down in the snow for fifteen minutes in subzero temperatures... and this was a kid who was not resisting.

Another time, on St Patrick's Day, me and my partner saw a (white) guy beaten on the ground for ten minutes by two guards - all because he was too drunk to know to stay down. Not that he was fighting, he was just crying and begging them to leave him alone as he kept on trying to get away. A crowd formed and everybody was yelling at the guards to stop, so much so that one of them completely lost it and took out his club and started whacking the guy on the head before charging into the onlookers.

When the cops arrived they arrested the drunk guy and also at least one of the people in the crowd just because they had been amongst those shouting at the guards to calm down, that they didn't need to be so violent.

Not that it normally gets to that point. More usual would be the times that someone is "merely" pinned to a wall, frisked as roughly as possible, and then taken away to wait for the cops to come and arrest them on some bogus charge.

Of course there is also that "other kind" of violence the guards excel at. Like the dynamic duo that several of us noticed, who would always hit on young women who were taking the metro. Chat them up, smiling and smooth as rotten tofu, ask them for their number, etc. Did they get many dates this way? What happened to women who said no? What do you think would happen if she told one of these pricks to fuck off? She's going to see these guys again - she has to take the metro to school or work, and they will be there...

The case of Alain Jean-Pierre, the metro guard who recruited young women into the sex trade - and then stole all of their earnings - was the tip of a sexist iceberg that the city of Montreal has no intention of dealing with. Can't deal with really, as sexual harassment of women is one of its wink-nod pitches to that male tourist market it caters to - so why the fuck should it deprive its male pigs the same benefit?

Race, class and age are the main factors motivating harassment and then violence from the security guards. This is even more clear that in many other situations as the public transport system is already disproportionately used by people with less money and less social power. (For a sideways snapshot of class, just ride the metro for a day and see who is riding with you - compare this to who you see driving the cars above... for some of these numbers see the survey results on page 7 of the STM's 2005 annual report...)

Indeed, the transit system is a microcosm of the economy it serves. Whereas women represent an absolute majority of those who use public transit, and the system is disproportionately used by people of colour, the STM's workforce in 80% male and over 90% white. (see that 2005 annual report page 29) Which of course all fits in, given the fact that the STM workforce is heavily unionized and that exclusion from unionized jobs has been identified as one of the factors driving the new cycle of "racial segmentation" (i.e. racism) in the canadian economy...

As security guards patrolling these areas come under less scrutiny than "real cops", and these areas are subject to a more arbitrary and less regulated level of control, practices like racial and class profiling are highly prevalent, and nobody even pretends different. The high level of surveillance in these areas - almost all of which are saturated with close circuit video cameras - encourages the trend already noted by academic John Fiske, who has explained that such surveillance "draws lines that Blacks cannot cross and Whites cannot see." Or that poor people cannot cross, and middle class people cannot see...

These tendencies are reinforced by the fact that the metro guards do not only chance upon their victims, but are also called by STM employees to deal with suspicious or "troublesome" people... and as we have already seen, these STM employees are far more likely to be white and male than the people who use the system. As certain groups are disproportionately targeted (i.e. check out Atwater or Villa Maria metro stations about the time school gets out and see the connection between Black teenagers and the guards' intimidation tactics) they will be disproportionately found to be doing "something" wrong, and it all becomes one big "beat up the Black kids" positive-feedback-loop...

It's a bad situation, and of course people have no choice, no way of extricating themselves from it. As three different factors combine, it will most likely get worse.

First off, there is an ongoing trend to make "public" space into "controlled" space. The zoning of different places where people hang out and socialize as "parks" means that suddenly there is a curfew there, that special rules apply as to what people can or cannot do. One of the major campaigns around police harassment of punks in the 90s specifically hinged on such zoning issues, as does the recent ban on dogs from two downtown parks, a transparent move against the street people who hang out there with their companions.

Another example is the relocation of various businesses within malls and shopping centres like montreal's touristy "underground city". This means that to go to a movie, to get a meal or to go to certain government offices means moving through areas where security guards can enforce make-believe rules and there is not even a pretense of anyone having any "rights", because when you are there you are on someone's private property.

So the problem is not limited to the metro system, and is in fact becoming more prevalent as police oppression is supplemented by layers of grey-area security guards and situations where people have no real idea what is expected of them or how the dumbfuck holding the nightstick is going to react.

Secondly, as the city has grown and the public transportation system has developed over the past hundred and forty years people's jobs, relationships and ability to participate in their own culture has become dependent on being able to take the bus (or once upon a time, the tram) or the metro to get where they are going. As many experienced a few weeks ago during the strike action by transit mechanics, many people's lives are structured around having to access the transit system. In a city where 40% of transit users do not own a car, many people - especially young people - have no choice but to take the metro, and subject themselves to the control of the metro guards.

Thirdly - and this is in fact what has prompted this posting - once an area becomes "controlled space" like the metro system, unless people resist the security apparatus will become more and more highly militarized. We see an example of this tomorrow as Montreal police will now be patrolling the metro system armed with tasers.

As i already mentioned above, incidents of security violence in the metro system normally end with the police arriving and arresting the victim. But hype around "crime" and also "terrorism" in the metro system led to the decision to have police patrol, at least initially alongside metro security guards.

When it was initially announced that Montreal police would be patrolling the metros there were some muted objections from "community spokespeople", but no mobilization or real resistance. Which is not to fault them but us - after all, that kind of thing is not the job of such "community leaders", it's the job of the radical left... or it should be!

These new police in the metro, it should be noted, were largely recruited from amongst the guards who already patrol the system. In a racist nod to the P.R. problem stemming from the pimping case of Alain Jean-Pierre (who is Black), it would seem that white guards were given preferential access to the new "higher status" police jobs. Not that a Black cop is anything but a cop, but this racial bias in hiring in certainly not likely to mitigate the problems we have already identified.

The provision of tasers to this new police section is equally worrisome. This is part of a long-term plan of supplying the weapons to all police in Montreal.

Already in 2001 SWAT teams were supplied with the electroshock weapons, then in 2004 the police operational centres were supplied ("we use them on prisoners when they get too violent," as one cop bragged the media) and as of last summer the four "intervention groups" - the ones who are in charge of attacking demonstrations and putting down acts of collective resistance - were given the weapon.

In other words, this is an ongoing trend - and this is an important moment in this trend, as tomorrow for the first time police armed with tasers will be in charge of controlling and repressing "ordinary" working class people, not demonstrators or prisoners or people involved in armed stand-offs.

Billed as "non-lethal weapons" (makes me think of "low tar cigarettes"), tasers deliver a powerful 50,000 volt electrical shock to their victim, but are not "supposed to" do any permanent injury. Despite the fact that they have been linked to two hundred deaths in North America - including several in Canada - and that "pregnant women and those with cardiovascular disease, people who are drug affected, young people, older people and those with mental illness" are all said to be at greater risk when being shocked, these weapons are fraudulently promoted as being "less lethal than guns". i say fraudulently, because they are normally not used instead of guns, but instead of other less dangerous forms of violence (i.e. fists or batons, which of course can also kill), and often even in situations where violence may otherwise have not been used at all.

Like pepper spray, tasers are used to punish people for not doing what police tell them to do quickly enough. For instance, i have seen a completely non-violent and polite handcuffed homeless man pepper sprayed merely for complaining that the police had taken his cigarette from his mouth.

This is the real reason police want so-called non-lethal weapons: they can be used to torture people. People like Stephane Datey, to give another example: last year this Quebec City university student was pepper sprayed after he had already been subdued, covered with a blanket and pinned down with a police shield. (Datey died as a result of this "non-lethal" police violence.)

In several of the examples of metro guard abuse i listed at the beginning of this posting, tasers would have most likely been used had they been available. In none of these situations were guns used (because nobody had any), yet in all of them guards were intent on inflicting maximum abuse.

Similarly, think of the situation i described a couple of weeks ago, where a thirteen year old Arab girl fell unconscious after being pepper sprayed by the cops. Had tasers been on hand she might well have been electroshocked first...

Furthermore, like pepper spray and fists, but unlike guns, use of tasers passes completely under the radar. According to police tasers were used 28 times in 2006, but nobody ever notices until someone who had been electroshocked dies - at which point suddenly the media will take notice of the "controversy" surrounding these weapons, though a coroner's inquest is normally sufficient to cover matters up.

So what to do?

i don't see any immediate prospects for stopping this. The radical left is of course isolated from the working class, and community leaders have had their five seconds of crocodile tears. The vast majority of people harassed by the metro cops will know what's what, but it's very difficult to resist physically or politically in an environment which is itself so tightly controlled in ways both physical and political.

Nevertheless, i think that there is potential to do something. People do go in and out of the metros, and those are locations where one can flier or organize. The system does have vulnerabilities - both in terms if the fares it depends on for almost half its annual budget, and in other material ways. This is an area where, especially around certain stations, there is a real and obvious combination of class, race and gender dynamics which can perhaps be teased out and turned into a tool for change.

There is room for creativity, imagination and life, even in the underground.

Let's see what happens.



Sunday, March 25, 2007

The Freedom to Wear What You Want



Men should not be telling women how to dress.

In fact, let me extend that: people should not be telling other people how to dress.

The only reason why i might dislike the hijab, niqab and burka is because i know that around the world many women are forced to wear them, this obligation often justified by a sexist and heterosexist logic regarding male sexuality (i.e. the idea that unveiled women are responsible for men getting all hot and bothered, and that this horniness leaves guys no choice but to act inappropriately).

But i also know - from my own personal experience - that clothing can symbolize different things to different people. An oppressive patriarchal symbol - let's say high heels and make-up - can become a symbol of resistance in other situations... for instance when a man chooses to wear them, or when to wear such femme attire means defying the priest or rabbi or imam.

Likewise, the entire punk movement took on semi-militaristic and violent imagery, even by so-called "peace punks." i think both Sid and Siouxie deserved to be punched in the face for playing with swastikas, but i'd be the moron if i thought they were actual nazis. (Muslim punks in the novel The Taqwacores wear israeli flags for much the same effect.)

I can remember when some comrades argued that drag queens should be banned from the movement because they were dressing in a "sexist" fashion, and i can remember when certain peace groups would not allow punks to join because of their "sado-masochistic" clothing (i won't even go into what actual sado-masochists got told!)

So i'm obviously not a Muslim woman, and none of the women i know wear niqabs or burkas. But i'm willing to bet that in the current racist climate gripping Quebec, more than a few women are feeling they should cover up - not because some misogynistic cleric tells them to, but because a bunch of misogynists from the white dominant society are telling them not to.

Defiance may not be the most sophisticated emotion, but it certainly is easy to understand, and impossible for me to condemn.

In fact, i'd written the above before reading the following article from today's Montreal Gazette, in which a young Muslim woman explains that if she doesn't wear niqab, and in the current context if she did she would be scared... and as a result, she is planning on wearing the niqab in future.

Defiance.

So what's someone like me to think? Not only me, but most of my family and friends would be killed under sharia law, so i certainly don't want to encourage the rise of right-wing Islam. The fact that i don't live in an Islamic society, that i'm stuck in a different corner of the capitalist patriarchy, doesn't give me a pass to forget the fact that around the world thousands upon thousands of brave and beautiful comrades have been murdered by the Islamic right.

Yet still: in Quebec as elsewhere in North America, the "anti-sexism" of Bush and Harper (and Charest) has about as much progressive content as the anti-zionism of Ahmadinejad or Nasrallah. And to side with the "secular" State in its attacks on Muslim women is to feed the dynamic tension that exists between "sexually liberated imperialism" and "patriarchal anti-imperialism", squabbling siblings who puff themselves up with declarations of hatred for each other while actually concentrating their fire on those of us who hate them both.

All i can propose is that with which i started: nobody should be telling other people how to dress. Most especially, no man should be telling women how to dress. No ayatollah, no imam, no rabbi, no priest and no "chief returning officer."

Here's the article from the morning paper:

‘IF I WAS WEARING A FACE VEIL … I’D BE SCARED TO VOTE’

RULING DENOUNCED BY MUSLIM GROUP
Controversy is unfounded, activist says – women remove their veils when necessary
ANDY BLATCHFORD
CANADIAN PRESS

A Muslim woman says the abrupt change to Quebec election rules for veiled voters will fuel a growing hostility toward Muslim women in the province.

“If I was wearing a face veil I likely wouldn’t go and vote on Monday,” Sarah Elgazzar of the Council on American-Islamic Relations Canada said in an interview yesterday. “I’d be scared.” A ruling by chief returning officer Marcel Blanchet on Friday means the face of anyone who votes Monday must be visible before a ballot is cast. That includes Muslim women, a scenario Elgazzar believes will keep many at home on election day.

Elgazzar said there has never been a problem with Muslim women who wear face veils.

“These women regularly uncover their faces to identify themselves, and they never asked for any kind of accommodation,” she said. “This controversy kind of hunted them down and they didn’t have anything to do with it.”

The issue blew into the open a few days ago when the Journal de Montréal published a story saying Muslim women could vote tomorrow even if their faces were covered.

Blanchet then changed the rules after he received threatening phone calls and read reports that some citizens were planning to wear masks to the polls.

Elgazzar said Muslim women who wear veils show their faces when necessary, including visits to banks, crossing the border and when dealing with police.

She said the current Quebec environment is “very hostile” toward veiled Muslim women.

“People here have the impression that they (Muslim women) weren’t ready to comply and that they (Quebecers) have won some kind of victory,” she said of Blanchet’s ruling.

Elections Quebec spokesperson Denis Dion said all voters will have to show a piece of photo identification at polling stations. If they don’t have photo ID, they must provide two other pieces of ID and sign a document before being able to vote.

He said there is no guarantee female returning officers will be available to check the identification of veiled Muslim women at polling stations.

Debate over reasonable accommodation of racial, cultural and religious minorities has surfaced several times during the election campaign, with Action démocratique du Québec leader Mario Dumont often leading the charge. Dumont has been hoping to tap into the unease many small-c conservative Quebecers feel about how far the province goes to accommodate ethnic minorities.



Thursday, March 08, 2007

Friday, February 09, 2007

Racist "Reasonable Accommodation" Anxieties: A Short Summary

The brief version will suffice for right now – what follows is “catch up” for all of you who do not live in Quebec, and so may not know what this deal about Herouxville, “reasonable accommodation” and such is all about. Those of you who do live here will probably find nothing new or particularly interesting in what follows... i’ll try to do better soon.

Here we go:

Over the past few months the media and certain politicians have instigated a “debate” about the threat immigrants are posing to “traditional” “real” Quebec culture.

A series of incidents in which certain non-Quebecois and non-Catholics have requested that things be done differently to accommodate their cultural preferences and religious traditions have been framed as a generalized us vs. them issue of “immigrants asking too much from the host society.”

The issues are of the kind familiar around the world. Hasidic Jews asked that frosted windows be put in at a YWCA in front of their synagogue, so that their men not be “distracted” by women working out in spandex. Muslims attending pre-natal classes requesting that the classes be made “women only”. Sikh children wanting to wear the kirpan to school. A Jewish hospital telling an ambulance driver he could not eat his non-kosher spaghetti in their cafeteria (to do so means that religious Jews can no longer use the cafeteria). Some daycare workers complain that their Muslim and Jewish co-workers get vacation pay on their religious holidays. (see here for a complete chronology.)

Worth mentioning: the above is a list of requests – despite inaccurate media coverage to the contrary, these requests were not all granted.

While the question was being constructed primarily by the media, in mid-January Mario Dumont of the right-wing ADQ political party made a point of staking out an anti-immigrant position (garnering words of praise from conservative nationalists like Gilles Rheaume). Defining Quebec as a European society with values based on its religious past, Dumont was rewarded with a bump in support (24%, a seven-point increase since last spring and the ADQ's highest level of support in nearly two years) when he attacked the Liberal government for “being on its knees” before immigrant communities, and called on unspecified measures to reinforce Quebec’s national identity and protect its traditional values.

Then a little over a week ago, the city council of a village called Herouxville entered the fray, effectively pushing the discourse much further to the right.

The city council passed a wonderfully brilliant – and horribly racist – resolution “welcoming newcomers to our community” but spelling out a few rules. Things like “we consider that killing women in public beatings, or burning them alive are not part of our standards of life” and “men and women play... hockey together, don’t be surprised this is normal for us.” As well as gems like “The only time you may mask or cover your face is during Halloween, this is a religious traditional custom at the end of October celebrating all Saints Day,” and “the lifestyle that [immigrants] left behind in their birth country cannot be brought here with them and they would have to adapt to their new social identity.”

While the intention behind the Herouxville resolution was clearly to state that racialized communities should not be catered to in Quebec as a whole – there are in fact no immigrant communities, or even Muslim or Jewish individuals, in the village of 1,000 – its disingenuous tone (“we would like to invite, without discrimination, in the future, all people... that would like to move to this territory”) and smart choice of examples (i.e. the murder of women) garnered it instant media attention from around the world.

Overnight, the town became something of a symbol for that broad current of anti-establishment nativism which is always just beneath the surface in Canada. People have written in to the newspaper saying we should rename the town “Hero-ville”, and similar resolutions have been passed by other villages in the area, as well as the city of Trois Rivières (one of the whitest cities in Canada, with only 1% people of colour).

With a provincial election looming, and white francophone Quebecois by far the largest voting bloc, positions taken at this point are unlikely to be good, and could have lasting consequences. Certainly, anxieties about immigration and multiculturalism are going to be in the news for a while to come, and will certainly be exploited by all sections of the political establishment. Racialized communities and ethnic minorities are faced with an increasingly hostile climate.

In this context the provincial Liberal government’s decision to launch a commission to look at the question of “reasonable accommodation” is really just more bad news. Charles Taylor and Gerard Bouchard – two white men, one anglophone and one francophone, ostensibly representing the “traditional” Quebec power structure – are to have a year to examine the question, hold pubic and private hearings, and come up with some kind of “solution.”

This public commission is very much a ploy on the part of the political establishment to defuse the quickly rising temperature of white racism, or at least manage it, getting it under control. But the very terms of the debate – putting the requests and demands of immigrants on a different level than those coming from other sections of society – are intrinsically racist, and in the end this ploy could very well backfire, providing a year-long soapbox for the likes of Dumont, or worst.

Which, again, is something that the political establishment can deal with as long as they have a handle on it. The economic future of Quebec as a whole, and the well-being of the Quebecois middle classes in particular, are directly reliant on maintaining immigration to this province. Not only to meet the labour requirements of the official economy, but also to fulfill the labour of social reproduction which for previous generations was carried out by super-exploited women – mothers, wives, nuns and (for the wealthy) “domestic servants.”

Barring some cultural counter-revolution, there will be no question of stopping people from immigrating to Quebec – to do so would require the reproletarianization of sections of the new Quebecois middle classes. What is at stake – and what the currently rising nativist movement has its sites on – is the degree of freedom and social power that the new immigrant proletariat will enjoy, or (conversely) the degree of oppression and exploitation it will be forced to suffer.

Within this dangerous situation, the only real strategy for those of us fighting for a better world must be reject the racist underpinnings of this false “debate”. Unfortunately, large sections of the Quebecois left-wing, trade union and feminist movements remain sympathetic to – if not plain out enmeshed with – the nationalist project, and many of the so-called “cultural communities” are similarly tied to the Liberal party. These ties can only hamper any real solidarity from the former, or resistance from the latter.

*************************

See also No One Is Illegal (Montreal) on Racist "Reasonable Accomodation" Debate.

For more background on Quebec, people may find last year’s posting Quebecistan? I wish... and my subsequent exchange with a comrade from NEFAC (More on the Quebec Nation) to be of interest.




Thursday, February 08, 2007

No One Is Illegal (Montreal) on Racist "Reasonable Accomodation" Debate

The following is a February 5th statement from No One Is Illegal-Montreal on the racist debate currently occurring in Quebec about “reasonable accommodation”... i hope to write more about this tomorrow, providing some context for those of you from other parts of the world who have not been following this, but for now this is worth reading:

As racialized and migrant women, we are outraged by the slanderous, xenophobic and racist propaganda that is being expressed in the debate about "reasonable accommodation".

We assert our ability, as subjects not objects, to exercise our own capacity to self-determine our lives; we reject the repeatedly paternalistic, and fundamentally misogynist, discourse about the State that will supposedly save us from our own cultures.

We assert that such a discourse is both racist and sexist. It is racist, because it perpetuates the idea that our cultures are fundamentally backwards and cruel, in contrast with white Western culture, which is seen as the ultimate achievement of civilization. It is sexist because it derives from ideas that render women childlike, or viewed as simple victims incapable of struggling for their own wellbeing.

This idea of "civilization" is intrinsically linked to the colonial mentality that led to the genocide of the indigenous peoples of the Americas. It is a genocide that persists when, by way of example, the disappearance of more than five-hundred indigenous women in Canada continues to be treated with contempt and indifference.

We reject the mass media's simplistic and reductive conception of women's "rights". While we actively assert our "right" to freedom, safety and dignity as articulated in the traditional paradigm of "human rights", we also assert our "right" to the expression of our cultural and religious identities.

We celebrate the diversity and dynamism of our cultures and our identities – including our different sexual orientations as queer, lesbian, trans, straight, or other forms of self-identification -- and refuse the simplistic caricatures that reduce our multiple communities to homogeneous and uncontested representations of a monolithic tradition.

In this respect, we reassert the dynamic nature of the various manifestations of our beliefs or cultural identities, which express themselves within a larger social and political context.

In particular, we observe that the analysis of the oppression of women and gender inequality, as expressed in the mass media, as strictly a phenomenon internal to religions, explicitly ignores the external, universal systems of patriarchy and sexism which all women face, while also definitively homogenizing religion.

We denounce the role of the State and its structures in the marginalization of racialized and migrant women, whether they are religious or not.

The actions of the State and the capitalism contribute to making the status of migrant women more precarious by increasing the barriers to obtaining legal status through various forms of systemic discrimination, and increasing the vulnerability of women by their criminalization.

We also denounce the complicity of the imperialist feminist discourse which, under the cover of supposed solidarity, imposes Eurocentric and assimilationist ideas gender equality. We are critical of the dominant feminist paradigm that privileges the choices of Western women as the sole path towards liberation, despite the overpowering reality of daily sexism that Western women face.

We are conscious of the way in which this discourse continues to be manipulated and used by pro-war, anti-immigrant proponents. We recognize the historical continuity of the appropriation and manipulation of feminist discourse by colonial and imperialist movements throughout the world.

However, we are not supporters of cultural relativism that tends to justify oppressive and unjust practices in the name of the "difference". We remain vigilant so that the freedom of religion does not prevent us from fighting actively against oppression.

To show true solidarity, we must listen to the women that we claim to support in their struggle, and we must understand that we occupy different positions of privilege and power.

To do this, we must actively fight against the dehumanization of racialized and faith communities, and against the victimization of women. We must support the women who are on the frontlines of their own struggles for liberation, and subjects, not objects, of their own transformation. We must engage in this process not motivated by pity or charity, but by a true sense of solidarity and respect.

-- No One Is Illegal-Montreal.
-----

--> If you wish to support this statement as a group or individual,
please get in touch. If you want to help plan actions against the
racism underlying this debate, please get in touch as well!

noii-montreal@resist.cahttp://nooneisillegal-montreal.blogspot.com514-848-7583

[Translated from the original French on the NOII blog]


Categories: , , , , , ,



Thursday, November 16, 2006

Let Them Eat Brains - Thoughts on Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette



I watched the fairly empty and completely uninformative movie Marie-Antoinette the other day – really a film which is only of interest as a clever commentary on cluelessness.

Many of us, after all, know who Marie-Antoinette was, have some idea of how the majority of people living in France suffered great poverty and deprivation under her reign, and know that eventually she was beheaded following the French Revolution. So the film “works” for us in that we see Kirsten Dunst playing a monarch concerned with pastries, clothes, lovers, theatre and her own marriage and children... and largely oblivious to all else. This “all else” is completely missing from the film right up until the last five minutes, when suddenly the king and queen must flee Versailles as a revolution suddenly sweeps in.

To those who don’t know their French history, the masses must appear as a jarring and improbable deus ex machina. Stranger than fiction, so to speak.

Which could be seen as a clever commentary on many things. The way many are blinkered by their class perspective. The fact that your ignorance won’t save you, won’t be accepted as an excuse. Perhaps even that the make-believe world of American civilization is not only unreal, but blocks so many of us – so many of us sitting in theaters here watching this clueless queen – from seeing the real life drama we are all enmeshed in. What we think is important in our lives may not be what turns out to be important, may not even be relevant when seen in its proper perspective.

Or it could just be a completely vapid movie, tarnished by the need to mention that the masses did indeed intrude on Marie-Antoinette’s life, no matter how little she may have thought about them before they took center stage. A movie that otherwise would have just been a watered down version of Sofia Coppola’s previous exploration of emptiness (in which Dunst played a more minor role), the horrendous Lost In Translation, albeit with prettier clothing and no Japanese extras.

That a politically interesting film about Marie-Antoinette could have been made goes without saying. Everything from the crimes of the monarchy to the way in which popular revolt was channeled both into support to the bourgeoisie and into a kind of xenophobic misogyny directed at the Austrian-born queen, who was an accused of engaging in incest, bestiality and lesbianism in revolutionary porn pamphlets with names like “The Royal Dildo.”

I don’t know if this reminds me of Hugo Chavez claiming Condoleeza Rice wants to bed him (“a sacrifice i am not willing to make for my country,” said the Venezuelan left-populist) or the kind of fun the tabloids have with Hillary Clinton... and i certainly am not implying that the queen (any more than Rice or Clinton) had a right to hold onto her head... but y’know it’s an angle i’d love to see explored more.

An interesting cultural cross-connection in the movie: if you watch it, pay attention to the scene as the royal family flee Versailles. What does this remind you of? It’s twilight and it’s quiet and it’s creepy, and the only characters are looking out at an empty landscape. What they had previously known as a tamed garden now appears as supernatural wilderness.

I don’t know about you, but my conditioned reflexes went “Where are the zombies?”

It’s true: the peasant mob of old reappears in all manner of movies as the modern zombie. Subhuman, sub-rational, scary and unpredictable. I’ve suggested before that zombies are pop cultural representatives of the insurgent oppressed, embodying all the things the privileged expect of their lessers. Part Mau Mau, part leper, cannibalistic and all bad. Or at least so the metropolitan mind would have it.

Imagine the possibilities were George Romero to make the next movie about this headless monarch...



Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Violence Against Indigenous Women: Canada's Highway of Tears




Heads up: journalist Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy has written about Canada’s Highway of Tears – the stretch of road in northern “British Columbia” where so many indigenous women have been disappeared over the past decades.

Since 1988 over 500 indigenous women have “gone missing” across Canada. Victims of racism, victims of patriarchy, victims of capitalism… all dimensions of Canadian colonialism. Of Canadian nationhood.

The murder and disappearance of so many indigenous women is simply another manifestation of the same process which sees First Nations women (who represent 2% of the “Canadian” population) making up almost one out of every two women incarcerated in a maximum security penitentiary.

A manifestation of the same cold hard facts which see indigenous women between the ages of 25 and 44 being five times more likely than other women to die as a result of violence.

Born in Karachi, Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy was the first woman in her Pakistani family to receive a Western education. You can read more about her and about her recent film highway of Tears on her website here.

For more information about violence against indigenous women in Canada, one might also want to check out the October 2004 report from Amnesty International: Stolen Sisters: A Human Rights Response to discrimination and violence against Indigenous Women in Canada and the Stolen Sisters page they have up on their website.



Thursday, December 08, 2005

Caliban and the Witch [Part Three of Four]



Caliban and the Witch
Women the Body and Primitive Accumulation
(Sylvia Federici, Autonomedia 2004)

reviewed by Karl Kersplebedeb

Here is the third part of my four-part review of Sylvia Federici's Caliban and the Witch - the best book i read in 2006.

Please note that a tidier and shorter version of this review is appearing in the journal Upping the Anti (#2) in December 2005.
(for information on Upping the Anti please visit the
Autonomy and Solidarity website.)

If you are just joining us, you may prefer to start with the First Installment which you can view here.

(The second and fourth parts can be viewed here.)

Please also note that the entire review is now up on the Kersplebedeb website in html and pdf format!




Men Were the Key: A Tragedy in Three Acts


A careful reading of Caliban and the Witch allows us to see that the capitalist counter-revolution was built around male violence against women.


As noted above, class warfare repeatedly forced the Church and nobles to retreat, resorting to defensive maneuvers. It now must be added that all too often these maneuvers laid the basis for more advanced forms of exploitation and left the ruling class in a position to regain the upper hand. One way this happened was by manipulating differences within the working class, by intensifying the exploitation of some sections in order to reduce pressure on, or even buy off, other sections. This has been done time and time again within our own recent history, along the fault-lines of race, sex and nation. Federici describes this as being one part of primitive accumulation, which “was also an accumulation of differences and divisions within the working class, whereby hierarchies built upon gender, as well as ‘race’ and age, become constitutive of class rule, and the formation of the modern proletariat.”[20]

ACT ONE


The first example of this “accumulation of differences” that Federici gives is “commutation,” whereby serfdom was effectively ended in the 12th and 13th centuries, with rent and taxes replacing forced labour. This prefigured many contemporary reforms in that “like many workers’ ‘victories’ which only in part satisfy the original demands, commutation too co-opted the goals of the struggle, functioning as a means of social division and contributing to the disintegration of the feudal village.”[21]

Previously, land had been held by the serf family (not just the husband), and the terms of servitude had been hereditary; now the land was rented (generally just to the “free” man) and the relationship was regulated by money. A very small minority who were lucky enough to live on the best plots were able to pay and even hire other peasants to work for them, but the vast majority found it difficult to pay, sometimes falling into debt, sometimes even losing their land.

This new class division had gender, and women were now often barred from possessing or inheriting land in their own name. Little wonder that they formed a majority of those who migrated to the towns and cities, and that they would be so prominent within the heretical sects.


ACT TWO


Two hundred years later, when as a consequence of widespread class revolt and the aftereffects of the plague the ruling class was again pushed to the brink, opportunism and division amongst the oppressed once more proved key. Federici explains how the rebelliousness of male workers was channeled into sexual violence, women’s bodies providing a pleasant diversion and safety valve to relieve social pressure. Drawing on the Jacques Rossiaud’s research about prostitution in 15th century France[22], she describes a literal rape movement, whereby sexual assaults on any poor woman were now tolerated by the authorities, essentially decriminalized. At the same time, state-run brothels were established where the masses of poor landless women could earn the money necessary for their survival. (This helps to explain the “ascetism” and rejection of sex by certain medieval heretical sects – as we know from our own era, when sex is being used as a weapon, celibacy can be a liberating choice.)

Rossiaud interprets the mass raping of women as a form of class protest; the rapists often believed that their victims – often maids, servants, or washerwomen – had sex with their masters. This is one of the most intriguing parts of Caliban, even though only a page or so was spent discussing it. Neither the internet nor most standard works on medieval women discuss this, so considering that Federici describes this as a decriminalization of rape, and as a ruling class strategy, more information about the previous legal situation and supporting evidence that this was a thought-out plan would have been welcome.

It would be important to examine this in greater depth as the scapegoating of women for the crimes of the ruling class is still with us: the class resentment that is subsumed in hostility to the “rich bitch,” the loose woman who betrays her class (or nation), the JAP, the “daddy’s little princess”... remember how Eldridge Cleaver bragged that rape was an insurrectionary act?[23] Consider the following passage by Maria Mies:

“This dimension of the relationship of men of colonized countries to men of colonizing countries, I would like to call the BIG MEN-little men syndrome. The ‘little men’ imitate the BIG MEN. Those who have enough money can buy all those things the BIG MEN have, including women. Those who do not have enough money still have the same dreams.”[24]

What Federici is describing in 15th century Europe seems to have been an early example of the “BIG MEN-little men syndrome,” which has since been exported to societies around the world. This was (is) not only class envy, but also a class conflict in gendered drag: male workers are offered free sex at the expense of women, for whom it spells a constant threat to any meaningful freedom at all.

This rape movement was a win-win situation for the authorities: both a carrot for the male workers and a stick for the female working class. And it was a sign of the times, for simultaneous to this rape movement a similar dynamic was playing out in regards to women’s labour. In this, too, craftsmen played a key role – campaigning to exclude women from their workshops, claiming that they were working for lower wages (lower than whom?[25]). So back in the 15th century, when people depended more and more on money to acquire the necessities of life, women’s ability to earn this money was curtailed to the benefit of men of their class.

“It was from this alliance between the crafts and the urban authorities, along with the continuing privatization of land, that a new sexual division of labor […] was forged, defining women in terms – mothers, wives, daughters, widows – that hid their status as workers, while giving men free access to women’s bodies, their labor, and the bodies and labor of their children.”[26]

One is reminded of Mies’ observation that “The process of proletarianization of the men was, therefore, accompanied by a process of housewifization of women.”[27]


INTERMEZZO


It is here that a second question arises, one that lay hidden behind the question of violence against women: the nature of classes, and of class alliances. This is a question that Mies has tackled head on, but when Federici broaches it, her argument seems inconsistent. This does not detract from the wealth of information and insights that she does share with us, but it does leave room for misleading conclusions, so it is worth discussing.

These were cross-class alliances, whereby men separated themselves from working class women in order to ape the privileges and power of their “betters,” and yet Federici insists that male workers did not really benefit from their new position, that the “state-backed raping of poor women undermined the class solidarity that had been achieved in the anti-feudal struggle.”[28] Furthermore, “the devaluation and feminization of reproductive labor was a disaster also for male workers, for the devaluation of reproductive labor inevitably devalued its product: labor-power.”[29]

This is confusing, as it seems clear that some working class men most definitely did exploit women for their own gain. They enjoyed a formal economic gain in the form of higher wages. They benefited sexually by having increased access to women’s bodies. As women were warped through the process of housewifization, men eventually enjoyed a hidden economic bonus in that so much work that previously had to be paid for or done by the male worker himself was now done by the female houseworker. One is also reminded of what Mies wrote:

“Proletarian men do have an interest in the domestication of their female class companions. The material interest consists, on the one hand, in the man’s claim to monopolize available wage-work, on the other, in the claim to have control over all money income in the family.”[30]

Because there is no explicit discussion of the nature of class – beyond her promising observation that gender can be a specification of class relations – it is difficult to know Federici’s rationale for claiming that these opportunistic acts were against men’s interests. Perhaps she feels that as men’s alienation and exploitation can only be solved by revolution, any behaviour that works against this goal is not in their interest; in this sense it might be said that although this opportunism was in their personal interests it remained against their class interests, but this formulation becomes unwieldy when we insist on seeing gender as a “specification of class,”[31] and unconvincing when we are given no evidence of male resistance to women’s subjugation. Men seem to have “voted with their feet,” perhaps resisting some aspects of class rule but often collaborating in new mechanisms of exploitation and oppression, so that like “whiteness” today, “maleness” in these instances seems to be the most important specification of class.

Whether or not the mass of men (or white people) are acting “in their class interests” really becomes a matter of what one wants to believe about the working class. From a certain philosophical perspective even the ruling class has an “interest” in abolishing class rule: it is obvious that once one has accepted the desirability of a classless non-hierarchical society, that goal seems far more alluring than waking up in this cesspool but finding out that you’ve won the lotto. But this is not usually how “class interest” is understood…

Perhaps one way to untie this knot is to acknowledge that men also must also have been warped by this process – becoming more sexist, less respectful of the women in their community, more prone to dismiss, to degrade, to beat and to rape. We are not told of any significant resistance to this transformation by the men concerned. So while the abstract genderless worker may have suffered as a result of these attacks on women, the new male worker was served by the increasing subordination of women – which in no way lessens the fact that this was a historic human tragedy.


ACT THREE: Still Higher Levels of Violence


We cannot know what would have happened had the balance of forces remained at this level, for events conspired to once again push the ruling class to the brink. Just a few hundred years after the plague, the labour shortage that continued into the 16th century due to the widespread hostility to capitalist work was exacerbated by a new decrease in the population (probably due to the increase in poverty as the gains of the 14th and 15th centuries were undone).

This was the era of the capitalist counter-revolution, and yet the new capitalist class could not create the labour they needed like they could make cloth or steel. Both Mies and Federici agree on this point that two of the greatest crimes of that age were committed to find a way around this crisis: mandatory procreation for European women and the mass kidnapping and enslavement of Africans. In Mies’ words: “The counterpart of the slave raids in Africa was the witch hunt in Europe. The two seem to be connected through the same dilemma with which the capitalist version of man-the-hunter is faced: however much he may try to reduce women to a mere condition of production, to nature to be appropriated and exploited, he cannot produce living human labour power without women.”[32]

While Federici does not deal with the effects of the slave trade on gender relations within Africa, and only touches upon the way in which ideas of male and female power developed amongst African slaves in the “New World,” she does note that “capitalism may not even have taken off without Europe’s ‘annexation of America,’ and the ‘blood and sweat’ that for two centuries flowed to Europe from the plantation.”[33]

What Federici does concentrate on is the war against women in Europe, the hammer of housewifization which “degraded maternity to the status of forced labor.”[34]

European men had been burning witches since the 15th century, but this had originally just been one part of the campaigns against the heretics. In the 16th century the persecution of witches went from the margins to being the center of this campaign, and the accusations changed from being primarily about religious beliefs to concentrating on sexual perversion,infanticide and reproduction. By the 17th century as many as 100,000 women were killed, and just as many more had their lives ruined by the accusation.[35]

Whereas Mies emphasized the economic role of the Witch-Hunt, the way in which the theft of women’s property was part of primitive accumulation, Federici convincingly casts doubt on this, pointing out that the overwhelming majority of victims had no property or wealth to speak of. Rather, this was a politically motivated war against women: what had to be destroyed was “the female personality that had developed, especially among the peasantry, in the course of the struggle against feudal power, when women had been in the forefront of the heretical movements, often organizing in female associations, posing a growing challenge to male authority and the Church.”[36]

Federici does us the service of contextualizing this mass murder within a growing hostility to women. At the same time as “witches” were being publicly tortured and killed, governments across Europe were passing laws against contraception, abortion, adultery, and especially infanticide – all of which were punishable by death. Other changes registered at this time are also worth mentioning: prostitution was now criminalized in such a way as to harshly punish the woman but hardly touch the male customer, the word “gossip” (which had meant “female friend” previously) now took on disparaging meaning, and – like women in Iraq today – new levels of male hostility forced women indoors, for to be seen walking the streets without a male escort was to risk insult or attack.[37]

If it is tempting to see the Witch-Hunt as just one detail in this rise in misogyny, especially since historians are now saying that the number of dead was so much smaller than previously thought, one should remember what these trials and executions were like. These were public events, which normally involved new and incredibly sadistic forms of sexual torture approaching vivisection.[38] The way in which the “guilty” were executed was also harrowing – drowning, burning, etc. – and the entire village (including the woman’ children) was often forced toattend. So the 100,000 witches who were burnt during the Great Hunt (if this number stands future scrutiny) would have had a very different psychological effect than 100,000 deaths on a battle field. The murder of each woman thus became powerful propaganda.

Nevertheless, all of these changes, and not just the Witch-Hunt, did come together as pieces of a larger puzzle; men with big ideas were making their dreams come true, finally summoning the necessary violence to snuff out centuries of rebellion and resistance to class rule. The draconian “pro-life” legislation; making money male by driving women out of the formal economy; the Witch-Hunt – all of this was supported by the leading intellectuals of the day. A modern process - “the secular courts conducted most of the trials, while in the areas where the Inquisition operated (Italy and Spain)the number of executions remained comparatively low”[39] – aimed at completely rooting out “a whole world of female practices, collective relations, and systems of knowledge that had been the foundation of women’s power in pre-capitalist Europe, and the condition for their resistance in the struggle against feudalism.”[40]

You can view the First Installment of this review here and the Second Installment here and the Fourth Installment here - or you can view the whole thing on the Kersplebedeb site in html or pdf format.

Footnotes


20] Federici, p. 63. [back to text]

21] Federici, p. 29. [back to text]

22] Rossiaud, Jacques Medieval Prostitution (Oxford:
Basil Blackwell 1988) [back to text]

23] Eldridge Cleaver, Soul on Ice [back to text]
24] Mies, p. 167 [back to text]
25] This complaint – still heard in anti-immigrant campaigns today, as well as in the right-wing of the anti-globalization movement –should be understood as one set of ambitious workers trying to increase the price of their skills (i.e. wage) by limiting the labour supply by excluding(and, incidentally, impoverishing) another set of workers. [back to text]

26] Federici, p. 97. [back to text]

27] Mies, p. 69. [back to text]

28] Federici, p. 48. [back to text]

29] Federici, p. 75. [back to text]

30] Mies, p. 109 [back to text]

31] Federici, p. 14. [back to text]

32] Mies, p. 69. [back to text]

33] Federici, p. 103. [back to text]

34] Federici, p. 92. [back to text]

35] Federici, p. 208. Previous estimates of the numbers of witches killed had run into the millions – German feminist Ingrid Strobl put it at “between 9 and 30 million” (in “Fear of the Shivers of Freedom”) – but more recent research which seems to be accepted by feminists puts the figure much lower. See “Recent Developments in the Study of the Great European Witch-Hunt” by Jenny Gibbons at http://www.cog.org/witch_hunt.html
[back to text]

36] Federici, p. 184. [back to text]

37] Federici, p. 99-100. [back to text]

38] According to Mies, “The torture chambers of the witch-hunters were the laboratories where the texture, the anatomy, the resistance of the human body – mainly the female body – was studied. One may say that modern medicine and the male hegemony over this vital field were established on the base of millions of crushed, maimed, torn, disfigured and finally burnt, female bodies.” (p. 83) [back to text]

39] Federici, p. 168. [back to text]

40] Federici, p.102. [back to text]


Categories: , , , , , , , , , , , ,



Saturday, October 22, 2005

Counting for Nothing: What Men Value and What Women Are Worth (and why anti-capitalists should care)





And now at last, and with some trepidation, on to my final take on Marilyn Waring’s Counting For Nothing: What Men Value and What Women Are Worth.


I have already discussed this Introduction to the Second Edition, and the First Half of this book in other posts. Suffice it to say that after having finished the book, i don’t really feel the need to retract any of my first impressions.

That said, seeing as i did get through the second half, i do have to say that it is here that Waring is at her best, making her strongest and most useful (to an anti-capitalist) arguments.

It should come as no surprise that what economists say is good for the economy is not necessarily what we would see as being good for the people trapped in that economy, and it is in this section (especially chapters 7-9, “The Value of Death”, “A Value on Your Time” and “The Eye of the Beholder”) that Waring goes all out showing how this is so. How capitalist development often means that “In the old days we were poor but there was plenty of food. Now, we have money but nothing to eat.” (to quote Dona Ettelvina, a Mayan villager, from page 194).

Of course, Waring’s focus is the way in which gender is built into the capitalist class structure, and she does a very good job exploring this. Her overview deals with militarism, “development”, pollution, reproductive technologies, breastfeeding, diet, the sex trade, rural women’s labour… and she ties all of these quite different subjects together, showing how they are all integrated into standard economic models in a way which heightens the exploitation of women by keeping their exploitation invisible and “off the books”.

If, as Maria Mies and other feminists have argued, patriarchy “constitutes the mostly invisible underground of the visible capitalist system”, then Waring shows how the United Nations and the entire mainstream of economics work to constantly reproduce this invisibility.

To get rid of this invisibility we have to learn to see through capitalism’s lies, and when we do so a new landscape of exploitation is revealed. To give just one example from page 146: “In the late twentieth century, the greater number of the casualties and victims of war are not the military but ‘civilians’ – that is, overwhelmingly, women and children. In the late twentieth century, the greater number of casualties and victims of the market are not the workers but the “economically inactive” – that is, overwhelmingly, women and children.”

Now to me, that is a worthwhile starting point for some really useful analysis. It is observations like this one that makes Waring’s book worthwhile. This is the “good part” of Counting for Nothing – and it really is good.

Just What We Needed: A “New” Revolutionary Subject!

Now as for the downside… as i mentioned last week, Waring claims that the exploitation of women occurs in essentially the same way in developed countries as in the Third World. Here and there she claims that all women share a common oppression, and she qualifies this as “slavery”. She also implies, and at one point even explicitly states, that all men have a common position – in a perhaps purposefully hyperbolic dig at socialist-feminists she states that “male workers are now capitalists”, and that “the property imbued in them is womankind.”(p.5)

Just to be clear: she is not just stating that all male suits, or all middle class men, or all white men, or all First World men, are “capitalists”, nor is she stating (as Leopoldina Fortunati has) that capitalism “sometimes wears a workers face”… no, she is stating that all men from the Third World to the First are “capitalists”, and that all women from the First World to the Third are “slaves”. As Gloria Steinem writes in her preface to the book, “women are a Third World where ever we are.” (p.xii)

Now, this kind of hyperbole is somewhat common in certain sections of many oppressed peoples’ movements (though thankfully less common than it used to be!), and it tends to be the anthem of a particular privileged layer within the oppressed, and this certainly seems to be the case here. Butch Lee in particular has provided a biting attack on this fuzziness. As she puts it in her book The Military Strategy of Women and Children:

“What’s it mean, then, to talk about the Witchhunt and genocide against women? White feminists today like to identify with the ‘witches.’ That’s what i mean, we don’t know who we are. We aren’t the ‘witches.’ We are the ones on the other side: the loyal sisters and wives of the euro-men doing the policing and burning. The sisters of patriarchy trying to protect themselves from the terrorism by submitting, trying to be the unthreatening helpers.”

It is often those women who are most privileged, and who are objectively offering the least resistance to capitalist-patriarchy, who feel the most pressure to “prove” the existence of a homogonous “class of women” with an identical “women’s interest”.

I suspect that this claim that Third World women have the same interests as First World women, that working class women have the same interests as ruling class women, is not unconnected from Waring’s focus on overhauling the United Nations System of National Accounts – the ruling class ledgerbook that includes such figures as the GNP, GDP and official unemployment rate, for example.

Waring’s strategy involves demanding that women’s unpaid labour is included on national censuses, that environmental damage and military production are included as negative growth (today they are obscenely counted in the same way as socially useful work and production), and that until this is done women should refuse to answer the census questions as they are told.

And this will topple the patriarchy!?!

Power Feminism and “The Powerless”

“Of course as long as men rule women there can be no real expectation of change”, she admits, and yet claims that this rectification of the National Accounts is a tactical necessity because “the women in elected and bureaucratic office would be empowered in their lobbying and work. And the information would empower the powerless – to change governments, leaders, and the nature of economic power.” (p.231)

Now the second part of this argument is clearly wrong – “the powerless” will not be empowered by their oppressors including their labour in United Nations statistics, and when they do rebel – in guerilla armies or peasant associations or communist parties or in countless informal ways – it is because of historical processes, personal convictions, the balance of forces… but not what it says in the United Nations System of National Accounts!

Clearly, given Waring’s own past as a politician who felt frustrated by women’s invisibility in the New Zealand National Accounts, it is the empowerment of “women in elected and bureaucratic office” that leads her to privilege this obscure form of feminist struggle. It is because of her desire to see all women – First World and Third World, poor and wealthy – as part of a unitary class that she interprets the success of this most-privileged layer of women as the key to liberating all women. As she somewhat incredibly states in her Epilogue, “when more than half of the elected representatives are women, the institutional structure of government will change: the impact of women’s culture in those numbers will see the hierarchy transformed. We don’t know precisely how, and that’s not really important. We know that the notion of power and its use would be transformed; we know that the substance of what is valued would be transformed.”(p.256)

Check that out: “We don’t know precisely how, and that’s not really important”?!?!?

i have got to say that this passage is such obvious bullshit that i am afraid it may discredit the very worthwhile aspects of Waring’s argument. After all, it is not hard to imagine a country which would formally impute women’s unwaged labour, but in so doing would simply formalize the higher level of exploitation that women suffer. After all, this is capitalism we’re talking about here, when push comes to shove there’s nothing beyond its pale, certainly not differential wage rates! Indeed, it is easy to imagine these “women in elected and bureaucratic office” acting just as diligently as their male counterparts in maintaining the overall class system. It is because Waring sees them as “women” unqualified – not “white women” or “middle class women” or “pro-capitalist women” – that she can identify their interests as the interests of the so-called “powerless”.

And yet Waring herself is not a “power feminist”, and she seems painfully aware of how silly her solution is, how badly her pro-capitalist strategy fits with her anti-capitalist analysis. At one point she is resigned to admitting that “While i knew that reproduction should not be imputed, I also know that we must insist that it be.” (p. 232), and she acknowledges that “our global ecosystem, our environment, all other species, our Mother Earth was still exposed to rape and exploitation by the national accounts, and the creation of visibility for women changed nothing here.” (p.233). As i mentioned previously, her Introduction to the Second Edition seems to be an after-the-fact admission of the inadequacy of her entire strategy. One gets the impression that her great ability to see what is wrong with the present system and her fervent desire to help us escape is not matched by any real sense that she actually knows a way out. If this is the case then hers is a predicament i think most honest people can sympathize with – one only wishes she could have had the courage to say so.

It is unfortunate that one can be both eloquent and clear-headed and yet also completely unrealistic and muddleheaded, but there you have it. Waring is not the only author who has examined a question, exposed injustice, given us a glimpse of how the world could look through new eyes… and then ruined it all by trying to sound “constructive” and tacking on a half-baked “strategy” at the end of her book.

Not Just the United Nations

If Waring’s book were simply to be applied to the United Nations, i would actually go so far as to suggest that readers limit themselves to chapters 7-12 and just skip the rest. But it is a useful exercise to go over her arguments with sexist economists because this problem, of discounting women’s economic role when it is unwaged, also has serious consequences for the left.

Maria Mies, in her book Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale, has already shown how the unwillingness of national liberation movements to consider the (primarily female) “informal economy” as being as important as the (primarily male) formal sector as guaranteeing the failure of attempts to uproot patriarchal attitudes and capitalism itself. As Mies noted “Our analysis of the socialist countries has shown that the maintenance, or the creation, of the bourgeois, patriarchal, sexual division of labour and of the nuclear family is the apparently insignificant gate through which reactionary forces can again find entry into a society which tried to free itself from the clutches of capitalism and imperialism.” (p. 223)

Mies looks specifically at China and Vietnam, but the list of countries where the left-wing and national liberation movements have discounted women’s work (and thus women themselves) with fatal consequences is a long one. In Chile, for instance, the left in the 1960s had a strategy that centered around men, largely because Popular Unity (the socialist party led by Salvador Allende) only related to the working class as workers, and working class women were considered to be wives-of-workers, not workers in their own right. (At the time 75% of women worked in the unwaged domestic economy.) Popular Unity tried to “out-macho” their opponents, appealing to male workers’ power but failing to integrate women into the equation.

The sexism of the Chilean left played right into the hands of imperialism, as it was the right-wing that managed to mobilize women in record numbers to oppose Allende. Radical academic Margaret Power, in her book Right-wing women in Chile: feminine power and the struggle against Allende, 1964-1973, shows how the right consciously developed a far more sophisticated (and in some ways less, or at least differently, sexist) approach, and this created a situation where women were in the forefront of the anti-Allende opposition, in a very real way laid the groundwork for the CIA-backed Pinochet coup in 1973.

Nor is this weakness –and the possible consequences – is not limited to socialists thirty years ago...

[the section that was here has been temporraily taken out as i discuss with a comrade how fairly i was interpreting some of his views...]

As i stated in my post on the first half of Counting for Nothing, i would hold to a more pessimistic view than either Waring’s feminism or the clichéd leftist position. Neither “women’s empowerment” (in the sense of getting more women elected to office) nor “worker’s power” (in the sense of workers in the formal economy managing society) is up to the task of resisting capitalism or patriarchy, rather what is needed is an analysis and a movement that would oppose both of these as two aspects of one system of oppression. Much in the same way that some revolutionaries have already grasped that to be truly anti-imperialist one must be anti-capitalist (and vice versa), i would argue that to be truly anti-capitalist one must be anti-patriarchal (and vice versa).

Categories: , , ,