2007 November « The Road Less Traveled

Archive for November, 2007

Radical Feminism & Me

November 29, 2007 at 1:48 am · Filed under Uncategorized ·Tagged Andrea Dworkin, Buena Vista University, Cultural Feminism, Diane Bell, Feminism, Jean Kilbourne, Kyle Payne, Men and Feminism, National Feminist Anti-Pornography Movement, Pornography, Radical Feminism, Rape Culture, Renate Klein, Robin Morgan, Sandra Bartky, Sex Industry, Sheila Jeffreys, Susan Griffin, Women's Studies

DISCLAIMER: This post is rooted in a feminist/pro-feminist analysis, and as a result, it may lead readers to assume certain things about me politically and personally (e.g. that I am living, have lived, and will continue to live a responsible, pro-feminist lifestyle). The fact is, I committed a crime in January 2007, sexually violating a woman who was under my care as a resident advisor in college. I ask that you keep this information in mind when evaluating my comments in this post, as well as if you engage me in dialogue. Please read this post (listed as “Because you deserve to know” on the “ARCHIVES” page) for more information.

On a discussion board for the ‘National Feminist Anti-Pornography Movement’ group on Facebook, I was recently asked about “Radically Speaking: Feminism Reclaimed,” a major radical feminist anthology by Diane Bell and Renate Klein. Specifically, I was asked what led me to this book and how I came to appreciate radical feminism. I include here an excerpt of my response, which will provide some background on the influence of radical feminism in my life.

Before I became involved with feminism, or really had a remotely accurate understanding of what feminism is (or feminisms, rather), I became involved with an organization providing advocacy services to survivors of sexual violence. I did not see a connection between my role as an advocate and feminism, and of course, I was not familiar with the concept of patriarchy. So I had no political context within which to make meaning of the life stories shared with me by survivors.

Frustrated with college courses that seemed so disconnected from my own lived experience, I enrolled in a women’s studies course. And in true feminist fashion, the personal became political. I began to see that the survivors I met were not merely individual human beings existing in a vacuum, just as their experiences of men’s violence, aggression, and exploitation were not devoid of political and social context. Instead, these women (and a few men) were survivors of a complex system of oppression and injustice – to borrow bell hooks’ phrase, “white supremacist capitalist patriarchy.”

I would soon complete a minor in women’s studies (no major available) alongside majors in philosophy and religion and social consciousness. And without delving deeply into my research and writing in women’s studies, a major subject in my academic work has been the sexual exploitation industries. I did not immediately turn to radical feminists like Andrea Dworkin, Kathleen Barry, Catharine MacKinnon, Susan Griffin, Robin Morgan, and Sheila Jeffreys (and later, other authors mentioned in Bell and Klein’s “Radically Speaking”). But in comparison to the so-called “sex radical” or “sex-positive” (as if to say radical feminism is anti-sex) feminist literature, as well as male-dominated “critiques” from left and right, radical feminists seemed to be the only ones who took seriously the concerns of women who had been beaten, abused, prostituted, or were in various other ways survivors of sexual terrorism.

In time, I got to know radical feminist critiques of prostitution and pornography very well. And I have been actively involved academically (writing and speaking) and socially (through advocacy) promoting radical feminist critiques, as well as a general understanding of radical feminism (especially for all-male audiences), ever since.

I can identify with your concern about radical feminism being silenced in women’s studies. I recall a conflict that arose in a psychology of gender course I took. During a very brief explanation of feminisms, the professor equated radical feminism with cultural feminism, commenting that radical feminists merely wanted a society dominated by women instead of men. I don’t recall all the details of the dialogue that followed. However, I remember the first words out of my mouth – “Wait, wait, wait… What?!”

Permalink Leave a Comment

When protests go too far… and not far enough.

November 26, 2007 at 11:12 am · Filed under Uncategorized ·Tagged Activism, Buena Vista University, Civil Disobedience, Kyle Payne, Nonviolence, War, War in Iraq

I recently read an editorial (11/16/07) by a student from my alma mater commenting on recent anti-war protests in Olympia, Washington, that successfully halted (at least temporarily) the movement of military supplies returning from Iraq. The student was concerned that the protesters went too far by allegedly bringing children to the event (fact check: one woman brought children – it was not a family affair). The student also faults the protesters for practicing civil disobedience outside the view of military personnel and members of the Bush Administration (not an effective strategy, apparently).

Read the full editorial here. My response is below.
Thank you for addressing this issue in your editorial. Protesters in Olympia succeeded in their efforts to halt the movement of military equipment returning from the War in Iraq, and in doing so, organized considerable resistance against an illegal and imperialist war. However, I agree that we ought to interrogate the ways in which they went about resisting. Allow me to respond to your points, and perhaps we can strike up a dialogue.

You pointed out initially that there is a city ordinance in Olympia that restricts pedestrian interference, and in order to enforce this ordinance, police officers used force against protesters, including the use of batons and pepper spray. Over the course of ten days earlier this month, nearly forty protesters had been arrested. In response to concerns that police had used excessive force against protesters, City Councilperson T.J. Johnson organized an open forum last Sunday. The mayor has also issued a statement promising that any acts of excessive police force will be investigated “thoroughly and impartially.”

I don’t know the details of the discussion at the open forum, and of course, I was not present at any of the protests. However, I am glad to see the local government taking steps to ensure that citizens’ constitutional rights are protected.

You mentioned that “protesters brought small children and toddlers into a dangerous environment.” I assume that this is merely a grammatical error. Reports from the several days of protest indicate that one protester brought children, two grade-school-aged boys and a toddler. This woman, who you quoted, had taken part in organized acts of civil disobedience with her family as a child, and she wished to give her children the same opportunity. Unfortunately, she and her children have been exploited by right-wing bloggers (most notably, Michelle Malkin), who have labeled her as a “terrorist” using her children as “human shields.” Malkin, in particular, employed the same grammatical error you did, suggesting that several protesters made it a family affair.

Let’s be honest. If we are genuinely concerned with the welfare of children, taking pot shots at a woman who brought her kids along to an anti-war protest is ridiculous. I am going to take a few liberties here and suggest that the lives of Iraqi children are just as precious as the lives of American children. And as the women and children of Iraq have experienced a devastating assault from the Bush Administration’s so-called “war on terror” (and previously from long-standing U.S. economic sanctions, estimated to have killed over half a million Iraqi children), it seems entirely appropriate for women and children in America to rise up in peace and solidarity. After all, as Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire pointed out, “In fifty years, the next generation will ask, ‘What were you doing when the children of Iraq were dying?’”

Finally, you suggested that the protesters would have been better off protesting in Washington DC, or at least in direct view of military personnel (even though, as you claim, the military would ignore them). What appears misguided about this suggestion is that it implies that resistance does not belong at home in our communities. While I would agree that we ought to be protesting on the steps of the White House every moment of every day for the Iraq War and other atrocities, this approach is simply not feasible. It seems unreasonable to expect the protesters in Olympia to travel 3000 miles (literally “fueling” the war by drawing so heavily on oil on their journey) for their voices to be heard.

Secondly, blood is not merely on the hands of George W. Bush and a few senior officials. We have all played a role in this mess, either as active or passive participants. Is there any more appropriate place for resistance than in our communities? This certainly seems to have been the logic in the minds of protesters in Olympia, particularly Nicole Miller who stated, “When the shipments first arrived, that’s when the war came home to my community.”

In conclusion, I must say that I think the purpose of your editorial is a very important one. Practicing civil disobedience invites a whole host of ethical questions, as well as practical considerations. I simply hope that my comments can be of use as you explore these issues further.

Thank you.

Kyle Payne
BVU Class of 2007

Permalink Leave a Comment

Turkey and Racism

November 15, 2007 at 9:06 am · Filed under Uncategorized ·Tagged Buena Vista University, Kyle Payne, Racism, White Supremacy

Below is my letter to the editor published in the December 8, 2006 edition of The Tack, Buena Vista University’s student newspaper. The letter critiqued an editorial by Leah Marshall published the week before. In her editorial, Marshall suggested that White Americans ought to ignore the history of Thanksgiving, particularly in relation to the Euro-American invasion and its effect on indigenous peoples.

Letter to the Editor – Kyle Payne (December 8, 2006)

It should be no secret that the way we make sense of our history as a society – for instance, what history we choose to acknowledge – is an expression of our politics. In her editorial about the history of Thanksgiving in last week’s Tack, Leah Marshall aligned herself with White supremacist politics. In response, I would like to suggest an alternative.

I sympathize with Marshall’s message. Despite the amnesia that dominates White America’s understanding of its history – replacing it with the (White supremacist) “rainbows and sunshine” Marshall speaks about – the theme of Thanksgiving holds far greater meaning than its history. There is much to be said for coming together to give thanks.

So where does that leave us? What responsibilities do we have to the real history? What do we teach our children? In contrast to Marshall’s approach of shrugging our shoulders and pressing forward with a tradition rooted in White supremacy, I prefer to imagine that White Americans are capable of change.

The tradition we call Thanksgiving did not ‘just happen,’ nor did Native Americans become virtually wiped out in this country by accident. So while it seems natural that American popular culture (and unfortunately, our public education system) has embraced the myth of Thanksgiving, this sort of selective storytelling has actually been carefully crafted for the benefit of White Americans.

We have an opportunity to take seriously this notion of White privilege and confront a tragedy that extends far beyond genocide – the tragedy of a group of people who deliberately hide the history of racism in America, and in doing so, perpetuate it. Our responsibility, then, is to recognize and fully articulate the racism inherent in the European invasion. Anything less is unacceptable.

Statement to The Tack

After hearing concerns from other students, as well as the co-editors-in-chief and faculty advisor to The Tack, that my letter was perceived as a “personal attack” on Marshall (allegedly calling her a “White supremacist”), I submitted the following message to The Tack via email:

Tack Co-Editors-in-Chief and Faculty Advisor:

Thank you for concentrating some attention on this conflict regarding an editorial published by Leah Marshall on December 1, 2006, and my subsequent letter to the editor published on December 8, 2006.

Anytime a student feels The Tack has published a personal attack against him or her, there is a responsibility on your shoulders to respond to the situation sensitively and appropriately. Jamii, as you noted in your message, this is a complex issue, and the response of editors and the organization as a whole certainly have political implications with regard to how the newspaper is run. I appreciate you addressing this issue, and I would be happy to assist in the development of a consistent and socially responsible policy regarding letters to the editor.

I have a few comments to make regarding my recent letter to the editor. If you have any questions, please feel free to let me know.

If she is willing and able to meet with me, I would like to speak with Leah to address what I feel might be a fundamental misunderstanding about my letter, particularly what some readers have interpreted as a personal attack or a claim that Leah is a “White supremacist.”

The reactions I have heard about my letter generally hinge on my choice of the term ‘White supremacist.’ By referencing an article published by Leah Marshall and saying she “aligned herself with White supremacist politics” (or as The Tack rephrased it, she “was aligned with White supremacist politics”), apparently readers have interpreted that to mean that I am calling Leah a White supremacist. It is obvious that there was no direct statement to that effect – the claim is that I implied it. But I suppose that raises the question that, if I read an author’s work, and his or her perspective reflects a particular ideology, can I critique that work without restricting the whole of that author’s being within that ideology?

Claiming that Leah aligned herself with White supremacist politics does not suggest that she is, in fact, a White supremacist. However, it does make her responsible for what she publishes. Indeed, while she may not be identified as a White supremacist (however we choose to define that term), what she said was White supremacist. In this way, linking this critique with Leah should not label her as a White supremacist, but instead it identifies the possibility that she speaks from a particular set of biases (as we all do) that, in this case, may support notions of White supremacy (e.g. that White Americans can trade in the actual history of White supremacy in America for a version of Thanksgiving that better fits their needs).

With regard to ‘White supremacy’, it seems that the popular connotation of this term presents a limited and misguided version of what White supremacy actually is and how it operates. For instance, Taylor Jones sent me a thoughtful and well-written response via email agreeing with the message of my letter, yet disagreeing with using the term ‘White supremacy’. Taylor thought it presented the wrong message about Leah, asking, “Why not go ahead and call her ‘Grand Wizard Marshall’ and give her the title of the ‘exalted cyclops’ while you’re at it?”

From Taylor’s message, it seems that when we think White supremacy, we think KKK. While the Ku Klux Klan is one example of a White supremacist group that has certainly played a significant role in shaping White supremacist politics in the United States, thinking of White supremacy only in those terms ignores the reality of White supremacy and its power in American culture. In our everyday experience, we see White supremacy acted out in a variety of ways by individuals of all backgrounds, even though we might not recognize it.

Recognizing that the popular connotation of “White supremacy” is controversial, it is important to ask, why not substitute the term ‘racist’? In response to this question, I would challenge readers of The Tack to think about why White people may prefer to see the term ‘racist’ than ‘White supremacist’ in a reference to the European invasion and the genocide and human rights abuses committed by White Americans against Native Americans. The term ‘racist,’ while representative of this type of process, fails to name the actual problem at work. It talks about oppression but gives us no image of the oppressor. Using the term ‘White supremacist’ provides a more accurate picture of the history, and perhaps more importantly, it directly challenges the privilege of White Americans to recreate that history.

I hope this misunderstanding can be resolved – I agree that this conflict represents an opportune time for education. I also hope that Leah and I can come to a common understanding. She is a very insightful writer with a passionate voice, and I look forward to reading more of her work in The Tack.

Thanks and have a great holiday break!

Kyle

Permalink Leave a Comment