Posts tagged as:
Are you engaged in some fun, flashy, or otherwise fab feminist or womanist activity, event, or campaign? You are! Well, we want to know about it so we can help you share it with the world. Send us your PSAs, press releases, photos, whatever, and we’ll post an announcement to help big up you and your crew. Email us at anastasia [at] confabulous [dot] ca or sabine [at] confabulous [dot] ca to give us the news!
{ 0 comments }
Last week, I was doing a bit of thinking out loud on how to re-ignite Canadian women’s movements. While I was thinking about this stuff, I interviewed a woman named Krista Scott-Dixon for a different project, Leaving Academia. Krista has a Ph.D. in women’s studies, and I told her my dreams for Confabulous helping to get women organized.
At the time, I was thinking about organizing something we’d call FemCamp–an “unconference” similar to PodCamp (or DemoCamp or Green Business Camp). This was until I heard that the RebELLES are planning on organizing a conference in Winnipeg.
But what Krista suggested was quite intriguing: she suggested holding a gathering (this could be done as a conference, or unconference, or webinar, or teleconference) where womanism or feminism were not the main topics. Rather, women from all different backgrounds (occupations, ethnicities, classes, languages, etc.) could gather together to teach each other stuff, and the feminism would happen in the spaces in between. After all, everyone is good at something, and a lot of people like to learn new things.
I began to envision a crazy clashing of people who would never ordinarily get a chance to cross paths: the Aboriginal elder from the west coast teaching the Asian mom from Edmonton how to make a jingle dress; the new Canadian from Toronto’s inner city teaching the white lesbian from Lake Winnipeg about her local community garden; the black union organizer from Nova Scotia teaching the Latina high school student from Montreal how to write a press release.
During the conversation that I had with Krista, she talked about the need scholars and feminists have to create, and not just critique. Women’s and gender studies has been enormously valuable in disseminating knowledge about women’s history to successive generations of young women. It’s also been really successful at spreading feminist principles, raising women’s ability to critique the media, and so forth.
But women’ studies has not been as successful at creating new forms of feminist culture. And people can only live on critique for so long. Creativity, on the other hand, is its own engine. People can create and create and create endlessly, Krista pointed out, because creation feeds itself. I find this really appealing, and I wonder if a principle of womanist/feminist organizing can come out of it.
{ 3 comments }
I’ve been ruminating this week (here and here and here) about the possibilities for organizing women’s movements in Canada and internationally, and I keep on circling around the idea of allies. “Ally” is a distinctly political term, used on the international stage to describe multi-lateral relationships. Canada is an ally of the United States, even though we’ve got that freaky universal health care system, same-sex marriage and Mr. Lego Hair as our prime minister. In other words, there are serious policy disagreements between the two countries, but what keeps them happily side-by-side, not shooting at each other, is their common interest of keeping the money flowing back and forth.
There might be a lesson in there for people who care about women’s movements in Canada and internationally. The term “allies” leaves behind the contested and difficult word “sisterhood.” Who are the people who may be very different from you, but ultimately have the same interests as you do–even if, perhaps, their methods may be different, their membership may be different and their values might occasionally conflict with yours? Who are the people who can work with you, and you with them, to achieve a common and happy outcome? And who are the people that you are just needlessly pissing off and alienating?
I feel so despondent when–on listservs and blogs and in person–people are rude, snippy, and down right asshole-ish towards people who I know would otherwise be their political ally. For example, I’m on a women’s studies listserv where right now, there is a vigorous discussion about what university women’s studies departments should be called: women’s studies? Gender studies? Women’s and gender studies? Women, gender and sexuality studies? I’m all in favour of vigorous debate, impassioned feelings and sound argument. But I just can’t get behind women–feminists! Fellow feminist academics! People who oughtta know better!–writing shit that is sarcastic, purposely disparaging and just mean.
I’ve also been thinking women who, at a certain point, would have been considered unlikely allies: moms. But now, with enough women having grown up enjoying the fruits of feminists’ labour and then becoming moms, being a feminist and a mom is not at all contradictory (though if you’ve read Naomi Wolf’s excellent book Misconceptions: Truth, Lies, and the Unexpected on the Journey to Motherhood
Hence Moms Rising, a group of women in the U.S. who seem really well-organized, and who are reaching out actively to feminist organizations. And it really is in everybody’s interests to bring moms to the forefront of women’s movements, in no small part because of the economic factor. There is a widespread recognition now of the economic power individual women hold within their families, and a widespread recognition of mommybloggers as major cultural influencers (which in turn translates into economic influencers). And as everyone knows, the power lies where the money lies.
I feel like too often we let marginal differences drive a massive wedge between us. As a result, we end up barely tolerating each other. And this makes me think of something I once heard: the opposite of love is not hate, but tolerance. Tolerance means keeping an arm’s length distance. Tolerance is standing right by the door, ready to bolt. Tolerance is gritting your teeth, holding your tongue and folding your arms. In other words, tolerance stops us from creating and taking action.
I think we’re doomed if we can only tolerate the precise people who could otherwise be our allies.
I really love the idea of a feminist coalition that brings a wide variety of allies under one roof, actualizing the idea of multi-issue solidarity. I love the idea of the moms, the prostitutes, the academics, the anti-poverty activists, the anti-racist activists, the LGBTQ community, Aboriginal people, the seniors, the environmentalists (and all of the pluralistic, cross-polinated identities you can imagine) all rallying around issues like healthcare, childcare, poverty, housing and homelessness, violence against women.
And the best part is, you don’t actually have to have those endless debates about where the locus of power lies, whether to accept government funding, if you should target the state or corporations or the media…’cause each group on their own has already made their own decisions about that. Just think! You could just get involved with the action!
And all this requires is just a little bit of organizing (okay, a lot of organizing). But hell, I’ve probably got a few good decades left on planet earth to get this done. Want to join me?
To that end: Does anyone know if there is an old NAC contact or membership list that is still floating around? And to the RebELLES: I want to join the momentum that you’re building and help to build on it. And to our American allies: I think there are enormous opportunities for cross-border cross-pollination of ideas and actions. I want Confabulous to start getting in on your efforts (Tweetchat? Gotta figure that out) and start spreading the word up here. Political bloggers: ideas for strategies on how to join forces?
If you’re curious, scared and/or interested in being a part of something that really advances the interests of women and girls (and therefore, you know, humanity), email me at sabine [at] confabulous [dot] ca, or leave a comment below. Let’s build on what’s already out there (as Karine noted here) and see what we can create.
{ 1 comment }
Okay. So I’ve been saying for the past couple of days (part one and part two) that women’s organizing is at a historically unique moment, one that offers some possibilities for really effecting some social change. Why is that (in my humble opinion)?
1. This idea isn’t mine, but I think in the next five to ten years, there will be a resurgence of interest in feminism from young North American women. Why? The seeds of their cultural disillusionment are being sowed now. There’s a lot of anecdotal evidence floating around about young women’s lives right now (getting married earlier, a vigorous interest in having babies, unprecedented levels of pressure regarding sexuality). It would seem to me that when the generation of women who are facing these challenges find out that the path to personal fulfillment may not lie exclusively in getting married, having babies, or giving BJs to guys on Friday nights, they might get pissed. And that anger could be channeled into a feminist renaissance. Call me crazy, but all the moral panics about teens these days are going to have a political consequence for the future.
2. Related to this, the appetite for coordinated womanist and feminist efforts are there. The feminist blogosphere (I think MadamaAmbi had called it the femisphere, which I loved) is absolutely vibrating with energy and longing and itching for action. The RebELLES conference last fall, with 500 attendees, showed that young women are agitating and ready for more. And of course, the tidal wave of energy that catapulted Barack Obama into the White House can also be harnessed by ready and willing feminist agitators.
3. The role of women’s studies. Women’s studies has now been around for long enough that there are thousands of women in their twenties, thirties and forties who studied gender in university. There is a still-growing critical mass of people with women’s studies degrees under their belt; yes, they are among you. On its own, this may not be significant, but combined with other factors, I think this is really going to make an impact. And a lot of people coming out of studying women’s studies are also ready to start doing women’s studies by getting organized at the grassroots level. At the same time, women’s studies departments in Canada are currently under threat. This has made a lot of people sit up and want to do something about it. Cue feminist action, which boosts feminist strength.
4. The recession. Sure, it’s been popular to publish articles about how the recession offers opportunity for growth and innovation and yadda yadda. But I think it’s true. Womanist and feminist organizers have always had to be really creative about speaking and listening to women, and I think the recession is just another tunnel we’re going to dig through. Moreover, there are unprecedented pressures right now on the whole notion of the “state” as a result of the economy, so feminists are well poised to have an impact on what shape the state will take in future.
5. I won’t belabour this point because it goes without saying, but the technology is in place. More and more, social networking is making it possible for women around the globe to connect with each other. I’m going to be writing more posts on Confabulous about concrete ways that Canadian feminists can use those technologies to connect with each other and with our sisters around the world.
6. Like I wrote yesterday, I think we have a model in NAC that was actually ahead of its time. Now is the time to operationalize it again, perhaps in its digital form.
What do you think? Is this a time where womanists and feminists have new opportunities to effect change? What are the factors that feed into this?
{ 0 comments }
For about 20 years now, feminists inside and outside of academia have been having a very important conversation, one that has been a reckoning of sorts, an acknowledgment that North American feminist organizing has been dominated by white, middle-class women who too often failed to respect and acknowledge women’s different and competing interests. But it wasn’t even just a case of failure to respect and acknowledge: sometimes it was a matter of active exclusion or hostile rejection. There was outright racism, homophobia and transphobia. Certain issues got onto the feminist agenda while others were ignored and/or actively pushed aside.
This conversation has, a lot of moments for a lot of people, been very painful; it’s been fraught with anger, resentment, fear, guilt, defensiveness–the full gamut of the most difficult emotions. It’s also been important, liberating, strengthening, just, honest, and necessary–a panopoly of feelings that have fuelled the direction of women’s movements. Sometimes, though, that were no fuelling. Sometimes the upshot was everybody retreating to their corners while the status quo remained intact.
Unfortunately, this necessary, had-to-happen conversation coincided with a period of backlash against feminism, an ebbing of activism, the rise of neo-liberalism and grassroots organizations dealing with shrinking or vanishing budgets. This made it really hard for people to organize for social change.
Yesterday, I wrote about the difference between feminists moving on from this discussion about diversity and moving forward with a discussion about diversity. To me, moving forward means embracing difference–and I mean really embracing it, rather than paying lip service to it. Moving forward means “staying in conversation” (is there a Latin word for this? I feel like there ought to be).
It also means not letting the political right drive us apart anymore.
I’m from the Canadian prairies, where lefties of all stripes band together to get stuff done simply because there’s so few of us. But when I moved to Toronto to go to grad school, I discovered that the tiniest sliver of disagreement made people not work with each other. I found this shocking and disheartening. And I’ve seen more and more of it happen, in organizing and in the classroom and in the blogosphere. This, I think, is a problem.
What happened to the idea of alliances? How did it become a political casualty in an era of fractured and freaked out politics?
Our American readers might not know this, so permit me a short discursus on a model for organizing that I would like to pull out of recent women’s history. Canada actually has–or had–a model of very effective feminist organizing that is premised on alliances: the National Action Committee on the Status of Women (or NAC, for short). NAC was an organization that started up in 1971. The model that NAC embodied was kinda brilliant–and is more fitting to today’s political climate than ever before. Why?
Because NAC was an umbrella organization, one that included a broad array of groups, each of which had different feminist beliefs and mandates. An organization could join the coalition without having to disregard its own base. According to NAC’s Wikipedia entry, at its height, 700 groups were affiliated with NAC (which would have translated into thousands upon thousands of individual women coming under NAC’s rubric).
It seems hard to imagine now (even though NAC’s heyday wasn’t that long ago), but this was a high-functioning, very active, very visible organization that was comprised of groups and individuals from the full spectrum of feminist beliefs, ranging from liberal to radical to socialist and anti-racist. It was effective in communicating women’s interests without insisting on single agenda items. It had a powerful and active voice on the national political stage. Lisa Young notes in her book Feminists and Party Politics that in the early 1980s, NAC very successfully made a point of bringing immigrant women, women of colour and Aboriginal women under its umbrella.
Like Amanda Reaume from Antigone Magazine noted in the comments section yesterday, one thing that would really benefit Canadian women’s movements would be a new level of support and connectedness among social justice organizations. I don’t see any reason why we can’t harness web 2.0 technologies to do precisely that. And I don’t see why we can’t use NAC as a real-world analogue for a virtual umbrella organization. And once we get this in place for Canada, we can harness up to our American sisters and beyond.
What about NAC’s diversity politics? If we used NAC as a model, what kind of diversity politics would we be replicating? Part of the answer to this lies in the story of NAC’s slow death.
I don’t know much about the details of NAC’s decline (my copy of Judy Rebick’s 10,000 Roses is currently in the mail!), but I suspect there were a number of factors. The 1980s backlash against feminism didn’t help, but the rise of neo-liberalism more generally was also a problem. NAC’s opposition to the Charlottetown Accord in 1992 did not endear it to the Tories, Liberals or NDP–and if your organization relies on government funding, pissing off all three of the major federal parties is sure to be a gamble. The Mulroney government instituted the first round of cuts in 1992 and the Chretien government effectively drove the nail into NAC’s coffin in 1998 by cutting its day-to-day funding. Two decades later, NAC doesn’t even have a website (yes, I’ve tried www.nac-cca.ca. You can let me know if you ever get anything other than a 404 error). Wikipedia indicates NAC is currently headed by Dolly Williams, but Dolly’s Wikipedia page doesn’t mention NAC at all (not to mention that it sounds as though Dolly lives in Brooklyn).
But I also remember there was a minor furor inside and outside of NAC when Sunera Thobani took over from Judy Rebick as the president of NAC. Judy Rebick, as president, was mouthy, ballsy and always shoved back. In other words, she was truly inspirational. But when Sunera Thobani, another mouthy, ballsy, shoving-back woman (who happened to be South Asian) came onto the national scene, some people got their knickers in a twist (now, how much they were upset because she was a woman of colour and how much they were upset because she was a vocal, outspoken, radical, anti-racist woman of colour, I don’t know–and I don’t know if this is anywhere written into NAC’s history). What I do remember clearly was that this was the 1990s, when political correctness, debates about affirmative action and the culture wars had brought issues of race and ethnicity to the fore with a new sense of urgency.
I imagine that Thobani’s presidency alienated some segments of the NAC old guard. But I also think that, in the decade and a half that has since passed, things probably would have turned out differently now. I think that now, we can give ourselves credit for more people grasping the improtance of having elected an outspoken woman of colour to the position. Moreover, many of the successive NAC presidents have been women of colour, including Joan Grant-Cummings and Terri Brown, NAC’s first Aboriginal president.
But I’ve also read account indicating that NAC had had working committees on Aboriginal women’s justice starting in the 1970s, and a women of colour caucus from the early 1980s. I gather that having Aboriginal and women of colour in leadership positions (other than the presidency, prior to Thobani) in NAC was actually not that exceptional. And part of NAC’s decline was its decision, under Judy Rebick, to side with Aboriginal women who were against the Charlottetown Accord–even though this would mean threatening NAC’s funding from the federal government.
What intrigues me about NAC–and again, I am not aware of a detailed history of the organization, so I am absolutely open to hearing from people who know more about this than I–is that it was a coalition comprised of individuals and groups who did not agree 100% of the time, AND paid attention to a diverse range of women AND was incredibly effective. Its weak spot, of course, was relying exclusively on government funding.
But it seems to me that there is no reason why Canadian feminists can’t establish a kind of “virtual NAC,” a broad coalition comprised of a variety of individuals and organizations who just want to get shit done, rather than police each other’s feminist chops. If we decide that this is what we want, we can find the funding. And we can do this while still struggling through the conversation about inclusion and exclusion (e.g. the fact that poor, homeless and rural women may not be plugged into web 2.0 technologies is an issue to stay mindful of and a matter to be addressed, but not a reason to not move forward with it).
Is there a way for us to stay engaged with each other when it would just be easier to say, “Screw you, I’m leaving”? For our American readers, are there models where you live that hold out possibilites for organizing? Is there a way to envision coalition-building when the state of politics at the moment is so fractured? I think so. Do you? Please let us know!
(And stayed tuned for tomorrow’s post, where I go into more explicit detail about current possibilities for feminist organizing).
{ 3 comments }
Last week, I had suggested that where we are historically may offer some rich possibilities for political organizing. I had said that there might be ways of advancing women’s movements that get us past fragmentation yet avoid the mistakes of the past.
Before I post about concrete tactics for organizing, I want to write about the vision that I have.
Let’s just pretend for the moment that there was some way for people who cared about the lives of women and girls to get together and get organized. And let’s say that the people who were a part of this new mode of organizing were going to acknowledge from the start that, yes, white, able-bodied, middle-class women’s voices have historically been the loudest in the feminist movement. People were going to acknowledge that the words “woman” and “feminist” are highly contested. Everybody would know–and would operate on the assumption that everybody would know–that diversity and inclusion need to be backed up by action in order to make them more than just token phrases to be thrown around to make everybody feel good.
What if we started by assuming that the conversation womanists and feminists have been having for the past 20 years about the problems within the women’s movement are all a given–and then we move forward? Not move on–move forward. Moving on means dismissing the importance of that conversation. Moving forward means acknowledging that conversation and even maintaining that conversation, but not being paralyzed by it. Moving on means pretending that that conversation didn’t happen and isn’t still important. Moving forward means being mindful of that conversation while committing to your actions/activism. Moving on means disavowing pain and fear. Moving forward is the political equivalent of “feel the fear and do it anyway.”
What if we are now in a historical moment where political organizing can take on an entirely new and newly effective face precisely because of that important conversation we’ve been having for two decades, now? What if the available technologies, the political hope, the grassroots organizations and the collective will combined again with all of the givens that we have established about feminist and womanist organizing and created something even stronger?
I’m going to be blogging about what this might mean in concrete terms over the course of this week. But there are two things that I know this would mean: a) this requires building alliances and b) it requires building alliances with people and organizations who are not perfect. We cannot wait for perfect alliances, for perfect political partners, for finding groups and individuals who will never let us down. Because if we do, we’re going to be waiting for a long, long time. Building alliances is like building any other relationship, whether it’s with a romantic partner, a business partner, a friend, a colleague–it’s never perfect. People will continually fail to do what you want them to do. And you will do the same to them. The best anyone can do is try. That’s the bad news. But guess what? That’s the good news, too: we can try, and we can try our best.
I’m of the “if you can imagine it, you can build it,” school of thought. And the kind of alliances that just begin from the assumption that feminism is widely and wildly inclusive are the kind that I am imagining. Fraught with struggle, sure–but moving forward, because although the project of inclusion and diversity is not finished, politically it is settled.
What kind of visions for women’s movements do you have? What is your wildest dream of what womanist and feminist organizing can accomplish?
(PS: Stay tuned for tomorrow’s post: more on what it means to build alliances, plus feminist organizing in Canada!)
{ 3 comments }
When I decided to relaunch Confabulous from its old incarnation (i.e. a personal blog, infrequently updated, few readers) into its new incarnation (i.e. a group blog, more political in its orientation, updated daily by a secret cabal of highly trained feminists, with a powerful global audience of cackling readers), I was motivated by several factors. One of them was a despondency over the state of the Canadian women’s movement–or women’s movements, more accurately.
Now, I know that there is a lot of political organizing going on in this country, and a lot of it is being done by women. Probably one of the most exciting things that’s happened recently is the meeting of the RebELLES last fall (that’s their logo on the left, there, BTW). Over 500 young women gathered to organize an array of “decentralized actions.” I’m really looking forward to seeing what else these women come up with and supporting them along the way.
Online, there is a lot of good stuff–especially as the F-Word Awards over at A Creative Revolution demonstrate. Schmutzie Pickles, April Reign, the Unrepentant Old Hippie, and Renee at Womanist Musings continue to churn out some solid stuff for your inner agitator to groove on. And don’t forget Shameless Magazine, both the online and print versions. Never did a group of young women make such a professional, solidly-written, gorgeously designed magazine.
Moreover, a lot of the organizing that’s getting done is taking feminist values into account. For example, a lot of CUPE locals have worked to bring on board policies of diversity in decision-making positions and are fighting for trans rights in the workplace. And I know that in various communities all across the country, people are getting together to agitate for their rights–gender-based, ethnically-based, ability-based, geographically-based, class-based, sexuality-based rights. Unfortunately, I will never know about most of these actions, partly due to my own failure to dedicate time to consistenly read progressive publications, and partly because of the current, fragmented nature of political organizing.
I know that Courtney E. Martin’s article a few weeks back–remember the one where she announced that a single feminist movement was dead and that was all right–was timely and true and relevant. So don’t worry–I’m not about to start lamenting the current fragmented nature of political organizing. I’m not going to get nostalgic on your ass.
What I am going to suggest (starting on Monday with a week-long series of posts) is that we are actually in a very unique historical period where there could be a new style of women’s organizing, one that moves beyond fragmentation, but does not even attempt to revive old concepts of “sisterhood” or a single notion of “woman.” I’ve been thinking about this since reading Madama Ambi’s piece over at Fem 2.0 and echoing her call here. It’s something that Max Dashu calls multi-issue solidarity. And it’s what we’re going to be discussing at Confabulous all next week, starting on Monday. (And hey, if you want to be sure to be a part of the discussion, go on up to the top of the page and click “Subscribe” so that you’ll be notified any time we put up a fresh post for you to respond to).
{ 5 comments }
There is a very exciting post over at Fem 2.0 (one of the most interesting feminist sites coming out of the U.S. right now), written by Madama Ambi. It really reflects a lot of what I’ve been feeling lately about a leadership vacuum in the women’s movement in Canada (which was part of the impetus to start this blog, actually). I’m excited by the possibilities of what Madama Ambi suggests, and I wanted to make sure Confabulous readers were aware of it.
I also what to echo Madama’s call for womanist and feminist leaders here in Canada, and I, too, believe I have the resources to facilitate the kind of meeting of diverse minds that Madama is talking about. Who do you know who can help us out? Can you?
Here is the open letter posted today at Fem 2.0:
Dear Leader: If you’re receiving this email you are either an acknowledged leader in women’s movement or a woman in whom I see emerging leadership.
I am increasingly impressed and depressed at the same time: impressed with the work happening everywhere, with the talent abounding wherever I look, and yet depressed by no sense of movement that reflects real pushback. I know–because I’ve made it my business to know–how vast women’s movement is, and yet we are not unified enough that we can leverage our collective power visibly, audibly, and in a magnificent display of pushback. Yes, so much work is happening on the ground, and as First Lady Michelle Obama often said about President Obama’s work before he came into the limelight, we are doing our work “in the shadows.” I am not content for our work to continue in the shadows. So, I’m writing to ask who, in your opinion, has the moral authority, the connections and the moxie to call a meeting of womanist and feminist leaders?
I’m talking about a kitchen table meeting among activist womanist leaders/thinkers/spielers and activist feminist leaders/thinkers/spielers to talk frankly to one another about a collective vision. Perhaps it’s because I have a background in psychotherapy, perhaps it’s because I survived a crazy childhood, or maybe I was just born this way, but I know how to drill down with empathy, synthesizing, reframing, inclusion and thinking out loud so that the elephant in the room becomes breaking a silence that needs to be broken. I’m hearing a gigantic, deafening silence right now in women’s movement. I’d like women leaders to come together to discuss where we’ve been, where we are, where we’re going. What I’m not calling for is a single purpose led by a single woman. I am calling for making common cause visible, audible and undeniable: a magnificent display of pushback.
Who will call this meeting? I don’t have the connections to call such a meeting, but I can facilitate the discussion once we get in the same room, or on the same conference call, or other way that supports in-depth discussion and confronting ourselves. I will post this to Fem2pt0’s blog and it’s wiki, as well as to my own blogs, and then I will Tweet and Facebook this letter so that anyone who wants to give input can have access to this conversation. I suggest that comments be posted to Fem2pt0’s blog and/or wiki. Please feel free to cross-post this to your own blogs and direct comments to Fem2pt0.
This post can also be found at http://feministadvisoryboard.blogspot.com, FAB/OFA and FAB/Facebook.
{ 7 comments }
Jessica on Sharon McIvor wins before BC Court of Appeal
Dee Vaughn on Homeless shelter makeover à la Oprah
Terry Grahl on Homeless shelter makeover à la Oprah
Connie Crosby on The Persons Case: A complicated chapter in Canadian history
phillip on Bea Arthur: A beloved, ballsy dame
Sabine on Deconstructing windbags
Fuzu on Deconstructing windbags
Confabulous badges!
