Sex, Race and War - MORE

Darling, Rady

As you can imagine, I LOVE and AGREE with what you have written here.

I am trying to get an article of mine on Netiquette posted on opednews, without success for reasons no one seems to understand. Some of it is already quoted by you here in your bravissima article and here is some more of what I say in Netiquette: White people need first to acknowledge our racism and then make a commitment to unlearning our racism. "Understanding racism as a system of advantage that structurally benefits Whites and disadvantages people of color on the basis of group membership threatens not only beliefs about society but also beliefs about one's own life accomplishments.... People usually think of racism as the prejudiced behaviors of individuals rather than as an institutionalized system of advantage benefiting Whites." Why Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria (Basic Books, 1997, Beverly Daniel Tatum)

Men need first to acknowledge sexism in themselves and them make a commitment to stopping it, unlearning it. Women have also internalized this oppression. We are all on a different part of the grid, no matter how hard we have worked on this. TATUM'S QUOTE ABOUT RACISM IS TRUE ABOUT SEXISM TOO, SUBSTITUTING GENDER FOR RACE. Sexism hurts men too. However,men also profit from their sexism and misogyny.

by Sheila Parks (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments) on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 8:12:42 PM
 

Sex, Race and War - MORE

I want to sign my name to the above comment. It was in the preview, but not here, I have noticed.

Sheila Parks, Ed.D.

by Sheila Parks (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments) on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 8:45:30 PM
 

Commit to Unlearn the "Isms"

Sheila ~ your continual clarity on these issues is a source of constant inspiration to me.

Hopefully, your voice, mine, or someone's, will turn on a lightbulb in the brains of some of our comrades.

Together, we can win.

by Rady Ananda (71 articles, 201 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 529 comments) on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 9:38:36 PM
 

Thank you, Rady.

I've been having great difficulty trying to understand why so many people who I know to be peace activists, intend to vote for one of the three pro-war candidates.

Now I'm beginning to understand that war isn't so bad if you consider that more than 95% of the people killed in modern warfare are women, children, the elderly, and people of color. For those concerned with equality, war is good because it doesn't discriminate -- war is an equal opportunity destroyer.

And then if the war is carried out by a woman or a person of color, genocide can actually be a positive force for social good.

Is that the thinking, or am I still misunderstanding something?

You see, to me, the fact that no matter which of the three major party candidates is elected, the crimes against humanity in Afghanistan and Iraq will continue, is actually important. It's an issue. In my mind it overrides all other issues. I don't really think that Margaret Thatcher or Idi Amin brought about positive social change by being important and powerful just because one was female and the other was black.

You cannot stop the war by voting for war. All three candidates are committed to continuing the war, so I will not vote because I want the war to stop. I'm certainly not going to vote my sex or skin color if it means that I'm voting for crimes against humanity. I don't think my sex or skin color is more important than the sex and skin color of the millions who will continue to be tortured and killed needlessly just because Americans are more concerned about personal advancement and party politics than about peace.

If another country had as narrow a range of major party candidates as we have, we'd say they weren't a democratic country. All three of our candidates are pro-war. So war becomes a non-issue and people ignore the elephant in the room and argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Peace is not a chromosome or a quantity of melanin. Peace will only come about when people stop trying to advance themselves and their own kind (capitalism and tribalism) and start to feel empathy for the innocent victims of torture and genocide no matter who they are, where they are, or what their sex, skin color, religion, or other potentially discriminatory category may appear to be.

And from what I can see, that day may not be near at hand.

by Mark E. Smith (20 articles, 26 quicklinks, 63 diaries, 763 comments) on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 at 5:39:17 AM
 

Tokenism

I suspect this is the sole reason we are offered Clinton and Obama:

And then if the war is carried out by a woman or a person of color, genocide can actually be a positive force for social good.

If a woman or a black male leads the evil empire, then imperialism can't be all that bad, eh? 

If our Secretary of State is a black female, then it doesn't matter that she lied about weapons of mass destruction and helped lead us into an illegal war of aggression to steal the resources of another nation, right?

No, tokenism does not fool us; an evil policy is an evil policy no matter the "chromosome or quantity of melanin"...

I especially love how you worded this:

Peace is not a chromosome or a quantity of melanin. Peace will only come about when people stop trying to advance themselves and their own kind (capitalism and tribalism) and start to feel empathy for the innocent victims of torture and genocide no matter who they are, where they are, or what their sex, skin color, religion, or other potentially discriminatory category may appear to be.  

Thanks for your work on behalf of all people everywhere, Mark.

by Rady Ananda (71 articles, 201 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 529 comments) on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 at 8:45:56 AM
 

Thank you, Rady.

But isn't that exactly what Brad said?

You quote him as having said:

There have been some questions about diversity -- gender diversity, racial diversity and so on and so forth ... I don't think we have the luxury to concern ourselves, in a certain sense, with these things, as important as they are.

We're talking about remodeling the furniture in the house while the house is burning down [Applause]....

We've, we're in a war without end. I don't know how we get out of it. I blame the media. Everybody in this room is being listened to and has their internet read every day. I blame the media. We have torture. We have thrown out the Constitution and called it 'quaint.' I blame the media. These are the things that I think we need to figure out how to deal with instead of enjoying the luxury of concerning ourselves at the margins...for now.

How does that differ from what I wrote?

Maybe I'm wrong, but what I see Brad saying is that we don't have the luxury of concerning ourselves about whether the "furniture" in the White House is pine or mahogany, softwood or hardwood, male or female, white or black, we are in a situation where the country is in dire straits (the house burning down) due to crimes against humanity in Afghanistan and Iraq, so concern about the sex or color of the candidates is secondary to their position on peace -- where all three fail.

You accuse Brad of marginalizing gender and racial equality, when all he did was say that they are not the issue -- peace is the issue. But that's what I also said. Why is it okay when I say it but not when Brad says it?

Let's stop (literally) beating around the Bush. The only way that the candidates could make themselves look less evil than Bush would be to be oppose his war crimes. But since all three have voted to fund his war crimes, and all three are committed to continuing his war crimes if elected, the race has come down to party politics (Democrat v. Republican) or race and gender (male v. female and white v. black).

McKinney is running as a Green and you know how Democrats hate anyone who splits their party vote by doing that -- even if the person they're hating is somebody they loved all their lives and truly represents their interests.

I've had my differences with Brad in the past, and probably will again in the future, but in this case I agree with him. He isn't marginalizing gender and racial equality, he's prioritizing peace.

So should we all.

by Mark E. Smith (20 articles, 26 quicklinks, 63 diaries, 763 comments) on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 at 12:51:49 PM
 

Yes

I'm with you

Restoration of the Constitution must come first.

Slide to fascism must be ended.

Then  essayists will have freedom and time to split hairs

by abacus (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 49 comments) on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 at 2:14:34 PM
 

Not getting it - still

These are not marginal issues.  Oppression is the cause of all conflict, and it is driven by lust for wealth and power.  Oppression is what the democracy movement seeks to end.  It cannot be relegated to "later." 

Later is the promise to be broken in the future.  Later is the lie on the lips of the enemy within.

The inanity of marginalizing oppression in pursuit of peace exemplifies why some can never lead a successful movement for democracy; they just don't get it.

by Rady Ananda (71 articles, 201 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 529 comments) on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 at 3:09:47 PM
 

Constitution first

The Constitution arose from the fight against oppression.

The Constitution is our process for fighting oppression, for peace and justice, at home and abroad

Academic arguments willl not stop the slide to fascism.

First things first.

Restore habeas corpus.

Then argue whether chicken or egg came first. 

by abacus (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 49 comments) on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 at 3:24:09 PM
 

Brad didn't say they were marginal issues.

Brad said:

There have been some questions about diversity -- gender diversity, racial diversity and so on and so forth ... I don't think we have the luxury to concern ourselves, in a certain sense, with these things, as important as they are.

What he said, is that these are important issues. And they are important issues. But not as important as stopping the crimes against humanity.

When Brad wrote: 

We're talking about remodeling the furniture in the house while the house is burning down [Applause]....

He was saying that in the current Presidential race, matters of race and gender are really nothing more than what you called them, Rady, which is tokenism, and that it is frivolous to concentrate on tokenism when there are ongoing war crimes.

Brad made this perfectly clear: 

We've, we're in a war without end. I don't know how we get out of it. I blame the media. Everybody in this room is being listened to and has their internet read every day. I blame the media. We have torture. We have thrown out the Constitution and called it 'quaint.' I blame the media. These are the things that I think we need to figure out how to deal with instead of enjoying the luxury of concerning ourselves at the margins...for now.

Rady, when you write:

These are not marginal issues.  Oppression is the cause of all conflict, and it is driven by lust for wealth and power.  Oppression is what the democracy movement seeks to end. It cannot be relegated to "later." 

You are correct. Oppression IS the cause of all conflict and it IS driven by lust for wealth and power. In this campaign we have three wealthy and powerful major party candidates trying to ignore the fact that none of them are opposing the war crimes and that all three of them have supported the war crimes and are committed to continuing the war crimes. Yet the media wants us to focus on their race and gender and ignore the fact that all three candidates are committed to continuing the oppression in Afghanistan and Iraq and that none of them have taken a principled stand against these crimes against humanity.

You write: 

Later is the promise to be broken in the future.  Later is the lie on the lips of the enemy within.

Yes! They tell us that they might consider reducing the level of, or possibly even ending the war crimes -- LATER!

For now the media wants us to focus on the issues of race and gender and to ignore the ongoing crimes against humanity -- right now we are supposed to support the war criminal of our choice and let the issue of war crimes be off the table until some unspecified later date.

Well later for that! Torture and genocide are occurring right now. They need to be stopped right now (actually five years ago, but better late than never...after all, we've only killed about seven million innocent people, so if we want to discuss the race and gender of the pro-war candidates we can easily kill another few million while the discussion continues). 

The inanity of marginalizing oppression in pursuit of peace exemplifies why some can never lead a successful movement for democracy; they just don't get it.

Who is being oppressed, Rady? A couple of millionaire Senators because one is black and the other is female? I believe that millions of people in Guantanamo, and in Afghanistan and Iraq are being oppressed, that the reason they are being oppressed is because the only way to stop that oppression would be to impeach Bush and Cheney and to stop voting to fund the war crimes, and none of the major party candidates want to do that.

None of the three pro-war millionaire Senators running for President are in any danger of being oppressed, Rady. Tokenism in the form of electing one of them on the basis of sex or race will not end the oppression. They are the oppressors and have a voting record of supporting oppression.

There is a context here. The "burning house" is the crimes against humanity in Guantanamo, other secret prisons, Iraq, and Afghanistan.  The "furniture" Brad refers to are oppressors who have voted to support that oppression and are committed to continuing it, who would prefer that we focus on their sex and skin color. Those are important issues, yes, but Margaret Thatcher and Idi Amin, the examples I gave previously, prove that oppressors are still oppressors even if they happen to be female or black. To end the oppression you have to stop focusing on gender and race and focuse on oppression.

Brad may not "get it" in many other ways, and I've been in some heated debates with him on many issues. But in this case he "gets it," just fine. The issue is oppression and that's what we need to focus on.

by Mark E. Smith (20 articles, 26 quicklinks, 63 diaries, 763 comments) on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 at 4:00:06 PM
 

peace and justice

Ms. Ananda, i've read and been edified by a number of your articles on election integrity, so I was interested to hear what you had to say here. Given what you’ve said in this article, I guess you won’t be working for election integrity anymore- that you’ve decided working toward an “egalitarian” society will accomplish the lesser, marginal goals as well- like election integrity? “Riane Eisler's study of human cultures that spans 30,000 years shows that male dominated societies lead exactly to war and a celebration of them; while egalitarian cultures celebrate creation, fertility and not only peaceful but joyful union of society.” The Amazon, Moor, Arapesh, Mundugumor, Tchambuli, etc. societies may be exceptions to the rule in world history, but they prove the lie that war and domination is just a man or a white thing.

If you truly believe that men and women are equal, how can you blame world history on men? If we’re equal (I believe we are) then we were equal partners in making it what it was- right? Isn’t claiming otherwise a claim that women aren’t equal? If women are equal, then isn’t it true women (more than half the human race) could’ve put an end to all that war by making their objections heard; even just in private to their men? It’s no secret that women have great powers to manipulate men into doing things women want; why, then, did women not choose to manipulate men into being faced with the truth, and making decisions to be more fair? Some women are so good at manipulation, they can even make the stupid, small-minded men think the woman’s goal was their own idea!

“[A] legitimate revolution must be led by - made by - those who have been the most oppressed: black, brown, yellow, red and white women - with men relating as best they can.” Do you really believe this, with all the white men that recognize the injustice/inefficiency and are working to make things more just and equitable? Aren’t you suggesting that women and people of color aren’t equal; world peace and justice is waiting on you guys to step up? Perhaps it’s true, but I’m not going to wait. I don’t think it’s true, anyway; I see from history that women and people of color have been working for social justice for thousands of years already; and so have white men, against the social elites who exploit us, some of whom are women and people of color. Isn’t making this exclusively the fault of men, denying women’s power to make a difference?

In the first part of your article you conflated Friedman's statements into a new "quote" and removed a lot of the context- even your more extensive quoting shortly later still missed the context he was putting it in, which I took as- racial and gender equality are very important issues; but what good is it to vote for racial and gender equality, or any other issue, when the votes are being counted by secretive special interests and the media generally black out or spin the issue? Especially when the vote-counters are connected with the Republican Party, which has a history of being racist, misogynistic and evil? When many of the vote-counters have already been caught in criminal and unethical activity? Your equation of Friedman with "racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc." and apparent portrayal of him as a white male who wants election integrity, but otherwise wants to maintain the status quo he benefits from, doesn’t seem well supported by his statements at common cause- I kept reading, looking for better evidence of Friedman’s racism/misogyny, but you didn’t present any.

"Your cause is weakened by your prejudice," cautioned Rita Mae Brown in 1974 when the National Organization for Women ejected lesbians from membership.  The same applies to those who would remove oppression from an agenda for peace, humane treatment of prisoners, or media reform.  Speaking of media reform, how Orwellian is that?”

Your cause is weakened by your prejudice, Ms. Ananda, and how Orwellian is that? I'm a white male, and I just want to see People in office who tell the truth and care about serving the public interest. I believe all human beings (i may yet become convinced about animals, too) have equal value compared with each other. I believe truth, god, love and justice all dictate we should make our socio-economic-political playing field as level as possible. I don't believe we'll get closer to that ideal by electing any of the so-called "top tier" corporate scum, whether they be white, brown, male or female. I think with an honest, open, transparent, publicly accountable electoral process, eventually the human race will achieve it, though. 

So I'll continue to support election integrity AND the cause of social equality, AND all other good causes, by devoting my time, energy and money primarily to election integrity (and other issues that affect the human race as a whole). I do see your point that the equality issue affects us as a whole. I do see your point about the dangers of discounting these issues. I don't see why you repeatedly maligned Brad Friedman, quoted his remarks out of context, and tried to imbue them with racist/misogynistic overtones. I don't see how social equality will be achieved before electoral integrity. I do see how it will inevitably be achieved after we have electoral integrity. If you can get us to both places first by working on gender equality issues, then by all means, please do so.

by Better World Order (4 articles, 219 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 626 comments) on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 at 5:01:09 PM
 

SEXUAL EQUALITY VS RADICAL FEMINISM

To do justice in rebuttal of Rady Ananda's "Sex, Race and War" would take nothing less than a full book, examining the true causes of the twentieth century wars, class structure in a capitalist society, the role sexism and racism play in maintaining that structure, and detailing various macro-economic theories and theories of value. However, this being a comment, and this argument having been put to pasture for many years now, let's dispatch it with UPS overnight urgency.

There has always been a tendency in the general public to confuse the two concepts of sexual equality and radical feminist ideology. The first means simply that males and females are to be treated alike under the law, and that women should receive equal pay and opportunity in employment for equal work with men. The proposed Equal Rights Amendment was the hallmark of the sexual equality movement.

Out of the sexual equality movement arose a group of political theorists that claimed that Karl Marx was wrong in concluding that class structure was at the basis of human alienation, and that more specifically the class structure of capitalism led inevitably to wars for the redistribution of markets and for natural resources. This group of theorists was termed radical feminists, because they saw the division between the sexes as the root cause of human alienation and the patriarchal structure of society as the root cause of all war throughout humankind's history. Their remedy lay in not only a matriarchal society, but a society in which the female is freed from the entire sexual process: no need for sex for procreation, only recreation; test tube babies; artificial wombs; and ultimately motherless births. They saw a technological future that would free the female from her sexual identity in so far as it required a male mate and giving birth for a child.

Through modern divorce laws, this agenda has largely come true. With no fault divorce, and ex parte domestic violence injunctions, any good lawyer for a wife should emerge with the family home, vehicle, children, and substantial support payments without the father ever having had the benefit of notice that he was being divorced.  Once he finally gets a hearing, the court usually decides that if the current situation is working, there is no need to change it, whether or not the husband was in fact guilty of the original charge of battering (a nonconsensual touch).  The modern male has little more rights than did the male slave of the 18th century: his family can be ripped away from him without due process and he can be placed into indentured servitude for 18-21 years, even if the former wife continually violates what little visitation he might be given in the final judgment of divorce, and even if it turns out the husband is not the father. No court will incarcerate the primary custodian on a contempt charge, nor change the amount of support paid allegedly on behalf of the children. Nor does any court or agency monitor whether child support payments are actually used to support the children.

Whereas Marx saw sexism and racism as tools the ruling class used to divide the working class, radical feminists saw sexism and racism as the fundamental cause of mankind's ills. For Marx, remove the ownership of private property by individuals or corporations and replace it with public ownership in, for instance, the form of elected CEO's, and the endless wars for markets and resources would end, along with the boom and bust crisis centered economies of capitalist countries. In forging the social movement capable of creating such radical change, the working class would necessarily overcome the racism and sexism that had formerly been used to divide it.

To one extent or another, virtually all industrialized countries have become partially socialist.  They control their economies through tax subsidies, partial nationalizations, direct governmental intervention, wage and price controls, etc...  But none has gone so far as to eliminate an "owning class." Hence, we are all left with an inability to plan a "green" economy, based upon the consent of the workers who will build that economy. And the world's economies are still based upon the need to profit more than a competitor-- decreasing wages, increasing the speed of the "assembly line" (two bread winners in every family now to make what one made post WWII), and decreasing value in every product (human effort plus cost of materials). This loss of value can be seen in the United States by the fact that most employees produce nothing. They move paperwork, or serve in the tertiary sector.

In fact, the U.S., as the most advanced industrial state in the world, has nearly reached the point where Marx foresaw communism able to exist. Without the capitalist system forming our entire infrastructure, we are in a position to feed, shelter and clothe ourselves with local resources, severely curtailing the use of fossil fuels. Additionally, with the exception of our high technology infrastructure, almost everything we could possibly need can be produced at the local level if the land were not bound up in unproductive, "no trespassing" parcels, owned by who knows what governmental or corporate agency. As producers of commodities with value, we have only a handful of people at work. The rest have been given busy work, shuffling papers over which corporation gets this and that, etc., or in prison, or held in failing schools and colleges until they enter the work force in their late twenties. If we shared the work, and worked only to meet our needs, and those of developing nations, we might find ourselves with a two day work week instead of the mad scramble forced upon us now. Our time could be devoted to science, literature and the arts, and most importantly, to bringing prosperity to the developing world.

On the other hand, the radical feminist concludes that economics have nothing to do with war. Rather, the fundamental schism in society is between Man and Woman. Or White Man and any other color of Man or Woman. Of course, historically, the white male is a late arrival. The Native American tribes engaged in war without any help from the White Man. So too the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Israelites, the Muslims, etc...  And in many of these cultures, not only did females at times rule, and rule ruthlessly, but were often in charge of the torture of captives, which they apparently, thoroughly enjoyed.

Not only does history not bear out the radical feminist ideology, but that ideology offers us no concrete analysis of exactly how replacing male rulers with female rulers is going to change the underlying economic activity that brings war upon us and the family of nations. In fact, recent studies regarding spousal abuse, which studies are ignored by the MSM, where you can daily watch women hitting men on prime time, have found that women tend to resort to violence first and more frequently than do men.  As one of the attorneys who helped found the battered wife defense, raising it for the first time in U.S. history in a lesbian marriage, I was shocked at the telephone calls I received from women's organizations requesting that I keep the case out of the news. Where I had expected resounding support, I found only the deep desire to keep female battering a closely held secret.

It is true that once the male strikes back, he is more likely to injure the female due to superior size, but on the other hand, the female is more likely to resort to the use of weapons.

Once the darling of the media as I became an expert on the battered wife syndrome, appearing on various nationally syndicated talk shows and always the go to attorney for local issues, as I began to read about the censored studies and to mention that everybody needs to stop hitting before we can expect only a specific segment of our society to stop, I soon had no currency with the airwaves. As Fox Mulder might say, "The truth is out there.”  Unfortunately, the women's movement, and the MSM, wants to make sure that no one knows it.

But I must conclude that both Ms. Ananda and the subject of her criticism are partly right. The rise of feminism, and the left's failure to take it seriously, in the late sixties and early seventies, is one of the primary reasons the coalition fell apart. It, of course, did not help that the FBI managed to assassinate some thirty leaders of the Black Panthers in 1969, and the movement ignored them too. (This conspiracy is well documented in the decision of a federal appellate court, the citation of which I forget, but it can probably easily be found by looking in Words and Phrases for Mark Clark and Fred Hampton in the Fed Second Edition). This time the government has prepared for any movement like the sixty's movement, and if the progressive people of America are to have any chance of staying unified, we must crush all of the techniques of the past used to separate us. Sexism and racism are two of the major thrusts that will be used. We must abandon loyalties to sex and race and understand that our oppression comes from a system. That means that women cannot hide the fact the divorce laws are unfair, and that men cannot hide from the fact they exercise unjustly more power than women. And all people must recognize that racism and sexism is institutional. You cannot just change minds. You must change institutions.

by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 256 comments) on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 at 7:55:16 PM
 

No way to reach you privately

WML ~ I want to give your careful thoughts proper due consideration and response; and will respond more fully ... but I cannot spare the time right now.  

Overall, I have not been convinced of any error in my thinking.  My theme still stands. 

When a SWM says that issues of race and gender equality need to be put aside while we work for peace, my alarms go off.  Oh, here we go again.  SWM deciding the agenda, thereby insulating his position of authority and dominance.   

Anecdotal evidence suggesting women are just as violent as men does not bear out in the crime and driving statistics. if you have sources to refer to me, I would gladly read them and - if true - would undergo a huge paradigm shift.  

I very much want to study your take on economic constructs - I've been studying recent books; and did take those 3 college econ courses, which included portions of Marx' thought. I'm still chewing over what I've learned so far, but haven't clarified my dawning conclusions.  

However you want to label my ideas (and btw I don't agree with the label based on your definition), there can be no denying the fact that race and gender divisions reinforce the war machine which SWM progressives seek to stop.  

If SWMs refuse women and people of color at the table, helping decide how to address the war machine, (and other frightening issues we face) - and since this has been the case for the past 400 years (at least) in the US, then, as Marie Wilson said, women (and people of color) not being at the table IS THE PROBLEM.

As MLK said, it is usually those on the margin who provide the solution. of course he said it more eloquently... I don't have the link handy. 

Anyway, I'll try to get back to you quickly... but it won't be for at least a few days.

by Rady Ananda (71 articles, 201 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 529 comments) on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 at 1:21:22 AM
 

obfuscating my theme

mark, you (and others) continually misstate my ideas, which makes it easy then to attack.

my theme stands - and based on the responses I received (privately and publicly), it is reinforced.  

It's okay according to those comments above for SWM to tell women and people of color ("and so on and so forth") to put our concerns aside; yet, should we suggest that the reason we're in the spot we're in is BECAUSE of that exclusionary posture, oh my goodness.. heaven forbid anyone should confront that shallow paradigm.

Hierarchy is achieved and reinforced thru violence, and breeds further conflict.  The dominant hierarchy structure in society is men on top; and is reinforced within our social justice movements by comments like Brad's.

Marginalizing oppression as a strategy to achieve peace is absurd, Orwellian, and a strategy that time proves is ineffective.

When feminist media activists met this year - the suggested strategy was the opposite:

We thought of all that has happened in just seven short but disastrous years of the Bush Administration, and we asked: how might we position ourselves so we're not fighting one another? .... We all know that there is simply too much at stake.

We agreed that everyone needs to refocus on the big picture. 

How, therefore, to reclaim a common purpose, a truly democratic "we": we women of all races, we blacks of all genders, we Americans of all languages, we immigrants of all classes, we Latinas of all colors, we Southerners of all regions, we families of all ages, we parents working three jobs without healthcare, we poor who sleep on the streets, we single mothers whose homes are being repossessed, we displaced New Orleanians whose neo-Arcadian epic of displacement has yet to be resolved.

Inclusion, not exclusion, is the most people-friendly strategy suggested. 

Methinks thou all protest too much.

Later, Dudes

by Rady Ananda (71 articles, 201 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 529 comments) on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 at 9:17:18 AM
 

Inclusion?

Rady wrote:

mark, you (and others) continually misstate my ideas, which makes it easy then to attack.

my theme stands - and based on the responses I received (privately and publicly), it is reinforced.  

It's okay according to those comments above for SWM to tell women and people of color ("and so on and so forth") to put our concerns aside; yet, should we suggest that the reason we're in the spot we're in is BECAUSE of that exclusionary posture, oh my goodness.. heaven forbid anyone should confront that shallow paradigm.

Hierarchy is achieved and reinforced thru violence, and breeds further conflict.  The dominant hierarchy structure in society is men on top; and is reinforced within our social justice movements by comments like Brad's.

Marginalizing oppression as a strategy to achieve peace is absurd, Orwellian, and a strategy that time proves is ineffective.

Brad wasn't marginalizing oppression. He was simply saying that in order to bring about peace, we cannot focus on the sex or race of the candidates to the exclusion of their political voting records on war crimes. None of the major party candidates are oppressed. By voting to fund the war crimes and committing themselves to continue those war crimes if elected, they are the ones oppressing the millions of women and people of color in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

Rady wrote: When feminist media activists met this year - the suggested strategy was the opposite: