By Gillian Schutte

For those who have asked why I have stepped out of the role of coordinator for One Billion Rising South Africa.  Here is my response to both personal issues and the wider issues.

I have ideological differences with the international office, which are in the body outlined below. While I support the ethos of dance and protest I cannot work within the organisational expectations and criticisms/invalidation of my personal politics.

I am an “outspoken and challenging” social critic – it is a conflict of interest as the Managing Director felt I was alienating ‘her people’.  She cited my letter – “Dear white people” as an example. 

I will not be muzzled, shut up, insulted and shamed for being an anti-racism social justice activist.

My politics are uncompromisingly pro-poor, social-justice and Left based which is seen as a stumbling block and excluding of the middle class.

I refuse to have to fight for the right to take on a solidarity approach and work with grassroots organisations and feminists  in a politicized strategy that was more about highlighting the issues of justice for LGBTIQ individuals who have been murdered because of their sexual orientation – or to use the platform to speak to issues that affect the majority of women in South Africa – in consultation and partnership with feminists in South Africa.  That this approach was seen as alienating to certain people baffles me.  If those people are alienated by this approach then they should not be part of any anti-patriarchy movement.

I don’t think ‘protest movements’ and corporate funding are great bed partners. The suggestion that I was judgmental, radical and other negative adjectives because of my refusal to go that route, was again, telling.

I will not be told to put young v-girl teenagers in the ‘center’ or in leadership of a struggle for justice to end VAW – these are largely middle classed teenagers who say things like – ‘poor people are to blame for their poverty’. Experienced activists who understand social and feminist issues are automatic leaders in movements that claim to be representative.

While I support and believe in reclaiming public spaces, bodies, orgasm and joy – I will not be instructed to call a struggle in South Africa ‘a joyous revolution’ when feminists here are shouting loud and clear that there is ‘no cause to celebrate’ until justice is seen for the women who have been murdered for their sexual orientation – and for women to whom rape is a reality not a slogan. 

I also do not accept anyone overriding my integrity and instructing the publicist to change the wording of my press release back to joyous revolution – when I have explained why this is not acceptable – and then have to fight to have it reverted.

I will not share a podium under the same banner with a ‘feminist’ who openly supports the war on Palestine – I don’t believe that we can be ‘all-inclusive’ if that means we must overlook issues of gross injustice towards women who are violated by brutal imperialistic systems.  That is exactly the opposite of all-inclusiveness.

I will not place celebrities, who generally remain silent on issues of VAW, as the spokespeople for women’s struggles merely to attract more followers.

I will not be told that this is a free and democratic movement with no rules and then be subjected to top-down instructions.

I will not be put in a situation where there are no funding mechanisms allowed through which to find donor funding for protest action but then be expected to fund through other orgs who have their own funding difficulties.

Mostly I will not be asked questions such as – “There are 54 million people in South Africa – why were they not all dancing?” 

Are you fucking kidding me?!?

I came on board in solidarity with a global movement to network with organisations already doing the work in the context of a real South Africa … not to choreograph a nationwide dance using people who have deep-seated poverty issues and are probably not in the space to boogey to feel-good music that is not going to feed their families or get them jobs or housing or access to clean water and decent sanitation.

We chose to honor and support women who live the reality of the violence of economic exclusion by assisting with a community organised march and vigil at Marikana and offering support to the women of that area with a focus on the wives of the massacred miners.  We did not impose the OBR music and dance onto this occasion because that felt disrespectful and inappropriate.  However it was done as an OBR outreach event, not an OBR choreography event.

I personally always thought of the dance element as an option – not a given.  Justice issues were given preference. Creating a safe space for the spontaneous organic celebration of our diversity and sameness and joy and body was part of this.

I find it hard to understand a movement that partners with militant unions in some countries on the one hand and then does not speak out against the public dismissal of the concerns of some grassroots organizational structures and networks, on the other, as played out in Canada.

Activists and ordinary people in all communities have agency and voices – they do not need a global movement to do anything on their behalf.  They also do not need global movements to go in and take over or overshadow their vital and established protest actions.  Global movements should offer these grassroots protests and movements solidarity not usurpation.

I am in solidarity with the Indigenous Women’s movements in Canada (For our Sisters, Families of Sisters and Spirit) whose request for OBR Toronto to change their day of protests (or join theirs in sisterhood) so as not to eclipse/minimize their annual action calling for justice around the murdered and missing indigenous women of Canada on this same day  - was dismissed and then their concerns described as ‘undue vitriol’  by the Canadian One Billion Rising Organizer in her response letter.

Certainly, my concerns have been dismissed or mythologized into insignificance too and none of the plentiful letters I sent outlining my apprehensions, were dealt with adequately, if at all.  It was in New York recently, and in the aftermath of the meeting there, that the problematics of OBR came into sharp focus for me.

If One Billion Rising really has global women’s concerns and voices at heart then they should host an international symposium inclusive of all women and headed by women who are central to grassroots struggles, including indigenous women, to guide them on a way forward in terms of global strategy. I suggested this more than once.

I do not think that Eve Ensler is racist or has bad intentions.  I think that Eve Ensler is a heartfelt and loving person but is victim to her own invisible white privilege and v-day’s organisational whiteness structures and was thus unable to envisage this revolt against (and from within) her well-intentioned movement.

If she cares and loves the world’s women, as she does, and if this movement is truly revolutionary ,then we call on her to open up this space to many more diverse women to decide on the way forward.

A revolution cannot be manufactured – it cannot be choreographed or staged or managed or controlled.  It cannot be the brainchild of one person with a committee of worker bees to do her bidding.  Though there are feminists involved in the organizing committee from around the world – it is not a big enough input to run a democratic global campaign.  There does need to be much more public participation in the decision-making processes in all countries and the international office should consider using its resources to facilitate this process.   

A revolution is organic – it truly belongs to the people – it is based on ideology of freedom and equity for the oppressed – not the oppressor deciding on or for the oppressed.

While I do not deny that One Billion Rising was a great success in many respects and it highlighted the issue of VAW on an international scale – it has also highlighted problematics in feminist and womens’s rights movements and these need to be dealt with in an open and non-defensive, non-oppressive manner.  They need to be embraced and listened to and learned from.  This is a valuable opportunity for solidarity.  In places where it was owned by the grassroots women’s movements it worked well – the problematics showed up in Settler countries – postcolonial  racially divided countries, where the issues are far more complex and open to a neocolonial interpretation of a movement that claims to be egalitarian. 

Lauren Chief Elk’s open letter is a vital disruption and challenge to this issue and ought to be celebrated as such.

I hope that more women will feel comfortable about voicing their own concerns and feelings and join this global conversation

(Source: posttragicmulatto, via sailor-ramiel)

tranqualizer:

thespiritwas:

(click here to donate)

Dear Friends & Community, 

We are writing to let you know of a community member who needs support after going through a major health crisis. Many of you know Egyptt, a long time activist and advocate for low income, trans communities of color. 


Egyptt was formerly co-coordinator of Trans Justice at the Audre Lorde Project. Prior to her work at ALP she was a crucial member of the Queers for Economic Justice Welfare Warriors group where she lead the way fighting transphobia within New York City’s welfare agency: the Human Resources Administration. Because of Egyptt’s work NYC’s Human Resources Administration has adopted its first ever transgender non discrimination policy, which Egyptt helped implement through many trainings of New York City employees.

Additionally Egyptt has been a long time advocate at Housing Works advocating to have New York State pass the Gender Employment Non Discrimination Act (GENDA). She is also a brilliant performer, frequently showcasing her talent at the Housing Works fashion shows and many Trans Day of Remembrance events. Egyptt is now unemployed and has lost her apartment in Harlem. She’s currently living with her partner in a family homeless shelter in NYC. 


We are turning to you, our community, to support Egyptt as she navigates this challenging moment. We want to raise 10,000 for Egyptt to get back some of what she has lost in the last few months. She needs resources to get back into housing, to replace lost possessions, and to cover outstanding healthcare costs. 


With deep appreciation, 
Reina Gossett, Pooja Gehi, & Dean Spade

(click here to donate)

(via nepantlastrategies)

navigatethestream:

by Hannah Kapp-Klote

In the 1960s and 1970s, queer liberation (what we now call “LGBT equality”) was seen by its advocates as an all-inclusive movement intrinsically bound to other social justice movements: there could be no justice for queer people without justice for people of color, women, workers, those in other nations, etc. Accordingly, queer activistsworked hard to build coalitions with all those determined to fight for justice. 

Nowadays, the LGBT movement does more branding than coalition building. 

Steven W. Thrasher, who has been nationally recognized for his LGBT journalism, called out national LGBT nonprofits and advocates, colloquially referred to by some as the glitter industrial complex, in aGawker article, contending that the LGBT activists and nonprofits “have been bought, paid-for and sold to the highest bidder.”

It’s true: corporate America runs the LGBT movement, or at least the part of the LGBT movement that gets press time and donors. Their sponsorship keeps the LGBT movement from addressing the issues that matter most for the LGBT community and beyond.

Thrasher highlights that many of the biggest donors to the Human Rights Campaign, the multi-million dollar nonprofit that receives the bulk of donations for LGBT issues, aredrone manufacturers. These donors profit off of the United States’ use of drones to killcivilians,including children, with little oversight or accountability. Drone manufacturers are far from the only ethically dark gray to black donors to LGBT advocacy organizations: a brief perusal of any major LGBT organization’s list of donors reveals thatcorporate black hatslike Bank of America,BP,Coke, andNikeall provide major cash to LGBT nonprofits.

And it must be acknowledged that these corporate dollars do some good:  programs that encourage the leadership development and empowerment of LGBT young people, the election of LGBT public officials, and advocacy for greater research into LGBT issues would be practically impossible in the modern economy without significant corporate donations. Yet there is something antithetical about a movement for equality and justice funded by the forces in the world most responsible for widespread economic and social inequality. 

When the LGBT community is not united with social movements that address the issues facing the most marginalized LGBT people, with racial justice proponents (proportionally more people of coloridentify as queer), with those fighting against systemic poverty, with pacifists, are we really making any progress? Or has the LGBT movement been kidnapped by power elites advocating for their own interests?  The dilemma is reminiscent of an image circling some corners of the web: a white gay male couple superimposed over the Human Rights Campaign red equality symbol that dominated Facebook during the gay marriage Supreme Court hearings.

“We’re just like you: racist, homophobic, and sexist,” reads the caption. All that’s missing is “market driven” and “war profiteers.”

Of course, claiming that the agendas of nonprofit executives and corporate leaders are the agenda for the entire LGBT movement is just as misleading claiming that gay marriage is the deciding issue of the LGBT movement. Queer activists around the country, from radical groups likeSoutherners on New Ground (SONG),andQueers for Economic Justice, are connecting the dots between queer liberation, pacifism, and economic and racial justice. Countless more groups and activists, with or without 501c3 status, are fighting to make sure that queer liberation — not LGBT equality — is tied up with justice for all oppressed groups around the world.

Progress for queer people means nothing if it comes at the expense of others also marginalized and fighting for justice. Gay advocacy paid for by companies that poison the land, treat their workers unfairly, and assist in the killing of children from other nations is worthless in the long run. If we truly want a world where LGBT people are equal, we have to recognize that such equality is contingent upon justice for all people.

Not when health care is provided to every same-sex couple, but where health care is accessible to all; not when violent homophobia is eliminated, but when violence based on hatred of any group is eliminated. It might sound Utopian, and it might not be achieved through high profile fund raising dinners. But the alternative, inequality and corporate exploitation draped in a pride flag, is neither progressive nor equal.  

 

cue to a shot of me howling with diabolical laughter. 

not because drones are funny

but because for all the equality red signs i had to stomach, for all the insufferable cis straight people who refuse to apply a critical lens to their “allyship”, for all the horribly constructed arguments supporting the HRC i’ve listened to not only this year, but in past years

congratulations! your desire and push for equality is intersectional in the worst way possible. 

now not only does the HRC screw over people (anybody who is not upper middle class, white, gay cis male), but the companies who back the HRC screw over people WITH DRONES. on top of their other shitty corporate policies because WHO HAS EVER MET A FRIENDLY ETHICAL CAPITALIST?! NOT I! 

i chuckle in your face

i chuckle long, i chuckle hard, and i chuckle loudly

(via queeraztlan)

(Source: notesonascandal, via themodernistwitch)

Ta-Nehisi Coates writes on a foul 1950’s housing market practice that ropped black wealth and helped set the conditions for the current racial wealth gap.