Femagination » Politics

The Nature of War

Ellen Keim — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:30:45 +0000

Poater by Michaelsen Rolf (Norway)

After I wrote my last post about women impinging on men’s territory, it occurred to me that I had hit on the very reason why there’s a war between the sexes in the first place. Because what is war anyway but a conflict over territory? Even when the purported reason for the war is to protect some ideal or philosophy, it all boils down to a battle for territory.

Take the war in Iraq. Bush justified it as a fight for democracy, but in reality it was to protect our territory. Those who orchestrated the war wanted to make sure that no one (read terrorists) would ever be able to take over America. And, to be honest, it was also to protect our “territory” in the sense of our access to Middle Eastern oil.

Everyone has territory. It can be physical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual, philosophical, familial—you name it, we all have it. The reason why territory is so important to us is because what we “possess” makes up a great deal of our identities. Who would you be without your possessions, both material and immaterial? Without your home, your family, your religion, your ideas? And make no mistake, even with those things that are also possessed by others (like religion), we will still protect our version of it.

One of the things we possess is our roles. If anyone tries to take over our “God-given” roles, we become defensive, even aggressive. Thus the man feels threatened when his wife makes more than he does, because his special role is to be the provider. And his wife tends to shut him out of the things that define her role as a wife and mother: nurturing and consoling the children, decorating and maintaining the home.

That’s why it’s hard to let go of these roles even among egalitarian couples. The father might be all for his wife contributing to the family’s net worth, and yet resents it when she does it better than he does. The mother is all for sharing parenting and household tasks, but finds fault with everything her husband does.

It’s not so much that we want to prevent others from trespassing on our territory, it’s that we want to retain control over it. They can “visit” all they want; we just don’t want them to take over. You can see this dynamic when women become mothers. It’s especially hard when our children are infants, for instance, to relinquish control over their care. We want our husbands to help out, but we feel uncomfortable or even angry when they try to do too much.

By the time our children are older and we could really use help taking them to doctor appointments and attending their school events, not to mention disciplining them, the pattern is already set. We may chafe under the responsibilities of child-rearing, but by then we’ve bought into the idea that they’re our responsibilities.

And it’s not just men who make us feel threatened when they attempt to usurp our parenting role. Sometimes we feel even more threatened by other women: the nanny, our mothers, our exes’ second wives. One of the things that made me hate my children’s stepmother when they were little was when she had their hair cut short (really short) during a summer visit. I still can’t believe the gall of that woman! Who did she think she was—their mother?? (And of course, I blamed my ex, too, for allowing her to do it; he impinged on my territory.)

It seems to me, however, that it is men who feel the most threatened than women do by the opposite sex’s intrusion into their territories. Men have a thing about defending their territory. They also like expanding it.That could be what gets us into wars. Would the world be better off if more leaders were women? Not necessarily. Because once we’ve identified our territories, we can be just as ferocious as men in defending them.

It’s normal for humans to want to have areas of expertise that are unique to them. But can we afford the idea that we don’t have to share with anyone else? Look at the United States. It prides itself on being the epitome of democracy. But that only makes us look down on all other forms of government. And it makes us feel that we can tell (or force) other countries to do it our way.

Our insistence on protecting our territory is one reason why we refuse to co-operate with other countries. All we care about is protecting our own boundaries. It makes sense that the U.S. enjoyed the most good will during and after World War II, when it co-operated with other nations against Hitler’s and the Japanese’s attempts to take over the world. Compare that with the world’s attitude toward the U.S. now that we’re going it alone in Iraq. Or when we refused to participate in the Kyoto Protocol against global warming.

The reason this last point is significant is because co-operation is exactly what is needed in order to prevent war, whether it’s war against other countries or the war between the sexes. We have to stop thinking in terms of territory and open our boundaries to the influence of others.

Unfortunately, we’re not seeing many instances of co-operation these days. That could partly be because we protect our territory more when we feel it’s being threatened. Those who have recently or historically held the upper ground are feeling threatened by groups they feel are attempting to take over. Christians feel threatened by Muslims, Americans by terrorists, Republicans by Democrats, conservatives by liberals, Arizona by Mexico, Wall Street by Main Street, the rich by the poor, men by women.

War should always be a last resort. But too often it is the first reaction to a breach of territory. There are other ways to achieve ends that will satisfy the majority. But using them requires that we give up control over our perceived possessions (which can include intangibles like power, expertise, birthright, etc.). And that is something that few people are ready to do.

What’s With Arizona??

Ellen Keim — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 10:00:33 +0000

Arizona State Flag

Maybe it’s in the water. Maybe it’s the heat. Whatever it is, it’s bringing out the worst in the people of Arizona. I didn’t even realize that the governor, Jan Brewer, signed a bill into law last September denying benefits to domestic partners of state employees. The new law, which takes effect October 1, redefines “dependent” and excludes coverage for domestic partners, including heterosexual partners, children of domestic partners, disabled adult dependents, and full time students over 22 who are claimed as dependents.

Interestingly enough, the University of Arizona has decided to reinstate benefits to domestic partners, using funds separate from state money, in order to remain competitive in attracting talent. According to the Arizona Daily Star, about 20 employees of the University left because of the repeal of domestic partner benefits and some job offers were rejected for the same reason.

I’ve always seen the offering of benefits to domestic partners and other dependents as a way to get more people insured in America. Without those benefits, many people will not have health insurance at all. Why shouldn’t a person be able to cover more than herself on her policy if she is willing to pay the family premium? In fact, I think insurance policies ought to cover adult children indefinitely. There’s a terrible gap in insurance coverage between 22-year-olds and those who have finally established their careers to the point where they get employee benefits.

Nor do I think people should be forced to marry just so they can share a family insurance plan. It’s not the place of the state to pry into what kind of relationship domestic partners have.

This stinginess on the part of the Arizona legislators is only part of negative picture being painted of Arizonans. Besides signing into law the new immigration law that allows law enforcement officials to request proof of legal immigration, residency, or citizenship of anyone they suspect might be an illegal immigrant, the governor also signed a bill that bans ethnic studies classes in the state’s public schools. The new law (see PDF) bans classes that “promote the overthrow of the United States government,” “promote resentment toward a race or class of people,” “are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group,” or “advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.” (In Tucson alone, where the school district is 56 percent Hispanic, there are approximately 1,500 high school students enrolled in ethnic studies classes.)*

In other words, students are going to be discouraged from being proud of their ethnic heritage. I’m assuming that anything that might promote resentment toward the majority (white) population will also be discouraged (such as telling the truth about certain parts of history). And since when did ethnic study classes promote the overthrow of the U.S. government? I thought it was mainly the Christian militia nuts who advocated that.

As if all this weren’t enough, there is the recent brouhaha over one public elementary school’s decision to paint over the faces of “ethnic” schoolchildren on a mural outside of the school so that they would all be white. Why? Because people were yelling racial epithets at it as they drove by. (Drive-by harassment.) Apparently that action has been reversed, but the fact that they would do it in the first place is beyond belief. Mind you, these were pictures of actual students who attend the school. (See Huffington Post story for more details.)

I realize that the eyes of the media are on Arizona right now and that equally absurd things go on everywhere, but it does seem that Arizona has a racism (not to mention a homophobia) problem. And the fact that it has a high number of immigrants shouldn’t be an excuse for the prejudice. Some (most) people don’t like change, and this is a changing world. In spite of the United States’ relatively restrictive immigration policy, it still has a lot of immigrants. And they are having babies. OMG!

Soon whites won’t be the majority anymore, and then what will they do?

I guess what they are trying to do in Arizona.

* Source: Feminist Majority Foundation’s Feminist News

Why Do We Put Up With This??

Ellen Keim — Wed, 12 May 2010 10:00:44 +0000

It’s not that O’Reilly is a conservative—it’s that he’s a nasty conservative. I was appalled by his behavior in this video. Is that the kind of role model we want for our children? One woman wrote in and asked him that very question because of the way that he says “Shut up” so often. His answer: “I’ve only said it once.”

I’m surprised that conservatives, most of whom I’m sure are caring people with traditional values (like the importance of being courteous), will put up with this. Why is he still on the air?

Friday Videos: How to Make Friends and Influence Politicians

Ellen Keim — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:00:14 +0000

In this video, Omar Ahmad tells us the best way to influence politicians. Follow his directions step-by-step and you will make a difference.

The QuiverFull Movement: Family Non-Planning

Ellen Keim — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 00:11:34 +0000

You would have to be on a desert island to not know about the Duggar family who have been showcased on The Learning Channel (TLC). Jim Bob and Michelle have more than replaced themselves in this crowded world by adding 19 children to it. Of course, in some parts of the world, 19 isn’t unheard of. (And get this, the record number of children born to one woman is 69!*) But it’s rarity for the U.S.

What makes the Duggars particularly noteworthy is the reason they have so many children: They belong to the QuiverFull movement, which believes that it is God’s will for a woman to have as many children as she is able to. Contraception, even natural family planning, is a sin. (There’s also a group called Blessed Arrows which is for those who have been sterilized where they can “make amends for their sin” by getting reversals.)

Devotees of the QuiverFull movement teach that children are a blessing from God and that attempting to avoid a pregnancy is a subversion of God’s will. Everything is in God’s hands: the health of the mother or baby, the emotional and financial resources necessary to support another child, and the “so-called” problems of over-population and over-consumption. Obviously, they are against abortion, which puts them at odds with most feminists. That’s not the only thing that alarms feminists, however. They also preach that the man is the head of the household and the wife is to be submissive to him in all things. They blame all the ills of society on women wanting their own way, especially over their own bodies, which are meant to be a “living sacrifice” to God.

I thought four children were plenty. I can’t imagine how I would have managed with more. (I barely managed with four.) The problem with the QuiverFull ideology is a corollary of what it teaches: if you do not trust God for everything, you’re not much of a believer. You may not even be a “true” Christian. I see nothing wrong with seeing children as a blessing from God. But don’t ask me to prove that I’m a Christian by laying my health and the well-being of my family at the altar of complete submission. I believe that God means for us to use the reasoning powers He gave us to make decisions in our lives.

Needless to say, there are critics. One of the most enlightening is Vyckie Garrison of the web site No Longer Qivering (“There is no ‘you’ in quivering”). Vyckie, who has seven children but is no longer a part of the QuiverFull movement, is now working on a book, but don’t wait for it: check out her site now. She has plenty to say about “those who ruthlessly engender fear and dissatisfaction so they can offer their products as the remedy for the very malady which they themselves created.” QuiverFull adherents don’t usually go so far as to say that you’ll go to Hell if you practice birth control, but they certainly cause spiritual angst among their would-be followers. As Garrison puts it: “With promises of protection, security and ultimate victory, peddlers of ‘family values’ manufactured a culture war, and capitalized on our fears.”

If you read “Ten Great Reasons to Have Another Child” from the QuiverFull web site, you’ll get an idea of the mentality that fuels the QuiverFull movement. I had to scratch my head over #4: Have another child to help end abortion. The reasoning? “The more children there are in society, the more pro-life that society will become, and the easier it will be for the great evil of abortion to be eradicated once and for all. ” Right.

I agree that our society needs to become more child-friendly, but I don’t agree that having more children will make it so. And I don’t disagree with the notion that life is sacred. But doesn’t that mean that we should weigh the bringing of new life into the world carefully and not over-do it just for the sake of a short-sighted policy that says that having more children will solve all of society’s ills?

Women are dying around the world because of unrestricted child-bearing. And their babies often die, too. Wouldn’t controlling ourselves, moderation and careful family planning do more to protect those lives than forcing women’s bodies to go to the limit just for the sake of procreation?

Jane Addams: Woman For Her Time

Ellen Keim — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:08:26 +0000

It’s so easy to think of history as something stuffy and irrelevant. This is nowhere more true than when we’re reading about people who lived and died before our lifetimes. But if these same people were somehow transported into today’s reality, we would see more clearly how much influence they had in their own time.

Jane Addams is one of those people. She was born in 1860 and died in 1935. If she had been born a hundred years later she would be considered a Third Wave feminist. But she was much more than that. She started the settlement house movement* here in America. Besides her charitable work, she became a mover and shaker in politics. She was the first vice president of the National American Women’s Suffrage Association, a founding member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and a charter member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). She organized the Women’s Peace Party and the International Congress of Women. She was the first woman to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

With her accomplishments, if she were alive today, she would be more influential than all the present-day Third Wave feminists put together. She would be known internationally. And she would only be 50 years old. Her first book, Twenty Years at Hull House, was published exactly one hundred years ago this year and became a bestseller.

We still have the problems she worked so hard to combat: unemployment, lack of medical care and education for the poor, unfair and unsafe labor practices, discrimination against women, African-Americans and immigrants, and last but not least, war. But, unlike most of us, she would be doing something about them. About all of them.

I think what was the most astonishing about Addams was that she was active on so many fronts. Certainly there are women today who are “doing something.” They just aren’t putting themselves on the line the way Addams did. Her International Council of Women traveled to the Hague to try to diplomatically end World War I before the U.S. entered it. She lobbied the state of Illinois to examine laws governing child labor, the factory inspection system, and the juvenile justice system. She raised money for Hull House by lecturing and writing.

She was a mixture of Mother Jones and Mother Teresa (except not as irascible or saintly). In fact, she was not universally loved. There were those who called her a socialist, an anarchist, a communist and unpatriotic. (Sound familiar?) But she didn’t let that stop her. And she led many young people into social work along with her. She believed strongly in the necessity of action, not just for the sake of social justice, but for the sake of the young people themselves. In Twenty Years at Hull House she wrote:

We have in America a fast-growing number of cultivated young people who have no recognized outlet for their active faculties. They hear constantly of the great social maladjustment, but no way is provided for them to change it, and their uselessness hangs about them heavily…Many of them dissipate their energies in so-called enjoyment. Others not content with that, go on studying and go back to college for their second degrees; not that they are especially fond of study, but because they want something definite to do, and their powers have been trained in the direction of mental accumulation. Many are buried beneath this mental accumulation with lowered vitality and discontent. (pp. 120-121)

When the depression of the 1930′s struck, she saw many of the things she had fought for become policies under President Franklin Roosevelt. She received numerous awards during this time including, in 1931, the Nobel Peace Prize. She died four years later, at the age of 75.

*The settlement house (or community center) that she and one other woman, Ellen Gates Starr, founded in Chicago when she was only 29 (1889) was known as Hull House. It offered medical care, child care and legal aid. It also provided classes for immigrants to learn English, vocational skills, music, art and drama. In 1893, when a severe depression rocked the country. Hull House was serving over two thousand people a week. It still operates to this day.

The Equal Rights Amendment: Overdue or Overblown?

Ellen Keim — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:18:53 +0000

On this day in 1972, the United States Senate passed the Equal Rights Amendment by a vote of 84-8. Good news, right? Not really, because an amendment to the Constitution has to be ratified by two-thirds (or 38) of the states before it can take effect and when the ratification period was up, it had only garnered the support of 35. Close, but no cigar.

Alice Paul, author of the ERA, 1921

Many people today don’t even know what the ERA is, let alone know that it was authored by the suffragist Alice Paul and originally introduced in Congress in 1923. In 1946 it was narrowly defeated by a Senate vote of 38-35. In 1950, the ERA is passed by the Senate with a rider that nullifies its equal protection aspects. (So, you may ask, what’s the point?) When it finally is passed in 1972, an arbitrary time limit of seven years was set for ratification.

Five years before, the new National Organization for Women (NOW) vowed to fight tirelessly for passage of the ERA and as the clock ticked, it threw itself into the campaign to get enough votes for ratification. At the same time, so did the opposition, headed chiefly by Phyllis Schafly‘s National Committee to Stop ERA.

I remember all the hoopla at the time: seven short and hectic years in which both sides made crazy assertions about what the effects of an ERA would be. Its opponents insisted that it would take away the protections that women traditionally enjoy, from almost always getting custody of the children in the case of a divorce to exemption from the draft. They also contended that there were already plenty of laws in effect that protected women’s rights.

Its proponents, on the other hand, contended that women needed such an amendment so that the protection of their rights would be consistent at all levels of jurisdiction, federal, state and local. They were concerned that the age of majority was different for women than it was for men and that women were routinely discriminated against when it came to gaining employment, establishing credit, buying or selling property or conducting a business.

As it has turned out, the opposition was right on many points. Over the years, many laws have been challenged in the courts and been changed to prevent discrimination against women. Joint custody is the norm. Either sex may be required to pay alimony to the other. Federally-funded schools and programs are required to have the same standards and facilities for women as for men. Women’s participation is up in politics, academia and traditionally male professions. (Not only that, but jobs are no longer allowed to be classified as specifically for men or women.)

But things are not that neat. Women still make only 77 cents to the dollar compared to men. They are often relegated to “pink ghettos”–jobs that are considered to be women’s work and which have fewer benefits and lower pay than traditionally “male” occupations. (A parking lot attendant who is a man, for instance, makes more than a child care attendant who is a woman–showing that we value our cars more than our children.) Laws that have been changed can be changed back. Crimes against women (sexual harassment, rape, domestic violence) are not prosecuted as vigorously as they should be. And a lot of laws on the books still discriminate against women.

The ERA, or the CEA (Constitutional Equality Amendment), has been presented to Congress every year since 1982. But it is apparently no longer even newsworthy. Is it a dead issue? Consider this: Even Afghan women have an Equal Rights Amendment. Why shouldn’t we?

Sources: Interview with Gloria Steinem in the Los Angeles Times, NOW’s Chronology of the ERA, March 22, 1972 news story in the New York Times.

For more information, check out the University of North Carolina’s “Equal Rights Amendment Pathfinder.”

Christine de Pizan: Early Feminist Writer and Historian

Ellen Keim — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 10:12:52 +0000

For Women’s History Month I’m going to include some brief histories of famous women you may not have heard of. The first of these is Christine de Pizan.

Christine de Pizan lecturing to a group of men.

Christine de Pizan has been called Europe’s first professional woman writer. Born in 1365, married at 15 and widowed at 24, she turned to writing to support her mother, niece and three young children. Uncommonly well-educated for a woman of her day, she wrote extensively about love and chivalry, mythology and legends, peace, history and the misogyny of male authors who she felt denigrated women in their writings.

She began her writing career composing love ballads for wealthy patrons in the court of Charles V of France, writing over 300 in a span of 20 years. She also wrote and became well-known for her poetry. But she gained prominence at the turn of the century when she dared to criticize the author of the thirteenth-century poem, “The Romance of the Rose,” Jean de Meun, for what she considered to be the slander of women. She specifically objected to his depiction of women as nothing more than seductresses.

From there she moved on to her most successful literary works, The Book of the City of Ladies and The Book of the Three Virtues (or The Treasure of the City of Ladies). In them she attempted to show the importance of women’s past contributions to society and to teach women how to develop qualities that could help to counteract the problem of misogyny. Her final work, Tale of Joan of Arc, is valued by historians because it is the only record of Joan of Arc besides the documents of her trial.