Broadly: The Black Feminist Who Argued for Intersectionality Before the Term Existed

But while Crenshaw was the first to use the term, intersectional approaches to understanding struggle and oppression can be traced back to at least a century ago. In the early 1900s, Black feminists such as Mary Church Terrell, Nannie Burroughs, and Fannie Barrier Williams were already schooling folks on the ways in which patriarchy, racism, and sexism intertwine in America. Among them, too, was Anna Julia Cooper, a Black feminist trailblazer, and one of the first to formally introduce the concept of intersectionality. [...]

Although it may seem (hopefully) obvious to some today, Cooper asserting at the time that the intersection of race and gender is something that should not be overlooked was extraordinary. She made it known that Black women had unique experiences that were best expressed through their own voices, and argued that racial progress could not be defined solely through Black men’s perspectives nor through the lens of white male experts. [...]

Cooper also challenged white feminists to broaden their notion of liberation to include women of color and Black men. She wrote in A Voice, “The cause of freedom is not the cause of a race or a sect, a party or a class,—it is the cause of humankind, the very birthright of humanity. Now unless we are greatly mistaken the Reform of our day, known as the Women’s Movement, is essentially such an embodiment, if its pioneers could only realize it…”

read the article

Aeon: What Ottoman erotica teaches us about sexual pluralism

Although there is no doubt that the vocabulary extracted thus far is not exhaustive, some clear patterns have emerged. In particular, it indicates that one can speak of three genders and two sexualities. First, rather than a male/female dichotomy, sources clearly view men, women and boys as three distinct genders. Indeed, boys are not deemed ‘feminine’, nor are they mere substitutes for women; while they do share certain characteristics with them, such as the absence of facial hair, boys are clearly considered a separate gender. Furthermore, since they grow up to be men, gender is fluid and, in a sense, every adult man is ‘transgender’, having once been a boy.  

Second, sources suggest that there are two distinct sexualities. But rather than a hetero/homosexual dichotomy, the two sexualities are defined by penetrating and being penetrated. For a man who penetrates, whom he penetrates was considered to be of little consequence and primarily a matter of personal taste. It is indeed significant that the words used for an ‘active’ man’s sexual orientation were quite devoid of value judgment: for example, matlab (demands, wishes, desires), meşreb (temperament, character, disposition), mezheb (manner, mode of conduct, sect), tarîk (path, way, method, manner), and tercîh (choice, preference). Being objects of penetration, boys and women were considered not quite as noble as men. As sexual partners, however, neither women nor boys were held to be more estimable than the other. In short, instead of a well-defined sexual identity, literature suggests that, in Ottoman society, a man’s choice of sexual partner was viewed purely as a matter of taste, not unlike a person today might prefer wine over beer or vice versa.

El-Rouayheb has shown that the assessment of many Western Orientalists concerning the ostensible prominence and acceptance of homosexuality in the Middle East and North Africa has been anachronistic, suffering from the presentist presumption of the universal and transhistorical validity of a unitary notion of homosexuality. He has argued that pre- and early modern Arabic sources suggest the existence of a more nuanced, role- and age-differentiated view of same-sex relations. As Frédéric Lagrange, a scholar of Arabic literature at the Sorbonne in Paris, has put it in Islamicate Sexualities (2008): ‘the contemporary Western reader who has never perhaps questioned his holistic conception of homosexuality finds it “sliced up” into a multitude of role specialisations, since medieval authors usually see no “community of desire” between, for instance, the active and the passive partners of homosexual intercourse.’  

read the article

Jacobin Magazine: Poland’s Legislated Antisemitism

Legislative monstrosities like these, written in a hurry and voted through parliament in the dead of night, are a specialty of the PiS. That they are strange, absurd, and imprecise is not just a result of the haste in which they are written and the lack of any prior consultation or discussion. This law, which contradicts both the constitution and common sense, was designed deliberately. Its purpose is to give PiS chairman Jarosław Kaczyński — who exercises total power in Poland, even though formally he’s just an ordinary member of parliament — and his acolytes the ability to prosecute any case they deem necessary at a given moment. Given PiS control of the courts, article 55 can even be enforced retroactively as an ex post facto law.  [...]

It turned out that Poles, represented in previous historical accounts — whether by communists in the 1945-1989 period, or by right-wing liberals, nationalists, and neoliberal post-communists since 1990 — as only victims of either German or Soviet terror, were in fact complicit in the Nazi Holocaust. In the book My z Jedwabnego (We from Jedwabne), published in 2004, Anna Bikont presented a brilliant reconstruction of the events on the territory near Jedwabne following German occupation in July 1941. She showed that there were in fact many towns where Poles, without the participation of Germans, only their permission, murdered their Jewish neighbors. Descriptions of the pogroms included elaborate torture, rape, mutilation, and ended with burning their victims alive. It was so shocking that it caused a large segment of public opinion, together with right-wing historians and journalists, to simply deny these facts as impossible and unbelievable. [...]

From the dozens of memoirs and diaries of Jewish victims and survivors, as well as historical studies that have been published in Poland over the last twenty years, it has become clear that Jews in hiding were more afraid of Poles than of Germans. Germans could not recognize Polish Jews, while Poles picked them out unerringly. Some Poles, of course, helped or tried to help Jews in hiding, but they did so in opposition to the majority. This majority was infected with the prewar, pan-European virus of antisemitism and saw the Jews as their mortal enemies.

Researchers from the Polish Center for Holocaust Research estimate the number of Jews murdered directly by Poles or denounced by them to be in the tens of thousands. Some estimates even speak of 100,000 victims. The perpetrators of these murders and denunciations were: Polish policemen, Polish employees of the German construction service, members of the volunteer fire brigades, peasants, and city dwellers. Jews were also killed by partisan units of all political stripes: the extreme right-wing National Armed Forces (NSZ), the majority Home Army (AK), and the Peasant Battalions (BCh). Even some troops of the communist People’s Guard (later renamed the People’s Army) committed some murders, although for the most part Jews who were in the ranks of the People’s Guards or under their protection survived.  

read the article

openDemocracy: Is toxic masculinity a mask for anxiety?

In a meta-study that looked at the findings of more than 70 studies of conformity to masculine norms, researchers found that these norms were "unfavorably, robustly and consistently" related to negative mental health outcomes and reduced the likelihood of men seeking out mental health services. The three most powerful masculine norms that predicted these negative outcomes were self-reliance, power over women and the pursuit of sexual promiscuity. [...]

But women are not the only ones suffering in silence, because the emphasis on self-reliance and the rigidity of the ways in which we perceive masculinity mean that many men feel that they have no other choice but to fulfill these social expectations. Wong argues that men feel trapped by these norms even if they do not align with their personal values; they perpetuate such norms because they fear not being perceived as 'masculine.' So what does this mean for boys? [...]

The bullying that many boys experience if they deviate from dominant social norms is a source of anxiety, as shown by recent studies by researchers at Duke University and at University College London. Dealing with this anxiety may help male adolescents find less problematic ways to express their frustration, and help to build emotional resilience. [...]

It requires all of us to shift our expectations of men and boys so that these new norms are rewarded. Women will no longer 'protect' men by suffering in silence, and men need to hold each other responsible for being masculine without the toxicity that creates so many problems for us all.

read the article

Politico: Brexit: A managed surrender

In Phase 1, Britain accepted the European Commission’s method for calculating its financial liabilities to the EU but claimed to have beaten down the price. It accepted Brussels’ conditions on the future rights of European citizens living in Britain and of British nationals living on the Continent. [...]

In Phase 2, London agreed lock-stock-and-barrel to Brussels’ terms for a 21-month transition period — shorter than Britain had wanted — during which the U.K. will have to apply all EU laws without any say in the bloc’s decisions, in exchange for keeping its current market access. [...]

True, there will be a joint committee to try to fix any disputes that arise during the standstill period from March 29, 2019 to December 31, 2020. But if the two sides don’t agree, the European Court of Justice — the bogeyman of Brexiteers — will have the final say. [...]

That’s not good news for the Brexiteers. Joining the EU entails negotiations in name only. Candidate countries must adopt the entire body of EU law; any bargaining that takes place is basically over how fast to apply it and how soon the newcomer gets the full benefits of membership, including free movement for its workers. [...]

It turns out that leaving the bloc is a strikingly symmetrical process. “The equivalent of accepting [EU law] is accepting the Commission’s negotiating guidelines, which have been approved by all 27 EU partners and cannot be substantially changed,” Leigh said.

read the article

Politico: EU leaders show UK the Brexit runway

Gone are the days when officials in Brussels were secretly hoping the U.K. would somehow reverse course. Now, nearly a year after the start of talks, even some of Britain’s closest allies on the Continent, like the Netherlands and Luxembourg, are eager for Brexit to be over and done with. [...]

But the European Council’s swift approval of the guidelines — despite the absence of a clear solution for the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland — reflects both fatigue among officials eager to focus on the European Union’s own future, and a desire to be rid of U.K. perennial demands for special treatment. [...]

To be sure, the EU27 are not entirely thrilled with how Brexit is shaping up. They would far prefer if May and her government had taken what Brussels views as an eminently more reasonable approach and agreed to remain inside the EU’s single market and customs union. The guidelines approved on Friday include a provision to emphasize that the U.K. would be more than welcome to change its mind. [...]

But Brussels has also softened its tone: At the beginning of the talks there was the idea that London had to be punished for its decision, something similar to what occurred with Greece. Then French President François Hollande said that “there must be a threat, there must be a risk, there must be a price. Otherwise we will be in a negotiation that cannot end well.”

read the article

Politico: Macron and Merkel talk … Martin Selmayr

Juncker, who told EPP colleagues Thursday that “if [Selmayr] goes, I go,” has faced sustained questions ever since about how his key ally — widely admired and feared in Brussels for his ruthless reputation — managed to secure a position that will see him stay at the apex of EU power after Juncker’s own mandate expires in 2019.

The affair caused such outrage that after sending more than a hundred questions to the Commission, the European Parliament’s Budgetary Control Committee will hold a public hearing on the issue next week with Günther Oettinger, the human resources commissioner. MEPs are also set to vote on a resolution on the nomination of Selmayr on April 19 (although no matter the result, they can’t do anything about his appointment). [...]

Macron made a plea for transparency and praised the free press, admitting he “fully understood” the reactions to Selmayr’s super-fast promotion. He also encouraged journalists and the European Parliament to continue examining the issue. [...]

“To anyone who thinks because he’s a German citizen that he does what suits Germany, that’s not the impression that we have,” Merkel told reporters. “He makes decisions in a very European way. He’s also someone who pays attention to efficiency when it comes to decisions — who makes sure decisions are actually implemented. And I very much welcome that because some processes in Europe take a very long time

read the article

Al Jazeera: Mike Pompeo is the anti-Tillerson

The issues facing Pompeo start within the Department of State - Grievances about Tillerson's political ineptitude and bureaucratic mismanagement have roiled the Foreign Service and marginalised the Department of State within the interagency decision-making process. Despite Tillerson's protestations to the contrary, he left the Department of State in worse shape than when he arrived. His noble attempt at reorganising the department's structure and operations bogged down from the very beginning, perceived by employees and former career officials as haphazard, imperialistic, and corporatist. The official supervising the reorganisation effort resigned herself after a month on the job, one of the many examples of senior employees choosing retirement or resignation over continued service for an administration typically regarded as derisive of diplomacy.

Eight out of the top 10 positions in the Department of State remain vacant, not to mention the important ambassadorships - Egypt, the European Union, South Korea, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia - that are unfilled to this day. Pompeo will be forced to deal with a significant staffing shortfall on his very first day - a deficiency in foreign policy knowledge and experience that he will have to remedy if he hopes to be more successful than his predecessor. [...]

It is the international environment, however, that will pose the biggest obstacle to the new secretary. As this piece is posted, the Trump administration is in the midst of discussions with European allies about salvaging an Iranian nuclear deal that Trump would much rather walk away from. On North Korea, the biggest action item on the Trump administration's foreign policy agenda, Department of State officials are in the process of scrambling together a choreographed summit this May between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. Whether or not the historic get-together actually occurs, Pompeo will need to ensure that Trump and the White House national security staff are briefed to the fullest extent possible on Pyongyang's goals for the summit; North Korea's negotiating tactics over the past 25 years; and what script the president should follow when talking with the head of a regime that has broken every agreement it has signed. Keeping Trump on message in and of itself will be a tall order for any secretary of state.

read the article