Activist and revolutionary Tawakkol Karman's receiving of the Nobel Peace Prize last week has provided further galvanization not only to the uprising in her native Yemen, but also, specifically, to its women.
On Sunday, 15,000 women took to the streets of Saana, Yemen's capital and largest city, with additional marches occurring in Taiz and Shabwa provinces. They gathered not only in celebration of Karman's win, but also to send the signal to President Ali Abdullah Saleh that he is no more popular with the nation's female populace than he is with his fellow men. "Saleh will stand trial," the women of Taiz chanted, and in Shabwa, female protesters called on the United Nations to place sanctions against Saleh and his family.
At a presentation I attended last spring, Egyptian columnist and social media artisan Mona Eltahaway, gesturing to a photo of Karman that she'd displayed to the audience, remarked - unforgettably - "In that face lies the death of all preconceived notions of the Muslim woman."
Not only has Karman consistently proven Eltahawy's point - obliterating the uninformed assumption that any woman with a headscarf by definition must be docile or oppressed - but now she's energized other women to destroy those assumptions on their own. Women who take to the streets by the tens of the thousands in the face of brutal reprisals can't exactly be labeled the brow-beaten type. As Roula Khalaf of the Financial Times argues, the Nobel decision "sends a powerful if symbolic message of western acceptance of Islamist movements, an alternative view to the simplistic belief that they are incompatible with women’s empowerment."
I mentioned violent reprisals. There has already been at least one disgusting occurrence of such, with multiple sources confirming the attacks by pro-government thugs on 38 women in Taiz's Freedom Square. I therefor call on readers to keep Yemen's female Muslim revolutionaries - and future Founding Mothers - in their hearts and minds, and praise them for the singular role they play in steering their nation to the state of liberty it deserves.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Monday, October 10, 2011
Maria Gunnoe - A Voice for Appalachia
With the Nobel Peace Prize going on Friday to two of the women I most admire on the international stage,Yemen's Tawakkol Karman and Liberia's Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, I wanted to take a moment to acknowledge a home-grown hero - Maria Gunnoe, a resident of West Virginia who leads the attack on mountain-top removal coal mining, a practice that poses dire consequences not just to the environment but to the very existence of the people who live in its shadow.
As I write this post, an instrumental folk station I created on Pandora Radio delivers tune after heartbreaking tune from Appalachia, an incessant reminder of the invaluable role that this region has played in the formation of our national identity. Ironic, then, that corporate interests would augment their assault on civilizations abroad with attacks on what could rightly be called one of the keystones of the American spirit. “They are blowing up my homeland,” says Gunnoe, not one to mince words.
The daughter, granddaughter and sister of coal miners, Gunnoe works for OVEC (Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition) and in 2009 received the Goldman Environmental Prize, a Nobel equivalent in the field of grassroots activism. On September 30th, she and Bo Webb, another leading mover-and-shaker, testified before the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. The two were in fact the only coalfield-residing witnesses to present at the hearing, the title of which made plain its bias - "Jobs at Risk: Community Impacts of the Obama Administration’s Effort to Rewrite the Stream Buffer Zone Rule."
"The coal industry obviously wants to bury and pollute all of our water and all of who we are, for temporary jobs," said Gunnoe, at the hearing. "Jobs in surface mining are dependent on blowing up the next mountain and burying the next stream . . . How could anyone say that these temporary jobs is worth the permanent displacement of our people and the destruction of their waters, mountains and culture?"
Later: "My nephew reminds me of what surface mining looks like from a child's eyes. As we were driving through our community he looks up and says, 'Aunt Sissy, what is wrong with these people? Don't they know we live down here?' I had to be honest with him and say, 'Yes, they know. They just simply don't care."
You can view the testimonies on the sub-committee's website, clicking to 99:20 for Webb's testimony, and 106:18 for Gunnoe's.
Interestingly, Mr. Webb drew a link between the apparent congressional appetite for environmental catastrophes and its recent trend towards curtailing a woman's right to reproductive freedom.
"Statistical research on Appalachian birth defects has found that a woman pregnant has a 42% greater chance of a baby born with birth defects than a pregnant woman living in a non mountaintop removal community," he said. " . . . If that does not get your attention, then you have sold your very heart and soul. Your pro life claim is no longer credible; it's false, and transparent. You stand on your bloody pulpit claiming to be pro life, yet allow our babies to be poisoned, disregarded like yesterdays garbage! A dog has more rights and protection than an unborn baby in a mountaintop removal community!"
Gunnoe made a similar observation in a recent Op-Ed for The Charleston Gazette, entitled "Where’s the church in this disaster?"
"It would seem that children in the womb are of great concern," she says. "But apparently that concern extends only to not killing the child outright. Insidious damage, disease and life-long problems seem not to matter, at least not enough for them to speak out. Could it be that their anti-abortion stance is really less about the health and well being of infants and children than about hatred of women?"
A rhetorical question if ever I heard one.
As I write this post, an instrumental folk station I created on Pandora Radio delivers tune after heartbreaking tune from Appalachia, an incessant reminder of the invaluable role that this region has played in the formation of our national identity. Ironic, then, that corporate interests would augment their assault on civilizations abroad with attacks on what could rightly be called one of the keystones of the American spirit. “They are blowing up my homeland,” says Gunnoe, not one to mince words.
The daughter, granddaughter and sister of coal miners, Gunnoe works for OVEC (Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition) and in 2009 received the Goldman Environmental Prize, a Nobel equivalent in the field of grassroots activism. On September 30th, she and Bo Webb, another leading mover-and-shaker, testified before the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. The two were in fact the only coalfield-residing witnesses to present at the hearing, the title of which made plain its bias - "Jobs at Risk: Community Impacts of the Obama Administration’s Effort to Rewrite the Stream Buffer Zone Rule."
"The coal industry obviously wants to bury and pollute all of our water and all of who we are, for temporary jobs," said Gunnoe, at the hearing. "Jobs in surface mining are dependent on blowing up the next mountain and burying the next stream . . . How could anyone say that these temporary jobs is worth the permanent displacement of our people and the destruction of their waters, mountains and culture?"
Later: "My nephew reminds me of what surface mining looks like from a child's eyes. As we were driving through our community he looks up and says, 'Aunt Sissy, what is wrong with these people? Don't they know we live down here?' I had to be honest with him and say, 'Yes, they know. They just simply don't care."
You can view the testimonies on the sub-committee's website, clicking to 99:20 for Webb's testimony, and 106:18 for Gunnoe's.
Interestingly, Mr. Webb drew a link between the apparent congressional appetite for environmental catastrophes and its recent trend towards curtailing a woman's right to reproductive freedom.
"Statistical research on Appalachian birth defects has found that a woman pregnant has a 42% greater chance of a baby born with birth defects than a pregnant woman living in a non mountaintop removal community," he said. " . . . If that does not get your attention, then you have sold your very heart and soul. Your pro life claim is no longer credible; it's false, and transparent. You stand on your bloody pulpit claiming to be pro life, yet allow our babies to be poisoned, disregarded like yesterdays garbage! A dog has more rights and protection than an unborn baby in a mountaintop removal community!"
Gunnoe made a similar observation in a recent Op-Ed for The Charleston Gazette, entitled "Where’s the church in this disaster?"
"It would seem that children in the womb are of great concern," she says. "But apparently that concern extends only to not killing the child outright. Insidious damage, disease and life-long problems seem not to matter, at least not enough for them to speak out. Could it be that their anti-abortion stance is really less about the health and well being of infants and children than about hatred of women?"
A rhetorical question if ever I heard one.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
French feminists rally to retire "Mademoiselle”
Galvanized by the deeply disturbing implications of the Strauss-Kahn/Diallo case for women worldwide, French feminists have rallied to put paid to a deeply entrenched form of sexism in their society: the legally mandated distinction between "Madame" and "Mademoiselle" on the basis of marital status.
Unlike Spain, which has formally retired "Senorita," and Germany, which recently parted ways with "Fraulein," France still delineates between married and unmarried women, requiring French women to indicate marital status on everything from job applications to parking tickets.
Marie-Noelle Bas, president of the feminist group Watchdog, argues that the distinction is problematic for precisely the same reasons that "Mrs/Miss" troubles Anglophone feminists; namely, that it defines women on the basis of their relationship to men. "In old days, women went from the domination of their father to the domination of their husband," she says. "They were 'mademoiselle' when they were girls, and 'madame' when they were married. For the men, there is no two states, only 'monsieur' from the youth to the elder."
It's been a while since I've read 1984, but Orwell's testimony on the overarching importance of language is as fresh in my mind as ever. Orwell addressed it in the characteristic negative - that the key to suppressing thought rests in the obliteration of one's access to the language that makes such thoughts possible - but so, too, is liberation born through the obliteration of the language that maintains oppressive structures. As a lover of language in all its forms, I can't emphasize enough my support for the movement.
Thalia Breton, of the organization Dare Feminism, argues that the ongoing Strauss-Kahn fiasco has made it crucial for feminists to act, and to act now.
"People have really woken up about inequalities and sexism since the Dominique Strauss-Kahn affair," she says, "and we think these issues will be a part of the presidential debate leading up to next May's election."
I can only hope for the same.
Unlike Spain, which has formally retired "Senorita," and Germany, which recently parted ways with "Fraulein," France still delineates between married and unmarried women, requiring French women to indicate marital status on everything from job applications to parking tickets.
Marie-Noelle Bas, president of the feminist group Watchdog, argues that the distinction is problematic for precisely the same reasons that "Mrs/Miss" troubles Anglophone feminists; namely, that it defines women on the basis of their relationship to men. "In old days, women went from the domination of their father to the domination of their husband," she says. "They were 'mademoiselle' when they were girls, and 'madame' when they were married. For the men, there is no two states, only 'monsieur' from the youth to the elder."
It's been a while since I've read 1984, but Orwell's testimony on the overarching importance of language is as fresh in my mind as ever. Orwell addressed it in the characteristic negative - that the key to suppressing thought rests in the obliteration of one's access to the language that makes such thoughts possible - but so, too, is liberation born through the obliteration of the language that maintains oppressive structures. As a lover of language in all its forms, I can't emphasize enough my support for the movement.
Thalia Breton, of the organization Dare Feminism, argues that the ongoing Strauss-Kahn fiasco has made it crucial for feminists to act, and to act now.
"People have really woken up about inequalities and sexism since the Dominique Strauss-Kahn affair," she says, "and we think these issues will be a part of the presidential debate leading up to next May's election."
I can only hope for the same.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Another heartening gesture from Tunisia on the status of women
As Bothaina Kamel continues to gain attention in her pursuit of the Egyptian presidency, more good news hearkens from Tunisia: on Friday, the nation formally withdrew all reservations to CEDAW - The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979, CEDAW is commonly described as an international bill of rights for women, and defines the oppression thereof as "...any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field." Any country that accepts CEDAW must commit itself to measures aimed at curbing that oppression.
Though Tunisia was one of the first countries to go onboard with CEDAW, as early as 1980, its pre-revolutionary establishment had lodged a series of reservations on four somewhat crucial rights that CEDAW had intended to preserve, these being:
- Equal rights to pass on nationality to their children.
- Equal rights and responsibilities in marriage and divorce.
- Equal rights in the guardianship and adoption of children.
- Equal personal rights as husband and wife, including the right to choose a family name, a profession and an occupation.
The interim government's decision to withdraw these reservations signals the likelihood that a newly elected parliament will amend whatever oppressive laws the original reservations were meant to protect. Along with a decision by Tunisia's National Electoral Commission in May to ensure gender parity in any future parliament, Tunisia's renovated relationship with CEDAW reinforces its reputation as the Middle East's leader in women's rights.
As a somewhat noteworthy aside, if any readers are unaware of CEDAW, it might perhaps stem from the fact that the United States is one of only seven countries in the world that has not yet ratified the convention. Given our penchant for slinging allegations of sexism at various regions of the world, this detail has always struck me as a little bit . . . curious.
Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979, CEDAW is commonly described as an international bill of rights for women, and defines the oppression thereof as "...any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field." Any country that accepts CEDAW must commit itself to measures aimed at curbing that oppression.
Though Tunisia was one of the first countries to go onboard with CEDAW, as early as 1980, its pre-revolutionary establishment had lodged a series of reservations on four somewhat crucial rights that CEDAW had intended to preserve, these being:
- Equal rights to pass on nationality to their children.
- Equal rights and responsibilities in marriage and divorce.
- Equal rights in the guardianship and adoption of children.
- Equal personal rights as husband and wife, including the right to choose a family name, a profession and an occupation.
The interim government's decision to withdraw these reservations signals the likelihood that a newly elected parliament will amend whatever oppressive laws the original reservations were meant to protect. Along with a decision by Tunisia's National Electoral Commission in May to ensure gender parity in any future parliament, Tunisia's renovated relationship with CEDAW reinforces its reputation as the Middle East's leader in women's rights.
As a somewhat noteworthy aside, if any readers are unaware of CEDAW, it might perhaps stem from the fact that the United States is one of only seven countries in the world that has not yet ratified the convention. Given our penchant for slinging allegations of sexism at various regions of the world, this detail has always struck me as a little bit . . . curious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)