Consent Cartoon

Forging Justice

This is crossposted from Shakesville.
By Cristy Cardinal

Cristy has over 15 years of experience in the field of ending gender-based violence, and she is currently the Director of Prevention Education at HAVEN, serving Oakland County, Michigan. Cristy came to this field through grassroots efforts, and her educational background is in English and Public Administration. She has worked in community as an organizer and educator, and she is passionate about leaving this world better than she found it. In addition to her work as a program director, she is also a writer for the blog UpRoot, a social media project of the HAVEN Prevention Education team. She shares her home and life with her wife, three children, an elderly dachshund, and a badass cat named Eartha Kitty. She’s masculine_lady on Shakesville.

[Content Note: Violence.]

I am a prevention educator working to end gender-based violence. I often get asked why I do this work, as if this work isn’t worthy of someone smart and capable, and there must be something wrong with me to choose it.

Here’s my answer: I choose this work because feminism is the toolbox I use to practice the spirituality of social justice. I choose this work because this is one of the ways I can use my privilege as a white, educated, cisgender, middle class woman with integrity and compassion, but without condescension. I choose this work because I can, and I recognize my privilege in being able to do so.

In the last few years, I have championed engaging men as a means to prevent and end gender-based violence. I am not the first person to do this, but I brought these ideas into my community. We started a program working just with young men on their role in ending gender-based violence, and we started a community discussion group for men (though all are welcome) to address sexism and to further understanding of feminist principles of power and possibility. As part of these projects, we (by “we” I mean the prevention education team at HAVEN, a group of four people including me as the program director) developed a relationship with NOMAS, the National Organization for Men Against Sexism.

It was through that relationship that the idea for Forging Justice was created. NOMAS holds an annual conference, and every other year partners with a local group or organization to co-host the event and offer technical assistance to the represented communities to address gender-based violence. NOMAS is a group of feminists and pro-feminist men who have deep roots in the field of gender-based violence and prioritize working with women, including activists and feminist scholars.

Forging Justice: Creating Safe, Equal and Accountable Communities will be a three day (August 8, 9 and 10) conference in Detroit exploring gender-based violence through a social justice lens.

There will be a keynote address from Lauren Chief Elk (Chief Elk), of the Save Wįyąbi Project, who recently took world famous Feminist™ Eve Ensler to task publicly for furthering the marginalization of women of color, specifically North American Indigenous Women. Chief Elk will be sharing her experience, and offering insight into how we can center the lives of women of color in social justice work.

There will also be a plenary panel on recognizing how intersecting identities impact gender-based violence our response to it. The panel will be Jessica Luther, Emi Koyama, and two speakers to be named later. The third plenary panel will be on feminism and new media, and how we create the world we want through technology and media. Speakers on this panel will be Alexandria Goddard, crime blogger who made Steubenville more than a small town in Ohio; Ashon Crawley of the Crunk Feminist Collective, Heather Corinna, doyenne of the amazing sex ed site for teens Scarleteen, and the inimitable tour de force Melissa McEwan, founder and editor-in-chief of Shakesville.

There will be other great things as well, like the 38th Annual Men’s Studies Association Meeting, spoken word performances, a workshop sponsored by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence on the connections between intimate partner violence and HIV infection and much more. We’re also really excited to offer a dedicated space for Healing Justice, with yoga, meditation, art and other self-care workshops. We are committed to creating a space that is accessible, trans* inclusive, and strongly rooted in consent-based interaction.

This conference matters because for 40 years, we’ve focused a lot of energy in the movement to end gender-based violence on fortifying the criminal justice response to intimate partner violence and sexual assault. While that has worked in some regard, calling the police should not be our only option. We need to address toxic masculinity, institutionalized and systemic violence, and center the lived experiences of marginalized folks, especially women. Until we do that, all we’re doing is putting on bandages. I choose, every day, to work to end gender-based violence. All in, for all women.

If you want to join us in Detroit, or just find out more information, you can do that here. You can also donate to the Forging Justice Scholarship Fund (making the conference financially accessible) by contacting me at prevention (at) haven-oakland (dot) org.

Women’s History Month: Dr. Sally Ride

Dr. Sally Ride was the first American woman in space, a leader in making science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) accessible fields of study for young people, an author and a lesbian. Dr. Ride was extremely private, even keeping her end of life illness out of the news so that her death in July 2012 came as quite a surprise.

Dr. Ride came out in her obituary, where it was acknowledged that science teacher and Dr. Ride’s co-author Tam O’Shaughnessy had been her partner for 27 years.

The Sally Ride Science Foundation trains teachers and other folks who work with young people to foster study in STEM fields, with special focus on girls in grades 4-8.

When I was a kid, we seemed to care a lot more about NASA than we do now. I remember what a huge deal Sally’s Big Ride was, very clearly, and I can honestly say that she was one of the first women I heard about as a hero. I mean, astronauts are kind of automatically heroes, right? There was no denying it. That really meant something to me, and to millions of little girls and grown women too.

All Dr. Ride did was answer a classified ad from NASA, joining the team in 1978. By 1983, she was in space. When I was nine years old, that was the same as being queen of the world. She was brave, there’s no doubt. She was smart, tenacious and really cared about science literacy. I love science, even as a non-scientist, and I credit Dr. Ride with giving me that.

What We’ve Been Reading

Things I’ve Learned Writing Under a Gender-Neutral Name

Whats Wrong with Fat Shaming?

Why should married women change their names? Let men change theirs…. and a response

On the ‘Girls’ Rape Scene

Steubenville defense attorneys are actually trying to argue that the victim consented

What are you reading/writing this week?

Women’s History Month: Simone de Beauvoir

The New World Encylopedia has a lovely biography of Simone de Beauvoir, writer of The Second Sex.

From the New World Encyclopedia: “She identified, as the fundamental basis for the oppression of women, the social construction of woman as the quintessential ‘Other.’ For the liberation of women to move forward, the perception that they are a deviation from the normal, and are outsiders attempting to emulate “normality,” must be set aside. Her works, written within anatheist-humanist framework, had a strong impact on feminist theories in the twentieth century.”

I Will Not be Afraid of Centering the Lives of Women

maybe. maybe not. so what?

by Cristy

True story, #1: Feminists get accused of being man-haters A LOT.

True story, #2: Feminists spend a lot of time defending themselves from such accusations.

True story, #3: I’ve written about this before.

But I need to talk about it again. I see the statement over and over: in cartoons, infographics, pictures, or even just simple statements. Stop it.

Just stop it.

Here’s why: when you spend time explaining all of the ways you actually love men, you are reinforcing the marginalization of women by centering the lives of men in your feminism. It’s okay to focus on women. It’s okay to center the lives of women in your work and politics.

As an aside: Dare I say that it’s even okay to be contemptuous of men and their behavior, and that contempt might look an awful lot like hatred? I do. I say that. Many men, even most men, make choices that marginalize and hurt women every day and they are not compelled to defend it. I don’t just mean actual acts of violence or assault. I am talking about micro- and macro-aggressions like telling women to smile, hollering in a parking lot after dark, interrupting/talking over women, paying women less in the workplace, proposing legislation to limit women’s reproductive autonomy, refusing to pass the Violence Against Women Act, etc. When I, or other feminists, bring these up as things that should be apologized for and changed, we are accused of:

• being too sensitive
• not having a sense of humor
• being a man-hater

I refuse to buy into, in any way, that when I am asking to be respected, I am being hateful. If you aren’t willing to respect me, I am not the hateful one.

I don’t center the lives of women in order to disregard men. I center the lives of women because women matter.

In trying to parse out why I get so angry when I hear/see feminists spend time and energy-our precious resources-on defending accusations of man-hating, I realized that it makes me so sad and tired. I see so many brilliant, passionate feminists agonizing over how to prove that they really do love men, or at least, don’t hate them. And we are doing this instead of showing other women how much we love them, how much we care and how much we want to move from margin to center together.

On public transportation, I have often seen men sit with their legs spread wide, taking up more than one seat. When a woman asks, politely, to sit, the man will close his legs ever so slightly so she can slide in to the seat next to him. And he will likely roll his eyes, or otherwise demonstrate some exasperation at having to make room for her. She paid the same fare, and yet, she is the one inconveniencing him by asking for just some of the space he has commandeered from all of the other passengers. Those spread legs are analogous to the ways men take up space and power in general-including space in the feminist consciousness.

The patriarchal assumption is that men can take up all the space they want, women are expected to merely fill in the gaps. And if we ask for room of our own, it must be because we hate them. Men have the whole world to behave this way. In my work, I will make damn sure women have all the space they need.

And I won’t apologize for it.

On Bodily Autonomy, Abortion, and Being All In

[Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in this piece are those of the author.  HAVEN, as an organization, does not support or condemn abortion, but believes that all people are experts on their own experiences and should be trusted to make their own decisions.]

Guest post by Mark Nesbitt

Recently, I have found myself in some discussions, debates, and arguments about what is commonly referred to as “women’s reproductive rights;” specifically, the issue of abortion. These discussions have given me an opportunity to think even deeper about this topic and hone my viewpoints. I have come to the sure conclusion that I am completely, unwaveringly, and unquestionably pro-choice, for all people with the ability to conceive, everywhere, always.

I am a man without the ability to ever be pregnant. This debate does not apply to me, but I will share my opinion because I think my active and public support of choice is important. I value choice because I trust women and take them seriously. This blog post could end there, but I will continue in case you need more reason.

Personhood

I will start with conception. Many anti-choice advocates take the position that the life of a person begins at conception and since every living person has the right to life it is immoral and should be illegal to obtain an abortion as it amounts to murder. I do not believe that personhood begins at conception. There is currently no scientific basis to declare when a life has begun, this is a matter of opinion. But, I do not think I will convince any staunch anti-choice supporters of this view. And, frankly, I don’t really care to. I can show them picture after picture of unborn fetus material and they will never believe that this is not a person, just as I will never believe that it is. So if this were the extent of my argument I’d be standing on some pretty thin ice. Thankfully, it isn’t.

Bodily Autonomy

In fact, the whole person/non-person argument is moot. The answer to this subjective philosophical inquiry is irrelevant because of a human right that I hold to be of paramount importance: bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy refers to everyone’s right to do what they want with their bodies and not do what they don’t want. This includes ultimate control over who has access to your body, in what ways, and when. I began really thinking about bodily autonomy while working in the gender-based violence prevention field. Sexual assault, for example, is a clear violation of bodily autonomy. Every person should have the right at all times to decide whether or not they want to engage in any sexual activity. If someone does not respect this right it is called sexual assault. Most people would agree with this. We have laws to enforce it. I am anti-sexual assault in large part because I am completely pro-bodily autonomy.

Consent

A key concept to understand regarding bodily autonomy is consent. In order for another person to do anything to your body without it being a violation of bodily autonomy, you must consent to it. Simply, to consent is to give permission. Consent must be active, enthusiastic, and based on choice. If “no” is not a valid option, then “yes” has no meaning. Consent requires equal power. This is not as complicated as it may sound. What it basically boils down to is: ask first, permission required. No person ever has a right to your body. They may be granted specific and temporary access if you willingly permit them.[1] We all want the power to decide what happens to our bodies. This seems simple, yet so many fail to respect the consent of others on a daily basis. I try very hard to apply this concept to all my interactions with other people.

Violating Bodily Autonomy

For the purposes of a discussion of abortion, bodily autonomy is what it’s all about. As I learned more about this concept and began applying it to all aspects of my life I came to this conclusion: if I truly value bodily autonomy I must, by logical necessity, be completely pro-choice. Not allowing a pregnant person to not be pregnant when they do not wish to be is, by definition, a violation of bodily autonomy. It may be clearer now why the personhood debate is irrelevant. Even if you consider a fetus to be a person, no person has a right to another person’s body without their consent. Anti-choice supporters may argue that when you become pregnant you give up some bodily autonomy because this living person you created relies on your body for life. This makes no sense to me. In no other circumstance, none, do we ever require a person to sacrifice their bodily autonomy to save or preserve the life of another person. Never. Not even parents of living and born children. No parent will ever be required without their consent to even donate blood to save the life of their child. We simply do not cross this line. Why on Earth would we do this here, for this one special circumstance? A circumstance that only affects a very specific subset of the human population, mind you.[2]

Consent To Pregnancy

I have also heard arguments along these lines: but she made the choice to be pregnant, she consented, therefore she must live with the consequences. That is partly true, she may indeed have consented at one point to being pregnant.[3] However, this argument misses a very important aspect of consent: it only applies in the moment. Until the mid 1990′s there was no such thing as marital rape. A man could rape a woman and as long as they were married he was not breaking the law. Seriously. The justification was that “I do” = forever-consent to sex. This is obviously absurd and thankfully the laws have been changed. Consenting to something in the past does not confer consent to the present. You may be in the midst of consensual sex when you decide, for whatever reason, that you do not like what is happening and do not want to continue. If you express this to your partner(s) and the sexual act does not stop, that is sexual assault. It doesn’t matter what you said 5 minutes ago, 5 days ago, 5 years ago. Consent is never permanent. I can’t imagine anyone really disagreeing with that because the consequences are quite dire. When we apply this basic concept of consent to pregnancy it doesn’t matter whether or not the person wanted to be pregnant in the first place, what matters is if they want to be pregnant now. This is not being “irresponsible,” this is operating by the same definition of consent and bodily autonomy that we do in every other situation for all other people.

Further, there are many times when pregnancy occurs but was never consented to. Such as rape, incest, reproductive coercion, and obfuscation. It would be equally wrong to force a woman to carry an unwanted fetus, violating her bodily autonomy, for a pregnancy she never consented to at all. And no, a “rape exception” is not the answer. How would that even work? When a woman comes in for an abortion would she somehow have to prove she was raped? How is she supposed to do that? This whole concept is wrong. Women should not have to justify why they desire to exercise their right to bodily autonomy and complete control of their reproductive future, ever.

Reasons To Get An Abortion

There are as many reasons to get an abortion as abortions gotten. The point is it doesn’t matter why. We don’t have to justify why we don’t want someone else touching us, or taking our organs, or beating us up. “No” is sufficient. Why would we not respect a woman’s “no” to being pregnant? She may have come under increased financial burden and a child just isn’t feasible right now. She may have decided that the health risks of pregnancy and childbirth are such that she does not wish to continue. The birth control method she was using may have failed and she never wanted a child in the first place. She may just have better fucking things to do. I don’t care. There is no reason better than another.[4] There is no time when it is acceptable to force a woman to bear a child against her will.

 Pro-Life

I think we need to address the term “pro-life.” Is that really what anti-abortion advocates are? Can one call themselves pro-life if they do not advocate for the lives of babies once they are born, or the millions of women whose bodily autonomy, and sometimes life itself, is taken away because of “pro-life” legislation? No. It seems like “pro-birth” is much more fitting, since that is where the advocacy for life typically ends. You cannot call yourself pro-life if you do not support food stamps, temporary assistance, low-cost housing, day care, adoption for same-sex partners, child healthcare, or early education; the very things that are designed to support and foster life for children outside of the womb. You cannot call yourself pro-life if you are in support of stripping away the bodily autonomy of living and breathing women, treating her as if she is a baby factory, and disregarding the very real health and life risks that carrying and delivering a child can entail. And defunding Planned Parenthood? If you were truly pro-life you would be concerned with supporting measures to help individuals obtain affordable healthcare and plan for reproduction, avoiding it if they wish. This is exactly what Planned Parenthood does by providing education to men and women, birth control, GYN healthcare, prenatal treatment, cancer screenings, etc. If anyone is pro-life it is Planned Parenthood. Being pro-choice is not being pro-baby-killing. Being pro-choice means I value the lives of women and all people. It means I trust women and take them seriously. It means I value all people’s right to make their own decisions about what happens to their body including when, how, and if they reproduce; and working to ensure that all pregnancies and births are consented to and the lives of the people involved are valued and supported before and after.

Being All-in for Choice

I value bodily autonomy. Therefore I am completely, unwaveringly, and unquestionably pro-choice. I value every human’s right to control who and what does and does not have access to their body. The application of bodily autonomy requires the concept of consent, which is never ongoing. To deny a woman an abortion is to deny her bodily autonomy. This is wrong. Always. If you are anti-choice you must concede that you do not value bodily autonomy; that you believe that women do not deserve the same right to decide what happens to their body that everyone else does. If you are anti-choice, I ask that you at least be honest about what it is you advocate, for it certainly is not equality or human rights.

Last, but certainly not least, it is outlandish that people whose bodily autonomy is never threatened by abortion restrictions are given any power to make this decision. The fact that legislation is passing that threatens or dissolves this right for women is wrong enough, the fact that uterus-less people are leading the charge is downright infuriating. Make no mistake, this is a weapon of misogyny and the patriarchy. If you support choice, make a point of letting others know. Elect officials who support choice. Tell your representatives to support choice. We need to tear this down.

---

[1] I do understand that this causes complications for things like law enforcement, imprisonment, etc. For now I will just offer this: you give up a small and specific portion of your bodily autonomy (i.e. where your body is permitted to be located, little more) when you threaten the safety or human rights of another living person. You do not give up your right to decide who has access to your body sexually, your right to be free of bodily harm, your right to decide who has access to your physical tissues, etc. And yes, this definition would not permit imprisonment for non-violent crimes, the death penalty, or torture of any kid. To be honest, I have a whole lot of issues with the prison industrial complex, the war on drugs, and the basic idea of imprisonment. If you want, we can really start breaking this down. But, that is a whole other essay and for the present purposes I will just leave this where it is.

 [2] This is why you may hear that an anti-choice stance is inherently misogynistic. It is.

 [3] I do not believe that the mere act of sex equals consent to pregnancy, but that is also another debate that isn’t necessary for the present argument

[4] You may be concerned with sex-selective abortion, such as that which is reported in some eastern countries like China. To this I will say: sex-selective abortion is not a problem with abortion. It is a problem with misogyny. It is a form of femicide born out of a patriarchal system that devalues women (much like ours). The way you solve sex-selective abortion issues (if they exist, which is surely debatable here in the West at least) is to address the hatred of women, certainly not by rolling back the reproductive rights of every woman in the country.

Celebrating Thanksgiving and Settler Colonialism

by Leah

I was at dinner last night with some friends and we had a conversation about  how activists sometimes set aside certain flaws or certain guilty pleasures that may be contradictory to their personal philosophy or politic. An example was given of an environmentalist who will do anything for the cause, but refuses to limit the length of her showers. The topic of the conversation then shifted to include a timely talk about the ethics of celebrating Thanksgiving. We discussed how the notion that celebrating Thanksgiving, going home to eat with your family (or in some cases chosen family) could be an action that expresses complicity with settler colonialism.  As a self-proclaimed activist, I’m realizing that Thanksgiving is something that I’ve been willing to let myself slide on. It’s a flaw that I’ve somehow rationalized and now I’m wondering what that really means.

When I show up tomorrow at my parents’ house with the bread rolls that I baked, when we share a meal together, discuss what we are thankful for, eat food that this country has appropriated as “American”, will we ignore the truth of the history that surrounds this holiday? Will we gladly commemorate the survival of the pilgrims through the harsh winter of 1620-21?

Even if we choose to acknowledge that the land we live on is stolen, that this nation’s history is steeped in genocide, in occupation, and that we, as a white family,  benefit from the oppression of indigenous people; will that be enough to change the larger widespread narrative of peace and togetherness that serves to cover it all up? Will changing our personal narrative, getting the history right, mourning the lost lives and the historical erasure be enough?

I don’t know.

My thought is that it is not enough. My thought is that I am not protesting the holiday; that instead I am partaking in the lie of Thanksgiving. This probably means that I am complicit with settler colonialism.  I could try to defend it by saying that I am trying to redefine or reclaim the day, but I don’t think that works. Privately redefining and celebrating something that is fucked up at its historical root doesn’t seem transformative enough.

So what will I do? At most, tomorrow I will sit with this discomfort. I will bring the bread rolls, go to the movies after dinner, and participate in the festivities. I will bring this speech with me and read it before the day is done. I will try to agitate and start conversations about colonialism; I will talk about Israel, about Zionism, about how U.S. imperialism is still alive and well. I will wonder about this repeated history of those who sought to escape religious persecutions, who wanted a land of their own, who ended up paying their oppression forward.

I hope that conversations, that being an agitator, that taking a small amount of risk (the risk of alienating family members and friends) will be worth something. That maybe we can create a space for healing through gathering, that maybe we can look forward to a future where people don’t occupy or put up borders; where cultivating freedom doesn’t mean displacing or silencing people.

I’m not entirely sure what it means to eat a traditional Thanksgiving meal with my family tomorrow. I’m not entirely sure what it would look like to resist effectively. I know that my white guilt won’t serve me well tomorrow, that my privilege will not go away if I pass on the stuffing. So I am going to go and sit with the discomfort, sit with the truth of Thanksgiving and what this country was really founded upon. I will think about that state of Native communities today.

I invite you all to reflect as well as crush the myths that surround this holiday. I invite you to resist in whatever way makes the most sense to you.  If nothing else, let us do it together.

Woman to Know: Suheir Hammad

by Leah

Some of you might be catching on to the fact that I really love poetry. I love to read it, hear it, write it, and experience it always. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the woman to know today is a poet.

Suheir Hammad is a brilliant poet-activist who I admire greatly.  I first discovered her when I came across her book Zaatar Diva back when I was living in DC a couple of years ago. It was love at first read.  Her words about Palestine, occupation, displacement, being a woman of color in the united states are striking, they are moving, they are important.

 She is a Palestinian-American woman who was born in Ammad, Jordan to Palestinian refugees. She moved to the United States when she was five years old to Brooklyn, NY.

She was first signed to tour with HBO’s Def Poetry Jam by Russell Simmons who read her piece “First Writing Since” which she wrote about 9/11. She is the author of 4 books, has produced 3 plays, participated in 4 films, and won numerous awards including a Tony for being an original cast member and writer in Russell Simmons Presents Def Poetry Jam on Broadway. She’s also been published in myriad anthologies.

Today, her words are as essential as ever, I am certain. So if you can get your hands on some of her work, do it. I know I will be revisiting her work very soon. Let’s pay attention to the women of Palestine right now. Let’s pay attention to Suheir Hammad.

“Your war drum ain’t / louder than this breath.”

Dismantling the Patriarchy by the End of the Week: Live the Solution

by Leah T

Sometimes I get exhausted doing work within feminist movements. A lot of the time I am exhausted because of the how much anger I feel on a regular basis. Recently, I’ve noticed how tired I become from the process of deconstructing, critiquing, analyzing, and employing any other mode of dissection. I find it difficult to day in and day out find the flaws in arguments, the holes in strategies to point out the problematic. To be clear, I think that those acts are powerful. It is essential that we hold each other to a high standard, that we hold those who we disagree with, who oppose our causes accountable for the consequences of their work, thoughts, actions, etc.

However, it wears on me. It takes a lot of energy to consistently feel in opposition to such a large ocean of opinions that I disagree with or think are straight up harmful. While critical assessments of thought are paramount to building up a body of theory and critical to breaking down the shit that’s happened in the past, I find that it alone is not liberating.

The constant critiquing often feels like a distraction from our real work. As Spectra Speaks tweeted last week,

Revolutions are founded on changing the status quo and challenging what is already being done; but without creation, without new vision what are we building? What are we moving towards?

I am frequently inspired by the words and work of Grace Lee Boggs, who said, in an interview with Hyphen Magazine this year,

“I would say to a young activist, ‘Do visionary organizing. Turn your back on protest organizing and recognize how that leads you more and more to defensive operations, whereas visionary organizing gives you the opportunity to encourage the creative capacity in people and it’s very fulfilling.”

Being an activist in Detroit, her work has focused on reimagining the future of the city. We could all take notes from the visionary organizing that happens and has been happening in Detroit for years. After all, they are the same people who saw vacant lots and turned them into the center of urban agriculture that the city is today.

So my plea for dismantling the patriarchy this week is this: let’s focus on our visions for the future and start making those visions happen. Let’s act with reverence to the past, by being a part of this moment, and creating the communities, spaces, conversations that we need. Let’s create, imagine, define (or leave out definitions altogether). We deserve to do more than react to the bad, we deserve to have more space for ourselves, yet it’s not enough to have a room of our own, though, we need to take the rest of the house back for everyone.

To quote another Detroit activist, the incredible Invincible has this line as their self-description on Twitter:

“The ultimate critique is living the solution.”

Let’s live the solution and tear that shit down.