Author Archives: ruxi

must read

Posted on by
Reply

some excellent points on “the personal is political”

Obviously, what people mean but won’t spell out when they say, “It’s easier,” is that it’s easier to give into patriarchal pressure than not. It’s the same reason that a lot of women find it “easier” to do all the housework, though it seems at first blush that it would be easier to share the housework. I’ve called it the “Nagging Differential” in the past, which is that women have to do more work around the house no matter what—either they have to do all the work or all the nagging, and sometimes all the work is easier than all the nagging. […] it’s often smart for an individual woman to go along with the patriarchy. At the end of the day, resistance will cost you more than compliance, which is how oppression, you know, works.

couple all grrl bands

Posted on by
Reply

zimbabwe, lithuania

—

siren, netherlands

—

cinica, brazil

—

skilla, sweden (who can’t make it to bucharest)

—

dj combustion, sweden (who sadly also can’t make it)
short film “combustion, 5 years of kicking ass”:

music by these artists in right order (they have played live at combustion)
http://www.myspace.com/postplay
http://www.myspace.com/aliceinvideoland
http://www.myspace.com/chickhabit
http://www.myspace.com/lapumasweden
—————————————- —-
trash can entertainment are
http://www.myspace.com/combustion_sthlm
http://www.myspace.com/cyberiacityproduction

re: legalization of prostitution

Posted on by
1

(see also “Prostitution… give them all a share of it!” from the blog archives/lf zine — & in romanian: “Prostitutia… dati fiecaruia partea lui!” “MAI promite legalizarea prostitutiei?”, “Prostitutie I”, “Prostitutie II”)

WATCH:

*Not For Sale*
Women speak out about sexual exploitation in prostitution and trafficking
A video by Marie Vermeiren

The film (23 min) challenges the traditional views and myths on prostitution and sexual exploitation of women’s bodies. It includes interviews with women survivors of trafficking for sexual exploitation and prostitution, women sharing their life experiences and demanding governmental action and responsibility to combat violence against women, including trafficking and prostitution. The film is part of the joint project EWL-CATW on trafficking in women for sexual exploitation.

To see the film online:
http://www.womenlobby.org/site/video_en.asp

READ:

‘It’s like you sign a contract to be raped’

If you believe their PR, Nevada’s legal brothels are safe, healthy – even fun – places in which to work. So why do so many prostitutes tell such horrific tales of abuse?
— The Guardian, Friday September 7, 2007

There is only one place in the US where brothels are legal, and that’s Nevada – a state in which prostitution has been considered a necessary service industry since the days when the place was populated solely by prospecters. There are at least 20 legal brothels in business now. Not so many, you might think, but these state-sanctioned operations punch above their weight in PR terms.

full article

video ladyfest vilnius/”gender sabotage”

Posted on by
Reply

from the Intergenerational Feminist Dialogue affinity group for the European Feminist Forum (happening in Poland, 13 -15 june 2008):
—————
Click here to download and view the video from the women’s festival “Gender Sabotage” in Vilnius, which took place on May 10-12, 2007. The video includes clips from performances by various artists, clips of lectures and an interview with one of the organizers.
—————
Ladyfest Vilnius ’07

despre sufragiu

Posted on by
Reply

asta ar putea intra in seria “intreaba-ma orice despre feminism”:

intrebare: tu crezi ca obtinerea dreptului la vot de catre femei a fost ceva asa de bun?

raspuns scurt: da

raspuns mai lung si neserios: nu, deloc, eu cred ca acum 100 de ani ar fi trebuit ca femeile, adica 50% din populatie, sa se puna cum e frumos pe planul doi si sa se lase pe mina celeilalte 50%, sa continue se ocupe exclusiv de sfera domestica si sa se multumeasca sa aiba drepturi limitate in cea publica, sa asteptam cu totii sa vina mai intii revolutia anarhista, ca abia apoi societatea sa inceapa sa rezolve ce probleme “de gen” ar mai fi ramas la momentul ala (care sigur ar fi fost, in mod miraculos, putine).

raspuns prin intrebare: tu ai intreba o persoana de culoare daca crede ca abolirea sclaviei a fost ceva asa de bun? daca nu ai intreba (desi, e drept, faptul ca sclavia s-a abolit nu a dus deloc la disparitia unui sistem bazat pe inegalitati intre oamenii ce apartin diferitor rase si clase sociale, ci intr-un fel a servit sa le mascheze chiar mai bine… si desi putem spune ca faptul de-a fi considerat “cetatean deplin” — cind pentru majoritate egalitatea si libertatea asigurate de “democratie” sunt doar praf in ochi — nu inseamna mai nimic real in viata unui om), deci daca nu ai intreba o persoana de culoare daca se bucura de faptul ca e oficial recunoscuta ca cetatean cu drepturi legale depline in ciuda culorii sale, atunci nu ai de ce sa intrebi o femeie daca se bucura de faptul ca e recunoscuta ca cetatean deplin in ciuda sexului ei. iar daca da, ti se pare ok sa pui astfel de intrebari, atunci poate ca trebuie sa te gindesti la nivelul de privilegiu care pe tine te lasa/determina sa pui astfel de intrebari.

raspuns cu trimitere la referinte: verifica mai intii ce-au avut de spus si criticat, si cum au actionat, cu privire la sufragiu macar urmatoarele femei: sojourner truth, mother (mary harris) jones, emma goldman, rosa luxembourg, esther roper, virgina woolf. (e usor, fa o cautare pe net dupa numele pe care il vrei + “suffrage”; vezi si ce zice wikipedia despre fiecare si despre f. diferitele lor coloraturi politice). de exemplu, ca fosta sclava, sojourner truth se lupta pentru emancipari, dar critica miscarea pentru drepturile femeilor pentru ca nu dadea atentie faptului ca nu toate femeile erau albe si privilegiate. iar mother jones, cea cu indemnul “whatever your fight, don’t be ladylike” din antetul acestui site, nu avea nici o simpatie pentru miscarea sufragista pentru ca ea considera ca trece cu vederea problema “ei”, adica drepturile muncitorilor; din cele sase femei (feministe) enumerate, trei nu sustineau cauza pentru obtinerea sufragiului de catre femei, printre ele numarindu-se si singura care NU era muncitoare… vezi care si cum. apoi mai fa o cautare la “radical suffragists”… citeste cit de mult. si apoi, hai sa discutam.

dar pe scurt, daca au existat critici fata de importanta votului pentru femei ideea nu era ca e un lucru rau ca femeile sa aiba si ele votul (intr-o societate in care se voteaza), ci ca obtinerea votului nu e nici pe departe destul, ca nu e suficienta ca tactica izolata si ca scop. ceea ce constituie deja un punct banal daca vrei sa-l discuti acum cu o feminista cit de cit non-liberala (vezi glosarul lf), si e doar un subpunct al feminismului ca “miscare pentru a pune capat opresiunii” (vezi declaratia de intentie a lf), care cauta nu doar sa obtina o egalitate a femeilor cu barbatii in cadrul aceluiasi sistem nedrept (sau, si mai rau, sa-i inlocuiasca pe barbati cu femei), ci sa schimbe sistemul din radacini.

e drept, sint multe de discutat la capitolul “unde a gresit miscarea sufragista si ce avantaje/privilegii/obligatii confera dreptul la vot, in fond?”. sau despre sufragiu/dreptul de vot/democratie in general. insa “miscarea sufragista” feminista a fost mult mai eterogena decit se crede in general (altfel nici n-ar fi putut avea un asa succes, exact ca in cazul miscarii abolitioniste), iar o singura opinie vehiculata nu poate acoperi toata realitatea; ca si in alte contexte, o femeie, oricine ar fi ea, nu poate vorbi in numele tuturor celorlaltor femei… iar un barbat nici atit (desi multe persoane – declarindu-se feministe – au incercat si incearca asta).

emma goldman spunea despre miscarea sufragista americana vs. cea britanica de la sfirsitul secolului xix:
Continue reading →

din arhive – cartarescu vs. feminism

Posted on by
Reply

mi-am amintit de niste rinduri scrise de mircea cartarescu la un moment dat: “Exista multe standarde pentru aprecierea gradului de civilizatie al unei societati. S-a vorbit despre cantitatea de sapun folosita anual, despre libertatile cetatenesti, despre calitatea invatamantului. … Dar eu cred ca unul dintre criteriile cele mai sensibile, care practic nu da gres niciodata, este felul in care, intr-o societate, femeia este privita si se priveste pe sine. Din acest punct de vedere, mai mult decat din toate celelalte, lumea romaneasca e una primitiva cu asupra de masura. Poate ca economia noastra o sa se acomodeze, cat de cat, in timp, cu cea europeana. Poate-o sa invatam mai multe limbi straine si-o sa renuntam la proverbiala noastra smecherie. Dar atata vreme cat nu respectam femeia de langa noi ca pe noi insine n-am facut nimic si nici n-o sa facem. …”

–> restul textului, si comentarii despre cartarescu, feminism, si (bineinteles) “de ce iubim femeile”: “necesar, dar nerecomandat”

bonus — o discutie mai in detaliu despre “de ce iubim femeile”: “de ce gindim binar despre femei si barbati”

oh, the things we find “unsurprising”

Posted on by
Reply

when the president of the country can call a journalist “stinky gypsy” and get off scott free, as long as he justifies it by arguing that he got angry, and anyway it was a private conversation between him and his wife…

here’s something else pretty horrifying: Bucharest mayor Neculai Ontanu was filmed scolding and attempting to “motivate” a city sanitation employee by putting out a cigarette in her palm, and the fact first gets “noticed” when blogger Andressa writes about it in her post “Incalificabil”. before she pointed out the mayor’s unspeakable action, it had gone completely uncommented, by the reporter within the news story on Prima TV which the footage was part of, or by anyone else… because to the population at large and to the mass media (as many of the ensuing commentary on Andressa’s blog shows), that kind of thing is just not surprising at all! (though even the most un-surprised can’t deny that sexism, racism, classism are at play there.)

Ioana Avadani from the Center for Independent Journalism then wrote about the story on her Hot News blog – (“Ontanu pe ‘plantatie'”/”Ontanu on the plantation”), and it finally became a news piece. Ontanu’s spokespeople are denying that he did what he is plainly doing in the footage – but also arguing, in his defense, that he was very very mad that the sanitation workers weren’t doing their job properly.

here’s the video:

you can write to Prima TV at office@primatv.ro (additional contact info), and to Ontanu at neculai_ontanu@ps2.ro (email addresses of his staff, his primaria sectorului 2 info page)

what affects us

Posted on by
Reply

two great posts over at feministe:

— this one, on roma issues, by someone from greece (go read her blog)
— and this slightly older one, on feminists and femininity

but the former has 4 comments so far, while the latter… 587!

why do we, as women (feminists, anti-feminists, and anyone in between), get more passionate about matters of body image than anything else? why does what we look like or what we DON’T look like where femininity is concerned seem to constitute such a huge chunk of who we are, and why does it depend so strongly on what others look like or don’t look like by comparison?

personally, as i suggested in a comment on another feministe thread a while ago, i think that it’s not even so much what we look like, really, or how much we cater to “femininity” or not, in the end… it’s the lesson that we should care about this issue above all else that we absorb so well and can’t seem to stop following, in all kinds of different contexts, and that‘s what puts us in a bind, drives us crazy, encourages us to sometimes be ok with what we know is misogyny, and perpetuates it all.

that second post is titled “Something I never understood…” – but even if we don’t articulate it in our minds, i think we know what’s going on. this stuff affects us, and it’s disfunctional! we know very well that as a woman you may choose to comply with femininity – in which case you have it hard because the whole performance is not an easy thing to put on and maintain, and though you’ve complied you also become an object of scorn (as besides being the socially acceptable choice for women femininity is deemed silly, frivolous etc. etc. in the grand scheme of things), OR you may choose to not comply – in which case you will have it hard because you’re going against the grain and thus become an object of scorn, too. you can’t really win. and oftentimes these “choices” aren’t entirely up to you. and then there’s the degrees. and then, the battle with choosing which parts of oneself to appreciate and which to scorn. and so on… given all that, of course we, as women, feel compelled to judge other women so that we can feel at least temporarily good about whatever our choice has been, while knowing it won’t bring us complete comfort or contentment – can’t stop us from being women living in a patriarchy – anyway.

the system works so well precisely because it’s set up so that femmes can ridicule those who aren’t “feminine” enough, while those who’ve escaped the trappings of femininity can ridicule femmes, each in their own special (pointless, damaging) way. (and “feminists,” like anyone else, do ridicule and attack women who are typical “tools of the patriarchy” – or “sluts” or “happy hookers” or what have you… – to say it doesn’t happen, to say that kind of language is not used or that stance taken, is a lie or at best a delusion.) of course, neither stance disrupts the social order at all; they’re misogyny, at their core, and of course men, who are not women, have access to – and oftentimes make use of – both. the basis is the patriarchal system, which relies on 1. the gender binary and 2. the patriarchal value scale; and so, by definition, a woman must be feminine — BUT femininity is inferior and mockable — but NON-femininity is mockable and not ok in women –> and the vicious cycle continues, reinforced by men and women.

my question is – why isn’t feminism helping us to break out of that cycle for ourselves? shouldn’t it, after all?! (and i think that’s essentially the same question as renegade evolution‘s in that much commented post.)

however, my other question is: why do we waste so much time and energy on stuff that’s ultimately not what we want to care about?