By Lucy P.
3/19/08 Washington DC: Five Year Anniversary of Iraq Invasion
There were Iraq Veterans Against the War members with a megaphone who, after coming from a veterans march, hopped a fence to the fifty ft. ledge of the National Archives building to rant and read grievances to a crowd of cheering veterans unsuspecting school children and their chaperones waiting to get in. There was a circle blockade with bikes and a die-in in front of an army recruiting station. There was a “march of the dead” protest, with white masks, black robes and names of war victims, ending in an intersection blockade of melodramatic postures, in which all participants got arrested. And in the morning, a march to the IRS building led to a defiance by tax resisters, who broke through a police blockade to the IRS doors, only to get grabbed by homeland security and thrown in the paddy wagon.
But my proposed highlight of the “5 Years Too Many” antiwar event on March 19th in Washington DC, and what I feel was one of the best demonstrations of the new anti-war movement and one of the best times I’ve had in a while, was an afternoon student lead street dance party that took over the streets of downtown DC for about four hours.
Funk the War, as I believe, originated out of a sort of spontaneous moment during the October Rebellion in 2007. It was agreed by about a hundred or so of the protesters that a marching dance party and a game of capture the flag in the streets would be an exciting and meaningful event to conclude the evening. We ended up only doing the dance party up and down Adam’s Morgan in the middle of a busy night club scene, it was too fun to stop, and the cops were now swarming and following us. I’m guessing the fun and friendliness of that night sparked the Funk the War thing, and it’s achievement on March 19th sealed the deal. It was lead by the new Students from a Democratic Society, and joined by Baltimore Algebra Project, Campus Anti-War Network, and other student activist groups.
Coming from the metro, I ran across McPherson square and up the block to catch up with the party line of 500 or so students as it departed. I was so winded, with the heavy backpack my arrested partner left me and all, but I immediately started dancing anyway. There was a speaker and some other equipment hooked up to an iPod on a little red wagon being pushed around by a person in a polar bear suit dancing profusely. We were ecstatic and free, dancing to hip-hop, punk and all forms of pop in between, dancing with and “without” rhythm. Students of different races and cultures, grooving and shouting in a harmony most had never experienced before.
We danced down with banners and signs into the business district with its office buildings, stopping traffic, startling drivers and bus passengers waiting at intersections, flabbergasting and perhaps scaring poor drivers stuck in the midst of us` as we boogied around their cars. I remind you, this was an UNPERMITTED, unlawful assembly, therefore completely unexpected by the DC civilians just going about their daily routine. The point was to disrupt “business as usual”, interrupt the daily life, stop the routine, remind people of the world outside, of other possibilities, and, most importantly, that there IS a resistance, a creative and active and youthful resistance to war and injustice. This resistance is not content to be herded like sheep in safe but limited permitted marches sectioned off from the rest of the populace, to be unseen and unheard outside the left, except for a short and underestimated blurb in corporate media. This resistance wants to be a nuisance, loud and colorful and unabashed. We won’t let people go on to the office or their high class consumption as if nothing else mattered, as if thousands of people weren’t dying and suffering in our name and our inaction. We are putting ourselves in your face, thus in danger, yet remaining unafraid of your threats and your police forces. We knew when we were breaking the law and we were willing to face the consequences; and we were willing to hold firm when the cops pushed us around.
They did push us around, but there was still only so much they could do, thanks to copious lawsuits, you can have unpermitted marches most places in DC, and they shy from doing mass arrests. When we danced to the first major intersection, we stayed, jumping and wriggling all around, chanting and singing, writing messages and peace signs with chalk, placing anti-war stickers everywhere, with no doubt frustrated drivers halted for blocks. And then the cops began to push and yell, moving in on bikes to scatter us, knocking over our red wagon. We propped it back up and simply kept on dancing down another street, then stopping at the next intersection until rammed again. This pattern continued for a couple hours, and included a stop at the armed forces recruiting station and a war profiteer’s office above a Starbucks. Both of those received big happy blobs of red paint thrown on their windows, paint which also found it’s way onto cops and cop cars, and decorated on the sidewalk and students’ faces.
When we danced back near McPherson Sq. the police got nasty and, as much as we snarled at them and tried to refuse, shoved us back onto the grass. But Evil Empire, a Rage Against the Machine cover band, was suddenly on a small stage in the park and playing the police brutality hit “Killing in the Name”. The kids went mad, danced and shouted and moshed along passionately. Then, with renewed gusto we got back into the streets again, as the rain started to pour.
With our numbers still the same, we ended up at another intersection. Folks jumped playfully in the puddles as the throng waivered up and down, vague as to exactly what was happening. Abruptly out of nowhere, students swept into the crowd with a load of about a dozen elementary school desks painted bright yellow and black with “Students for a Democratic Society” and “Money for Jobs and Education”, etc. In a blaze they enclosed a circle in the center of us, a student in between each desk, kneeling, wrists padlocked to holes inside. Others dashed around securing locks, spacing the desks, and spreading out to take up as much space as possible. Groups lined up at the cross walks to block police, and two rows of us sat, arms linked together, around the desks, myself included, to create as impenetrable a bastion as we could.
We took up all of the broad intersection and more, as the law enforcement regrouped. A nice middle aged, gray-bearded man who I rode down with a the huge van delighted me when he linked
my right arm, the only one I know of his age to join in the blockade. At first I knelt, reluctant to sit down on the wet pavement, but as the rain continued to come down on me without a raincoat on, I figured I should just get drenched. Eventually though, after I was sneezing and fearing sickness, I put on my poncho. But before that, who cared? No one cared about the rain. It was hot and sweaty in that crowd, it was the sky falling on the district for us and we were celebrating. The gathering danced and laughed wildly around the circle in swirls and congo lines, photographers and unexplained video cameras in rain gear swooped by, lord knows whose behind the lens. A kindly boy came and brought mysterious donated sandwiches, I ate one until it got too soggy. The music was still going loud on that red wagon, and I heard everyone “Stop the war, yes we can! Disco music’s back again!”
I felt as if no one was even the least afraid then, rather there was indisputable joy and mutiny. After twenty minutes or so, a friend came around with the news that the cops had given up, and indeed they had been told by a higher-up not to bother and not to arrest, just re-direct traffic. We won! I guess. Unfortunately nobody from the outside the crowd could see the what was happening on the inside with the desks and all. No major news media I’ve seen got the scoop either, although I didn’t search everywhere. But we all knew they wouldn’t get it, tomorrow’s news pretty much covered more the early morning events and then went home. There was some coverage of the dance party, mostly from the nearby media, but we all know how the media works. Are you at all surprised that it was vague, narrow-minded briefings that started out with “there was not as many as past protests, therefore the antiwar movement is fading”!
I’m not going to go any further with that topic, but needless to say anyone witness to the student takeover was probably not initially thinking the movement was fading (especially since they usually never see protests anyway since they happen by the capitol and away from the public). For anyone participating in the protest, the feeling was one of rejuvenation and inspiration. What we lacked in numbers we made up for in passionate force and creativity, and it was 95% students and youth, not older ex-hippy bourgeoisie, green party politicians, or indoctrinated intellectuals. Yeah it’s not going to stop the war, but it was the beginning of something more, and a damn fun protest way better than most of us had ever been to. We stayed locked down in the rain for about an hour until we decided, on our own terms not the police’s, to end a successful lockdown and continue the dance party down the streets for about another hour. Back to the recruiting station, with a few old ladies and young men counter protesting, then the fuzz again got violent and pushed us back on the grass of McPherson Sq. It was just in time to disband for another protest at the capitol, but it’s always sad to end such wonderful things. We went home that day, though, with a new hope and fresh enthusiasm for our own respective organizations and the streets we hope to soon take over just the same. Now groups all over the country are repeating the idea with their own “Funk the War”, like in Providence, RI. and New York City. It would be an amazing feat to pull off one here in CT, I’ve been throwing around the idea with my friends. If we spread the word and get enough excited people, it could be possible, though still risky. I can’t help but hope that if this sort of thing really catches on, growing and combining into even more creative direct action, connecting more youths to each other and to other pressing injustices, that it will be the beginning of a truly great movement. Because, even for people not that into politics or being anti-war, we all love a good dance party.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Screwed Over
By Nicholas Menapace
It’s a sad time for America now, the economy is poor and everyone is suffering. The unemployment rate is at 5.1% and likely to go up; people are losing their homes and gas prices are soaring at over $100 a barrel. The average American is suffering economically and companies have told their employees that they will stop all employee raises. You might be thinking, “Oh well, those companies are struggling to and they just can’t afford it”, but if that is so, why is American Airlines, who supposedly needs to cut wages and increase flight costs, paying their CEO not just his normal over a half a million-dollar salary, but also $6.6 million in a 2007 bonus. In fact American Airlines gave $250 million in stock bonuses to its executives and managers at the same time as it said it needed to halt pay raises for its employees. This is not unique to the American corporate world; the average CEO makes over 500 times what its average employee makes. In contrast, in places like Japan a CEO makes about seventeen times what an employee makes.
Why do Americans defend this system, all it has done is kept these CEO’s and corporate executives rich and actually keeps making them richer even when their companies fail. Our system has been rather quickly destroying the middle class, yet we sit here and let these Robber Barons screw Americans over by simply moving their jobs oversees and then promptly screwing over the workers in those countries by paying them almost nothing. On top of that many of these companies essentially do not have to pay taxes and many times the government actually gives direct money to these companies such as in 2001 when George W. Bush gave $15 billion dollars of tax payer money to the airline industry. Since the 1980’s its been free game on screwing over the worker since the great Ronald Reagan gave the go ahead for companies bust unions, ignore labor laws, and at the same time bring in government aid. Why is this okay with the American public that the top 1% of Americans own 60% of the wealth yet most Americans would tell you we don’t have a class system. Are we really indoctrinated enough that we don’t see ourselves being screwed over?
It’s a sad time for America now, the economy is poor and everyone is suffering. The unemployment rate is at 5.1% and likely to go up; people are losing their homes and gas prices are soaring at over $100 a barrel. The average American is suffering economically and companies have told their employees that they will stop all employee raises. You might be thinking, “Oh well, those companies are struggling to and they just can’t afford it”, but if that is so, why is American Airlines, who supposedly needs to cut wages and increase flight costs, paying their CEO not just his normal over a half a million-dollar salary, but also $6.6 million in a 2007 bonus. In fact American Airlines gave $250 million in stock bonuses to its executives and managers at the same time as it said it needed to halt pay raises for its employees. This is not unique to the American corporate world; the average CEO makes over 500 times what its average employee makes. In contrast, in places like Japan a CEO makes about seventeen times what an employee makes.
Why do Americans defend this system, all it has done is kept these CEO’s and corporate executives rich and actually keeps making them richer even when their companies fail. Our system has been rather quickly destroying the middle class, yet we sit here and let these Robber Barons screw Americans over by simply moving their jobs oversees and then promptly screwing over the workers in those countries by paying them almost nothing. On top of that many of these companies essentially do not have to pay taxes and many times the government actually gives direct money to these companies such as in 2001 when George W. Bush gave $15 billion dollars of tax payer money to the airline industry. Since the 1980’s its been free game on screwing over the worker since the great Ronald Reagan gave the go ahead for companies bust unions, ignore labor laws, and at the same time bring in government aid. Why is this okay with the American public that the top 1% of Americans own 60% of the wealth yet most Americans would tell you we don’t have a class system. Are we really indoctrinated enough that we don’t see ourselves being screwed over?
Working People Get No Meaningful Vote in 2008 Presidential Election
By Michael Hoffman
All three major candidates for the presidency have claimed to be the candidate of the common man, the hard working Americans who are struggling to get by. They say that they are “one of us” and that they will be the agent of “change.” But no matter which one of the three wins the White House in November, no real change will be forthcoming. Why not? Because in today’s political world both major parties are ruled by corporate interests and these three candidates are no different.
Let’s start with Hillary Clinton. She’s been posing as a friend of the common man and had been endorsed by many unions. But it is hard to see how she would help the workers when one looks at her history. From 1986 through 1992, while Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas, Hillary was on the board of none other than Wal-Mart. While Senator Clinton was a member of the board, Wal-Mart went about its business of wiping out small town businesses and profiting off the sweat and blood of sweatshop workers. Also, according to abc News, Hillary stayed silent while Wal-Mart board members went on their anti-union rampages, although she did push for environmentally friendly policies and better treatment for female workers. The Clintons were also friends with Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton, the man who personally told loaders at an Arkansas distribution center that he would fire them all and shut the center down if the voted to join a union. And let’s not forget that it was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA into law, leading to the disappearance of American jobs.
On the Republican side, John McCain has presented himself as a maverick, as someone who does not bow down to special-interest groups. However, according to the Washington watchdog group Center for Public Integrity, between 1997 and 2006, McCain has taken $2.6 million from Political Action Committees (PACs). McCain has taken money from such corporate donors as Verizon and AT+T, the company that has been helping the NSA spy on American citizens.
Corporate donors have even tainted the candidacy of Barack Obama, a man so charming and full of hope that even I like him. Unfortunately, he too has been bit by the corporate bug. According to the Chicago Tribune, about three-fourths of Obama’s campaign cash has come from corporate donors. Also, he has received money from Exelon Corporation, the country’s largest nuclear plant operator. One of Obama’s largest donors is Exelon chairman John W. Rowe, who is also one of the board of the neo-con American Enterprise Institute.
The only way to escape this corporate trap is by voting for a third party. You could do what I have done in the past and vote for the Green Party, a party that actually cares about the future of America and its citizens. Some of its core values are grassroots democracy, social justice and environmental responsibility. If you like the latter two of these but would rather see capitalism done away with all together, you could vote for either the Socialist Party USA or the Socialist Workers Party. Or, if you love civil liberties and also the free market you could vote for the Libertarian Party, which competes with the Green Party for dominance as the biggest third party in the country. If you would like to abolish the income tax and also see the constitution become based on the Bible (a fundamentalist reading of the Bible), you could vote for the Constitution Party, although in Connecticut this party is known as the Concerned Citizens Party. Finally if you really hate alcohol, you could vote for the Prohibition Party, which wants to make alcohol illegal. Believe it or not, this party has been around since 1869 and has run a presidential candidate in every election cycle since 1872.
So, the good news is you have options. The bad news is that if you do vote for a third candidate, there is virtually no chance that they can become president. The Commission on Presidential Debates makes sure that only Republicans and Democrats can take part in debates (unless it’s a pro-corporate billionaire like Ross Perot). Also, since the corporations and special-interest groups give their money to the two major parties, who keep them rich, third parties get no money and no attention from the corporate media. Therefore, voting for a third party is rendered virtually meaningless, while voting for one of the corporate parties will not help either. The only way we can give our votes meaning is by getting rid of the two party system and by voting for third party candidates for town and state offices and for Congress which actually have an outside chance of winning. Getting third party candidates into Congress is a good way to get the ball rolling on ending the two party system and bringing real democracy to the United States.
All three major candidates for the presidency have claimed to be the candidate of the common man, the hard working Americans who are struggling to get by. They say that they are “one of us” and that they will be the agent of “change.” But no matter which one of the three wins the White House in November, no real change will be forthcoming. Why not? Because in today’s political world both major parties are ruled by corporate interests and these three candidates are no different.
Let’s start with Hillary Clinton. She’s been posing as a friend of the common man and had been endorsed by many unions. But it is hard to see how she would help the workers when one looks at her history. From 1986 through 1992, while Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas, Hillary was on the board of none other than Wal-Mart. While Senator Clinton was a member of the board, Wal-Mart went about its business of wiping out small town businesses and profiting off the sweat and blood of sweatshop workers. Also, according to abc News, Hillary stayed silent while Wal-Mart board members went on their anti-union rampages, although she did push for environmentally friendly policies and better treatment for female workers. The Clintons were also friends with Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton, the man who personally told loaders at an Arkansas distribution center that he would fire them all and shut the center down if the voted to join a union. And let’s not forget that it was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA into law, leading to the disappearance of American jobs.
On the Republican side, John McCain has presented himself as a maverick, as someone who does not bow down to special-interest groups. However, according to the Washington watchdog group Center for Public Integrity, between 1997 and 2006, McCain has taken $2.6 million from Political Action Committees (PACs). McCain has taken money from such corporate donors as Verizon and AT+T, the company that has been helping the NSA spy on American citizens.
Corporate donors have even tainted the candidacy of Barack Obama, a man so charming and full of hope that even I like him. Unfortunately, he too has been bit by the corporate bug. According to the Chicago Tribune, about three-fourths of Obama’s campaign cash has come from corporate donors. Also, he has received money from Exelon Corporation, the country’s largest nuclear plant operator. One of Obama’s largest donors is Exelon chairman John W. Rowe, who is also one of the board of the neo-con American Enterprise Institute.
The only way to escape this corporate trap is by voting for a third party. You could do what I have done in the past and vote for the Green Party, a party that actually cares about the future of America and its citizens. Some of its core values are grassroots democracy, social justice and environmental responsibility. If you like the latter two of these but would rather see capitalism done away with all together, you could vote for either the Socialist Party USA or the Socialist Workers Party. Or, if you love civil liberties and also the free market you could vote for the Libertarian Party, which competes with the Green Party for dominance as the biggest third party in the country. If you would like to abolish the income tax and also see the constitution become based on the Bible (a fundamentalist reading of the Bible), you could vote for the Constitution Party, although in Connecticut this party is known as the Concerned Citizens Party. Finally if you really hate alcohol, you could vote for the Prohibition Party, which wants to make alcohol illegal. Believe it or not, this party has been around since 1869 and has run a presidential candidate in every election cycle since 1872.
So, the good news is you have options. The bad news is that if you do vote for a third candidate, there is virtually no chance that they can become president. The Commission on Presidential Debates makes sure that only Republicans and Democrats can take part in debates (unless it’s a pro-corporate billionaire like Ross Perot). Also, since the corporations and special-interest groups give their money to the two major parties, who keep them rich, third parties get no money and no attention from the corporate media. Therefore, voting for a third party is rendered virtually meaningless, while voting for one of the corporate parties will not help either. The only way we can give our votes meaning is by getting rid of the two party system and by voting for third party candidates for town and state offices and for Congress which actually have an outside chance of winning. Getting third party candidates into Congress is a good way to get the ball rolling on ending the two party system and bringing real democracy to the United States.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Why You Should Be as Pissed Off as I Am: The assault on feminism in the United States
By Kari Sledzik
This recent fall, I took a stab at journalism for my first time. I enrolled in a journalism course, and I also attempted to write for the infamous Recorder. The Recorder attempt was, for lack of a better term, a complete disaster. In the matter of only a few weeks, it became abundantly clear that the Recorder would only support free speech for the people who sat at the cool kids’ table, and my articles were consistently subjected to censorship or outright rejection.
The journalism course was a little less frustrating. I mean, my articles were read, critiqued, and ultimately respected. Fine. I stopped writing for the Recorder basically as soon as I became recognized as a staff writer, but I couldn’t quit the journalism course without having to go back and re-take it anyway. I was never really experienced in journalism, so I did end up learning a thing or two.
One assignment was particularly poignant to me. The assignment was simple – think of a question, and write a short article incorporating about five people’s responses to said question. My question was rather straightforward – “what is a feminist?”
I’d be lying if I said that the assessments of women in the United States I subsequently received were really surprising. One woman said that feminism is totally outdated, and that no woman – even Hillary Clinton herself – still considers herself a feminist. Being that I was just the reporter and recording the response, I deemed it inappropriate to tell her she was sitting across from a feminist, who was dating a feminist, who knew many feminists, and, well, you get the point. Although I did get some educated and what I would consider to be accurate portrayals of feminists in my interviews, an overarching concept of feminists as lesbians and man-haters, and exclusively women for that mater, was definitely there. And it pissed me off.
Maybe it’s not fair to be pissed off at the people I was talking to. When you live in a society that attacks women consistently through institutional, interpersonal, religious, and countless other ways, how can we expect them to react any differently? Our government, media, schools, private companies, and essentially all elements of our society are slighted against women. All of these institutions teach us, from birth, that men are fundamentally more perfect than women, and therefore have to make all of the decisions that affect our lives.
When women pose a threat, it becomes the men’s job to remind us how the world works. This is when they get the promotion you were more qualified for, give you a good slap in the face when you argue, close your neighborhood sexual health clinic, or flat out rape you. And it’s when this becomes your fault. You talked back, you dressed too provocatively, you’re a bitch. Is it any surprise that women have this perception and shy away from feminism? Is it any surprise that these institutions paint feminism this way? They have a lot at stake, and they could lose it all if the playing field were actually even remotely equal.
Immediately, people point to Roe v. Wade, the Equal Rights Amendment, and female suffrage, which suggest that we have made significant leaps and bounds towards equality. Never mind that Roe v. Wade is in the most precarious situation that it has ever been in. Never mind that it took congress over 50 years to approve the three sentences known as the Equal Rights Amendment, but it never in fact passed state ratification, even after Congress passed a two-year extension on its ratification. Never mind that female suffrage took until the 1920s, only about 150 years after white males of privilege allowed themselves to exclusively control the fledgling government.
The well-known wing of the feminist movement made demands for white, bourgeois women. You know, Gloria Steinem would get up and wax poetic about how oppressed middle class women were. Don’t get me wrong. All women’s rights are equally important. But were most women really thinking of being able to get out of the house instead of baking cookies and reading magazines, or were more concerned that their hours at their only low-paying job were cut to 30 per week and she would consequently be denied maternity leave for the baby expected to arrive in less than a month? More importantly, did you hear about any of the feminists in the movement that were concerned about the latter? Well, they were there, standing somewhere in the shadow of middle class feminism. It’s no accident that a movement to empower second-class citizens created more of them.
So here are the lessons that Gloria Steinem chose not to teach you. Embedded in our institutions, within those endless layers of bureaucracy, are several absurd reasons that women cannot succeed. They get diseases once a month. If they get pregnant, you have to pay them to be out for a few months to take care of herself and the baby. They’re too weak and sensitive – having leadership and decision-making positions would be damaging for them and the institution. If she gets the job, the man who is more powerful and competent would not. If she reports that he raped her, it would be so damaging to his career and livelihood, which is much more important than her physical and mental health. So men have to stick together and make sure that society is organized so they can keep their power. It’s not a conspiracy, folks. It’s reality. All institutions benefit from sexual discrimination. It drives down wages for everyone, male and female alike.
Have we determined that men were right all along? We’re too quick to say “well, it’s not as bad as it was.” Wake up. It is that bad. It is that unequal. Call the police next time you encounter a domestic dispute. Time how long it takes them to get there, and take note of what they actually do. Hell, report it at CCSU. You will be politely escorted to each facet of judicial bureaucracy, and maybe if they like you the report will reflect what you said or even be filed at all. And when hell freezes over, they’ll investigate it properly.
Aren’t these pretty serious issues? Aren’t they current? How does any of this indicate equal and fair opportunities for women? The truth is that feminism is in serious trouble. Women haven’t moved forward and continue to face discrimination, harassment, and a consistent lack of support from their government. It’s not just a Central thing or a Wal-Mart thing or an office thing. If anything, Central is a microcosm of some of these serious issues that nobody in society seems ready to deal with. That’s why I’m pissed off, and why you should be too.
This recent fall, I took a stab at journalism for my first time. I enrolled in a journalism course, and I also attempted to write for the infamous Recorder. The Recorder attempt was, for lack of a better term, a complete disaster. In the matter of only a few weeks, it became abundantly clear that the Recorder would only support free speech for the people who sat at the cool kids’ table, and my articles were consistently subjected to censorship or outright rejection.
The journalism course was a little less frustrating. I mean, my articles were read, critiqued, and ultimately respected. Fine. I stopped writing for the Recorder basically as soon as I became recognized as a staff writer, but I couldn’t quit the journalism course without having to go back and re-take it anyway. I was never really experienced in journalism, so I did end up learning a thing or two.
One assignment was particularly poignant to me. The assignment was simple – think of a question, and write a short article incorporating about five people’s responses to said question. My question was rather straightforward – “what is a feminist?”
I’d be lying if I said that the assessments of women in the United States I subsequently received were really surprising. One woman said that feminism is totally outdated, and that no woman – even Hillary Clinton herself – still considers herself a feminist. Being that I was just the reporter and recording the response, I deemed it inappropriate to tell her she was sitting across from a feminist, who was dating a feminist, who knew many feminists, and, well, you get the point. Although I did get some educated and what I would consider to be accurate portrayals of feminists in my interviews, an overarching concept of feminists as lesbians and man-haters, and exclusively women for that mater, was definitely there. And it pissed me off.
Maybe it’s not fair to be pissed off at the people I was talking to. When you live in a society that attacks women consistently through institutional, interpersonal, religious, and countless other ways, how can we expect them to react any differently? Our government, media, schools, private companies, and essentially all elements of our society are slighted against women. All of these institutions teach us, from birth, that men are fundamentally more perfect than women, and therefore have to make all of the decisions that affect our lives.
When women pose a threat, it becomes the men’s job to remind us how the world works. This is when they get the promotion you were more qualified for, give you a good slap in the face when you argue, close your neighborhood sexual health clinic, or flat out rape you. And it’s when this becomes your fault. You talked back, you dressed too provocatively, you’re a bitch. Is it any surprise that women have this perception and shy away from feminism? Is it any surprise that these institutions paint feminism this way? They have a lot at stake, and they could lose it all if the playing field were actually even remotely equal.
Immediately, people point to Roe v. Wade, the Equal Rights Amendment, and female suffrage, which suggest that we have made significant leaps and bounds towards equality. Never mind that Roe v. Wade is in the most precarious situation that it has ever been in. Never mind that it took congress over 50 years to approve the three sentences known as the Equal Rights Amendment, but it never in fact passed state ratification, even after Congress passed a two-year extension on its ratification. Never mind that female suffrage took until the 1920s, only about 150 years after white males of privilege allowed themselves to exclusively control the fledgling government.
The well-known wing of the feminist movement made demands for white, bourgeois women. You know, Gloria Steinem would get up and wax poetic about how oppressed middle class women were. Don’t get me wrong. All women’s rights are equally important. But were most women really thinking of being able to get out of the house instead of baking cookies and reading magazines, or were more concerned that their hours at their only low-paying job were cut to 30 per week and she would consequently be denied maternity leave for the baby expected to arrive in less than a month? More importantly, did you hear about any of the feminists in the movement that were concerned about the latter? Well, they were there, standing somewhere in the shadow of middle class feminism. It’s no accident that a movement to empower second-class citizens created more of them.
So here are the lessons that Gloria Steinem chose not to teach you. Embedded in our institutions, within those endless layers of bureaucracy, are several absurd reasons that women cannot succeed. They get diseases once a month. If they get pregnant, you have to pay them to be out for a few months to take care of herself and the baby. They’re too weak and sensitive – having leadership and decision-making positions would be damaging for them and the institution. If she gets the job, the man who is more powerful and competent would not. If she reports that he raped her, it would be so damaging to his career and livelihood, which is much more important than her physical and mental health. So men have to stick together and make sure that society is organized so they can keep their power. It’s not a conspiracy, folks. It’s reality. All institutions benefit from sexual discrimination. It drives down wages for everyone, male and female alike.
Have we determined that men were right all along? We’re too quick to say “well, it’s not as bad as it was.” Wake up. It is that bad. It is that unequal. Call the police next time you encounter a domestic dispute. Time how long it takes them to get there, and take note of what they actually do. Hell, report it at CCSU. You will be politely escorted to each facet of judicial bureaucracy, and maybe if they like you the report will reflect what you said or even be filed at all. And when hell freezes over, they’ll investigate it properly.
Aren’t these pretty serious issues? Aren’t they current? How does any of this indicate equal and fair opportunities for women? The truth is that feminism is in serious trouble. Women haven’t moved forward and continue to face discrimination, harassment, and a consistent lack of support from their government. It’s not just a Central thing or a Wal-Mart thing or an office thing. If anything, Central is a microcosm of some of these serious issues that nobody in society seems ready to deal with. That’s why I’m pissed off, and why you should be too.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
UnitedStates vs. us: Terrorism and the Definition of Evil
By Wesley Strong
On Tuesday March 4th, Professor Yonah Alexander and Spanish Ambassador Javier Ruperez visited CCSU as part of the Middle East Lecture Series run by CCSU History Professor Norton Mezvinsky. Yonah Alexander is the director of Terrorism Studies at the Potomac University and is a world renowned expert on terrorism. Javier Ruperez is considered to be one of the best experts on terrorism as a former head of the UN Anti-Terrorism Unit. Presenting viewpoints that were “middle of the road”, Alexander and Ruperez demonstrated their expertise in the field by agreeing with and supporting the UN definition of terrorism. Both speakers stated openly that it was not important to consider the root causes argument, an argument that there are specific reasons for an individual’s participation in “terrorist groups”.
The positions of both speakers are the official positions of the UN and most of he westernized world in regards to terrorism in all of its forms. In a PowerPoint presentation that looked like it belonged on a conspiracist webpage, Dr. Alexander speedily attempted to demonstrate why the audience should believe his point of view while conveniently skipping over the more text-intensive slides. The speakers were challenged on the root causes argument, though they waivered little as they retreated into the UN position which disregards the root causes argument entirely without providing an reasoning to do so. The speakers were addressed in regards to State Terrorism to which they adamantly responded saying that there is no such thing as State Terrorism. The Speakers stated that since governments are governed by international law that they are accountable for their actions. This means that when the US bombs civilian housing as we have many times, it is an act of war while if anyone else commits those acts they are terrorists. State actors cannot be terrorists by this definition, even if they commit the same acts as those they classify as terrorist.
Based from the fact that there is no universal definition of who a terrorist is, as it is more defined as a level of power rather than by actual acts, the argument can be made that terrorism in and of itself is simply another threat to western or capitalist hegemony that in order to be conquered must be labeled as terrorism. In the United States the definition of terrorism has certain consequences. We are bombarded by images of the “Arab terrorist", much like we have been bombarded by images of the “black rapist” for years. This has a multiplying effect of diluting the perception of reality in which we perceive Arabs as terrorists. This has lead to many court cases over that fact where Imams were detained and not allowed to fly in the United States as they were considered threats. This was because Imams are required to wear a traditional garb and stick out as a “stereotypical Arab or terrorist”. The question of course is who the real evil is. As the US continues a foreign policy that includes an utter disregard for Sudan, while further occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as unrelenting support for Israel - a state that has one of the worst human rights records, there is little question over who is the victim and who is the perpetrator. The classification of terrorist only became a popular classification after the fall of the Soviet Union, when using the classification of communist or socialist would no longer be applicable. In fact, the US government has recently passed a bill in the House of Representatives that equates violence from political organizations with violence from radical religious organizations – HR1955/S1959. The house version of the bill, HR1955, passed with an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 404 in favor, 6 against, with 22 missing. The bill defines Homegrown Terrorism as any group that attempts to use force or violence to change the minds of America. Force is defined as intellectual power or vigor, or a logical argument as well as the use of influential action to forward social goals.
This is the beginning of a slippery slope back into McCarthyism and the Racism of the Jim Crow years. As our state continues to support Racist actions and depicts the Arab world as terrorists and people out to kill Americans – much like their depiction of communists under the USSR – there is little recognition from the people to that end of the similarities between the classifications of groups of people to be considered not “American”. In order to maintain its hegemonic and ideological rule in the world, the United States needs to continue to create evil. The nations of the Middle East have not been killing themselves for centuries and in fact were one of the most advanced civilizations prior to the involvement of the West in their affairs. This is not to say that they were perfect, but there certainly were no suicide bombings, Improvised Explosive Devises (IEDs), or any other commonality of violence at the time. You could even make the point that terrorism is a violent response to oppression brought on by the west in the form of occupation, genocide, and racism. When poor people have no means through which their voice can be heard and listened to, what else can they do but resist? This does not mean that the ends justify the means, but we certainly need to be clear about why terrorism exists.
So the next time that you see a news report of terrorists bombing a bar, remember that the US has continually bombed schools, orphanages, hospitals, mosques, union offices that they said they weren’t going to touch, and media headquarters of non-US media companies that criticize the US and Western hegemony. Remember that the resistance against Apartheid in South Africa was called a terrorist resistance because they bombed several bars that had a high population of state and military employees. Remember that the Sons of Liberty committed what in modern times would be called terrorist acts by tarring and feathering tax collectors, not to mention the Boston Tea Party. The question is what terrorism is and what resistance is. The US and the West strive to continually blur the line so that groups that are trying to build a better world are equated with Al-Qaida. Talk about slippery slopes.
a Video about HR1955
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wJsovPRTEM
HR1955 GovTrack General link - It was not working when this article was poster
www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1955
HR1955 GovTrack Full Bill Text link
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955
On Tuesday March 4th, Professor Yonah Alexander and Spanish Ambassador Javier Ruperez visited CCSU as part of the Middle East Lecture Series run by CCSU History Professor Norton Mezvinsky. Yonah Alexander is the director of Terrorism Studies at the Potomac University and is a world renowned expert on terrorism. Javier Ruperez is considered to be one of the best experts on terrorism as a former head of the UN Anti-Terrorism Unit. Presenting viewpoints that were “middle of the road”, Alexander and Ruperez demonstrated their expertise in the field by agreeing with and supporting the UN definition of terrorism. Both speakers stated openly that it was not important to consider the root causes argument, an argument that there are specific reasons for an individual’s participation in “terrorist groups”.
The positions of both speakers are the official positions of the UN and most of he westernized world in regards to terrorism in all of its forms. In a PowerPoint presentation that looked like it belonged on a conspiracist webpage, Dr. Alexander speedily attempted to demonstrate why the audience should believe his point of view while conveniently skipping over the more text-intensive slides. The speakers were challenged on the root causes argument, though they waivered little as they retreated into the UN position which disregards the root causes argument entirely without providing an reasoning to do so. The speakers were addressed in regards to State Terrorism to which they adamantly responded saying that there is no such thing as State Terrorism. The Speakers stated that since governments are governed by international law that they are accountable for their actions. This means that when the US bombs civilian housing as we have many times, it is an act of war while if anyone else commits those acts they are terrorists. State actors cannot be terrorists by this definition, even if they commit the same acts as those they classify as terrorist.
Based from the fact that there is no universal definition of who a terrorist is, as it is more defined as a level of power rather than by actual acts, the argument can be made that terrorism in and of itself is simply another threat to western or capitalist hegemony that in order to be conquered must be labeled as terrorism. In the United States the definition of terrorism has certain consequences. We are bombarded by images of the “Arab terrorist", much like we have been bombarded by images of the “black rapist” for years. This has a multiplying effect of diluting the perception of reality in which we perceive Arabs as terrorists. This has lead to many court cases over that fact where Imams were detained and not allowed to fly in the United States as they were considered threats. This was because Imams are required to wear a traditional garb and stick out as a “stereotypical Arab or terrorist”. The question of course is who the real evil is. As the US continues a foreign policy that includes an utter disregard for Sudan, while further occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as unrelenting support for Israel - a state that has one of the worst human rights records, there is little question over who is the victim and who is the perpetrator. The classification of terrorist only became a popular classification after the fall of the Soviet Union, when using the classification of communist or socialist would no longer be applicable. In fact, the US government has recently passed a bill in the House of Representatives that equates violence from political organizations with violence from radical religious organizations – HR1955/S1959. The house version of the bill, HR1955, passed with an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 404 in favor, 6 against, with 22 missing. The bill defines Homegrown Terrorism as any group that attempts to use force or violence to change the minds of America. Force is defined as intellectual power or vigor, or a logical argument as well as the use of influential action to forward social goals.
This is the beginning of a slippery slope back into McCarthyism and the Racism of the Jim Crow years. As our state continues to support Racist actions and depicts the Arab world as terrorists and people out to kill Americans – much like their depiction of communists under the USSR – there is little recognition from the people to that end of the similarities between the classifications of groups of people to be considered not “American”. In order to maintain its hegemonic and ideological rule in the world, the United States needs to continue to create evil. The nations of the Middle East have not been killing themselves for centuries and in fact were one of the most advanced civilizations prior to the involvement of the West in their affairs. This is not to say that they were perfect, but there certainly were no suicide bombings, Improvised Explosive Devises (IEDs), or any other commonality of violence at the time. You could even make the point that terrorism is a violent response to oppression brought on by the west in the form of occupation, genocide, and racism. When poor people have no means through which their voice can be heard and listened to, what else can they do but resist? This does not mean that the ends justify the means, but we certainly need to be clear about why terrorism exists.
So the next time that you see a news report of terrorists bombing a bar, remember that the US has continually bombed schools, orphanages, hospitals, mosques, union offices that they said they weren’t going to touch, and media headquarters of non-US media companies that criticize the US and Western hegemony. Remember that the resistance against Apartheid in South Africa was called a terrorist resistance because they bombed several bars that had a high population of state and military employees. Remember that the Sons of Liberty committed what in modern times would be called terrorist acts by tarring and feathering tax collectors, not to mention the Boston Tea Party. The question is what terrorism is and what resistance is. The US and the West strive to continually blur the line so that groups that are trying to build a better world are equated with Al-Qaida. Talk about slippery slopes.
a Video about HR1955
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wJsovPRTEM
HR1955 GovTrack General link - It was not working when this article was poster
www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1955
HR1955 GovTrack Full Bill Text link
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
