Solidarity with Women victims of the middle-east war

by confused Sun Aug 13, 2006 23:32

Are the male children and adult victims somehow less important? Why are female victims more important than boys and men? I don't understand this. The killing of innocent human beings is equally wrong, whether they are male or female.

by Chris Murray - The Unmanageables Mon Aug 14, 2006 09:49

Not speaking for Margaretta, who has worn the Unmanageable hat, (outside St Pats Cathedral)
the solidarity call is based on activist experience and female empathy.

Experiental use of language does not exclude the male victims of war,
it points to the neglected issues of breast-feeding mothers, lack of sanitary
equipment, maternity, partruition ;and rape as a tool of war.

These issues are often neglected by the mainstream who like to report on
satellite and geographical forensics.

Inclusivity in reportage, activism and campaign suggests that the female voice and opposition to
war, (which is failure) raises these issues. It is a responsibility of voice and we do it.

So solidarity Margaretta and to all victims of this failure.

(or: The more feminist responsibility involved in bringing women's voices and
experience into war- the more issues previously hidden or unspoken can
round out the view of war from all perspectives)

by confused even more Mon Aug 14, 2006 10:07

Women who were hurtor killed by Katyushas, gun-shooting or by suicide bombers?

by Chris Murray - The Unmanageables Mon Aug 14, 2006 10:30

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/77761

or:

It's an anti-war statement, which says that we stand against war, call for a cease-fire on both sides and stand in solidarity with victims on both sides of the conflict.
btw: we put it in a letter and delivered it to Bertie-who was schmoozing somewhere, but his staff took it.

*Now - anti-war is anti-war. that is the position.*

and:

We see war as failure. we also have a responsibility to highlight how aggression affects women,and children, because these issues are neglected by the (largely) male dominated structures of the mainstream media.*

(unless, you are a poppet)

:-) read the letter to bertie-'tis in the comments.

by pfft Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:00

we have not heard the voice of any autonomous woman or autonomous women's organization in Palestine, the Lebanon, Iraq or Afghanistan

Given that most of the people support sharia in most of those places it is unlikely that you ever will especially Palistine, Iraq and Afghanistan

you may however see a few get sentenced to a good old stoning

by Chris Murray - The Unmanageables Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:16

Personally , I think its because of engrained attitudes to female roles.
you either take on the languages created by male dominated
structures and become a poppet .
( Condi/Beckett-cf UN Resolution) or you become mute because you can't be arsed engaging with these structures. For example, in Ireland , we have has the lowest EU women political representation, it is on par with Sub-Saharan Africa.

Most women who are politicised are activist or community leaders.

*The structures* in committees are alienating.

Speak to women activists about sitting all afternoon,
listening to the talking and posing when they just want to
actually do something.

(a lot of women activists work incredibly hard within these structures but remain outside of the inner groups .
Thus their talent is taken for granted.

Now multiply that situation by a WAR. and you have a problem:

The female role and how she is perceived within organised tribal
and governing structures lessens her voice to nothing.

Changing attitudes to inclusivity is a beginning.

*yep - I agree. things won't change until women establish autonomous voice.*

by skeptic 2 Mon Aug 14, 2006 15:54

"we have not heard the voice of any autonomous woman or autonomous women's organization in Palestine, the Lebanon, Iraq or Afghanistan"

and yet RAWA http://www.rawa.org/ continue their activism and the Lebanese Council for Women continue in a less radical way to push for change http://www.lcw-cfl.org/ Marginilastion like the above comments really help of course.

by D'other Mon Aug 14, 2006 16:30

Speak to women activists about sitting all afternoon, listening to the talking and posing when they just want to actually do something.

Chris, some time ago I learnt to ignore your persistently ill thought out egotistical ranting on this site. Once again your commentary proves to be uninformed and seeks to bend the world to a preconcieved ideological outlook as skeptic2 points out.

The extract hightlighted above represents some of the most essentialist thinking I've seen vomited up on these pages. Is it your opinion that women activists are incapable of sitting in meetings and engaging in discussion? Are women's brains somehow wired in a manner that excludes them from strategic planning and theory, making them more suited to the practical?

Or is it that you yourself represent the viral machismo of the 'kick it till it breaks' activistoid culture in Dublin, that thinks we should all be burning ourselves out doing 'something,' just ANYTHING regardless of its potential for success?

Please in future - think before you type. There's a 'preview' function for you to double check and all.

by Chris Murray - The Unmanageables Mon Aug 14, 2006 20:27

I wrote a comment to support Margaretta because she is a hard-working activist and
the first comment beneath her article was deliberately or not ,a castigation of a feminist
viewpoint.

This is familiar territory.

its ok for women to take and use experiential voice to express solidarity.

The article was about that.

not about my 'essentialism'.

As to activism and political groups. The simple fact is that women prefer activism to committee and strategy. This is proven through survey after survey. ('Jobs for the boys' being one)

One respondent wrote that most committee business is decided out of meetings,

There is no child-care facility for women in politics/activism.

(you will note that all Unmangeable actions invite and include children as do our meetings)

When meeting in teacher's club etc -most left wing political organisations

do not advertise or mention child care.

meetings occur at family unfriendly times.

Regarding activism: we were there for the military parade, mayday, hiroshima commerorartion
most of us have kids and contribute our time freely to other organisations.

So solidarity to Margaretta . (which was what the comment was about, until it was twisted
by someone who accuses me of essentialism)

by Tank Girl Mon Aug 14, 2006 20:35

'As to activism and political groups. The simple fact is that women prefer activism to committee and strategy. This is proven through survey after survey. '

Please supply details of and links to some surveys that back up your assertion.

'('Jobs for the boys' being one)'

What is this suppposed to mean and how does it relate to opposing war?

by Chris Murray - The Unmanageables Mon Aug 14, 2006 21:03

'Jobs for the boys' was a publication on Irish political parties which
equated our female to male ratio in the Dail to the Sub-Saharan ratio. I cannot get the link, but I will:

in the meantime issues relating to feminism/activism are discussed in 'theory' in marxists feminist circles and in practice
in collective groups of women activists.
for an overview:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/marxist_feminism
also there are sections on anarchist feminism and plenty of
accessible books in places like Books Upstairs.
NWCI , which has a lot of Labour Party activist/political members
does publications and downloads about women in activism/politics.*

As to conflict and War. The point was simple , if representation at
committee and political decision making level excludes women
it causes problems with regard to representation of opinion and experience.

In media , for example, I made the point in an earlier comment,
the focus is directed towards the forensics of the operations and not to the victims. Logistically, there are specific issues
including rape as a tool of war, midwifery and sanitary care,
specialised care for new-borns etc , that is harder to address
without the woman at the table demanding these issues
are tended to.

NWCI : http://www.nwci.ie/pmwitp/01.html

Germaine Greer is good on revolution.
Marxist and political theorist : Rosa Luxemburg is excellent on the Accumulation of Capital.

by Tank Girl Mon Aug 14, 2006 21:11

You are answering questions that I did not ask. All I asked was that you provide links to the surveys you claim back up your views. You haven't done this. Do these surveys exist?

"Germaine Greer is good on revolution."

But not on Womenms Rights. She thinks FGM is ok and, in the West, you are a cultural imperialist if you oppose it.

"Marxist and political theorist : Rosa Luxemburg is excellent on the Accumulation of Capital."

Yes, I have read Rosa, shes also good on the problems of party organisation.

by Tobie* - RAG personal capacity Tue Aug 15, 2006 01:13

"The simple fact is that women prefer activism to committee and strategy. This is proven through survey after survey."

As a feminist and an anarchist I have to take issue with what you having been saying here Chris. Part of my activism and strategy is to challange the idea of pre-concieved gender roles. This idea that men are theoritical and women are practical is a deeply rooted idea emerging from essentialist thought based on the idea that men and women are biologically different and therefor can justify inequality.

It is one thing to bring attention to the number of men and women in different political groups and question the way the groups are interacting to see if they can be more inclusive. But its another thing to say that women do not want to par take in committees and strategy.

Even if you were to show proof of these surveys that back up your claims, I would have to question the reason for these studies in the first place, why are we using time and resources to prove difference instead of challanging the social structures that have lead to our inequalities.

You name a few female theorists in your post, that in itself is a case in point that at least some women do want to partake in theory. Although women are not highly represented in political discourse, we need to realise that when we are talking about things in our lives that are important we are in a process of theorizing.

by Tobie* Tue Aug 15, 2006 01:14

here you go . .
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/77333

by Chris Murray - The Unmanageables Tue Aug 15, 2006 12:58

Thank you Tobie*:- you knew where to put it.

The arguments, discussions etc re feminism, activism and socialism are lovely, really.

but it takes individual talent and co-operation on every level of understanding to
actually bring about political changes in this country-.

In the first instance, everytime a feminist sticks her hand up on indymedia there is a shoot down,
which is boring.

* No-one person would claim to have all the answers-so take the discussion to the
above link.*

We have in this country , the lowest representation of women in political power:
The left - Labour, Socialist Party and SF are making necessary changes to their constitutions
and women activists are politicising. They are coming from union and community groups.

In activism, time after time women tell me they do the footwork and are not
included in the decision-making processes of left-wing groups.

Again , Margaretta -solidarity.

by Tank Girl Tue Aug 15, 2006 13:31

"In the first instance, everytime a feminist sticks her hand up on indymedia there is a shoot down, which is boring."

Thats not true. Maybe you get a lot of opposition well so do I but its not because I'm a Feminist. Its because some here disagree with my opinions, as is their right. You seem to be into manbashing well some feminists disagree with that as well as men.

Consider that maybe its you who is being boring rather than the responses to your tirades. Quit the "I'm a Victim" act.

by tom eile Tue Aug 15, 2006 17:55

"Speak to women activists about sitting all afternoon, listening to the talking and posing when they just want to actually do something."
That seems like a good descriprion of an average afternoon in the Dail. Feminist activists can't reallly complain about low dail representation while at the same time arguing that women are somehow intinsically less prone to being windbags than men .

by d'other Tue Aug 15, 2006 20:37

Chris, you have not dealt with any of the points raised by the contributers to this thread. I have read the one report you cite as a source to back up your repeated assertion that 'women prefer activism to committee and strategy.' No where does the report add any validity to your argument. For some one who claims their argument has been proven 'survey after survey' you leave a lot of gaps, meanwhile what you do say continues to be inconsistent as well as incoherant. No where does that NWCI offer any critique of the power structures it focusses on, apart from identifying a prevalent historical male culture within them, it does little to address the role of women in Irish society.

The solutions it advocates could in my opinion only serve to radically perpetuate the crisis of democracy by creating 'a talent bank of women interested in being appointed to boards and decision-making bodies,' a bank that would no doubt be filled with the highly educated, alebit women, from elite backgrounds. It seems to think the best way to challenge patriarchy is by having women assimilate into traditionally hegemonic male institutions, rather than decentralising power and decision making. It all reminds me a little bit too much of a scene from a Caryl Churchill play, where a socialist housewife accuses her carreer minded sister who finds affinity with Thatcher, of probably preferring a little Hitlerina too.

Full report: http://www.nwci.ie/documents/irpol4.doc
Summary: http://www.nwci.ie/documents/irpol4_leaf.doc

by d'other Tue Aug 15, 2006 22:42

Chris, multiple people on this thread have attempted to engage and failed, in a discussion with you over repeated comments you have made on this and other threads advocating some essential difference between men and women. You're response has been to ignore them and refuse to engage with their points.

When challenged by site users sharing a contradictory interpretation of feminist politics to yours, you shout 'this is familiar territory,' as if we are a collective John Waters, pull the cloak of victimhood over yourself and tell us to 'feck off' accused as we are of 'pseudo-socialist theorizing bull-shit .'

You then pull details of your personal biography into the equation as if to prove a point, despite ignoring Tobie*'s previous contribution highlighting how 'when we are talking about things in our lives that are important we are in a process of theorizing,' a post that erases the dichotamies of feminist thinking and feminist practice.

Its clear you have no desire to engage in an honest exchange. That in itself is sympathetic of a viral machismo prevalent in the 'kick it till it breaks' circles. "We don't need to think about what we do. We just do it and because we do it, that makes us more worthy than you, your ideas and possible contributions."

Good luck shouting down the Bastille Chris.

by Amelia - Feminist Thu Aug 17, 2006 15:10

Chris, you're entitled to your opinions but reasoned discussion doesn't seem to come into it in any posts you've written on any of the threads I've seen. The 'everyone's out to get me cos I'm a feminist' stuff is getting tired. It's just giving feminism a bad name. Not everyone who disagrees with you is out to get you. They just disagree with you.