necesar, dar nerecomandat

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.

E inutil sa vin cu exemple din viata de zi cu zi, oricat ar fi de “picante“ sau de revoltatoare. Cu cat cobori mai mult in Romania profunda (care-ncepe dincolo de limitele unei mici lumi manierate si nu exclude nici universitari, nici ministri, nici alti oameni cu scoala si pretentii), cu atat sarcasmul impotriva femeii este mai mare. Vorbim azi cu oroare despre antisemiti si despre cei care mananca unguri pe paine, dar acestia sunt in Romania o (periculoasa) minoritate. Pe cand cei ce dispretuiesc femeia, care ii neaga tinuta morala sau intelectuala, care-o exclud sistematic din spatiul public sunt larga majoritate a romanilor de amandoua sexele. Nu rasismul sau sovinismul national sunt azi cea mai raspandita forma de discriminare, ci brutala sau discreta, instinctiva sau argumentata “stiintific“ discriminare a femeii. Pentru omul de rand (intrati in vorba cu taximetristii, de exemplu), “femeia nu e om“, “toate sunt curve cu exceptia mamei si surorii tale“, femeia la volan e o calamitate etc. Pentru autoritati, de asemenea, femeile sunt cetateni de rangul al doilea: codul lor numeric personal incepe (ce simbol mai bun sa gasim?) cu cifra 2… — “Nu avem primarite. Pacat!”, Jurnalul National, 29.6.04

chiar nu stiu ce i-a venit lui cartarescu, insa citind analiza asta in 2004 eu am fost in acelasi timp surprinsa de cit de bine si lucid puncta problema (ok, in afara de faptul ca rasistii nu sint chiar deloc o minoritate in romania – dar macar i-a numit “periculosi”), si complet ne-surprinsa ca articolul continua cu aceasta marturisire:

Ca orice ideologie, feminismul mi-e strain, desi ii recunosc necesitatea.

urmata de inca o declaratie din partea lui cartarescu, ca nu cumva sa mai ramina vreun dubiu (desi nu-l interogase nimeni):

In varianta lui radicala, [feminismul devine] la fel de odios ca orice alt sovinism. Nu observ toate cele de mai sus dintr-un punct de vedere feminist, ci pur si simplu din perspectiva bunului-simt.

da, sigur! eu n-am inteles niciodata: daca vezi ca ceva e necesar, de ce te-ai dezice de acel lucru (si oamenii fac asta foarte des)?! totusi, in cazul asta inteleg total, pentru ca din pacate problema e “built in”: a sustine feminismul ca ideologie si/sau ca practica inseamna ori sa n-ai acces ori sa intorci constient spatele la niste privilegii, prejudecati sau concesii care-ti fac viata mai usoara, indiferent daca realizezi ca sint nedrepte si daca ti se par impotriva firii si firii tale – inseamna, deci, a-ti asuma un risc, a nu disimula si a avea curaj. in fond recurgerea la sexism, in aceeasi masura cu inscrierea totala in rolurile de gen, este ceva ce garanteaza fiecarui om (femeie sau barbat) alinierea la mainstream si la valorile patriarhale pretuite dpdv social si cultural. in timp ce feminismul, anti-sexismul sint echivalente cu a merge impotriva curentului si traditiilor. adica lucrul cel mai greu.

cartarescu putea sa aleaga greul, pare sa inteleaga asta foarte bine, dar pina la urma alege clar cel-mai-usorul. mda. numai ca el se justifica spunind ca asta e de fapt o alegere “echilibrata” (ceea ce e ca si cum ai spune, de exemplu, ca ai vrea sa nu mai fie torturati oamenii dar tu nu vei merge atit de departe incit sa condamni tortura, deoarece nu vrei sa fii luat drept “extremist” – nu de alta, dar ai auzit pe undeva ca printre cei care se impotrivesc torturii sint tare multi ciudati si radicali).

newsflash to cartarescu: punctul respectiv de vedere este feminist. asa ca felicitari (imi pare rau). iar feminismul este bun-simt; daca ti s-a spus la televizor ca feminismul e doar de-un fel si este “sovinism”, mai inchide televizorul, nu te mai lasa spalat pe creier, informeaza-te, gindeste critic si fa ceva util – si eventual anti-sexist – cu timpul tau si talentele tale.

ce-i amuzant e ca, folosind “bun-simtul”, cartarescu descopera de unul singur definitia cea mai simpla a feminismului, adica: “notiunea radicala ca femeile sint oameni”. mai putin amuzanta: inconsecventa de care da dovada.

sa vedem, pe linga cartarescu insusi (in ipostaza explicit non-feminista), ce alte “exemple” care arata necesitatea feminismului ar mai fi?


si daca astea sint citeva din nenumaratele exemple, ce e “sovin” si ce e “de bun simt” dintre a imbratisa feminismul si a te dezice de el? (raspunsul intr-un numar viitor.)

Recenzie a evenimentului Ladyfest Romania pentru cele 16 zile contra violentei

publicata in revista Beyond Gender a GAD Committee – Romania:

bg_winter06_p9.jpg bg_winter06_p10.jpg — de Cristina

Resurse:

  • BROSURA LF ANTI-VIOLENTA
  • Mai multe despre War Zone
  • Mai multe despre Take Back the Night
  • Versiunea in limba romana a recenziei: Continue reading

    BOOK REVIEW: “A Brief History of Misogyny” by Jack Holland

    A Brief History of Misogyny: The World’s Oldest Prejudice, by Jack Holland
    (London: Constable & Robinson Ltd, 2006, ISBN 1-84529-371- 1) 320 pp.

    Book review by Joy Wood

    Summary

    Jack Holland gives a background to his perceived origins of the misogyny we see today. One of the main strands is ancient Greek thought, and the other is Christianity and related monotheistic religions. The Greek myth of Pandora (p13) echoes the Jewish Adam and Eve myth, in that the original human was man. In the Pandora myth, men were alone until the demi-god Prometheus, who had created men, stole fire from heaven so that they would not have to eat meat raw, like animals. According to Hesiod, Zeus punished the theft by creating Pandora as a ‘gift’ for men. When Pandora disobeyed the command not to open the box she let loose “pains and evils among men” (p14). She was to blame for men being subject to all the ills of life on earth. A central belief of both Greek and Judeo-Christian thought is that man was created separately from the animals, ie above them. This may be a key to misogyny; because men desire women, they ‘give in’ to their animal nature against their will (the Greek phrase for Pandora translates as ‘the beautiful evil’ (p13)) and then blame their lack of willpower on the ‘earthiness’ of women rather than accept their own human nature. Consequently men dehumanise women (by equating the latter with nature) and hold them in contempt. Compounding the effect of the Pandora myth, Greek philosophy and science affirmed this dualistic view of man -v- nature. Aristotle held that women’s role in pregnancy was as an incubator, to carry the male seed, which backs up the idea that men are independent of women, and that women are more animal-like. The so-called cradle of democracy, Ancient Greece, was a slave-owning state, as was Ancient Rome (p20).

    Holland holds that “Plato’s Theory of Forms is the philosophical basis for the Christian doctrine of Original Sin” (p31). He maintains that the Theory of Forms (which elevated ‘thought’ as the true Reality, with a capital ‘R’) provided a powerful philosophical basis to the allegories of both Pandora and the Fall of Man and introduced the dualistic vision of reality, where man forever fights against the world of the senses and, because it was woman which caused the split from God, man despises her since she stands to remind him that he too is only human. Holland displays a dry sense of humour; on page 32 he quotes Bertrand Russell who said, in response to the claim by Aristotle (as proof of their inferiority) that women have fewer teeth than men, “Aristotle would never have made this mistake if he had allowed his wife to open her mouth once in a while.”

    “Aristotle also introduced the concept of purpose as fundamental to science” (p32). He maintained that women were inferior to men and made to be ruled by men and to carry the man’s child. A ‘scientific’ belief that women are mere vessels led to the denial of their humanity. Moreover, Aristotle claimed that an excess of menstrual fluid in the mother’s womb means the child will not reach its full human potential but become female instead because, as Aristotle says, “the female is, as it were, a mutilated male” (p33). Deformed and sickly male babies and ‘mutilated males’ (ie girl children) were abandoned because of this Aristotelian belief, and the practice carried on throughout antiquity until Christianity became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire (p33) (although of course selective abortion and abandonment of female babies goes on today in parts of India and China). Not all females died, however, since exposed infants were automatically reduced to slave status, so brothel keepers raised some of them as prostitutes (p34).

    Holland moves from Ancient Greece, though the Roman Empire to the roots of Christianity. At page 72 he lightens the tone a little. After a quote from Isaiah, 3:16-24 where God lists the dreadful things he will do to women who dress up in finery and parade about, Holland responds with, “The God of the Old Testament was remarkable, if not unique, among divinities, in being both grandiose and extraordinarily petty, one minute creating the universe, the next making women’s hair fall out.” The Old Testament, in common with Platonic thought, disparages the pleasures of the flesh. As Holland puts it, “Homosexuality was forbidden, as was any wasteful spilling of man’s seed, including sodomy, masturbation and oral sex. Not a drop could be spared from the business of begetting” (p71). Holland finds similarities between St Paul and Plato, including that the equality they offered for women with men could only be granted if women became like men. For Plato, this was for the elite women who became Guardians along with the elite group of men and, for St Paul, sexual differences disappear in the Kingdom of Heaven (p79). According to Holland, when St Augustine read Platonic works he could equate The Idea, The Pure Form with God and although Origen was the first to begin to synthesise Platonic thought with Jewish scriptures, it was St Augustine “the greatest thinker since Plato” who established the philosophical edifice which propped up Christianity, “including its misogynistic vision” (p90). Augustine was concerned with breaking away from bodily desires. The only way Mary, the ‘mother of God’ could be venerated was if she was a virgin, and had not felt any sexual desire when conceiving Jesus (in other words, she was unlike any other woman) (p102). This echoes the doctrine of Plato – the dualistic split from, and denigration of, the body. As Holland puts it, “The ‘Word became Flesh’ signalled the end of dualism but the cult of the Virgin Mary meant that the old contempt for matter was perpetuated” (p103). Pope Innocent III permanently barred women from hearing confession and preaching and in everyday life he advocated that men make use of women as a necessary object “who is needed to preserve the species or to provide food and drink” (p112).
    Continue reading

    Inegalitatea dintre sexe agraveaza saracia

    11 Decembrie, 2006 (BBC Romania)

    Organizatia ONU pentru copii, UNICEF, publica luni raportul anual privind situatia copiilor in lume.

    Dar, spre deosebire de anii precedenti, raportul se concentreaza nu pe aspecte anume ale vietii copiilor si pe vietile femeilor.

    UNICEF cere guvernelor sa faca mai multe eforturi pentru a impune egalitatea intre sexe care, subliniaza organizatia, va insemna nu doar vieti mai bune pentru femei ci si pentru copii lor.

    Potrivit UNICEF, capacitatea femeilor de a decide asupra propriilor vieti este indeaproape legata de sanatatea si bunastarea copiilor.

    intregul articol [mai putin decat profesionale si necesare, comentariile editoriale despre faptul ca “raportul nu va fi o lectura placuta pentru barbati” si UNICEF-ul nu cere “instaurarea matriarhatului”!]

    pentru detalii:
    Comunicatul UNICEF privind raportul

    … The report argues that recent progress in women’s status has not come far enough. Millions of girls and women continue to live in poverty, disempowered and discriminated against. They are disproportionately affected by HIV/AIDS, less likely to attend school and often subject to physical and sexual violence. In most places, men continue to earn more pay than women for the same jobs.

    Women need a voice
    … Empowering women, explains the report, saves children’s lives – and the impact is too important to ignore. … Moreover, the report finds, in families where women are the main decision-makers, a far greater proportion of household resources is devoted to child health, nutrition and education than in families where women do not have a voice.

    Seven key interventions
    The report suggests seven key interventions for gender equality:

    * Abolish school fees and invest in girls’ education
    * Invest government funding in gender equality
    * Enact legislation to create a level playing field for women, and to prevent and respond to domestic violence as well as gender-based violence in conflict
    * Ensure women’s participation in politics
    * Involve women’s grassroots organizations early on in policy development
    * Engage men and boys so the importance of gender equality can be understood by all
    * Improve research and data on gender issues, which are critical if progress is to be made

    Promoting gender equality is the focus of Millennium Development Goal 3. If this goal is achieved, UNICEF believes its benefits will be felt not just among women and children but in many other spheres—from poverty and hunger reduction to global health and environmental sustainability.

    The State of the World’s Children 2007 shows that in the long run, empowering women will enhance efforts to reach all of the other Millennium Development Goals by 2015.

    ———————————–

    Stire UNICEF din 18 Octombrie 2006:
    Unul din patru copii traieste in saracie

    Un raport al Agentiei Natiunilor Unite pentru copii, UNICEF, arata ca in Europa de est, Asia Centrala si Rusia unul din patru copii traieste in saracie, in ciuda cresterii economice din aceste regiuni.

    Eveniment LF pentru cele 16 zile contra violentei

    ————————————————————————–
    Sambata 25 noiembrie 2006,

    la inceputul celor 16 Zile de Activism Impotriva Violentei Asupra Femeilor,

    Ladyfest Romania organizeaza un eveniment cu prezentari si discutii.

    Din PROGRAM (incepand cu ora 18):
    – Lansarea unui proiect-site de marturii despre violenta
    – Despre evolutia miscarii de femei contra violentei in lume si in Romania
    – Slide-show despre Marsul Take Back the Night
    – Proiectie film: “War Zone”, despre hartuirea pe strada
    – Discutii despre violenta domestica si sexuala, planuri pentru TBTN

    Prin acest eveniment Colectivul Ladyfest Romania vrea sa ofere un spatiu in care cei interesati de activism grassroots sa poata discuta problema violentei – ce inseamna, cum ne afecteaza pe toti, cum a fost si este adresata in special prin actiuni concrete, si cum se poate implica fiecare din noi in eradicarea sa.

    In urma atelierelor de la Festivalul din 2005, am sesizat nevoia de astfel de forumuri de discutii pentru a constientiza si aborda o varietate de probleme de gen.
    In acelasi timp, dorim sa celebram si noi “16 ani de 16 zile: Progres in Drepturile Omului – Eliminarea Violentei Impotriva Femeilor”.

    Inainte si dupa discutii, cei prezenti la eveniment vor putea rasfoi:
    * noua brosura Ladyfest-Ro pe violenta si activism
    * zina LF-RO #1 si biblioteca noastra de grrrl-zines
    * resurse de la organizatii feministe din Romania

    Toata lumea este bine-venita! Daca doresti sa participi sau sa afli mai multe, ia legatura cu noi la ladyfest_ro@yahoo.com.

    Te asteptam cu drag,
    Colectivul Ladyfest Romania.
    ————————————————————————–

    de ce are nevoie feminismul?

    numarul din vara 2006 al jurnalului pentru studiul religiilor si ideologiilor:

    What Does Feminism Need? Challenges and Developments in Gender Studies

    din cuprins:

    • Gender Policies in Romania: from Infrastructure to Action
    • The woman in the communist regime. Meta – analysis about a gender study
    • The Gender Sterotype Threat And The Academic Performance Of Women’s University Teaching Staff
    • Perceptia discriminarii de gen la nivelul populatiei educate tinere din Romania – o abordare cantitativa (The Perception of Gender Discrimination at the Level of Young Educated Romanians – A Quantitative Approach)
    • Diferenta dintre genuri in alocarea timpului liber in Romania (Gender Difference in Allotting Leisure Time in Romania)
    • Expresii si reprezentari sociale ale femininului in practicile divinatorii (Expressions and Social Representations of the Feminine in Divination Practice)
    • Who’s Afraid of Feminism in Romania? Misconceptions, prejudices, stereotypes
    • Media and gender: Constructing feminine identities in a postmodern culture
    • Words and Women. An eligible bachelor vs. an eligible spinster
    • Sexual Harassment at the Workplace: Converging Ideologies
    • Contributii si limite ale feminismului in asistenta sociala (Contributions and Limitations of Feminism in Social Work)

    • An Overview of Political Torture in the Twentieth Century

    un numar mai vechi din jurnal: Gen si/in Ideologii

    [zina lf-ro’05] The ghost in the shell

    Emma Goldman spunea ca doar femeile insele se pot elibera de opresia lor “interioara”. (in “Living my life”)

    Cred ca multe femei nu iau in considerare ca aceasta opresie exista. Personal ma intalnesc cu foarte multe femei care considera ca eu exagerez vorbind despre feminism si lupta impotriva sexismului si a patriarhatului, ce sa mai spun despre abolirea capitalismului si exploatarii.
    Si de fapt ce inseamna opresia “interioara”?
    Mai intai, trebuie sa te descoperi pe tine ca femeie in interiorul tau, privindu-te cu ochii tai, si nu prin filtrul moralitatii si al culturii in care traiesti, nu prin intermediul mediei mainstream (TV sau cinematograf) si bineinteles nu prin ochii barbatilor; un exercitiu destul de greu de realizat pentru mine personal.

    Continue reading