I always find it remarkable when people start claiming that war (or “humanitarian intervention”) is somehow in the interests of women.
TomGram has been running a remarkably moving and very disturbing series on women and war - from writers reporting from countries rarely raised by the Decentists and the “you must condemn” crew and some where supposedly “The West” is putting everything right.
Please read all the links, but even if you don’t, perhaps you’ll ponder these words from Ann Jones in the most recent post:
In recent years, every kind of horror has been inflicted on girls and women in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Côte d’Ivoire because they are female. If females were a particular ethnic group — Albanians, let’s say, or Tutsis — or if they espoused a particular religion, as did Bosnian Muslims, we could recognize what goes on as a kind of “gender cleansing” or mass femicide. But we don’t speak of crimes against women in that way. When did you last hear someone speak of “crimes against women” at all?
And please think about concrete action you can take to do something about it. Any links welcomed. It takes more than an op/ed or a blog post.
“I always find it remarkable when people start claiming that war (or “humanitarian interventionâ€?) is somehow in the interests of women.”
Well, that’s what the Zapatista movement claims. They chose to launch a civil war against the Mexican government, and they claim that this war is very much in the interests of women. The author of the TomGram article is on their side.
Obviously, the unbelievably vicious wars in central Africa are in no one’s interests, apart from a few dictators and warlords.
But there have been a few ‘humanitarian interventions’ which arguably served to reduce civilian death tolls from massacre or genocide, and thus were in women’s interests.
Not all of these interventions were by Western states. Bosnia, Cambodia, East Pakistan, and Uganda are four that come to mind. (I wrote a research paper on this a while ago, arguing enthusiastically for international law to recognise a limited principle of humanitarian intervention.)
“And please think about concrete action you can take to do something about it.”
1) In the short run, be willing to donate to charities such as MSF that can help the surviving victims a little.
2) In the long run, be willing to support the creation of a UN-organised world peacekeeping and ‘peacemaking’ military force that would be willing and capable to intervene in situations of femicide and genocide and similar atrocities.
Are there any other options?
The link goes to a detailed article. It nevertheless provides no answers. Nor does the ICRC. It can just report what it sees and try and assist the victims.
Think about footage you see of conflicts from the beginning of the period after WWI, the first modern war with significant civilian involvement.
Increasingly that footage over time contains images of unarmed and helpless women running before the invaders, or displaced along with their children, or displaying horrific injuries.
These are the images of these current conflicts, more than the bands of soldiers or guerillas which provided the dominant images of past conflicts such as the independence struggles of the 50s and 60s.
And even within Western armies it seems that even armed and combat-trained women soldiers are still having to fight some of the same battles that the women victims of war face. Another story is here
And yet there are different images from the past. Despite the horrors of war and the desire everyone has that war should cease, despite any work people have done as peace activists.
For instance, one million women served in the Soviet Army in WWII, mainly in combat roles, including snipers such as the much-decorated Lyudmila Pavlichenko.
The situation of and official support for women in the Viet Cong was, despite harsh conditions and extreme privation, somewhat better than that existing in many Western armed forces , though Ho Chi Minh at the time of the Vietnam War was quoted as saying that contempt for women was deep-rooted, as shown by this quote from a Vietnamese woman who left home to fight with the Viet Cong.
I don’t think anyone can argue against what the Liberian women in this article are saying.
Perhaps that is the only choice for women as long as wars exist. To be a mutilated, abused victim. Or become like Lyudmila Pavlichenko, Duc Hoan or Ellen the Liberian rebel. I know in that situation what my choice would be.
Thanks Kim for the wake-up call. You’re right about words v. actions, hence the short comment. I’ll have to see what I can get into over in NY.
Join Amnesty and get involved in campaigns to do with women. Support Medecins Sans Frontiers. Sponsoring a child via World Vision (money goes into a pool to help communities).
Perhaps the Larvatus Prodeo community could think of a specific issue that relates to the ill-treatment of women in one particular country and join together to oppose it (contact politicians, write letters to editors, etc). Perhaps that issue could also be returned to on a regular basis to see how things are going.
Here’s some links:
[link]
[link]
[link]
(note our Nicole saying no to violence against women while wearing a fetching pair of glasses - she’s serious about the issue).
[link]
Don’t forget that it’s International Women’s Day on March 6.
Keep writing about the issues as well.
I was at the Adelaide Woman’s Day event a few years ago around state election time.
The event was well publicised and well attended with many organizations, churches, govt.dept. reps, NGOs, several prominent politicians, writers including national and international authors, musicians, lots of stalls, activities and speeches and so on all held at a prominent place in the city after a large crowd had marched through the streets.. ALL the media outlets had been notified in advance and there was plenty of news fodder available from the speeches by well known speakers including but not only politicians which centred on a wide range of issues relating to society in general and women and children in particular.
We watched all the TV news programs that evening, listened to the radio [inc. local ABC] and perused the Murdoch rag the next day.
Zero coverage.
Mind you there were some important news items that crowded women’s issues out. Such as Xenophon doing some media stunt and a footballer that hurt his shoulder.
Oh well, if at first you don’t succeed….
IWD is march 8.
It has an “official” website, although as usual it’s very US-centric so I don’t bother with it much. Look on your local websites / in local papers instead to see what’s on (or look to see what’s coming through your Facebook contacts).
(note our Nicole saying no to violence against women while wearing a fetching pair of glasses - she’s serious about the issue).
Is that a tongue I see in your cheek or are you just glad to see me?
Historically, the greatest guarantor of women’s rights, freedom, and advancement has been liberal democratic capitalism. It is quite clear that elevating the rest of the world to such societies is the only solution.
Amazing innit…the minute a celebrity picks up on an issue, it gets media play.
And of course they have to be glamorous (if they are female). No matter how little they may know about the subject. Or how they leverage it for publicity, like Angela Jolie, who collects orphans like big game hunters used to collect animal heads.
If they are a bloke they are of course allowed to be as ugly as a hatful of elephants’ arses (Geldof?) but they must be a celebrity.
At least Geldof does appear to know something about the crises in Africa. Maybe that’s part of the selection criteria for male celebs. Hence he can sound intelligent and serious on a serious topic, and people can actually believe that Celebland cares.
Women like Eva Cox and the other women who work with victims of rape and torture who actually know something occasionally get airplay on serious chat-fests, but I can’t see Eva and her colleagues being allowed to alert the masses and cuddle cute African orphans on the front cover of Women’s Weekly any time soon.
Well, what does work? You can feel good by sponsoring a child or village, or paying for 12,000 measles vaccines. Next week the recipients of these charities will be overwhelmed by pointless conflicts, ancient tribal hatreds and mindless thuggery perpetrated by moral imbeciles.
The images that stick in mind from recent events in Zimbabwe and Kenya were not the sufferings of starving herdsmen and subsistence farmers we usually have from Africa, but the number of well-fed, educated, English-speaking, well-dressed middle class people, just like us, queuing for UN rations and telling dark tales of murders, massacres and rapes.
Which they had little or no power to stop.
None of us, as far as I can gather have the power to greatly influence what occurs in our own communities, let alone in conflicts overseas. Look how long it took to get the Apology.
These people might.
Whatever some purists may think of the present or past political alignments of some members of this group, they have the ear of governments, which we as individuals do not have, and with people like George Souros on board, they have serious access to funds.
Maybe a well-worded letter to Gareth Evans?
D’oh, sorry about that incorrect date for IWD. Thanks Helen for the correct date, which is March 8.
Went looking online for details of IWD march in Melbourne, but I’ll be buggered if I could find anything. Perhaps they don’t have it anymore. If anyone can provide info, please do.
Always happy to see you Helen ;), and my tongue is in my cheek also.
“None of us, as far as I can gather have the power to greatly influence what occurs in our own communities, let alone in conflicts overseas. Look how long it took to get the Apology.”
I agree, but a little is better than nothing, I guess. If you sponsor a kid and that allows their family to get seeds or something, that’s practical and something (next to nothing, but something).
Really good point about the ugly/pretty male/female requirements for celebs with a cause. So true. Geldof does know what he’s talking about.
I dont belong to this community.New Wave feminism has left me on an island and only have one book to read over and over again so I meet the standards of caring women,and that is Aristotle,then use it practically,as dunny paper.Thus in a symbolic sense,I then have met the standard so I can be criticised observationally fairly by women,and almost in the ambiguous state of no mansland…not quite up myself,whilst having used that which inspired me to be such a rotten s..t to women as an Australian male.I must conform to the stereotype,because after all,through out my life I have been coached by avid and knowledgeable men quoting Aristotle.Every male I run into,always introduce themselves as Aris tot le.Teenagers like the colour hair and yellow glasses brigade,grown men like Wilson Tuckey the comedian…Dr.Peter Hollingsworth,Chairman Bob Jane,Hockey the domino champion,Ronald MacDonald,Jethro Tull the Australian by deed poll,My Uncle Bill a Desert Rat deserter,my dad who was told whilst in training for the second world war to wipe his backside with a scrubbing brush,Johnny Famechon,and Farnham,Lou Richards whilst talking into the camera of World of Sport,Jeff Kennett the Board member exVietnam Veteran,quoting ad nausea ,to women..!? Aristotle over Radio,whilst us menfolk just lap it up.I will not mention the Sydney Muslim,but will mention Lobsang Rampa in his famous paperback………What am I saying!?I guess I havent got fine motor skills!?
I remember reading a good article (if someone else knows of it Id be grateful) from a ex-aid man whos African experience went something like this.
Village A gets aid enough to farm in excess of its needs, given a couple of years it will be out of the cycle of needing aid and be self sufficent.
Village B has bugger all but does have some guns, they raid village A who then call on the govenment for assistance.
Village A then gets most of its available consumables taken by the government as the troops are expected to live off the land.
Village B gets snotted. Resistance to the government becomes entrenched, civil war breaks out.
His basic point was that there was no point in building villages up if they couldnt defend themselves/be defended.
My only suggestion will cause Emus to fly out peoples arses here but what would be wrong with an attempt at recolinisation of some of the worlds most failed states?
Not with the intent of long term occupation, but with the intent of bringing a strong central government and the rule of law. It would be tempting to say Australia is allready doing this to some extent in East Timor and to a lesser extent PNG.
As long as it results in a better standard of living for the vast majority of people would it be all that bad?
Just wanted to thank folks for the largely constructive comments on this thread.
Darlene, your catty remark about Nicole Kidman’s commitment to ending violence against women based solely on the glasses she was wearing, was patronising and the sort of thing I’d expect from Joe Hockey or Tony Abbott. Oh and she’s barren as well, so QED, I suppose.
Kim
Bloody hell, you’re hard to read, girl! My post #9 did not appear until about 24 hours after I actually posted it. I thought, “oh well, just the feminist hivemind at it again.” And then you go and post it. Stop messing with my little head!
Jane
You leave Kim alone. She Rocks!
Jane, you’re objecting to a remark on feminist grounds and referring to the woman who made the comment as “catty”? Hmmm…
As a matter of fact Kidman is supposed to be pregnant at the moment.
I think the point Darlene was making, and that I made in a later post, is that celebrities like to associate themselves with causes for self-publicity. In doing so they become the “voice” of that cause.
The workers on the ground who actually know something are for the most part self-effacing. And non-telegenic.
Nothing to do with feminism. Everything to do with the unfortunate cult of celebrity.
Err, JG at 17, thanks for the compliment, but Jane was addressing Darlene not me. Displaying your accustomed close reading skills?
“I think the point Darlene was making, and that I made in a later post, is that celebrities like to associate themselves with causes for self-publicity. In doing so they become the “voiceâ€? of that cause.”
True, but on the other hand, if I was working in the field as another godawful disaster unfolds, I’d welcome anyone who could raise funds and attention for the problem, regardless of how much cosmetic and ego surgery they had.
If you were rich, famous and presented with a megaphone by the global media, what would you be doing with your power and time?
I always fancied the anonymous reclusive billionaire model, a la George Souros before he went public with his anti-Bush campaign, forking out fortunes to deserving causes.
Bill and Melinda Gates, though certainly not anonymous, are known for their philanthropy also, but they do not parade it like a new designer-label garment screaming “Look-at-Meeee”.
“but they do not parade it like a new designer-label garment screaming “Look-at-Meeeeâ€?.”
Well I don’t doubt that ego plays a large part on the charitable works of celebrites media identities but I would make the following observations.
A) if all their showboating is improving or saving at least one life, then I’d say it’s not the worse use they could make of their spare time;
B) betcha Soros and the Gates have annual seven figure PR bills to raise their philanthropic and personal profiles; and
C) the likes of the Jolies and the Bonos are gonna attract “look at meeee” media attention no matter what they do.
Look I don’t like the self-righteous smugness of a Sting or Bono any more than you do - but what would you rather have them to with their downtime? Wallow in hot tubs with nubile starlets? OK, aside from that, the bastards.
I’m pretty certain whoever’s on the end of whatever support they’ve mobilised is really not too fussed about some self-congratulatory poncing about at a media call.
Souros is very unflashy. He comes from a poor Hungarian Jewish family, lost relatives in the Holocaust and hasn’t forgotten the fact. He eschews the usual trappings, though I have no doubt he has a nice home.
Bill Gates is pure geek, teetering on the edge of Asperger’s. He would have no more consciousness of himself as a media spectacle than he’d be capable of growing wings. His whole focus when he interacts with the media at all is on Microsoft and its products. And, lately, the causes he supports.
Much as I dismiss and rail at Micro$oft, I think Gates ’s philanthropy is admirable.
Bono’s a bit of a tripper. Jolie is seriously disturbed.
Yeah but I wonder about people getting (understandably) perturbed about abused and neglected Third World kids one minute, then standing by when fruitloops like Jolie, Madonna and Oprah swoop down on them like Valkyries.
Let me rephrase that.
I know Soros and the Gates have annual seven figure PR bills to raise their philanthropic and personal profiles.
Like the other celebrities we’re talking about, they also recognise the value of, and the need to manage, their brand names in leveraging outcomes for their causes when appropriate. If they really are that self-effacing, well then they wouldn’t have put their names to their foundations and organisations would they?
Anyway, we’re nitpicking here. If Madonna manages to raise a million dollars for some charitable cause, regardless of how it warms her ego, it’s still a million dollars more than what was there before.
I suspect that has more to do with the disclosure provisions in US tax laws.
Stopping the arms race would provide trillions, and we’d not have to grimace at celebrities sprawled all over the papers each day.
Okay Saucy - you may not like looking at Angie, but I say it’s a win-win.
It’s a bit like the window display in a suss butcher shop
I would win if I was able to block individual images in Firefox rather than having to block all images. Grrr
Thanks Kim, for the post/links etc. having followed (sporadically) these appalling African conflicts and wars over the years, I am still however, stunned and aghast, each time, I read first or second hand accounts of the atrocities. The acts committed against these women & children are so beyond cruelty and degradation – and you have to wonder how many generations ahead, will be still be suffering, even with best case scenarios going forward.
As for assistance, I have sent just off another contribution to Tostan. (your posts on these topics, are becoming gentle reminders to cough up regularly, btw.)
I am hoping that by contributing even in a very small way, to this key grass-roots African Women’s NGO, which is doing such great work in number of more functional Western African countries in which it operates - Senegal, Guinea, The Gambia, Mauritania that it might also support, in the medium to long term, an arc of stability, as well as expertise in community empowerment, female leadership, literacy programs, women’s health and so on, not only in those countries, but in time, for their tragic neighbouring states - Sierra Leone, Liberia & Cote d’Ivoire.
And I’m with Paulus at 2: MSF etc. and a reformed/re-energized UN. That an actor like George Clooney has to lead the call for an intervention in Dafur, says volumes about the state of the UN, and it’s diminished role, post 9/11.
Sobering stuff, and ever more thankful for the blessed life I get to live.
Anna Winter, perhaps you’d prefer spiteful or mean or even shallow, self-righteous and smug, but IMO it was a catty and unneccesary remark and not worthy of Darlene, whose posts have always struck me as objective, well reasoned and researched and a pleasure to read. So I was surprised that she was judging someone’s commitment solely on their eyeware.
I have no opinion on Nicole Kidman, or any other celebrity; I don’t know any of them and I’d be surprised if anyone else on this site does either, so none of us is in a position to judge her reasons for advocating this or any other cause, regardless of her glasses.
But if Kidman’s fame draws attention to the appalling abuse women and children are suffering in these conflicts, and has the added benefit of inducing people to make cash and other donations, it’s a win-win situation, surely.
And lets not forget that we punters are complicit in the cult of celebrity; after all, it’s our prurient interest which gives it oxygen. I stopped buying women’s mags years ago, because I was so sick of the Diana cult, (although probably not as sick of it as she was, I imagine) and have remained happily ignorant of who’s who in the celebrity world ever since.
Actually, I’d prefer funny - sarcastic maybe. I read it as a light-hearted dig at the way celebrities manipulate their image. Kidman rarely wears glasses, except when she is being Serious. It’s possible to refuse to take seriously that sort of manipulation and at the same time acknowledge that the results of her work are worthy. You condemn the cult of celebrity, yet also condemn Darlene when she points it out.
You may think that Kidman just happened to be wearing glasses; that an A-list movie star gave that little thought to her appearance. I’m just suggesting that you examine your own choice of words when you do so. Would you have labelled the comment catty if a bloke had written it?
Yes, it was meant to be a dig at the nature of celebrity, but obviously not a very clear one (or a funny one for some people). Certainly didn’t meant to offend, so my apologies.
The celebrity culture gone mad thing has certainly made me re-think buying women’s mags. I purchased Who for the first time in ages on Friday and just looked at it and thought, “What the hell am I doing with this rubbish?”
You usually get no choice if you visit the hairdressers. The atmosphere is not conducive to a serious read (reading glasses and colouring jobs don’t mix) Also on short flights, if someone has nicked the SMH or BRW
I regard such occasions as conducting intelligence surveillance in the enemy camp.
True, at the hairdressers you get the choice between NW, Who, Vogue, Cosmo, and Woman’s Day.
Good point. Good chance to see what the enemy camp is doing. What they’re doing is gossiping about Britney and worrying about their thighs.
I think women should worry about their thighs! I mean, if they are caught up in a war they best be as fit as possible in case they have to run.
Anna Winter, yes I would still say it was catty if a man made the comment because that’s what it was.
As for the glasses, maybe she lost her contacts. In any case, wearing glasses isn’t worth a comment image-or-appearance-wise and frankly, I wouldn’t have bothered. On the other hand, if she was hosting a celebrity wank-up, she’d deserve the comments.
Further link on IWD/what you can do :
[link]
Because you can probably do more where you are, I’m especialy pissed off with NSW. The (did you want bribes with that?) Iemma govt has just shafted the Violence Against Women strategy in favour of filing its remnant resources under the gender blind NSW State Plan priority R1 “reduce violent crime” led by the NSW Police Force - hah! Of course we have to get better at responding to the victims of family & domestic violence but not at the expense of the only government program set up to prevent it! A comittment to the status quo - thanks Morrris. Meanwhile Victoria has developed a framework to guide the primary prevention of violence against women, based on a review of existing research evidence
Find it here :
[link]
(amongst other things, the research says that attitudes tolerant of VAW are most closely associated with :
(i) being male &
(ii)weak support for gender equity
….both rampant in the NSW police force - how ironic is that)
Heavy handed humour Mr G?
I would hope women unfortunate enough to be caught up in war would have the means to protect themselves and their children. And controversial as it may seem to some, that may mean turning on their oppressors and fighting back, like the Liberian women soldiers.
A dead or maimed rapist doesn’t rape.
Sorcerer, do you think women are as capable of violence and killing as men are?
Yes. Why wouldn’t they be, once you remove all the social conditioning?
I suppose it’s because I think men have more an instinctual urge towards such things, in common with males of many species. Surely women, being biological mothers, have more a nurturing instinct.
Your comment does both women and men a disservice by limiting them to what you perceive is their biology. So according to your theory, men would be incapable of nurturing children, so would be precluded from the important tasks of fatherhood, and women would be incapable of a protective role. And women who were childless by choice, circumstance or age would be off in some politico-cultural limbo.
As far as we can gather from evidence from prehistory, the role of prehistoric ancestral males, as well as fathering offspring, was to protect the vulnerable. The vulnerable were infants and pregnant or nursing mothers. Not necessarily women in general.
The average life expectancy of humans around 10,000 years ago was probably around 30 years of age. Disease, natural disasters, climate conditions, inter-group conflict and predators would have carried off large numbers of people from time to time. Many females would probably have died in childbirth or shortly after, since the human female is, unlike other mammals, not all that physiologically well-equipped to birth large-headed human babies.
For the most part, surviving females then would have either been pregnant or nursing infants from puberty up until they ceased menstruation, or died from natural causes. So some rough maths suggests that a girl having her first baby at 12 or 13, nursing it for three years and then giving birth to three more offspring would be well into her 20s and almost at the limit of her statistical lifespan.
Since hunter-gatherers cannot afford to carry passengers, it is quite likely that the females who did survive their child-bearing years, or who had not given birth for whatever reason (hate that pejorative word “barren”) would probably have had the status of group elders, and would have had a role in hunting, gathering and protecting the vulnerable. Which means they would have to have guard against invaders from other tribes as well as animal predators.
I suppose it’s because I think men have more an instinctual urge towards such things, in common with males of many species. Surely women, being biological mothers, have more a nurturing instinct.
Oh, FFS, can we not have the whole evpsych debate here That’s a whole other topic. DavidG, your comment is just a shorter John Gray, that’s all I’ll say.
Darlene and Anna, could it not be possible that Nic, who has passed the 40 mark - hasn’t she? has just experienced the lengthening of sight that is a natural part of passing 40. If you’re speaking about something to do with NGOs or serious issues you might be more likely to be referring to notes. Was she? Were the glasses reading glasses? I’m not trying to diss you here, I think you’re not aware yet of the age related issue (and lucky you!)
Like the male commentator on my site who, discussing the miseries of Melbourne public transport, just could. not. understand why a young woman (not drunk or otherwise under the influence) might throw up on him at 8 am!
Biology is not destiny, but it does explain some things!
Kate, does that mean that in the NSW plan violence against women will simply be one type of violence to be responded to among many others (e.g. street violence)?
Surely the myriad types of violence deserve different responses?
Thanks for that IWD info.
Yes, it’s all true, Helen. Nicole (who has made some great films and is an intelligent woman) probably wears glasses to read. Wish I’d never made that gag. I have apologised for it. Wish I’d made the one about two feminists walking into a bar instead
Just joking.
Heard Nicole being interviewed on Radio National the other night and she was good value. Realised that I’ve swallowed the b/s women’s mags lines about her.
Oh, and I turned the big 40 last year.
Oh, and speaking of feminists, Germaine is coming again soon:
[link]
Happens to millions…men as well as women. Ah well, she can afford a pedigree seeing-eye dog with a Faberge collar and a platinum covered white stick.
So do I and millions of others…it’s not worth a blog post or even part of one. I would be more “whelmed” if she grew a third eye in the middle of her forehead. Now that would be interesting.
Of course she’s intelligent. She has smart parents so genetically that would be right on the money. If she were thick she was probably dropped as a baby or left on the doorstep.
Jeez sisters, get over it. Makes me want a sex change, all this blethering…
Ooooh she’ll love that
Kim
My apologies for the mistaken identity. In which case my admonition to ‘leave Darlene alone’ is even more vigorous as Darlene Rocks, like HEAPS!
FFS, Helen, who’s John Gray? Why talk in riddles?
Sorcerer, I would’ve responded to your well thought out comment but I got the idea that males weren’t welcome on this thread. Funny thing that.
Probably biological, even instinctive! Cheers.
Look it up, DavidG. It’ll take you all of five minutes to find out all you’ll ever need to know about the man.
Darlene,
Yep, that’s right - check the “progress”
[link]
Oh stick around. You set them up, I’ll knock them down.
Or all you’d want to know. Gray’s into interspecies sex so much he wants to portray women as a different (inferior?) gender. He should have stuck to his trusty right hand.
Interspecies sex, eh? He’s not from N.Z. is he, Sorcerer?
On topic would be welcome on this thread.
Precious little so far, unfortunately.
We try, despite the sidelined bout between Celebrity Watch and the Mars-Venus Nostalgic