Angela Marie MacDougall is a long-time anti-violence worker, the Director of Vancouver’s Battered Women’s Support Services, and a Remarkable Women award winner in 2014. 

Jess: How did you get involved in the feminist movement? What inspired this?

Angela: My earliest recollection of taking a girl-centred approach to being picked on by boys was when I was four. I came in from outside to speak to my mother, who was a caregiver for myself and my cousins, because I was being picked on by some boys. She said, “you better go stand up for yourself.” So, I went back out and I remember chasing the boy down the dirt road, off the property. That approach has been with me all through my life, all through the ages, through my teens. There were a lot of times when that’s the approach I took — standing in my power, and taking a stand in a way that was about girls.  

I became politicized in a more official way when my daughter was born, which was 30 years ago now. It really galvanized me. Based on what I’d seen in my family and my community, I knew there was a lot of male violence against women and a lot of inequality that was also racialized and rooted in colonial, white supremacist ideas about women. After giving birth to my daughter I really wanted to be sure that she didn’t have the same experiences I had as an African girl in colonial Canada.

Shortly thereafter, my high school friend was raped and murdered by a young man that we knew. So, that was really it for me in terms of rolling up my sleeves and knowing that more needed to be done to address the historic, legal, and institutional oppression that grinds down the lives of women. That’s when I looked for a feminist community, a women’s community, and an anti-violence community.

I’m trained in counselling, so my work initially was to support survivors. I noted a whole bunch of stuff happening within organizations that wasn’t helping — in the big picture — to address the systemic issues. They certainly were about helping individuals, but were not addressing the larger structures at play. So I began to take action in a way that was about the individual, about relationships, about the community, and about larger society.

Jess: Can you give us an understanding of where you’ve worked over the years and what your role has been in the feminist community?

Angela: I think I’ve worked for every single women’s organization available in the lower mainland, with a couple exceptions. That was mostly volunteer stuff that I was doing. I tried to be everywhere to figure out what was going on for women.

My official work was as a contractor for the provincial government, working with groups of young women that were involved in the sex economies, and being exploited in the sex economies; I worked with youth primarily in terms of my work. I would say that Battered Women’s Support Services is the organization I’ve mostly been affiliated with, as well as Surrey Women’s Centre. Those organizations were the two that I would say were organizing around politics, more so than just service delivery.

Jess: Is there one area of activism within that realm that you would consider the focus or your life’s work?

Angela: It became really clear to me in the early ‘90s that if we were going to address violence against women in this country that we now call Canada, that we were going to have to have a strong analysis of colonization, of patriarchy, and of capitalism. So I began bringing — what I understood at that time — a decolonizing perspective to my work, looking at the role of white supremacy, looking at the interconnections between inequalities, and how they grind down in women’s lives.

Women are stratified in a very hierarchical way in terms of the ways we receive or don’t receive protection: from families, from communities, and from the state. That decolonizing, anti-oppression feminist analysis started for me in the ‘90s and was really about confronting the inequalities that were happening within organizations, within communities, and within larger societies.

If we’re going to address these inequalities, I believe very strongly that’s the approach that that is important, both in Canada and globally. Colonization has been an extraordinary force for the past 400–500 years all across the globe. 80 per cent of the land’s mass was colonized by European power, imposing very clear ideas about women, white supremacist ideas about people, and other kinds of ideas that flow from religion and economies.

Any movement we have cannot ignore (and actually needs to be grounded in) that analysis given how pervasive and overwhelming colonization has been. Even now, we see migration and economic policies and practices rooted in these colonial underpinnings. Those webs continue to be linked and grind down women’s lives in very specific ways — that stratification. In terms of the women’s movement and dealing with male violence, that’s the analysis that has been my life’s work.

At the same time, I’ve also wanted to understand the coping mechanisms we put in place to deal with the pressure — things like substance use (licit or illicit), and our mental wellness, or so-called “mental illness.” Our behaviours get characterized through a medicalized and psychiatric model of women’s lives. So, in addition to that decolonizing analysis, we need to have a grounding analysis of mental wellness, substance use, and other coping mechanisms. We need to understand that to live in the body of an oppressed person is stressful, so we need to make adaptations to mitigate our stress and our pain.

Those two interconnected areas have been my life’s work. I’ve been at it for over 20 years.

Jess: What are the greatest barriers to tackling those issues right now or putting forward that analysis?

Angela: Well, we’re in very regressive time. We’re becoming extraordinarily polarized as a people, and regressive ideologies are becoming mainstream. We’re also looking at the decline of empires in a global sense at the moment — the decline of some major players — and communities are responding in very regressive ways.

These extreme ideologies are highly visible, in part, because of media and social media. That’s also a factor. Accessing and having more information gives us a greater sense of urgency and precariousness. There are movements underway right now that are very fundamentalist and very regressive. I’m not going to name one but there’s a bunch of them happening.

Jess: How do you take care of yourself when you’re doing this work? One thing that I’ve found, having been involved with both political and some frontline volunteering since I was in my late teens, that I do experience burn out sometimes from having to look at so much political garbage. It gets pretty disturbing. Are there any strategies you use that have allowed you to continue doing the work for as long as you have?

Angela: I’m thinking about various times over the past 24 years, like in the ‘90s — when I really wanted to take on a decolonizing analysis — feeling very discouraged about things, finding myself in the fetal position often, sobbing. At the same time, I was working on healing my own trauma.

I’ve had to pick different things over time to deal with the grief, loss, pain, and overwhelm. I was always involved the physical, being in my body and using my body in a way that could be considered exercise. But it’s also important for me to be on the land. I mountain biked for a long time and I actually worked for an organization for a while called Women’s-Only Mountain Biking where I taught women skills about mountain biking. I competed in women’s mountain biking for a time

There were many things that got worked out through steep, rooted, treacherous trails, where I was able to literally heal trauma through the physical exertion. Being on the land, being in the trees, being with the earth, was incredible. Then moved into other things where I would have to throw myself into a survival situation in order to stop my brain.

So, yeah, I would take me, my bike and my path and go on a bike trip alone. I would have to set up my camp and make my food and be with the land. That’s something I continue to do — finding ways to get back to the land. That’s the only way for me to survive, and I’m aware that the land is changing as a result of all these forces that we’ve been talking about.

I have the privilege of working in an organization where we can take political positions on things that matter and that is extraordinary, to not have to toe the party line, and to be able to make a statement. We’ve actually been able to see some changes — we’ve seen some things shift. The bigger picture hasn’t shifted, but we’ve been able to see some changes. So, those victories matter for wellness. I see it every day in women’s lives and I get to work with an incredibly dedicated, hardworking group of women. Everybody is up to their eyebrows in it — the frontline work, the legal work, and the systemic work. When I come into this place it’s like an alternate universe.

Jess: Who inspires your work?

Angela: My daughter and my mother are the biggest sources of inspiration for me. The February 14th Women’s Memorial March committee, which I’ve been on since 1994, is one of a kind as far as community organizing. I don’t think there’s anything like it in the world. All the great women that I’ve been able to work with on that committee, standing side by side over the past 21 years, are amazing.

Jess: Are there any ways where you’ve felt like you learned a lesson the hard way within the feminist movement? How can new feminists learn from this?

Angela: The biggest thing in terms of lessons I’ve learned the hard way, has been about the individual versus the collective, and how to be in a collective (I use the term “collective” in terms of a community, not the formal organizing structure). Colonial patriarchy has taught us that it’s all about individuals and about individualism — going about our own.

None of us are islands unto ourselves. We’re in a community. As a loner, as an only child, as one of the only African people that I knew for most of my life growing up, there were lots of things that were isolating for me and I became very comfortable being alone and doing my own thing. The learning has been about being in and working within a community, and within communities because I think that I’m within more than one community in terms of organizing.

That often means you don’t get your own way. That means I had to learn how to listen and hear and act accordingly. It sounds kind of simple, but it definitely was a thing for me.

Jess: I can relate with that as I can be a bit of a lone shark myself.

If you were going to give new feminists a message of encouragement or a word of advice, what would that be?

Angela: Find a community. Take responsibility for that community. Work hard. Take time to rest and never give up. Never. Ever.

The post Angela Marie MacDougall: Taking a stand & standing in her power appeared first on Feminist Current.

This year, Vancouver Rape Relief commemorated International Women’s Day by screening Sarah Gavron’s Suffragette, a 2015 historical drama that follows a group of white Suffragettes in early 20^th century Britain as they work to win voting rights for women. The film, which has been rightly criticized for its distinctly whitewashed depiction of the British Suffragette movement, is a bleak yet inspiring look at the tactics and personal sacrifice needed to bring about substantive change for women.

After overcoming some initial hesitation, the film’s main character Maud Watts becomes increasingly involved with the Suffragette movement during a moment when the movement’s tactics shifted from more palatable forms of protest to direct action including throwing bricks through windows, igniting bombs in mailboxes, and cutting power lines. As her involvement in suffrage increases, so do the costs Watts incurs, as she loses her job, her son, her home, and is arrested several times.

With each loss she becomes more resolute, as do others, including the character of Emily Wilding Davison, a real life Suffragette who died at the 1913 Epsom Derby after stepping in front of King George’s horse to bring attention to women’s suffrage. Inaction becomes impossible as these women lose more and more, leaving them with less and less to lose.

The struggle for women’s liberation has had other moments of determined, resolute action besides the Suffragette movement. During feminism’s second wave, from the 1960s to 1980s, feminist tactics ranged from protesting the 1968 Miss America pageant, organizing Take Back the Night rallies, picketing and vandalizing sex shops and strip clubs, to the Dworkin-MacKinnon Civil Rights Ordinance that proposed treating pornography as a violation of women’s civil rights and enabling them to seek damages in civil courts. Feminists realized significant gains, including increased legal protections against some forms of gender discrimination, legalized abortion and birth control, and the establishment of rape crisis centers before pushback from right-wing and religious groups quashed their progress.

In 1975, 90 per cent of Icelandic women participated in a one day general strike, refusing to work, cook, or look after children, closing or crippling newspapers, factories, schools, banks, and air travel to demonstrate the overlooked importance of women’s labour.

Since then, the individualistic, master’s-tool-using type of feminism that has become mainstream has pursued incremental, non-threatening gains that are unevenly distributed, disproportionately benefiting mostly Western, middle class, heterosexual women. And while life for some women has improved (somewhat), mainstream feminist discourse continues to ignore the struggles of our most vulnerable, and their relentless, collective work towards women’s liberation too.

Have moderate means replaced direct, radical action because life has gotten better enough, for enough women? Or, is that belief — a belief that doesn’t hold up when measured against global reality — part of what holds women back from large scale social change? If we look closely at how bad women around the world actually have it, we must ask why it isn’t considered bad enough to warrant decisive action. What else has to happen before we’re ready to do more?

There are quite a few well-established theories exploring the conditions that tend to be present in societies before moments of widespread and definitive social change — conditions that precede revolutions. Most of these theories agree that societies reach revolutionary moments when the interests of enough marginalized people are ignored so severely that the trust holding society together breaks down, leading to shifting allegiances, and, after a crisis, resolute action becomes the only option.

Unsurprisingly for theories constructed in patriarchy, where women aren’t considered a political group with distinct political aims, they don’t apply all that well to our struggle for liberation. Focused mostly on overthrowing governments, established theory ignores that women are oppressed by an interlocking system of economic, political, legal, and social institutions like gender, the family, and heterosexual relationships, all of which need to be dismantled and reconstructed in order for all women to be free. Recognizing that blind spot, a closer look at these theories shows they have some valuable things to say about where we are, and where we may need to go.

Let us eat cake

Societies work when the powers that be respond to the needs of marginalized people. It’s difficult to reconcile continued rates of male violence against women, and the way societies, legal systems, and governments around the world respond when women come forward looking for accountability, with the belief that our interests, safety, and freedom are given much importance at all.

Societies that were serious about addressing male violence against women wouldn’t blind ourselves to its gendered reality, where men commit 95 per cent of all violent crime, and 98 per cent of all sexually violent crime, instead churning out victim-blaming campaigns that encourage women to keep ourselves safe by restricting our behaviour. If women’s interests mattered, women reporting sexual assaults wouldn’t encounter suspicion, hanging under the spectre of vengeful false accusations and treated like entrapping, attention-seeking manipulators.

If societies truly served the interests of the female half of its population, a situation like we have in some parts of the world today, wherein male violence against women is increasing so rapidly it boosts overall crime rates, would be met with a determined and sustained response. Instead, with nearly twice as many women killed by domestic partners since 2001 than Americans killed in the 911 attacks and ensuing Iraq and Afghan wars, a proportionate response is seen as unrealistic, extreme, unfathomable. And while I’m not advocating for military intervention, it’s worth wondering: in the absence of some kind of a War on The War on Women, what evidence should women look to in order to convince ourselves that our interests matter at all?

Trust breaks down

Societies are less likely to reach revolutionary moments when they operate on mutual trust and a shared vision of the common good. These societies are usually tightly cohesive, traditional ones where most people have a sense that things are running more or less the way they’re supposed to. Large-scale social change becomes possible when that trust breaks down.

For women, the personal truly is political. We couldn’t be more cohesively integrated with men: they are our fathers, brothers, sons, friends, colleagues, bosses and, for some of us, our significant others. Many women are financially dependent on men because of the lower value assigned to women’s labour, others are trapped in abusive and exploitative relationships, many aware that women are 70 times more likely to be murdered in the two weeks after they leave.

Our gendered socialization only amplifies the power of these close bonds. Conditioned from birth to be gentle, small, and modest, women are taught that our worth lies in our relationships — relationships we must maintain through an unwavering, unquestioning propensity to put the needs of others ahead of our own. Encouraged to please and accept, we’re taught to doubt our instincts and to blame ourselves instead of demanding accountability.

Societies certainly try to convince women that the way things are is inevitable and unchangeable. With religious narratives losing ground to justifications rooted in biological essentialism, we’re told behaviour is rooted in biological sex differences — that the arrangements and institutions that oppress us exist because of hormones and hardwiring. And while these explanations certainly stifle hope that things could be different and allow for the status quo to continue, they don’t hold up to what we continue to discover about the learned nature of behaviour and the differences between men’s and women’s brains.

Does all of this add up to trust? If we are to believe that men who are violent or exploitative are that way because they cannot physically control themselves, how can we be expected to trust them? And why should we expect them to work with us in good faith for our liberation?

Considering the many ways women are literally tied to men and the intricate set of justifications our society uses to tell us why things won’t change, it’s no surprise that many women are unwilling or unable to stand up. That’s why it’s even more important that those of who can stand up do.

Allegiances shift

When the trust needed to keep society operating breaks down, revolutionary change becomes more likely when people with greater financial, social, and political power shift their allegiance away from protecting their own narrow interests, and instead recognize the common interests they share with marginalized people. These privileged people redirect access to power and resources away from maintaining the status quo to replacing it, joining with those marginalized people who have always been ready to make the greatest sacrifices.

Given today’s mainstream feminist movement’s support for ideas and policies that ignore — or actively harm — the most disadvantaged among us, it’s clear that what’s missing is the realization that the true measure of how women are doing is how our most vulnerable are doing, and not how much more comfortable the mostly comfortable can become.

There is willful ignorance involved in “reclaiming” sexual objectification as empowering without considering how this reinforces the idea that women’s bodies exist for male approval and appraisal, and the many ways that belief impacts women and girls around the world. There is dangerous myopia at play when Western feminists criticize female genital mutilation Over There while smearing those who recognize rising rates of cosmetic surgery closer to home as part of the same dynamic where women’s bodies are mutilated into shapes defined by men. There is narrow-minded indifference required to support sexual exploitation industries like pornography and prostitution, favouring misguided harm reduction policies that maintain a class of mostly impoverished, mostly brown-skinned women who are coerced with money into sexually servicing men.

Instead of recognizing that no women are free until all women are free, mainstream feminists leave our most disadvantaged to their own devices while shunning the radical and collective action of the grassroots women’s movement as outdated and irrelevant, remnants of a bygone era as opposed to the driving force needed to spur more fortunate women to action.

Crisis

The established theories agree that revolutions tend to happen in response to acute triggers — crushing disappointments after periods of steadily rising hopes. How does this apply to women, who have lived under patriarchy for thousands of years, and, besides a handful of revolutionary moments, worked within the prevailing power structures to try to change them? Does that mean it just hasn’t gotten bad enough for us yet?

That depends on your definition of “us.”

Domestic violence, overwhelmingly violence committed by men against their female partners or family members, is the greatest cause of injury for women. Studies show that between 35 and 70 per cent of women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence at some point in their lives. Women are 70 per cent of all people in poverty. Women and girls are 70 per cent of human trafficking victims, and 98 per cent of victims of sex trafficking. At least 200 million women and girls alive today have undergone female genital mutilation. By conservative estimates, one in four North American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. Chances are much higher for our most vulnerable: In North America 83 per cent of disabled women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes, and in Canada 57 per cent of Aboriginal women have been sexually abused.

How can we know these facts and not consider the conditions women live under a crisis? This is a crisis — a crisis we have been conditioned to justify and accept. A crisis that has persisted for so long that we’ve constructed all sorts of stories to explain why this is how it has always been, stories telling us why this is how it will always be.

So sisters, are we there yet? Are enough women impoverished? Abused? Killed? Are we ready to look outside our narrow experiences and recognize that our best chance to liberate all women is by working together for all of our interests? Are we ready to respond to this crisis for the crisis that it is, to begin forcing the institutions claiming to serve our interests to do the same?

Are we there yet? If we’re not, how much worse does it have to get — for how many of us — before we are?

Jindi Mehat is an East Vancouver-based second wave feminist who is reconnecting with feminism after several tours of duty in male-dominated corporate land. Follow her @jindi and read more of her work at Feminist Progression.

The post Are we there yet? appeared first on Feminist Current.

“We’re not in this for power,” he said. The man was a staffer at a multi­-million member nonprofit organization, and we were sitting in a planning meeting for a cross-­movement political action.

“Why the hell not,” I didn’t say.

“Why would you be working professionally for a political organization, planning political actions, and seeking to represent your members’ expressed political interests, if you aren’t interested in accumulating political power,” I also didn’t say.

It wasn’t the last time I heard something like that from people on the left. Some fellow travelers seem to despise even talking about taking power, and that’s a problem.

What I’d like you to do, if you’re a feminist, is to think concretely about being in this fight for the power. Not empowerment, or agency, or any other sort of change in your personal feelings about the material facts of your life. I want you to think about getting the kind of power that allows you to work with other women to improve the material facts of all our lives and society.

It’s one thing to be aware enough of anti­-woman laws to be angry about them, and another to be able to dictate what the laws affecting our lives will be.

Feminism will “win” ­­when its precepts are law and those laws are followed by the justice system in the way they were intended. That’s power. Accept no substitutes.

It’s hard to get that kind of power, and, in spite of some notable wins, there still isn’t a truly feminist nation anywhere on earth. What would we need to get there?

I’m going to talk about US national politics specifically, but I think this would translate to other contexts. I want to talk about scale and power in a complex democracy. To nudge a deeper conversation about what it means to build a movement that would be big enough to have a major impact on national politics.

So, there are about 322 million people in the US. About 126 million of them voted in our last presidential election in 2012. It’ll be more this time, but take it as a minimum that if you want to change the country at the national level, expect to need to motivate over 65 million likely voters.

That 2012 election cost $7 billion, by the way. That’s the cost of a media and organizing circus that gets 126 million people to show up and mark a ballot.

The last midterm congressional elections in 2014 cost about half that, at $3.7 billion, and represented the contributions of fewer than 670,000 people.

It’s hard to find even 100,000 people who’ll give you money, but how much direct support would you really need?

There’s been research done on the subject. Happily, peaceful changes of power are more effective than violent ones, and require less of the population’s direct support to manage. Let’s presume that we are, in fact, talking solely about nonviolent actions.

With the support of 3.5 to five per cent of the population, you have a shot at effecting a peaceful change of government.

Three and a half to five percent of the US population is about 11.25 to 16 million people. Let’s say we need a minimum of about 12 million people, to round off.

There’s already a left­-leaning organization in the US that’s roughly that big in terms of directly organized support: the Democratic Party. Peaceful changes of government are their mission, and they succeed against the opposition a middling amount of the time.

Not to get carried away with a model, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) also has about as many members as this calculation says you need, but they’re organized at the local level mostly for the purpose of affecting workplaces. The success of strategic, conservative attacks on unions at the state level helps make the point that although we can enjoy playing with these numbers, there isn’t a magic formula for winning in politics that will work every time, against everyone.

In 2014, the last big year for ballot initiatives, the average cost of a gathering a single signature was $2.27. So if you want 10,000 good contacts ­­and assume there will be spoilage or error, so pay for 13,000,­­ that will cost around $30,000.

An in­-person, paid signature-gathering effort to make contact with roughly 12 million potential supporters would cost about 30 million dollars. But how many times have you followed up with an organization whose petition you signed one time on the street?

Say you want more contact information to stay in touch. Asking for more information cuts responses and increases costs. You’ll need a data management plan to keep track of it all. Not everyone is going to want to hear from you again, or they’ll move, or change their email, etc. If it takes an optimistic 10 contact names to get one new enthusiastic supporter, your in­-person contact effort balloons from costing 30 million to 300 million dollars.

If you had the money to gather names in record time, it would still take years to turn that into a political program your members felt engaged in and connected to.

You can, of course, cut costs through volunteer efforts. As a former Jehovah’s Witness, I know it’s possible to do all­ year, all­ volunteer, in person canvasses. But realistically, you aren’t going to get all your members to put in 20 hours each, every month because they’re afraid of what Brother Smith thinks. You don’t want that, anyway. Trust me. Neither does Brother Smith, who left to run a boutique fashion business.

Luckily, you don’t have to build your own political­ party-sized group from scratch if you can either join someone else’s efforts or simply build a sufficiently large coalition to nudge another group’s policy and leadership selection efforts. This is a less expensive (but still complex) task.

Remember though, that any organizations large enough to influence a few percentage points of the population took years of work and negotiation to get there. Wanting them to change overnight because you have a new idea — one they might have even tried — isn’t a democratic practice itself. Convincing other people to agree with you is time consuming, but the alternative is neither democratic nor representative.

Then there’s national representation. California, my home state, has a population of 39 million people. That’s over a 10th of the total US population — bigger than all of Canada, which has only around 35 million citizens. All those Californians get two Senators. North Dakota has fewer than 800,000 people, and also gets two Senators. There’s nothing “equal” about both states having two Senators out of 100, but it’s what we have.

So national politics is also about location. Four million supporters in California would make a big impact on state politics, but their federal influence wouldn’t extend much past the limits of the California congressional delegation. If you got your desired 12 million US supporters all in California, your national reach would still be small.

If you get a candidate you like in the office of the presidency, it takes 2.6 million people to run the executive branch. Aside from White House staff and part-­time appointments, a new president will appoint about 3,000 people to manage those employees in line with the policies of the new administration.

Do you know 3,000 people qualified to run a government for a nation of 322 million? This is a considerable and challenging problem, which requires a network standing ready with recommendations.

Can’t just anyone do those jobs? No.

When the Coalition Provisional Authority was in charge of Iraq, ideologues with no relevant experience were chosen to run the stock exchange, the national budget, the health care system, and set up new cellular service. It was a disaster.

In a twist that became clear recently, dismissing the whole Iraqi government, right down to the military and police force is part of why ISIS/Daesh exists.

In two decades, Iraq has gone from being a modern, multicultural nation with an oppressive but functional government, to being a permanent civil war venue that’s worse in almost every way.

The intricacy and density of modern, industrialized society is too great to safely smash a bunch of stuff and hope everyone rises to the occasion.

Aside from the presidency and Congress, there are over 500,000 elected officials in the United States. If you’re stumped finding 3,000 appointees for the executive branch, try coming up candidates for those positions, or inspiring that many people to run for them under your banner.

No one personally knows 500,000 people who want to run for office. That’s what political parties are for.

There are the courts. You can pass great laws and they must still be carried out. In the US, rape laws may be carried out by judges who have appalling views on rape or an alarming degree of sympathy for rapists. It’s clear that sexual violence won’t be ended by showing up every two to four years to vote mainly for federal officeholders.

Fixing only one aspect of society, like the US criminal justice system is a task beyond the reach of any single elected office, as are many other institutions that affect women.

None of these issues are unsolvable, though dialogue can’t do the whole job.

Where’s your supporter list? What’s your outreach plan? How will you get cooperation from other groups? These are questions that should be in the back of everyone’s mind when people talk about movements.

Building for effective, long-­term change is hard — if it weren’t, everyone would do it. But they don’t. I haven’t. Though the people who instituted the laws we live by managed to organize successive networks of mutual support that competed to create our current social framework, so it is possible.

All that would be easier, you might think, if someone handed you a million dollars to go do whatever you want. But they won’t. If anyone hands you a million dollars, it will be to do whatever they want. And the 62 people with half the world’s wealth aren’t going to help us storm their castles.

I’d like to see more people who are committed to the liberation of women from male oppression, and who have an interest in institution building, go out and build more institutions from the movements they’re part of. Join them, start them, nurture them. Learn from the many ways in which movements can and do go wrong, or are thinking about reorganizing, and try again.

Natasha Chart is an online organizer and feminist living in the United States.

The post Women: Seize power appeared first on Feminist Current.

At 5:30 on Tuesday evening, just over 100 people gathered on the front steps of Vancouver City Hall to demand Mayor Gregor Robertson follow through on his commitments to women and girls. The event, organized by Creating John-Free Communities, Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution, and REED, was clear in its aims: Make Vancouver a john-free zone.

In 2009, Robertson signed a declaration naming prostitution as violence against women. Just last year, he signed a second declaration, committing to end “abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of modern slavery, which are crimes against humanity, including forced labor and prostitution.” Today, the Mayor has a real opportunity to keep his word, and to follow through on his promises.

In 2014, Bill C-36: The Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act passed, and, under Canada’s new law, paying for sex became illegal. While a number of other cities and provinces have taken action in accordance with the new law, cracking down on pimps and johns, the Vancouver Police Department, under the guidance of the Mayor (who acts as Chair of the Vancouver Police Board, the body that employs and oversees the Vancouver Police Department), have opted to simply ignore the law, stating they will only enforce it as a “last resort.” Instead, the VPD is following a 2013 policy that does not hold men accountable for the violence, exploitation, and abuse they perpetrate when they pay for sex, that relies on misguided and decontextualized words like “choice” and “consent.” This language and approach wholly abandons marginalized women who end up in prostitution through a lack of choice and ignores the fact that “consent” given under duress, by women who are impoverished, addicted, abused, coerced, and groomed through incest and other forms of sexual abuse, does not exist in any meaningful sense of the word. The City continues to issue licenses to the “massage parlours” that exist throughout Vancouver, who profit through the racist fetishization of Asian women, and continues to let men operate with impunity in the Downtown Eastside and beyond.

Since the new law came into effect, women’s groups have urged Robertson to take action. On May 5th, feminist activist Jindi Mehat addressed the Police Board, saying, “Prostituted women are most harmed by the decision to not arrest johns,” but that as a resident of Vancouver, “this decision [to ignore the law] harms all women.” She also pointed out to the Mayor and the Board that holding men accountable means addressing men’s beliefs about entitlement to women’s bodies, exemplified through sexual harassment and assault, as well as through buying sex. In other words, prostitution exists as part of a larger continuum that reinforces rape culture and sends the message that women’s humanity matters less than male pleasure.

Last night, women and men alike demanded more from our government. Indigenous feminist and survivor of prostitution, Jackie Lynne, reminded the Mayor, “You have the power to make the lives of Indigenous women and girls better.” Fay Blaney, founder of Aboriginal Women’s Action Network (AWAN), echoed these sentiments, pointing out that the very same Indigenous women and girls who go missing in Canada are also the one forced into prostitution on the streets of Vancouver. Indigenous activist, Audrey Siegel, questioned the Mayor’s priorities, shouting, “No more bike lanes till our women are safe!”

As the rally wrapped up, attendees signed letters addressed to the Mayor, demanding he take leadership and use the law to protect women.

A smaller group headed into the building to address Robertson directly, handing him the signed letters in person. Siegel reminded him of his position of privilege, as a white man, and his responsibility towards the Indigenous women whose land and culture was stolen and erased through colonialism, whose bodies are being abused and exploited by white men now, in a continuation of this colonialist legacy. Despite the numerous women who spoke directly to him, demanding action, asking, “How many more women have to die?” Robertson abdicated responsibility, once again.

While the City rests on its laurels, claiming “harm-reduction” as the go-to “progressive” solution to systemic oppression, women like Lynne want more, saying, “We don’t want harm-reduction we want harm-elimination!”

“Every woman standing here represents 1000 more,” Siegel said. How long will the Mayor continue to ignore our voices, our rights, and our fight for justice and respect?

Consider supporting our work with a donation.

The post Vancouver residents & women’s groups demand Mayor Gregor Robertson enforce the law criminalizing johns appeared first on Feminist Current.

Thousands of students at the University of Texas, Austin carried giant dildos around campus last week to protest the state’s lax gun laws. Student Jessica Jin created “Cocks Not Glocks” in response to a Texas bill, which, as of August, allows for the open carry of guns in all public Universities in the state. “We’re just going to normalize sex culture in the same way that they’re normalizing gun culture and see how they feel about it,” says Jin.

The thousands of veiny phalluses are meant to cause discomfort for pro-gun conservatives in the same way that an openly carried weapon would cause discomfort for those who fear for their safety, due to gun violence. Jin explained, “We want to force that kind of conscientiousness on people who are so ingrained in gun culture that they don’t understand the impact they’re having on the people around them.”

There’s only one problem with the basic premise of this protest: a dildo is hardly a foil to a gun. A gun is already a phallic object. It’s a symbol of power and a threat of violence. Many American males open carry for the very purpose of performing a threatening display of machismo. UT Austin students claim to be concerned with gun violence and the increase in mass shootings occurring in public places such as schools. Yet with nearly every single mass shooter being male, it is astounding that they have failed to sufficiently make the connection between gun violence and masculinity.

Cocks Not Glocks is meant to simultaneously protest Texas obscenity laws (both the University and state law prohibit displays of “obscene items”) which protesters characterize as restrictions on “free sexual expression.” Jin and co. position their movement for “sex-positivity” in contrast to the stodgy old pro-gun conservatives. But “sex culture” cannot be placed in opposition to “gun culture.” Between porn’s dominating male gaze and gun culture’s macho toxic masculinity, both are thoroughly pro-dick.

A writer at Bustle claims the protest uses “sexuality” as “an extremely powerful, norm-defying weapon in the face of injustice.” It makes sense that the liberal mainstream are fans of this style of activism — the Cocks Not Glocks protest perfectly exemplifies the ideology of queer activism, which celebrates “performances” that transgress social norms (such as public masturbation) as a revolutionary act for positive social change.

Foundational queer theorist Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick lists several queer performances of “identity” as examples that challenge the normative “monolith” of religious, capitalist state power: “leatherfolk, ladies in tuxedoes… masturbators, bulldaggers, divas, Snap! queens, butch bottoms… lesbian-identified men or lesbians who sleep with men… ”

Who knew that BDSM leather fetishists and all those men masturbating on the subway were actually nobly challenging oppressive state power and capitalism — wow! And men obsessively trying to sleep with lesbians are probably just trying to subversively “queer” sexuality… by having heterosexual sex.

Cocks Not Glocks is yet another example of queer activism which touts itself as subversively challenging the status quo while actually doing nothing more than celebrating the mundane patriarchal phenomenon of sexualized transgression. Uncomfortable with my massive plastic penetration rod in your learning space? Get over it! The protest has gained enormous media coverage, as news outlets gleefully take the opportunity to run images of pretty young college women smiling while groping erect phalluses and wearing t-shirts that say “Take It and Come.” A golden chance for marketing to key demographics, porn companies such as Hustler have donated thousands of their products to be distributed on campus.

I have yet to see any media mention of the female UT students who are less than eager to playfully juggle colorful peens for the camera. It seems that Cocks Not Glocks forgot to consider the way survivors of sexual assault might be triggered by the omnipresent dildos. Instead, Jin encourages students who are less cool with the protest to “strap it on” anyway, and “deal with the discomfort” in the name of their sex-positive cause.

How in the world did we get here? It seems that somewhere along the way, the American liberal value of tolerance morphed into meaning tolerance for dicks shoved in your face — especially for women.

While Jessica Jin’s desire to combat gun violence is certainly a noble one, a campaign premised on equating safety and freedom with masculinity and male-centered sexuality seems like it would only serve to feed the culture of male sexual entitlement contributing to so many mass shootings. Aren’t women confronted with public erections enough? At the very least, let’s agree that, since we already live under a patriarchy, ensuring dicks have enough freedom of “sexual expression” is one issue we don’t need to stress over.

The post #CocksNotGlocks — UT Austin students fight for dick-swinging rights appeared first on Feminist Current.

The first regional strike to protest violence against women and girls took place on Wednesday in Latin America.

An estimated 100,000 people took to the streets in Argentina after a 16-year-old girl named Lucia Perez Montero was abducted, raped, and impaled by a gang. After being plied with drugs and assaulted, her three rapists washed her, dressed her, and brought her to a drug rehabilitation center (while still alive). The center treated the case as a drug overdose until they discovered Perez Montero’s sexual trauma. She died the next day, on October 8th.

Activists called the October 19 protest, which saw many walk out of work to take part, “Black Wednesday.” Participants dressed in black and carried signs reading, “If you touch one of us, we all react.” In a heartbreaking public letter, Lucia’s brother, Matias Perez Montero expressed support for Black Wednesday, writing:

“We have to be strong and take to the streets. So that we can all together shout out, now more than ever ‘Not one less.’ Only this way can we prevent the murder of thousands of more Lucias.”

In Argentina, a woman or girl is murdered every 36 hours.

The night before the march, supreme court judge Elena Highton de Nolasco told the press: “This is a march against femicide. Cases of femicide are growing in number, they are becoming more violent, more perverse — we even had the news today that there have been 19 femicides in the last 18 days.”

Western media has often failed to accurately address the misogyny and violence women and girls in Latin America and the Caribbean face. Reporting that 235 women were murdered in Argentina in 2015, The Independent explained “femicide” as a term used to describe “gender-based killings.” But “gender” doesn’t accurately describe this violence: “femicide” is a legal and political term that exists precisely to highlight the fact women and girls are murdered because they are female.

Similarly, The Guardian reported that Black Wednesday protesters were fighting “gender-based abuse and killings,” concluding that “the campaign against gender-based violence has gathered momentum.”

The protests and strikes that took place across Latin America on Wednesday were not about “gender-based violence.” On Black Wednesday, Argentinians were joined by thousands more in Uruguay, Paraguay, Perú, Chile, Venezuela, Colombia, México, Honduras, Guatemala, Ecuador, and Spain to fight back against the violence perpetrated by males against women and girls.

We desperately need a feminism that centers ending violence against women and girls. A feminism that isn’t afraid to stand up and speak out against male violence, masculinity, and a culture of impunity. Latin America has the highest rate of femicides worldwide and men get away with 98 per cent of those murders, facing no jail time. It is important for feminists in the region to make this the focal point of our struggle, but it must also be part of a concerted effort worldwide —  all sisters must join together in this fight.

This is not the time for gender-neutrality. Black Wednesday demonstrates what a feminist movement focused on ending violence against girls and women looks like. It is time for all of us to follow in the footsteps of Latin American women and name the problem — not tiptoe around it.

And if that makes some people uncomfortable… Well, to quote a popular slogan of the Latin American fight against femicide, “Sorry for the inconvenience, we are being murdered.”

Alerta! Alerta q caminan mujeres feministas por América Latina! #Marchamos #ParoNacionalDeMujeres! @MovimientoEvita pic.twitter.com/GXNEC2ypMJ

— Mujeres Evita (@MujeresEvita) October 20, 2016

We hear you. We love you. We stand with you!#NiUnaMenos#MiercolesNegro#ParoDeMujeres#VivasNosQueremos pic.twitter.com/rbyJcKzoKb

— Polish #BlackMonday (@BlackMonday2016) October 18, 2016

Escuchemos este grito. Actuemos YA. #NiUnaMenos #VivasLasQueremos #MiercolesNegro pic.twitter.com/HHvTJjJCRo

— Sergio Massa (@SergioMassa) October 19, 2016

Ayer frente al #Habitat3 #Quito exigimos poner alto a la violencia #Feminicda porque
#VivasNosQueremos #NiUnaMenos 3/4 pic.twitter.com/nwoCPY68HL

— Vivas nos queremos (@Vivas_Ec) October 19, 2016

Como en otras partes de Latinoamérica, México se manifiesta por los derechos de las mujeres #NiUnaMenos pic.twitter.com/bRW0pSOjGE

— Sandra Mendoza (@smendoza_news) October 19, 2016

#NiUnaMenos #VivasNosQueremos Argentina, Chile, México e Peru pic.twitter.com/fjYV4F41O7

— Soledad (@Sole_Cifu) October 19, 2016

The post Black Wednesday: A feminism that centers ending male violence against women appeared first on Feminist Current.

Those who know me will attest to the fact that while I wear my emotions all over my body, I rarely speak directly from the heart. I think Lindy West is onto something when she points out in the New York Times that “It does something to you to always come second.” For me, watching my male friends get to be “more than just bodies” while I unpacked what it meant to be an intellectual woman in a pornified world made me terrified to be vulnerable, to develop intimacy with people, to acknowledge that I would receive far more social sanctions for failing to be adequately thin and plucked than I would for letting my mind and spirit shrivel. What that does to you, whether you call it “coming second” or “being a woman,” is that you learn to bury those best things, preserving them for a time when someone cares. You learn to create distance between the world and your best self.

And we’ll never know whether Hillary Rodham Clinton would have taken concrete action to dismantle the idea that no one cares about what women have to offer the world – many say that she would have merely maintained the status quo, and they may be right. But on November 8th, millions of people decided they would rather see an unqualified serial predator and white supremacist in the most powerful position in the world than a woman, and my temptation is to donkey-kick against each side of that divide, between the world and my best self, widening the chasm and protecting myself from a world that looks at me and sees a plump, menstruating body, and not a person. I thought about my dear dear brothers with Down Syndrome, too, and the fact that Americans have demonstrated their disregard for people with disabilities. And for these reasons I wept bitterly. I look forward to a time, maybe tomorrow, maybe next week, when that radiating lump in my throat becomes a little less painful.

One trend I’ve noticed over a lifetime of being knocked down as a woman, is that with each blow, I spring back faster, and I come back swinging harder. I’m not incapacitated by sorrow today, so it’s time to come back swinging. For those of you who have less privilege than I do, who need more time to mourn — perhaps you’re a person of colour, or an immigrant, or a lesbian, or someone who doesn’t conform to gender norms, or a person with disabilities — I get it. Take time to hurt and be angry. Part of my job as someone who has the capacity to come back swinging the next day is to care for you. For the rest of us, it’s time to get organized and I hope you’ll join me.

I think we can start by speaking from the heart, even when I’d rather speak from a place of cold cynicism, or distanced mocking. I’m going to go ahead and use one of the most tired cliches of all time, and remember that “the definition of insanity is to try the same thing over and over and expect a different result.” Einstein gets credit for that one but, who knows, it could have just as easily come from a plump menstruator who spent her whole life watching men get the credit for her pithy quotes. Anyhow, this time I’m going to do the opposite of what I’ve done before, and say that we need to be willing to start struggling and organizing from a place of profound vulnerability. That’s step one.

Step two. We need to come together as women and start talking about the everyday sexism in our lives. I know that the temptation is, as Canadians, to think that we get to watch this situation unfold in America as if we weren’t part of it. Unfortunately, the hatred of women doesn’t get checked at the U.S. border. It doesn’t need to because it’s already here. It’s here every time a native woman goes missing. It was here during the UBC rape chants. It was here when students at Dalhousie’s dentistry school discussed using chloroform to facilitate rape on Facebook. It was here when Jian Ghomeshi told a colleague that he’d like to “hate fuck her” in the context of a work meeting. It was here when Canada’s most prolific rapist was released without warning into the public with hopes that he could “manage his rape fantasies.” It’s here every time women go into a sales negotiation, knowing they’re going to start from a lower place than their male peers. It’s here when your faith organization calls male leaders “pastors” and women leaders “administrators.” It’s here when our company health plans cover pills for erectile dysfunction, but not birth control. It’s here when UBC students pay for their textbooks by selling their bodies to men old enough to be their grandfathers. We may not have elected an orange peel into government (yet), but we might as well have for how misogyny is handled here in Canada. Get over that smug feeling of superiority because we have a shitload of work to do.

Step three. Donate a hundred dollars right now to a rape crisis centre, so they can serve as an institution for our organizing, and frontline support to all the women we’re most tangibly screwing over by reinforcing white male supremacy. Alternatively, make it a Christmas gift to the women in your life. I don’t want a goodie package from Estee Lauder. I want to be able to walk down the fucking street without my keys laced between my fingers in one hand, clasping a can of mace in the other.

Step four. Start building coalitions now, and for goodness sake make them intersectional. This is not time to say “we’re all harmed by this.” We are, but some of us will pay for it with our lives, and some of us will pay for it with heavier medical bills, and some of us will merely find it irritating to see Donald Trump’s mug splashed all over social media, flapping his gums for the next four years. You’ll ask, “Can’t we talk about something more positive?” The answer is “no” for now. White women, this election result wounds us, but it doesn’t hurt us as much as it hurts black women, and immigrant women, and indigenous women, and disabled women, and lesbian women. That has to be part of the analysis from the start. The majority of white female voters chose white supremacy this election. We cannot ignore this. Christians, you shat on the carpet, even moreso. Big time. Christians need to be the first group to acknowledge that while they proclaim to centre their lives around a poor, brown radical, they want to be governed by a white rapist billionaire who spits on the poor and the racialized and the disabled. Acknowledge it right now and take a long deep look at what you’ve done. Chances are you won’t pay for it with your life, but for God’s sake someone else will.

Step five. Be bold. Take your best self and unrepentantly put it in the way of misogyny. Get out into the streets and put your body on the line — we particularly need to do this if we’re the kind of women who aren’t targeted by police brutality. Don’t wait for Indigenous women or black women to get their bodies on the line first. If you’re doing that, go back to step four. When you’ve put yourself on the line, wait for hordes of men to tell you that you’re irrational, or oversensitive, or hysterical, or too soft, or too hairy, or too ugly, or basic, or fat, or stupid, or jealous, or crooked, because that’s what’s coming. And then do it over and over again. That seems to be what Hillary Clinton did. She wasn’t perfect — it may even be a stretch to say that she had integrity — but she was tenacious, and I think we can learn from that.

I may not share my heart very often, but I have been listening to what my feminist foremothers have been saying. In the words of Lee Lakeman, it’s time to get “ungovernable.”

The message that just under half the population of America sent on Tuesday was that no one cares about women. The message I’m choosing to receive and spread is that women will rise.

The post Women will rise: yesterday we grieved — today, we organize appeared first on Feminist Current.

On December 6, 1989, a lone gunman walked into a class of engineering students at École Polytechnique, separated the men from the women, and killed 14 women. The event would eventually come to be known as the Montreal Massacre. Among other details that came to light were the gunman’s hatred of women, as well as a list of notable women in the public sphere he planned to kill. This act of violence against women took place at a Canadian educational institution and was committed by a man who observed women making progress in a field traditionally dominated by men.

Following the tragedy, feminists and women’s groups offered an analysis of the Montreal Massacre as a political act of misogyny and continue to organize women to the anti-violence movement. In 1991, the Parliament of Canada declared December 6th the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, connecting sexist violence to women’s inequality. Moreover, the tragedy served as a stark reminder of campus safety within educational institutions, and their broader role in advancing the status of women.

Despite this history and the lessons learned, the state of sexual assault on Canadian university campuses to-date demonstrates that there is still much work to be done.

Recently, influential Canadian authors came to the defense of notable writer Steven Galloway, who was suspended from his tenured position at the University of British Columbia after a female student made sexual assault allegations against him. Signees offered no support to the complainant, nor acknowledgement of the harms caused to her.

Male dental students at Dalhousie University caused outrage after misogynist messages about their female classmates in a closed Facebook group were discovered. All the men responsible for the comments continued their studies alongside the women they intimidated, degraded, and embarrassed.

In 2015, the University of Ottawa’s varsity hockey coach (who has since been fired) found out members of his team sexually assaulted a young woman. He thought it adequate punishment to administer a three-game suspension. The entire varsity men’s team knew about the event and did nothing. A third party report alerted the university administration three weeks later, and the hockey players will stand trial next year.

Our own university is not an outlier to this disturbing pattern. In April 2012, three McGill football players were charged with sexually assaulting a female student from Concordia University. All three men were permitted to continue both their studies and their athletics, despite widespread student outrage and protest. Since then, other students have come forward with experiences of sexist attacks involving members of the McGill community, intensifying discussion around what role academic institutions ought to play fighting rape and sexual assault.

Advancing women’s equality at McGill University

The discourse on sexual assault continues to evolve as we deepen our own understanding of violence against women as a symptom of women’s inequality. Thanks in part to the work of the Sexual Assault Policy (SAP) Working Group (an active student body) and the willingness of the McGill Administration to listen to students, a rich and dynamic discussion on the issue of sexual assault on campus has been ignited.

We are encouraged by the pro-survivor spirit adopted by McGill’s newly instated Policy Against Sexual Violence. The fact that women are not responsible for the sexist attacks committed against them is now widely acknowledged, whilst victim-blaming remains a familiar and openly rejected practice. We say this as a group of women in academia who have a stake in how our campus responds to sexual assault, and as women who are in a place and position to promote a fair and equal society.

Collaboration among McGill community members who share a vision for women’s equality and safety is crucial in allowing progressive solutions to emerge and develop. As women currently studying at McGill University, these are the principles we prioritize for this vision:

1) We are committed to the safety of our learning environment.

2) We are committed to equitable treatment and access to opportunities for women.

3) We are committed to the social and political advancement of all women.

4) We recognize the need to address the intersection of sex, gender, race, class, ability, and sexual orientation in all aspects of women’s equality.

The way forward toward a society free of sexual assault will evolve and become clearer as more and more people contribute to this important dialogue at McGill. In their letter accompanying the new Policy, Provost and Vice-Principal Academic Christopher Manfredi and Associate Provost of Policies, Procedures, and Equity Angela Campbell state that the University will “further commit to reviewing the policy on an ongoing basis,” taking note of the follow-up study and recurring reviews that have been built into the policy.

As a group of McGill University women looking to advance this iteration of the policy, we wish to add to that dialogue in the interest of all women on campus — including ourselves.

Considerations for advancing and implementing the policy against Sexual Violence

1) Recognize sexual assault as an issue of male violence against women, facilitated by women’s inequality. Those who commit sexual assault are overwhelmingly men, and those who are targeted for sexual assault are disproportionately women. In Canada, one in three women will experience some form of sexual violence over her lifetime. Canadian data published in 2011 revealed that 99 per cent of sexual assaults were perpetrated by men. This is a trend that has been recognized by educators elsewhere. In considering the objectives and implementation of this policy, it is important to resist the temptation to de-gender sexual assault. We must also acknowledge that sexual violence targets disproportionately those who are racialized, those who are poor and working class, those of marginalized sexual orientations, and those who are disabled.

2) Hold perpetrators of sexual assault accountable. No policy ever emerges fully formed or perfect. As the discussion of a “pro-survivor focused model” against sexual assault progressed, one troubling oversight became clear: the perpetrators of sexual violence and the responsibility they bear in committing sexist behavior are disappearing from the discussion. While the policy’s use of a “pro-survivor” framework is crucial in highlighting what the survivor can do following sexual assault, the policy must also consider the second half of the equation — what must be done to hold perpetrators of sexual assault, accomplices, and bystanders accountable for their actions.

McGill has a commitment to providing a learning environment that is safe for all students, including women. Though we recognize that the university has neither the responsibility nor the jurisdiction in criminalizing offenders, it does have considerable influence as to whether a survivor chooses to access the legal system.

The university also can affect the success of an impending investigation, through supporting and cooperating with this process. We must enhance the university’s procedures with regard to holding perpetrators accountable — no matter what institutional power, rank, or prestige they hold — to the extent they are able to as an academic institution. We are pleased to see that the university will take steps to limit the power and access of the perpetrator over those they have attacked (many of which are detailed in section 19). We want these considerations to be taken into account before, during, and potentially after the university’s investigation is mounted.

3) Continue to improve sexual assault complaint procedures. The process that the university, staff, and faculty use to respond to and support the person reporting sexual assault must be further refined and improved. We applaud the work of the university and the students towards developing guidelines and protocols for reporting sexual assault at McGill university. We also support the creation and allocation of resources to the Office for Sexual Violence: Response, Support, and Education in the Policy (section 7). Another crucial aspect of this improvement is the continued opportunity for survivors to disclose with or without filing a full report, detailed in section 9.

Historically, neither universities nor the criminal justice system have given women any confidence that systems in place will respond adequately to sexual assault. Only 0.3  per cent of the annual 460,000 sexual assaults in Canada result in conviction in law. In 2014, only five per cent of survivors reported their sexual assault to the police, and this has not changed significantly since 2004, when only eight per cent of survivors did so. We encourage the university to continue to investigate the barriers that women face in reporting sexual assault (which explain low rates of disclosure and reporting).

Other universities have drafted policies that make clear the university will not only facilitate a police report if the survivor chooses to do so, but will also not prevent a person from filing a report to McGill if they have already reported to law enforcement. Similarly, such a policy ensures McGill will not block a person from filing a police report if they have already previously reported the incident to the university. We suggest McGill follows suit.

Moreover, if a report is filed and an investigation is opened, we hold that both parties ought to be granted the right to know the outcome of the University’s decision, and the reasons for that decision.

Lastly, though Section 15 of the policy recognizes an “obligation to take reasonable measures to protect the safety of the university community,” the policy does not explicitly state that the perpetrators of sexual assault themselves are a danger to the campus and community. McGill has taken a positive step forward in stating its obligation to protect the university community. We should also encourage those involved to recognize perpetrators as a source of insecurity and a threat to that community.

4) Incorporate the necessary advocacy, administrative, and healthcare support systems for survivors. We applaud the policy’s efforts to begin to proactively address the needs of survivors, and recommend further development of these resources. Funding and promoting advocacy organizations and women’s groups on campus who are committed to guiding survivors of sexual assault through the university processes, law enforcement, legal system, and health care system is crucial. The university has committed to setting up the Office for Sexual Violence Response, Support and Education in addition to setting up a dedicated website. We agree with the policy’s strengthened promise to assist survivors in navigating through the appropriate university channels and authorities, in cooperation with an advocate of the survivor’s choosing, if they wish to have one. These changes will better equip the university to effectively respond to both the survivor, as well as the respondent. It would also increase the chances of the survivor receiving adequate and timely response and potential investigation from law enforcement.

In the past, survivors were unduly burdened with the responsibility of accessing medical care, counselling, and support services off campus. We are pleased to see that the policy promises to enhance on-campus access to health care and counselling services for survivors of sexual assault. Another improvement established by the policy is the commitment to improve accessibility to these services to survivors by providing additional advocacy and accompaniment if they so choose.

The policy promises the Office for Sexual Violence Response, Support and Education will “facilitate referrals to the appropriate university office in cases where reasonable accommodations or immediate measures may be warranted as a result of the incident of sexual violence” in Section 9g. However, we worry that these referrals could potentially lead the survivor in multiple directions, extending the painful process of reporting sexual violence. The section should be further strengthened to ensure that appropriate university offices will be prepared to respond to the survivor, that there will be a follow-up carried out by the Office, and that the survivor will have access to all available information during the referral process.

Lastly, given McGill is an institution that welcomes international students from around the world, we see the policy’s inclusion of service delivery to survivors “in the official language of their choosing” in section 9m as a positive development.

5) Recognize that rape culture is widespread and pervasive on campuses across Canada. In Section 8, the Policy specifies proactive measures which include informational campaigns, orientation, training, and information sessions, a dedicated website for resources on sexual assault on campus, and other education initiatives that include the intersection of race, region, gender, and sexual identity. Existing programs, such as Rez Project (which consists of peer-facilitated training for first-year students living in student housing) are a good start, but must be supported longitudinally and offered at various times during a student’s time at McGill.

Critically, educational programs must be reinforced with strong policy and policy implementation. It should recognize the role of women’s inequality in the commission of sexual assault. While mandatory training on survivor-focused methods for frontline staff involved in health, counseling, investigation, and disciplinary activities is crucial, we also ask the university to consider extending this measure to include a mandatory component for all members of the McGill community, which could take the form of a yearly orientation session, graduation requirement, or a for-credit course.

6) Promote women’s equality on campus at all levels of academia, and ensure women have power and leadership roles in all different academic, administrative, and research positions (as one women’s equality-seeking organization has proposed). Although women make up 48 per cent of the Canadian labour force, research has found that only 0.32 per cent occupied senior management positions in Canadian institutions. As institutions at the forefront of knowledge creation and progress, universities have the opportunity to change this trend. We must fund and support women’s groups and equality-seeking organizations on campus, and foster connections to these organizations off-campus.

We applaud the broad-based and transparent nature of the consultations for integration into the policy, which some of us had taken part in as individuals. We look forward to continued discussion as to how we will achieve a McGill campus that champions women’s equality and safety for all.

Sarah M Mah is a first-year PhD student in Geography, Alexandra Yiannoutsos is a U1 student in Political Science and Economics, and Kateryna Gordiychuk is a U3 student in Sociology with minors in Linguistics and Anthropology.

A version of this statement has been published and edited for the McGill International Review.

For more information, visit us online or email womenforequalitymcgill@gmail.com

The post Independent Women for Equality McGill call for a renewed commitment to end violence against women appeared first on Feminist Current.

The Women’s March on Washington released its official policy platform on Thursday, and numerous liberal American media outlets deemed it an unequivocally progressive one. Fusion went so far as to call it a “radical feminist platform.” But do the politics live up to the hype?

Since the March was announced, many feminists have wanted to know more: What is the purpose of the March? Is there an agenda? It is called a “Women’s March,” but is it for women only? (No.) Is the March “anti-Trump? (No.) Or even a protest? (Also no.) For a short while, though enthusiastic, many wondered how and if organizers would even be able to pull it off. But a permit was issued and the event is not only going to happen this Saturday, but is expected to be one of America’s biggest demonstrations.

But claims that the March is a radical one don’t exactly mesh with the message put forth by organizers.

“It’s an affirmative message to the new administration that ‘women’s rights are human rights,'” Vox reported, adding that “the event is being promoted as a ‘march’ or a ‘rally,’ but emphatically not a ‘protest.'”

Organizers’ insistence that the March doesn’t protest anything in particular could be interpreted as an effort to bring together as many people as possible.

Indeed, one organizer, Bob Bland, told the Washington Post:

“We welcome our male allies. We want this to be as inclusive as possible while acknowledging that it’s okay to have a women-centered march.”

(Despite the fact men have been heartily encouraged to attend, some still managed to feel left out.)

It’s odd to call something a “Women’s March” when it’s not really just for women, but the problems with the event extend far beyond that. Saying a thing is “woman-centered” is one thing, but actually centering women is another. The Women’s March, in their efforts to be “as inclusive as possible” have avoided naming the problem, leaving feminists to wonder how exactly the problem will be addressed, if we can’t even speak it out loud.

In their official platform, organizers do mention “violence,” stating:

“Women deserve to live full and healthy lives, free of violence against our bodies. One in three women have been victims of some form of physical violence by an intimate partner within their lifetime; and one in five women have been raped.”

But the perpetrators of this violence are notably absent from the document. Not once do the authors of the Women’s March platform acknowledge that it is men who are responsible for the violence suffered by women and girls across the globe. It appears that “unapologetically progressive,” in America, translates to “ensures men are neither named nor held to account.”

Further down, the authors state:

“We believe in Gender Justice. We must have the power to control our bodies and be free from gender norms, expectations and stereotypes. We must free ourselves and our society from the institution of awarding power, agency and resources disproportionately to masculinity to the exclusion of others.”

If at any point you had hoped this march would be a feminist one, here is where those hopes are dashed. “Gender justice” means precisely nothing. There is no justice where there is “gender.” Gender is the thing that naturalizes women’s oppression and men’s domination under patriarchy. If we are to be “free from gender norms, expectations, and stereotypes,” we must get rid of gender itself — that is, the notions of “masculinity” and “femininity.” The document erases biological sex and the sex class hierarchy enforced through patriarchy, lightening and neutralizing the blow by pretending as though there isn’t a particular class of people who are born into a position of power in our society (i.e. males). Based on this mealy-mouthed interpretation of patriarchy, it perhaps won’t come as a surprise that not once in the entire document is patriarchy itself named.

This is unnecessary. We can (and indeed must) name the problem and need not cater to those who wish to feel “political,” somehow, without actually saying anything controversial or directly challenging the status quo.

Just last year, Latin American women took to the streets on what was named “Black Wednesday,” to protest femicide — a word Raquel Rosario Sanchez explains is “a legal and political term that exists precisely to highlight the fact women and girls are murdered because they are female.” Though American media tried to depoliticize this radical action by applying the term “gender justice” in their reporting on Black Wednesday, the protest itself was actually unapologetic in its feminism. American activists could perhaps learn a thing or two from these protestors…

We are (supposedly) responding to the election of a man who supports the sex trade, sexual assault, domestic violence, and who doesn’t see women as human, never mind his equal, yet we are unwilling to say the word “patriarchy” or even “men”?! What exactly are we afraid of? Women have so much to lose in America — it seems like a strange time to depoliticize.

To their credit, while the platform initially stated solidarity with “sex workers’ rights movements,” implicitly rejecting survivors and abolitionists who oppose the sex industry and advocate for the Nordic model (“the sex workers’ rights movement is, in fact, a lobby to decriminalize pimps and johns — not one to protect women from men’s violence), it appears as though the language was edited.

I fail to see the purpose of including this language,alienating survivors & feminists fighting the misogynist/racist sex trade @womensmarch pic.twitter.com/T1C2yacerZ

— Meghan Murphy (@MeghanEMurphy) January 13, 2017

In a later version, the language reads, “we stand in solidarity with all those exploited for sex and labour.”

This is a positive response to complaints from feminists, but unfortunately, while issues with the platform upset numerous women, much of the damage was already done before the document was even published. Earlier in the month the Women’s March Twitter account caused a notable backlash after tweeting about “cis privilege”:

Are there other forms of #CisPrivilege you don't see listed? Cis folks: how can you be mindful of cis privilege in your daily life?

— Women's March (@womensmarch) January 3, 2017

Countless women reminded organizers that, in fact, there was no such thing as “cis privilege” when it comes to women’s status in society. Indeed the mere fact that the march is taking place should be proof enough of that. Is Donald Trump’s comment about grabbing women “by the pussy” evidence of some kind of “privilege” females are born into? Our female bodies are precisely what are under attack in a patriarchal society and within Trump’s rhetoric, worldview, and politics. His repeated misogynist insults directed at any and every woman show that attaching a term like “cis privilege” to womanhood is entirely contradictory. The word “cis” is meaningless, to start, as women do not “identify” with femininity — rather, they are socialized into it — but the notion that there is “privilege” in being a woman in this world is disproved in glaring ways by other statements made by organizers:

A woman's right to make choices about what's best for her and her body is central to our platform. Read more: https://t.co/X9Z0pV2cif

— Women's March (@womensmarch) January 16, 2017

Our statement regarding press today: pic.twitter.com/z1y9cfFFvY

— Women's March (@womensmarch) January 16, 2017

If we can understand that ensuring bodily autonomy is central to women’s liberation, surely we can understand and acknowledge that patriarchy is about men’s control over women’s bodies.

But the organizers seem not even to understand the difference between sex and gender, never mind the fact that “sexism” has nothing to do with what they call “cis,” but is explicitly about discrimination based on sex.

The cissexist binary assumes there're only two genders – male + female. But some ppl are intersex or genderqueer or agender or gender fluid!

— Women's March (@womensmarch) January 14, 2017

Sadly, organizers appear fearful, rather than brave — either naive or afraid to admit that patriarchy is a system that explicitly targets those of us born female, often through violence.

"A man walking alone at night generally has the privilege of not being targeted for gender-based violence"

— Women's March (@womensmarch) January 14, 2017

"These examples don’t invalidate the existence of male privilege, which are benefits denied to people who aren’t men DUE TO THEIR GENDER"

— Women's March (@womensmarch) January 14, 2017

Rather than confront the backlash head on, they’ve catered to it — altering their language and aims in a way that dances around the problem.

Women are not targeted by men walking alone at night, in their homes, at work, in bars, or in any of the other myriad of places women are attacked, harassed, and raped, because they are passive, wear high heels, have long hair, wear dresses, or behave in other “feminine” ways, but because they are female. Female children are not prostituted or abused by adult men because they identify with “femininity,” but because of the sex class they were born into. Girls are feminized, not “feminine” by choice or because of some kind of internal, unchangeable personality flaw that turns them into victims.

While the Women’s March on Washington has been disappointing in its cowardliness and aversion to putting out an unapologetically feminist message, when feminism is the one thing we desperately need to rally around in this political climate, my aim is not to discourage women from attending. Rather, women should get out on the street with their unapologetic feminism, and use this as an opportunity to seek out sisters and solidarity. The third wave may not be here for us, but we can still be here for one another — our movement is alive and growing. One of our jobs as feminists is to keep speaking out, keep rallying, and keep pushing our message forward in the face of backlash. Our bravery can inspire the fearful.

The post The Women’s March on Washington needs to name the problem appeared first on Feminist Current.

On January 21^st, three million people across the globe — a majority of whom were women — took to the streets. A response to the election of Donald Trump, the initial Women’s March was set to take place in Washington, but sister marches spread across the globe. It turned out to be the largest demonstration in U.S. history.

While the organizers faced many critiques — some valid, some less so — the event was decidedly powerful.

In this episode, I speak with Lee Lakeman, who attended Vancouver’s sister March, to hear more about her perspective and experience of the event, her reflections on some of the critiques made, and to find direction on what can and should come next.

Lee has been a feminist activist for 40 years, fighting men’s violence against women. She has spent her adult life building the independent women’s movement in alliances against patriarchy, including capitalism and racism/imperialism. Lee is currently writing a history of the work of the women at Vancouver Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter in resistance to patriarchy.

An upcoming event featuring Chris Hedges and Suzanne Jay, “After Trump and Pussy Hats,” will continue the conversation about next steps. The event will take place on Friday, March 3, 2017, at 6:30PM, at St Andrew’s-Wesley Church.

The post PODCAST: The Women’s March was a powerful feminist uprising — what comes next? appeared first on Feminist Current.

The biggest protest in U.S. history took place last weekend, and women made it happen. It was a massive demonstration of female political solidarity and a battle cry against male-supremacist power, embodied by the ultimate sexist pig, Donald Trump. The Women’s March yielded these fantastic results, despite bearing constant attacks since its inception: A march for WOMEN? How selfish.

The organization of the March began with an apology. Originally named the “Million Women March on DC,” it was accused of appropriating the title from historic anti-racist activism in the ‘90s. The 1995 Million Man March on Washington sought to unify, uplift, and demand justice for the pernicious racism faced by black men in the U.S., which later spawned the 1997 Million Woman March in Philadelphia — a female-centric iteration that drew hundreds of thousands of black women from across the country.

After it was brought to their attention, organizers of the 2017 march promptly apologized and changed the name to “Women’s March on Washington.” But this mistake would set the tone for media coverage deeming the event “problematic,” and became an obligatory preface to its discussion. Organizers proceeded by being as obsequious to liberal demands as possible. They de-centered women from their rhetoric, claiming that, although it was called “Women’s March,” it was actually for no one in particular and focused on no specific issues.

In a bitter irony, despite organizers’ desire to achieve intersectional credibility, they released an official platform supporting pro-prostitution rhetoric. The platform sanitizes prostitution as “sex work” — as if this racist, imperialist system of abuse is nothing more than a job like any other. This language and approach to the sex trade erases the way racism and capitalism function under patriarchy to funnel a disproportionate number of women and girls of colour into prostitution at the demand of (often white) men who are in positions of relative privilege.

In this act, the official march platform became a prime example of the hollow way “intersectionality” is interpreted by liberals to mean “male-inclusive.” While I’m sympathetic to the organizers and the amount of vitriol they received, pressuring them to water down any feminist message, it is still disheartening to see the extent to which women are made to shrink themselves within their own political movements. Even the official platform’s section on Reproductive Freedom is awkwardly sex-neutral and states that reproductive justice is about ensuring reproductive healthcare access for “all people.” (I could have sworn it was specifically about female bodies and that unique thing they do…
“Pregnancy,” I think it’s called?)

But when it came time to march, all that noise disappeared.

It turns out that  declarations of political fragmentation couldn’t override the power of what really was a Women’s March. Women from around the world heard the name and knew it was for them. They saw Trump — a man who made their stomachs churn with memories of every abusive man and every injury they’ve sustained under white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy — and knew they needed to protest.

This became apparent to me before I even got to D.C. The Philadelphia train station was buzzing like I had never seen before, and as I walked to the back of the line to board, I realized it was composed almost entirely of women! One group of women turned to me and asked, “You going?” I said, “Hell yeah!” and one of them yelled with glee and gave me a hug. We were total strangers, but on that day, the march had made us acutely aware that, politically, we were sisters. Every train car was a party — women swapped stories about how far they had travelled, their lives, and what the march meant to them.

When I decided to go to D.C. shortly after the event was announced, I had no idea what a global phenomenon it would become. Women united, not just with American women, but with all of womankind. Protest signs tapped into this commonality through symbols of our shared anatomy, signifying the way our female bodies are under attack in patriarchal society. A few of the countless signs I saw read: “Vulva La Resistance!” “You do Uterus,” and “Fight for Freedom!” beneath a fierce-looking vagina dentata.

Although the “pussy hats” were probably a result of feminine socialization teaching us to make even our political dissent non-threatening (cute, pink, and fluffy), the impulse behind the hats was noble. Trump’s bragging about sexual assault to his buddies was a performance of male bonding via female degradation, reminding us of our “place.” But women did not stand for it. Instead, women showed Trump — and men everywhere — that we will use our shared oppression to make common cause with one another. And having been so denied any culture or unifying symbols of our own (you can only do so many things with the Venus symbol), women worked with what they had (a slur and the official colour of girlhood) in order to create a new one for the March.

Some men were offended at the marchers’ frank and unashamed politicization of their female bodies, presumably because, for once, this political action had nothing to do with them and their penises. They argued that the marches should have been more “inclusive” — meaning that women should have shut up about femaleness. But as the reports of Sister Marches came flooding in from Mexico City to Nairobi, Melbourne to Kolkata, Vancouver to Cairo, and from across the U.S., the true inclusiveness of the feminist movement became clear.

It wasn’t an attack on “all genders” that inspired and mobilized the biggest protest in U.S. history and 673 sister protests abroad. When a movement is inclusive to the point that it is  about “all people,” it becomes about no one (thereby not including anyone). It was a worldwide response from and on behalf of women in particular, that elicited the mass anger and unity.

There was Sister Marches on all seven continents for one reason: females exist on all seven continents. We’re in the East and the West, the epicenters and the ends of the earth. Even as we lay in the cancer ward, there are other women with whom we band together. Our subjugation under male supremacy includes all women, but so can our resistance.

As I stood in D.C.’s jam-packed-with-angry-women streets, I wondered what it would be like if we set our sights on accomplishing something tangible — not just demonstrating, but actually seizing power. Thanks to the Women’s March and all who made it happen, I’m sure other women have also had their curiosity sparked and will join the feminist movement with the desire to see just how mighty we truly are.

The post Critics couldn’t stomp out female unity at the Women’s March appeared first on Feminist Current.

The election of Donald Trump inspired the largest demonstration in U.S. history. Three million people in more than 500 American cities took to the streets, and we saw sister marches across the globe —  673 in total! The Women’s March on Washington sent a powerful message: women are angry and they aren’t going to take it sitting down. We brought together several women who attended marches in various North American cities to talk about their experiences, responses to critiques, and ideas about what can and should come next.

Our roundtable participants are: Jocelyn Macdonald, a 29-year-old poet and lesbian activist; Sarah Mah, a 28-year-old member of Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution (AWCEP) and graduate student; Jess Martin, a 29-year-old independent feminist, disability advocate, and media strategist; and Samantha Grey, a 28-year-old Aboriginal feminist and front-line worker.

Meghan: All of you attended a Women’s March on January 21st — can you tell me where you attended and what the experience was like?

Jocelyn: I attended the national march in D.C. The energy was electric on the subways, in the streets, and in the march — the resistance was gleeful, sassy, and family-friendly, despite all of the signs with variations on the theme of pussy-grabbing. Attendees spanned all age groups, and were predominantly white and female. There were many women of colour, but not many of those women were black. Many black women told the world through media and social channels that the march organization was not addressing their needs, and that they didn’t trust the execution to be intersectional, so their absence was not surprising, although to the white women who are not new to feminist organizing and who are tired of anti-black mainstream feminism, it was noticeable and sad.

This did not feel like a protest so much as a parade of the new left — an amalgam of diverse people who are not united in liberalism or leftism so much as in being anti-Trump. I marched with about 50 radical and lesbian feminists, and I was surprised that we were one of the few groups that had organized together. It felt like the march was predominantly individuals and families who were inspired to demonstrate, but groups that often form blocs — such as unions and collectives — were not present. I saw a nurse’s union and Moms Demand Action, but no other unions or collectives.

To me, this shows the fragmentation of our movement. Neoliberalism has influenced our activism to the point that individuals — not groups –are moved to participate. Were groups and collectives missing because they are dissolving? Considering the attacks on organized labour and organizing in general, this would not surprise me. However, a culture of individualism is what I see in the viral photo of three white women taking selfies while Angela Peoples holds a sign saying “white women voted for Trump.”

Nevertheless, it was truly amazing to be in a crowd of people so large that cell service and internet were unavailable. Even those of us from D.C. could not find the march route or space to see or hear the rally. Every single street — including the march route — was packed so full of women in tacky pink hats that there was nowhere for our Bunch of Dykes to go, and nothing to do but dance, makeout, chant, and cheer.

Jess: I attended the march in Vancouver, B.C. I arrived 10 minutes late so there was a considerable crowd around Jack Poole Plaza by the time I got there. There was a palpable difference between the protest march and the more-common parade-like events in Vancouver, many of which are hyper-sexualized and light-hearted. At this march, women were there to get shit done. I was encouraged, first, by the multigenerational nature of the crowd — seniors, women with infants and toddlers, millennial-aged women, pre-teens. I think my favourite experience was listening to protest chants from women (“Hey-hey, ho-ho, patriarchy has got to go”). It was hard not to become overwhelmed with emotion as the crowd started to make it’s way down the street. I’m not a huge crier but I had some seriously sweaty eyeballs that day.

Samantha: I also attended the march in Vancouver, B.C. I coordinated with a few women I work with to go to the march together. At first, I was overwhelmed by the number of people who were gathering at Jack Poole Plaza. The energy of the group seemed celebratory — not because we were celebrating a joyous moment but because we were all so relieved that we weren’t alone in (whichever) struggle we were there representing. I agree with Jess that the crowd included a vast age range of women. It was encouraging to see women younger than myself participating in the march but also encouraging to see women older than myself still willing to put up a fierce fight.

Sarah: I live in Montreal, and attended the Ottawa march because I considered the Canadian capital might be of some importance, relative to Washington. Other members of the AWCEP attended the marches in Vancouver and Toronto, but I can personally offer some of my impressions of the Ottawa march.

I was in the wonderful company of several other feminists I knew. Having come equipped with hand-drawn placards, handbills from the groups I am organized with, and my friend with her high-quality audio recorder, we made our way from Montreal to Ottawa on the 7 a.m. bus. Most encouraging was the presence of women of all ages — many with children, many who I judged did not usually go to protests. Composed mostly of women, those who held signs had clear demands for sexual, racial, and economic rights. The messages were genuine, cheeky, furious, provocative, though of course a couple missed the mark a bit. While I thought that it was unfortunate that we never made it to Parliament Hill, the march was enthusiastic and so large that we could not see the end. Much to our satisfaction, we heard the crowd reached between 6000-8000 people.

Meghan: What are some things you learned through participating in the march?

Jocelyn: It’s not enough to have women of colour and transwomen on the organizing committee and writing the guiding principles of a march if the media dialogue leading up to it positions the march as not intersectional.

The other thing I learned is that women still organize around their personal experience, not theory. Catharine MacKinnon writes about this in “From Practice to Theory, or What Is a White Woman Anyway?” Regardless of how much you tell women that pink pussy hats are stupid/transphobic, or that signs with vagina dentata or an oviduct serving you the middle finger is “reducing women to their genitalia,” women don’t care. Women start with practice, based on their personal experience, and then may or may not develop or engage in theory.

Although men and “all genders” were offered a golden invitation, they did not show up. I was delighted of course, because I prefer my feminism to be light on men. But I think what is actually behind this is that men don’t think rape culture, abortion rights, income inequality, the destruction of welfare programs, etc. involve them, so they don’t participate. I didn’t see any Now This pieces on how male feminist allies were marching in the back to show solidarity without centering themselves.

Jess: I think I underestimated — or perhaps hadn’t thought about — how powerful it is for women to demonstrate globally on the same day in different locations.

I have been thinking about whether location is important to meaningful practice of intersectionality. Of course, it would be difficult for all oppressed demographics to have been represented on the speaker’s list of the Vancouver-based event, which has caused some hurt amongst oppressed communities. It would have been meaningful for me, personally, to see women with visible disabilities at the mic. Chinese and Japanese women were absent from the speaker’s platform (which would have been a powerful gesture given B.C.’s history interning the Japanese and using Chinese people for slave labour). However, the fact that Vancouver’s march was led by Indigenous women was key. In Kimberlé Crenshaw’s “Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of anti-discrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics,” she discusses the fact that when we uplift those who are most oppressed, we relieve many others who are similarly oppressed. I think we would be hard-pressed to find a more openly and consistently oppressed group in Vancouver than Indigenous women. Indeed, they were “Canada’s” first oppressed group.

Sarah: There is a lot of thinking to do here, and we are still in discussion about the insights revealed and lessons learned. Among the women I am organized with, we are still processing the significance of the event, but here are some of my own preliminary thoughts that are, in part, conditioned by the wisdom and politics stemming from my group:

After seeing the range of women, children, and men attend the march, I was encouraged, and recognized that the time is ripe to be organizing to the Women’s Movement. These are people that, again, I judged might not otherwise attend a public protest, and did so declaring their support for women, bodily autonomy, reproductive rights, racial equality, and anti-violence. Of course, the focus on pink and some attempts to degender the event indicate there is still much work to be done in the organizing and politicization among my peers, but I consider it a great start to see so many pro-woman, pro-feminist messages of solidarity.

Samantha: I certainly underestimated the magnitude of women’s rage and their willingness to take to the streets. I attended an anti-Trump march shortly after he was elected, which was directionless and small in comparison. This march was about more than just Trump. Trump’s election as President definitely was the initial motivation for organizing the march, but in the end and in the streets, it became an accumulation of women’s rage and anguish towards sexism, violence against women, racism, poverty, and imperialism. I underestimated the unity — however seemingly limited it may be — we can have as feminists, both liberal and radical. The Women’s March brought all our collective desires for each other together in an unified action — something I did not expect.

Meghan: What does this march tell us about the state of the feminist movement and of women’s rights, more broadly, today?

Jocelyn: We are still asking the questions: “What is a woman?” “What is a woman’s issue?” “Feminism,” as it is written about in think pieces and criticized by the left, is becoming synonymous with “white feminism,” a phrase which would more accurately be “white supremacist neoliberalism for females,” although that’s not very catchy. This is harmful, because white supremacy, imperialism, and capitalism, have no place in feminism. Expressions of hierarchy should be critiqued when they arise in activism, but should be distanced from feminism as an ideology.

The feminist movement is embarrassed by what few women we have to look up to. “Women’s rights are human rights” a phrase popularized by and accredited to Hillary Clinton, was the slogan of the march, and yet HRC was not included on the list of inspirational women who paved the way. She was summarily trounced by misogyny in this election, and if more people had turned out for her — including young urban white women — we wouldn’t be staring down four years of neofascist hell.

Similarly, many of the speakers at the rally are being held to purity tests for their personal lives much less their political voices, and criticized broadly in the media. No one is above criticism, in fact we are strengthened by critique, but who will lead us if the critique ends in denouncement? While Ashley Judd and Gloria Steinem are being called white feminists, and the diverse group of organizers is on trial for not being intersectional enough, everyone turns a blind eye to the fact that a self-admitted rapist, Cherno Biko, was given a platform.

Jess: It tells us that now is the time for feminists with more tenure in the movement to put extra effort into mentoring those of us who have lots of learning to do. It also tells us that we need to understand both the media’s role and tactics for engaging with the media (or start organizing our own media), so that feminist stories and histories get shared — the kind of rich stories that don’t fit well onto protest placards. I’ve recently been studying the feminist movement as a community with a much more oral culture than mainstream or patriarchal groups. Stories are very important to us. As a media strategist, I would love to do a workshop one day on the best way to use the existing media, in all its toxic glory, to get our resistance stories out there.

Samantha: The march signified that, despite some of our ideological differences, feminists can still find a unifying reason to mobilize and march the streets together. Being a radical feminist can be isolating when relating to the masses. However, at the Women’s March, I felt inspired by the sheer number of women who showed up for similar reasons, in spite of our varying views on contentious issues like prostitution and women-only space. Of course, there are areas for improvement. Some still hesitated to name the problem. Some of the chants were degendered. Some expressed liberal views that made me shudder. However, these discrepancies are minor compared to the force the marches around the world symbolized.

Sarah: This is a pretty big question. I don’t think I have really had enough time to think about the answer and the women I am organized with have not finished processing it either.

What I observe, however, are three main things. First, there is new and spectacular energy among younger women. I saw my friends and colleagues who are not organized go to their local march or to Washington. Second, the dedication and generosity of older women and feminists, many of whom I looked to for leadership, was very apparent and reinforcing to me. Third, that the online presence of women marching around the world had, for the most part, stood up against a barrage of criticism (from mostly men) meant to divide us says to me that we have a real opportunity here to use this momentum to renew and advance a global feminist movement. As someone who is already organized, I definitely have a sense of renewed energy to continue my own equality-seeking work.

Meghan: There have been critiques made of the march, arguing that it was white-centered or, at least, not diverse. Some argued transwomen should have led or been more centered in the marches. Others asked, “Where have you been,” implying people were only speaking up now, but should have sooner, critical of the fact that the protest was filled with so many “first-timers.” How do you respond to those critiques?

Jocelyn: This was entry-level activism. Why would that be a bad thing? It’s undeniable that more white people need to care and get involved in the issues that Black Lives Matters (BLM) and others raise. But it’s also not surprising that people are driven to action when they feel personally threatened. Another 60 abortion restrictions were passed in 2016. Over the last few years we’ve seen horrific stories about campus and school rapes. I haven’t seen any significant organizing around these issues from any men. We don’t publicly chastise BLM or the immigrant rights movement for not addressing these issues, in spite of the fact that they affect black women and undocumented women. A movement isn’t responsible for taking on all injustice, and there should be space for women to speak to the oppression they face as well. Violence, rape, poverty, health care barriers, wage issues, reproductive justice — these are not trivial. Instead of berating women for coming late to the party, let’s help connect the dots. We need to get liberal white women AND lefty men to see the interconnectedness of our struggles. Let this be a launchpad into a more cohesive coalition that addresses injustice across the spectrum.

Many have argued that transwomen should have led, and the implication (and sometimes explicit statement) is that they are the “most oppressed women.” But are they? Female biology is not incidental to our oppression. Because we are acutely vulnerable to both rape and the consequence of it — pregnancy — our physical female bodies are exploited by men. Our bodies are the site of indoctrination into rape culture from birth, lack of access to abortion, epidemic levels of breast cancer, autoimmune disease, and more — all while the female body is virtually absent from medical studies and literature for the last couple centuries. If the “most oppressed woman” is not female, then these issues are indeed marginal: they decenter those we are told are the most oppressed — who should always be centered — especially in massive public demonstrations that are supposed to speak to ALL women. So even though these issues affect 100 per cent of females and zero per cent of transwomen, they are called divisive. The vast majority of feminists, who don’t even understand this logic, are now being branded TERFs.

Liberal feminist transwomen of colour were given important roles in the organization and platform of the march. Janet Mock, for instance, who advocates for the global sex industry, which is coercive, exploitative, and centers male needs. This system is inherently racist, which is obvious from the millions of women of colour, Indigenous women, and women of the global south who are purchased by men with white, male, and class privilege over them. Calls for intersectionality that ignore this racism and imperialism are hollow and callous, and this is one of the big ironies of liberal criticisms of the march.

Jess: Men have asked me this question several times in the four days since the march: “Where were you when it mattered?” They mean, of course, “Where were you when it mattered to me?” Or, more specifically, “Then why wasn’t this represented at the ballot box?” The reality is that this protest wasn’t birthed out of nowhere, as if the women’s movement has been sitting on her duff watching Sex in the City reruns while a serial predator groped his way into the White House. We’ve been organizing events, running campaigns, staffing front-line rape crisis shelters, writing articles and press releases, speaking out in classrooms and workplaces, demonstrating in the streets, writing politicians, public speaking, forming unions and coalitions, filing lawsuits that we have little chance of winning, and surviving — we were doing these things before the march and we’ll be doing them afterward. Why didn’t you notice it before? Because it’s easy to ignore and dismiss what women are doing unless they’re clogging up infrastructure, making it inconvenient for men to go about their daily lives without paying heed. If you think this march came out of nowhere, it’s time to take the blinders off. The march may have been full of first-timers. I sure as hell hope so, because movements don’t grow without adding new people to them. But it was definitely also full of old-timers. At least in Vancouver, you couldn’t swing a cat without breaking the hip of a woman over 80.

I think the critique that there should have been more public information on the history of the name of the march, and how it was inspired by a march organized by Black leaders, is very valid. However, I think we need to be holding our media to account for this rather than the event organizers. If there’s one thing I’ve picked up from being a PR professional, it is that slogans are for two-hour events, while stories and histories should be publicized through the media or shared through communities. The event organizers are easy targets right now, but no one is asking why journalists are jumping to write about conflict, when they could have been preparing interviews about the march’s history.

Sarah:

On race: With so much protest against the racism in Trump’s campaign at the various Women’s Marches around the world, I see this as is an opportunity to resist division, build on those alliances, and take the leadership of women of colour and Aboriginal women. It seems to me that leadership is there, it is growing, has strengthened our movement, and will benefit from the continued support of feminists.

On gender identity: I saw a comic recently that complained of women holding signs containing the words “vagina,” “ovaries”, and “uterus”, which was equated to biological essentialism, and was therefore supposedly inherently ignorant of transgendered individuals. The comic is not only misleading, but completely dismisses women defending our reproductive rights and bodily autonomy. Moreover, patriarchy is just that — a brand of oppression-based essentialism that creates an environment allowing men to sexualize, control, and rape females. Women are protesting that oppression, based on the biological and social conditions imposed on us from birth. That’s a consciousness that needs to be nurtured and defended, in my view.

On new women: I don’t believe there is much sense in berating women for being “late to the movement,” and perhaps those who are making that criticism should first look to themselves. Why have they failed, until now, to organize these women? We ought to remain welcoming and committed to the growth of the women’s movement, here and globally. Better late than never. In a quick conversation with my group member, Suzanne Jay, she told me that she believed feminists have not failed. The new women are there because of us. Sustained, visible, feminist organizing over time produced a sense of entitlement to equality that women are willing to go into the street to defend. Overwhelmingly, the signs and discussion reflect feminist aspirations. That is a credit to us.

Samantha: I was a newcomer to the movement once — we all were at some point. Momentum in the women’s movement cannot be sustained without engaging with new women. And certainly the Women’s March was a great way to mobilize new women to the movement. Surely the humourous signs, the sea of pussy hats, and masses of women who showed up could convince any woman to join the movement!

The idea that transwomen should have been more centred in the march is not something I can agree with. However, these critiques should not motivate a division amongst us. Our demands as women should not be pitted against those of transwomen. This is a moment of globalized unity amongst women and their allies (trans-identified or otherwise).

The march was certainly not perfect but it cannot be seen as a stand alone occurrence. We need to continue mobilizing and marching through the streets. There is room for improvement. There is room to ensure the voices of women of colour and Indigenous women are prioritized and heard.

Meghan: What’s next? The marches brought together so many women from around the world — where do you hope that energy goes? What are you yourself planning to do to extend this action into long term organizing and to effect real change? What advice can you offer to women who are interested in putting this energy into action?

Jocelyn: Women must organize in community. Mass movement scares the shit out of President Rape Culture and his minions because it is the only thing that has ever brought an empire to its knees. Women must revive the consciousness raising group. Identity is important to you and your community, but it needs to be contextualized. You weaponize the personal by understanding it in relation to what’s personal for your sister, and then doing something about it IRL. We need community and fellowship with other women, not only for political strategizing, but as an act of self-care, affirmation, and sisterhood. Patriarchy loves to isolate women; and when we party together, learn together, art together, we find the path forward.

For my part, I’m planning on wombanifesting my vagenda of manocide through creating woman-only space. I will continue organizing and training in empowerment-based self-defense. I will be offering citizen lobbyist training, and my home in D.C. is base of operations for radicalizing and deploying women in the world’s capital of hegemonic bullshit.

My advice to other women is to organize even with those whose views you don’t share. I disagreed with much of the organization and execution of the march, but I went because you can’t change the conversation if you’re not at the table.

Jess: One thing the march was missing were some tangible call-to-actions. Here are some: Donate money to your local rape crisis centre or battered women’s services. Vote out the B.C. Liberals in the upcoming provincial election, as they’ve demonstrated repeated contempt for all women. Write Justin Trudeau and ask him not to expand the Missing and Murdered Women’s Inquiry to include men.

Sarah: I want to sustain this energy and use it to mobilize women to join the women already doing the work towards our liberation — whether that involves ending sexist violence, advancing racial equality, fighting capitalism, etc. For my part, I am continuing to organize with Asian women to address the sexist racism of prostitution and trafficking, in addition to organizing a new group at my school called the Independent Women for Equality McGill.

Join a group, start a group, be accountable, lead and take the leadership of women. Let’s keep strengthening global feminist solidarity.

Samantha: Ah, yes… What’s next, indeed. I found myself asking this as the dust settled from the march. The Women’s March was a bold representation of women’s resistance to the various forces that contribute to our oppression as women. It’s important that we sustain our willingness to resist. The best way is to not remain isolated. Group with other women in your life and talk about strategies, actions and so on. Once you start talking with other women, the ideas will surely come. Continue to educate yourself by attending panels, marches and rallies that reflect the changes you want to see for women in the world. Don’t be idle in the women’s movement, it’s better to keep moving forward and bring other women with you! As for myself, I will continue the front-line work against male violence against women. But most importantly, I can no longer feel isolated in my resistance — the Women’s March proved to me that I am not alone.

The post Young feminists reflect on their experiences, critiques, and future hopes stemming from the Women’s March appeared first on Feminist Current.

The Argentinian feminist collective behind Black Wednesday back in October have called for an International Women’s Strike. Planned to coincide with the International Day to End Violence Against Women, Ni Una Menos (Not One Less) is calling for women everywhere to strike on March 8th.

Black Wednesday was the first region-wide march to protest male violence against women and girls. It rallied women in Latin America around the concept of femicide, which describes the murder of women and girls at the hands of men. Femicide targets females specifically, and is an epidemic in Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as in countries across the world. As such, it is the cornerstone of Latin American feminist activism.

In their manifesto, Ni Una Menos states:

“We strike because the victims of femicide are missing among us. Their voices were violently shut down by the chilling drum of one femicide per day in Argentina.”

Although Ni Una Menos is based out of Argentina, on Black Wednesday women and girls were joined in a massive display of feminist solidarity by thousands in Uruguay, Paraguay, Perú, Chile, Venezuela, Colombia, México, Honduras, Guatemala, Ecuador, and Spain. Following the success of the Polish women’s strike against abortion, Black Wednesday, and the Women’s March in Washington and sister marches, numerous countries around the world are expected to join the March 8th strike.

Ni Una Menos’ manifesto reads:

“This March 8th the earth will shake. Women around the world will unite and organize around one common goal: an International Women’s Strike. We women will strike, organize and build solidarity among ourselves. We will practice the world in which we want to live.

We strike to bring attention to:

The capital that exploits us in the informal economy. The state and market forces that exploit us when they put us in debt. The nation-states that criminalize our migration. The fact that we make less money than men and our wage discrimination is, on average, 27 per cent. We strike because of the economic violences that heighten our vulnerability to misogynist violence, whose most violent extreme is femicide. We strike to demand abortion on demand and so that no girl is forced to become a mother.

Among us are missing the lesbians and transwomen who were murdered under hate crimes. The political prisoners, the persecuted, the women murdered in our Latin American territory for defending the land and resources. Among us are missing the women who died and the ones who remain in prison due to unsafe abortions. We are missing among us the ones who were disappeared by traffickers and the victims of sexual exploitation.

We appropriate the tool of striking because our demands are urgent. The strength of our movement is in the bond we create with other women. We are braiding a new internationalism. We see the neoconservative turn that’s taking place in the region and in the world, so the feminist movement is surging as an alternative. 2017 is the time for our revolution.

When our homes become hell, we organize to defend each other and protect one another. In the face of the crimes of machismo and its pedagogy of cruelty and in the face of the media’s attempt to victimize us and terrorize us, we make of our individual grieving a collective comfort and a shared enragement. In the face of cruelty: more feminism.”

With over 30 countries set to join the strike, the rallying cry,  “Solidarity is our weapon,” is fitting. Indeed, this has always been the ethos of the women’s movement. Now more than ever before, solidarity is exactly what is needed.

The post Argentinian feminist collective calls for International Women’s Strike on March 8th appeared first on Feminist Current.

On January 21st, an estimated 2.9 million people participated in Women’s Marches around the U.S., setting a record for the largest one-day protest in the nation’s history. For many feminists, a public display of enthusiasm of this degree is inspiring, perhaps marking the resurgence of a mass movement against the politics of the right. But in order to take the widespread anti-Trump sentiment and turn it into a movement to end inequality and injustice around the world once and for all, we need to be able to name the primary system behind this evil mess. To understand exactly how these various oppressions, injustices, and terrible governmental leaders are produced and interrelated, we need to take a critical look at the bedrock of not only American society, but the world: the economic structure. Capitalism.

Not crony capitalism, or corporatism, or Republicanism. Just plain old capitalism, functioning as it should, and as it must. A market-based economy necessitates cutthroat competition for firms to survive. Because material costs for manufacturers are relatively inflexible, it is labour costs that must be pushed down. Walmart and McDonalds spend millions on lobbyists to have influence in the government while paying their employees, whose labour produces all their value and profit, next to nothing. Capitalism, from its early industrial development until now, is fundamentally premised on the few profiting off the backs of the many, on eliminating competition and using monopoly to drive up prices, on working with the capitalist state to pass laws to protect profits.

To boot, capitalism thrives off racial hatred and caste systems. These both prevent workers from unifying against the capitalists and devalue the labour and lives of non-white workers. In other words, racism creates cheaper labour. Racism serves to justify imperialism, which is what happens when capitalism’s need for infinite growth drives capital out of its home country to exploit resources and labour abroad. Imperialist wars to secure territory and resources for corporations back home have killed millions of people and displaced even more. Women and girls suffer especially hard in war-torn areas, and in areas destabilized by U.S. military intervention and left to conservative extremist militias. Imperialism is not caused by greed, or the evil personalities of the capitalists like Trump (although they may be nasty). It is necessarily how capitalism develops, and what it does in order to grow.

Like it devalues people of colour, capital devalues women and their labour. Capital profits off and exacerbates gender norms and roles. In capitalist patriarchy, we raise men to acquire technological, scientific, and managerial expertise, as well as domineering personalities, and we raise women to pursue specifically feminized, underpaid professions involving domestic and reproductive labour. Capitalist patriarchy perpetuates myths of natural femininity, labeling domestic and reproductive labour as “women’s work,” that they are born to do and should perform without (or with minimal) compensation. This creates the “double burden” of both paid work and housework upon working women, and often drives them into isolation inside individual homes (as workers or housewives) where they cannot unionize and bargain collectively against their employers or husbands.

Capital profits off of privatized healthcare and expensive medication. It profits off privatized schools, where the rich can buy their children a lucrative career and the poor are left without education or skills. It profits off a denial of birth control and abortion, because it impoverishes women and families. It profits off homophobia, by forcing men and women into heterosexual unions (without birth control) to produce more desperate workers. It profits off conservatism and cultural misogyny and racism. It profits off cutting welfare, because the state can waste less money caring for its abused citizens (workers), and spend more money funding imperialist wars for the expansion of capital. It profits off the unliveable minimum wage, which affects hundreds of thousands of women. It profits off of masses of impoverished people desperate for meager wages. It is always ready to replace the unskilled worker who was fired for attempting to organize and demand higher compensation. It profits off the ruthless destruction of the ecosystem to support the infinite economic growth. It profits off of free trade agreements that move jobs offshore to exploit lax labour and environmental regulations in developing countries. It profits off hundreds of thousands, if not millions of women and children labouring in sweatshops.

This is not cronyism, or mere greed. This is how efficient business works. Capitalists (i.e. corporations), to make a profit, skim as much profit as they can off of the labour of their workers. If the capitalist was kind and gave the profit back to his employees through higher wages, a mean capitalist down the street would not, and therefore ultimately beat him in free market competition. What we need is not more female capitalists, a Democrat (or even a Green) in the White House, or more “diversity” in the one per cent and ruling elite. To liberate non-white people, women, gays, and the poor — the masses of workers — we need to abolish capitalism altogether.

The power of the worker lies in her labour. Her labour — at home and at work — make the world go round. And when any group of people get together and strike against capital, and demand nothing short of revolution, that is when inequality begins to die. We need a world where economic exploitation is illegal, where housing, healthcare, childcare, food, and jobs are guaranteed to all people. A world where humans collectively produce to meet human needs, and not for profit.

A “welfare-state,” social democracy, or “mixed economy” will not work. Capitalism will always be ruthless, racist, sexist, and ecologically destructive, and it will always influence state policy to unleash itself into its full, trickle-down, eight-men-own-as-much-as-half-of-humanity, neoliberal form. It will always drive production costs down and prevent equitable distribution of goods and services to maximize profit. What we — as workers, as women — need is socialism.

Women are a diverse group, and they are oppressed in many ways. We have been oppressed by men and economic elites long before capitalism was developed. We are, however, always instrumental in ushering in revolutionary change. A revolutionary worker’s state is essential in implementing feminist policy and alleviating the injustices women face. The January 21st Women’s Marches are part of a continuing display of popular interest in a world to come. As long as capitalism exists, so will every other injustice.

American feminists, as citizens of the leading imperialist capitalist power in the world, must include a radical critique of capitalism in their politics. We masses of women, and every other wronged minority and exploited worker, must together transform our disgust at this blatantly misogynistic corporate takeover into a revolutionary feminist movement. Our protests must turn to rebellion: a general strike, our collective power aimed at overthrowing the unjust order we have always known.

Women have been at the forefront of every revolutionary struggle in history. Today’s feminism needs to abandon capitalism, and the liberal ideology that supports it. It needs to abandon the Democratic Party, corporate feminism, pro-capitalist politicians, the ideologies that reify masculine and feminine gender stereotypes, the horribly misogynistic sex trade, and the liberal politics of “individual choice.” Women are not for sale, and we are not for profit. As feminists, we need to take feminism back from its neoliberal cooptation, and refocus on organizing women and their labour. We need to start thinking critically about capitalism. We need Red Feminism.

Emily Eisner writes about feminism, Marxism, and Marxist critiques of postmodernism. She holds a BA from the University of Texas at Austin, and publishes occasionally at her blog, Red Feminism.

The post Why Women’s Marchers need to care about capitalism appeared first on Feminist Current.

We, the undersigned, are writing to express our deep concern and outrage over both the recent demand for the retraction of Rebecca Tuvel’s article, “In Defense of Transracialism,” which was published in Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy on March 29th, and Hypatia’s temporarily acquiescing to this demand by removing the article in its online form for a period of time.

The open letter to Hypatia (published on April 30), which garnered over 800 signatures of academics from universities within the US and elsewhere, in addition to a handful of writers, was a mean-spirited mischaracterization of a scholar’s work that was conspicuously lacking in any attempt to engage with the primary argument offered therein. Instead, the letter demanded a retraction based on spurious and, in some instances, demonstrably wrong assertions regarding the content of the work. We agree with Jessie Singal’s overall assessment in his article, “This Is What a Modern Day Witch Hunt Looks Like,” and we share his suspicion that despite calling for its retraction, many of the signatories had not read Tuvel’s article before adding their names to the letter. In fact, one must wonder if some of the signatories had even read the open letter to Hypatia given the petition’s absolute defiance to critical inquiry and academic deliberation.

Most of the signatories to the Hypatia letter enjoy both the intellectual and practical benefits of free and open debate and discussion within their institutions. A vast majority of the signatories also directly benefit from the mechanisms of fairness of review processes within publishing in order for their ideas and words to see the light of day. This letter is then addressed to the heads of the universities and publishing houses of those who signed the Hypatia letter, which not only set out to have an article disappeared, but contributed to a cultural climate in which debate is stifled and individuals are demonized. These signatories participated in a purposeful, modern-era witch hunt whereby some of the most privileged in academia and publishing created a groundswell of opprobrium for a junior scholar — one that can be reasonably expected to have serious ramifications for her career and reputation.

Many of us have watched in astonishment and horror over the last few years as identity politics has been used as a cudgel to disappear the material condition and facticity of the world, be it social or scientific. Instead of nurturing dialogue with one’s interlocutor, a climate of taking irrational, unscientific, and reactionary dogma has been championed by the academy and the media. Anyone who has dared to question, critique, or even — as in the case of Tuvel — subject it to rigorous logical scrutiny in an effort to expand its application, has been met with shaming at best and abuse at worst. This alarming call for the silencing of an academic who made a good faith argument has left little room for doubt that the proponents of this dogma will brook no questioning of it. We believe that the signatories to the Hypatia letter have engaged in a call for de facto censorship and deep intellectual dishonesty to intimidate not just Tuvel, but anyone else who might consider offering a contrary opinion or perspective.

The signatories sent a clear message: no inquiry into the function and precepts of the prevailing philosophy of gender will be tolerated. We unequivocally reject this message and affirm our right to question, critique, and rebut any and all philosophies or viewpoints, regardless of how much academic support they may have. We recognize the Hypatia letter as an egregious example of a growing authoritarian trend when it comes to engaging certain topics. We refuse to bend to it. We condemn the attempts of academics and others to silence and erase from public view an opinion solely because it does not fall within the discursive parameters that they have taken it upon themselves to set. We assert that the academics who signed on to this letter betrayed their fundamental duty as scholars to encourage — even demand — rigorous examination and robust discussion of ideas.

It is supremely ironic that Tuvel’s acceptance and application of many of the core arguments used to buttress one of the prevailing views of a certain type of identity, when applied to another social domain has, conversely, sparked such outrage. It is difficult for us to draw any conclusion other than that Tuvel — however inadvertently — has shown the hollowness of such ideas and that those who expound them can proffer no credible defense. The letter and the demand for retraction show nothing as much as a thorough inability to logically rebut Tuvel’s argument.

And there is a glaring paradox at the centre of this affair — that one of the better known signatories has previously written the following:

“This attempt to purify the sphere of public discourse by institutionalizing the norms that establish what ought properly to be included there operates as a preemptive censor. Such efforts not only labour under a fear of contamination, but they are also compelled to restage in the spectacles of public denunciations they perform the very utterances they seek to banish from public life.”

We find it difficult to fathom how this individual can reconcile these sentiments with a letter that calls for the silencing of a scholar without even a cursory attempt at counter-argument. We again note the irony. This professor and her co-signers have advanced an onslaught of harassment towards an individual whose ideas are merely an application of their own theories and belief-systems. This amounts to an abuse of power on the part of influential individuals ensconced in powerful institutions. In endorsing this call for the silencing of a good faith and rigorous effort on the part of a scholar, they have shown themselves to be inadequate models of scholarly integrity and intellectual honesty.

We are not all scholars or academics. Our political affiliations and outlooks vary in numerous ways. We are professionals and laypeople; workers and readers; some of us are activists and some are not. Many of us do not agree with the premise of Tuvel’s article in fact, but we wholeheartedly support open debate and the freedom of intellectual exchange through the medium of publishing. We believe that we must confront three distinct issues:

1) The growing academic trend, particularly evident when it comes to gender, to stifle debate and shame, harass, and defame anyone who does not mindlessly parrot the prevailing orthodoxy;

2) The logical and political shortcomings inherent in much of the currently popular theory concerning gender;

3) The elision of feminist politics and the troubling sidelining of sex over gender “feelings,” ultimately contributing to institutional sexism whereby only those who toe the genderist ideology are rewarded, while all mention of material reality of females is pushed aside in both academic and editorial structures (i.e. the disappearance of women’s studies departments over the past two decades in favour of gender studies programs and the conterminous decrease of publications related to the material and experiential reality of females and sex-based oppression).

We are a diverse group of people who understand that ideas matter and that intellectual trends impact the society at large. They affect law, media, medicine, culture, language, and politics; they affect how we are educated and how our workplaces function; and, as this episode has made abundantly clear, they can even determine who is allowed to express an opinion and who isn’t. Because of this, vigorous and open debate and discussion is essential. We see in the Hypatia letter a clear attempt to incite fear in anyone who dares to not show unswerving deference to certain propositions and we condemn it in the most unequivocal terms. Unlike “A Majority of the Hypatia‘s Board of Associated Editors,” whose apology showed a craven eagerness to abandon basic principles of free speech and editorial integrity, we stand strong in our commitment to open discussion and assert our absolute right to question ideas and to shape alternate views.

We demand that:

1) The provosts and other chief administrators and editors who serve at the institutions with which the signatories are affiliated publicly disavow the call for silencing made in the letter and affirm their support for free dialogue and debate and begin to consider programs and initiatives to address the alarming authoritarian trend on the part of certain academics evidenced clearly in the Hypatia letter.

2) Hypatia republish Tuvel’s original article in its original full form with an apology to the author and their readers.

3) The universities and publishers named herein engage in addressing the growing problem of intellectual harassment within their walls by opening up forums and publications which address the growing problem of silencing and no-platforming, with the usual suspects being females who question or, as in the case of Tuvel, employ gender identity within a perfectly reasonable academic exercise.

To view signatories and to add your name to this letter, please visit ipetitions.com.

This open letter will be sent to the following provosts and other chief administrators and editors who serve at the institutions with which the signatories to the Hypatia letter are affiliated:

• Hypatia Editorial Board
• Elizabeth Abrams, University of California, Santa Cruz
• Augustine O. Agho, Old Dominion University
• Peter-André Alt, Freie Universität Berlin
• Valerie Amos, SOAS University of London
• Sona K. Andrews, Portland State University
• Terri Anne Camesano, Bruce Bursten, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
• Parvis Ansari, Westfield State University
• Paul Arcario, LaGuardia Community College (CUNY)
• Michael Arthur, University of London
• Attila Askar, Koç University, Istanbul
• Matthew R. Auer, Bates College
• Timothy R. Austin, Duquesne University
• Bert C. Bach, East Tennessee State University
• Benoit-Antoine Bacon, Queen’s University
• Gail F. Baker, University of San Diego
• Turina Bakken, Madison College
• Gerald Baldasty, University of Washington
• Susan Baldridge, Middlebury College
• Deborah Baldwin, University of Arkansas Little Rock
• Alberto Edgardo Barbieri, Universidad de Buenos Aires
• Jean Bartels, Georgia Southern University
• Craig Barton, School of the Art Institute of Chicago
• Scott A. Bass, American University
• Patricia E. Beeson, University of Pittsburgh
• Neeli Bendapudi, University of Kansas
• Justin Bengry, Founder and Managing Editor, Notches
• James Bennighof, Baylor University
• Sheri Berger, Pierce College
• Michael Bernstein, Stony Brook University
• Neil Besner, University of Winnipeg
• Hester Bijl, Leiden University Center for the Arts in Society
• Dale B. Billingsley, University of Louisville
• Christopher Bishop, Microsoft Research New England
• Julia Black, London School of Economics
• Fabienne Blaise, Lille University
• M. Brian Blake, Drexel University
• David Bogen, Maryland Institute College of Art
• David Bolton, City University of London
• Judy Bonner, Mississippi State University
• Leszek Borysiewicz, University of Cambridge
• Gene Bourgeois, Texas State University
• Jeanne F. Brady, Saint Joseph’s University
• Cheryl Brandsen, Calvin College
• Guy Breton, Université de Montréal
• Nancy Brickhouse, St. Louis University
• Ross Brown, Royal Central School of Speech and Drama London
• Marilyn Buck, Ball State University
• Rosemarie Buikema, Bluestockings Magazine
• Edward Burger, Southwestern University
• Tom Burish, University of Notre Dame
• David Burrows, Lawrence University
• Ken Burtis, University of California, Davis
• Edward Byrne, King’s College London
• Mike Calford, University of Tasmania
• Phyllis Callahan, Miami University
• H.E.A. (Eddy) Campbell, University of New Brunswick
• Brent Carbajal, Western Washington University
• Paula J. Carlson, Luther College
• Kevin R. Carman, University of Nevada, Reno
• Dennis Carroll, High Point University
• Ben Leeds Carson, University of California, Santa Cruz
• Joy Carter, University of Winchester
• Henrik Caspar, Wegener, University of Copenhagen
• John Cater, Edge Hill University
• Wes Chapin, University of Wisconsin River Falls
• Diane Z. Chase, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
• Joe Chicharo, University of Wollongong
• Carol T. Christ, University of California, Berkeley
• Alan Christy, University of California, Santa Cruz
• John Henry Coatsworth, Columbia University
• Denise Cobb, Southern Illinois University—Edwardsville
• Jim Coleman, University of Arkansas
• Jeanne Colleran, John Carroll University
• Francis S. Collins, National Institutes of Health
• Marie-Christine Collomb, Université Paris-Sorbonne
• Scott Coltrane, University of Oregon
• Rick Commons, Harvard-Westlake School
• Andrew C. Comrie, University of Arizona
• Marc Conner, Washington and Lee University
• Joy Connolly, CUNY Graduate Center
• Jay Coogan, Minneapolis College of Art & Design
• Kim Coplin, Denison University
• Paul N. Courant, University of Michigan
• Michael Crafton, University of West Georgia
• Ruth Crilly, Western Sydney University
• Andrew Crouch, University of the Witwatersrand
• Susan J. Curry, University of Iowa
• Ann Davies, Beloit College
• Eric Davis, University of the Fraser Valley
• Gayle R. Davis, Grand Valley State University
• Janice Deakin, University of Western Ontario
• James W. Dean, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill
• Donald H. DeHayes, University of Rhode Island
• Jane Den Hollander, Deakin University
• Marten L. denBoer, DePaul University
• Carolyn Dever, Dartmouth College
• Steven Dew, University of Alberta
• John Dewar, La Trobe University
• Todd A. Diacon, Kent State University
• Jeannine Diddle Uzzi, University of Southern Maine
• Daniel Diermeier, University of Chicago
• Robbert Dijkgraaf, Loyola Marymount University/Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton
• Persis S. Drell, Stanford University
• Thomas Dunk, Brock University
• Dana Dunn, University of North Carolina Greensboro
• Debasish (Deba) Dutta, Purdue University
• Donald R. Eastman, Eckerd College
• Executive Editor, Sarah Broadie, The Philosophical Quarterly, Independent Scholar
• Katherine Elizabeth Fleming, New York University
• Susan Elrod, University of Wisconsin at Whitewater
• Kenneth L. Ender, Harper College
• Christine Ennew, University of Warwick
• Chukuka S. Enwemeka, San Diego State University
• Alexander Enyedi, Humboldt State University
• JoAnne A. Epps, Temple University
• Dean Eric Eliason, Concordia College, Moorhead
• Dorothy Escribano, College of New Rochelle, NY
• Chris Evans, Ryerson University
• Knut Fægri, University of Oslo
• Gervan Fearon, Brandon University, Canada
• Katherine Fell, University of Findlay
• Joel Ferguson, University of California, Santa Cruz
• Edward Feser, Oregon State University
• Des Fitzgerald, University of Limerick
• William L. Fox, St. Lawrence University
• DonnaJean A. Fredeen, Rider University
• Stephen Freedman, Fordham University
• Lisa Freeman, Northern Illinois University
• Annie Furuyama, Utrecht University
• Ilshat Gafurov, Kazan University
• Michael Galyean, Texas Tech University
• Alan M. Garber, Harvard University
• Laurel Garrick-Duhaney, SUNY New Paltz
• Stephen Gerlach, Flinders University
• Dean R. Gerstein, Claremont Graduate University, UC San Diego
• Joseph Glover, University of Florida
• Jeffrey Goldberg, Mount Royal University
• Noreen Golfman, Memorial University of Newfoundland
• David Graham, University of Ottawa
• Domenico Grasso, University of Delaware
• O. Finley Graves, University of North Texas
• David Greenaway, University of Nottingham
• Robert Groves, Georgetown University
• Gail Hackett, Virginia Commonwealth University
• Jeremy Haefner, RIT
• Andrew (Andy) Hale Feinstein, San Jose State University
• Michael Halleran, The College of William & Mary
• Karen Hanson, University of Minnesota
• Cindy Harcum, Baltimore City College
• W. Ken Harmon, Kennesaw State University
• Kathleen Harring, Muhlenberg College
• Constance Harsh, Colgate University
• Lyn Hejinian and Travis Ortiz, Atelos
• Donald E. Heller, University of San Francisco
• Joseph Hellige, Loyola Marymount University
• Elizabeth Hendrey, CUNY Queens
• Gregory D. Hess, Wabash College
• Matthew S. Holland, Utah Valley University
• Steve Hollenhorst, Huxley College of the Environment
• Editors, Homofactus
• Debra Humphris, University of Brighton
• Jennie Hunter-Cevera, Mount Saint Mary’s University Los Angeles
• Jacqueline E. Huntoon, Michigan Technological University
• Edward Inch, California State University, East Bay
• Beth Ingram, North Dakota State University
• Matt Inman, Three Rivers Press & Penguin Random House
• Farrukh Iqbal, Institute of Business Administration (Pakistan)
• Don Jackson, Hastings College
• Dennis C. Jacobs, Santa Clara University
• Ian Jacobs, University of New South Wales
• Joyce Jacobsen, Wesleyan University
• Farnam Jahanian, Carnegie Mellon University
• Brian Jersky, California State University, Long Beach
• Michael D. Johnson, Babson College
• Laurel Jones, Cabrillo College
• Nicholas P. Jones, Penn State University
• Laura Joseph, Farmingdale State College, SUNY
• Ellen Junn, California State University, Stanislaus
• Thomas C. Katsouleas, University of Virginia
• Peter Keller, Simon Fraser University
• Peggy D. Kennedy, Minnesota State Community and Technical College
• Rogan Kersh, Wake Forest University School of Divinity
• Joe Klesner, Kenyon College
• Lori G. Kletzer, Colby College
• Sally Kornbluth, Duke University
• Michael Kotlikoff, Cornell University
• Douglas Kristensen, University of Nebraska Kearney
• Darrell P. Kruger, Appalachian State University
• Gregg Kvistad, University of Denver
• Peter Landgren, University of Cincinnati
• Gina Langhout, University of California, Santa Cruz
• Winston E. Langley, University of Massachusetts Boston
• Cynthia K. Larive, University of California, Riverside
• David Lassner, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
• David Latchman, Birkbeck College, University of London
• Kelly Lauer, Harvey Mudd College
• Enrique J. Lavernia, University of California, Irvine
• Doreen Lawrence, De Montfort University
• Thomas J. LeBlanc, University of Miami
• David S. Lee, Princeton University
• Herbie Lee, University of California, Santa Cruz
• Yi Li, California State University, Northridge
• Kung-Yee Liang, National Yang-Ming University
• Michael Licari, Indiana State University
• Daniel I. Linzer, Northwestern University
• Daniel J. Linzer, Bernardo, Washington State University
• Ronnie Lipschutz, University of California, Santa Cruz
• Richard M. Locke, Brown University
• Joan F. Lorden, University of North Carolina Charlotte
• Patrick Loughrey, Goldsmiths, University of London
• Dan Lowenstein, University of California, San Francisco
• Carol Macdonald, Senior Commissioning Editor, Edinburgh University Press
• Alfred MacKay, Oberlin College
• Patrick G. Maggitti, Villanova University
• Lynn Mahoney, California State University, Los Angeles
• Forrest Maltzman, George Washington University
• Christopher P. Manfredi, McGill University
• Sarah Mangelsdorf, University of Wisconsin-Madison
• Robert A. Mangione, St. John’s University
• David Marshall, University of California, Santa Barbara
• Jennifer Martin, Texas Woman’s University
• April Mason, Kansas State University
• John Matachek, Hamline University
• Liviu Matei, Central European University
• Brian R. McGee, College of Charleston
• Maurie McInnis, University of Texas at Austin
• Tiffany McKillip Franks, Averett University
• Shari McMahan, California State University, San Bernardino
• Caroline McMillen, University of Newcastle
• Bruce A. McPheron, Ohio State University
• Nina Mikhalevsky, University of Mary Washington
• Nina Mikhalevsky, University of Maryland
• Rick Miranda, Colorado State University
• Steven Mithen, University of Reading
• Jane Monnig Atkinson, Clark College
• Russell L. Moore, University of Colorado Boulder
• Jean Morrison, Boston University
• Jan M. Murphy, Illinois State University
• Anton Muscatelli, University of Glasgow
• Daniel J. Myers, Marquette University
• Roderick Nairn, University of Colorado Denver
• Leanne Neilson, California Lutheran University
• James A. Newell, Rowan University
• Katherine S. Newman, University of Massachusetts Amherst
• Laurie Nichols, University of Wyoming
• Donald G. Nieman, Binghamton University
• Philip Nolan, Maynooth University
• Timothy O’Shea, University of Sussex / Edinburgh College of Art
• Brennan O’Donnell, Manhattan College
• Patrick O’Shea, University College Cork
• Graham Oberem, California State University, San Marcos
• Jeff Ollerhead, Mount Allison University
• Chinyere Oparah, Mills College
• Ian Orchard, University of Waterloo
• Guy Orpen, University of Bristol
• Travis Ortiz, Atelos
• David W. Oxtoby, Pomona College
• Michael Palis, Rutgers University
• Risa Palm, Georgia State University
• Andrew Parfitt, University of Technology Sydney
• Marc Parlange, Monash University
• Naren Patel, University of Dundee
• Franco Pavoncello, John Cabot University
• Sandra J. Peart, University of Richmond
• Gary W Perry, Florida Atlantic University
• Debra Peters, Ecosphere
• Lisa Philipps, York University
• Clarenda Phillips, Notre Dame of Maryland University
• June Pierce Youatt, Michigan State University
• Susan Poser, University of Illinois at Chicago
• Vincent Price, University of Pennsylvania
• Robert Proulx, Université du Québec à Montréal
• Mark Prus, CUNY Graduate Center and City College of New York
• Anil K. Puri, California State University, Fullerton
• Michael Quick, University of Southern California
• David Quigley, Boston College
• Donald R. Strong, Ecology
• J. Ralph Byington, Coastal Carolina University
• Malcolm Reed, Brighton and Sussex Medical School
• Cheryl Regehr, University of Toronto
• Pascal Reghem, University of Le Havre
• Peter Ricketts, Carleton University
• Lauren Robel, Indiana University Bloomington
• Sofia Robledo, Bluestockings Magazine
• Rodney K. Rogers, Bowling Green State University
• David Roland Finley, Delta College
• Victoria Roman-Lagunas, Northeastern Illinois University
• David V. Rosowsky, University of Vermont
• Eva Rueschmann, Hampshire College
• Gary Sandefur, Oklahoma State University
• Warren G. Sandmann, William Paterson University
• Martin Schmidt, MIT
• Mark Searle, Arizona State University
• Megan Segoshi, Editor in Chief, Journal of Critical Scholarship on Higher Education
• William Serrata, El Paso Community College
• Margaret Sheil, University of Melbourne
• Sandy Shugart, Valencia College
• Gillian Siddall, OCAD University
• John Smarrelli Jr., Christian Brothers University
• Robert T. Smith, Armstrong State University
• Joseph M. Sopcich, Johnson County Community College
• Steven Spier, Kingston University, London
• Tom Stephenson, Swarthmore College
• Garnett S. Stokes, University of Missouri
• Donald Straney, University of Hawai’i at Hilo
• Jennifer Summit, San Francisco State University
• Nancy Targett, University of New Hampshire
• Jacqueline Taylor, The College of New Jersey
• Helen Teasdale, University of Sheffield
• Jeremy Teitelbaum, University of Connecticut
• Saul Tendler, University of York
• Jan Thomas, Massey University
• Stephen E. Thorsett and Carol S. Long, Willamette University
• Adam Tickell, University of Sussex
• Lara Tiedens, Scripps College
• Brad Toben, Baylor Law School
• Tim Tracy, University of Kentucky
• Elizabeth Treasure, Aberystwyth University
• Maurizio Trevisan, CUNY Graduate Center and City College of New York
• Walter Tribley, Monterey Peninsula College
• Titilayo Ufomata, Hobart & William Smith Colleges
• Kalervo Väänänen, University of Turku
• Albert Van Jaarsveld, University of KwaZulu Natal
• Katharine Viner, Editor of The Guardian, GATE
• Isabella Vitti, Editor, Routledge
• Torbjörn Von Schantz, Lund University
• Robbyn Wacker, University of Northern Colorado
• Susan Walsh, Southern Oregon University
• Kent Waltersson, Linköping University
• Ching-Hua Wang, California State University, Sacramento
• David Wantz, University of Indianapolis
• Karan L. Watson, Texas A&M University
• Michael Weber, Universität Ulm, Baden-Württemberg
• Karen Weddle-West, University of Memphis
• Susan Wente, Vanderbilt University
• Jon Western, Mount Holyoke College
• Michele G. Wheatly, Syracuse University
• Darrell P. Wheeler, University at Albany SUNY
• Kevin Whitaker, University of Alabama
• Craig White, University of New Mexico
• A. Dale Whittaker, University of Central Florida
• Michael R. Wick, St. Mary’s College of Maryland
• Jonathan Wickert, Iowa State University
• Ralph Wilcox, University of South Florida
• Stephen C. Wilhite, Widener University
• John P. Wilkin, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
• David S. Wilkinson, McMaster University
• Ken Wissoker, Editorial Director, Duke University Press
• Marjorie Wonham, Quest University Canada
• S. David Wu, George Mason University
• Alice Yang, University of California, Santa Cruz
• Charlotte Yates, University of Guelph
• Mary Jo Zembar, Wittenberg University
• Stuart Zola, Emory University
• John Zomchick, University of Tennessee
• Charles F. Zukoski, SUNY at Buffalo

The post An open letter on the Hypatia controversy appeared first on Feminist Current.

GYNX (pronounced jinx) is a new play by Alicen Grey, currently in production and premiering Off-Broadway this August. It tells the story of five women who find common cause in fighting rape culture, but their methods are a little unconventional. They carefully select known rapists, castrate them and release them. Do the ends justify the means? When justice has been denied to women since prehistory, how do women take our power back?

Grey is fearless in naming male violence, which isn’t a surprise if you’re familiar with her work. But perhaps the most shocking thing about the play (hang onto your seatbelts, women, there are curves ahead!), is the refusal to turn away from the weakness, fear, and power dynamics that threaten the feminist movement. Throughout, a dark humour balances all the destruction.

Grey has already started to get attention for her effort, with a feminist director signed on, a running start on her IndieGoGo campaign, and, unsurprisingly, plenty of hate from pathetic men. I had a chance to interview Grey about all of this.

***

Jocelyn Macdonald: What was the initial spark of inspiration?

Alicen Grey: Anger and grief! Around December 2015, someone sent me an article about the history of underground abortion operations run by feminists. As I read it, this rage bubbled up in me — not only because such operations are necessary, but because I’d never even heard of the “living room abortion movement.” These women risked their lives to save others’, they worked so hard for no recompense, and some were jailed. After all that, they were erased from feminist discourse. Now, all mainstream feminists talk about is whether lipstick and high heels are empowering. How did we go from being so radical to being so easily pacified?

Around the same time, a friend and I were talking about how some countries castrate sex offenders with remarkable success. That same rage bubbled up. I said:

“Why don’t governments do more to protect us? Better question: why are we still waiting around for them to care? Imagine what would happen if we all took matters into our own hands — if we gave ourselves abortions and made rapists fear for their lives.”

When I said that, suddenly I got this vision of a man strapped down to a table, surrounded by five women wearing masks. It felt like a vision from the future. I was overcome with this insatiable craving to write, unlike any inspiration I’ve felt for a creative project before. Now, a year and a half later, I’ve written a play in which five women do take matters into their own hands… And it’s premiering Off-Broadway this August.

JM: Any particular reason you chose theatre as the medium for this story?

AG: At first it was a fun “Why not?” thing, because I’ve been both a writer and a theatre kid all my life, yet somehow I hadn’t put those two passions together until now. But when I decided to seriously produce it, there were so many rejections and hurdles to jump, just to get in the theatre door — it wasn’t so fun anymore. Then I realized theatre was the perfect medium for a story like GYNX.

Theatre, like most of the arts, has a shameful history of misogyny: female playwrights, directors, and production staff have trouble finding work or being taken seriously, and there’s plenty of misogyny in casting as well. And while most art forms are relatively accessible to the average person, theatre absolutely requires space — not to mention lots and lots of resources. Those theatre spaces and resources are heavily guarded by elitism, racism, misogyny, and classism, which is why we rarely see marginalized people succeeding in the theatre world. Any feminist who’s done her reading can tell you that this is consistent with the misogyny that permeates the globe, as space and resources are two things universally denied to women.

GYNX is a story about women who reclaim the streets from the men who’ve attempted to silence and erase them. So, not only is the process of producing GYNX literally challenging the erasure of women in the arts, but it’s also metaphorically challenging the erasure of women in the world at large.

JM: Your play is the story of a group of vigilantes who exact justice on the men who society refuses to even name as the agents of sex trafficking, child sexual abuse, rape, gay bashing, environmental degradation, and so much more rampant violence. You’ve always explicitly discussed male pattern violence in a way that many writers are reluctant to. How do you expect a male audience to react to being so directly challenged by GYNX?

AG: I’ve been getting some creepy feedback from men already, so I expect it to get 10 times creepier when the show actually debuts. One guy who was supposed to give an objective review of GYNX ended up debating me about one of the rapes in the script, in which the woman didn’t explicitly say no — and the way he was arguing, he sounded personally offended. So we can make some assumptions about things he’s done… Another guy wrote this long, grotesque email to me, claiming that he’s a serial rapist but “regrets” his actions and wants me to castrate him on film. I reported his email but never got a response from the police (shocker). Also, two guys have requested to play rapists, with a bit too much enthusiasm.

I think GYNX brings out the worst in men, in a good way. It makes them expose themselves. Media that unapologetically describes reality always has that effect. Whenever women try to talk about male pattern violence, men respond with more male pattern violence (threats, misogynist slurs, sexual harassment, assault, etc.). The irony is lost on them. But it’s not lost on those of us who see sadopatriarchy for what it is and are trying to change it.

JM: Do you expect backlash because this play is so radical?

AG: Absolutely! In fact, I’m counting on the angry masses of men that populate Reddit and 4chan to do our promotional work for us. (Just kidding.) But yes, I expect wrath from MRAs and maybe liberal feminists too. I’ve been trashed on Reddit, 4chan, and Tumblr so many times, I don’t even flinch anymore. There was a time when I gave a fuck. Those days are over.

JM: Do you have a plan for dealing, personally and in the real world, with male violence, boycotts, or harassment?

AG: We did put aside a certain amount in our budget for security. It’s sad and infuriating that a play might inspire atrocious violence from men, but we’ve seen it before, and we don’t want to see it again.

Part of why I brought Maridee Slater on board as the director for GYNX’s first production is because she produced a play at Fringe Fest NYC in 2015 called The Boys Are Angry. It’s about the toxic masculinity that drives these online anti-feminist sausage parties. Inevitably, they wound up being harassed and trolled by 4chan dwellers. But the whole team pushed through and produced the play anyway. When I was choosing a director, I didn’t want just anybody who called themselves “feminist.” I wanted someone who had already been through the fire and was willing to go through it again. Raising consciousness about women’s oppression is not easy work. And if feminism is easy for you,  you might be doing it wrong.

JM: What do you want the audience to come away with after seeing your play?

AG: Based on the responses I’ve gotten so far, it seems like people are expecting GYNX to spark a debate about the ethics and efficacy of castrating rapists. And like, sure, people can have that debate. I’m down for that.

But the whole rape-revenge plotline of GYNX is actually a Trojan Horse. I’m trying to put ideas in people’s heads — plant seeds. I want everyone — men and women — to walk away from this play asking themselves: What more can I do for women?

JM: How would you personally answer that question?

AG: I’ve been meditating on that a lot lately, and I’ve come up with more questions than answers. Is tweeting pro-feminist sentiments enough to qualify one as a feminist? Does activism mean marching and holding signs, then going home and saying you did your part? Those tactics can be part of our strategy, absolutely. But too many of us stop there. We get too comfortable doing all our activism in a way that requires very little action. We state our opinions loudly and proudly, and we virtue-signal our asses off, but at the end of the day, that doesn’t restore tangible resources to the marginalized groups we’re shouting about. So I want to inspire all of us to think about how we can make our activism less demonstrative and more impactful.

In the play, we meet one character who taught herself how to administer surgical abortions to desperate women. We meet another character who taught herself how to hack child porn websites and infect pedophiles’ computers with viruses. These characters are based on real women I’ve read about. Their work humbles me. Because they exist, I don’t feel like I’ve earned the right to call myself a feminist yet. Most women haven’t, if we’re being honest here. So with this play, I’m kind of shaking my fellow self-identified feminists by the shoulders and screaming, “There are so many ways we can meaningfully impact women’s lives! Why are we still wasting our time on Facebook debates and Twitter wars?!”

***

JM: When will this play see a stage?

AG: GYNX is premiering Off-Broadway at the Thespis Theatre Summerfest in NYC! Show dates are August 21st, 25th, and 27th. We’re going to need all the support we can get, so we’re asking people to donate whatever they can to our IndieGoGo campaign.

Unlike most theatre crowdfunding campaigns, which only offer “producer credits” or a “social media shout-out” for your contribution, we’re giving people a chance to see GYNX for themselves. No matter where you are in the world, you can watch a professional recording of GYNX archived online, for a donation of only $25, which is the same cost as a ticket to the live show. All the info you need is at the website: www.gynxtheplay.com.

I’m so excited for everyone to see this show!

The post Meet the feminist playwright who’s castrating rapists Off-Broadway appeared first on Feminist Current.

On July 9th, 2017, Martha Harvey, the Executive Director of the Pride Center of the Capital Region shared an article from a feminist website to the Center’s Facebook page, along with the comment, “Interesting article. What do you think?” The article, “Lesbianism is under attack, though not by the usual suspects,” was about the historical erasure of lesbianism, lesbian women’s accomplishments, and the ongoing violence and coercion they are subjected to around the world in order to force them to submit to heterosexual relationships. The article criticized a modern version of this coercion, disturbingly rubber-stamped by many progressives and queer activists. These are recognized, long-standing issues facing lesbian women and girls, which any organization who claims to represent them should be concerned with.

But because a very small but vocal group did not agree with the arguments made in the piece, they decided that it should not be read by anyone at all. Within hours of posting the article, Harvey was attacked online by a group of people who labeled her “transphobic,” demanded she apologize and take down the article, and proceeded to write the Center’s board of directors, repeating these demands and calling for her resignation.The article contained no slurs, hate speech, or calls for violence, and Feminist Current, where the article was published, is a well-known feminist, progressive publication, that advocates against male violence and towards women’s liberation. Still, even after Harvey took the post linking to the article down and posted a lengthy, detailed apology, demands the board ask for her resignation, claiming she was unfit for the position, continued.

No political article will be wholly agreed on by all readers. It is ok to disagree, it is ok to critique, it is ok to have conversations, to argue, and to debate. It is not ok to silence, censor, or attempt to destroy the lives of those we disagree with. It is not okay to silence and smear a lesbian woman, for raising concerns about the human rights of lesbian women, on the page of an organization whose mission includes increasing political recognition and human rights for lesbians.

The article was said to have included “damaging rhetoric,” and Harvey was accused of “transphobia” and “transmisogyny” for having shared it. A statement posted on the Black Lives Matter: Upstate NY Facebook page read:

“The Executive Director of the Pride Center of the Capital Region recently shared, via social media, a cruel and dehumanizing ‘article’ perpetuating violent and transphobic rhetoric. The article, among other things, compared trans women to rapists and reduced members of the trans community to their genitals.”

No quotes from the article were offered as reference for these claims. In fact, what the article argues is that lesbians have the right to refuse sex and sexual relationships with people with penises. This argument is not hateful or phobic, it is a matter of respecting lesbianism, respecting women’s boundaries, and in opposition to a misogynist and homophobic culture that says all women should desire and be sexually available to males.

It has become common practice to evoke the concept of “violence” in reference to language or ideas with which we politically disagree. To claim an article supporting lesbian rights is “dehumanizing” and perpetuates “violence,” without supporting those claims is dishonest and dangerously manipulative. Considering the real-life violence lesbians (and other oppressed groups of people) have faced and continue to face as minorities in a patriarchal, racist, heterosexist world, painting words and thoughts as “violence” minimizes that violence and misunderstands the roots, reality, and function of systems of oppression, like patriarchy, capitalism, and white supremacy.

Social justice movements need to engage in critical thought and open, rigorous debate, with integrity. In the U.S., minority groups are up against a misogynist, racist, imperialist regime that poses a daily threat to their lives and human rights. Faced with a demagogue in power in the U.S., who silences and smears the free press with wild abandon, who rejects any and all critique/critical thought, and who bullies and punishes those who fail to toe the line, we need to ensure our social justice movements are not operating through the same tactics.

Many of those calling for Harvey’s resignation have stated emphatically that “Transwomen are women.” But, while it has become unpopular to say so, most of those who identify as transwomen have male bodies. It is indefensible to suggest that lesbians (i.e. women who are attracted explicitly to other women) must consider sexual relationships with males who identify as trans, simply because they say so or because it is considered “open-minded” by some. This should not even be up for debate within an organization whose core mission is to advance the rights of those who maintain a same-sex orientation. But it is, hence the article, which details the history of homophobic oppression worldwide, the erasure of lesbians and lesbianism, and the way our patriarchal culture and the media produced within it too-often fetishizes lesbianism, inserts males into lesbian relationships, and makes use of a narrative that depicts men “turning” lesbians heterosexual through penetrative sex.

The targeted harassment and attacks Harvey has been subjected to, simply for sharing an article, are sadly not uncommon. There are numerous cases of women, feminist organizations, and even experts in the field of gender dysphoria being targeted for questioning discourse around gender identity, transgenderism, and for centering women in their politics. Individuals are harassed online, in real life, and through their employment for asking the “wrong” questions, using the “wrong” words, and sharing the “wrong” articles.

Pride centers represent lesbians, as well as other groups and individuals who are marginalized in a patriarchal, homophobic society. Not all of those groups and individuals are or should be in agreement about every issue. Certainly they are not all in agreement about the issue of gender identity and the question of what is a woman.

Why should one vocal minority get to speak on behalf of all LGBT people? Why should that group be permitted to dictate what conversations are allowed to happen among LGBT people? Why is this group being permitted to attack, threaten, and silence a lesbian woman, who has worked for decades, on behalf of LGBT people, simply because they don’t like the kinds of articles she reads?

Harvey has done nothing wrong. She has not said anything hateful or bigoted. She is thinking critically about an issue that is of utmost importance to lesbians, and feminists, more broadly: bodily autonomy, boundaries, the right for women to define and enact their own sexuality. She was trying to open up a dialogue.

Those who are attacking Harvey are doing so without sharing — or even having read — the original article, so that people can read it and decide for themselves if it is wrong or “harmful.” Putting ordinary, nonviolent political speech — about lesbian rights and feminism, no less — so far outside the realm of polite conversation that the contents can’t even be meaningfully alluded to is to say that these topics are more dangerous than slurs, more dangerous than the harshest moral condemnation, more dangerous than direct calls to violence, more dangerous than the writings of mass murdering dictators whose words are still quoted for reference when appropriate. And if the writing is that dangerous, how much more so the feminists who write it, the lesbian who shares it? Are feminist ideas now so dangerous they are unspeakable? So dangerous they must be suppressed, so no one else may read these words?

To prevent critical thought, free speech, and robust debate, by silencing and harassing your opponents, is destructive of the democratic norms and institutions that have allowed the oppressed to advance our rights in systems not built to respect us.

Harvey should not have apologized for posting the article, but she did. We, the undersigned, think it is fair to believe her when she says she does not want anyone in her community to feel “unsafe, attacked, maligned, erased, unheard, or misrepresented.” Doesn’t she deserve the same consideration?

This is nothing short of a witch hunt. This behaviour should not be tolerated, no matter what your opinion. We implore the Board of Directors and all allies of the LGBT community to support Harvey in her position as Executive Director of the Pride Center of the Capital Region.

We stand in solidarity with Martha Harvey and with the principles of free speech, critical thought, and woman-centered politics.

If you would like to add your name to this letter, please email: info@feministcurrent.com.

List of Signatories:

1. Angie Conroy
2. Manu Schon
3. Deidre Pearson
4. Meghan Murphy
5. Monika Beatty
6. Orla Hegarty
7. Elizabeth Pickett, LL.M.,
8. Colleen Glynn
9. Tina Minkowitz
10. Tara Prima
11. Memoree Joelle
12. Peggy Luhrs
13. Spider Redgold
14. Tracy Allard
15. MJ Reilly
16. Barb Gurwell
17. Melinda Mann
18. Russell Gibson
19. Jean P. Miller
20. M.K. McCaffrey
21. Marian Rutigliano
22. Jasmine Northrop
23. Lesley MacDougall
24. Pansy Watson
25. V.L. Zajdel
26. Sarah Richardson
27. Holly Northrop
28. S. L. Bondarchuk
29. Ashley Chickadel
30. Carol Crystal
31. Tracy Lanzafame
32. Martin Dufresne
33. Lynn Johnson
34. Susan Smyth
35. Meg Goodman
36. Casey Hall
37. Kacie Mills
38. Laura Brewer
39. Elaine Grisé
40. Natasha Chart
41. Sandra Harpes
42. Sarah Blaquiere
43. Ann Elizabeth Wheeler
44. Leah Harwood
45. Lea Pierce
46. Molly Donohue
47. Marie Guzzo
48. Nancy Lee Koenig Sr
49. Andrea Stumpf
50. Sarah Westbury
51. Cathryn Atkinson
52. Diane Guilbault
53. Vanessa Fraser
54. Sara Wiseman
55. Erin Graham, PhD
56. April Applegate
57. Ella Josten
58. Georgina Whitby
59. Robertson Taylor
60. Nancy Crase
61. Ellen Donohue
62. Magdalena Gutierrez
63. Trish Oliver
64. Natalie Ballard
65. Mary Syrett
66. Harry W Laughlin
67. Katherine Denison
68. Moira Ariev
69. Karla Gjini
70. Wendy Lewis
71. Dawn Wilcox
72. Kate Hansen
73. Amanda Sabean
74. Angela Lee
75. Cherry Austin
76. Tim Leadbeater
77. Julia Beck
78. Elizabeth Robertson
79. Susan MacHolan
80. Elana Dykewomon
81. Barbara Lapthorn MSc
82. Maxine Lewis
83. Ivy Ziedrich
84. Amanda Ripley
85. Penelope Greenhough
86. Jessica Gardner
87. Terre Spencer
88. Katy Saunderson
89. Emma Flynn
90. Sheena Best
91. Barbara Scott
92. Maureen Doll
93. Camilla Strand
94. Katarina Visnar
95. Helen Saxby
96. Susanne Bischoff
97. D’Arcy Pocklington
98. Maria Alferova
99. Charlotte Peterson
100. Mags Hodge
101. Corinna Cohn
102. S. Grace Skrobisz
103. Morgan Westcott
104. Maureen Bourke
105. Ida Jørgensen
106. Maria MacLachlan
107. Vaska Tumir
108. Rhoda Mueller
109. Brian Cross
110. Jennifer Murnan
111. Janet Cotgrave
112. N. Lawji
113. Cheryl Lickona
114. Max Dashu
115. Stella Jane Bowen
116. Leah Martin
117. Judith Sara
118. Ru Ide
119. Anne Bevan
120. Dr. Sean Heather K. McGraw
121. Lisa Steacy
122. Laura Phelps
123. Nicole Buckley
124. JJ Barnes
125. Trula Earthgarden
126. Tracy Shringarpure
127. Diane McGowan
128. Thora Broughton
129. Glen Morgan
130. Patricia Booher
131. Hearth M. Rising
132. Joshua Slocum
133. Sarah Cummings
134. Christine Muldoon
135. Susan King
136. Celia A. Nord
137. Lorna Garano
138. Alex McKane
139. Sarah Porter
140. Anemone Cerridwen
141. Barbara Derbyshire
142. Helen Staniland
143. Vicki Wharton
144. Alison Dover
145. Ann Menasche
146. Katie Watkins
147. Claire Heuchen
148. Spiro C. Lampros
149. Racheal Rodman
150. Carol Pinegar
151. Suzie Blake
152. Rebecca Harmon
153. Ruby Barnett
154. Lily Cage
155. Mary Lunetta
156. Bettina Brand
157. Nancy Lulic
158. Thistle Pettersen
159. Margaret Shivelight
160. Nicola Williams
161. Brett Howard
162. Darcie Whitehurst
163. Michelle R Miller
164. Jennifer Bilek
165. Temple Ardinger
166. Daisy Kler
167. Jennifer Chavez
168. Kim Macphail-Chicago
169. Karla Mantilla
170. V J Link
171. Debbie Liu
172. Henrik Persson
173. Eliza Karat
174. Charlee Connor
175. Kathleen Knight
176. Elizabeth Johnson
177. Inge Kleine
178. Pour les droits des femmes du Québec (PDF Québec)
179. Kate Gould
180. Abigail McGowan
181. Kitty Barber
182. Dru Smith
183. Rebecca Whisnant
184. Darl Wood
185. Susan Boyd
186. Ellen McManus
187. Elise Osha
188. Liza Cowan
189. Paul Joseph McDonough
190. Gina Quinlan
191. Claire Robinson
192. Nicole Jones
193. Casey Leeds
194. Miep Rowan O’Brien
195. Amanda Whyte
196. Lisa Mallett
197. Liz Waterhouse
198. Simone Watson
199. Anna McCormack
200. Karen Cayer
201. Jane Margaret Kelf
202. Mick Parkin
203. Hayley McPhail
204. Shawnee Freeman
205. Morven Magari
206. Laura Williams
207. Francine Sporenda
208. Marylou Singleton
209. Marieke Bos
210. Alisha Read
211. Jo Gaylor
212. Tua Wester
213. Ben C. Smith
214. Georgina Blackmore
215. Carol Hanisch
216. Shuli Goodman
217. Vandra Costello
218. Temple Morris
219. Teresa Henderson
220. Mark Fulwiler
221. Shoshana Handel
222. Kathy Scarbrough
223. Caity Strickland
224. Adam Sowa
225. Myriam Perera
226. Mandy Vere
227. Kelly Yardy
228. Kate Lewis
229. Rebeka Hoffman
230. Diane Szczesniak
231. Kay Rowan
232. J Gourley
233. Elizabeth Albright
234. Terry Harris
235. Sandra Russel
236. Aoife Assumpta Hart, PhD
237. Jessica Anderson
238. Josephine Bartosch
239. Amy Whitman
240. Cristy Webb
241. Lizeth Alvarez
242. Lia Patris
243. Sharon Fraser
244. Pat Whyte
245. Michele Richards
246. Mary Burns
247. Patricia Fraser
248. Kathleen Connor
249. Michelle Connolly
250. Merilee Thompson
251. Susan Wiseheart
252. Gretchen Brown
253. Maureen Peterson
254. Sarah Richardson
255. Krista Sawchuk
256. Mary McClintock, M.Ed
257. Joan Moore
258. Zoë Lafantaisie
259. Molly Belt
260. Cynthia Bott
261. Rachel King
262. Kathleen Lowrey
263. Keira Smith-Tague
264. Hilla Kerner
265. Samantha Grey
266. Louisa Russell
267. Maria Paredes
268. Maria Wong
269. Rachel Anthony
270. Michelle Gale, PhD
271. Meredith Avila
272. Lynn Schirmer
273. Susan Breen
274. Cherrie Bertha-Elizabeth
275. Tove Happonen
276. Jennifer Grimsley
277. Jodi Shaw
278. Dr Lesley Semmens
279. Elizabeth L Little
280. Raquel Rosario Sanchez
281. Tanya Lebar
282. Liz Warren
283. Tara Candido
284. Lee Evans
285. Marie Moore
286. Emma Robertson
287. Magi Gibson
288. Marcia K. Matthews
289. Sabrinna Valisce
290. Natalie Thompson
291. Jessica Shepherd
292. Maureen K. Doll
293. Amy Guy
294. Anna Makarova
295. Joyce Miller
296. Maureen Anderson
297. Bear Dean
298. Julie Smith
299. Cassandra Birch
300. Anika Cunningham
301. Gaye Spetka
302. Nori Budge
303. Karis H. Post, CAGS
304. Donna Zinno-Baybusky
305. Dani Richards
306. Linda Barnes
307. Linda K. Best
308. Cheryl Bergen
309. Harriet C. Forman
310. Melissa McCudden
311. Claire Williams
312. Richard Pope
313. Beckie Kuipers
314. Nick Dager
315. Jan Whitman
316. Joey G. Mueller
317. Patricia K. Wood
318. Rona Stewart
319. Angela C. Wild
320. Gunhild Mewes
321. Ulrika Winbäck
322. Moa Lindholm
323. Susan Lowney
324. Lydie Labat
325. Nasheima Sheikh
326. Robin Birdfeather
327. Natasha Collins-Lynn
328. Jane Levan
329. Lenore Norrgard
330. Carolyn Scofield
331. Jerl Dilno
332. Natalie Painter
333. Karen Bercovici
334. Kimberly Sabrosky
335. Alison Batts
336. Jen Izaakson
337. Jay Keck
338. Frances O’Connell
339. Corrinne Farner
340. Vajra Ma
341. Susan Matthews
342. Sandy Cleomaude
343. Donald J. Anthony
344. Mary Forst
345. Ramona Boston
346. Madeline Ruoff
347. Perig Gouanvic
348. Louise Moondancer
349. Sarah Mooney
350. Rand Hall
351. Kayley Self
352. Lori Curry
353. Marcia Levin
354. Melinda Tremaglio
355. Juliette Doroy​
356. Melissa Kelly
357. Claudia Raven
358. Nil Şimşek
359. Kristen Erskine
360. Wendy Lev
361. Trisha Baptie
362. Michelle Noonan
363. Helen Ridsdale
364. Eavan Moore
365. Lina Nordström
366. Melissa Kramer
367. Suzanne Jay
368. Barbara van’tSlot
369. Karolina Jurikova
370. Heather-Rose Ryan
371. Amilkar Romero-García
372. Emily de Castrique
373. Robert Doublin
374. Spyros Marchetos
375. Krysti Hollaway
376. Mary J. Mulligan
377. Rae Robinson
378. Aurora Linnea
379. Clara Göransson
380. Lacourarie Pascale
381. Gabriel Parra-Blessing
382. Jessica Weber
383. Candyce Rusk
384. Conni Johnson
385. Kajsa Ekis Ekman
386. Gaye Chapman
387. Jody Biesche
388. Sophia Ramsden
389. Elicka Sparks
390. Heidi Wilson
391. Rebecca Bergfjord
392. Sylvia Black
393. Judith Woolf
394. Suzanne M. Kupiec
395. Sibyl Frei
396. Jessica MacFadzen-Reid
397. L.A. Murphy
398. Wendy Davis
399. Susan Flindt
400. Pamela Morgan
401. Tracie Warden Dengá
402. Sarah Morgan
403. Dee Sias
402. Nicole Lacoste
403. Chris Sitka
404. Ann Allen
405. Marta Sofia Mendes Mendonca Correia
406. J. Bourge Hathaway
407. José Bateira
408. Michelle Mead
409. Lena Newman
410. Twilah Hiari
411. Christina M. Limpert
412. Maartje Kuilman
413. Candace J Groudine
414. Katherine Dalton
415. Maxine Lewis
416. Mia Mantello
417. Lise Pauzé
418. Florence Humbert
419. Jolie Malone
420. Danitza Cornejo
421. Christine Delphy
422. Susan Perry
423. Jacqueline Casares
424. Mahina Nightsage
425. Kao Huguenin
426. Helen Webster
427. Olivier Blanc
428. Lauren Levey

The post Open letter in support of Martha Harvey appeared first on Feminist Current.

“I want all of the girls watching here now to know, that a new day is on the horizon.” @Oprah accepts the 2018 Cecil B. de Mille award. #GoldenGlobes pic.twitter.com/hbquC1GBjm

— Golden Globe Awards (@goldenglobes) January 8, 2018

I was once a young progressive on the internet, eager to position myself as Most Left with every hot take. I confidently dismissed everything as neoliberal faux-activism, not truly progressive, and certainly never good enough. It’s not difficult to do this, as these days political movements and activism, more broadly, have been co-opted by capitalist forces in many ways, and often what passes as “activism” or even as “political” is little more than narcissism, individualism, marketing, or fashion. That said, it is possible to take these critiques too far, to hunt for ways to destroy rather than to build, and too many young progressives online have learned that s/he who attacks first and most vehemently will be rewarded, regardless of the validity of the critique.

To be clear, I believe celebrity culture is a bad thing. I do not believe in turning wealthy celebrities into political leaders or political activists for no reason other than the fact they are visible, attractive, and famous. Most of these individuals are unqualified and unsuited for these positions. But I also don’t believe that every time a person who qualifies as a “celebrity” speaks, she is necessarily insincere or deserves to be dismissed. Within feminism, in particular, all women matter. Even the rich ones, even the actresses, even Oprah. Actually, especially Oprah.

On Sunday night at the Golden Globes — an evening undoubtedly usurped by female solidarity — Oprah Winfrey, media mogul, philanthropist, actress, talk show host, and yes, billionaire, was honoured with the Cecil B. DeMille Award for “outstanding contributions to the world of entertainment.” She is the first black woman to receive the award. A long of list people I don’t find particularly interesting or important, but who are viewed as very interesting and important due to their ability to succeed in Hollywood, have been recipients of the Cecil B. DeMille Award over the past 75 years. I say this not as an insult to these individuals, most of whom I know little about (with the exception of Woody Allen, who deserves all the insults we can muster), but because I don’t generally find actors to be very interesting. In general, they are overly made up, very small, orange-tinted narcissists with plastic surgery that has become normalized on screen but looks creepy in real life. In general, these people are not people who tend to offer particularly brilliant or informed cultural, social, or political insights. Oprah, on the other hand, is interesting and important. Both as a woman and as a recipient of this particular award.

Oprah is not simply “a celebrity.” She is not just “a rich woman.” She is not a figurehead or a phony. Oprah, lest we forget, was born dirt poor to a teenage mother, and grew up in the inner city. She suffered sexual and physical abuse at the hands of men. She experienced oppression in the most acute, direct way, as a poor, black, woman, and has struggled with issues familiar to so many of us, as women living in a misogynist culture, as a result — from body image to depression. She is interested in people, in stories, in building a better world, and in the truth.

Her success story is not one I favour, mostly because I don’t believe billionaires should exist, and because I think the American Dream — that is, the notion that if an individual works hard enough, he or she can overcome systemic oppression (which really means, “become wealthy”) — exists as a means to distract people from effecting change that would make a difference in everyone’s lives, not just their own. But Oprah, as a woman, is our sister. And Oprah, as a woman who was presented an award at a ceremony that is generally reserved for celebrations of things that aren’t important, used this opportunity to speak for and highlight the plight of women like her mother, and like her, had she not gone on to become Oprah. In fact, despite her background and struggles, she did not speak about herself at all, but instead spoke about the women American media has historically relegated to the margins.

In her speech, which left so many of us, myself included, teary-eyed, she spoke about Recy Taylor, a black woman who was abducted and raped by six white men in Alabama who were never held to account for their actions. (Not only did these men escape punishment, claiming the rape was “consensual,” but Taylor was harassed and threatened, forced to move as a result.) She reminded us that Rosa Parks was not just a seamstress — too tired to give up her seat to a white man, that white America painted her as because this story was more digestible and comfortable than the truth — but a seasoned activist. (Indeed, Parks was the NAACP worker who became the lead investigator on Taylor’s case, and fought for justice on her behalf.) Oprah spoke about the importance of journalism and a free press. She spoke about the truth. And she spoke about all those women and girls around the world, here and gone, who have not been able to speak up for themselves. Who were not in a position to say, “Me too,” because they could not have done so and survived. Instead of thanking her colleagues in the industry, she said:

“I want tonight to express gratitude to all the women who have endured years of abuse and assault because they, like my mother, had children to feed and bills to pay and dreams to pursue. They’re the women whose names we’ll never know. They are domestic workers and farm workers. They are working in factories and they work in restaurants and they’re in academia, engineering, medicine, and science. They’re part of the world of tech and politics and business. They’re our athletes in the Olympics and they’re our soldiers in the military.”

Oprah reminded the world that #MeToo is about all of us — about all women. There is no job or amount of money in the world that protects women from sexism and male violence, so actually the voices of wealthy actresses do matter in all of this. Importantly, there are millions of women the world doesn’t hear from, and that the world forgets, because they aren’t beautiful and famous. But divide and conquer is not a strategy that will achieve anything for women, as a whole. And women, as a whole, are who we are fighting for. Rape is not more tolerable inside Hollywood than out. And while we can — and must — talk about class and race divisions that make some women’s lives much harder than others’, we need not abandon anyone in the process.

Too many self-righteous leftists have dismissed the feminist movement throughout history. Women’s issues are never important enough and women’s politics are somehow always derided as misguided — a distraction from the real issues. Unless we are attacking one another, we seem to always be doing it wrong. The right, of course, pushes this narrative as well. Just last month, a Trump-supporting “street artist” put posters of Meryl Streep up around Los Angeles with the words “she knew” on them, in an effort to blame her for Harvey Weinstein’s abuses. Conditioned to choose solidarity with men, women fall too easily and too often into this trap, going after sisters rather than perpetrators.

That the left continues to play this game today is not only disappointing, but counterproductive. Every movement, every action, every woman who speaks is dismissed as too privileged, too rich, too middle class, too educated, too white, too employed, too “cis,” too politically flawed, too pretty, too old, too something — too anything — to speak and to be worth listening to. This case is no different. Time’s Up, which dominated the Golden Globes, saw a number of actresses bring activist women as their “dates,” and speak about sexism on the red carpet instead of designers. This was still, according to many, shallow and purposeless. Despite the focus on working class women (Oprah herself made clear the movement was explicitly intended to go beyond “women of Hollywood,”) Time’s Up was criticized as being “privileged” and not doing enough. The #MeToo movement, which saw thousands upon thousands of women around the world boldly come forward with a truth that had previously been suppressed, ignored, and dismissed — has been written off countless times, by those who apparently can do better (but have yet to offer an alternative as visible or as galvanizing), as being about nothing more than “rich white women.” Oprah — a victim of abuse herself — was immediately subjected to an online smear campaign, as people tut tutted those celebrating her speech by sharing photos of Oprah and Weinstein, intended to make her appear both hypocritical and culpable in the man’s abuse. (As though all of us haven’t been in rooms with, shaken hands with, kissed, loved, been friends with, been neighbours, sisters, daughters, and wives to — and surely been photographed with — rapists.) She has been written off as a neoliberal, a billionaire, and a celebrity. And while she may indeed be these things (don’t get me wrong, these positions and the systems behind them deserve critique), she is also a woman who has suffered as a woman and who has bravely told the truth and used her position to galvanize people.

I don’t want a celebrity-driven, Hollywood-centric movement. I don’t want a movement that fails to address race and class. But that doesn’t mean I don’t want women who are actresses, who have money, or who are “celebrities” to speak out and to declare solidarity with other women. It certainly doesn’t mean I don’t want a woman like Oprah, who is powerful, who has changed lives, and who, on Sunday, used that power to speak about real women and real women’s lives — women who have historically been silenced. This was — and is — an important moment. Not everything needs to be torn apart in order to advertise progressive credibility. Sometimes good things and powerful moments can be celebrated — and this is one of those times.

The post I’m not here for celebrity culture, but I am here for Oprah appeared first on Feminist Current.

This letter was sent to all addressees, via email, on February 2nd. A response was requested within seven days. To date, we have not received a response.

ATTN: The New Democratic Party of British Columbia (BC NDP);
The BC NDP Provincial Council;
Premier John Horgan;
Craig Keating, President, BC NDP;
Erin Arnold, Outreach Director, BC NDP Women’s Rights Committee;
Sheila Malcolmson, NDP Critic for the Status of Women;
Sheri Benson, NDP Deputy Critic for LGBTQ2+ Issues

Dear Sirs and Madams,

We — the undersigned — are Canadians deeply concerned with recent public statements and behaviour on the part of Morgane Oger, Vice President of the BC NDP.

On January 20th, Women’s Marches took place across North America. Initially fuelled by anger over Donald Trump’s election and boasts of sexual misconduct, this year the #Metoo campaign galvanized women around the world towards solidarity and action. No longer can we deny that women and girls everywhere continue to suffer abuse and harassment in every arena of life, at the hands of men.

In Vancouver, one woman who attended the march carried a sign reading:

“Transwomen are men. Truth is not hate. Don’t believe the hype — trans ideology is misogyny and homophobic. Woman is not a ‘feeling,’ a costume, or a performance of a stereotype. Woman is a biological reality. There is no ethical or moral reason to lie to soothe the male ego.

Do not cis-gender me. Stop the stereotypes. I am neither conforming nor non-conforming. My preferred prefix is neither cis nor trans. I am a female. Resist Orwellian Newspeak.”

After being posted to social media, a photo of the woman holding this sign went viral. She was subjected to numerous threats of violence and death as a result.

Oger shared the image online as well, publicly requesting the identity and address of the woman, stating intention to file a human rights complaint against her. On Facebook, Oger wrote:

“Apparently not everyone at the Vancouver Women’s March was equally enlightened about why trans women are women… A concerned citizen passed this photo on to me. This is hate speech. Anyone know who this person is? I’d like to speak to her.

… That person in the photo is free to have beliefs and to express those beliefs without breaking the law. I feel that she has overstepped. What this person has done is take things to the next step, like publishing it in a newspaper or distributing it in mailouts. I believe that what she has done is prohibited in BC. She is invited to contact me for a chat or email my office at morgane@morganeoger.ca.”

In a comment on the same post, Oger wrote:

“Who is a woman in Canada and British Columbia is not based on their plumbing but on our gender identity. Women are women because we say we are. Attributes usually associated with women are protected for all women, whether they possess them or not, like plumbing or biological function. We have six months for somebody to file a complaint against this woman on the basis of gender identity. But to do this, who she is needs to be known. If somebody knows who she is please email me the information at morgane@morganeoger.ca”

These comments equate to a public threat and defamation, and have led to further harassment of the woman in the photo. Oger has knowingly continued to fuel these threats and this harassment through ongoing, numerous posts on social media. We wonder why the BC NDP has yet to take action on this behaviour? In this case, the statements are particularly disturbing, as they have put an individual woman’s life and livelihood in danger.

Oger has referenced a “team of lawyers” on social media numerous times. One tweet read:

“The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld human rights tribunal rulings about hate speech twice. My legal team is confident that the act of publishing hateful material is the only test in this case and the material on that sign matches the hate test.”

In another, Oger stated:

“There are laws put in place to protect transgender people from transphobia. One such law bans the publishing of hate in public. I expect Canada’s laws to be applied.”

We are curious to know who this “team of lawyers” is and how they are being financed. Either Oger is in a financial position to hire a “team of lawyers” to bully and silence women who cannot afford such a luxury, or the lawyers in reference are the BC NDP’s legal team. Is the BC NDP using its government resources to persecute and harass citizens who disagree with their representatives? Does the BC NDP support Oger’s intention to potentially impoverish a woman by forcing her to hire “a team of lawyers” to defend her right to hold a sign Oger does not like at a women’s protest march?

We are concerned by these tactics and an expressed desire to silence those whose opinions conflict with those held by the Vice President of the BC NDP. We are concerned that many people have refrained from commenting on Oger’s behaviour or addressing it for fear of retribution, in large part due to the way Oger has responded with regard to this particular woman and her sign. Oger is leveraging political power in a deeply troubling way, with intention to intimidate fellow NDP members and constituents into fear and silence.

Politicians should expect that people will disagree with them — that is par for the course. But politicians should be gracious and deferential to their critics when those critics are just members of the public. Potential voters are being insulted, demeaned, bullied, and smeared by a representative of the NDP. This is not how Canadian politicians should handle conflict and disagreement. Instead of engaging in meaningful, principled debate, Oger invites and escalates conflict, is unable to negotiate or reach consensus with a large portion of voters, defames and insults them, targets individuals with relentless harassment and smear campaigns, and advocates that real, material harm be inflicted on them (i.e. loss of job, reputation, criminal charges, financial ruin, etc.). We would ask whether the BC NDP believes that this behaviour is reflective of the Party’s values, and the values of its constituents.

The woman who is being intimidated by Oger was expressing ideas and sentiments that are important and meaningful to her and to many other members of the Canadian public. All Canadians should feel comfortable expressing ideas that are meaningful and important to them, free from intimidation, bullying, and harassment.

“Gender identity” itself remains vaguely defined. It rests on an ideology that claims gender is innate, when in fact gender roles are socially imposed, based on biological sex, as a means to normalize the hierarchy that exists between men and women under patriarchy. Women’s sex-based rights, on the other hand, rest on material reality: we know that women in our society are discriminated against and subjected to male violence on account only of having been born female. We have judgments protecting women from discrimination based on things like pregnancy, miscarriage, abortion, and breastfeeding, on the explicit reasoning that only one sex gives birth and only one sex breastfeeds. The notion that males can actually be female if they “feel” it or if they emulate feminine stereotypes conflicts with women’s sex-based rights as it not only reduces “woman” to something intangible and undefinable, but claims women’s oppression is rooted in “feeling” or personal identity rather than on biological sex. Challenges to the concept of “gender identity” should be not only acceptable but encouraged.

We expect the BC NDP to condemn their Vice President’s actions and behaviour and request that Oger cease and desist. In Canada, we expect our political representatives not to engage in the public bullying of women or in coordinated harassment campaigns against those they disagree with, and we expect them to refrain from threatening constituents. The BC NDP should let its Vice President know — and women in general — that bullying and censorship are not party values.

To add your name to the list of signees please click here.

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Colleen Glynn, Richmond, BC
                     2. Meghan Murphy, Vancouver, BC
                     3. Mary Syrett, Kingston, ON
                     4. Hayley McPhail, Halifax, NS
                     5. Monika Beatty, Winnipeg, MB
                     6. Orla Hegarty,  St. Vincent’s, NL
                     7. Janice Gougeon, Eganville, ON
                     8. Annette Lengyel, Calgary, AB
                     9. Laura Strang, Calgary, AB
                     10. Leah Harwood, Toronto, ON
                     11. Elizabeth Pickett, Ottawa, ON
                     12. Sherri Ingrey, Edmonton, AB
                     13. Kimberly Everett, Morden, NS
                     14. Kate Tagseth, Victoria Harbour, ON
                     15. Veronica Penfold, Windsor, ON
                     16. Courtney Nicholson, Calgary, AB
                     17. UVic Womyn, Victoria, BC
                     18. S.L. Bondarchuk, Edmonton, AB
                     19. Tracy Allard, Whitehorse, YT
                     20. Kitty Barber, Flin Flon, MB
                     21. Paulette Turcotte, Victoria, BC
                     22. Kate Hansen, Courtenay, BC
                     23. Julian Vigo, Montreal, QC
                     24. Jennifer White, London, ON
                     25. Jessica MacFadzen-Reid, Summerside, PE
                     26. Line des Rosiers, Edmonton, AB
                     27. Amanda Clydesdale, Oakville, ON
                     28. Sarah Maslen, London, ON
                     29. Erin Tinsley, Ottawa, ON
                     30. Jessica Gardner, Stouffville, ON
                     31. Maggie Lucas, Halifax, NS
                     32. Emily Bourdeau, Toronto, ON
                     33. Martin Dufresne, Montreal, QC
                     34. Jeanette Nicholson, Calgary, AB
                     35. Katrina Stone, Nanaimo, BC
                     36. Diane Guilbault, Montréal, QC
                     37. Yun Mui Tsen, Vancouver, BC
                     38. Maureen O’Driscoll, Victoria, BC
                     39. Jeff Watson, Toronto, ON
                     40. Erin Graham, PhD. Vancouver BC
                     41. Elizabeth Burns, Toronto, ON
                     42. Yvet Janzen, Nelson, BC
                     43. Madeleine Suzanne Bowman, Toronto, ON
                     44. Lisa Niven, Victoria, BC
                     45. Lyne Jubinville, Laval, Québec
                     46. Kayley Reed, Montreal, Quebec
                     47. Joan Janzen, Vancouver, BC
                     48. Genevyève Delorme, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, QC
                     49. Brandi Cowtan, Hilton Beach, ON
                     50. Kylee Nixon, Camrose, AB
                     51. Sonia Zawitkowski, Georgetown, ON
                     52. Elaine Grisé, Montréal, QC
                     53. Mary Woodward, Philadelphia, PA
                     54. Karla Lindquist, Salem, OR
                     55. Trisha Wilson-Singer Mississauga, ON
                     56. Danielle Cormier, Vancouver, BC
                     57. Andrea Stumpf, Vancouver, BC
                     58. Sarah Berry, Kingston, ON
                     59. David DePoe, Toronto, ON
                     60. Tamarack Verrall, Montreal, QC
                     61. Louise Fleming, Gabriola island, BC
                     62. Ella Josten, Winnipeg, MB
                     63. Zoë Lafantaisie, ON
                     64. Nicole Fortier, BC
                     65. Sibyl Frei, Gabriola Island, BC
                     66. Brianne Curry, London, ON
                     67. Susan Breeze, Barriere, BC
                     68. Nicole Beauvais, Montréal, QC
                     69. Cheryl Bergen, Prince Albert, SK
                     70. Sarah Richardson, ON
                     71. Jessica Lamb-Brown, BC
                     72. Jennifer Bilek, BC
                     73. Krista Simon, Halifax NS
                     74. MC Surette, ON
                     75. Suzanne Jay, Vancouver, BC
                     76. Drena McCormack, Powell River, BC
                     77. Trish Oliver, Victoria, BC.
                     78. Sarah M Mah, Montreal QC
                     79. Alison Murray, ON
                     80. Erin Wallace, Victoria, BC
                     81. Jaclyn Chang, Vancouver BC
                     82. Cassandra Birch, Halifax NS
                     83. Alice Lee, Vancouver, BC
                     84. Sarah Harrison, BC
                     85. Lara Forsberg. Nobleford AB
                     86. Linda Beacham, Kenora, ON
                     87. Susan Smyth, RN, Vancouver BC
                     88. Julio Garcia, Kamloops, BC
                     89. Cheryl Tainsh, New Westminster, BC
                     90. Yoko Oikawa, Gibsons,BC
                     91. Karla Gjini, Edmonton, AB
                     92. Hamish Anderson, NS
                     93. Rachel Goodine, Victoria, BC
                     94. Catherine Beck, Surrey, BC
                     95. Kelly Ann Stewart, Dartmouth NS
                     96. Deirdre Marsh, Camrose AB
                     97. Shirley Addams, Kelowna, B.C.
                     98. Jessica McLean, Surrey, B.C
                     99. Edmund Lumsden, Vancouver, BC.
                     100. Holly Stamer, BC
                     101. Scott Stilling, Parksville, BC
                     102. Charlie Stewart, Chilliwack, BC
                     103. Kailey Evans, Kelowna, BC
                     104. Christine Solosky, Newmarket, ON
                     105. Bec Wonders, Vancouver, B.C.
                     106. Rhéa Jean, PhD. Québec, QC.
                     107. Lou Lamontagne, Montréal, QC
                     108. Sabina Colantonio, Toronto, ON
                     109. Maria Lagunes, Vancouver, BC
                     110. Natalie Wlock, Vancouver, BC
                     111. Fionnuala Hogan, Saanich,BC
                     112. Sarah Albertson, Nelson, BC
                     113. Maple Belliveau, Dieppe, NB
                     114. Gabriela Gonzalez, ON
                     115. Margaret McCarroll, London, ON
                     116. Jan Christopher Nunn, Halifax, NS
                     117. Shannon LeBlanc, Victoria, BC
                     118. Eva Garvey, Toronto, ON
                     119. Anne Cameron, Tahsis, BC
                     120. Melissa Evenson, Calgary, AB
                     121. Sandra Law, Edmonton, AB
                     122. Anemone Cerridwen, Edmonton, AB
                     123. Laura Mills, Port Coquitlam, BC
                     124. Amanda Kelly, BC
                     125. Rosemary Niechcial, Kitchener, ON
                     126. Maureen Peterson, Waterloo, ON
                     127. Anne Raby, Vancouver, BC
                     128. Tanya Lebar, Vancouver BC
                     129. Shannon Shoemaker, ON
                     130. Bonny Lees, Calgary, AB
                     131. Meaghan McGraw, Vancouver, BC
                     132. Julie Selinger, Calgary, AB
                     133. Genevieve Hetu, Terrace, BC
                     134. Marcia Thibodeau, Kingston, ON
                     135. Linda Barnes, Prairie Grove, AR USA
                     136. Rev. Gordon Hill, Guelph, Ontario
                     137. Rob Wakarchuk, Edmonton, AB
                     138. Michelle Connolly, Prince George, BC
                     139. Neal Duford, Salmon Arm, BC
                     140. Ginette Hupé, ON
                     141. Faroe Des Roches, Hornby Island, BC
                     142. Kathleen Lowrey, Edmonton, AB
                     143. Patricia Glover, Toronto, ON
                     144. John Carpay, Calgary, AB
                     145. Dawn Emery, Vancouver, BC
                     146. Karin Litzcke, Vancouver, BC
                     147. Megan Malach, Edmonton, AB
                     148. Brian Cross, Vancouver, BC
                     149. Cate Orr, Burnaby, BC
                     150. Dot Atomos Blog, Edmonton, AB
                     151. Chris Armstrong, Toronto, ON
                     152. Robin Vermeiren, Toronto, ON
                     153. Carmen Dobie, ON
                     154. Ann Troop, Moncton, NB
                     155. Troy Nowaselski, Edmonton, AB
                     156. Pauline Dussault, Winnipeg, MB.
                     157. Lori Shantz, Kitchener, ON
                     158. Don Sullivan, Belair, MB.
                     159. Lois Catlin, Vernon. BC
                     160. Sally Issenman, Edmonton, AB
                     161. Jay Andrew, Richmond, BC
                     162. Justin McConkey, Toronto, ON
                     163. Vic Jones, Toronto, ON
                     164. Polly Guetta, BC
                     165. Brad Belchamber, ON
                     166. Kathleen Sears, ON
                     167. Renae Regehr, BC
                     168. Heather Maahs, Chilliwack, BC
                     169. Nicole Buckley, Surrey BC
                     170. Diana Boston, Vancouver BC
                     171. Danaca Ackerson Vancouver, BC
                     172. Thora Broughton, Ottawa, ON
                     173. Mary-Lee Bouma, Vancouver, BC
                     174. David Vincent, Drummondville, QC
                     175. Chantale Caron, St-Roch-de-Richelieu, QC
                     176. Lucie Boulianne, Les EScoumins, QC
                     177. Olivier Kaestlé, Trois-Rivières, QC
                     178. Pierre Lefebvre, Delson, QC
                     179. Lori Boleyn, Mission, BC
                     180. Hélène Morin, QC
                     181. Geneviève Morin-Dupont, QC
                     182. Jonathan Riopel
                     183. Michelle Pilon, Hamilton, ON
                     184. Anne-Marie Bilodeau
                     185. Sarah Casey, Brantford, ON
                     186. Linda Dawson, Mission, BC
                     187. Isabelle Narayana, QC
                     188. E Claudette Collins, Langley BC
                     189. Anders Turgeon, Montréal, QC
                     190. Nadia El-Mabrouk, Montréal, QC
                     191. Bonnie L Ayotte, Abbotsford BC
                     192. Frances O’Connell, Toronto, ON
                     193. Esther Grapengeter, Langley, BC
                     194. Catharine Daalton, Vancouver, BC
                     195. Raine McLeod, Calgary, AB
                     196. Cher Edwards, Peterborough, ON
                     197. Ken Hill, Surrey, BC
                     198. Susan Hill, Surrey, BC
                     199. Andrew Richards, AB
                     200. Michael Saunders, BC
                     201. Maria Brookes, Surrey, BC
                     202. Karen Palmberg, Kelowna, BC
                     203. Pearl Rodie, Huntsville, ON
                     204. Jacob Russell, BC
                     205. Jeni Hildebrandt Surrey BC
                     206. Gwen Dreger, Surrey BC
                     207. Julie Desjardins, Thompson, MB
                     208. Mailiis Higgins, Surrey, BC
                     209. Chris Warn, Campbell River BC
                     210. Sue Garrett, Toronto, ON
                     211. Judith Brown, Maple Ridge, BC
                     212. Sharlyss Beattie, Brantford, ON
                     213. Vanessa Beattie, Brantford, ON
                     214. Jennifer Elward, Vernon, BC
                     215. Holly Cowan, BC
                     216. Keel Miller, Yukon
                     217. Carol Duncan, Coquitlam, BC
                     218. Nancy Powell, Victoria, BC
                     219. Liam Iverson, SK
                     220. Allan Bose, Langley, BC
                     221. Michele Faryna, Kamloops, BC
                     222. W.M.Peterson, Fairview, AB
                     223. Ron Knorr, Maple Ridge, BC
                     224. Chris Flaman-Haley, Red Deer, AB
                     225. Kurtis Kryzanowski, Red Deer, AB
                     226. Courtney Stang, Saskatoon, SK
                     227. Jenn Smith, Abbotsford, BC
                     228. Tina Chamberlain, Abbotsford, BC
                     229. Joel Schwabe, Victoria, BC
                     230. Rebecca Christiansen, Maple Ridge, BC
                     231. Erin Hunt, Coquitlam, BC
                     232. Michael Cambridge, Squamish, BC
                     233. Katherine Pospisil, AB
                     234. Jody Vassallo, Port Moody, BC
                     235. Eric Anderson, Coldstream BC
                     236. Andrew Niven, Victoria, BC
                     237. Darcy Gray, Edmonton, AB
                     238. Kari Wright, Ottawa, ON
                     239. Lori Fredericks, Wakefield, QC
                     240. Kathy McPhillips Vancouver, BC
                     241. Ellen Kay, Chilliwack, BC
                     242. Brenda Brooks, Saltspring, BC
                     243. Lori Friesen, Calgary, AB
                     244. Darcy Gray, Calgary
                     245. Diane Piedmont, Montreal, QC

The post Open Letter to the BC NDP regarding the conduct of BC NDP Vice President Morgane Oger appeared first on Feminist Current.

The backlash against women’s rights is relentless and comes in many forms. Only 20 years after all-women shortlists were first adopted by the UK Labour Party, in order to address the low numbers of women elected to the House of Commons, they are at risk.

On Tuesday, the Labour Party was expected to officially adopt a new policy allowing males who identify as “transwomen” access to all-women shortlists (AWS).

The shortlists were adopted as an affirmative action practice due to pressure from the Labour Women’s Network, which was founded in 1988 after only 21 Labour women were elected in the 1987 General Election. In the 90s, women represented less than 10 per cent of parliamentary MPs — the shortlists made it compulsory for Labour to select female candidates in some constituencies. In 1997, with a goal of electing 100 female MPs, Labour used all-women shortlists to select female candidates in half of all winnable seats for the General Election. This was a success, and 101 Labour women were elected, as compared to 1992, when only 37 Labour women were elected as MPs.

The shortlists were not without controversy — many men claimed they were undemocratic, prevented equality of opportunity, and constituted, essentially, “reverse sexism.” Indeed, in 1996, an employment tribunal ruled that all-women shortlists were illegal under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

Instead of appealing this decision, Labour introduced a new Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act in 2002, allowing parties to use “positive discrimination” in the selection of candidates, and the shortlists were reinstated. As a result, in the 2005 General election, the number of female parliamentary MPs was increased to 128, with the Labour Party’s 98 women making up 77 per cent of the total of women elected.

The impact of all-women shortlists has been notable and continues to ensure women and women’s interests are represented in parliament.

Nonetheless, in January, Labour announced that males need only self-identify as women in order to apply for the shortlists. This decision came alongside stated support for recently proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act (GRA), which would, if adopted, change the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment” to “gender identity.” What this would mean is that Gender Recognition Certificates (GRC), which allow people to legally change their sex, could be issued without any conditions, but by a process of self-declaration alone. “If the Conservatives fail to do so, Labour will make it law once we’re in government,” a Labour Party spokesperson told PinkNews, with regard to the proposed changes.

Troubled by the potential disappearance of all-women shortlists, Jennifer James, a Labour Party member and committed socialist, started a crowdfunder to support a legal challenge against the party. Eleven days after she started the crowdfunder, she was suspended by the party, apparently, in part, “for saying women don’t have dicks.”

James explains to me that “men and women are treated differently because they are categorized by reproductive biology.” She argues, further, that gender is not innate, but is only a “toxic set of stereotypes” imposed on women in order to enforce their subordination.

“There is nothing progressive about ‘gender identity.’ It is a reactionary concept and a pure insult to women to suggest that we ‘identify’ with our own oppression.”

The policy clarifying that trans-identified males may access all-women shortlists was expected to be revealed this week, but has been delayed, as more than 200 female Labour members threatened to resign from the Party.

To date, there has been no consultation process with regard to this policy, and on BBC Sunday Politics, former spokesperson for Jeremy Corbyn, Matt Zarb-Cousin, dismissed Labour’s dissenting female members as being only “[2000] or 3000 people in a party of 650,000 — a small minority of women who don’t believe in trans rights.”

Of course, 3000 women is quite a few women, and it isn’t true that those challenging Labour’s position on trans-identified males are opposed to “trans rights.” James points out that, truly there is no way to know how women in the party feel about these ideas and policies, “because debate has been so stifled with cries of ‘transphobia.'”

Either way, these kinds of misrepresentations and dismissals speak volumes about the extent to which men on the left like Zarb-Cousin consider women’s opinions valuable today, only decades after many of them fought against the shortlists. (Indeed, Zarb-Cousin himself employs the term “TERF” to smear women who challenge or question the concept of “gender identity,” revealing his willingness both to misrepresent as well as to launch hate speech at women with whom he disagrees.) Jen Izaakson, a member of Momentum (a pro-Corbyn group within Labour) and of Mayday4Women, a radical feminist group campaigning against the GRA, says:

“The Labour Party seem to think women don’t count, despite the fact that we can vote and are actually a majority of the membership. The leadership is totally out of touch with what the average women thinks about the issue of transgenderism.”

Women’s interest in this debate would perhaps be more clear if the left allowed them to speak (and listened to what they had to say). Instead, efforts to discuss the proposed legislation and idea of “gender identity” itself are shut down in incredibly hostile ways.

James says a number of Labour women have been put on a “blacklist” by a group of mostly male Labour staff and representatives, and adds:

“I have been called ‘bitch,’ ‘cunt,’ ‘hateful TERF,’ ‘bigot,’ ‘transphobe,’ and ‘crank’ for wanting a debate… For wanting to uphold the sex-based exemptions to which women are entitled in the Equalities Act 2010.”

Further examples of these kinds of attacks seem never ending. A woman named Anne Ruzylo — then a woman’s officer with the Labour Party — was subjected to months of bullying by Lily Madigan, a fellow party member who smeared her as “transphobic.” Pushed to resign in November, every member of the executive committee quit in solidarity. Madigan was elected as women’s officer for his local party shortly thereafter.

On March 8th (International Women’s Day), trade union official Paula Lamont was hounded off her own union’s picket line by a group of transactivists. The Morning Star reported that Lamont believes the attack happened because she attended a meeting organized by A Woman’s Place UK (WPUK) about the planned changes to the GRA on February 27. She told the Morning Star:

“As a female trade unionist, I believe it is my responsibility to understand as much as I can the impact of the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act and how the new legislation may affect women in the workplace and their rights. I felt the WPUK meeting, which was also attended by many other leading trade union women, would be the best place to hear women’s concerns.”

Venice Allan, a former Labour Party member, has struggled to find venues to host “We Need to Talk,” a series of meetings she is organizing around the UK to discuss gender identity ideology and legislation. She was surprised when Momentum, which she was an active member of, declined to host her proposed meeting back in September, so she booked a room at New Cross Learning, a community library in London. Once Sisters Uncut, a direct action group advocating for domestic violence services, caught wind of the event, the library was subjected to intense harassment, and the venue cancelled the event. Allan’s meeting went forward at a new venue, but not without controversy: one woman in attendance, Maria MacLachlan, was punched by a protestor.

When Allan tried to hold her fifth meeting, six months later, the venue she booked was similarly harassed, and forced to cancel. Allan said the woman she booked with told her she had never seen anything like it — “she was overwhelmed with phone calls, emails, and social media posts accusing her of transphobia.” Undeterred, Allan took the meeting to the House of Commons, where members of the public are able to book rooms, so long as the meeting is sponsored by an MP.

The event, held on March 14th, was attended by 130 people. Coverage in the media amounted to articles claiming one of the speakers, radical feminist and author, Sheila Jeffreys, called “trans people parasites.” In truth, of course, Jeffreys was not arguing that trans-identified people are bugs (Pink News contributed to this misrepresentation by placing a photo of Jeffreys next to a tick, in their coverage), but rather, as she explained to me over the phone, that “men’s crossdressing, when it takes the form of men taking the place of women and speaking for us, can be understood as a form of parasitism.” In her talk at the meeting, she further explained:

“When men parasitize women, they sever our ability to name ourselves and to speak about ourselves and speak in our place. They take the place of women on advisory panels, speaking at women’s conferences, on consultations on violence against women and so on… Men — even teenage boys — are now being appointed as Labour Party Women’s Officers in local branches, and men who crossdress are now forcing themselves onto all-women shortlists… which were fought for over decades by feminists to enable women to overcome the great prejudice against them and stand a chance of being selected as candidates. Thus, women can be represented by men who have occupied women’s bodies and speak for us.”

Allan resigned as a Labour Party member on March 8th, after being suspended, then subjected to an investigation on account of allegations that she engaged in “bullying and harassment” on social media and in person. “I didn’t sign up to Labour in order to be interrogated for thought crimes,” she told me.

In the preliminary interview, which took place on February 19, 2018, Dan Hogan, who works for the Labour Party Disputes and Legal department, asked Allan a series of questions about her position on trans-identified people and some of her related social media posts. At one point, Hogan questioned her about Heather Peto, a Trans-Inclusion Officer for the Labour Party who has been pushing for trans-identified males to be given access to the shortlists. Allan responded:

“Heather Peto is using all-women shortlists to further his career in politics and to stand as an MP. As far as I know he’s stood and failed as an MP before, as a man, and I believe that he’s taking advantage of all-women shortlists to… well, he didn’t get elected… I don’t think it’s fair for men to use up these places which are designed to address the imbalance of men and women in Parliament. I have absolutely no problem with transgender people standing for MPs or Councillors.”

Allan says she never took issue with transgenderism or trans-identified people until changes to legislation were afoot.

These are only a few among many angry women on the left who feel abandoned by their party and afraid of losing hard-fought-for rights.

~~~

Lucy Mcdonagh grew up working class, raised by a single mother. Her life as a young woman was marked by addiction, abuse, poverty, and mental health issues. She managed to escape a relationship with an extremely violent man at 32-years-old, after being partnered with him for 10 years. “My experience of being a working class woman and the level of trauma carried by many working class people has been my driving force since I was young,” Mcdonagh told me.

“All I have ever wanted to do is to try and empower working class people into supporting ourselves and, in doing so, empower our community. Being working class isn’t just about poverty. It’s about resilience and an unspoken understanding of violence. We don’t talk about our struggles because that places us at greater harm.”

That reality is suddenly of great interest to those who wish to coopt (or “parasitize,” if you will…) the struggles of oppressed groups as a means to gain social, cultural, or political leverage.

Mcdonagh had been forced to close the holistic wellness centre she was running in Deptford after leaving her then-partner, due to the trauma and subsequent breakdown she experienced during the police process. Once back on her feet, Mcdonagh co-founded The Deptford People Project, which not only feeds people, but, in her words, “created a family for those who were ostracized from the community.”

“We eat together, we played music, laughed and talked… We were not offering a service, we were offering an opportunity to become part of a community again. There was no ‘helping the poor’ — we are all poor and ran the project together. It was amazing.”

Not long after this project took off, Deptford was gentrified, and working class people like Mcdonagh were no longer welcome. “Working class people can be quite scary to white middle class people not from the area,” she explained.

“We shout and swear and take the mick out of [tease] each other. We speak a different language. One that is often mistaken for aggression. We’re not [politically correct] because most of us have never really believed that politics is anything more then a rich man’s game to get richer. But we’re not unintelligent — we’re just not academic.”

Gentrification brought a sudden increase in “very posh, white, ‘social justice’ groups and movements.” Now, the local groups who claimed to support the most marginalized seemed, to Mcdonagh, to be little more than “a social gathering for privileged students, using the community as a trendy trademark.”

“They used weird pronouns and called themselves ‘they,'” Mcdonagh said. She didn’t think this “rich kid’s trend” would affect her work so didn’t concern herself too much. “We were too busy trying to keep people fed, off the street, and out of prison.”

After participating in a debate about housing with these students, Mcdonagh’s group was featured in a radical anarchist publication called STRIKE! Magazine. Looking through the publication, Mcdonagh was shocked to find an article promoting pornography and various sex industry-related “sex tips,” instructing women on how to “deep throat,” for example.

“How could I share this with the women in our community project?!” she asked. Mcdonagh explained that many of the women and girls she worked with were being pimped out daily. “One young girl — only 17 — had recently had her face smashed in by a punter and had 16 metal pins put in to hold her face together.” Mcdonagh got angry.

“We are far from a prudish group of women. Many of us have experienced firsthand the very real impact of the porn/the sex industry on working class women and girls. How did they not know how utterly pathetic it was to be promoting this idea to young women? Let alone place it next to a transcript of local people discussing homelessness!”

Though purporting to support the oppressed, Mcdonagh felt these students had no concept of or empathy toward the real experiences of actual marginalized women. “In reality [they] were supporting themselves via a complex new ideology and language that only they speak,” she said.

Mcdonagh was similarly nonplussed after meeting with a new domestic violence organization, also run mainly by young middle class students. The language this group used struck Mcdonagh as nonsensical and unhelpful to women actually suffering due to male violence. “The list of trigger warnings and safe space policies included a whole load of new gender terms that I had never heard of.” She adds, “I don’t know what a safe space is but I’d like to know where there is one for working class people in our area.”

In particular, all the focus on “gender identity” confused her. “Why were all the most publicized [social justice organizations]… suddenly centering their [work] on a group of people I’ve never come into contact with?”

At this point, Mcdonagh discovered the proposed changes to the GRA. She had some close friends who were “transsexual,” so understood how the GRC worked. She told me:

“I had never been concerned about a trans person who had medically transitioned entering a women-only space. To my knowledge it wasn’t a big thing. Only about 5000 people have a GRC in the UK. So you can imagine that doesn’t really cause any major issues.”

But during a discussion with Goldsmiths students about a community housing project, things blew up. Mcdonagh was verbally attacked by students after rejecting the new language being imposed on her community, called a “white cis woman,” then a “bitch and a “cunt.” A young male student tagged her in a post online arguing that the Women’s March should not allow women to focus on “the vagina” as it was “transphobic.” When Mcdonagh asked how he was defining “woman,” the man responded, “Anyone who says they are.”

This is when, she says, it all fell into place. “That’s what ‘self-identify’ means: anyone can say they are anyone… So, rich, privileged people can claim to be marginalized.” Beyond that, she asks, “How can we keep working class women safe if anyone can be a women legally?”

Mcdonagh became more troubled when “a middle class teenage boy identifying as women [was] given a woman’s officer position in the Labour Party” and when she observed a woman she knew suspended from the party for “refusing to say that a male person with a penis is a woman.”

As a lifelong Labour voter, Mcdonagh says she will never vote Labour again on account of the party’s decision to adopt gender identity policies without consultation.

She tells me there is “a very real lack of understanding about female victims of abuse, their need for sex-segregated spaces, and their need to be protected from predatory men.” But it has become impossible to debate or even discuss these issues. “Suddenly (mainly) white middle class students were shouting down and abusing working class women for expressing concern,” she says. “These people were bullying real victims into [submitting to] their ideology — women who have spent their lives being forced to accept situations they don’t want.”

Mcdonagh says she doesn’t believe that “a rich white boy” can “understand the needs of a working class ex-care system woman, raped and abused for decades by many different men — a woman living in a world that won’t ever feel safe again and who is bringing up children in a community that is suffering [due to] poverty, abuse, and trauma.”

“I couldn’t sit back a watch this final episode of ‘Gentrification Deptford’ invade the only thing that working class women have left: their experience.”

Mcdonagh and her group were concerned about how the proposed changes might affect services for women like her and those she worked with. Yet the questions they have are not being answered. They worry about how they will be able protect the women they work with from males who need only self-identify as female in order to access women’s spaces and about whether or not a “small, unfunded, grassroots organization [will be able to] challenge the law for the greater good if needed.” They also want to know whether challenging such a law could jeopardize their access to funding in future.

“Working class women know the lengths that abusers will go to get access to their victims,” she said. “We know this because we have lived it.”

“I fear that just the possibility that a male-bodied person [whether a client or staff member] could access a women-only service would be enough for, for example, our Muslim women’s community to avoid those spaces,” Mcdonagh says. “We are still trying to access hard to reach women and this would definitely make it more difficult.”

While she doesn’t believe “trans people” are inherently a threat, Mcdonagh believes very strongly that victims of male violence need women-only services and that women should be prioritized in terms of staffing these kinds of services as well. “We have already seen that trans-identifying males tend to apply for women-only positions and job vacancies as a way of reinforcing their gender identity,” she says.

“The first thing Lily Madigan did upon receiving their GRC was to apply to volunteer for women’s refuge. This is a white, middle class, 20-year-old male (who has not medically transitioned), who took their school to court to be able to wear a skirt. Lily wasn’t applying to volunteer because they felt they had something to offer victims of domestic violence. Lily was using women’s refuge to validate their identity and enforce transgender rights regardless of the effect on female victims.”

Mcdonagh attended the meeting organized by Allan at the House of Commons. Beyond all the questions her group has, Mcdonagh felt that after seeing women lose their jobs, reputations, and political memberships “just to give people like me important information about a change that would effect our lives and the lives of the people we work with,” her group should speak up and show their support.

Mcdonagh says the meeting was “extraordinary” and “empowering.” Her group had never been in the House of Commons before. “The room was grand and filled with so many women — women from all over the country.” Before the meeting, she and her fellow community workers put out a statement, explaining:

“When we are being verbally abused and called fascists because we are concerned about the effects of policy change on marginalized people, it is a direct attack on working class women and grass roots organizations.”

It’s bad enough that women are being fired, ostracized, bullied, and threatened for trying to speak about an issue that affects their lives, rights, spaces, and movements in so many ways. That it is largely young, white, middle and upper class individuals, bullying marginalized women, who have worked in these movements for decades, makes the situation all the more shocking and hypocritical.

Mcdonagh says:

“I want to tell those people who have gentrified our whole existence that our safe spaces are not for sale. That our experience is not for them to redefine. I want to let those people know that they are complicit in the victimization of already victimized people. Mostly, I want to start a conversation about social privilege and how the trans political and social movement is driven through [academia] and is suppressing the rights of working class women.”

The post Leftist women in the UK refuse to accept Labour’s attempts to silence critiques of gender identity appeared first on Feminist Current.