The presidential elections in the USA are fast becoming a complete nightmare. Well, not complete, but...
-Hillary Clinton lost, and I think it will have grave consequences, as I have pointed out.
-The misogyny on the left is utterly despicable and omnipresent, and that genie won´t go back to the lamp easily, as commenters at Shakesville have said.
-The moral corruption of the Democratic National Committe has reached unbelievable levels, and they have lost all track of basic democratic principles internally, so how are they to defend every oppressed voice in the USA?
-Barack Obama won by perpetuating the most dangerous myths about politics, that is to say, that speeches and charisma are the traits that define a good ruler. This couldn´t be more wrong, more absurd, and more problematic.
-And finally, I believe the Republicans are now in the driver´s seat, thanks to some truly devious moves on their part and many truly abhorrent decisions taken by the Democratic party.
Sarah Palin´s nomination as the GOP´s Vice-President nominee is now one of the deciding factors in these elections. And sweet gemini cricket, have the democrats got off to a horrendous start on that front!
The misogynistic attacks against her started barely an hour after her nomination. And they haven´t stopped since, obviously. Strategically, I have no idea how anyone can be dumb enough to believe this to be a good idea. Obama already has deep issues regarding his sexist stances, and some people concerned with a Democratic victory in November want to unleash a new misogynistic storm? Clearly, SOME women and feminists are going to think : "with friends like these..."
And that´s without even mentioning how energizing the political discourse will be for republicans, and especially fundamentalist wingnuts. Look, it´s not a secret: when you identify really strongly with a cultural entity and outsiders attack one of its member, you circle the wagons and start fighting as one. And Republicans have no problem whatsoever falling in line, dontcha know? In fact, that´s precisely one of their defining characteristics: they don´t need to assert their individuality by behaving critically against the norm.
But nooo, Sarah Palin is fair game and since she´s "dumb" and a wingnut, the end justifies the means.
Yes, these elections have been depressing so far, and it is far from finished.
Yet, some shards of feminist light are appearing within this context, and from seemingly the most unlikely of places. When it was announced that Sarah Palin´s daughter, Bristol Palin, was pregnant, the most despicable of attacks began pouring all over the internet. Because of her age, her unmarried status, and her mother´s political positions, many people felt that it was perfectly justified to use her as political point, a direct refutal of her mother´s statements amd ideology.
Think about this for a second. Many people who consider themselves pro-choice began judging a 17 years-old decisions, coming to firm conclusions about the hows and whys she had come to be in that position. It goes without saying that nobody knows for sure what has happened, but Governor Palin´s positions justified assuming that things had happened to Bristol Palin in a politically convenient way for the Democrats.
Sarah Palin´s political ideology embodies everything that is vile about religious fanaticism. She believes abortion should be illegal in every case, she believes religious viewpoints should mold and define the law, she supports a party and a platform that deny women their bodily integrity and autonomy over their own lives. And that´s without mentioning her stance on death penalty, oil drilling, environmental protection, etc, etc...
But how strange life is, indeed... It is because of an evangelical icon that forefront issues of ableism and feminism have popped up in the public sphere. The fact that she is a religious fundamentalist has interesting effects on the public discourse. On the one hand, rightwing people see the fact that a mother of five, mother to a child with Down´s Syndrom, mother to an unmarried, pregnant teenage daughter, and successful working mother is running as Vice-President candidate as the triumph of fundamentalist ideology. And on the other hand, people who consider themselves liberal-minded and progressive are now in a position where they are supposed to react progressively to a despised opponent´s culturally different from the perceived norm personal life.
So wingnuts celebrate the choices the Palin family has made because they see them as the only moral possibilities. She is the poster child for fundamentalist morality. But if they take such pride in it, it´s because subconsciously, they acknowledge there was indeed a choice. They may feel comforted in the coherency of their ideology displayed by Sarah Palin´s family, but if she´s admirable, it´s because there´s a silent admission that she stands out, even from many other fundamentalists. Which is why, even if Sarah Palin´s life appears to reinforce many religious paradigms, it instead subtly subverts them, since it brings into the back of fundamentalist people´s minds the cognitive dissonance that makes their ideology personally sustainable.
And people on the left are now forced with a clear ultimatum. Either they walk the walk and abstain from mentioning Sarah Palin´s family private matters and her gender to attack her, or they become to the eyes of many the reactionary forces behind public life in the USA. Make no mistake: that´s a massive cultural shift of perception that IS possible given the magnitude of sexism displayed by the left against Hillary Clinton first, and now Sarah Palin, and also because Palin´s history (leaving aside her political positions) strikes a chord with many people on a personal level, no matter their political affiliation.
Given what´s at stake, I fear the complex irruption of these issues of misogynysm and ableism in the public discourse will have serious negative effects in the short run; but in the long run, the seeds of cultural change and the insistence on personal coherency will challenge prejudices in the USA on a grand scale.
In spite of all the evils promoted by Sarah Palin as a fundamentalist politician, against her will, she is introducing progressive elements in the public sphere.
"Oftentimes, an evil person, by perpetrating an evil deed, paves the way for a good deed they can´t even imagine."
And the only thing that we have left, the only thing we ever have left, is stick to our principles, no matter what. That´s how the compass keeps working.
Sep 2, 2008
Gollum and Gandalf´s wisdom.
Apr 23, 2008
Head on the other side of the mirror, whistling in the clouds
For far too long I have delayed this:
Go Hillary.
I have followed the primary season in the USA for many months now. I have watched as countless posts and threads degenerated in misogynistic comments. I have witnessed many of the liberal blogs dismissing Hillary Clinton´s campaign, over and over, when they were not outright declaring it the downfall of the Democratic party. I have seen many well-respected political journalists who were considered either relatively fair or openly liberal launch venomous attack after venomous attack upon Senator Clinton. And still I wrote nothing.
Go Hillary.
I have seen virulent misogynistic views expressed with pride, and defended with rage every time somebody pointed out that such opinions were untolerable. I have heard misogyny called a thing from the past, and described as mere unjustified whining from feminists. Especially when it was a woman who was questioning its pervasiveness in the liberal sphere (fauxgressives...). I have seen every discussion concerning the Democratic primary turn into a forum where people vent about Hillary´s wrongdoings, many times in a vicious tone. Even when the post wasn´t about Hillary. Even when it was specifically asked to employ feminist frames for every argument. And still I wrote nothing.
Go Hillary.
I have discovered that many political pundits find it justifiable to call a Presidential candidate a ''cunt'' or a ''whore''. I have found out that on a major network, someone can call a Presidential candidate´s daughter a ''whore'', and her mother a ''pimp'', and that it was not a broad consensus that this was unacceptable. I have had to cope with the fact that denouncing misogyny makes you ridicule and highly problematic according to a very liberal news anchor. And still I wrote nothing.
Go Hillary.
I believe the electoral system is completely broken, and that considering it the staple of democracy is an integral, essential part of the subjugation of people. I don´t trust any candidate to solve the problems that ordinary people face. Especially if left to their own device, of course, no matter how competent they are. I expect every candidate to protect the interests of massive corporations, and thus perpetuate some of the grave injustices that are ripping this world apart.
I believe nothing is more dangerous than handing somebody, anybody, an enormous amount of power and trust that they will do well without being scrutinized and held accountable every step of the way. Without constant social pressure, governments will act in detriment of the public. What really matters for progressives is not the identity of the person at the helm, but the continued involvement of everyone else to push their reivindications on the table. In fact, I believe true change will be having power be exerted by the people. As zapatistas say, what is needed is that the people command, and government obeys.
I am quite certain Hillary Clinton won´t fix the economy of the USA. Simply because it can´t be fixed, because it´s systemic, and we are approaching the end of the free-market system and it will happen through a series of crisis. What is happening right now is just the beginning, and whatever measures governments may undertake, they won´t prevent the total collapse of economy as we know it.
I do not arbour any hope that Hillary Clinton will be a just President for the rest of the world. I sincerely believe she too will order and cover up war crimes or crimes against humanity punishable by international justice, as all the presidents of the USA have.
And the USA will still export war, poverty and destruction if Hillary Clinton is the next president.
But I still root for Hillary Clinton to become the next resident of the White House, since it is clear these elections will take place and someone will be sitting in the Oval room next year. And right now, in the circumstances we are in, some positive things can actually come off it. I am actually excited (not ecstatic and certainly not uncritical) to imagine Senator Clinton as the next president.
Here are a few reasons why:
I respect her. She has had to deal with crap of a horrifying magnitude, and she has come out stronger because of it. Seriously, I am not sure there is another human being who has had to face such shitstorms and insults from the media and the authorities over her private life. That, to me, speaks of a tremendous internal strength, and it truly is something admirable.
She is utterly competent and unbelievably brilliant. And that is something I am impressed by approximately every millenium, so it is a big deal in my eyes. She really is smart, far away from the teleprompters, independently from the rousing speeches. She knows the facts, she analyzes them, she builds her arguments herself and crafts revisions and improvements of her thoughts as reality and conversations dictate, and just by using her brains. In short, she truly thinks, and that is something invaluable. I mean it. Nothing has hurt political perspectives in the USA more than the deification of stupidity. How are people supposed to solve problems if they can´t understand them and come up with sensible solutions?
As a human being, I think she is empathetic and principled. I recognize this is higly subjective, but it is not an aside for me. In fact, if I didn´t feel that way, everything else would mean a peanut´s ass to me.
-I have the feeling she genuinely loves people, genuinely enjoys teaching and being taught about being an example, and that far away from the cameras and the polls, she genuinely enjoys sharing the many experiences of life.
-I have a feeling she sees LGBTs as real, normal, quirky people, whom you can love without reserve, because you could imagine yourself as one without feeling demeaned. That is something really, really important to me. Not once have I gotten the feeling that she would treat anyone differently in person because of their sexual orientation or gender expression (I am less sure of that one, to be honest, but just because I have no concrete data about it). Hell, I can easily imagine her flirting good-naturedly with a woman!
-She has never wavered about abortion, and in her declarations consistently emphasizes the necessity for women´s autonomy upon their bodies, which makes me feel she gets what it really is about. It´s one thing to blather bleakly about keeping abortion legal, it´s another to make women the center of the discussion.
Some of her principles I loathe, especially the ones concerning national security issues and the imperialist essence of the USA. But I get the feeling she doesn´t flip-flop about her beliefs, and that she really guides herself according to her set of principles. I don´t see her as a panderer (still someone who would compromise over some essential issues in the name of political efficiency, as her posture about gay marriage shows, so she doesn´t get a free pass at all, but there is a difference).
And finally, because she is a woman. Seriously. Imagine what it would mean, symbolically, for a woman to become President of the USA. An unapologetically feminist one. An incredibly strong one. The most reviled of political women, because she has never apologized for being so smart and ambitious. One who has had to earn everything twice over. It is a big deal to have a woman as president in the USA. Because it´s a country that prides itself on being the absolute boss, and because that notion still is completely linked with masculinity in the unconscious mind. Because some movements in the USA lead the way in fundamentalist thinking, and they have managed to leave some deep imprints on the entire population. Because even if Hillary is quite hawkish, it is a staggering blow to militaristic patriarchy to have a woman as Commander-in-chief. It might not seem like much at first, but it is, because it blows to pieces the gender-essentialist view that permeates EVERYTHING. Not just in the USA, in the entire world. It would have a ripple effect throughout many parts of the globe, I am convinced of it.
Really. Close your eyes, and imagine Hillary Clinton addressing the nation and popping up in every TV across the USA and talking about what´s going on and what should be done. Imagine TV-news across the world showing her talking and discussing policies at every table, at every forum. Imagine how matter-of-fact it would become after a while for many people who aren´t self-assumed sexist to think of women as capable, visible, and apt to deal with every kind of situation.
Hillary Clinton has bested the old boys´s at their game, a game that is rigged so that women always lose. She had to compromise and endure being constantly derided for a long time, but even while she played by their rules, she never gave up on she was, who she wanted to be, and what she thought was the right answer. She follows her own will ! Every woman, every person who is seen as a minority first, knows how remarkable that is. Because the unequality in power always means that as the abnormal one, you should shut up and fit in with the purposes of those who exert power. You may gain recognition and the right not to be mocked, but you need to act meekly and follow the lead of the structure around you.
Hillary has managed to determine her path. That´s no small feat. As a feminist, I need to recognize that, recognize the costs. And since I do, I rejoice, because if Hillary tears down the obstacles in her way, it will open up the door for many other women who currently don´t stand a chance to become president BECAUSE they are women, other women who may have even more merits than Hillary. In fact, I would argue that it really is necessary that Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic candidate and the President of the USA this time around, because if she doesn´t, I think the door for women could close for quite some time. What woman stands more of a chance both in the primaries and the general election, on the Democratic side?
So yes, I find motives for excitement in the candidacy of Senator Hillary Clinton. And now, I find myself oddly invigorated, and quite hopeful, seeing how that candidacy is going.
Senator Hillary Clinton won the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania yesterday, by a 10 point margin. She overcame the fact that a lot of people, visible, preeminent, supposedly progressive people sensed and announced her impending doom. Again. She had already done it, when both Texas and Ohio were called must-win states for her and she came through with two wins.
Hillary Clinton didn´t give up, not even when high-ranked representatives of her party insisted she had to drop out of the race because she had already lost. She never gave up: not when it was crystal-clear the entire media was against her, not when it was clear she and her family would be subjected to an abject treatment, not when it was clear many people would resort to every dirty tactic to defeat her, not when it was clear many supposedly progressive people would not defend her dignity as a human being, as a woman.
The elections were unfavourable to her; the electoral results put her against the wall, and she didn´t crack under the pressure.
She is still standing, she is still strong. It is time I wrote this:
Go Hillary.
And if you manage to win, I can promise this: I will be examining every single decision you make, and organize to fight for your policies when they are a step in the right direction, or against them when they´re wrong.
Apr 2, 2008
Donde lxs rebeldes son subversivxs con todo.
No había comentado hasta ahora esos eventos, porque buscaba entenderlos mejor.
Pero este artículo logró hacer que me indignara en serio, así que me decidí por hablar al respeto.
El artículo busca revelar la falsedad de la versión oficial manejada por los medios de comunicación occidentales, y para ese fin demuestra la existencia de conexiones de toda índole entre la CIA y los poderes occidentales por un lado, y varios actores de la insurgencia tibetana por el otro. Pero ese artículo opaca y deforma muchas cuestiones importantes en el conflicto tibetano.
Para evitar malas interpretaciones, me parece extremadamente importante exponer todos los hechos, y por lo tanto la exploración que hizo ese artículo de los nexos entre la CIA, los intereses occidentales y algunos sectores de la revuelta tibetana me pareció esencial para un debate informado del tema.
De la misma manera, me pareció indispensable que se les diera voz a quienes fueron agredidxs
durante las protestas, a través de los testimonions de lxs afectadxs y de lxs turistas testigxs,
precisamente porque sufrieron en carne propia una injusticia intolerable, independientemente de
cuál es nuestra posición de fondo sobre el conflicto.
Pero, pero... Me parece que el artículo comete unos errores muy graves. Más allá de la
manipulación que llevó a las revueltas tal y como sucedieron, existen razones muy reales para
que el pueblo tibetano quiera exigir un cambio drástico, llámese independencia o no. El pueblo
tibetano ha sufrido un genocidio por parte de las autoridades chinas. De eso no hizo ninguna
mención el artículo, y esa omisión hace imposible dar una visión fiel de los acontecimientos y del
contexto en el que se enmarcan.
Las campañas de colonización orquestradas por el gobierno chino para llenar la "provincia" con
otras etnias son un hecho, y como en otros lados, como en todos lados, eso es "limpieza étnica".
Ha habido, en los hechos, un culturicidio, un etnocidio severo y sin piedad.
Aunque muchxs de quienes iniciaron las revueltas hayan sido agentes, o sólo entrenadxs por la
CIA, hay otrxs tibetanxs que luchan por la independencia, autonomía real (o como se le quiera
llamar) de su país.
El artículo en los hechos redujo la problemática de Tibet a la intervención de la CIA, negando la
existencia de personas como Gendun Choephel, que aún criticando la teocracia de los diferentes
Dalaï Lamas, reclamaban la autodeterminación y la dignidad para el pueblo tibetano.
Por otra parte, me pareció extremadamente problématico que el artículo repitiera hasta el
cansancio la noción de que "no eran manifestantes, eran criminalxs." Acaso se ha olvivado
ya cuántas veces se ha invocado precisamente ese pretexto para justificar la represión en contra
de activistas sociales? El 28 de mayo del 2004, en Guadalajara, con ese mismo pretexto, las
autoridades detuvieron y torturaron a más de 120 individuos, amparadas por la destrucción de
varios negocios y destrozos en la calle.
En cuanto a "las bandas de jóvenes revoltosos", acaso no recuerda el autor los motines en
Francia en el 2005? Sí, eran revoltosos, sí, cometieron destrozos, sí, hubo injusticias de su parte,
pero eso no debe ser pretexto para así nada más cerrarnos al análisis. Porque un análisis más
profundo, más justo, tiene que reconocer que el estallido nace de la profunda exclusión en la que
vivían, viven lxs jóvenes francesxs de los suburbios pobres e inmigrantes, tiene que condenar la
cerrazón total de las autoridades para dialogar e intentar resolver sus problemas de fondo. Por
supuesto que así actuaron las autoridades; ese ostracismo, esa ghettoización no son más que el
resultado poco presentable pero inherente al capitalismo salvaje.
En una revista claramente de izquierda, no les parece preocupante poder leer
"¿No reclamarían una intervención policial enérgica y duras sanciones?".
No. No todo el mundo lo haría. Algunxs sabemos demasiado bien que en manos de un gobierno
antidemocrático, como lo es el gobierno chino sin lugar a dudas y como lo son la mayoría de los
gobiernos de la Tierra, las duras sanciones no son más que masivas violaciones a los derechos
humanos y una mordaza en contra de las demandas legítimas de los pueblos.
Una vez más, el hecho de que haya habido intervención turbia en estos acontecimientos en Tibet
no significa que debamos dar el asunto por cerrado y negar la voz de quienes sinceramente luchan
por la dignidad, la justicia y la libertad para lxs Tibetanxs. Y lxs hay, como en todos lados donde el
ser humano sufre y respira.
Me pareció muy desatinado el tratamiento que le dió el artículo a las demandas de parte de lxs
manifestantes de que también el Xinjiang y la Mongolia interior se separen de China. Decir que
pretenden "desmembrar China" es falso y sobretodo amarillista. En ningun momento están
hablando de hacer desaparecer el estado chino como tal, ni de reducirlo a la nada quitándole la
mayoría de su extensión territorial. Se trata de dos "provincias" que han tenido de manera
notable tratamiento especial de parte de las autoridades chinas. En el caso del Xinjiang, están
documentadas masivas violaciones a los derechos humanos e injusticias gravísimas en contra de
los Uïghures del lugar. Entre lxs varixs presxs políticxs y los ensayos nucleares en la zona sin el
consentimiento de la población, no existirán razones genuinas para la existencia de un
movimiento a favor de la autodeterminación de lxs Uïghures promovido por ellxs mismxs? Y si
lxs Tibetanxs se hacen solidarixs, eso lxs hace criminales?
Cómo no sorprenderse frente a lo hipócrito de esa posición en izquierditas que escriben en
Rebelión, revista en donde se aplauden esfuerzos como el Foro Social Mundial o la Zezta
Internacional que buscan enlazar resistencias y luchas de todo el mundo, reconociendo sus
causas comunes?
Y en cuanto a la utilización de medios violentos, que no quede duda. Para mí, claro que la
agresión deliberada, el sadismo y el asesinato en contra de ciudadanxs pacíficxs, tal como lo que
sucedió en Lhassa es reprobable e intolerable. Pero el artículo usó un tono de miedo, me atrevería
a decirlo, burgués, como desaprobando todos los ataques al orden y todas las destrucciones de
propiedad privada. Acaso condena el autor al valiente pueblo de Oaxaca, que durante meses
resistió crímenes de estado, y promovió una democracia participativa en las barricadas, las
comunidades indígenas, las asambleas de mújeres y de maestrxs? Acaso no recuerda el autor que
la Comuna de Oaxaca sobrevivió gracias a barricadas hechas de trailers secuestrados, que se
distinguió por sus graffitis intempestivos y llenos de creatividad, que la acusaron de causar la
muerte del turismo y de la propiedad privada?
En su afán por desenmascarar los intereses sucios de EEUU, Francia, Alemania y demás aliados,
en su necesidad de desmarcarse de lxs occidentales manipuladxs por la versión oficial de los
medios de comunicación, Michel Collon presentó otra versión igualmente deficiente, y
extrañamente guiada por la misma aversión hacia los daños a la propiedad privada, lxs radicales
y los "separatismos" que ponen en peligro la seguridad nacional de los estados.
La situación en Tibet requiere que relativicemos si muchos países apoyaron o no las medidas
chinas, y lo que Sarkozy declaró o no. Ellxs en el poder juegan segun unas líneas bien marcadas,
que poco contemplan las nociones de justicia y de verdad. En éste caso, las cuestiones subyacentes
son tales que el asunto cobra una importancia vital desde un punto de vista geopolítico, económico,
financiero, y de "seguridad interna" para los estados. Es de esperarse que suscite guerras opuestas
de contrainfromación.
Pero ni el pueblo tibetano, ni los demás pueblos oprimidos del mundo se pueden dar el lujo de
perder de vista que la autodeterminación de los pueblos es un derecho, y que la injusticia, venga
de donde venga, es nuestro peor enemigo para dejar de ser esclavxs.
Dualidad simplista, yin y yang de pacotilla, a la mierda!
Hay cosas que repiten los medios de comunicación oficiales mil veces al día, con el propósito siempre de impedir el pensamiento crítico. De manera general, es estremecedora la existencia de dogmas oficiales en todos los ámbitos, y son abundantes las pruebas de que en su casi totalidad, corresponden a las premisas del pensamiento conservador y capitalista.
Hay que reberlarnos en contra de éstos, claro, para descubrir verdades silenciadas.
Sí, pero también hay equivalente del lado de la izquierda. Algo que se llama "pensamiento hamburguesa", que hace que muchxs izquierdistas repitan las mismas cosas, una y otra vez, que empleen las mismas palabra en todos lados, bien masticadas y practicadas, declamando en tono grandioso teorías e interpretaciones de largo alcance pero totalemente ajenas, sin que hayan sido pensadas por unxs mismx, de manera crítica.
Ese pensamiento hamburguesa de la izquierda tiene bien identificados a los enemigos. Los occidentales, el capitalismo, y todas sus variaciones.
En consecuencia, también tiene bien identificados a los aliados. Chávez, Cuba, los comunistas son algunos de los más prominentes en América Látina.
El problema es que como con todo pensamiento idolizado, como con todo dogma, se cae en el maniqueísmo y en la renuencia a los matices. Se crea entonces un tabú en torno a las críticas dirigidas en contra de quienes se consideran aliados. Si eres de izquierda, hacer críticas hacia Chávez por ejemplo es de mal gusto, casi de traidores. Debes hacer bloque y defender a los aliados en todas circunstancias.
El problema con esto es bastante obvio. Si la bronca con la brutalidad policiaca es que la institución siempre encubre sus elementos, si es inaceptable ver cómo los sacerdotes católicos son protegidos del mundo exterior por su iglesia, no podemos nosotrxs también caer en el reflejo de defender a "lxs nuestrxs" sin importar lo que hacen, no podemos nosotrxs también tener un espíritu de cuerpo que nos haga cerrar filas frente a los reclamos de justicia externos.
Cómo equivocarse sin traicionarse?
Lo que nos debe guiar siempre hacia nuestro mundo soñado de justicia, paz, dignidad y libertad es la verdad. La verdad de los hechos, no de las teorías. La disponibilidad para reconocer cuando cualquiera de nosotrxs la caga, la disponibilidad para reconocer las injusticias, aún en nuestro seno, la disponibilidad para siempre buscar la difícil justicia.
En la película "Water", de Deepa Metha, Gandhi afirma: "yo creía que Dios era la verdad. Pero me di cuenta de que la verdad es dios." Sin ella, el mundo seguirá siendo campo de batalla de ciegxs fanáticxs ansiosxs por el poder.
Mar 7, 2008
Beyond recognition, in the name of salvation.
Just a thought. You know how the prevailing attitude about rape and women is that women are at fault if they "tempt" men and suffer the consequences? And that´s why women have to be careful and not do this and not do that? If we weren´t so blinded by our upbringing, we might take a second to pause and think it through, and see how illogical that is.
Let´s see. According to most people, the idea is that women do something, men can´t control themselves, they rape women, so women have to be more responsible and give up doing certain things. What? If that´s really their explanation,well, if men are doing the raping because men can´t control themselves, then it´s men´s freedom that should be limited.
We just never stop to see things in that light, socially speaking. One of the main reasons why, I think, is that monotheistic religious thought has really molded our point of view, and it brought inextricably with itself this misplacement of responsibility.
The three monotheistic religions affirm that there is 1 god, that he (yes, he, of course) is omnipotent and completely benevolent, that people are born to do his will, and that people who aren´t good servants to him will go to hell for their deeds. Okay, okay, so let me understand. That god could do anything, anything at all, but he lets horrible things happen because they are all a part of his ultimate, grand plan for the world, and he is absolutely wonderful no matter what, nothing is his fault? He is responsible for everything that happens, but in the end it´s people who have to pay, eternally, for horrible things upon which they didn´t have total control since it´s always god who has the last say in any matter?
So, there you have. Since the monotheistic god is completely benevolent and perfect, he cannot be blamed for anything that happens. People suffer the consequences of their limited responsibility, while god´s behaviour goes unchecked despite omnipotence and total responsibility.
That´s why monotheistic religions reproduce the same pattern of women-blaming, and cannot let go of it. Religious mindfuck and rape go hand in hand. Examining why would call too much attention to this warped idea of responsibility and probably lead to questioning their god and the authority of the churches that defined him so.
Not only does this mirror the subservient treatment of women because of men´s failures, it reflects all the "licking the master´s boots and blaming the victims for anything gone wrong" subset so prevalent in our societies that built themselves with a hierarchical, monopolistic church in the midst.
The poor supposedly choosing to be so, the LGBT people allegedly deciding to be inmoral and thus rightly bashed, and every other example in the same vein all stem from the cognitive dissonance that this impossible idea of god creates.
Mar 4, 2008
Some eye-patches gone unnoticed..
The Democratic primary in the USA always constitutes one of the few opportunities to stir a debate within the population about problems of vital importance that otherwise go silently in the books. And so with that in mind, I give you a non-American-centered view of the rhetorics on NAFTA.
The primaries in Ohio and Michigan brought NAFTA to the forefront of the campaign. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama essentially gave statements (even if it could just be more of the usual "demagoguery as politics") that proclaimed the necessity to "sit down with Canada and Mexico" and renegotiate the treaty in favor of the USA, or else !
Well, there´s a newsflash for you: if you think the original negotiations regarding NAFTA consisted of Mexico´s or Canada´s governments imposing their terms to the USA government, you really haven´t payed attention to how the world really works. The USA government basically penned the whole deal, mindlessly listened to what the other parties had to say, made a few minor concessions, and voilà, North America was on its way to prosperity!
The obscenely rich (and mildly rich) people in the USA just got wealthier, you mean. Because as with the enormous majority of "free trade" deals negotiated by governments around the world, only the elites were allowed an input.
There´s another newsflash for you: speaking of Mexico, threatening with leaving the agreement doesn´t make people shake with fear. The elites, of course, are another matter. Their whole parasitic existence depends on the USA government beneplacite. But common, non-sycophantic people? Many, many, maaany would actually celebrate with cries of joy if the whole NAFTA deal ceased existing.
Let´s talk about Mexico, by the way. Talking about renegotiating the NAFTA deal by putting an emphasis on less complacence towards Mexico would be absurd if it wasn´t so damn tragic.
NAFTA made it a hundred times easier for American investments to land a gig in Mexico, profit a hundredfold, and return home with no long-term benefits whatsoever for Mexican people. If we´re talking about the industry, Mexico´s control on innovation just all but disappeared following NAFTA, many industries just began exporting cheap products towards the USA on a never-before seen level while Mexico continued to import almost every high-technological level products, and so on and so forth.
The workers´s conditions went south abysmally, the agriculture is just dead, buried and decomposed, and we could literally go on for hours about the ruin that is the Mexican economy since NAFTA.
The Mexican population has gained nothing, nothing, neither prosperity nor security nor education, because of the NAFTA trade. The only ones who took advantage were the businessmen and politicians, who became billionaires with their hands in their pockets and their mouths constantly yapping, surprise surprise.
The truth of the matter is that in Mexico, the unfathomably corrupt, incompetent authorities agree to everything the USA government wants and get rich in the process, while the people just lose and lose and lose. Hope, perspectives in their homeland, money, independence, you name it, NAFTA made common Mexicans worse off in every aspect.
And it´s not only a matter of earning 5 dollars a day in many jobs, or having to leave your beloved country (if you have ever met an expatriated Mexican, you know they only swear by all things Mexican) behind and risk your life to get in the USA. Supreme irony, isn´t it? Every single measure that makes Mexican people poorer drives more and more of them into the USA, something which everybody and their army of snails realize. NAFTA is at the head of this list of measures if you´re not busy sticking your head into the sand.
No, what´s more, the bold and perfect embodiment of neoliberalism and capitalism at its most ambitious best, the project that would bring Mexico out of poverty and in the glorious arms of a post-history 21st century, the one and only (we wish) NAFTA, its masters and its cronies have caused bloodshed and serial rape by policemen and ethnic cleansing.
At least. An explanation? Let´s start here. The emissary of the Carlyle Group in Mexico, a Luis Téllez, was named by US-backed Calderón as Secretary of Communications and Transports. Why not Energy, you´ll ask, since oil clearly is the biggest thing on the USA government´s mind since, well, forever. Simple, it so happens that Communications and Transports is the key place where you can implement the next Great idea, the next catastrophe, the Plan Puebla-Panama. And be barely noticed while doing so, since it´s not considered a mediatic secretary, always a big plus for the Carlyle group.
For instance, ever since former vende-patria in-chief Fox failed to get his Texcoco airport, the matter has been a thorn in the government´s side. So much so that on May 3d and 4th of 2006, at 6.15 AM, 5000 policemen entered the small town of San Salvador Atenco, the bastion of resistence against the airport for more than 4 years, and proceeded to drag sleeping people out of their beds, kill a 14 tears old boy and a 20 years old student, kick a man almost to death, torture more than 200 people, and rape more than 40 women for the 5 hours it took to drive people to jail.
And since this, you´ll ask...
Since Téllez was intronized as Communication tsar, the government has made quiet advances towards building the airport. Instead of trying to openly kick the Atenquenses out of their ancestral land, the government is now buying it. 8 dollars a square meter, which appears to be a lot to poor Mexicans, that the Mexican government would then sell for more than 3 000 dollars a square meter when beginning the construction of the airport. Justice, you say?
This is but one example of how the deals that make USA companies richer and the USA economy stronger bleed another country´s inhabitants. Look no further than Atenco; look no further than Montes Azules in Chiapas, where tzeltales and tzotziles indigenous people are being expulsed from their lands in the name of eco-tourism. Look no further than this place in northern Sonora where kids, kids no older than 12 are literally enslaved to pick tomatoes later exported to the USA by the G-mark company (scroll down till Wednesday 25th).
So Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, next time you open your mouth to talk about renegotiating NAFTA, keep the delusional US-centrist view of reality out of it. You want all Americans to benefit? That´s good. America isn´t only the USA, you know. Realize that Mexico and Canada are in fact sovereign nations, and that every single human being from Alaska to the Río Suchiate (and stretching it further, the Cape Horn) has the right to pursuit of happiness and utter dignity, not just being a USA lackey. Thank you.
Mar 3, 2008
Unseen and carved.
(This photo by Stephanie Sinclair won the Unicef prize for photo of the year in 2007. Newly-weds Mohammed, 40, and wife, Ghulam, 11.)
And you know what tugs at my heartstrings? I can´t fathom what that little girl is going through, but it absolutely kills me to know, just know that there are some people, many men in particular, who won´t see this as a big deal, who truly won´t bleed in the inside, whose first and last reaction will be to try to rationalize the fear of this little girl. The fact that her wedding night will essentially be legalized rape will slip by them with nary a thought (and yes, rape it is if she doesn´t have the freedom to independently decide and give the final say in the matter, rape it is if she doesn´t actively pursue it). Oh, maybe they´ll feel a little bit indignant about her age, and consider the marriage between an 11 years old girl and a 40 years old man another one of those barbarian customs Afghans maintain. Xenophobia here we come !
But for all those who consider marriage and heterosexism destiny for a woman, no matter what society they come from, it´s just seen as the inevitable thing that came to pass too soon. On some deep, internalized level, many societies on Earth have completely accepted, to speak in crude but nonetheless true terms, that a woman has value only insofar as she abides by some set of rules that determines what penis will be shoved into her. Which is why a machist view of rape centers on the notion of stolen property; in the end, it inherently repels the notion that a woman can NOT enjoy being penetrated by a man, any man. It´s not only about consistently telling a lesbian that a real man will make her enjoy it; in the same fashion, it´s feeling that marital rape is at best a little silly and at worst offendingly absurd. And yes, it´s also about declaring that pedophilia is perverted stuff, because if you just waited a few years, you could have it for free.
Many fundamentally sexist world views have an obsession and general horror towards the sexual activities of gay men and women in general. No wonder; in a phallocentrist vision of sex, the value of an individual hangs only on the use that is given to their body orifices. Be it oral or anal sex, a sexist perspective defines homosexual sex between men by the penetrating part. You know how the introduction in Law and Order: Special Victims Unit states that sexual crimes are considered among the worst and most heinous crimes? That´s because in a gender-essentialist society, sex is essentially a way to establish and assert a hierarchy of power (it´s no surprise so many confluate homosexuality and pedophilia, they see both acts as the same in terms of power).
In the case of women, it is understood that they will perform their role of sex partners for men, and so sex is seen as inseparable from "the woman condition". But it is only as sex objects; the one setting the tone is invariably the man, and so the fact that a woman could pursue sex on her own terms is unthinkable, unacceptable and repulsive. Look at how despised women who seek sex as they choose are in our society, and at the same time how the conservative, traditional representations of sex demean women. From porn to the jokes about how a husband has to barter with his wife for her to accept to have sex with him, from the countless sex scenes where only the man acts and the woman just whimpers, to the special uproar reserved at women who cheat, it is clear how in a conservative culture, sex should be done to a woman by the one man or the many entitled to it, and she should take everything that man dishes at her and make him feel good about it.
For sexist, phallocentric, gender-essentialist bigots (and there are tendrils of that worldview in all of us), being penetrated is being subjected by somebody with superior power. It makes women mere outlets for men´s desires, and gay men women-like and thus objects of scorn.
But that´s the difference in the gender-essentialist view of homosexual men and women: by failing to perform their "natural" role, the former choose to lower themselves, while women´s entire existence is defined by their vagina. They are born "lowered".
Some men like to pontificate about how "all women have rape fantaisies". For all people who were born women or in a woman´s body and as such considered women, from the moment of their birth it has been instilled in them that they have something which men want and are entitled to. That in the end they are something which men want and are entitled to. Rape is the materialization of something announced to you since you had the use of reason, a nightmare always feared that you have no right to be surprised by.
You can rationalize away everything you want, in the end, it comes down to feeling another´s pain as your own, recognize them as equal in essence, and also recognize the same oppression; maybe that´s why for so many people, Afghan or not, western or not, women or not, this little girl´s eyes won´t go away...
Feb 18, 2008
1+1 can be 3 or 0.
For me, political discussions often turn out to be either infuriating or downright exhilarating. I can disagree with someone and still learn a lot from our conversation, come away thinking. It can be about many things, from euthanasia to homophobia, from the roles churches have played to modifications in the world order, and so on and so forth, but in the end, it always come down to an essential matter to me. Do we share some basic principles we guide ourselves from? I mean, can we actually understand each other?
Because if we´re discussing a law for example and one of us is insisting on how necessary and great it is in spite of the other person trying to point out how it will negate some people´s rights... Instead of a debate, it turns out to be an argument where we repeat ourselves over and over and accomplish nothing. Imagine two people in a market who don´t speak the same language, put their hands at the same time on a pineapple and begin to talk at the same time, don´t understand each other, fight over the fruit, and end up walking away frustrated or disgusted. That´s what it feels like to me.
For instance, when I´m talking about sexual diversity with a gender-essentialist person, after pointing out how LGBT people have their dignity denied by laws and prejudice, and the other person keeps harping about moral values, I´m left with asking over and over in different ways why they don´t care about the people their attitudes severely damage, and they´re left with asking in a myriad ways why I care. Why what "these people" do should matter when it´s contrary to God´s will, nature and good values, or any other pretext they come with.
Well, there´s
Yes, when I find myself talking with somebody devoid of empathy towards actual beings, it just frustrates me and makes my guts churn to no end. Because it´s not a pineapple that´s at stake between all human beings. It´s the life and happiness and rights of all of us who share this Earth, it´s our legacy as sentient beings given a choice.
And then there are the other conversations. When I actually feel it in my stomach that the other person just loves life and living beings and tries as hard as I do to act with passion and uncompromising coherence, that they´re here for joy and justice for all. Skin tingles all over; clouds and night skies swirl in my head.
It makes it all worth it.