The Western World Needs to Listen More Often and More Carefully to Iraqi Feminist Yanar Mohammed

photograph of Yanar Mohammed speaking to one of millions of people who need to hear what she has to say

What follows is an assessment of current political tensions and parties attempting to rule a country the U.S. has been trying to rule through military force. To whom do we turn for guidance. At the end of the article Federico speaks with one of the women who has the most knowledge about what her country needs, in order to become more democratic and humane; she also ought to be consulted on international matters with regard to human rights for women. Getting the U.S. military out would be a good first step, imo. Getting the U.S. out of the whole of Central Asia would also be useful to all those who live in the region and are working for justice and national self-determination. What follows may be linked back to by clicking on the title. It is from the Huffington Post.

Making Sense of Iraq's Political Deadlock

Federico Manfredi
Posted: August 11, 2010 09:59 AM

Baghdad -- A popular refrain throughout the Middle East is that "the Arabs agree to disagree." And in fact this is what appears to be happening in the top political circles of Iraq today, where the only issue on which the various leaders seem to agree is that their differences cannot be reconciled.

More than five months after the March 7 general election, Iraq still does not have a new government. Ayad Allawi, whose secular list Iraqiya won the most seats, 91 out of a total of 325, maintains that under the constitution he has the right to form a new government. But the wording of the constitution is vague and open to interpretation, and Iraq's Supreme Court has ruled that the right to form a government belongs to the largest coalition--regardless of whether that coalition was formed before or after the elections.

That ruling favored Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki, who is vying to retain his position at the helm of the Iraqi government. After his State and Law list came in second, with 89 seats, Maliki, sought to outflank Allawi by establishing an alliance with the other Shi'a bloc, the National Alliance, which is dominated by the followers of the populist cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr and those of Hammar Al-Hakim, leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, an influential political party with ties to Iran.

Together, Maliki's list and the National Alliance would have had 159 seats, just four short of the majority required to form a new government. But after months of talks this "all Shi'a coalition" fell apart, due to disagreements over who would obtain the coveted post of prime minister.

The National Alliance requested that the new prime minister be either Ibrahim Al-Jafaari, the preferred choice of the Sadrists, or Adel Abdul Mahdi, one of the two vice-presidents of Iraq. In any case, the Sadrists were seemingly prepared to accept anyone but Maliki, whom they loathe for having launched a series of successful military offensives against the Mahdi Army in the southern city of Basra and in the Sadr City suburb of Baghdad.

Maliki, however, is firm in his determination to serve another term as prime minister, and this eventually led the National Alliance to withdraw from talks with his list.

"Maliki does not want to give up power. He is acting like a dictator," said Jalal Al-Din Ali Al-Saghir," a prominent Shi'a cleric and a member of parliament for the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. "We will not join any government in which Maliki is the prime minister. Our doors are tightly closed to him," he said.

Now the National Alliance may decide to form a coalition with Allawi, even though he heads a secular list. Wahil Abdul Latif, a judge and a member of parliament within the National Alliance bloc, told me that he personally supports Allawi because of his ability to reach out to the Sunni minority. He also said that the National Alliance would be willing to join forces with Allawi and support his bid to become the new prime minister, if only he accepted to remove certain "tainted" Sunni leaders from his list. Among these, he named Vice-President Tariq Al-Hashimi, the leader of one of the main Sunni political parties, and Saleh Al-Mutlak, another Sunni, whom he accused of conspiring with Ba'athist reactionaries to overthrow the Iraqi government.

Allawi, however, is unlikely to exclude these individuals from his list, since they represent pillars of his cross-sectarian outreach strategy.

When I asked Abdul Latif how long it might take the various leaders to reach an agreement on the formation of a new government he laughed and said: "This could take another two months. Perhaps more." Such a delay, though, could severely strain Iraq's fragile institutions, since it would not only protract the current state of governmental paralysis but might also lead the army and police to question the constitutional authority of their leadership.

"They continue talking but they cannot agree," said Mahmoud Othman, an independent member of parliament within the Kurdish bloc. Intrigued by the use of the pronoun "they" I asked him to elaborate. "The Kurds are not part of this conflict. We have no preference as to who gets to form the new government," he said. Indeed, the conventional wisdom in Iraq is that the Kurdish leaders are ready to make a deal with whichever coalition is willing to grant the most autonomy to their region. Othman agreed with this assessment. "Yes, of course, we will shift to the side that offers us the most," he said.

The prospects for a speedy resolution of Iraq's political deadlock do not look bright, particularly if we keep in mind the track record of similar political stalemates in the region. In Lebanon, for instance, the negotiations leading to the appointment of the current president, Michel Suleiman, took more than six months.

As Iraqis brace for the holy month of Ramadan with little or no electricity in the sweltering summer heat, their only consolation is that at least for the time being these power struggles have not led to violent clashes between rival party militias. When I asked Yanar Mohammed, the President of the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq, what she thought about the current stalemate, she said: "At least they are fighting in parliament and not in the streets. Hopefully the sectarian war of 2006 and 2007 has transformed itself into a political dispute among competing parties."

Promoting the Books of Dr. Vandana Shiva, on Sustainable Peace through Social, Economic, and Environmental Justice

photograph of Dr. Vandana Shiva is from here

I am increasingly convinced that any G8 plans and policies, before moving forward in any regard, ought to be accepted or rejected by Dr. Vandana Shiva. Any practices, principles, and paradigms that promote globalisation as the West defines it "positively" must meet with Dr. Shiva's approval or disapproval.

We are lucky to live in a time with this brilliant author, lecturer, philosopher, physicist, environmentalist, and feminist with a cogent knowledge of how the Global North impacts the Global South, how the so-called First World negatively and destructively impacts the Second, Third, and Fourth Worlds. I hope that all those with Western, white, male, and Global Northern and/or "First" World privileges, entitlements, and power defer their sense of right and wrong, helpful and harmful, sustainable and unsustainable, to Dr. Shiva. I pray they realise that their political positions, globally mean that they are not well-positioned to know much about the consequences of actions which are in service to the most wealthy at the expense of the most poor, in service to the most privileged by gender and race at the expense of those without either.

In the name of She, the G-d whose name cannot be said, I pray.

All that follows is from *here* at zcommunications.org.

Shiva: Staying Alive: Women, Ecology, and Development

Book, August, 10 2010

By Vandana Shiva

In this pioneering work, Vandana Shiva looks at the history of development and progress, stripping away the neutral language of science to reveal third-world development policy as the global twin of the industrial revolution.

Shiva: Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability, and Peace

Book, August, 10 2010

By Vandana Shiva

Starting in the 16th century with the initial enclosure of the British commons, Shiva reveals how the commons continue to shrink as more and more natural resources are patented and privatized.

Shiva: Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply

Book, August, 10 2010

By Vandana Shiva

Vandana Shiva continues her path-breaking work on uncovering the devastating human and environmental impacts of corporate-engineered international trade agreements.

Shiva: Soil Not Oil: Environmental Justice in an Age of Climate Crisis

Book, August, 10 2010

By Vandana Shiva

With Soil Not Oil, Vandana Shiva connects the dots between industrial agriculture and climate change. Shiva shows that a world beyond dependence on fossil fuels and globalization is both possible and necessary.

Shiva: Water Wars: Privatization, Pollution, and Profit

Book, August, 10 2010

By Vandana Shiva

A world-renowned environmental leader presents an expose of the privatization of water that threatens the livelihood of the people in the South.

"The [U.S.] Middle Class is Under Assault" says HuffPo. And what about Poor Women in the U.S.? Is that called NON-Assault?

image is from here

Arianna Huffington, founder of the Huffington Post, is writing about the assault against the predominantly white middle class. (Intro and link are below.) The predominantly white middle class are suffering in the U.S., due in large part to fucked up ways of maintaining and intensifying economic injustice and corporate, government, and military corruption put in place by the last several presidents--whose platforms and policies criss-cross and weave together Republican and Democratic lines.

What makes me a bit furious about stories like this isn't the focus on how the middle class is suffering, exactly. I know too many people who have been living middle class who are currently out of work and whose unemployment checks have finally run out. This has happened because the Congress and the Senate would rather support a CORRUPT war in Afghanistan than extend benefits allowing unemployed people who are looking for work every damn day and who cannot find jobs, to be able to pay for food and housing. (And the U.S. government's completely illegal war in Iraq isn't over yet, either.) The U.S. government's war on people of color globally, and within the U.S. specifically, is still going on and given the ageist, gendered, and raced political nature of poverty, that means U.S. poor people = children and women of color--disproportionately.Which brings me to the matter of being furious.

Why aren't the lives of Black, Brown, and Indigenous women centered in the discussion of "Who is Being Assaulted in the U.S.A."? Because poor women of color face assault from a whole helluva lot of sources: the U.S. government and its agencies and representatives, white people of all genders, the rich/wealthy and their tax breaks and various forms of corporate welfare, as well as evading taxes by having billions in Swiss and other foreign bank accounts--never reported to the IRS. And last but not least, MEN. Each of these groups systematically stigmatises and degrades the public image and social personhood of poor women of color in the U.S., and rarely are the crimes against WOC's humanity discussed in open debate by mainstream media.

An occasional report will surface about some "greater health risk" to African Americans*1, perhaps. And all the sexism and misogyny that Black women in the U.S. endure will be left out of the story.

Or Amnesty International may come out with a particularly searing report on how one in three American Indian [Indigenous] women are raped*2, overwhelmingly by white men they do not know who come onto reservation land to commit this act of disgusting violating and degradation and violence on land that isn't governed by U.S. federal laws the way non-res U.S. land is. So the white rapists know they are more likely to get away with it, for all kinds of despicable reasons.

*1. See, for example, the article below, in which a white woman is an "expert" on African American health-risk factors. Note how she DOESN'T state that LIVING IN A RACIST SOCIETY is harmful to African American people's health, including by taking a FUCKING HUGE TOLL on their cardiovascular systems! Now how can it be that an "expert" AND The American Heart Association doesn't KNOW THAT? (More commentary and analysis follows.)

Why African-Americans At Greater Risk of Cardiovascular Disease

Related: Heart Disease, High Cholesterol, diabetes, African-American , [and what about WHITE MALE SUPREMACY????  -- JUST ASKING.  -- Julian]


Melanie Thomassian
Monday, August 24, 2009

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death for all racial and ethnic groups in the U.S.—but this is even more evident in the African-American community.
The American Heart Association state that:

• Compared to the general public, African-Americans have a higher risk of diabetes, high blood pressure, and vascular dementia.
• More than 40 percent of African-Americans have high blood pressure and are at risk for stroke, which can lead to greater risk for developing Alzheimer’s.
• African-Americans, as a group, are at greater risk for heart disease and stroke.
• Every year more than 100,000 African-Americans have a stroke.

According to the American Heart Association's, “Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics,” the total cardiovascular heart disease prevalence in 2006 was:

• 45.9% male, 45.9% female for Blacks
• 37.8% male, 33.3% female for Whites
• 26.1% male, 32.5% female for Mexican-Americans

But, why is there such a significant difference in these statistics?

Given that fact that African-Americans tend to have higher blood pressure levels than Caucasians, this increases the risk of heart disease.

It’s also true that African-Americans tend to have a much higher risk of disability and death from a stroke than Caucasians, partly due to high blood pressure as mentioned, and also because of higher rates of diabetes, which causes complications.

To clarify, the major modifiable risk factors for cardiovascular disease include:

• Having high blood pressure
• Having high blood cholesterol
• Smoking cigarettes
• Being overweight or obese
• Being physically inactive
• Having type 2 diabetes
• Some other factors to note include high stress levels and drinking too much alcohol

What needs to be realized is that these conditions, and their resulting complications do need have to be a way of life for African-Americans—heart disease is not necessarily an inevitable outcome for you.

Perhaps you have a family history of heart problems, if you already know you have an elevated risk, one of the most important things you can do is to visit your doctor at least once each year for a general health check-up.

Over the next few weeks I’ll be focusing on specific ways to reduce your risk of suffering heart disease complications, including looking at what you can do right now to lesson these complications, and also taking a look at diet and exercise, etc, so stay tuned!

Don't forget to drop me a line with any queries or concerns and I'll try to answer them promptly!

Do you struggle with healthy eating or weight loss? Get your free ebook on how to break bad habits by visiting the award winning Dietriffic.com. Authored by registered dietitian, Melanie Thomassian.

*          *          *

So what "bad habits" is any Black person in the U.S. supposed to break that will cause "other factors" to be less harmful? Aren't "high stress levels" caused by the myriad ways white supremacy bears down ruthlessly and relentlessly hard on anyone who endures it daily? Perhaps some deep, relaxing breathing? Pilates classes? I don't fucking think so!

Here's the goddamned sad reality: if you're not Black, you don't know what white supremacy feels like to a person who is Black. And most people who are not Black don't want to know--don't care to find out, don't want to empathise, and, especially, will not organise to end white supremacy's devastating harm to African Americans currently living in the U.S.

To Melanie and to the AHA: please update your recommendations to include radical systemic, institutional change, organised by anyone and everyone with full accountability directly to African American women, to weed out all expressions and manifestations of white supremacy as a PRIMARY way to positively impact the cardiovascular health of African Americans.

*2. When will dominant media report and make recommendations that the following MUST END: the RAPE, BATTERY, HARASSMENT, OBJECTIFICATION, PIMPING, TRAFFICKING, and other forms of male aggression, violence, violation, degradation, humiliation, assault, and indignity against the personhood and humanity of women of color? When will THE SYSTEMATIC RAPE OF WOMEN OF ALL COLORS BE TERMED "AN ASSAULT" akin to the one Ariana Huffington notes is currently happening to the U.S.'s "middle class"? When will the poverty and sexual assault that women of color endure in the U.S. be seen as news-worthy? When will the stories and realities of what Indigenous North American women matter as much to Arianna Huffington and the largely white MALE press people who report on matters of "assault" against various demographics of people in the U.S.?

See below for Arianna Huffington's report on the disproportionately white middle class. And please don't forget that except perhaps for life on reservations in this country--people who are part of the Fourth World, most people in the U.S. have no idea what life in many parts of the Third World is like. And those of us in the Last World will have to establish respectful, mutual relationships with people, in which we are not materially or emotionally exploiting and psychically pillaging the lives of people who live in the Third World.

Arianna Huffington: Third World America: Chronicling the Assault on America's Middle Class...and the Solutions

Arianna Huffington: From foreclosures to unemployment to household debt to bankruptcies, the American middle class is under assault -- and America is in danger of becoming a Third World nation. That's why, in conjunction with the publication of my upcoming book, Third World America, HuffPost is launching a "Third World America" section to bear witness to what is happening to the American middle class in small towns and big cities all across the country. Every day, we will also focus on the solutions that are making a difference in the lives of ordinary Americans, and offer many ways for you to get involved -- things we can all do to make sure we never find ourselves living in Third World America. Start by watching this video, taking our Pledge for the American Dream, and sharing your story. Click here to read more of Arianna Huffington's report.

"ah" on Yahoo Answers thinks it's "ha-ha" funny to insult Andrea Dworkin

image of anti-misogyny statement is from here

What follows are recent questions posted to Yahoo Answers by someone who goes by the name of "ah". I'm not impressed. Fortunately, Toto takes him on. Thank you, Toto.

Open Question

Is Andrea Dworkin the sexiest left wing woman?

• 12 hours ago
• - 4 days left to answer.

Additional Details:

Or WAS? This fine female specimen is dead.

12 hours ago

Answer:

What intellectually gifted individuals have said about her:

When I read Andrea Dworkin's Our Blood in the early Eighties I was impressed, but it was her Right-Wing Women which convinced me that a substantial new voice had joined those of the other innovative feminists I admired. With its brilliant insights into the Right's anti-feminism, why women often choose conservative politics contrary to their specific interests, the book offered an advance in feminist political thinking almost as radical as Sexual Politics.

Just as Orwell was roundly attacked by the liberal left for daring to suggest that Stalin was as bad as Hitler, so Dworkin seems to arouse the ire of the left as thoroughly as the right! I have never seen such vitriolic reviews as those she receives. Yet her analyses of social problems -- femininist or otherwise -- are breathtaking in that you find yourself constantly saying -- Of course! That's why -- And in this she has the same effect as Tom Paine when he wrote Common Sense and The Rights of Man. Yet we live in very different times, when any form of criticism of the status quo is repressed, minimalized or mocked and Dworkin has received a barrage of heavy duty artillery.

Andrea Dworkin was a brilliant writer, philosopher, activist, and human being. She also was critical of the left as well as the right-wing.

Degrading a brilliant human rights activist is a sad act that only functions to degrade the person who does so. Your question, AH, is crass, immature, and insulting to humanity.

Source(s):

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/andrea-dworkin-by-michael-moorcock-1574831.html

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/08/28/repost-saying-something-nice-about-andrea-dworkin/

http://www.amazon.com/Scapegoat-Jews-Israel-Womens-Liberation/dp/0684836122

Open Question

How do I get over my crush on Andrea Dworkin?

I saw this woman's picture a few weeks ago and I have not been able to get her off my mind. It was love at first glance. I started looking on Google to try to find a way to get to her and court her but I learned that she passed away in April of 2005. This is heartbreaking. She is the perfect female specimen.

• 9 hours ago
• - 4 days left to answer.

Answer:

I recommend you develop the skill of not putting down human beings and that you show respect and regard for human rights activists who care about justice and ending oppression.

Stopping the many atrocities that are happening around the world will take collective action. Things like rape, sexual trafficking and slavery, racism, and genocide.

Your action here isn't helping that effort.

Your question, as stated, comes across as very immature, actually. If you'd like to learn about her love for humanity--for women and for men--and what she cared about, fought for, and considered important, please read the interview linked to below.

Source(s):

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/MoorcockInterview.html

Responding to Questions about Misandry: a "How To" Tutorial, from Yahoo Answers

image is from here

I'm not sure I'm up for doing it, but someone named Toto Gotawa is. Below are three examples of how to honestly and effectively answer questions about the non-problem of women disrespecting or "hating" men, which is what some men want the rest of us to believe is a significant and serious human rights issue.

You have to be pretty damned ignorant about the systematic human rights abuses and atrocities occurring across the world to believe feminists are an enemy of anyone at all! And that level of ignorance usually comes from living in a structural political location high above everyone else--a position of privilege and entitlement to make anything you endure that's painful seem, using smoke and mirrors, "far worse" that what white het men do to everyone else every day. People being raped, terrorised, and mass murdered--usually and commonly by men, are serious human rights issues. Custody of children being given to battering and incest-perpetrating men and not to the abused women is a serious human rights issue, as is courts not offering appropriate levels of protection to women terrorised by men. Man-hating ("misandry") is not. And a few quotes from a few feminists taken out of context doesn't make it a serious human rights problem, in case you weren't sure about that.

Resolved Question

What do you guys think of misandry?

Misandry is a term used to explain a hatred or prejudice of men or boys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misandry

Its a pretty rare term to use, considering the society we live in nowadays. Let me ask you this, when was the last time you heard something positive on the news about a man? Or better yet, when have you ever heard that a man hasn't committed a crime or done something he shouldn't of?
"A man has raped...." "A man has killed...." "A man has stolen..." Is all you will here. Mostly because there's a constant media barrage saying that men are evil or chauvinistic.

http://www.youtube.com/user/manwomanmyth…

The above link shows a video that focuses on daily society and the elements of misandry. Watch it, I think you'll be surprised.

• 1 week ago

by Toto Gotawa

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

Media doesn't have a term for the crimes men commit against each other. I think "misandry" should refer to the social problem of men degrading, beating up, raping, and murdering other men. There's not enough media attention on prison rape, for example.

Wouldn't it be appropriate for the media to report honestly on who commits the violence most often? Men are also far more likely than women to be the victims of violent crime, with the exception of rape. Black men and other men of color are portrayed by the media as *the* perpetrators, not white men. See fair.org, linked to below, about racism and the mass media.

In the West, you'll find that two problems with the media is racism and anti-gay bigotry. There is no significant bigotry against straight white men in those countries, or anywhere else, really. In the media, straight white men are usually portrayed as the *victims* of other groups of people:

--of men of color, who are stereotyped as thieves and gangsters, even while we watch Tony Hayward and the rich white men of the U.S. Financial and Banking industries cause their companies to need bail-outs--but they still get their million dollar bonuses and get re-employed. In the U.K. the targeted group is Middle Eastern and Muslim men, not white or Christian men. In Australia, the bigotry is aimed at Black and Indigenous people. In the U.S. it is usually Black and Latino men who are scapegoated, with Mexican men being reported to be "stealing" jobs from white men (media's focus on white men as victims).

--of gay men trying to "destroy marriage" for example, by wanting equal rights. When white straight men in North America got a disease, called Legionnaires, it got all kinds of media attention--it was seen as a serious problem. When white gay men got AIDS in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan and major news media, wouldn't even talk about it--for years. It spread and has killed 300,000 gay men in the U.S. Reagan and the media would have spoken out right away if that population impacted was straight white men, just like they did with Legionnaires. Outbreaks of Legionnaires' disease receive significant media attention. However, this disease usually occurs as single, isolated cases not associated with any recognized outbreak. (Linked to below.)

The discovery and spread of HIV and AIDS was met with governmental indifference—specifically in the United States—to what was initially perceived as a gay disease. I also link below to a website that shows exactly which populations are most impacted by HIV/AIDS: there's very little media coverage about it now, because it mostly impacts poor people of color--disproportionately women and children.

--of women, with feminism being blamed as victimizing men. It is doing things like addressing the problem of women not being paid as much as men. Women earned 59% of the wages men earned in 1963; in 2008 they earned 77% of men's wages—an improvement of about half a penny per dollar earned every year. Feminists fighting for basic human rights that white men complain about as "man-hating" is a product of media distortion--it's always been feminists who want violence against boys to end, not men. Catholic priests are all men because they don't allow women to be priests. It would be a whole lot better for boys if the Catholic Church did.

Did the media tell you that 3000 women are killed each year in the U.S. by the men they live with or leave? And that's the same number of people killed by the Taliban on September 11, 2001. The media will tell us how many U.S. soldiers die each week in Afghanistan, because those men are seen as usually white and straight, or "boy-next-door Americans." Their deaths matter to the media.

When is the last time you saw anything in the major media about what's happening to Native American men--and women? Did you know that one in three Native American women are rape survivors--with 80% of the rapists being white men? (Link provided below.)

When white men do commit crimes the crimes against women are usually not reported. Usually such crime is blamed on the man being drunk or on the woman being "a gold digger," who was "out to get him" like with the recent Mel Gibson case. Media loves to blame women for men's violent behavior. I hope you can see now that straight white men are a very privileged and protected group in the world, and are in charge of every major social, religious, medical, media, and political institution in any country where they are a majority.

When men of color commit crimes the crimes are seen as "typical" of that group. Only white men can run a business into the ground and get paid well (and rehired) if and when they get fired from their job. What Black men does that happen to? Ask any Black man if he'd be getting a million dollars at the end of a year in which he did his job poorly, and see how much he laughs, or cries.

Source(s):

http://www.amnestyusa.org/violence-against-women/maze-of-injustice/page.do?id=1021163

http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_the_Band_Played_On

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1431

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_and_crime

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gay_and_bisexual_men_have_died_of_AIDS

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/equalpayact1.html

• 1 week ago

These two questions can be combined:

J D

Contributing In:

Gender Studies

Should "misogyny" and "misandry" have parallel definitions? Why or why not?

According to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/m… misogyny is "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women."

That made me think. For a long time, I think I was unduly trustung of women, excessively charitable in my interpretations of female motives and intentions. Now, even in my calmer, more even-tempered moods, I certainly do not trust them. At all. "Hatred" would be too strong a word, but "mistrust"? "Dislike"? Perhaps I am a misogynist.

But then, I thought, many feminists must be misandrists even when they don't say things like Dworkin, Daly, Solanas, and such. After all, a lot of "moderate" feminists express a good deal of mistrust of men!

However, look at this http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/m…
Unlike some dictionaries, they actually do include "misandry". But misandry requires actual "hatred" of men, not mere "dislike" or "mistrust"?

Why the difference? Is it justified?

• 2 weeks ago

and:

Is misandry even a word?

its not in my YA dictionary I think men just made it up

• 1 week ago

by Toto Gotawa

Member since:

April 14, 2010

Total points:

150 (Level 1)

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

The question isn't only "is misandry even a word", it is also: when it is used as a term, what is it referring to by the users? Is it being used to mean something socially real, or socially imagined?

"Misandry" is a relatively new term actively promoted by predominantly racist and homophobic white men (this may be verified at the "antimisandry.com" website, which routinely uses terms like f-gg-t and b-tch and ignores the reality of white men's hatred of Black men and other men of color). The people who currently promote the word "misandry" want you to believe that straight white men are as oppressed as straight Black men, gay men of any color, and women of any color, and that's not true.

Woman-hating shows up in "men's magazines" and in "women's magazines." It is not only "a feeling" some people have and exhibit. It is much more than that. Don't confuse "a feeling" (such as "misandry") with systems of harm and oppression combined with very brutal and lethal hatred of women. (Link below detailing these abuses by men against women globally.)

Misogyny, unlike "misandry," is a term used to describe patriarchal societies where men's violence, degradation, discrimination against women is thousands of years old and crosses cultures and ethnic groups.

"Misandry", therefore, is not a parallel term for "misogyny", which is what many advocates for its use would support us believing. Misogyny is not just a feeling some men have. It is, more accurately, the interpersonal and institutionalized patriarchal hatred of women worked into every aspect of society: male dominated and controlled customs, media, religions, and laws.

There are no "parallel" societies in which women's violence against men is endemic, supported, protected, encouraged and made into "sexy" entertainment, produced for women, giving women billions of dollars annually in profits. The pornography business does make billions of dollars annually for straight white men. There are almost no societies left on Earth that are not patriarchal and male supremacist. And the more matriarchal societies that do still exist do not practice anything that can or ought to be called "misandry".

There are patriarchal/male supremacist societies that make men's hostile rape of women seem "evolutionarily necessary," or naturally inevitable. Some misogynist AND man-hating apologists for rape actually argue that "men, naturally, are rapists" as in the published book "A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion", by two Australian white men, Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer. (Link below.)

There are no feminist books that argues men's rape of women is "natural" or "inevitable". Or that males are born to rape. Not one. Feminists believe men can stop raping women and must stop it. That's a very pro-humane view of men. There are far too many men who argue they "couldn't stop themselves" from committing rape against women. And often rapist men blame women for the rape, which is pure misogyny. That is misogyny in action, socially and legally. Even when men rape men, men do it to make men feel like they want women to feel when they rape women: degraded and terrorized, violated and made to submit to a rapist's hateful will. In prison, the raped man is called the b-tch, for a reason, and that reason isn't an example of "misandry." Once again, it is an example of misogyny, and man-hating among men.

Women who critique men's violence against women aren't man-haters. They are justice-seekers and human rights activists. Don't be fooled into believing "feminists hate men." They don't. Men hate feminists, and men hate men. Men exhibit and practice "misandry", not women. Feminists are humanity-loving people.

See, for example all of the twenty-plus books by radical feminist bell hooks, especially "All About Love" and "Salvation: Black People and Love." (Links below.) See also radical feminist Alice Walker's beautiful, loving letter to Tiger Woods when white men were condemning him. (Link below.) And please understand she was called a "man-hater" for writing The Color Purple, which is anything but that. She endured very hateful criticism from men for writing a book that was honest about relationships between men and women, and among women. Read any of her many books to see how loving of humanity she is. (Link below.)

"Misandry", meaning "man-hating, if it to be used as a term with legitimate social meaning, ought to refer to men's hatred of each other. There is currently no term for this. "Misandry" could be and should be that term.

Source(s):

http://www.amazon.com/Natural-History-Rape-Biological-Coercion/dp/0262700832/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1280969333&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Femicide-Global-Perspective-Athene-Russell/dp/0807740470/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1280975539&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/All-About-Love-New-Visions/dp/0060959479/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1280969910&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Salvation-Black-People-bell-hooks/dp/0060959495/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1280969910&sr=1-2

http://www.alicewalkerblog.com/2009/12/letter-to-tiger-woods-from-alice-walker.html

http://www.amazon.com/Alice-Walker/e/B000APW6SE/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1280974666&sr=8-2-ent

• 6 days ago

Another answer:

I think to answer your question we have to look at history, what's going on in the world, and reality. Because the word misogyny isn't just a word: it's a sentiment, a feeling, and an attitude that has an institutionalized ideology behind it called "male supremacy" or "patriarchy".

Forms of hatred, disdain, distrust, dislike, and disrespect are social problems when they dovetail with forms of institutional domination and social control. These dovetailed realities are acted out in the world in really horrible ways.

As a parallel, "homophobia" and "heterophobia" are not comparable terms, if we take them to be reflective of what's actually going on in society. The same with this idea of "reverse racism." This is still a very patriarchal (and white-ruled) society. Misogyny is fused into society, commonly and violently, in a way that "misandry" simply isn't. Nor is "heterophobia." Nor is "Blacks, Native Americans, Latinos, or Asian Americans discriminating (or distrusting or hating) against whites."

Similarly, contempt for the poor is real and is reflected in social policy and prejudice. We see every election that the only economic groups that are ever even mentioned in campaign ads are "the struggling middle class" and "the rich." What is important to challenge is how rich people use their disdain, disrespect, and disregard for poor people to keep them invisible (and abused and neglected) in society and in the media--which is owned by rich people, not poor people, and by mostly straight people, not lesbians and gay men, and by whites, not people of color, and overwhelmingly by men, not women.

Here's the simplest way to determine what is and is not a social problem:
Who owns media?
Who is in dominant places in religious institutions?
Who enforces laws in your community?

Historically and currently in the U.S. the answer was and remains: not women, not the poor, not people of color, and not gay men and lesbians. To pretend terms like "misogyny" and "misandry" are in any way equal, in terms of the harm they do to human beings, is to be SERIOUSLY out of touch with what's going on. Women aren't taking over any time soon, nor are the other oppressed groups I mentioned.

Do some women hate men? Maybe. (I don't know any, but that's just me.) And, so what? So what if some poor people hate the rich?

The problem, regarding gender, is misogyny and male supremacy, acted out against women by men. The overwhelming problem isn't misandry and female supremacy, by any stretch of the imagination.

So I'd argue what when we talk about "misandry" we need to move beyond any one person's feelings, or the feelings of a very small group of writers, most of whom aren't even alive and who didn't even hate men, except for Solanas who is a tiny footnote and not even part of the feminist movement. Dworkin loved women and didn't hate men. Criticizing patriarchal abuses of women isn't "misandry." It's what anyone should do if they have a heart. Why would anyone want to defend rape and battery and sexual slavery? And when those social problems are acted out against males, it's usually by other males.

I do know lots of men who feels as you, and by the way, I sincerely want to thank you for your honesty in telling people what and how you feel. I wish more men did what you do here. My experience is this: men who hold onto a lot of anger at women express it against women, often in things like battery and rape. And even anger at men is acted out against the wife for example. Teen males physically abusing and controlling and dominating teen females is epidemic right now, not the reverse. I only hope you deal with your feelings in constructive, healthy ways, and don't express it at or to women. Thanks for asking this important question.

Here's a related question: what do we call the extreme distrust and hatred AMONG men, for and towards each other? It's men killing men in wars, for example. And men shooting and stabbing each other. What's the term for that? There needs to be that term before we start talking about a social problem that really is just a word more than it is a reality. The fact that we have no term for men who distrust and hate on men says something, doesn't it? If "misandry" referred to that, that'd make sense.

(Yahoo's spell-checker doesn't even recognize "misandry" or "misandrist" as words. There's a good reason for that.)

Source(s):

http://www.mahalo.com/forbes-400-richest-americans

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/owners.html

http://www.rootsofsexism.freeuk.com/

http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm

• 1 week ago

Ross-the-Teacher Has a PROBLEM. Ross thinks THE PROBLEM is HIS FEMALE STUDENT'S BREASTS being IN HIS FACE...

image is from here

Some days my profeminist work days are easier (and more hilarious) than others. This one is in the Top Ten Most Hilarious. And it would be even more funny if men didn't actually think using the Logical Phallusy employed here by Ross-the-Teacher.

If you think, for one millionth of one second that I believe this is a serious comment sent in earnestness by Ross to my blog, well, you must think I was born late this morning.

But, just for kicks, let's pretend HETERO/SEXIST Ross's question is COMPLETELY SERIOUS, because the truth is that LOTS of het men (AN ASTOUNDING NUMBER, ACTUALLY) do talk about themselves in relation to women in precisely this way: het men blame women for men's behaviors, so men don't have to be responsible for their own behavior and actions. The comment was submitted to an A.R.P. post that makes his question somewhat spurious. Click on the title for the post. It is titled:

"When Men Are Dickheads, They REALLY are Dickheads! See the kind of thinking dickheads do: Read these comments by AllenS and Jason, for example, and "Hoosier Daddy" (get it?), "Trooper York", and "Moose"..."

I've added a bit to my response since posting it to Ross on that other blog page.


WHAT FOLLOWS is a CLASSIC CASE of LOGICAL PHALLUSY, on the part of Ross:

Ross said...
Well I’m teaching a class of adult students and one of the female students who has a beautiful figure and very nice boobs comes into class wearing tight skimpy tops -very sexy looking. Does she not realize that it distracts me from my work. I don’t know why she dresses like that in my class. She seems like a nice girl. I want her to get her exams so she can get into university. I want to focus on her brains rather than her boobs but shes making it difficult for me to concentrate with those boobs in my face. I tried hard not to look at them - but I don’t want to ignore her either - shes a student in my class. What am I to do?
Ross
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 10:40:00 AM EDT

Julian Real said...
Hi Ross, I'll take it slow and sure here in responding to you.

I'd like you to examine your own language in what you wrote to me, because, as a teacher I'm sure you realise how important accurate communication is. So, let's have a look at what you attribute to her and to you--what you see as "her actions" and "your actions" and from there, what are "your responsibilities" and what are "her responsibilities", okay?

Your action/responsibility:
I’m teaching a class of adult students

You are the teacher, the most responsible person in your classroom regarding class conduct. Presumably, if you are teaching young people, you are also the most "mature" person in the room.

Your action/responsibility:  
one of the female students who has a beautiful figure and very nice boobs comes into class wearing tight skimpy tops -very sexy looking. 

This is about YOU determining the value of a female person's body who is a student, and your response to it. You are not owning that however. Instead you are describing what's going on as if she's "doing something to you"--arousing you, distracting you, making it difficult for you to concentrate, etc.

Ross, you're a big boy--in fact, a grown man. You can control your responses to other human beings and behave responsibly, can't you? If you cannot, you have no business being a teacher. Right?

You go on:
Does she not realize that it distracts me from my work.

So there you explicitly state YOUR action--being distracted--as HER full responsibility, not yours. That's a pretty serious error of judgment for a teacher to make. That's what we call "blaming the innocent party".

Your distractions are YOURS. You know there is meditation that can teach you how to be less distracted, right? Are you engaging in that practice? If not, why not?

Do you look at internet pornography off-hours? If so, do you realise how much more prone that makes you to sexistly objectifying women's bodies, regardless of what they are wearing? This has been demonstrated "scientifically" but all you need to do is stop looking at pornography for two weeks and you'll notice how much less prone you are to being "distracted" by women regardless of what they wear.

You then write:
I don’t know why she dresses like that in my class. She seems like a nice girl.

So now your making value judgments about her character based on her attire? That's called blatant sexism, sir. That, again, is your action and your responsibility to deal with, not hers. You wrote: I want her to get her exams so she can get into university.

Nothing you've described tells me she isn't an excellent student. In fact, you've curiously neglected to tell me anything about her except what you are inappropriately preoccupied by.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 2:44:00 PM EDT

Julian Real said...

Part two of two, Ross.

You wrote:
I want to focus on her brains rather than her boobs but shes making it difficult for me to concentrate with those boobs in my face. 

Ross, she isn't putting her breasts in your face, by your own account.

She comes into class, sits, listens, takes notes, and leaves. Right?

So at no point does she rise up out of her seat, walk over to you, and place your face into her chest, right? So, she's not "putting" her "boobs" anywhere they don't belong, is she? (I mean, they stay in the vicinity of her own chest at all times, right?) I hope you can see how you, once again, are not holding yourself accountable for YOUR actions, and are trying to put responsibility on her for things she isn't doing, that you describe her to be doing.

You wrote:  
I tried hard not to look at them - but I don’t want to ignore her either - shes a student in my class. What am I to do? 

Ross, I really don't think you're being particularly serious here. But just because other people will read this, I'm going to pretend you are asking a sincere question, based on your misperception of there even being a problem here.

There's no problem here other than your unchallenged objectification of a female students' body, and your proclivity to discuss what's happening in VERY irresponsible and sexist ways.

What are you to do? Don't stare at her breasts, stop using pornography and other media that fuse into your brain that women's bodies exist for your eyes and "enjoyment", because that's not what women's bodies exist to do: they exist as the physical part of women's beings. Just like your body doesn't exist FOR women to objectify, be distracted by, etc.

You are speaking in a predatory way, Ross, as if you really don't have control over your own actions. You are using the "logical phallusies" of work-place sexual harassers and serial rapists. As if you "cannot concentrate" enough to teach properly because there's a woman in your class who you choose to objectify in ways that are distracting for you. YOUR behavior, not hers, is inappropriate.

Please do speak to your supervisor about YOUR problem, and also the school or university counselor, immediately and I guarantee, if they are responsible adults, they will be clear with you that this is YOUR problem to resolve without involving your student AT ALL.

And I hope you know that if you approached the student and asked her to dress differently because "your boobs are distracting me too much in my classroom" that YOU would or should be served up a charge of sexual harassment, because that, too, would be inappropriate and irresponsible of YOU to do.

Are you seriously telling me that in the era of the early seventies when males wore VERY tight pants, that heterosexual female teachers should have all complained to administrators that they couldn't teach due to being so distracted? Seriously? Yes, her breasts are above the desk, not below. But she's one student among at least a dozen, yes? So how about this:

Look at her face, and look at the faces of your other students too. That's the only part of them you should be looking at anyway.

If you can't control your own eyes, and where they look, that's a self-control problem that YOU need to get help with.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 2:46:00 PM EDT

Craigslist founder Craig Newmark Left SPEECHLESS by brilliantly direct questioning from CNN reporter Amber Lyon about His Company Supporting and Promoting Girls Being Pimped and Raped by Adult Men

image of pimp and rape promoter Craig Newmark is from here

It is rare that men's endorsement, promotion, complicity, and financial investment in the rape of girls by men is seen nakedly on the face of a wealthy white het man from the U.S. who is confronted about his crimes against girls. Mass media is usually not so direct on this issue. And the pimps, the rich white male pimps, are usually able to throw their attorneys out to deal with the media so they can avoid being asked what they need to be asked: why are you promoting the pimping and rape of girls? But when Amber Lyon met up with Craig Newmark, she put the questions to him as sharply and quickly as I've ever seen on CNN, as he tries to shift the focus by asking her, "Have you reported this to us?" This is what criminal men usually do: get evasive and argumentative. And, consider the interview her reporting it to you, and us.

Why so, evasive, Craig? You ARE profiting off of the trafficking and rape of girls, after all. Why not just admit it, you PIMP and promoter of CHILD RAPE. I hope you are indicted on felony charges--as many charges as there are ads on your self-monitored website, allowing men access to pimped and trafficked girls. A woman who offered prostitution on Craigslist share her opinion below the article. While it is the case that there are plenty of websites that are run by callous pimps and pro-rape profiteers, their CEOs or web-hosts aren't claiming such things aren't going on under their careful watch.

So, SHAME ON YOU, Craig! And do humanity a favor by turning yourself in and going directly to jail, where you belong. For the rest of your life, or as long as it takes ALL the girls raped under your watch to recover fully from the trauma, the degradation, and the gross violation of their bodies and their human rights.

A writer for the Washington Post, here, accuses Lyon of "ambushing" him. Funny how that word is unlikely to be used when male reporters go after women and men who are participating in criminal activities against children. (Sadly, the author is female.) But let's be clear: Lyon confronted him with the truth of what his company was doing that he said it isn't doing, immediately following a speech he gave in Washington, DC, on, get this: trust. There's a term for men like Craig--not Jewish men, but men of any faith, ethnicity, color, or culture who commit such despicable acts against humanity: a schmuck.

What follows is from *here*.
Craigslist founder rendered speechless by CNN’s sex-trafficking questions 

By Liz Goodwin – Wed Aug 4, 11:50 am ET

The popular online classified ad site Craigslist is set to make about a third of its total revenue from its "adult services" ads section this year. But police and groups working to prevent human trafficking tell CNN the company is lining its pockets with money paid by prostitutes and pimps selling sex.

According to anti-trafficking advocates, some of the women featured on the site are underage and are being forced into prostitution against their will.

When CNN reporter Amber Lyon confronted Craigslist founder Craig Newmark with these accusations in an unplanned interview, the Internet magnate said his company was doing "more than anyone" to combat prostitution ads, before falling silent and eventually walking away from her questions.You can watch a clip of the interview here:



Lyon showed Newmark Craigslist ads that clearly involved women soliciting money for sex. Newmark asked, "Have you reported this to us?"

"Why do I have the responsibility to report this to you when it's your website? You're the one posting this online," she said.

Lyon also told Newmark that anti-trafficking advocates say his site is the "Wal-Mart of sex trafficking." Soon after, Newmark walked away.

"Of the thousands of U.S. venues that carry adult-service ads, including venues operated by some of the largest and best-known companies in the U.S., Craigslist has done the best and most responsible job of combating child exploitation and human trafficking," Craigslist CEO James Buckmaster told the New York Times in April. The company says it is not legally liable for what users post under the Communications Decency Act.

[The first comment under this post is this, at the website linked to above:]

I worked as a prostitute when I was 22. The primary source of my clients was Craigslist. This is a complicated issue, but I feel that it would be best for Craigslist to remove the adult services section off their site - not shut down their entire website. But like someone else said on here, the crime would still continue on; the business would just move to other websites.