Showing posts sorted by date for query patriarchy. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query patriarchy. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Tuesday, October 01, 2024

 South Africa


The Populist Threat and the Response of the Left


Friday 27 September 2024, by Amandla!

The need is greater than ever for a consolidated voice of the working class and the poor. On the one hand, daily community protests seem to indicate a population that is not by any means apathetic. But when it comes to elections, the majority don’t participate. No political party has been able to capture the imagination of the mass of people who experience unemployment, sewage in the street, erratic water supply, unaffordable electricity and intolerable levels of gender-based violence. Yet enough of those people are desperate and sufficiently concerned to protest.

There are a number of candidates vying to capture this imagination. The field is becoming crowded. But they are by no means genuine supporters of the interests of the working class and the poor.

The Left is absent

The brutal truth is that, with very few exceptions, the right is capturing the mood of dissatisfaction much more effectively than the Left. All over the world, there has been a dramatic shift to the right. What was once centre-left social democracy is now so far to the right that it is almost indistinguishable from the conservatives—equally wedded to neoliberalism, militarism, islamophobia and anti-immigrant rhetoric.

In South Africa, we have two major problems. Firstly, the key social force, organised labour, is largely absent from the scene. It should be pioneering an alternative politics to the ruling coalition, but unfortunately, it is either in bed with the majority party in government or too weak and disorganised to play this role. In the case of Cosatu, they may, every now and then, complain about the ANC. But it’s like a toxic relationship. The next night, they are in the same bed again—bickering but still together.

The alliance with the ANC in government has also created a huge divide between its leadership and members. Today, Cosatu, by virtue of its alliance with the ANC, is in effect in an alliance with the DA through the ‘Government of National Unity’.

Sure, now that the austerity ANC policy of its alliance partner is biting hard in health and education, there will be a token protest. It seems that 7 October is the day on which workers will be asked to sacrifice their salaries and stay at home. Everybody knows that this, on its own, will make no difference. But Cosatu is simply incapable of mounting a serious, sustained campaign against its alliance partner.

The other components of organised labour—Saftu, Nactu and Fedusa—are too weak, fragmented and politically incoherent to represent a viable alternative.

To defeat the strategy of austerity would require the kind of intelligent, rolling and continuous mass action that, from time to time, the French trade unions show us. The political will is simply lacking.

As for the SACP, it has lost all capacity to act as a party. It has been reduced to being nothing more than the political commission of Cosatu, ensuring Cosatu remains loyal to the ANC, regardless of its neoliberal agenda.

Populist and pseudo-Left

The second problem is that the space vacated by labour has been occupied by a motley collection of political forces, which we often try to capture with the label ‘populist’. Into this bag, we can put MKP, the EFF and other off-shoots of the Radical Economic Transformation (RET) faction of the ANC. Of course, the PA, Action SA and National Coloured Congress, to name a few, represent the right-wing component of the populist fringe.

Their occupation of the space is based on putting forward simplistic, opportunistic and contradictory political platforms. They believe these will appeal to those suffering from the economic and social disintegration presided over by the ANC/SACP/Cosatu alliance.

The challenge to the Left is to popularise our message that it is not immigration (with or without documents) which is taking jobs. There is plenty of evidence that immigrants contribute to the growth of the economy—they create jobs. In fact, it is foreign and domestic capital that is taking jobs by taking their money out of the country. It is the government that is taking jobs by signing trade agreements that allow in masses of foreign goods. In fact, they have destroyed whole industries. But ‘Abahambe’ remains the intuitive response for many people.

MKP and EFF have policies in favour of nationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy. But nationalisation can be in the service of capitalism, as well as a challenge to it. And, as we know, it can also be a smokescreen for ‘state capture’—in the control and for the benefit of a parasitic layer of the Black middle class.

MKP reinforces this impression with its opposition to ‘white monopoly capital’. Not, you notice, capital itself. To paraphrase a recent document from Saftu What is left? What is not left?, the Left don’t fight against capitalism so that we can replace the white capitalist class with a black capitalist class.

The EFF is, on paper, also anti-neoliberal, advocating a central role for the state in directly delivering services. They advocate the return to the public sector of outsourced service provision. Yet its leaders are happy picking the fruits available only to the privileged. And again, they are not explicitly anti-capitalist.

What is Left?

To be Left and anti-capitalist requires a deep commitment to democracy, to fighting patriarchy and to struggling for a feminist perspective, not just in words but in practice. It also requires confrontation with capitalism’s assault on nature, and a rejection of productivism and extractivism.

And the same is true in the struggle against imperialism. It is easy to be against western imperialism; in South Africa, we are not short of reasons. But what about similar practices from newly emerging powers like China and Russia? The politics of ‘our enemy’s enemy is our friend’ are opportunistic. They turn us against the efforts of dominated classes and nations to free themselves from national oppression and foreign domination.

Matched against these criteria, both MKP and EFF fail dismally. A party which pledges itself to prioritise traditional law cannot be regarded as feminist, let alone one which has committed itself to shipping off pregnant teenagers to Robben Island. That’s MKP.

Nor can a party that humiliated and then demoted one of its representatives (Naledi Chirwa) for missing a parliamentary session because she was looking after her sick four-month-old daughter. Or a party with a military structure in its constitution. That’s the EFF.

The danger we face and the task ahead

By the next election in 2029, if the coalition lasts until then, the GNU will have been a failure. There is no way that the fundamental problems will shift significantly. We can say with confidence, if also with desperation, that there will be no significant impact on real unemployment.

Our current situation is filled with danger. We have a coalition government which represents the last gasp of the non-populist, neoliberal right wing. We have said many times that neoliberalism is simply incapable of solving the most fundamental of our problems—mass unemployment, effective delivery of services etc. And the ANC-DA Alliance is more deeply committed to neoliberalism even than its predecessors.

So, by the next election in 2029, if the coalition lasts until then, the GNU will have been a failure. It is possible that capital will have disciplined it sufficiently to get the ports and trains running again. After all, they need them for their profit, hence the Vulindlela project. But there is no way that the other fundamental problems will shift significantly. We can say with confidence, if also with desperation, that there will be no significant impact on real unemployment. So unless some form of credible Left movement is able to emerge from the wreckage of our popular organisations, the most attractive options are likely to be MKP, EFF and PA.

That is how vital and how urgent is the task of building an alternative.

At the last local elections, a few popular, community-based organisations set up their own political organisations so that they could obey the electoral rules and stand for election. Unlike many other organisations, the day after the election they didn’t disappear, only to reappear five years later. They were there, to try to hold their councillors to account and to continue to be the voice of the community.

It hasn’t been an easy ride. But the rooting of elected representatives in really existing popular organisations is vital. The task now is to build united, community-based organisations which take up, in a militant and focused way, the issues that concern the community. The small number of green shoots that have appeared are a hopeful sign.

Also, a possible hopeful sign is the emergence of a Left in the SACP, talking about building popular organisations, based on local issues. They say that this is no time for sectarianism—the popular movement must be built, and we must work together. Political differences are secondary to the urgency of such a task.

History is not sanguine about this possibility, but the message is the right one. The Left must come together around such a project and, from those hundreds of organisations all around the country, build a movement for socialism from the ground up. All who are willing to participate honestly in such a process must be welcomed. The alternative doesn’t bear thinking about.

Amandla

Monday, September 30, 2024

PATRIARCHY IS FEMICIDE

Over 177,000 women 'face life-threatening health risks' in Gaza

A woman walks past a school partially destroyed by Israeli strikes in Khan Yunis. AFP

After more than 11 months of war, the healthcare system in Gaza has almost collapsed. Nearly 84 per cent of health facility buildings have been destroyed or damaged, and those remaining in service lack medicines, ambulances, basic life-saving treatment, electricity, and water, according to a statement issued by UN Women.

The challenges faced in the health sector are taking a devastating toll on women’s physical and mental health in the Gaza Strip. Women have limited to no access to necessary treatments, leading to immediate and long-term health impacts. It is estimated that more than 177,000 women face life-threatening health risks, including 162,000, who have or are at risk of developing non-communicable diseases (NCDs) like diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular or hypertensive diseases; and 15,000 pregnant women who are at the brink of famine.

Pregnant and lactating women are facing severe complications and experiencing infections, anaemia, and hypertension. Some 68 per cent of pregnant women surveyed have suffered from urinary tract infections, anaemia, hypertensive disorders, vaginal bleeding, or haemorrhage. The lack of sexual and reproductive health services is another area of concern.

 

 A Palestinian woman holds a cat as she walks past the rubble of houses destroyed in Israel's military offensive in Khan Younis. Reuters

Despite this serious decline in their overall health, women are also the main caregivers for their families, eating last and least under severe hunger and starvation conditions. The new risk of polio is adding new challenges to a health system already operating with the bare minimum.

'We must act swiftly'

"Too many women in Gaza are at risk of dying from medical complications after months without any medication, limited access to doctors and no treatment for serious illnesses like diabetes or cancer. It is imperative that we act swiftly to save their lives. An immediate and sustainable ceasefire, the release of all hostages, the provision of safe, unimpeded humanitarian aid, and access to medicines and health services throughout Gaza are essential to prevent further deterioration,” said UN Women’s Regional Director for Arab States a.i, Moez Doraid.

UN Women’s latest Gender Alert released on Sunday is the fifth issued on Gaza since 7 October and is titled "War on Women’s Health: A Deep Dive into the Gendered Impact of the War in Gaza on the Health Sector.” It provides a comprehensive gender analysis of the health sector in Gaza, uncovering heightened health risks for women, particularly concerning NCDs among the elderly, cancer, infectious diseases, and the health and nutrition of pregnant and lactating mothers, amid the suspension of medical services and without access to medication.

UN Women echoes the UN Secretary-General’s call for an immediate ceasefire, unhindered humanitarian access, the release of all hostages, and emphasises the need for gender-sensitive provision and coordination of health services, the protection of healthcare workers, and support for women-led organisations.

WAM

Friday, September 27, 2024

Australian court lifts controversial ban on women's only art gallery

This is a big win. It took 30 seconds for the decision to be delivered — 30 seconds to quash the patriarchy


Sep 27, 2024, 01:49 PM


SYDNEY - An Australian court on Friday lifted a ban on a women's only art exhibit at a gallery in the southern state of Tasmania, saying it did not discriminate against men.

A lower court in Tasmania had banned the Ladies Lounge at the Museum of Old and New Art (Mona), in the state capital Hobart, after a case brought by a male visitor earlier in May, triggering an uproar among museum supporters and artists.

On Friday the state's Supreme Court overturned that ban, with Acting Justice Shane Marshall ruling the lounge was an attempt to promote equality by highlighting the lack of equal opportunity for women.

Female supporters of the gallery, led by artist and Ladies Lounge curator Kirsha Kaechele, arrived at the court wearing coordinating outfits. They danced and threw paperwork in the air after the verdict was announced.

"This is a big win. It took 30 seconds for the decision to be delivered — 30 seconds to quash the patriarchy," Kaechele said.

The museum describes itself as the "playground and megaphone" of professional gambler David Walsh and its best-known exhibits include a large-scale replica of the human digestive system. It encourages patrons to arrive by boat, where they can sit on seats shaped like sheep.

To protest the ban, Mona moved some of the contents of the Ladies Lounge, including what looked like paintings by Pablo Picasso, to a women's toilet. The paintings later turned out to be fakes painted by Kaechele.

"The Supreme Court’s finding is a recognition that the Ladies Lounge is an artwork that exists to highlight, and challenge, inequality that exists for women in all spaces today," Mona's legal counsel Catherine Scott said following the verdict.

 REUTERS

The Formula for Healthy Relating: How the Psychology of Oppression Perpetuate Harm to Animals and the Environment


 September 27, 2024
Facebook

Photo by Sandy Millar

When I was four years old, I killed someone. And 43 years later, I received the Ahimsa Award for my work on global nonviolence.

On that fateful day in 1970, I had no idea that my actions would set me on a journey of discovery that would transform the way I understood and related to myself and the world. It also led me to write award-winning books and establish an international NGO to help others experience a similar transformation.

It was a hot summer day, and I was with my parents on my father’s fishing boat, my favorite place in the world. And then I caught my first fish. My parents clapped, laughed, and told me how proud they were, but I felt confused and distraught. As I watched the fish I’d pulled out of the ocean flop on the floor of the boat, gasping for oxygen, I felt sadness and guilt.

After that day, my father’s boat, which had once been a source of joy, became a trigger for distress. And seafood, which I had loved, sickened me to the point where I could no longer eat it without vomiting.

The Golden Rule

My emotions and body were reacting to a paradox that my young brain wasn’t developed enough to understand. I couldn’t reconcile how caring people—my parents—could harm others and neither see nor feel troubled by this contradiction. My parents had instilled in me a strong commitment to practicing the Golden Rule—to treat others how I’d want to be treated if I were in their position. So had my teachers, the ministers at our church, and nearly every other adult who influenced my development. Yet it seemed that this supposedly highest principle was being violated everywhere I turned, and nobody was concerned.

Whether it was my father killing fish for enjoyment, movies depicting men subduing emotionally distraught women by slapping them across the face (it was the 1970s), or children bullying each other on the playground in plain sight of unconcerned teachers, the relational paradox I was witnessing was the same. The Golden Rule, a principle meant to guide how we relate to others, was as disregarded as it was esteemed—and this contradiction was invisible to the people around me.

It wasn’t until more than two decades later that I could finally comprehend and articulate this relational paradox, a phenomenon I’d been increasingly sensitized to over the years. I had become deeply concerned with social injustices and found myself confounded by the dysfunctional state of humanity that not only allowed for but also perpetrated widespread suffering and harm.

What, I wondered, makes people turn away from—rather than challenge—atrocities? Why do some of the same people who stand on the streets demonstrating for human rights mistreat members of their own families? Why do those who claim to want a society based on compassion and fairness nevertheless vote and act against these values?

The Lessons of Veganism

The answers to these questions came to me after another incident involving a nonhuman animal, this time in the form of a hamburger. I was 23 years old when I ate a beef patty contaminated with Campylobacter. I was hospitalized and put on intravenous antibiotics. After that experience, I found myself too disgusted to eat meat again. I became a vegetarian, sort of by accident.

While learning about my new diet, I stumbled upon information about animal agriculture. What I learned shocked and horrified me. The extent of the needless suffering endured by billions of nonhuman animals and the environmental devastation caused by the industry was almost incomprehensible. When I learned about the horrors of the dairy and egg industries, I stopped consuming all animal products.

But what disturbed me perhaps even more was that nobody I talked to about what I’d learned was willing to hear about it. People’s responses were nearly always along the lines of, “Don’t tell me that—you’ll ruin my meal,” or to call me a “radical vegan hippie propagandist.” And these were my friends and family—conscientious and rational people committed to creating a more just world and who genuinely cared about nonhuman animals.

The Psychology of Violence and Nonviolence

Wanting to understand what caused people to harbor these contradictory attitudes and behaviors—what enabled the relational paradox I first observed when I killed the fish—I enrolled in a doctoral psychology program, where I focused on the psychology of violence and nonviolence. I wanted to know what enables caring people to participate in—or otherwise support—practices that harm both human and nonhuman beings. And: What could help change these behaviors?

I narrowed the focus of my research to examine a specific expression of the relational paradox: the psychosociology of eating animals. I sought to understand how people who care about the well-being of nonhuman animals nevertheless consume and even participate in killing them.

I conducted interviews and surveys and coded and analyzed responses. And what I discovered was that eating certain animals results from extensive social and psychological conditioning. This conditioning, which reflects and reinforces cognitive dissonance, is the product of what I came to call “carnism”: the invisible belief system, or ideology, that conditions people to eat certain animals.

Carnism causes rational and empathic people to have distorted perceptions and to disconnect from their empathy so that they act against their values of justice and compassion without fully realizing what they’re doing. In other words, carnism teaches us to violate the Golden Rule without knowing or caring that we’re doing so.

My research led me not only to the discovery of carnism but also to an understanding of how all violent or oppressive ideologies are structured. I deconstructed the carnistic system, identifying and articulating the specific social and psychological defense mechanisms that keep it intact. I also realized that these exact mechanisms exist in all oppressive systems. In other words, the same psychological (and social) mechanisms that enable us to harm nonhumans also enable us to harm humans.

If It’s Not One “Ism,” It’s Another

Humans have a remarkable ability to compartmentalize. Just as my attempts to raise awareness of carnism were met with resistance from my socially progressive, nonvegan family and friends, I found that my attempts to raise awareness of patriarchy, racism, and other oppressive systems not involving nonhuman animals caused some vegans to react defensively.

I’d point out that although women made up about 80 percent of the vegan movement, most of its leaders were men. I’d also note that vegan outreach didn’t always reflect the experiences and needs of Black, Indigenous people, and People of Color (BIPOC)—something BIPOC vegans had been saying for some time.

My comments were largely disregarded and sometimes blatantly challenged—by people who admittedly had little to no literacy, or awareness, around the issues I was raising. My experiences discussing social justice with vegan advocates paralleled my experiences discussing veganism with social justice advocates. It became clear that people would often step outside of one problematic “ism” only to land (or rather, remain) in others while believing they’d somehow extricated themselves from all such “isms.”

And this same phenomenon occurs across all relational dimensions. There are three primary dimensions in which people relate: the collective or societal dimension (how social groups relate), the interpersonal dimension (how two or several individuals relate), and the intrapersonal dimension (how one relates to oneself). People assume that awareness and transformation in one dimension automatically lead to understanding and transformation in all three dimensions.

Yet, people often step out of oppressive or abusive (unjust) dynamics or interactions in one dimension only to stay stuck in such dynamics in other dimensions. For example, people actively working toward more just social policies may be verbally abusive to those they disagree with, engaging in the same kinds of behaviors in the interpersonal dimension that they’re challenging in the societal one.

The Common Denominator

My research led me to recognize a fundamental commonality driving all forms of injustice, all forms of oppression and abuse. (Injustice—which is, by definition, unfairness or unfair treatment—is manifested most commonly and problematically through oppression and, to a lesser extent, through abuse.)

When we look at various expressions of injustice in our world, and also in our personal lives, such as war, poverty, racism, patriarchy, animal exploitation, climate change, and domestic abuse, we can see that they all share a common denominator, which is relational dysfunction, or dysfunctional ways of relating—between social groups, to other individuals, to other animals and the environment, and even to ourselves (we’re always relating to ourselves through, for example, the choices we make that impact our future self and through our “self-talk,” or internal dialogue). What this means is that a common denominator in ending these injustices, in transforming all these problems, is the opposite: relational function, or healthy ways of relating.

Healthy relating is based on a simple formula. This formula applies to all three relational dimensions—the collective/societal, interpersonal, and intrapersonal—and to all kinds of relationships. It also applies to how we relate to nonhuman animals and the environment.

The formula applies equally to brief interactions and long-term relationships; a relationship is, after all, a series of interactions. And, of course, it applies to how we communicate since communication is the primary way we relate.

In a healthy relationship or interaction, we practice integrity and honor dignity. This leads to a sense of security and connection.

Integrity aligns our core moral values of compassion and justice with our behaviors. We practice integrity when we act according to these values. When we practice integrity, we treat others with respect; we treat them the way we would want to be treated if we were in their position.Dignity is our sense of inherent worth. When we honor someone’s dignity, we perceive and treat them as no less worthy of being treated with respect than anyone else.

Healthy relating, like most things in life, is not an either/or phenomenon. It exists on a spectrum. Rarely is an interaction or relationship fully healthy or dysfunctional. Instead, it’s more or less so. On the healthy side of the spectrum are relational attitudes and behaviors. On the dysfunctional side are nonrelational attitudes and behaviors. Nonrelational attitudes and behaviors violate integrity, harm dignity, and lead to disconnection and insecurity (and, often, unjust power imbalances).

Consider your own experience. Think of a relationship in your life that you consider healthy. Chances are, you trust that the other person will treat you with respect, and you feel that they see you as no less worthy of being treated in such a way than anyone else. So you feel secure and connected with them. Now think of a relationship in your life that’s not healthy—maybe it’s with someone you haven’t even met in person, such as an online troll. Chances are you don’t feel that they see you as worthy of being treated with respect, and you feel insecure and disconnected from them.

If we hope to end all injustices, we need nothing short of a foundational shift in how we think about this issue. If we don’t make this shift, any attempt to bring about a more just and compassionate world will likely be futile. It’s not enough to address only who is oppressing or abusing whom. We need to understand the psychology underlying how and why we oppress and abuse in the first place. Otherwise, our efforts can lead us to trade one form of injustice for another. To end injustice, we need to change the way we relate.

When we recognize that all injustices share a nonrelational common denominator, we can better target the roots of the problem, and our justice movements can become more unified and impactful. We can appreciate that whatever our specific mission (to achieve justice for humans, nonhuman animals, or the environment), our ultimate, collective mission is to create a more relational world.

This is an adapted excerpt from How to End Injustice Everywhere: Understanding the Common Denominator Driving All Injustices, to Create a Better World for Humans, Animals, and the Planet © 2023 Lantern Publishing & Media. It is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) by permission of Lantern Publishing & Media, Woodstock, New York. Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute, adapted and produced this excerpt for the web.

Melanie Joy, PhD, is a psychologist specializing in the psychology of oppression, social transformation, and relationships. She is a longtime advocate for justice and was a lecturer at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, for 11 years, where she taught courses on privilege and oppression, feminist psychology, psychological trauma, and animal rights. Joy is the award-winning author of seven books, including the bestselling Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows and Getting Relationships Right. She received the Ahimsa Award for her work on global nonviolence. Joy is the founding president of the charitable organization Beyond Carnism. She is a contributor to the Observatory.



Famine, Affluence, and Morality. Peter Singer. Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 1, no. 1 (Spring 1972), pp. 229-243 [revised edition]. As I write this, in ...


* In TOM REGAN & PETER SINGER (eds.), Animal Rights and Human Obligations. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1989, pp. 148-. 162. Page 2. men are; dogs, on the other ...

That's an important step forward, and a sign that over the next forty years we may see even bigger changes in the ways we treat animals. Peter Singer. February ...

In Practical Ethics, Peter Singer argues that ethics is not "an ideal system which is all very noble in theory but no good in practice." 1 Singer identifies ...

Beasts of. Burden. Capitalism · Animals. Communism as on ent ons. s a een ree. Page 2. Beasts of Burden: Capitalism - Animals -. Communism. Published October ...

Nov 18, 2005 ... Beasts of Burden forces to rethink the whole "primitivist" debate. ... Gilles Dauvé- Letter on animal liberation.pdf (316.85 KB). primitivism ..