Nonetheless...
I've seen some of the amerikkkan feminists and particularly amerikkkan wimmin of color feminists doing what they tend to do best, making the issue a this or that, here or there polarized, binary equation.
Why do they do that? Everything is a debate with two sides.
Fuck.
I found one article written by an activist up here whose names pops up in kkkanadian organizing circles with a fair amount of regularity. My reaction to seeing her name attached to a piece about Slut Walk was not a cult of activist personality must see what she has handed down reaction. I checked what she had written because it's important for me to ground here in kkkanada from time to time so as to not ever be fooled into thinking that the only north amerikkkan feminist wimmin worth reading or listening to are the amerikkkan ones whether they be white or of colour.
When I took a look at what she had written I didn't have the sense that we were completely aligned. What I did think was that what she was thinking sounded a lot less binary, a lot more complex, layered and engaged, a lot more...human grounded in ways that say we as wimmin who experience sexism differently are pushed and pulled, even when we are conscious, in a lot of different directions for a lot of different reasons and that hope for something different springs from a lot of different places for different reasons.
I appreciated what Harsha Walia wrote also for her insistence on folding in the experiences of different wimmin impacted by rape and racism combined..
I'm reposting what I wrote a few months back when I first heard about Slut Walk and then I'm cutting and pasting in what I found on rabble.ca.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
I've never needed permission nor been able to access any protection for walking the streets dressed as i please/d...
...except as a young immigrant child unsure of the world around me, as an uncomfortable, lacking in self-esteem teen trying out various bits of (what i understood as) adult female aesthetic and as a very new black lesbian separatist feminist who couldn't figure out why it was that i was dressed from head to toe in butch wear, with short barber faded haircut, men's underwear, men's shoes and still had men leering at me on the streets. but...i was all covered up...i'm a grown woman of 43. looking back and looking at how i move through the world and occupy or sometimes choose to not occupy space, public space...
i think i have benefited from the privilege of being fairly large, able bodied, not raised by christians, class mobile, cisgendered, north amerikkkan located, very well educated with access to so much feminist, black, queer, class, sexually radical theory. this combined with being (demonized uncontrollably scaaaary booooo...) black woman while being conscious, uncrushed and brave enough to not embrace the submissive, accommodating, incessantly smiling female gender role stereotyped woman.
all these combined have allowed me access to a shifting and greyed area where i have often been able to capitalize (still at a price) over the years in a way that has bought me a kind of truce/d "safety" that has allowed me to leave the house night and/or day dressed in some fairly revealing/sexualized clothing for community events, book launches, spoken word performances, pride and such.
i don't do it as much any more...i tend more toward working more covered femme for daily interactions. but i still do reserve the right.
it has crossed my mind from time to time, especially when i felt much more under attack by some fairly conservative community grass roots people in different circles who did not take kindly to me exposing as much flesh as i reserved the right to, that i could have been sexually assaulted, raped while out gallivanting at night and no one would have said a thing...no one would have supported me.
i wondered whether any of the very conservatively liberal political types i'd ever encountered who clucked their teeth at what they saw or who made jokes about me, conflating my lack of clothing with lack of intellect, would whisper behind their hands in gossiping groups: "oh, she deserved it. look at how she was dressed. tramp. slut. jamette. skettle"
the whole - stay covered, stay "pure", be kept "safe" and be defined as "nice", as well behaved and therefore as having value - approach to dressing for wimmin is so racist, so classist, so all-round oppressive.
in most communities, wimmin who are considered proper, those who are respectable (meaning understood to be deserving of respect), those who are not defined as sexually accessible by virtue of dress and demeanour, those who are considered of good stock, are most often middle and upper class wimmin.
these are the "good" girls.
they are "nice".
they are the intelligent ones. you can tell they amazingly gifted intellectually because truly intelligent wimmin always cover themselves up.
for a woman to be considered automatically rape-able with impunity, rape-able meaning easily identified a target, as prey - she needs to meet certain requirements.
for one thing, if her attacker would like to rape her and be fairly certain he will not be punished, she should ideally be from any subjugated community. these are the wimmin the society as a whole considers discardable, prey, deviant, dirtied, touchable, of low value, automatically vulnerable to the oppressive gaze and handling of the patriarchy.
i don't mean to say that all wimmin are not vulnerable to rape. what i do mean to say is that wimmin of colour, poor wimmin and all other wimmin who are not able to access sufficient buffering power/privilege, but specifically those who are defined as deviant, as nasty, as sexually accessible, are coded in ways that iconically communicate to men with a fair amount of certainty that they will be able to get away with rape, that many will understand that these wimmin deserve it, that the society as a whole will turn the other way.
certain wimmin and girl children are defined in an abusive and dominating racist, classist, misogynist, sexually conflicted and controlled, white dominated, patriarchal culture as more tarnishable, perceived as more deserving of the oppressive, violating, patriarchal male gaze and touch because of who they/we are, but also insanely, because of how they/we are dressed or because of how they/we behave.
they/we have been defined as appropriately designated hate, abuse, violence, sperm receptacles, for all intents and purposes - garbage cans.
i'm thinking right now about white people in slave times obsessed with making sure that black african men did not even look, did not dare even raise their eyes to gaze upon the supposed beauty and purity of white wimmin. they could be genitally maimed, tortured and killed for even looking at white wimmin's flesh, already spoken for, already possessed, ridden, utilized for the pleasure and perpetuation of white male dominated middle/upper class patriarchy.
meantime, every male, every white and class privileged male, was able to visually and tangibly access the black woman via her lack of classed and raced status leading to social vulnerability, via imposed and unavoidable nakedness upon demand, via her inherent (meaning: constructed) sexual deviance. every male with more power and privilege than her was able to access the body, the flesh of any old piece of paper bag, door mat, mule of the world, black slave woman. through an intricate, murderous, denial based, dominating belief system, privileging whiteness and white maleness, she was constructed a fair game, as rape-ready.
she/we were considered appropriate prey, communally owned beasts, breeder cows, labouring pack animals of considerably lower value than white wimmin. we could be stripped naked and violated by pretty much anyone. as in ancient times, our nudity or available on request nudity, was as much a mark of our lack of race and class standing, our lack of privilege as was our very existence as slaves.
in "freedom" times, times when classed and racist relations still existed ubiquitously, but everyone had agreed to participate in the mass delusion of "emancipation", and in more modern, present day times since, black wimmin of "quality", of "good stock", from "good families", have been taught that their/our only hope of even attempting to avoid the sexualized gaze of any man, of all men was through dressing with asexual care.
cover up. show as little flesh as possible at all times.
it's clear that we cannot stop the disgusting rape, free access fantasies of white men, of any men of any race or class for that matter. we all know that the powers that be will do nothing reliable to protect us if we attract "unwelcome attention". why, they can't even protect white wimmin. although the men who prey on middle and upper class white wimmin are hunted down and prosecuted with much more frequency than are those who rape lower caste wimmin.
wimmin who lack massive amounts of systemic privilege don't have the racist, classist, all-round privilege accorded to more well placed wimmin, who are defined, through their status as exalted breeder cows of white, middle/upper classed, privileged babies of domination, maintainers of dominant culture...we don't have that unearned privilege, however slight, however relative, to draw on, to protect ourselves from rapists or to demand and reasonably expect a fair day in court ending with arrest and imprisonment.we do, however, have the power to police ourselves and each other's clothing choices and behaviour.
all wimmin, in the face of a violent rape/porn culture, can always remember that it's how we dress and how we behave that decides whether we will be raped our not. and so, it is necessary to police behaviour and police dress at all times if we are going to not be raped.
this is how we are taught by our mothers to protect ourselves and each other as best as we can from the violent brute force of the patriarchy aimed at our hearts, spirits, bodies and genitals.
we are told that this is our first and last line of defense.
heh. no one ever bothered to explain that this defense is of absolutely no use, whatsoever. obsessively covering up does not do a damned thing.
you see...
men rape 95 year old grandmothers in polyester house dresses who have never worn a pair of daisy dukes/batty ridas or a push up bra.
men rape comatose female patients who are rarely washed, who do not wear one lick of make-up, no mascara, no red lipstick, who domiciled in dilapidated care facilities where they are neglected and abandoned by their families.
men rape three month old girl children who have never worn a mini skirt or high heels.rape doesn't happen because of how we're dressed or because of how we paint our faces or because of what time we leave the house or because of...anything except power and domination.
because of power and domination, experienced in different ways depending on social positioning, we are all considered rape-ready (defined by me as deserving of attack from one or more men).
there are so many ways a woman can be considered automatically rape-ready or defined as being dressed or behaving in a rape-ready fashion.
the fucking clothes we wear are considered rape traps we set for our own selves.anything that patriarchal violent rape culture can utilize as a collective noose around our very necks, as the rationale for rape will be used against us regardless of how carefully we police ourselves and each other.
it's a mind fuck, really, because there is nothing a woman or girlchild could ever do to deserve the horror and trauma and pain and stigma of being raped.
it's only a murderously abusive male dominated culture that seeks to harm our most intimate and core parts that would blame even our choice of the clothes on our backs, how we walked, how we smiled, what time of night we were fucking out rather than blame an animal who could not keep his hands, body, fists, mouth and genitals to himself.
we blame ourselves because we are taught by a society that blames us.
if we are not dressed in a fashion considered to be rape-ready and we are still raped, we might find ourselves in an endless feedback loop wondering what we, not the rapist, did wrong.
if we have breasts exposed, leg exposed, belly exposed, buttocks emphasized and are raped, the victim blaming narrative says that at lease our attackers, the police, our families, our lovers/partners and our children will understand that it was our fault because we were dressed like accessible pieces of meat who should have known better to be caught out dressed in ways that clearly screamed: "please fuck me against my will."
disgusting. moronic. dangerous. annoying. oppressive. insidious.
i found out about slut walk today. henh. maybe i'll go. but it will not contribute to or detract from the sense of safety or threat i personally feel when i walk the streets one iota.
the optics and iconic significance of a hoard of fearless, conscious, challenging, demonstrating wimmin, as seen by the society at large, in the macro, may or may not shift a thing. but i believe in a diversity of tactics and this seems to fit the bill...
SlutWalk Toronto
BECAUSE WE’VE HAD ENOUGH!
On January 24th, 2011, a representative of the Toronto Police gave shocking insight into the Force’s view of sexual assault by stating: “women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized”.
As the city’s major protective service, the Toronto Police have perpetuated the myth and stereotype of ‘the slut’, and in doing so have failed us. With sexual assault already a significantly under-reported crime, survivors have now been given even less of a reason to go to the Police, for fear that they could be blamed. Being assaulted isn’t about what you wear; it’s not even about sex; but using a pejorative term to rationalize inexcusable behaviour creates an environment in which it’s okay to blame the victim.
Historically, the term ‘slut’ has carried a predominantly negative connotation. Aimed at those who are sexually promiscuous, be it for work or pleasure, it has primarily been women who have suffered under the burden of this label. And whether dished out as a serious indictment of one’s character or merely as a flippant insult, the intent behind the word is always to wound, so we’re taking it back. “Slut” is being re-appropriated.
We are tired of being oppressed by slut-shaming; of being judged by our sexuality and feeling unsafe as a result. Being in charge of our sexual lives should not mean that we are opening ourselves to an expectation of violence, regardless if we participate in sex for pleasure or work. No one should equate enjoying sex with attracting sexual assault.
We are a movement demanding that our voices be heard. We are here to call foul on our Police Force and demand change. We want Toronto Police Services to take serious steps to regain our trust. We want to feel that we will be respected and protected should we ever need them, but more importantly be certain that those charged with our safety have a true understanding of what it is to be a survivor of sexual assault — slut or otherwise.
We are tired of speeches filled with lip service and the apologies that accompany them. What we want is meaningful dialogue and we are doing something about it: WE ARE COMING TOGETHER. Not only as women, but as people from all gender expressions and orientations, all walks of life, levels of employment and education, all races, ages, abilities, and backgrounds, from all points of this city and elsewhere.
We are asking you to join us for SlutWalk, to make a unified statement about sexual assault and victims’ rights and to demand respect for all. Whether a fellow slut or simply an ally, you don’t have to wear your sexual proclivities on your sleeve, we just ask that you come. Any gender-identification, any age. Singles, couples, parents, sisters, brothers, children, friends. Come walk or roll or strut or holler or stomp with us.
Join us in our mission to spread the word that those those who experience sexual assault are not the ones at fault, without exception.
To find learn more of the specific event details, please stay tuned to our WHAT/WHERE/WHEN section.
this is the piece i found today on rabble.ca
Slutwalk: To march or not to march
"When we speak we are afraid our words will not be heard or welcomed. But when we are silent, we are still afraid. So it is better to speak."
- Audre Lorde
Since April, when thousands marched in a Slutwalk in Toronto in response to a police officer telling students that the best way to avoid getting raped was to avoid dressing like a "slut," Slutwalks have spread across cities in Canada and the U.S. to the U.K. and Australia. Accompanying this global surge has been a myriad of controversies about the term "slut" as well as questions about who was being left out from this new movement.
I share many of these concerns.
Slutwalk -- in its slick branding -- runs the risk of facilitating the dominant discourse of "liberated" women as only those women wearing mini-skirts and high heels in/on their way to professional jobs. In reality, capitalism mediates the feminist façade of choice by creating an entire industry that commodifies women's sexuality and links a woman's self-esteem and self-worth to fashion and beauty. Slutwalk itself consistently refuses any connection to feminism and fixates solely around liberal questions of individual choice -- the palatable "I can wear what I want" feminism that is intentionally devoid of an analysis of power dynamics.
Historically, this has also come at a great cost to low-income women and women of colour who bear the brunt of institutionalized sexism -- from lack of access to childcare and denial of reproductive justice to stratification in precarious low-wage work and disproportionate criminalization. In the post 9/11 climate, the focus on a particular version of sex(y)-positive feminism runs the risk of further marginalizing Muslim women's movements who are hugely impacted by the racist "reasonable accommodation" debate and state policies against the niqab. This marginalization has, at least in part, been legitimized through an imperialist feminist discourse that imposes certain ideas of gender liberation and perpetuates the myth that certain cultural/religious identities are inherently antithetical to women's rights.
According to Nassim Elbardouh, a community organizer and Muslim woman who grew up in Saskatoon, "Though I support the tremendous effort, I didn't go to Slutwalk because rather than focusing on lack of consent in sexual assault, there seemed to be a message that I have heard since I was a young girl -- that I am only a feminist under the white gaze if I dressed and behaved in certain exposing and forward ways. People need to realize that being 'scantily clad' is not the only patriarchal excuse that victimizes women. Sexual assaults against Muslim women are often minimized in our society because Muslim women are perceived as repressed, and therefore in need of sexual emancipation. I would much rather have attended a 'Do Not Rape' Walk."On the use of the term "slut" itself, while I appreciate that others feel differently and there is an argument to be made about transgressing the social boundaries defined by the term "slut," I personally don't feel the whole "reclaim slut" thing. I find that the term disproportionately impacts women of colour and poor women to reinforce their status as inherently dirty and second-class, and hence more rape-able. The history of genocide against indigenous women, the enslavement of black women, and the forced sterilization of poor women goes beyond their attire. It is a means of gender control that is embedded within the intersecting processes of racism and colonialism. As long-term activists with Incite Women of Color have pointed out, the experience of women of colour with violence and victim-blaming is not only quantitatively different (i.e. increased) but is also qualitatively different.
Racist and sexist terminology like "squaw" continues to particularly demean indigenous women living in poverty. The systemic ideology that upholds the colonial disposability of indigenous women's bodies and lives has normalized the tragedy of thousands of missing and murdered indigenous women across this country. As a Manitoba judge stated during the inquiry into the death of 19-year-old Helen Betty Osborne "the men who abducted Osborne believed that young aboriginal women were objects with no human value beyond sexual gratification."
One of the organizers of the Vancouver Slutwalk admitted in a Tyee interview that many marginalized women did not feel comfortable marching: "We will speak to the fact that we need to recognize that there are groups that are more affected, who will not be as strongly represented at this march as they should be."
Having said all that, it might be surprising, then, to know that I did march in Slutwalk on May 15.
I attended for the simple reason that I am committed to ending victim blaming. The Slutwalks in Toronto and Vancouver came out of the specific contexts of comments by police officers in Toronto and Saanich that were reinforcing to young women about how to avoid getting raped. In Manitoba, Judge Robert Dewar commented that a young aboriginal rape survivor acted "inviting."
Even though I did not march under the banner of "sluthood," I marched to mark the unceded territory of women's bodies. I marched because language is a weapon yielded against the powerless. I marched because rapists causes rape and sexual assault can never be justified. I marched to end the policing of women by other women. I marched because that day, though understandable, I happened to be tired of the Left ruthlessly eating itself alive. I marched in defiance of right-wing pundits like Margaret Wente to make visible the staggering reality of rape and violence against all women in so-called civilized countries like Canada.
By the time Slutwalk hit Vancouver on May 15, the debates had already been raging for weeks. I expected to see only a handful of women of colour, mothers and children, older women. I was surprised at the actual diversity on the streets, not captured by photographers seeking sensationalist images of bras and fish nets. There was no attempt to recruit everyone into one uniform vision of femininity, nor was there an overarching romanticizing of "sluttiness"; sexual autonomy was being self-determined by each participant -- as one placard read "Whether scantily dressed or fully dressed, clothing does not equal consent." Most heartening was the significant number of teenagers, who are perhaps most pressured against affirming consent and are most impacted by self-shame and victim-blaming, and supporting their voices on the street was a critical gesture of solidarity.
While Slutwalk may like to present itself as a movement, I would argue that it isn't. Rather, it is simply one part of a broader movement to end violence against women. Similarly, my reflection is just that -- one person's rant in a wider spectrum of opinion. It does not (pejoratively) imply that I am a "sister who fell for Slutwalk," nor does it imply my uncritical endorsement. As Berthold Brecht said: "In the contradiction lies the hope." Whether or not Slutwalk is around, there are hundreds of thousands of us who continue to live and organize every day to eliminate heteropatriarchy, white supremacy, capitalism and colonialism.
Harsha Walia is a South Asian organizer and write based in Vancouver, Coast Salish Territories. She has organized for over a decade in a range of anti-racist, anti-colonial, and feminist movements and is currently active in No One Is Illegal and works with women in the Downtown Eastside. She can be found on Twitter.
if what you're reading here grips you, holds you, fascinates you, provokes you, emboldens you, pushes you, galvanizes you, discomfits you, tickles you, enrages you so much that you find yourself returning again and again...then link me.
0 transmissions:
Post a Comment