Recently in Diablogs Category

I think the length of our blog entries really reflect how engaging this text was/is, regardless of how we may agree or disagree with some parts of it. The big thing that came up in our diablog was the amount of discomfort experienced while reading it. However, another important point, brought up early, in our diablog is the value in the tensions and contradictions of feminism(s). It's important to recognize why these sites of tension and contradictions emerge because it pays tribute to what Yee points our attention to "....what has led to the existence of "feminism" in the first place, and where feminism exists today" (13, emphasis mine). The book was/is a great way to turn the tables and to force those involved in feminist academia to experience the discomfort that we sometimes unknowingly inflict onto those that we are trying to form alliances with.

Additionally, in "deconstructing" the academic industrial complex of feminism we also have to recognize the possibilities in creating alliances and bridging spaces. There are a myriad of possibilities and the author's in this piece speak well to it when they say the work is not a "slam" on academic feminism, but rather a truth-telling of who and what gets lost in the schism. The authors are also right when they say that minority groups aren't always appreciated in the feminist community, especially because many academic feminists prioritize issues. Latoya Peterson's description of how someone can feel alienated from studying feminism touches on this as well. Having to worry about so many hopes and goals for the movement can take away from what issues are more personal to ourselves. Many academic feminists have different foci than Indigenous feminists, which causes them to feel separated from the movement. Although we should still maintain a connection between feminists, we don't have to "hold hands" and be an all-encompassing sisterhood.

This collection also gave us a good opportunity to revisit some of the themes we've touched on in class--the questions of what is who/ what is a feminist, and if the "feminist" identity exists. Or, "Why should I be shut down because I am an academic feminist? I don't have much experience to draw on, so why can't I try to learn about what other feminists deal with? I acknowledge that I can't fully comprehend the difficulties of oppression, and I don't think I ever will. However, I want to contribute something to the movement, and without any prior experiences, I turn to academia to give me the tools to do so" (laurenw127). During our class presentation it was brought up that motherhood, in relation to academia, was not mentioned. Parenting wasn't talked about specifically in the book and I thought it was something that definitely should have been included more. If I were going to write an essay to be included in "Feminism for Real" I think it would have something to do with how difficult it is for young moms to finish college.

In the end: Are we really listening to the book? We acknowledge our privilege but then we jump back into rationalizing our schooling in academic feminism. So then is this the appropriate reaction? Is this another instance in which the privileged listen to the concerns of minorities but then continue to ultimately do what is best for themselves?

So for my second reflection piece I wanted to talk about this piece because I think the authors offer some really good insight on what we can do, as opposed to being apathetic about the possibilities of the the academic industrial complex. I guess, I would like to hear folks input on how we can put some of these ideas in practice, whether this be in our own personal lives or within the space(s) of academia, given how this book calls us out on our privileged positions as "academics." I personally think the ideas are great, and they also make us consciousness of how our participation in the feminist academic industrial complex can be seen as a form of violence on different bodies and groups of people.

However, a weakness in these tips is that it assumes a universal positioning of privilege, the oppressed and the oppressor. That is, we all maybe privileged in one way that doesn't mean that we aren't oppressed at the same time. Systems of oppression are complicated and, at times, intersect and play up on different aspects of our identity. Thus, with each tip I am proposing a complication to it as well, which I think should also be taken into consideration when responding to these tips. Keep in mind, I'm not dismissing these tips. In fact, I agree with them! My purpose here is to encourage a "deeper" critical engagement with these tips, as well as an examination of the reasoning behind these tips.

Some of the tips I that interested me the most are:

1. Reflect on how you have benefited, supported, or are complicit in a system that oppresses others (if you are coming from a place of privilege).

-even if you maybe be complicit (or "you profit in some ways off other's oppression") in the oppression of others, how is this complicated if you also occupy more than one space of oppression? that is, you maybe in a privileged position as college student, but what if you are a part of an underrepresented group in academia?

2. Recognize that despite everything, communities that are labeled as "oppressed" or are struggling, are still vibrant, alive and thriving in whatever ways they can.

-does this pose the potential risk of a lax "awareness"? is it enough to only be aware? how can we be sure the idea and ideology behind labeling communities as "oppressed" is eradicated, as a whole? or is this even possible? they also write "don't think that we are incapable of producing knowledge, or are too busy...." does this pose the danger of tokenizing these communities and people? (i'm not saying it does, but as seen in academia this often happens. perhaps we also need to find critical ways of engaging in different forms and systems of knowledge, rather than just using these pieces of works as supplementary course material.)

3. Dialogue is critical. Talking about social justice in a way that doesn't prescribe ownership to you, is one way of being a true ALLY. Talking to your family about the history or residential schools for example can be more radical than putting up posters, wearing a button or hosting a rally.

-can anyone really "own" a cause? and if it is something that can be "owned", does it risk turning-off folks who may want to engage because they feel that they too are impacted? does this create a hierarchy of participation? or is there an alternative way to ensure that there is a rotation of roles, so that everyone gets to learn and engage in new skills? (to be clear, i like this one because it encourages an active role on our parts, as opposed to simply "wearing a button" or plastering ourselves with slogans.)

One last question I wanted to revisit, is do folks feel these tips come off as, it is the responsibility of the oppressed to "teach" others about their oppression? I ask this only because I think it's interesting that these topics even have to pointed out as a mean of "opening" the eyes of the "oppressors" (whoever that is). why is it that "we" have to call into question "your" privilege, for "you" to recognize it? (the "we" and "you" is in quotations because it does not assume anyone in particular.)

For my first reflection post, I wanted to focus on Kate Klein's piece "On Learning How Not to Be An Asshole Academic Feminist."

I decided to open with this quote because I identify a lot with what the author says. Additionally, I think it gets back to my initial argument of hegemonic feminism within academia and mainstream culture. Given that I've used these term repeatedly in my posts and comments, I thought I should define how I am using it. Hegemonic feminism can be thought of mainstream/dominant feminism(s) ability to make us want for ourselves what they want. In other words it is the push for gender equality, combating sexual violence, challenging hierarchies and systems of power and etc, and the expectancy that all women should organize around these issues. (Just to be clear I'm not dismissing theses issues.) It is the assumption that women are a monolithic group, across class and culture and that oppression is homogeneous, and that all women should organize around this "force". Thus, there has also been some pushback in terms of how these ideas and topics carried out as projects (usually hegemonic feminist projects) and are aimed at the "betterment" for different communities (which can be neo-colonial). Additionally, this pushback critiques hegemonic feminism for its failure to sometimes take into account the history and the different ways in which systems of oppression affect different communities.

Or another way to explain it:

...as has been well stated by many Indigenous Feminists before us, the idea of gender equality did not come from suffragettes or the so-called 'foremothers' of feminist theory. It should also be recognized that although we are still struggling for this thing called 'gender equality', it is not actually a framed issue within the feminist realm, but a continuation of the larger tackling of colonialism. So this idea in mainstream feminism that women of colour all of a sudden realized 'we are women', and magically joined the feminist fight actually re-colonizes people for who gender equality and other 'feminist' nations is a remembered history and current reality since before Columbus." (26)

Thus, at the root of challenging hegemonic feminism/feminist projects is the idea of refuting how feminism has been and is defined and appropriated to these different communities.

An example of a hegemonic feminist project, as expressed in this piece, is The Vaginal Monologues. Klein writes "....I no longer hold The Vaginal Monologues up as the ultimate beacon of hope for women everywhere. The shoe certainly has many problems, including but not limited to a transphobic implication that everyone who has a vagina is a woman and that everyone who is a woman has a vagina, a rampant heteronormativity, and a recent focus on the Global South that, by virtue of nature of university spaces, ends up casting privilege white women as "sex slaves" in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or Japanese comfort women, and perpetuating colonist representations of non-Western women" (quotations original 172-3). Another example of this would be SlutWalk and Aura Blogando's critique of it in the piece "Slutwalk: A Stroll through White Supremacy."

As it was argued in this piece, academic and mainstream feminism are hegemonic systems of domination. Therefore, we (this class and academics) are swept-up into this system, to some degree because we are in the academy. Thus, this also makes us complicit (again in differing degrees) in maintaining and perpetuating hegemonic feminism. Or as Klein stated, in the earlier quote I used, "I reject the definitions of success that were taught to me in feminist university spaces, but simultaneously can't help but be drawn to them, and this is an ongoing tension for me."

My own identification with this piece is that I too, sometimes, feel excluded from academic feminist spaces. Yet I come back to it because I too am "drawn" to it. I have to admit there were also times in which I felt I could not engage in discussions within academic feminist spaces, despite the fact I am majoring in GWSS and Sociology. My own feelings here is similar to Klein's following sentiment "....while feminist spaces often purport to support anti-oppression, my experience has been that this is mostly all talk with little concrete action to show for it. When a bunch of white women sit around decrying racism in a space where there are, suspiciously, no women of color around to lead and shape that dialogue, it quickly becomes clear who the space is geared towards" (174). In my own experience(s), I felt discouraged to bring in these uncomfortable discussions because clearly, I too felt, this space was geared toward a specific group within the group(s). At that time, I did not feel I "strong" enough to challenge that status quo. Nor was I was able to articulate my frustrations in such a way that did not come off as "angry" and "threatening." Or as Serita stated in an open tread "I realized later that I wasn't able to confront her in an articulate way showed not my emotion, but rather my logic for why her standards were archaic, inappropriate and misguided." Therefore, I stopped engaging (which is really fucked up considering academic feminist spaces are supposed to be "anti-oppressive", "non-dominating", "encouraging" and "accepting/loving of difference". Then again, is this my own romanticized notion of what a feminist space should look like?) But, I still feel a sense of guilt because of own position. I am, in some way, versed to negotiate the different spaces of community and academia.

Also, I like this piece because it serves as a critique to mainstream feminism(s) idea of arriving at some stage (if there is one) of consciousness, and that from that "Big Feminist Lightbulb Moment" that it supposedly "bolsters a liberal feminist desire for a sovereign female bourgeois subject position" (Donadey, Anne, and Huma Ahmed-Ghosh. "Why Americans Love Azar Nafisi's Reading Lolita in Tehran." Signs: Journal of Women in Culture & Society 33.3 (2008): 623-46. Print.). That is, hegemonic feminism assumes that folks take on the role of the independent individual who is "empowered", who should and can do anything and everything, which is also marked by social class.

This then brings me to the close of this article. I think it's interesting that through academia we, academic feminists, do take on a similar role of the "sovereign female bourgeois subject" (Ghosh and Ahmed). I too am annoyed with how I can't engage with folks outside of academia without having the conversation turn "too intellectual." As Klein writes "I couldn't think of anything to say to her that didn't make me sound like a school-obsessed snob...Am I one of those self-obsessed white ladies who couldn't see her own privilege if it hit her in her face?" (175) (Interesting how this subject is constructed, that it a conversation of its own though.)

Some of the questions posed here are things I too am contemplating:

Am I a part of the problem, not the solution? (All taken from pages 175-6)

How can I call myself an anti-violence activist when there are people who have stories of terror and violation that go untold in spaces I occupy because the language in which they express them is not deemed acceptable by hegemonic academic feminism (a.k.a university snobbery)? How much more seriously are my own stories taken as an activist who operates within academy?

....How can I ever hope to be a true agent of social change is all I know how to do is engage with people like me in a university context?

These are questions regarding identity and privilege, questions that need to be addressed as well as self-addressed. In all I also wanted to close this first reflection with a quote, and an important message, of the author. Regardless of what "side" (if there is such a thing) you stand on and in whatever spaces you are negotiating, "....success is that much sweeter when it is achieved alongside and not on the backs of others".

This is a really awesome book! My engagement here is on hegemonic feminism/feminist projects, which is expressed as mainstream and academic feminism in this book. Additionally, I wanted to make clear that the book is not about prioritizing their own efforts. I don't feel the authors (or at least all) are arguing their causes and injustices are "more" important and that we should pay "more" attention to it. Rather it is a critique of how mainstream feminism is able to, what appears, prioritize its own political grounds because of its already existing (and needs to be challenged) hegemonic power systems. And that in doing so hegemonic feminism further contributes to the long history of oppression, colonialism/neo-colonialism and exclusion of these communities. I believe the purpose of this book is about challenging that, as well as claiming and speaking from a space of exclusion; a space that has traditionally been used to marginalize these voices and communities.

Jessica Yee states "....I knew for sure that this isn't just about feminism, academia, or even the book itself. It's about so much more" (14). This "so much more" and a remerging theme I want to address is the colonial/neo-colonial narrative of hegemonic feminism (read: white mainstream feminism). Although this precise wording was not used in the text per se, the idea is referred to frequently. Yee references to it when she states the need to " "deconstruct" what has led to the existence of "feminism" in the first place, and where feminism exists today" (quotations original 13, emphasis mine), Andrea Carmen notes it as, "[f]eminist philosophy is a historical reality for European women" (18), and Krysta Williams and Erin Konsmo explain it as "academic: the institutionalized, the inherently patriarchal and colonial. Claiming our spot as !INDIGENOUS! and what that means as !INDIGENOUS! women" (22). Thus, I wanted to point out the importance of acknowledging the larger colonial narrative in approaching this piece--only because there is the "danger" that this piece comes off as "anger" and a recasting of exclusionary space.

The works presented in this collection are in opposition to how women of color and indigenous communities (among other identity groups) have been traditionally excluded from feminist spaces. It seeks to challenge hegemonic feminism and hegemonic feminist projects--particularly that of academic feminism. As mentioned throughout the tone of the book, who gets to define feminism and what is the role of "our" colonizing and colonist culture in shaping that definition, as well as its types of engagements?

While reading this book something, that relates to this book, happened to me. Thinking back to the idea of "the white woman's" role in the colonial project and her continual part in the neo-colonial project, earlier this week a friend of mine (who self-identifies as white) said to me "I have a lot of spaces, and that's OK." Her statement was in response of our discussion about an upcoming conference for LGBT people of color and people of color allies.This space is specifically for people of color. Although there was some hurt in her statement there was also a sense of acknowledgement and self-awareness as to why these organizations are taking this stance. I think it was in this moment of recognition that the sense of sadness was illuminated in her talking. This was also a really interesting/uncomfortable moment because I felt like she couldn't say what was really on her mind because I am a person of color--who comes from a group that has its own history with the US and its own positioning within US culture. In all of this happening, I thought of the quote Yee used.

It states, [t]here needs to be struggle in order to lay out a path to co-existence, and that process of being uncomfortable is essential for non-Indigenous people to move from being enemy, to adversary, to ally." My question here is then, what if indigenous and people of color communities reject "you" as an ally because they see "you" as part of the colonial narrative, or part of the "masters tool"? (Some post-colonial scholars even argue that we are not a "post-colonial" when the affects of "decolonization" have not panned out.) Can people respectably accept that "rejection" and not see it as "threatening"? In the same vain it is often asked why would these spaces "practice" a form of "exclusion" if that is what they are attempting to challenge? Yet, questions of the like are preciously a part of the hegemonic feminist thought. It denies these communities their agency, history, and the fact that they occupy spaces of exclusion. Perhaps then the question should be, are "you" comfortable with this type of political stance and organizing--speaking from spaces of exclusion and claiming those spaces as exclusively "ours"? I believe this is the tone of the book, and this is what may make it "more" startling--or more "angry"--for some than others, depending on your own position and privileges.

Something that strikes me about the piece is that although it attempts to dismantle the status quo of hegemonic feminism, I'm wondering if it fails at this in its very own approach? That is, can the book essentially be read a way for people of color and indigenous people to "teach" mainstream feminism about their culture and struggles?

In all, I love this book because it is taking a radical stand (i.e. the language used, the tone of the pieces and its attempt at de-centering hegemonic feminism) and making noise.

After our discussion of the week, I do think that we should drop the I-word. Most of people agree my opinion. We do think that i-word has been used to discredit entire populations, and it is a bad thing to belittle some other people. I don't think that the whole population has a different idea to think about or talk about illegal immigrants. I-word may be a word which is not very nice, and we do need to stop using that. In general, illegal immigration is a big problem, but I don't think people should take care of these things instead of government because it is disrespect. We should eliminate the I-word. People should not call some other people who are illegal immigrates at least. I do think it is not people's business to judge some other people are legal or not legal. In general, some illegal immigrants may be against the law because they don't pay taxes or don't have rights to live there. As I said, everyone should follow laws, and it is the reason that we need the government. The congress makes the immigration law, so everyone should follow it. Only the federal government or state government have rights to decide what or when they need to work or how they deal with these things. If people don't have evidences, I don't think they should call some people are illegal people or some kind of these words. I think that people should emphasis that how we need to change the immigration law or what we need to take care of immigration instead of calling some people are illegal immigrants. The U.S. is a country which is based on immigrants. The government or people do have rights to think about that how we can make more qualify people to stay in the U.S. because high educational people can create much more profits for the United States of America. Immigration may be a tough problem because the government does want high educational people to stay in the U.S., but they don't want to take care of many and many people. I do think it is a fact in our society. As I said, everyone should follow the law because it is a thing that we need to do in a democrat society.

The trailer to a satirical film about immigration and our economy...

I have not seen the film, myself, but I thought I would bring it into our discussion since it touches on language. Particularly, the word "alien" with regards to the Latino community and immigration politics

At least 5000 children stuck in foster care because their parents have been deported. One of the most troubling effects is that many children are separated from their parents for extended periods of time and sometimes permanently,(Democracy Now).

Democracy Now assesses the damaging cyclical effects of our country's deportation/detention systems, the politics of immigration and how they effect women's bodies! Many troubling issues emerge from this discussion.

Incidents of lost languages have been pervasive. Parents are being reunited with their children only to find out that their child no longer understands Spanish.

In addition to the thousands of children left behind, there are even more troubling statistics that reflect the effects of our severe immigration laws on women's bodies. Studies are showing that numerous women residing in the U.S. living in abusive relationships, without documentation have decided, out of fear of being deported, not to report incidents of domestic violence. As the interviewee points out, women who have reported domestic violence to the police are incarcerated and their children are immediately brought into foster care. These women, who have been subjects of violence in the home and from the State, have no idea where their children are or when and if they will ever see them again.

"Draconian immigration enforcement policies are really the driver here," (Democracy Now). In other words, severe laws are the forces that impede women from maintaining
freedom or protection over their own autonomy.

"We need to think about alternatives to detention. There were 46,000 parents deported in the last month. The collateral effect is going to continue growing. It will also lead to the deaths of women and children because they fear deportation. After being deported they are incarcerated because of their deep seated desire to be with their children," (DN).

The immigration debate is complex. Reasons for immigration will vary greatly depending on the individual's circumstance. What we know is that many immigrants are fleeing poverty, violations of the State, or sustained violent circumstances that they can no longer tolerate. Some are coming here because CEO's/Companies have worked out a contracts that bring individuals and their families over for extended periods of time and then deports them when they've gotten everything they need from them. (ex: watch Food Inc.). This discussion relays the serious consequences that are a result of harsh penalties inflicted on immigrant communities. For some, this information may feel irrelevant. A common misconception, is that this isn't our problem, yet indeed as citizens and as womanists and feminists, this is our problem. We have to put ourselves in their shoes. Assume the position of the mother or father who will never see their child again. Assume the position of the immigrant woman who is now a victim of abuse.

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/08/141183030/can-the-u-s-economy-really-function-without-undocumented-workers

"Who has the right to be in this country? How far can you go to protect the borders? What are the economic impact our country faces concerning new immigration policies?" (NPR)

Alabama's most recent immigration law allows the police to detain anyone they suspect is an immigrant. In addition, schools are now required to ask that students show their proof of citizenship/work permits before they are allowed entry.

Many farmers throughout the U.S. rely heavily on the help from immigrant workers. Many of the farmers argue that the new law is "making life (and profit) unpredictable" (NPR). These new laws to curb undocumented workers in the employment sector will no doubt, also increase the price of produce now that famers have to pay more for documented work.

What type of methods do the police force in Alabama employ when screening for undocumented workers? Two immediate frames emerge that rightly shape this debate 1. racial profiling 2. Instilling fear into the American public over undocumented workers.

What I appreciate about this NPR piece is that their coverage looks at economic statistics and interviews from either side of this issue.

Aside from profit, what surprised me and further complicated our notion of agriculture and deep south rhetoric was Arizona state senator Scott Beason's reply to the new bill. An NPR spokesperson asked Beason if he really thought the American people of Alabama were going to go out into the fields and fill in the labor that was once occupied by undocumented workers. Senator Beason replied, "there is always the argument that Americans or Alabamians will not do these jobs and I don't believe that...Americans have done these jobs historically" They have?
If we want to talk about agriculture and the deep south, we certainly can't deny that our agriculture rose hand-in-hand with slavery--those individuals kidnapped off the shores of Africa and forced to pick, seed and harvest until death.

In addition to the aforementioned issue of work, the history of agriculture in relation to slavery and the i-word: What other complexities as womenists can we unearth in tangent with this topic?
Immigration into the U.S. allowed companies to grow by hiring "an ideal workforce." What does this "ideal workforce" look like? Do they enter within the public sphere or private? Does this model apply to everyone, men AND women? If so, how do women enter? Are their queer spaces within this model? Finally, how do we make safe spaces for women working within the private sphere as domestic servants?

I have read the article which is called" Superman as Immigrant Rights Activist" I do think it is a very interesting question because it contains three important part things that we need to talk about. First one is immigration. The second one is superman, and the third one is human rights or immigrant rights.
First of all, immigration is a very serious or important thing for the U.S. because the United States of America is based on immigrants. In general, everyone are considered immigrants because our ancestors or ourselves are from all over the world. Immigration is a big thing that the federal government or the U.S. people need to deal with.
Under the immigration law, people who are born in the U.S. or U.S. territory are US citizens. There is another way to become U.S. citizens is called naturalization. It means that all aliens who meet requirements may apply for being U.S. citizens through naturalization. We call "illegal immigrants" are people who are illegal live or work in the U.S.. In fact, I do think it is not good for calling people are "illegal immigrants", but we do have our laws to deal with people who are legal or illegal. I think it is political thing because the federal government and the immigrant office have rights to decide it. I pretty sure that it is not good or nice for calling people are illegal because people do not have rights but government does.
The second thing is the superman. As Hari said in the video, I do think that superman don not have rights to decide or even help people who are undocumented or illegal because this is the government's business. I do think that we need some organizations or people to help them, but the only thing we need to help them if they require it. I do not think that super man do have rights to judge people who are legal or illegal. I do think everyone should follow laws no matter she/he is legal or illegal. Superman is a citizen that we need to consider with. He doesn't have rights to help government to decide illegal immigrants.
The third thing is human rights or immigrant rights. I do think that everyone should have their own rights no matter he/she is legal or illegal. As I said, the government may decide people are legal or illegal, and the government still have rights to decide what they need to deal with illegal immigrants.Even people are illegal immigrants, I do think they still have rights because everyone are people, so it does have human rights. It is government's things or business to decide who are illegal immigrants, but we still need to protect their legal rights. Citizenship is a part of human rights, but we still need to protect their some other human rights.

In her article, Tired of Hateful Jokes? Here Are Five Comedians of Color to Watch, Mónica Novoa considers what is at stake when comedians cross into racial, bigoted, oppressive spheres for the sake of a few laughs. This conversation ran in response to comedian Kat Williams anti-Latino jokes which appeared during his latest comedy routine. Novoa contends, "This is where we have to continue to check ourselves about what exactly we are laughing at," (Novoa).

Her critique of racist-like jokes brought me back to High School, when wisecracks were made comparing my dark skin to my then, partner's very light skin. I can't count the number of times I heard someone mumble under their breath "dirty Mexicans" or "dirty (insert ethnicity here)."

Since 9/11 terrorist jokes have been in abundance. People hear offensives jokes and laugh out of peer pressure. They laugh because that is the norm. They forget to "check themselves" and really consider "what they are laughing at." My initial reaction to any kind of racist joke is anger. I've always called people into question when their jokes are for obvious reasons, inherently racist. What's maddening is when they rationalize their inherently racist attitudes for something else. "It's not racist, it it's true", "It was just a joke don't take everything so seriously!" (So now, I am the one with the problem?) Maybe they will share a personal experience they had with the subject, (Other), in question to reveal why their joke still remains relevant or funny. It's times like these when I realize how out of touch these individuals are with reality. It's 2011 and they are still walking around spouting off racist rhetoric by way of humor. Racist humor and stupidity go hand-in-hand. Furthermore, we don't have to be the subject of the joke in question to feel offended. So why laugh? Why not call more people out for their hateful sense of humor. Oppressive jokes are not just jokes. They create a space that says oppression of others is okay and fun.

Herman Cain made a comment a few months ago relating to the topic of immigration. His comment runs parallel with our productive discourse on banning, dismantling and letting go the I-word. In an interview concerning our border security, Cain suggested, "We're going to have a real fence. 20 feet high with barbed wire. Electrified. With a sign on the other side that says, 'It can kill you!'" (Washington Post). He later recanted his statement, arguing that it was merely a joke, and while defending himself, he suggested, yet again, that although it may have been a joke, it wasn't a bad idea. Wait a minute, so he apologized for his racist comment by re-inscribing his racist ideology into his apology? Cain isn't sorry, he is just cleaning up after his overtly racist blunder. Herman Cain is a great example of those types of individuals who say they aren't racist, but truly are. Racism comes in all shapes and forms. Just because Herman Cain is a man of color doesn't mean he gets the race card to project racist attitudes in the form of "jokes."

This conversation is central to our understanding the perameters of racism and why dropping the I-word is a crucial endeavor for us all to engage in. It's also a friendly reminder that racist humor is just plain racism!

"S. Dakota tries to tell women abortion leads to suicide important in resisting partriarcy and womens ability #femd2011"
Just the other day I saw, with the help of a class reading, that the inclusion of of physically and mentally disabled women in the discussion of feminism particularly with regard to reproductive health. So in light of my newest addition of my defintion of feminism I sought out a current example that verifies the importance of discussing disabled women within this context.
I stumbled upon an article written September 30, 2011 entitled "Abortion Suicide Link Fails a Court Test" that show cases a small victory for feminists. This discusses how in South Dakota there was a court hearing in which Planned Parenthood brought the case to the courts attention. The South Dakota governor, Mike Rounds who representing a pro-life perspective wanted to "encourage women to avoid abortions and carry through with all pregnancies". The eventual decision of the court however was to not make the following statment manditory by doctors when providing information women seeking aborions:
"section requiring doctors to describe 'all known medical risks' of abortion -- including an increased risk 'of suicide ideation and suicide'-- must be removed".
This does not mean that doctors are prohibited from including such a statement, it merely means that it is up to a doctor whether to include such info or not. Similarly there is a re-hearing petetion in which a human development and family planning professor would be present to provide "expert testimony".
This is particularly important to the my new defintion of feminism. This is because we have seen that disabled women are being coerced into having abortions, as they are thought to be unfit mothers. Now the South Dakota governor wants these same medical professionals that are telling disabled women not to have babies to tell healthy women that having an abortion could lead to psychiological impairment like "suicidal ideation". To me this sounds like another instance of society sending women messages to be sexy but don't have sex or reassuring us that women are seperate but equal to men.Thank goodness the court did not attest to requiring doctors to tell such things to women seeking an abortion as there has yet to have been that aboriton causes psychological disorders or one to commit suicide. However, the case was repetitioned and so where this goes back to court is up in the air. If it were to be required that doctors to tell women that their abortion may lead them to commit suicide it would be not suprising as false information by doctors and other medical professionals has commonly been used against women so that they conform to the beliefs and wishes of the, most times, white men that are supposed to be aiding women in making decisions that the women desires. If there is a known, credible medical risk associated with the procedure that women wishes then surely they are liable. Although with regard to abortion, this is not true as it is one of the safest procedures one can undergo.
In sum this example parallels to my defintion of feminism since there needs to be "equality amongst women, men and LGBT across race, culture and ability; in resistaince to patriarchy". Through these efforts in South Dakota we can see that we must still fight in resistance to patriarchy on behalf of people across race, culture and ability. Reproductive rights must be the choice of the women not that of a doctor.

I felt as though the hardest part of our topic was understanding what reproductive justice actually was. It was so similar to pro-choice and pro-life that it was hard to distinguish what the real definition was. With the inability to post on Sunday night, and for being about a day behind, I feel as though our presentation went better than expected. I was nervous because we had done a substantial amount of talking via the blog, but we hadn't exactly planned what we were going to do. I came into class with a set of ideas that we could possibly use, and I'm glad they worked out. The blog is difficult to maneuver sometimes, especially when there aren't responses right away. I feel that more effective way of communication would be using a live chat session. I realize that it would be difficult to get everyone into one group at the same time, but even if there were a couple people having a live conversation and making decisions, it would make a big difference. The small-group discussion was extremely helpful, at least for me. I felt like it was a bit easier to hammer out the specific issues that are encompassed in reproductive justice. All in all, I feel like we did well with the time and information that we were given.

This is a link to a Loretta Ross video. I know it's kind of long, but it gives a nice insight on SisterSong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRcT_NMa6aI

After doing some more research, I have found that reproductive justice involves not only women, but men as well. It is the choice that people have to have children, not have children, and raise their children in a healthy and safe environment. I thought that maybe each person in the group could give a reaction to one of the readings we were assigned, or maybe a website they found that goes more in-depth on reproductive justice? I am currently researching a possible video that we could show to the class? I don't want to go into tomorrow unprepared, so I'm just throwing ideas out there. If anyone has any ideas about how to engage the class more, instead of just a discussion, your input would be greatly appreciated!

The Abortion Gang website gives a range of topics to discuss. Considering the other websites that were required reading for this week, the October 24th post on White Privilege and Reproductive Rights is an important topic. All of the other websites were surrounding education and support for reproductive rights for women of color and indigenous women. Sister Song supports women of all cultural backgrounds with white allies, ACRJ is for women from Asian communities, and The Native Youth Sexual Health Network supports indigenous women. I believe the ACRJ sums up all of these groups goals the best with their mission statement: "We believe reproductive justice will be achieved when all people have the economic, social and political power and resources to make healthy decisions about our gender, bodies and sexuality for ourselves, our families and our communities". It is easy to forget that access is a huge part of reproductive justice. Access to education, organizations, birth control, medical care providers, etc are all factors that should be considered. These organizations are providing these outlets to women that may not otherwise have the ability to receive these services. This presents an interesting discussion about how socioeconomic status and culture come into play for reproductive rights. If you look at the October 24th post and its comments, it made me think of a lot about white privilege. I think many people are wary of approaching this topic because of being perceived as racist or too entitled to understand the idea that white privilege exists. I feel as though this is a good topic when discussing reproductive justice because it is so multifaceted. History, status, socioeconomics, location, education, involvement are all factors of how reproductive justice is viewed in society today.

Out of the four reading assignments, my personal favorites where The Native Youth Sexual Health Network, and the Abortion Gang. I feel that in order to get people to really listen and take the facts into consideration, there has to be some sort of "shock value" involved. The latter two include that into their websites just by the way they word their statements. For example, the Abortion Gang states:

"We call ourselves feminists, womanists, womyn, wimmin, grrls, bois, men, women. We are cis gender, we are trans women, we're straight men, we are gender queer. We have sex with anything that moves, we are abstinent, we are poly amorous.

And we stand for choice."

That small excerpt was something that really spoke to me, because it is full of meaning.

I feel that it would be beneficial to not only us, but the rest of the class as well, if we did in-depth research about what kind of funding certain schools get. Is there more funding for sexuality and reproductive health courses are predominately white schools? I am not at all familiar with how many schools actually provide a course like this. It was required for me to take a sexual education course in 10th grade, but I feel that sex ed and sexuality and reproductive health courses are two completely different things. There could be so much information that young kids and adults are missing out on that could have changed lives.

One of my best friends, Luke, is an Environmental Science major and so I had to share "The Color of Choice: White Supremacy and Reproductive Justice" with him. On page 6 Ross writes briefly about widely accepted set of racist myths that environmentalists believe.

I have heard a lot from the environmental movement about urban sprawl but nothing about blaming poor populations for environmental degradation.

I asked Luke what he thought about population control and he seemed very certain that overpopulation was one of the biggest issues of today and that if people had less children that slowly all of the worlds problems would go away. He talked about how he supports population control because of all of the environmental issues that could be slowly solved if the rate of population decreased. The thing is that he couldn't come up with a plan on how to decrease the population. Luke said he would be in support of something that was similar to China. He whole-heartedly supports population control by putting a maximim amount of kids to be born (2 per family). He said he couldn't think of any other way to go about it.

I told him that "what if I wanted a family of 3 kids" and he replied "Nope!" I wonder what would happen if someone accidentally got pregnant with a 3rd? What would happen then..? Probably not anything humane.. forced abortions and sterilizations, perhaps?

My eyes were completely opened. I had no idea my friend felt this way about population control. Some of the quotes in this Ross article were also disturbing.

"the AIDS virus may be Gaia's tailor-made answer to human overpopulation" -Earth First!

"famine should take its natural course to stem overpopulation" -Earth First!

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
When I shared these with Luke he admitted to sometimes thinking about horrible diseases and plagues and how if those hadn't happend then our population would be so much larger and we would have so many more problems.

It's complicated to think about. From a humanist standpoint, plagues and diseases are terrible for mankind! From a more removed and realistic standpoint, it is logical to think about plagues and famine as courses to be had for the population.

• Do you think over-consumption is the problem?
• How can we realistically deal with this problem?
• Do you think over-population is the problem?
• How can we realistically deal with this problem?

When I asked Luke specifically about poor populations of color being the cause of environmental degradation he said that it had never crossed his mind.

This image really stood out to me helping to explain what it means to be pro-choice. It made me think about Crew's explanation of what choice means. Being pro-choice doesn't mean you have to have had or would have an abortion, but it means that you support the choices that women make. What do you guys think or what does this image say to you??

I AM PRO CHOICE
MY MOTHER IS PRO CHOICE
AND NEITHER OF US HAVE HAD AN ABORTION

DOWNLOAD ASSIGNMENT HERE

SEE SIGN-UP SHEET HERE

To foster connections between our online and offline engagements, to help us to cultivate our class community, and to give you even more opportunity to shape the class, you and 5-6 classmates will lead us in a mini diablog about the readings. The first diablog will begin on October 2, with an in-class presentation on October 6th.

WHO? 6-7 students per group

WHAT? Engage in an online and in-class discussion of the reading for the assigned week.

HOW? 

• Post one reflective blog post per group member on reading 5 days prior to in-class presentation and leading of discussion (for groups presenting on thurs, you should post on sunday; for groups presenting on tues, you should post on friday)
• Engage in a dialogue through comments, more blog posts, live-tweet dialogues on days 2, 3 and 4
• Present on process/findings to class on day 5 
• Post summary of process by two days after in-class presentation

WHY?

• To contribute to the larger archive of our blog 
• Develop more effective understandings of the readings and feminisms/feminist debates
• Learn from each other

WHEN? Sign-up for a week. Here's an overview of a sample week, with the assignment taking place over 7 days:

Day One Carefully read assigned essay, each member posts initial blog entry
Days Two, Three, Four Engage in online dialogue with other group members
Day Five Present findings to class
Day Seven Post summary of the diablog experience as group on our blog

ASSIGNMENT BREAKDOWN:

Initial Blog Entry: graded individually, worth 25 points
You are required to post a 300-500 word entry in which you provide a brief summary and critical assessment of the assigned reading. Your entry will serve as the starting point for your engaged discussion with your group members. Your entry must be posted by Day One at 11PM. 

Posts/Comments/Tweets: graded individually, worth 60 points

(posts@20; comments@10; tweets@5)After reading each other's initial posts, you will participate in an online dialogue about the reading and your reactions/understandings. You can choose how you want to discuss the reading. However, each group member must contribute 60 points worth of participation. Here are some possible ways to earn those points:

• 1 response post (20 pts) + 4 comments (40 pts)
• 2 reflection posts (40 pts) + 2 comments (20 pts)
• 12 tweets for live-tweet conversation (60 pts)
• 6 tweets for live-tweet conversation (30 pts) + 3 comments (30 pts)

There are many possibilities for how you can engage with each other; it is up to your group to decide. Remember that the goal of this assignment is for you to collectively (and collaboratively) engage with the reading in deep and meaningful ways.

In-class Discussion: graded collectively, worth 40 points
You and your group members are required to give a brief (5-10 minute) in-class presentation on your reading and lead a 25-30 minute discussion about it on day five of your assigned week. You may present the material in whatever ways you think will be most effective in encouraging class engagement and discussion of the reading and its ideas in relation to feminist debate. This presentation should include references to/highlights of your diablog/dialogue. For your leading of discussion, make sure that you bring at least 2-3 questions to ask the class.

Summary of Diablog: graded collectively, worth 25 points
At the conclusion of your week, you will collectively/collaboratively create a summary of the key points of your discussion. This summary should be in the form of a 300-400 word blog entry. This summary post should include direct references (discussing + linking) to moments of your online diablog. It should be posted to our blog by day seven.

Some Special Instructions:

• You should file your posts under the category: diablog, subcategory: author or topic
• You should tag all entries with your alias. 
• Keep track of your participation for your records. If I am unable to locate all of your posts online, I may need to get hard links for your posts/comments/tweets.