WTF?

56 posts / 0 new

Sat, 2009-06-20 15:36

breezescream

WTF?

One more time.....

Martin,

"Get an ugly girlfriend" has you outraged, but epidemic rape of women and children in Africa compels you to respond only in terms of imperialism and racism? By the way, you still have not given me the courtesy of responding to me directly on that thread. Does anyone else here see a problem with this? Feminists, where are you?

I said this in the thread about rape in South Africa, but I believe it's worth repeating: Martin's HATRED for certain things and states seems to trump his concern for human rights. Because it's black men doing the raping, racism is the issue, but when white men are mysogynistic, all of a sudden women's rights matter most. WTF?

Now that we've covered my faux pas and my ignorance regarding the rules of posting here, will anyone respond to the heart of the matter I've put forth?

I've noticed a trend with other topics too. Do we discuss issues based on truth and facts? For instance, I note that discussions on human rights (or lack thereof) in the Muslim world seem to be taboo. Why? Discussion of women being stoned to death or slavery or gays being murdered in the middle east has nothing to do with Islamophobia, yet those topics are not discussed here. What gives, folks?

Sat, 2009-06-20 15:48

theboxman

And it has a long history too. See British colonial discourse on India in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Gayatri Spivak rightly identified this discourse of 'white men saving brown women from brown men' as a key component for the reinforcement of colonial ideology.

Sat, 2009-06-20 15:49

martin dufresne

"Discussion of women being stoned to death or slavery or gays being murdered in the middle east has nothing to do with Islamophobia..." Nothing, are you sure? It may have much to do with strategic intentions by poolitical forces that don't give a fig for women's rights. It seems to me that the strategic use of women's rights issues to justify the demonization, invasion and destruction of certain countries by Western politicians has been well-documented since the Gulf War.

P.S.: I answered your charge in that other "1 in 4 men" thread. Sorry but I have been away from the computer for most of the day.

2nd P.S.: Since you have only joined 2 weeks ago, how can you speak of my alleged "HATRED for certain things and states"? Are you psychic?

Sat, 2009-06-20 16:36

breezescream

Are you guys kidding? Political forces with strategic intentions do not change facts on the ground. The suffering and persecution of women and gays and blacks happens every hour of every day in the middle east. Again, "Whitey's" intentions mean we should not speak out, expose and be outraged by these abuses? Why does one nullify the other?

I noticed with bewildered amusement the thread about Queers Against Israeli Apartheid. Does no one see the irony here? Queers in Palestine escape to Israel just to survive! Why is there no group called Queers Against Islamic Persecution? And before people jump down my throat, this is not a comment about Israel/Palestine, it's a comment about selective outrage that seems to be about hating Zionism more than caring about human rights for gays.

Imperialism is real, as is colonialism, but horrific human rights abuses in some parts of the world are real too! Giving these countries that commit crimes against humanity a free pass is racism in itself.

Sat, 2009-06-20 17:06

Maysie

Okay breeze, I see this thread and am keeping watch on it.

For the record, rape in South Africa is horrific. The state has shown little interest in putting resources to stop it, however. We can see similar state non-responses to the rapes and deaths of over 500 women in the border town of Cuidad Juarez, Mexico. And the deaths of over 500 First Nations women in Canada.

Is there a connection do you think? What could it possibly be?

theboxman: exactly.

Sat, 2009-06-20 17:29

Refuge

I think the issue is much more complicated than what the British media is reporting. I don't know a lot about Africa and the colonial history (beyone the fact that it happened) but I do know a lot about colonialism in Canada and that sexual assault by colanialist when commiting genocidal actions within places like the residential schools has left very deep scares within the community. And now the pain and torture of those times is living and breathing in people and gets passed down to the next generation if proper healing is not done. Here is a paper about sexual assault within the native communities looking at it from a colonial perspective.

Please note it is very graphic when describing some incidents that have happened.

Maybe instead of the Bristish media pointing the fingers at the bad (fill in the blank with your favourite derogatory word) they should be pointing it at themselves to take responsibility for what their government has done to create such a problem in South Africa.

http://books.google.com/books?id=4VBSDlpS88cC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=sexual+assault+increase+colonization&source=bl&ots=_F4euG6s63&sig=LBW_wOFunJxACvC-zu8PqAnyqls&hl=en&ei=XlE9SrXWH4GGNeaN_MQO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4

Sat, 2009-06-20 18:36

martin dufresne

Just for the record, this bias isn't only about the women's rights issue, IMO. I have long been shocked by the biased character of the CBC and the BBC coverage of anything happening in South Africa. I think their journalists there or bureau chiefs here may well be people who are still smarting about the transition from apartheid to democracy in 1994. I have seen the same happen with Frenchmen who left Algeria in the early sixties - after it won its war of independence - and became the Western media's "experts" about North African countries. I am sure that with the amount of Western interest in Africa's natural resources, we can expect continuing strategic interest in painting resistant country leaders and cultures as animalistic, undemocratic and fully deserving of our enlightened armed intervention. If you look at the big picture, at the amount of stories filling the mainstream press, the countries really getting a pass are the allies of Washington and Ottawa, e.g. Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Sat, 2009-06-20 19:26

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

theboxman wrote:

And it has a long history too. See British colonial discourse on India in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Gayatri Spivak rightly identified this discourse of 'white men saving brown women from brown men' as a key component for the reinforcement of colonial ideology.

another colonial ideology is the invention of a brown, ethiopian, horn african, south african, and north but non-arab african race to divide and conquer africans. All those mentioned are blacc and african. Not a good example cuz Im not revealing my history here but remember where a little blacc sambo takes place.

edit - One reason it doesnt take place is because I hold the position too that when talking about certain issues when 1 person in a place of privelege it can sound like they talking down to another group. They gotta acknowledge that n it cool with me if women fine wit me talking about sexist issues then it cool na mean as an example. U gotta still discuss it ignoring it is worse Imo. It also on this board a by-product of the lacc of diversity on it.

edit- The thing with the rape thing for example was that primarily it can be discussed here but it would be discuessed very differently if it was just a buncha POC u know it another thing that we gotta deal with ima get it out der cuz I know ppl those wayz but agen keep discussing it here aint telling u to not but that another thing basically what I said b4 cuz it mostly white ppl on this board.

edit- The reason the polical part even comes up is because in a equal society u could just talk about 1 group, or 1 side of an issue and it would be treated the same as the other without other assumptions, associations, etc. That why the journalists have to break down both sides of the issue cuz 1 side in a position of power. In a un-equal society ppl who do report have a obligation to go 1 step further to help change that. That is if that's what they want...

Sat, 2009-06-20 19:58

breezescream wrote:

I noticed with bewildered amusement the thread about Queers Against Israeli Apartheid. Does no one see the irony here? Queers in Palestine escape to Israel just to survive! Why is there no group called Queers Against Islamic Persecution? And before people jump down my throat, this is not a comment about Israel/Palestine, it's a comment about selective outrage that seems to be about hating Zionism more than caring about human rights for gays.

If that's a serious question, do take a look at [url=http://www.pridetoronto.com/festival/human-rights/]Pride Toronto's Global Human Rights events.[/url]

"One law for the lion and the ox is oppression" - Blake

Sat, 2009-06-20 20:08

#10

remind

Thanks Ze that was an excellent read and loved being able to put names to faces!

Sun, 2009-06-21 07:45

#11

breezescream

Still not one meaningful expression of outrage articulated by anyone on this forum when it comes to condemning crimes against humanity in the Middle East. I can not, for the life of me, understand this. Stonings, hangings, rapes, genital mutilation, religeous persecution, and a whole host of other issues are completely ignored here. Is there an emoticon for confused exhasperation?

Sun, 2009-06-21 08:19

#12

Maysie

breeze, if you want to read faux outrage on babble about crimes in the "barbaric East" there are many other online places that you can read such cliches.

While the crimes you list are dreadful, there are specific ways these crimes are taken up in the mainstream that have nothing to do with the crimes being appalling and have everything to do with painting the "East" in particular ways to serve the interests of the West.

No, this doesn't take away the truth of the horrible nature of such crimes. But I'm not sure what a bunch of privileged Westerners (that's us, btw) spouting off serves, other than to reinforce the "superiority" of the West. And that's something we try not to do on babble.

My position is to look at what the women and other grassroots political folks are saying, in those countries, and look at ways in which they are resisting, and even, sometimes, what they may ask of the privileged West in terms of assistance/support. To do anything else is to reinforce "West=good and East=bad". If you really want to do/say this, you will find few supporters here.

Sun, 2009-06-21 08:47

#13

remind

Breeze have you ever done a honest compare?

Sun, 2009-06-21 09:07

#14

There are certainly people here doing solidarity work on those issues. My understanding of solidarity is to campaign in support, to help make silenced voices heard more. Not to "express outrage" for its own sake - that makes the issue about our sense of moral superiority, not about the actual needs and leadership of those we seek to stand in solidarity with.

I'll also note that the Pride grand marshall is El-Farouk Khkai, an actual activist on rights for LGBT Muslims. He has no problem with also being active in Queers Against Israeli Apartheid. It's not either/or. It rarely is.

I'd love to see a thread on how to effectively support LGBT rights in the Middle East, if you'd like to start on one that. Those started that I've seen haven't been about how to provide effective support, they have been thinly-disguised Muslim-bashing.

Sun, 2009-06-21 09:28

#15

breezescream

Remind, you've asked the perfect question. To me, all that matters is that we stand up for human rights for all, everywhere. For example, just because things are infinitely better for gays in the west as compared to the Middle East, it doesn't mean we stop fighting for ALL rights for that group here, to make things completely equal and fair. Aside from that, are you sure you'd be willing to receive comparison data on basic human rights for people in the Western world compared to those in the Middle East? I fear if I posted such statistics I'd be accused of racism. Why, I still don't know.

Maysie, thank you for responding in a straight forward manner rather than diverting the issue into one of imperialism and colonialism. I understand the motivation for not wanting to demonize Middle East countries, however, facts are facts and truth is truth and persectuion is persecution. Keeping silent about these crimes makes us indirect accomplices and prolongs the miseries of innocents in those places. I think folks here are politicizing a subject that shouldn't be political. The truth is that in some ways the West is better than the East and in other ways the East is better than the West. Why can't we be honest? The only people we help by keeping silent on these abuses are dictators, theocrats, power hungry, greedy leaders and mysogynists both here and in the Middle East, who benefit by oppressing the helpless.

Sun, 2009-06-21 09:50

#16

Maysie

breeze, you're welcome.

I can, in fact, go on about imperialism and globalization as being key as to why human rights abuses are being talked about in certain countries rather than others, in the news. And the connection between who is on the "in list" (according to the US) and who is not, depending on acquiesing to the almighty (failing) US model of capitalism and wealth.

breezescream wrote:
To me, all that matters is that we stand up for human rights for all, everywhere.

Here's where you lose me. Here are my questions about this statement, meant sincerely.

First, who is "we"?

What does "stand up" entail? I don't get solidarity work from this.

"Human rights" as defined by the United Nations, are actually a very narrow way to look at people, lives, societies and communities. The UN Declaration of Human Rights, is truly, a worthless piece of paper. If every country was boycotted, tradewise and otherwise, who committed gross acts of human rights violations against it's own citizens, Canada would not stand up to such a lofty standard. A look at the bloody history of the First Peoples of Canada will show you that.

Does this mean "we" (meaning Canadians) can't criticize any other country until we're perfect. No. But the pontificating and yammering on can wear a bit thin after a short time.

As for "for all, everywhere", well, the idea that human rights are a blanket that all can be wrapped in is (sorry to have to say this) part of what colonization, imperialism and actually, old school missionaries were/are about. "My way of life, however defined is the superior one. I believe in this so much I will talk to people o convince them, and if that doesn't work I will force them, and kill them if they don't fall in line." Yes, one can be of a missionary mindset even when talking about "human rights".

Sun, 2009-06-21 10:30

#17

remind

Breezes, you are suggesting by your commentary, that we here at babble do not stand up for human rights everywhere. That is erroneous, at best. However, moving along...

Do you know how many women, are raped in the western world and indeed in Canada?

Do you know how many women are murdered by their spouses in Canada, and often their children too? And how many women are assaulted by their spouses daily?

Do you understand that while we may not have capital punishment in Canada, other western world countries do, such as the USA?

Do you understand that homosexuals in Canada are beaten and killed just because they are homsexual? Say nothing of other bigoted actions against them.

Do you understand that Canada is commiting aparthide against First Nations?

Do you understand that crimes against First Nation peoples are treated less worthy than white people, and so too for those who are poor as opposed to rich?

Do you understand that our national police force is basically unaccountable and commits crimes against Canadians?

Do you understand that Canada has now gotten rid of women equity rights?

Do you understand that the USA has the largest prison population in the world that is raciially biased, and that they lose their right to vote, if convicted of a felony, say nothing of Canada's similar situation that has way more FN in jail than any other demographic?

Do you not understand how many people are homeless and living in poverty in Canada, which is a crime against humanity based upon class distinctions?

Do you understand that thousands of Canadian boy babies experience genital mutilation every day?

Do you understand the absolute racist nature of Canada?

We do not have free msm press in its current form here in Canada, it is primarily propaganda, every bit as much as totalitarian countries.

When you consider all things, you realize, we have no room to cast aspersions on any other country in the world, and we should be looking at our own human rights breeches, and social injustices, as opposed to wailing about others in other countries, in an effort to cast ourselves in a better light within our own minds.

This does not mean we do not support others struggling in the world, for their human rights too, but we need to do so in the manner that maysie stated above.

And when we see the western press trying to frame conceptions around the parameters of "we good they bad" it needs to be pointed out for the bull shit it is. This does not mean we do not recognize what is going on, for example in SA, it means we can see ALL parameters, and that we have no room to feel superior.

Mon, 2009-06-22 12:31

#18

breezescream

I'll give up now. There is no way anyone can convince me that just because we in the west have our own human rights problems means we can't say that in terms of that issue we are far far better off and more progressive than middle east countries. The society that does not stone women to death IS better than the one that does. I'm willing to bet anyone here would be thinking the same thing if they were buried up to the waste in dirt waiting for a bunch of men to start throwing the rocks at your head and face. The society that does not hang young homosexual boys on a Friday afternoon in the town square, that does not cut off the clitorises of little girls, that lets people practise whatever religion they want IS MUCH MUCH better. I also can't be convinced that imperialism and colonialism somehow forced these practises on those cultures. We KNOW those practises I've mentioned have everything to do with male power and religious doctrine, not the British and Americans.

Mon, 2009-06-22 12:42

#19

breezescream

I'll bet Mozhan Marno would say Western society is better (if she wasn't dead, that is)

http://www.thewrap.com/ind-column/tk-stoning-soraya-m_3794

Mon, 2009-06-22 12:47

#20

remind

breezes, have a look at this expose and tell me that you think we have moral equivalency in the west to castigate others.

And apparently you want to uphold your racial bias, it is not balck and white in the way you are portraying it. People can be are are against all the practises you mention.

Also, 10's of thousands of little boys a day in western countries have their penises mutilated.

Women's murders by partners and spouses in western worlds far out number the amount of women stoned in countries that practise that abomination.

Mon, 2009-06-22 13:22

#21

breezescream

Somebody pinch me. You can't possibly be comparing the practise of infant male circumcision to female genital mutilation carried out on 12 year old girls being held down and cut with a dull knife. And you can't possibly be saying women aren't better off in the west than they are in the middle east, can you? Women in the west can get an education if they want, they can marry anybody they want, they can wear whatever they want, they can say whatever they want, they can work wherever they want, they can live openly as Lesbians and even marry in some places (hopefully it will soon be EVERYWHERE). And I'll say it again, my assertions ARE NOT BASED ON RACIAL BIAS, no matter how many times you suggest it. I AM NOT A RACIST. I can't believe the dialogue we're having on this in light of what's happening right now in Iran, where half the protestors are women fighting and dying for the most basic freedoms.

Mon, 2009-06-22 13:29

#22

Caissa

As a circumcised male I find reminds comments offensive. I have not been mutilated.

Mon, 2009-06-22 14:00

#23

Caissa

Well, I don't see them posting here. I just see you deigning to be their spokesperson.

Mon, 2009-06-22 14:02

#24

remind

Well good for you, 100's of thousands, if not millions, of other men feel differently.

Mon, 2009-06-22 14:13

#25

theboxman

Funny that breezescream mentions the women in the mass protests in Iran in the same breath as the implication that women in the middle east cannot get an education, completely discounting the fact that many of the women in these protests are university students, in effect eliding the differences among various places in the middle east in terms of how structures of gender are socially circumscribed and regulated, as if the middle east were one singular, monolithic place and not an internally varied, internally contested social space. Is that not the very definition of orientalism being enacted there? Women in Iran can speak for themselves. They don't need 'us' to perform ill-informed ventriloquisms or to turn them into image-commodity spectacles upon which 'we' can project our desires. The irony of course is that it is these very assertions of Western cultural superiority that doesn't help them, in that it can have the consequence of delegitimizing their very real social struggles by creating the condition of possibility for their dismissal as merely the machinations of Western imperial political-economic interests. The task is to support their struggles (in their multiple dimensions against their exploitation by their own states, and against their exploitation by imperial interests) without resorting to these silly cultural stereotypes.

Mon, 2009-06-22 14:17

#26

remind

I have posted numerous links regarding forced male genital mutilation just a couple of weeks back. And I have every right to my own opinion about it and expressing it too and even being an activist against it.

Moreover, working from your perspective, then NO ONE can make comment about female genital mutilation, other than the girls and women who experience it!

Nor anything else that does not specifically apply to one's own self, for that matter!

And boy, if all men heeded that directive, they would never be weighing in on women's issues either. But yet we have thread after thread in the feminist forum where men either start the topic or weigh in.

It seems some men just can't handle women stepping into "their territory".

Mon, 2009-06-22 14:24

#27

remind

breezescream wrote:
Somebody pinch me. You can't possibly be comparing the practise of infant male circumcision to female genital mutilation carried out on 12 year old girls being held down and cut with a dull knife.

Dull knife?

And yes I can, it does not matter if it is a 12 year old being forced, or a baby. Both are equally wrong. The right to our bodies and their integrity once we are born, is our own.

Quote:
And you can't possibly be saying women aren't better off in the west than they are in the middle east, can you?

I cannpot personally say, never having lived there, but women's life in the western world are not so shiney as you make out.

Quote:
I AM NOT A RACIST.

Yes, you are, just as I am. But at least I admit it, and try to overcome indoctrinated racial biases and stereotypes.

Mon, 2009-06-22 14:39

#28

breezescream

It's your business if you'd like to label yourself a racist (and without knowing you I'm confident that you're not), but I'll say again, I"M NOT A RACIST, and I have already acknowledged that life for women in the west is far from perfect. My point is that it is BETTER. Tell me Remind, as a woman, where would you rather live, here or in the Middle East?

boxman, I'm well aware of Iranian women (and men) being highly educated. Obviously the issues I've raised here don't apply to every middle eastern country in exactly the same way, BUT, in all countries in that region women are oppressed in one way or another to a far higher degree than they are in the west.

Mon, 2009-06-22 14:42

#29

Maysie

What theboxman said.

Especially this, which is so wonderfully put I have to quote it.

theboxman wrote:
The task is to support their struggles (in their multiple dimensions against their exploitation by their own states, and against their exploitation by imperial interests) without resorting to these silly cultural stereotypes.

Mon, 2009-06-22 14:46

#30

remind

Again I cannot say, having never lived in the ME. Nor do I know if it is better here than there. I only know how terrible it is here for the vast majority of women.

Mon, 2009-06-22 14:58

#31

Sven

Is it the opinion of some that until the West is perfect (or nearly so), then the West is morally identical to all non-Western countries - and all people in the West should refrain from making any normative comments about any practices, activities, or conditions in non-Western countries?

For example, as long as some Western countries circumcise males, then that is morally identical to the cutting out of girls' clitorises and those in the West should, therefore, remain silent regarding the latter practice?

If that is not the case, then under what circumstances may someone in the West permissibly criticize the practices or conditions in a non-Western country?

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Mon, 2009-06-22 15:07

#32

martin dufresne

Well, shutting down the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp would be a nice first step to establish a modicum of credibility. I think our point is getting people to think about the exact meaning of our media and politicians' railing against the moral turpitude of the countries we happen to be attacking for their natural resources.

Mon, 2009-06-22 15:12

#33

Ghislaine

remind wrote:

Again I cannot say, having never lived in the ME. Nor do I know if it is better here than there. I only know how terrible it is here for the vast majority of women.

Seriously? How can you make such a comment with a strait face?

Perhaps you should read an Amnesty International report on Saudi Arabia sometime, just for starters. Personally, I thank my lucky stars that I was born in Canada...flaws and all.

Mon, 2009-06-22 15:14

#34

Sven

martin dufresne wrote:

Well, shutting down the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp would be a nice first step to establish a modicum of credibility. I think our point is getting people to think about the exact meaning of our media and politicians' railing against the moral turpitude of the countries we happen to be attacking for their natural resources.

I'm sorry but I don't think that even addresses my question.

Let's say that you (Martin), who has nothing to do with Gitmo and certainly doesn't advocate attacking other countries for their natural resources, has a concern about a practice of cutting out girls' clitorises. Should you simply remain silent because males are commonly circumcised in Canada?

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Mon, 2009-06-22 15:19

#35

remind

I do not think anyone should be silent about either genital mutilation practise, as I noted above.

The west in its colonial and patriarchial throes is not even close to being morally and socially superior to anyone.

Mon, 2009-06-22 15:24

#36

Cueball

Ghislaine wrote:

remind wrote:

Again I cannot say, having never lived in the ME. Nor do I know if it is better here than there. I only know how terrible it is here for the vast majority of women.

Seriously? How can you make such a comment with a strait face?

Perhaps you should read an Amnesty International report on Saudi Arabia sometime, just for starters. Personally, I thank my lucky stars that I was born in Canada...flaws and all.

Hmm. Have you ever read the Amenesty report on Belarus? Europe is just sooo backward.

Mon, 2009-06-22 15:38

#37

Sven

It seems to me that some view specific criticisms as general condemnations. Criticizing the practice of cutting out girls' clitorises in Non-Western Country X is not the same thing as saying, "Non-Western Country X is morally inferior to the West." If someone in Country Z (assuming Country Z does not use the death penalty or uses it less than America does) criticizes America's use of the death penalty, then that person from Country Z is not saying, "Country Z is morally superior to America as a general matter." Rather, that person is leveling criticism at a specific practice in America.

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Mon, 2009-06-22 15:41

#38

remind

Ghislaine wrote:
remind wrote:
Again I cannot say, having never lived in the ME. Nor do I know if it is better here than there. I only know how terrible it is here for the vast majority of women.

Seriously? How can you make such a comment with a strait face?

Perhaps you should read an Amnesty International report on Saudi Arabia sometime, just for starters. Personally, I thank my lucky stars that I was born in Canada...flaws and all.

Have you read Amnesty's report on CANDA?

http://thereport.amnesty.org/en/regions/americas/canada

http://www.nupge.ca/node/2331

And BTW, you thank your lucky stars only because you are WHITE!

Quote:
Amnesty International has just released a damning report, exposing the rampant indifference to violence against women in Canada. Clearly the world's most well known human rights watchdog found the case of women, and the egregious neglect of the safety of Native women in particular, too galling to ignore. The results deserve serious attention, as they point to the ongoing impact of colonialism and racism here in "the best place on Earth," as the B.C. Liberals' nauseating ad campaign likes to describe this corner of the world. Of course, it is right here in B.C. that one of the worst cases of serial killings in North American history took place and was ignored for years, because the victims were poor Native women.

As Canadians, when Amnesty International (AI) releases a report about violence and human rights abuses against women, our minds like to wander away from home to countries around the world. For instance, recent images of the Sudan might come to mind, where women and girls are currently being raped as a consequence of the war in Darfur. Or, our thoughts might turn to the women oppressed and victimized by patriarchal and religious states, like the Afghani women who were forced to wear the burqa under the Taliban regime. This subjugation became a symbol evoked by George W. Bush's administration -- using his wife Laura as a most unlikely pseudo-feminist mouthpiece -- to legitimize the war against, and occupation of, Afghanistan.

So the Amnesty report may prove shocking to many Canadians, who naïvely believe that our country is devoid of these types of human rights atrocities, especially in terms of violence against women -- over and above the culturally acceptable level of domestic violence, rape, sexual harassment, and economic exploitation that is currently tolerated. Our country will now be spotlighted among human rights abusers like Israel, China, and Sudan, thanks to the report, entitled "Stolen Sisters - Discrimination and Violence against Indigenous Women in Canada." The document details how First Nations women experience a horrific level of violence on an everyday basis, and how state institutions have a disinterest or indifference towards the safety of Indigenous women.

http://www.sevenoaksmag.com/features/33_feat1.html

Mon, 2009-06-22 15:52

#39

theboxman

Sven wrote:

If that is not the case, then under what circumstances may someone in the West permissibly criticize the practices or conditions in a non-Western country?

How about when all 700+ US overseas military bases, on the sites of which the commodification and exploitation of women's(and especially women of color's) bodies intensify in the form of what is in effect compulsory prostitution, are closed.

How about when the IMF and World Bank stop demanding structural adjustment programs that demolish women's livelihoods so as to compel them to work in "special economic zones" as cheap labor where labor laws are suspended, leading them to be vulnerable to all manner of harassment and social control?

How about when third world debt is cancelled, so as to give developing states the necessary finances to support the institution of social programs to help women in poverty?

Or reparations for colonial practices, past and present.

'We' in the so-called West -- whether directly or indirectly -- all benefit from these practices and institutions through their part in reproducing uneven geographical development that buttresses the political-economic conditions here. And even small gains in each of these struggles would probably help more women than expressions of outrage over cultural struggles that serve only to make us feel better about ourselves. Or to put it another way, how about instead of criticizing practices and conditions elsewhere, we criticize institutions here that contribute to the very reproduction of those practices elsewhere?

Mon, 2009-06-22 16:04

#40

Sven

theboxman wrote:

How about when all 700+ US overseas military bases, on the sites of which the commodification and exploitation of women's(and especially women of color's) bodies intensify in the form of what is in effect compulsory prostitution, are closed.

How about when the IMF and World Bank stop demanding structural adjustment programs that demolish women's livelihoods so as to compel them to work in "special economic zones" as cheap labor where labor laws are suspended, leading them to be vulnerable to all manner of harassment and social control?

How about when third world debt is cancelled, so as to give developing states the necessary finances to support the institution of social programs to help women in poverty?

Or reparations for colonial practices, past and present.

'We' in the so-called West -- whether directly or indirectly -- all benefit from these practices and institutions through their part in reproducing uneven geographical development that buttresses the political-economic conditions here. And even small gains in each of these struggles would probably help more women than expressions of outrage over cultural struggles that serve only to make us feel better about ourselves. Or to put it another way, how about instead of criticizing practices and conditions elsewhere, we criticize institutions here that contribute to the very reproduction of those practices elsewhere?

For the sake of discussion, let's assume that all of those criticisms you just noted are right on target and all of the actions which you just recommended should be taken.

Are you saying that until that happens, then no one in the West (including you) can validly criticize the practice of cutting out girls' clitorises?

If so, is the converse also true (i.e., those in non-Western countries in which clitorectomies are performed and sanctioned must refrain from criticizing things like Gitmo until clitorectomies are no longer permitted)? In other words, must a non-Western country also be perfect (or nearly so) before having the moral authority to criticize a particular Western country's practices?

Now, it would make sense to me that if the rate of clitorectomies in Canada was the same as the rate in non-Western Coutnry X, then Canada would have no business morally condemning County X's practice. But, what's the connection between supporting the IMF (in Canada) and clitorectomies (in Country X)?

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Mon, 2009-06-22 16:12

#41

theboxman

No, I'm saying that criticizing clitorectomies without challenging larger structures and institutions that reproduce the condition of possibility for clitorectomies to take place is hollow pursuit. Supporting the IMF in Canada gives it the legitimacy to enact its practices that produce poverty in the so-called third world, a poverty that makes local struggles there against practices like clitorectomy much more difficult.

Mon, 2009-06-22 16:18

#42

remind

What boxamn stated.

Though I will again add, criticizing clitorectomies, without criticizing the rampent practise male genital mutilation, is hypocrisy.

Mon, 2009-06-22 16:19

#43

Sven

Well, if that's your argument, theboxman, then I guess you and everyone else in Canada will have to refrain from criticizing anything outside the borders of Canada for a long, long time (i.e., until Canada is morally pure).

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Mon, 2009-06-22 16:48

#44

Maysie

Complex solutions are difficult for the "quick fix" among us, however well-intended.

Sven wrote:
If that is not the case, then under what circumstances may someone in the West permissibly criticize the practices or conditions in a non-Western country?

I believe theboxman outlined a very succinct position at post #25 above.

And I guess I need to be clear. What do folks here, who say they want to DO something about FGM (for example) want to actually DO? Please be specific, and I'm not being snarky. Talk to one's friends, family and work colleagues about the horrific practice? Tsk tsk in one's home while getting informed via the internet? Sadly, not only does that do nothing re. reducing the practice in question, it reinforces the West=superior trope, even if that isn't the intention.

And, not to go on and on this way (I can be a broken record in trying not to be imperialistic and all) but has anyone looked into what the women in the countries/regions where FGM is practiced are doing? Has anyone looked into seeing what they identify as their most pressing issues? Is FGM on the list?

In fact, yes there are movements, cultural and religious movements, to change, alter and decrease the incidents of FGM. I don't have all the info. GIYF.

And if you have money, you can donate to The Afghan Women's Mission

Mon, 2009-06-22 16:55

#45

Noise

Err, Sven...how did you go from "without challenging larger structures and institutions" to "to refrain from criticizing anything outside the borders of Canada"?
Is your arguement that we somehow gain a morale superiority by vocally critisizing, all the while propping up the institutions fundemental to maintaining the structure we're supporting?
Breezescream, would you justify the invasion of Iraq based on treatment of muslim women? How about an invasion of Iran? There are many that will use your cause to justify their own.

Mon, 2009-06-22 16:56

#46

remind

Awww... sven your strawmen juxtapositions are so.....amusing,

Mon, 2009-06-22 17:42

#47

breezescream

I think we've all lost our way here. This whole thread was started with me asking why no one here is ever willing to criticize countries and cultures in the middle east and Africa, and why the worst human rights violators seem to get a free pass, particularly in the Muslim world. All I've gathered so far is that many believe these issues are caused by imperialism and colonialism, that we should not demonize "the other", that we are all inherently racist, that the west does not have a right to criticize anyone because of our own flaws, that Remind thinks things are pretty horrendous for women in the west and that infant male circumcision is a proper analogy when discussing female genital mutilation. I disagree with every single one of those conclusions.

Noise, of course I wouldn't justify invading a country to save women from FGM.

Maysie, all I was hoping for was for readers here to acknowledge crimes against humanity and stop blaming the west for every ill that plagues non-western countries. As I stated before, many of the human rights abuses we're talking about have nothing to do with western intervention. They exist because of male power and religious doctrine.

Mon, 2009-06-22 18:10

#48

Sven

Maysie wrote:

And I guess I need to be clear. What do folks here, who say they want to DO something about FGM (for example) want to actually DO? Please be specific, and I'm not being snarky.

I think that is a perfect question, actually. In my opinion, I think financial support for locals who want to change oppressive practices in their own country is the best way to help create change.

At the same time, I think that some here might even disagree with doing [u]that[/u] because such an action (i.e., making a financial contribution) presupposes that the person making such a financial contribution has already made a judgment that the local practice is something that should be changed (otherwise, why make a donation?). I think that's troublesome.

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Mon, 2009-06-22 18:31

#49

martin dufresne

Sven, if you will allow me an end run around your straw man, here is a hyperlink to the "How you can support" page of such an organization where you (and everyone else) can send a donation: Baobab for Women's Human Rights

More info about local action on these issues.

Mon, 2009-06-22 18:38

#50

remind

I do not think it is 'we" who have lost our way.

Did you read the link I gave you above that details the current practices of a good many western religious leaders? And that is not even taking into considerations the autriocities they have committed in the fostering of colonialism in history and in "developing" nations, nor the Catholic Churches murdering millions of women in the witch hunts.

or are we just supposed to forget this shit and demonize others who are not Christians?

maysie, can you close this thread please? it is just becoming a subversive way to target "others", on the parts of some.

Mon, 2009-06-22 20:33

#51

Maysie

remind, in terms of closing this thread I think that some good discussion has come of it, despite breezescream's disconnect with seeing the larger picture and the role of international relations, aka, Do What the US Says Or Else.

Sven wrote:
At the same time, I think that some here might even disagree with doing that because such an action (i.e., making a financial contribution) presupposes that the person making such a financial contribution has already made a judgment that the local practice is something that should be changed (otherwise, why make a donation?). I think that's troublesome.

Ah, but if we take our cue ("we" and "our" meaning those of us who are distant from the issue) from the people who are actually affected by the issue, who belong to the community affected (for example, the issue of rape in SA that started this thread) then we can't donate money to an organization that doesn't exist, meaning, the people who are affected have already decided what needs priority.

The issue gets more murky if one doesn't have funds to give. In terms of sitting here in the West/North and passing judgements, well, neither passing judgements nor crying yourself to sleep every night will change anything. So basically I'm saying, do the action(s) that you can, and in terms of political engagement I always suggest starting locally. That way if one doesn't have funds one can donate time and other non-monetary things.

WTF?

Pages