Showing posts with label patriarchy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label patriarchy. Show all posts

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Gender and Capitalism in China Today, a Discussion in Montreal

7985659685_942d48656a_zOn May 7th, join us for a discussion of the role gender plays in workers’ exploitation and resistance in contemporary China, looking specifically at changes in the appearance of the oppression of female workers between the socialist period and the capitalist restoration, as well as issues facing migrant female workers under the triple oppression of Patriarchy, Capitalism, and the State.

This presentation is by Mei Leung, a labor activist from Hong Kong who has also been active around workers’ struggles in Mainland China for the past nine years. The talk is being co-sponsored by Kersplebedeb Publishing and No One Is Illegal Montreal, and is a part of the Festival of Anarchy.

 

Where: QPIRG Concordia, 1500 de Maisonneuve O. suite 204 (Guy-Concordia metro)
When: Thursday May 7th, 7pm

Facebook event: http://ift.tt/1KapmB3

For more information, contact info@kersplebedeb.com



on the main Kersplebedeb website: http://ift.tt/1yYqMxw



Sunday, January 12, 2014

Countering Colonization (and other great books)

ft6p3007qj-coverjpg.jpg So University of California Press has just made 700 of its books available for online reading (to read on a tablet you have to copy paste into some other program and do some conversions). One of these titles, which i can’t recommend highly enough, is Carol Devens’s Countering Colonization: Native American Women and Great Lakes Missions, 1630-1900 , a title which has been out of print for some time now.


Countering Colonization provides an important snapshot of how some Indigenous women dealt with colonialism and patriarchy in canada, providing rich details of resistance in various forms. Strongly recommended!






on the main Kersplebedeb website: http://kersplebedeb.com/posts/countering-colonization-and-other-great-books/



Saturday, March 02, 2013

Patriarchy and the Movement, the Video


The above is the video of the February 28 panel on patriarchy in the movement that took place in Seattle at the Red and Black Cafe. Good presentations, laying out the basic ABCs of why anti-patriarchal and anti-racist politics constitute litmus tests for any revolutionary movement, while describing some of the places where movement practice has been woefully inadequate.



Sunday, February 24, 2013

Patriarchy and the Movement: Current discussions and organizing against patriarchy in Portland, Seattle, and Oakland



Join comrades from Seattle, Portland, and (via Skype) Oakland to discuss together the current confrontations with patriarchy within the movement. The dialogue around patriarchy in the movement has fired up recently on the west coast, myriad anti-patriarchy groups have formed, feminists have written several statements in the post-occupy climate, and conversations have ignited within collectives. We would like to bring these discussions to a public forefront in order to understand the challenges of confronting patriarchy within the movement, the analysis and praxis that is being formed, and the timeliness of confronting these issues.


Feb 28th 7pm
Red and Black Cafe
400 SE 12th


To watch the event on livestream: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/kmt63



From the organizers:
We would like to extend an invite to the members of your collective to attend and participate in the discussion titled "Patriarchy and the Movement" at the Red and Black on February 28th, at 7pm sharp. Although this is a public event, we are especially interested in maximum participation of active collective members and organizers, particularly those who are in mixed gender collectives and political spaces. We feel that having this conversation is long overdue, and because of the simultaneous nature of discussions concerning patriarchy in the movement on the west coast we are particularly encouraging attendance from active collective members in order to check in between cities about the prevalence of this issue currently affecting our movement.

Comrades from Seattle who were active in west coast coordination during the occupy movement will come to Portland to speak during this event, comrades engaged in organizing in Oakland will speak via Skype, as well as members of various active collectives in Portland. Comrades from all three cities are part of organizing this discussion. In addition, a clinical psychologist will speak on patriarchy in the movement from mental health perspective, and the traumatic effects of patriarchy. There will be several recent texts and zines on the subject available at the event, and childcare will be provided.

We realize a public discussion of this exact nature is fairly unprecedented - there is a lot of preparation going into this event and it will be run in a tight and serious manner. Because of demand the event will be livestreamed so that collectives in other cities can listen, and we are hearing that some collectives are making attending or viewing the event mandatory and in some cities comrades are organizing viewing parties and discussions.

We hope that your collective can participate in the event, and that together we can build a serious, honest, and respectful conversation concerning the challenges we have historically and presently face in movements and radical organizing, and educate and respect each other through the process.



Thursday, February 14, 2013

Video Interview with Sanyika Shakur



In this interview, New Afrikan Communist Sanyika Shakur discusses his personal social development, his time in Pelican Bay-SHU, the 2011 California prisoners' hunger strikes, the effects of long-term isolation torture, New Afrikan nationalism, communism, and the struggle against gender oppression.

In a biographical note written while in PB-SHU, Shakur explained:

i was born Nov 13, 1963.

Raised in South Central Los Angeles, by a phenomenal single, working-class, mother. Cut my teeth in the hostile gang culture in South Central from the mid-70's til the late 80's. Was introduced to the New Afrikan Independence Movement, by way of the Spear & Shield Collective, in 1986, while in the SHU at San Quentin. It was also in 1986 that i became a Shakur. I am a founding cadre of the August Third Collective and a combatant in the New Afrikan Peoples Liberation Army.

I have had an indeterminate SHU term since 1989, for being a threat to the safety and security of the institution - presumably CDCR, though i suspect it's the institution of capitalism. I am an author that has produced pieces for various movement publications over the years as well as a couple of books. Currently working with Kersplebedeb Publishing & Distribution to publish a collection of writings done here in Pelican Bay Security Housing Unit.

Shakur was released from PB-SHU in Black August 2012.

For more writings by Sanyika Shakur click here.



Sunday, February 03, 2013

Pathology of Patriarchy: A Search for Clues at the Scene of the Crime


Another excellent essay by Sanyika Shakur, who was released from Pelican Bay SHU last August. As he wrote before his release:
i was born Nov 13, 1963. Raised in South Central Los Angeles, by a phenomenal single, working-class, mother. Cut my teeth in the hostile gang culture in South Central from the mid-70's til the late 80's. Was introduced to the New Afrikan Independence Movement, by way of the Spear & Shield Collective, in 1986, while in the SHU at San Quentin. It was also in 1986 that i became a Shakur. I am a founding cadre of the August Third Collective and a combatant in the New Afrikan Peoples Liberation Army. I have had an indeterminate SHU term since 1989, for being a threat to the safety and security of the institution - presumably CDCR, though i suspect it's the institution of capitalism. I am an author that has produced pieces for various movement publications over the years as well as a couple of books. Currently working with Kersplebedeb Publishing & Distribution to publish a collection of writings done here in Pelican Bay Security Housing Unit.
This essay is also posted on the Kersplebedeb website. More about, and by, Sanyika Shakur can be found at http://www.kersplebedeb.com/sanyikashakur.html.

Pathology of Patriarchy:
A Search for Clues at the Scene of the Crime

Sanyika Shakur
“The great divide between humans and animals provided a standard by which to judge other people, both at home and elsewhere. If the essence of humanity was defined as consisting of a specific quality or set of qualities, such as reason, intelligible language, religion, culture, or manners, it followed that anyone who did not fully possess those qualities was “subhuman”. Those judged less than human were seen either as useful beasts to be curbed, domesticated, and kept docile, or as predators or vermin to be eliminated” (1)
What We are going to do here is direct your attention to the pathology of oppression, but not simply as you are used to reading about it. The obvious points of contention will inevitably be touched on as they relate, to attendant ills, to the subject at hand, however, We will try to keep our focus - and your attention – trained on the issue in play! Please bear with us as We move along to connect the dots. We want to talk about homophobia – the fear and oppression of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people. And We want to discuss this because as revolutionaries it is our duty to deal with all socio-economic and political phenomena that engages our reality (past, present and future). The obligation of the revolutionary is to make the revolution. That is to change oneself, encourage the people to change and then change the current system that oppresses. Of course, it would be ideal if, in 2012, We didn’t have to even deal with this matter. We wish that these issues had been resolved during the last hightide of consciousness. But sadly, that was not the case - and so here We are. No matter, the sooner begun, the sooner done, no? Right on!

We are learning as We go to recognize, overstand, isolate and deal with maladies as they arise, but have just begun to tie all these into the oppressive matrix of patriarchy as the origin of major ism’s that crush, kill, disrupt and destroy – as they oppress and exploit. It’s unfortunate, but We’re having to sometimes start from scratch every 30 or 40 years because We lack a continuity of consciousness in our struggle against capitalist – imperialism. And while issues of sexism have been dealt with in large part by women, it’s necessary We think to broaden the scope of the discussion of sexism to include homophobia and heterosexism. We are not in anyway, claiming to be experts on this issue. We are studying and struggling around the same things that most revolutionaries are – which is to say, We are looking for clues at the scene of the crime. Trying to connect the dots as they relate to individual, national and global oppression. We are, in essence, looking for ways to get free and stay free. Free, that is fromall forms of oppression.

Here’s the thing, really, if people are being oppressed because of who they naturally are (and We know this to be true), which may not fit into a patriarchal gender box, then this is due to a “sex” (or gender) issue. So We feel this still covers sex-ism. In other words, that patriarchy (male dominated systems of oppression) create categories for people to fit into in order to exploit and oppress. Therefore, so-called genders then become classes. A class of men, the dominant – masculine, violent, god, father, king president, boss, etc. –  and a class of women, the dominated – feminine, passive, holy ghost, homemaker, whore, etc. Oppression by “sex” is the oldest form of oppression on the planet. Older than institutionalized theocracies like Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Theocratic regimes institutionalized male dominant systems of oppression thru laws, state bureaucracies and social relations. In fact, men deal with women and children as they did livestock.
“Nowhere is patriarchy’s iron fist as naked as in the oppression of animals, which serves as the model and training ground for all other forms of oppression”. (2)

Pathological Progression of Patriarchy

Why is it necessary to speak about patriarchy if We are discussing homophobia? And, why begin with the oppression of women and children if this is about oppression of gender outlaws? Well, what We have to do is a bit of excavation – some radical anthropology, if you will, because the fact of the matter is, We know that things don’t fall from the sky or magically appear out of thin air. We are looking for connections, contradictions and from these We’ll be rewarded with the truth of origins and the internal dynamics in the life process of the thing. The “thing” in this particular study is oppression as manifested thru the system of patriarchy – which We contend is the origin of a vast array of other forms of oppression. Which is precisely why We brought in the domestication of animals. We are learning that the same techniques used to domesticate animals were also used in the colonization of women and children and eventually every culture they encountered. Breeding, birth control, castration, segregation, exploitation and mass murder were methods learned first on animals and then on humans. And there was always a symbiotic relationship of know-how used between the two areas of domestication of animals, including their mass killing for capitalist markets and the mass production of commodities, such as cars, in the development of capitalist industry:
 “In his autobiography My life and Work (1922) Henry Ford revealed that his inspiration for assembly-line production came from a visit he made as a young man to a Chicago slaughterhouse. ‘I believe that this was the first moving line ever installed,’ he wrote, ‘The idea [of the assembly line] came in a general way from the overhead trolley that the Chicago packers use in dressing beef.’” (3)  
Capitalism came out of patriarchy, but We know that it is not exclusive to capitalism. It was a good ol’ boy network beforecapitalism is recognized to have created modern classes. It was the same good ol’ boy network under soviet so-called “socialism” and it was a good ol’ boy network in the civil rights movement and to a large degree, in the Black Liberation Movement. Patriarchy positions itself above all as the reason, the answer and the solution – all to the detriment of women and children, but that’s not all. Patriarchy is a pervasive system of oppression that reaches far and wide into the minds and actions of all. It produces sexism, of course, but more insidiously it relies upon its victims to perpetuate and promote it. Again, there’s no magic involved here. These things are knowable - and it follows that if We can identify, expose and challenge these things We can defeat them. Or, be defeated. And, should We do nothing, this will most certainly insure that things get worse.

Often times We miss the boat on overstanding the subtle ways We go about reinforcing patriarchal relationships in our daily lives. See, because domination is but one aspect of patriarchy. That’s just the obvious aspect of it. You know, like when Conquistadors pushed up in the Inca Empire, or the English vamped on India. The domination was obvious. But then came the missionaries, the laws, the state – the colonial culture. These caused the second, corresponding aspect, of patriarchy: Dependency. The colonized were made to feel that they’d been chosen as subjects for a great, all encompassing “civilizational” leap forward. That the invaders were sent by the “Great Father” in the sky, who’d sent word to the King, who in turn instructed the invaders to save the heathens from their wretched selves! Bring them into the modern world – by dint of canon and bayonet if necessary:
“Aristotle maintained that man’s domination over animals extended to slaves and women as well, another view that mirrored the political reality of the day, since human slavery and subordination of women were the norm in Ancient Greece. In hisPolitics, Aristotle wrote that such ‘uncivilized’ people as the neighboring Achaeans and Thracians ‘are slaves by nature, as the body is to the soul, or as beasts are to men.’ Aristotle believed it was as permissible to enslave people who did not possess ‘reason’ as it was to enslave the common, and for the most part live at random.” (4)

Legitimized thru Longevity

The same patriarchy which first oppressed women, (after having perfected the methods on animals) as “inferiors”, went on to evolve into the judeo-christian and Islamic institutions or theology that have scorched the planet today. This is why in every major religion god is ahe or him – Father, i.e. male (according to “gender”). The last messenger, prophet, offspring and the last one god supposedly spoke to – yep, you guessed it, men. Coincidence? Natural? Not a chance. To make matters worse, as if patriarchy could even be content with one form of oppression, Euro-Supremacists went a step further than some unseen spirit in the sky, they painted a picture of their god-father’s son in their image. They in effect became the prototype of the son of god image and thus in the direct lineage from god himself. Plato, Aristotle’s teacher created the idea of the Great Chain of Being this formalized the belief of the Greeks that they ranked higher than non-Greeks, women, slaves and of course animals.
“Medieval Christendom translated Plato’s image into a ladder which had God at the top and European Christian on the highest rung, a position that granted them a divine mandate as God’s overseers and stewards to rule over the rest of the ladder below. The idea that European man flawed and sinful though he might be, occupied a position on earth comparable to God’s position in the universe became a central idea in the religious and philosophical thought of Western civilization regarding man’s place in nature. Thus Europeanism had virtually unlimited authority to rule the natural world as ‘the vice regent and deputy or almighty God’.” (5)
And because of this “virtual unlimited authority” there’s a very dark, wretchedly oppressed and colonized Indian women, in Bombay with a picture of a prototypical European man on her wall who she believes is the son of god – her Lord and Savior – who died for her sins. And yet although he died for her “sins”, she is still paying a perpetual debt she never owed. And this scene is replicated a million times over across the planet in homes, hovels, huts, churches and prisons – in every colony. The theocracies are heavily invested in the business of patriarchy – in domestication and colonization. And the colonial subjects respond with fealty and dependency. Women tell their sons to “be the man of the house”. Men tell their wives to “stay in a woman’s place”. Men who show emotions are said to be “acting like little girls”. Women who exert themselves as humans are called “dykes and bulldaggers or butch”. Violence is masculinized and passivity is feminized. This is so because patriarchy has created two exclusive genders. Two neat little boxes to insert all of humanity. And this has been legitimized by theocracy and capitalism thru longevity and a corresponding dependency by the masses on a grand distortion of nature itself. The longevity We speak of here has to do with people divesting themselves of the responsibility of social investigation. Of simply allowing abnormalities to persist without challenge because “it’s always been this way” or “that’s just the way it is”. No, that’s notjust the way it is – it’s the way it’s been made. It hasn’t fallen from the sky, or been miraculously blinked into existence. This oppression is man-made (literally) – it serves someone’s interest. The people relinquish their power to oppression when they default on social investigation of curious and questionable systems. Patriarchy and its attendant ills slither on uninterrupted:
“Patriarchy is a form of social organization that produces what we commonly recognize as sexism. But it goes well beyond individual or systemic prejudice against women. It is, first of all, the false division of all people into two rigid categories (male and female) that are asserted to be natural and moral. Patriarchy attempts to destroy, socially or even physically, anyone who does not fit into one of these categories or who rejects this “gender binary”. Patriarchy goes on to define clear roles (economic, social, emotional, political) for men and women, and it asserts (falsely) that these roles are natural and moral. Under patriarchy, people who do not fit into or who reject these gender roles are neutralized with violence and ostracism. They are made to see and feel ugly, dirty, scary, contemptible, worthless. Patriarchy is harmful to everybody, and it is reproduced by everyone who lives with it.” (6)

Weaponized Patriarchy

In addition to patriarchy going on to “define clear roles for men and woman,” it also set in motion the ill definition of races. In creating itself first as a class of men, to domesticate and rule over animals, women and children, it was a logical progression of patriarchy to define all humans as being of different “races”. For a plurality of races made it that much easier to justify, implement and sustain Plato’s earlier design of the Great Chain of Being. Because patriarchy is necessarily hierarchal, it was but a short trip to the lunatic fringe ofracism, though actually it was really euro-supremacy. To call it “racism” would, in essence, subtly reinforce the false social construct of a plurality of races on the planet. When, of course, this is not true. So, We’ll call it what it is – euro-supremacy. Euro-supremacy is also euro-centricity. Though, just as patriarchy is not exclusive a capitalist thing, nor is it exclusively a European thing. It’s a man thing. It is highly contagious and must be combated constantly. It fastens a sense of entitlement that lends itself to taking liberties with other people’s lives and existence based solely on what is perceived to be “difference”. We focus our attention on euro-supremacy as an attendant ill/side effect of patriarchy because it was them (English, French, Spaniards, Portuguese, Dutch, Belgians etc.) who weaponized paternal relations in myriad conquests across the globe. It was the British Empire upon whom it was said “the sun never set”. In other words, its domination was global. And it is a fact that 99% of the borders between countries, nations and states were drawn by European colonialism.

What made euro-patriarchy weaponized, aside from the obvious, was that it created not only races of others, but made itself a race – a “white race” sitting atop the global food chain – the Great Chain of Being – doing their Fathers’ work on earth. “Whites” polar opposite became, of course, the “blacks”. Afrikans were made into the “black race”. Asians became “yellow” and North American indigenous nations became “red”. Having already had a few centuries of practice domesticating animals, women and children in Europe, it was but a small tactical adjustment to train their cutlasses, ropes and cannons onto the “colored” people they encountered. The pivot was such that it needed only to hoist the same inferior attributes it used against its own people onto the indigenous cultures it smothered. Everyone was demonized and maligned as “subhuman”, “animalistic”, “heathen” and in need of either elimination, colonization or paternalism. Genocide, oppression or protection (dependency). In any event all encountered cultures had to come under the influence of euro-centric patriarchy. Which is to say the culture of the invaders – the crown, the religion, the laws. Social conditioning and gender placement was, in essence the first human test run, the forerunner to, genetic engineering.

Grand Patriarchy

“People who do not fit into or who reject these gender roles are neutralized with violence and ostracized” – Who are the people who would reject these gender roles? Certainly they would be those who overstood patriarchy, colonialism, and who had a sense of self and kind so strong that they went deter-minded to assert themselves and be natural. Gender outlaws. Those who acted (and thought) outside of the box – the patriarchal gender box. However, when grand patriarchy came onto the scene, as a weaponized euro-supremacy,all indigenous people, male and female, became inferiors.

Indigenous men were domesticated under grand patriarchy just as women had always been. And to insure this, a constant, blatant and open hostile state of terror and siege was used to blanket any notion to the contrary. Euro-supremacy smothered everything. Every male not a European became “boy”, “buck”, “son”, or worse. They were explicitly forbidden to look a European male in the eyes. Grand patriarchy recognized one man – the European male. This was eventually utilized in the colonization of every encountered culture of the planet.

But not even this form of pervasive oppression eradicated patriarchy among those dominated. Oppressed men, those forbidden to be “men” under grand patriarchy, still would oppress oppressed women. Thus women felt a double blow of oppression under grand (on a national level) patriarchy and minor patriarchy – individually, in personal social relations. What’s more is, this individual patriarchy – now sexism – was compounded with the introduction of the colonizers’ religion into the mix as a chain of control. Western religion in the colonies became “force-multipliers” for patriarchy. Another weapon used in the war. Once indigenous men had been taught that this new god had given men dominion over women and children, these fell further down the Great Chain of Being (as created by Plato and reconfigured by Euro-Christians). Women, too, however reciprocated this travesty by believing this foolishness to be true, making it that much easier for their oppression to continue.

But isn’t it odd that the same religion that propelled the Euro-supremacists out of Europe and against the world in a war driven culture of conquest, made the people they encountered docile and meek? That instead of the indigenous males using the bible to oppress women they could have used it to push back against the invaders… what happened? It was perhaps the overwhelming military ability of that time. In any event, in a paradoxical twist, the colonized people served to reinforce the grand patriarchy with a spiritually ordained patriarchy of their own – even at the bottom rung of the ladder. Even under old colonialism where it is said that “Whole nations became as classes”, the ills of patriarchy persisted and found expression. Tho’ hardly to the extent it did on the grand level. Still…

Patriarchy in Neo-colonialism

Class, gender, race and bourgeois law all stem from patriarchy. The illusion that men (“Father”) knows best. To insure this doesn’t escape anyone, man created religion in his image as well and endowed god with all the human attributes of a brutish man: jealously, greed, vengeance, indifference, callousness and authoritarianism. When it’s said that “god created man in his image”, it’s actually the reverse of that: man created god in his image. Class, gender, religion, race and bourgeois law – homophobia and heterosexism too – are all created of patriarchy. These, to look at it in another way, are the walls constructed in the global mansion of patriarchy to keep the Great Father safely sequestered away from those buried under the floor, in the closet, used as domestics, maintenance workers and beasts of burden. To escape the gender box is, in essence, to become an outlaw of sorts. For one’s escape from such restrictive confines is aprotest – for one’s ability to be natural. Out and away from the stifling confines of patriarchy’s colonialism. But to protest is but one side of the equation. To protest is to go away from for self’s sake. An overstandable thing. But to rebel is to go against the malady in an attempt to destroy it. Protests are usually non-violent. A tactical method using hope as a morality play on power to have it change itself. Rebellion however is an active and often violent lunge at the power’s heart to start the bleeding and stop the breathing. But even this is but a tactic and must be educated if the action is to bring about change.

Under old colonialism gender outlaws were smashed on by church and state. Sharp shooting ideologues riled up the masses to reject “ab-normality” for morals superior to such “deviance”. Old colonialism, the general representative of patriarchy, used to push a line of gender authoritarianism. Even on a socio-economic level, old colonialism squatting dominantly over internal colonialism, however, has changed everything, but altered the perception of most things in order to continue to hold its empire together and reap benefits from oppression. The U.S. ruling class has, in its new and enlightened age of colonialism, come out as the main protector of civil rights against sexual, racial and religious discrimination. It bills itself as the force to make all “citizens” equal. Of course the paradox here is what We must focus on to find the truth. You see because as the ruling class goes about claiming to be interested in protecting civil rights it is, in actuality, promoting and reinforcing patriarchy. It’s the tactic ofproblem-reaction-solution. It’s a Machiavellian ruse of traditional state craft. Patriarchy created “gender” which begot sexism that leads to “sexual discrimination”. Patriarchy created “race” which begot racism and leads to “racial discrimination”. Patriarchy created religion – male dominated theocracies – which leads to “religious discrimination”. In other words, the very problems the masses are running to the state (representative of grand patriarchy) to solve, the state created and will then offer a solution to. Which without question will only strengthen the grip of patriarchy. It’s the symbolic reapplication of the ties that bind which keep the masses tethered to the machine. Orwell anyone?

Patriarchal Contamination

We, as seated so close to the epicenter of empire, patriarchy and all that this entails, are without question, thoroughly contaminated. Cross-pollinated social interaction and conditioning has exposed us all to such a degree that We can hardly recognize our sickness. It all seems “normal” and “natural” doesn’t it? That’s because We’ve gone to colonial schools, been socialized by its mass media, the propaganda of its many wars (even those against us), bourgeois elections, its culture of arrogance, smugness and indifference etc. Because of this, and our inability to make sense of it, We act as unconscious shock troops of its colonial edicts when confronted with ideas and actions which appear to run counter to its mores. Being homophobic is one such thing. And of course racism is another. The animalized names the dominant culture has used to denigrate us all with We'll turn around and use them on each other and ourselves to justify a sense of difference in imitation of patriarchy.

But you see, the neo (new) colonialism doesn't mind if its patriarchy is being imitated. That’s a plus for it. That means it's working. It means people aren't trying to stop it, they are trying to like it. They don't want to end patriarchy, they want to be card carrying members of the club. Have you seen the ex-correctional officer, rapper Rick Ross, with his shirt off? The idiot has huge tattoos on his torso of U.S. currency - complete with Franklin's face, Jackson and Jefferson! He wants in so bad he's a walking billboard - "Will Beg For Membership". That's how patriarchy stays afloat and operable - by being legitimized, replicated and practiced by the unconscious masses. Neo-colonialism has found it expedient to ease up on the blatant authoritarianism and to let the colonial masses "do their thing". As long as it is within the established framework of the game - of bourgeois law and order.

 So, while breaking out of the gender role is objectively wrong in the eyes of the patriarchy, it hasn't the time nor inclination to pursue such outlaws at this time. Actually, what the state has done under neocolonialism is act as if it's okay and has gone on the offensive in trying to insure the people that all is well. First it was "smash on sight". Then it was "don't ask, don't tell". Now it's "come on in grab a gun and help defend the empire". Same way it did with New Afrikans, Mexicanos, Puerto Ricans and Indigenous Nationals. 'Member that? Sure, it went like this: old colonialism, black codes, jim crow, segregation, civil rights and neo-colonialism - as integration. Those who refused to join the club were what? "Neutralized with violence and ostracized". Today We call them Martyrs, Prisoners of War, Political Prisoners and exiles. Those who joined We call neo-colonialists, petty-bourgeois, sell-outs and collaborators - enemies of the people. The choice is now ours. What are We going to be? Projectiles for the people or projectiles against the people? That is the question.

Neo-colonialism has put the colonies on autopilot. And the masses have been confused by this, thinking that they are somehow on a flight towards freedom. Because the establishment forces aren't actively smashing on what used to be obvious causes for reaction, the people think a general sense of new freedom has blanketed the situation. As Oprah has her own TV network. Jay Z wines and dines with Warren Buffet, Magic Johnson owns the L.A. Dodgers and Rock Bottom is in the whitest house. But the usual reins of state control and reaction have not been relinquished they've only been delegated to accommodation intermediaries to run the flight plan for the ruling class. The coordinates have been programed into the console, the flight is on autopilot, those the masses think are in control are only maintenance workers and sky marshals, flight attendants and observers, as the jumbo dream liner continues uninterrupted across this neocolonial terrain of war and class, amerikkkan style.

In this era of neocolonialism the main homophobes are the masses themselves. Where it used to be the state, the church and other rabid ideologues of patriarchy, now it's athletes, rappers and the idiot down the tier who somehow feels as if his so-called "manhood" is threatened by how or who another person lives and loves. The unconscious shock troops of patriarchy become the gatekeepers for their oppressors. That's why patriarchy can feel so comfortable with putting the colonies on auto-pilot. The inmates have assumed control of the asylum and all is well on the Western front. Never mind that the very culture of oppression that they are holding up by becoming little oppressors themselves is the actual threat to them. It's an animal farm trip, really. Or a Stockholm syndrome type of situation. Where the entity doing you the harm you side step to attack the one on your side - while loving your tormentor. Psych meds, anyone?

Harmful to Everybody

To overstand homophobia and heterosexism as oppressive tools of the patriarchy is to come to grips with one’s own reality. A reality that shouts its existence not from the confines of your own head or intellect - or even your culture. It's a reality put on you by an offending order of parties who wish only to control and exploit you to their delight and benefit. Those "shouts of reality" We speak of are from a distance of centuries past, and their antiquity gives them an air of prestige and legitimacy, but you mustn't be fooled. For this is the culture that ripped apart your ancestors - this is it. It's shinier now, has more pixels and is in high definition, but it is the same culture that pushed up on those shores and was mistaken as god. It is the very same system of control, too. The gatekeepers complexions have changed - We can see the madness thru the lens of BET and Univision now instead of just CBS and NBC, but look carefully and listen, it’s the same old thing - patriarchy, class, gender, race, colonialism. The same slings and arrows aimed at gender outlaws today are the same ones flung at us first when patriarchy drove up. We were the ab-normal ones then. And now, what, We've become so "normal" (amerikans) that We are oppressors, too? We've been amerikanized to the point where We can't even recognize We aren't even ourselves anymore. Yeah, "amerikkkan me".

In prison, the concentration of the patriarchy pathology is on steroids- even tho there are no women in men’s prisons. Not as prisoners anyway. No need really, cause patriarchy is also homophobia and heterosexism, so it finds expression in this way. Whether thru predation or hate outright, ill vibrations play out against gays or transgender prisoners as, invariably, they are referred to as "punk", "faggots", "bitches" etc. The hierarchal structure of prison groups preclude any form of socialization or respect with, or towards, gay prisoners. They are treated as "abnormals" - as less than human. They are usually "neutralized with violence and ostracized". Groups forbid their members from aiding any such person. And even tho' the prisoners are placed with nationals from oppressed and colonized nations, oppression and prejudice of gays and transgender prisoners goes on uninterrupted as patriarchal "morals" are imitated and replicated across the board.

The odd thing, tho one which points up the patriarchal reality in vivid fashion, is in most prison cultures the only party in a gay encounter that’s considered gay is the one assuming the so-called passive or feminine role. The masculine one, the top, is considered "the man" which somehow excludes him from being gay, or bi. It's his prerogative to fuck something, huh? And, much like sexism, out in Babylon, where the woman is considered less than, so too is it in prison with the gay or transgender prisoner. Tho' moreso since the homophobia and heterosexism is driven by the "morals" of religion. Of course patriarchy escapes mention altogether. Nevertheless, the pathology of patriarchy plays itself out even in the most oppressive situations imaginable.

The fact of the matter is, We can talk about this until We are out of breath, but until gays and transgender prisoners, and people at large, take their lives and existence into their own hands, organize and defend their reality, they'll continue to be victimized and exploited and that goes for any form of oppression. The oppressed have the responsibility to get free. Freedom is not given or granted - it's taken!The federal government is not going to legislate your safety into existence. The prison administration cannot - nor will it - protect you from hostile homophobes or predators. You have to organize yourselves in concert with methods that reflect your reality. We know that in the state prison at Walla Walla, in Washington, the revolutionary comrades organized Men Against Sexist Shit (MASS) to combat homophobia and heterosexism there. Revolutionaries should be on the front lines of combating all forms of oppression. We have to organize with the oppressed to strike for freedom or the neocolonialists will organize. Them against us and continue on.



Re-Build!
Sanyika Shakur
Pelican Bay - SHU

Notes

[1] Eternal Treblinka, Charles Patterson. [return to text]

[2] The Club, the Yoke, and the Leash: What can we learn from the way a Culture Treats Animals. Aviva Cantor, MS (August 1983)[return to text]

[3]Man and the Natural World: A History of the Modern Sensibility, Keith Thomas (New York, Pantheon Books, 1983)[return to text]

[4] The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution, Henry Friedlander, (Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1995) [return to text]

[5]Eternal Treblinka, Patterson[return to text]

[6] How Nonviolent Protects the State, Peter Gelderloos [return to text]



Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Biofuels, Development and Patriarchy



From the May 6, 2008 issue of New Scientist:
The image of biofuels is rapidly tarnishing. Already under fire for displacing food production and tropical forests, they are now charged with marginalising poor rural women.

In a report published on 21 April, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization concludes that women subsistence farmers will be evicted to make way for huge biofuel plantations. The most vulnerable women already suffer extreme inequalities in African, Asian and Caribbean countries. These same countries are now hoping to cash in on the growing demand for biofuels in rich western countries.

"These women don't have access to land, or the land they do occupy is owned by men," says report author, Yianna Lambrou. "So if the men decide to set up a biofuel plant, the women would simply be evicted." That would push them onto marginal land barely capable of supporting crops, and also deny them easy access to water, as biofuel production would have first claim on the supply.

Even if jobs are on offer at a biofuel plant, they'll go mainly to men, and any women employed will receive lower wages for the same job, Lambrou says.

He believes that governments need to plan in advance to prevent these problems either by helping women form cooperatives to raise capital for their own biofuel plantations, or by experimenting with combining smaller-scale biofuel production with the methods of subsistence farming already in use in the area.
The patriarchal consequences of biofuel development seem no different than the consequences of any capitalist development of land use - on this same subject for instance, see Butch Lee's 2003 essay There's Fighting in Iraq but the Real Women's War is in Afrika.



Friday, June 29, 2007

King Hatshepsut, the Female Falcon


Hatshepsut, female king of Egypt

Bear with me - this may seem a bit off-topic:
Tooth brings lost Egyptian queen to light
JONATHAN WRIGHT
REUTERS
CAIRO – A single tooth has clinched the identification of an ancient mummy as that of Hatshepsut, Egypt’s most famous queen, who ruled about 3,500 years ago, the country’s chief archaeologist said yesterday.

The right mummy turned out to be that of a fat woman in her 50s who had rotten teeth and died of bone cancer, Zahi Hawass said.

It was found in 1903 in a tomb in the Valley of the Kings, where the young Pharaoh Tutankhamun was buried, and Hawass himself thought until recently that it belonged to the owner of the tomb, Hatshepsut’s wetnurse by the name of Sitre In.

But the decisive evidence was a molar in a wood box inscribed with the queen’s name, found in 1881 in a cache of royal mummies collected and hidden away for safekeeping at a temple about 1,000 metres away.

During the embalming process, it was common to set aside spare body parts and preserve them in such a box.

Orthodontics professor Yehya Zakariya checked all the mummies that might be Hatshepsut’s and found the tooth was a perfect fit in a gap in the upper jaw of the fat woman.

The team examining the mummy are also doing DNA tests and preliminary results show similarities between its DNA and that of Ahmose Nefertari, the wife of the founder of the 18th dynasty and a probable ancestor of Hatsephsut.

So what's the deal with this "fat woman in her 50s", and why am i blogging about the ruling class of ancient Egypt?

Well, like i said, bear with me. While not of direct relevance to the battles of today, and while certainly not worth basing your line on, the way in which anything, even long dead-monarchs from thousands of years ago, gets discussed can be worth discussing... and besides, i find it interesting, perhaps even because it isn't all clear and isn't all directly related to stuff going on down the street today. Combine this basic predilection with the fact that i just finished Bob Brier's The History of Ancient Egypt (told you all i was looking for new shit to listen to while making buttons) and there you go...

There are a few things which are special about Hatshepsut, none of which get mentioned in this malestream news article. And no, it's not her weight or her dental hygiene - both of which were standard for the Egyptian ruling class, for being heavy was simply a sign that you were privileged enough to eat a lot, and bad teeth were an almost inevitable consequence of living long enough for the sand in your bread to grind them down. So unlike what Reuters would have us believe was significant about Hatshepsut, it wasn't a matter of her smile or her figure.

Nor indeed was it the fact that Hatshepsut was queen... because in fact she never was, there was no word for "Queen" in Egypt at the time, only for "King's wife". So Hatshepsut would go from being the king's wife to being the king herself. That's an important distinction, one which Egyptologists are unambiguous about, but also one which probably got edited out of your daily paper. At a certain point Hatshepsut made a play for power, and won, and in winning took on the false beard and crown of the Pharaoh, and from that point on had herself depicted as king on the temple walls.

Note that i am still referring to Hashepsut as "her" and "she" - i understand that some people will be tempted to retroactively claim the king as an FTM, or at least as being utterly genderqueer, but (1) it's authoritarian, dishonest and unhelpful to retrofit folks from the past with terms and concepts that did not even exist when they were alive and (2) while she was alive, at the same time as she had herself described as "king", she also had herself described with as the "female falcon", the "daughter of Amun" and with various female pronouns.

So rather than transitioning, Hatshepsut's becoming king seems to have been a way to establish herself as having all the same power that until then had been both ontologically and etymologically reserved for men. Which isn't to say she might not have been leaving a gender, that what she was doing may not have involved more than "just" putting on a fake beard... only that there is no evidence that Hatshepsut considered themself a man, or wanted to have male pronouns used. Embrace the complexity is what i say...

Like everyone else, there must be two back-stories to Hatshepsut, one looking at her personal life and one looking at the society in which she lived. Perhaps because of the focus of what i have read and listened to, or perhaps because of limitations in what egyptologists know (thanks to most archaeological evidence being monuments and papyri created by the ruling class) most of what i've come across focuses on the former. So was Hatshepsut innovating or was changing aspects of gender something other people were doing to? Were men living "like women", were women living "like men"? Is this a sole remaining hint of some ancient revolt against patriarchy on the shores of Northern Africa? Or not at all???

As i said, from what i have found i just don't know, the story being normally framed in terms of the female king's own personal life... But even here there is some stuff of interest...

Throughout all their dynasties the Pharaohs practiced polygyny - the men could have sexual relationships with several women at the same time, established in a hierarchy with one "great wife", multiple other wives, and a number of concubines. While the exact logic of succession is unclear, there is some evidence that is was quasi-matrilineal, with Pharaoship being claimed by marrying the daughter of the great wife; then when her father would die, you would be next in line. (This would, as we shall see, explain the prevalence of brother-sister incest amongst Pharaohs: for the son of a Pharoah marrying his sister would be the only way to assure his "legitimacy".)

In the eighteenth dynasty, about 1500 BC, the Pharaoh Tuthmosis ruled Egypt. His "great wife" Ahmose had three children, two boys and a girl, but the boys and Ahmose herself died before the regent. So while he had sons by his other wives, at the time of his death he had none by his great wife Ahmose, only a twelve year old girl, named Hatsheptsut. So what to do? Well, one of his sons by another wife - also named Tuthmosis (making this the second) - married his half-sister Hatshepsut, and thus made himself king of Egypt.

Tuthmosis II is thought to have been in his twenties when he married his twelve year old half-sister. They would be married for twenty years, and she would become pregnant and give birth to a daughter (Neferu-Ra). This was almost certainly not a good time for her - we can imagine what it would be like for a twelve year old girl to be married to her twenty some year old big brother, and we can note that after he died we have no record of her ever referring to him or honoring him, and that when she later had her tomb built in the Valley of the Kings she had her father's sarcophagus and not her brother/husband's placed beside her within it.

Like his father before him, when Tuthmosis II died he only had one child by his "great wife"/sister Hatshepsut, though he had at least one son by another wife - you guessed it, also named Tuthmosis (he'll be the third). But at the time of his father's death, Tuthmosis III was still a boy, and it is at this point that Hatshepsut made her bid for power, claiming that she herself was king. (Some people have claimed that she imprisoned her nephew/stepson to keep him out ow power, but most now agree it was more likely that she sent him off to train with the military.)

According to most egypologists Hatsheptsup ruled from 1479 to 1458 BC. She is famous for establishing the first zoo in Thebes, and for sending out the first trade expeditions to the land of Punt - modern-day Eritrea - which brought back wild animals and also frankincense trees which from that point on were cultivated on Egyptian soil. She built many monuments and buildings throughout Egypt, including a mortuary temple at Deir el-Bahri on the walls of which she had written the story of her life. While some have tried to claim that her reign was peaceful - unlike most other Pharaohs - there is evidence that she led military expeditions to loot and murder the people of Nubia, the Levant and Syria. (Throughout most of ancient Egyptian history the country's ruing class carried out military expeditions against other African and Near Eastern peoples, sucking in tribute and slaves to supplement its already great agricultural wealth.)

Hatshepsut would never remarry though some egyptologists believe she had a long-term sexual relationship with her daughter's tutor and royal architect, the commoner and "life-long bachelor" Senemut. There is graffiti of the workers who worked on the west bank of Thebes (from 3000 years ago!), showing a woman wearing the crown of Egypt fucking with an overseer - which egyptologists presume were Hatshepsut and Senemut. (Mind you, if we're open to looking at what class and gender politics could have been represented by this female king, i'm not convinced that we need to shoehorn her into having a male lover; i'm equally open to the possibility that Senemut could have been a fag... there is evidence that homosexuality had some place in ancient Egypt...)

What is most interesting to me about Hatshepsut is not her rule, or even simply the fact that a woman maneuvered herself into the seat of power. Whether under a female monarch or a male monarch (like the question of whether ancient Egyptians were "Black" or not) makes little difference to the fact that Egypt represented a murderous and exploitative power, which (like the other States of the ancient world) was continuously waging war against its neighbours in an effort to extract wealth for its own ruling class.

But in terms of politics and what we know of the world that came before us, the story of Hatshepsut is pretty interesting and there is evidence that her reign was not simply the same as those who came before or after, but perhaps represented one set of class or gender politics in contradiction with the others. So while i am certainly no expert on ancient history, it does strike me that there may have been something more here than a woman simply filling male shoes.

We must remain clear that liberation is not even on the menu when we are talking about members of the ruling class, but this does not mean that different class forces don't get expressed through different rulers, and the ruling class can also reflect, albeit in distorted form, changes and movements in the real world. As one indication that this may have been what was going on, unlike other Pharaohs who all claimed to be the literal children of the sun-god Ra, Hatshepsut claimed that the air-god Amun had disguised himself as Tuthmosis and had impregnated her mother. i can't help but mention that at that point Amun was viewed as a patron of justice, being known as the "Vizier of the Poor" - without reading too much into it, isn't it possible that this represented an attempt to tap into or exploit real class contradictions, ones which were certainly laced with gender?

Although there is some evidence that Hatshepsut and Senenmut had been grooming Neferu-Ra to follow in her mother-king's footsteps - there are inscriptions that depict her daughter as a young prince, with a beard and side-lock - the daughter leaves the historical record at the age of eleven, which probably means that she had died. So we know that when Hatshepsut died it was Tuthmosis III - her dead husband's son by another wife - who became Pharaoh.

It is what happened at this point, when Tuthmosis III took over, that provides the most convincing evidence that the life of Hatshepsut reflected real social contradictions which could not be resolved or recuperated after her death.

As already mentioned, Hatshepsut had had her life's story written in her mortuary temple at Deir el-Bahri - but today nowhere on the temple walls can you find her name - everywhere where it was put it has been erased, chiselled away and replaced with one of the three Tuthmosises. You see, it is now known that at some point in his reign Tuthmosis III initiated a campaign to systematically erase all mention of the female king from Egyptian society. Her name was chiselled off of walls, her image destroyed, her friend (or lover) Senemut's sarcophagus was smashed to bits, and even the 90 foot tall obelisks she had had erected were walled in and affixed with the name of a male Pharaoh, so that no one would know what had originally been there.

As Tour Egypt magazine puts it:
Few years after Hatshepsut’s death, "Thotmose III" started his revenge. He started to erase her name, which was so crucial for an ancient Egyptian and constituted an integral part of existence during afterlife. "Thotmose III" started by chiseling the names off the inscriptions, and replaced them by his own, those of "Thotmose I or II" or were left vacant. He aimed to give an impression of the continuity of the three pharaohs’ reign uninterrupted by Hatshepsut. This was followed by defacing her reliefs. Her statues were smashed, burned and soaked in water, particularly those of the "Ka" [similar concept to "soul" - st]. The eyes and nose of the statues were smashed so the deceased queen could not see or breathe in her afterlife, and uraeus (royal cobra placed on the forehead) was smashed too, to deprive her any power.

What "Thotmose III" failed to destroy, he remolded and related to himself. At el-Karnak after destroying her statue sitting beside Amon, the design of the god’s figure did not make any sense. Amon was made to stand instead of sitting, and the base of the smashed queen’s statue was replaced by drawings. On top of one obelisk, the queen was kneeling on her knees, with Amon performing her coronation. Removal of the queen’s figure rendered the god’s hand stretched for no reason, and hence a wand was placed in it. When he could not deface the inscriptions on another obelisk, he simply surrounded it by a high fence. At the top which could not be hidden, he replaced her name and figure with his. In one temple when he failed to coat with gold to hide her name, "Thotmose III" dismantled it. He also usurped the golden gates of her temples and utilized the stones of a temple to tile his orchard. This was disclosed when the name of the queen was later found in its base.

Note that the above section refers to this in personal terms, as Tuthmosis' "revenge" - which is because the main theory used to be that he hated his step-mother for having kept him off the throne for so many years. However, in recent years this theory has been challenged: not only have artifacts been found in which Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III are shown side by side, but it also seems that the new Pharaoh waited decades into his reign before cleansing the historical record. According to egyptologist Bob Brier this historical vandalism was simply because after Tuthmosis III consolidated his rule it was deemed impolitic to record that a woman had ruled Egypt as king. And so in subsequent years all the "king's lists" which later rulers would make to list their predecessors would never mention Hatshepsut having even existed. Again, the motivations for this seem to have been gender-political - according to the Hapi-Ur resource page on ancient Egypt:
It was not at all uncommon for Egyptian kings to rewrite history to their favor. It should also be noted that the inscriptions depicting the story of Hatshepsut's conception were partially hacked away. It is possible that Thutmosis III or subsequent pharaohs saw her reign as an upset to the balance of ma'at. The role of pharaoh was a role strictly reserved for men, even in a society that offered considerable freedoms to women. By claiming her father was Amun and then coronating herself, Hatshepsut essentially commits blasphemy.
Nothing earth-shattering, and like i said, perhaps no direct relevance to our day-to-day struggles in the here and now... but still, a lot more interesting than simply "a fat woman with rotten teeth", no?



Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Fundamentalism, Capitalism and Assumptions of the Outmoded


Two laboratory assistants worked in the genetic research lab
at Tehran’s Royan Institute, a jewel of Iran’s science program.


Not to give readers the wrong impression, but the Revolutionary Communist Party (usa) has a useful response to the International Socialists' line on Islamophobia on their Revolution dot com website: U.S. Imperialism, Islamic Fundamentalism... and the need for another way.

i say "useful" and that's a quality i'm appreciating more and more in reading certain things. The idea isn't that i necessarily agree with a piece, or don't even have specific strong disagreements - it's simply that an article or essay that spells out a position clearly, explaining how conclusions were arrived at and the author's train of thought is... well... useful. If only in giving you something to sink your teeth into and agree or disagree with.

Specifically, in regards to this key position by RCP head honcho Bob Avakian:
What we see in contention here with Jihad on the one hand and McWorld/McCrusade on the other hand, are historically outmoded strata among colonized and oppressed humanity up against historically outmoded ruling strata of the imperialist system. These two reactionary poles reinforce each other, even while opposing each other. If you side with either of these ‘outmodeds,’ you end up strengthening both.
While i agree with Bob's conclusion - that siding with either of these poles means strengthening both - i question the terms by which he describes these protagonists.

For one, the relationship between McWorld and McCrusade - if one wants to use those terms - could itself be examined in some depth, showing splits and differences. While Bush and the neo-cons may be seen as the leaders of McCrusade, the borders of McWorld are unclear. Is someone logging in to check out Youtube in Kabul joining McWorld? What if they are logging in to check out the latest video uploads from the Iraqi Resistance? And what if they steal a few minutes after that to check out their fave xxx website?

But leaving aside that question, i am still not convinced that right-wing religious movements in the Third World represent "outmoded classes" defending feudalism. Or perhaps i should ask, has anybody told these guys that they're outmoded yet?

i think this description - shared by many people critical of right-wing anti-imperialism - implies a certain shyness regarding what capitalism is, what patriarchy is, what imperialism is. Historically, the implication is that for all its sins, capitalism represented a "step forward" for feudal Europe, and as such undermined an "outmoded" patriarchal superstitions. We've been brought up with tales of Galileo and Darwin, of a conflict between a hidebound Church and forward thinking scientist-entrepreneurs, and so we have this assumption that theocrats and vulgar patriarchs are somehow opposed to "progress", are defending the "past", and as such must - in the contemporary Third World as in Enlightenment europe - represent "outmoded" classes. Classes which, as Sunsara Taylor explains, "represent old ruling strata in these societies." (my emphasis)

Within europe though, i am thoroughly unconvinced that this was the case. First of all, capitalism in europe incorporated both the cultural and economic profits of the witch-hunt, feeding on the massacre of european women which occurred under the aegis of the supposedly "outmoded" church. Furthermore, as Sylvia Federici has detailed in her book Caliban and the Witch, the rise of mercantilist capitalism involved the violent suppression of popular culture and a real war against women. It was "progressive" european capitalism which resembled the kind of cultural totalitarianism today associated with "outmoded" fundamentalism. Because all these constraints, all this repression, all this destruction of people's culture, were necessary parts of the creation and regimentation of a dependable and exploitable working class.

(While i have not looked into it enough, i can say that a similar process seems to have played out here in Quebec as late as the 19th century, where the suppression/co-optation of popular insurrection was followed by a period of rapid industrialization which coincided precisely with the rise of a vicious and ultra-authoritarian Roman Catholicism, one which has subsequently and incorrectly been described as an inheritance from before the British invasion. But more on that another day!)

First off i remain unconvinced that groups and regimes as diverse as the FIS, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, the Islamic Republic or Iran and the Taliban all represent the same class forces. There seems to be a real mix there, one which should not be glossed over just because we don't like any of these folks.

Secondly, are all of the classes and political programmes represented by these groups "outmoded" and backwards-looking? As i described above, i think many people feel that once you've proven that these organizations incorporate superstition and patriarchal repression into their programme, you've made that case. But as i have argued, this position is overly simplistic and glosses over the sympathetic relationship between capitalist economic development and cultural and patriarchal repression. It remains willfully blind to the possibility that within this fundamentalist potpourri there may be currents which represent - at one and the same time - both heightened patriarchal repression and a forward-looking programme of capitalist development.

In the end those who believe that fundamentalism can only be regressive teeter on a tightrope, always at risk of falling to one side - conceding that Group X is forward looking and thus must not be so bad after all - or to another - regretfully concluding that imperialism must be playing a positive role as it is opposing the outmoded Group X. Many are those who have fallen.

Much of the "left" statements defending the Islamic Republic of Iran fall into the first category. It is enough to show that Iran has an impressive nuclear programme, a lot of women graduating from university, a commitment to science and industry... and suddenly Khomeini-ist fascism is reduced to a cultural episode, the brutal repression of the working class is a necessary sacrifice for an "anti-imperialist" State, anti-semitism is a hallmark of militancy and dead queers are an uninteresting diversion exaggerated by unprincipled imperialists.

Similarly, for those who fall into the second category it is enough to show that the united states and israel are fighting against this or that right-wing gang to not only prettify imperialism, but capitalism itself. The next stage along that path is the argument that the left and anti-colonial movements are intrinsically anti-semitic and authoritarian. In Germany this error has reached a point that an "anti-german" tendency has lined up to support Bush's war on the Middle East, accusing all who oppose imperial carnage as belonging to the lineage of fascism.

More needs to be said about this, but first more needs to be thought! These are just some sleepy and unfinished observations that i wanted to get out there, perhaps as a reference to some future study. i will be trying to come back to it all soon enough...


Anti-German "anti-fascists" hold
banner calling for solidarity with Israel



Sunday, September 17, 2006

Crickets, Science and Rape



Segments about animals are some of the most interesting and subtly political pieces in Quirks and Quarks, the CBC’s national science show. One segment i listened to over the past week – a piece from summer 2005 – provides a case in point.

Under the heading Some Crickets Like It Rough host Bob McDonald interviewed Dr Karim Vahed, a Reader in Behavioural Ecology at the University of Derby, who studies “reproductive conflict” amongst insects.

Dr Vahed has studied a rare kind of Alpine cricket which has abandoned the regular cricket practice of singing for sex, and instead relies entirely on what Vahed and McDonald refer to as “coercive copulation”; what we would normally call violent rape.

No anthropomorphizing here, obviously as insects not people whatever these bugs are doing i have no idea how it is parsed by their consciousness… but i doubt that two woman science-geeks would have the same jovial humorous androcrentric discussion of “coercive copulation.”

Also fizzing in my brain was that if (as Vahed seems to suggest) a reproductive culture based on coercion or consent can be established amongst the same population of insects depending on environmental factors, how much greater must the options be for us humans…

Quirks and Quarks has many many such segments, about spiders or hyenas or whatever and how they fuck or eat or die, and again i gotta stress that i’m not suggesting any socio-biological argument, like “Well, the red back spiders are obviously a matriarchy and the crickets a patriarchy” or any such. But the way in which these different animals are studied and spoken about is of social significance, because whether we like it or not it either reinforces (or subverts) tendencies within our human society to view certain things as “natural” and this superior, or at least unchangeable.

For example, citing the same cricket study by Dr Vahed, BBC published an article under the title Alpine cricket is 'rough lover' in which the male crickets who force sex on female crickets (and even infants) are referred to as a “lothario” and “stallion of the insect world,” in much the same way that McDonald himself referred to their lack of song as a result of their being “so virile they don’t seem to have any time for any of that gentlemanlike behaviour.”