Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Women's Views on News

Women's Views on News

TIME magazine in breastfeeding uproar

Posted: 14 May 2012 07:30 AM PDT

Aisha Farooq
WVoN co-editor

The latest cover of TIME magazine, showing mother Jamie Lynne Grumet breastfeeding her three- year-old son created much controversy over the weekend.

Shot by photographer Martin Schoeller and published online, the image and adjoining tag line, ‘Are You Mom Enough?’, provoked both positive and negative response from mothers and non-mothers alike.

The magazine’s featured article, ‘The Man Who Remade Motherhood‘, was written by TIME staff writer Katie Pickert.

In it, Pickert analysed the apparent successes of Dr William Sears concept of ‘attachment parenting’ which he set out in his 1992 publication, The Baby Book.

Popular among new mothers, the book offered women the freedom to play a more intuitive role in bringing up their children. This included co-sleeping, a sling transport and an extended breastfeeding age.

However, rather than encourage useful debate among mothers about what was best for their children, the obvious shock techniques of illustrating an intimate mother and older son may have caused more harm than good.

While some critics accused the image of being overly sexualised and disrespectful, some experts in women and healthcare also questioned the proposed intent of the cover.

Jackie Krasas, Director of the Women's Studies Program at Lehigh University, Philadelphia, commented on TIME’s cover choice.

“The cover is obvious in its attempts to sensationalize and sexualize and is clearly capitalizing on the mommy wars (phenomenon),” she said.

“The cover seems to be pitting attachment-parenting moms against those who don’t or can’t subscribe to this particular brand of intensive motherhood. It’s unhelpful to women.”

Guardian writer Victoria Bekiempis pointed out that the image also highlighted how strong the discomfort was among women when issues surrounding maternity and motherhood were openly publicised.

“The cover,” she insisted, “feels inappropriate not just because of its shock value; instead, the imagery fosters the attitude that breastfeeding is freakish per se, and it then links this notion to society’s complicated, contradictory prescriptions about mothers’ sexuality.”

Social media sites, including Twitter exploded last week with thoughts and opinions on the subject:

“@Time, no! You missed the mark! You’re supposed to be making it easier for breastfeeding moms. Your cover is exploitive & extreme,” tweeted celebrity mother Alyssa Milano.

In stark contrast, actress Mayim Bialik advocated her support of 26-year-old Grumet.

“I was shocked how amazing her story was. And breastfeeding an adopted baby is incredible. And she gave an educated and eloquent set of responses. I would not have done a photo shoot myself but I respect her and think she is a smart woman”, she posted on Facebook.

Pickert has since defended the cover and article, insisting, "I think to say this is part of the mommy wars is a bit of an oversimplification.

“I think the cover line that we have – 'Are You Mom Enough?' – is provocative, but I think it's a question, you know, every parent asks themselves: how they're doing in terms of parenting their child. It sort of gets to a debate that kind of exists within every parent.”

In an interview on ABC’s Nightline, Grumet stood by her decision to pose for the cover.

"Out of all families, I really feel like somebody has to start the dialogue and I feel like our family is confident enough to be the ones to do it,” she said.

An interview with Palestinian poet, Rafeef Ziadah

Posted: 14 May 2012 06:00 AM PDT

Aisha Farooq
WVoN co-editor

Rafeef Ziadah is a Palestinian spoken word poet and human rights activist.

She has never seen her homeland, Palestine, but her passion and longing for her cultural heritage is clearly evident in her emotional performances.

Following a successful poetry set a few nights back in London, she sat and recalled the oddity of her situation.

"See, it is strange for us Palestinian refugees, because we haven't actually lived in Palestine." Rafeef explains. "But Palestine has lived in us since we were children, which is a huge difference."

Not surprisingly, perhaps, most of her poems reflect both her frustration and sorrow at the Palestinian struggle against occupation.

Although Ziadah began writing at a very early age, her first public performance was not until 2004, while studying at York University, Toronto,  in reaction to an incident during a creative action demonstration.

During the demonstration, students recreated a checkpoint with Israeli soldiers and Palestinian civilians.

"I was one of the citizens lying on the floor, being Palestinian," Ziadah explained.

"A Zionist came by – the demonstrations at York are always heated – and as I was lying on the floor, he kicked me right in the gut and said, 'you deserve to be raped before you have your terrorist children'."

She admits that the deeply felt hatred from the student was both shocking and disgusting to her.

"The only way I could deal with it was to write back," she says. The resulting poem, 'Shades of Anger' resists the racist remarks of the student, while also signifying her refusal to back down quietly.

Since her poetic debut, she has done much over the past decade to raise awareness of Palestinian suffering, both the oppression within Palestine as well as Palestinian displacement across the globe.

"My family are refugees to Haifa," she says. "But part of my family are internally displaced inside Israel."

Ziadah was born in Beirut, a third generation refugee. Some of her first childhood memories were of the 1982 siege and bombing of Beirut.

"After that, my family left Beirut and we were always travelling around being stateless Palestinians, constantly deported from one country to the other, until I finally settled in Canada to do my PhD", she says. "I have only recently come to London."

Although she has never visited Palestine herself, Ziadah recalled the deeply entrenched memories of her elders:

"Most people in exile miss a place that they know. We miss a place that we don't know.

“We miss a place that we just hear about and it is a home that we are told of and I think it's holding onto that idea that we have a home and that we will return to our home, which is what I try to hold onto in all my work and to speak about in all my poems.

As an active member of the Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, Ziadah's primary purpose is to seek equality and justice against racism and extreme Zionist ideologies.

"The way the [BDS] movement frames it is that we simply just want freedom, justice and equality: nothing more and nothing less.

"We are not defined by what we are against. Of course, we are against the occupation, we are against colonialism, we are against apartheid.  But, what we are actually for is justice and freedom for all of the Palestinian people, and for everyone who actually lives in that area.

“Because Israelis themselves are also not free. If they are oppressing another people, and their young ones are carrying out an occupation, it must be destroying their humanity as well.

"But when we say freedom, justice and equality, we are not speaking just of the West Bank and the Gaza strip, we are speaking for all Palestinians wherever we are.

“For Palestinian refugees having a right to return; for Palestinian citizens of the Israeli state being treated equally without discrimination, and ending occupation and dismantling the apartheid wall. Anything less than that would not be justice for Palestinians.

"But this is also basic humanity" Ziadah admitted.

"Most people get into these very complex debates about: 'this is a complicated situation, how will it ever be resolved?' Well, if everyone can just live in equality on that piece of land, then what is so wrong with equality?

"And to those who defend Israel, why are they so obsessed with defending its current form? What is so important to them in this situation, where clearly one people are being oppressed and being occupied?

“Why would you want to defend them? Just say you want equality for everyone who lives in that land. If you are an anti-racist, this would be the logical stand to take."

Nevertheless, is it feasible to hope that Israelis and Palestinians may one day live peacefully with each other?

"It is not a question for me of people being unable to live together," Ziadah said. "It is the situation under which they live, because people have lived in Palestine for centuries and centuries fine.

"It was when there was an attempt to create an exclusively Jewish state, instead of people being able to live there in equality. If there is justice, if there is equality, then of course people can live there just fine.

"The question is that we need to dismantle the racism and have justice, and that is when we will be able to have our resolution. Until we have that, then nothing can be really resolved."

So what are the main obstacles that are preventing Palestinian's from achieving this resolution?

"I think the biggest problem, honestly, is the normalisation of Palestinian suffering", said Ziadah.

"If you think about it, there is a state that is building a wall. It has checkpoints. They are scanning people's retinas.

“It is as if it is a science fiction movie. Yet you see Western media on television saying that this is the only democracy in the Middle East – about a state that is inflicting all of this suffering.

"It's my biggest fear that people no longer think that this is abnormal. This is a very abnormal situation, but it is not making people angry, and that I truly don't understand.

"How anyone can be living in this time and age and say this is alright behaviour; to treat people and control their life in this way is alright and to starve the Gaza strip and impose a medieval siege. How is this okay and normal?

"That is why to me, the work of activists around the world is really important in raising the issues of Palestine and saying no, this is not normal, and we are going to do something about it. We are not going to be silent and complicit even if our governments want us to be."

Another poignant poem by Ziadah is 'We Teach Life, Sir'. Like 'Shades of Anger', the poem was inspired by experiences from her activism.

In this particular case, during a UN press conference, a journalist pointedly asked her, 'don't you think it would all be fine if you just stopped teaching your children to hate?'

A provocative question, which Rafeef claims reflects the general attitude of the western media that she is compelled to deal with on a daily basis.

"I think the current hunger strike [by Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails] is very telling of how the media reacts," she added.

"When Gilad Shalit was imprisoned, when he was kidnapped – and this is important to stress – he was a soldier of occupation. When he was kidnapped, there were stories about him and his suffering and the suffering of his mother and his father, and everything about him.

"There are 2,000 Palestinians on hunger strike, and the media will not speak about it. Only now have we started to see stories.

“To me this is just a microcosm, one instance of how the media has dealt with issues about Palestine and the question of justice for Palestinians. It is this complete bias, this complete double standard."

Through her spoken poetry, Ziadah is able to expose the resentment that is felt towards her and her people, but also deliver a lasting hope for justice, freedom and equality.

Her album, Hadeel, released in 2009, is available for purchase online.

She is currently touring around the UK with Arab Australian singer Phil Mansour, and traditional Arab cultural band, Raast.

The tour commemorates the 64th anniversary of Al Nakba (The Catastrophe), when one million Palestinians were displaced from their homes and villages in 1948.

Ziadah is expected to perform at a Palestinian cultural event, Commemorating Al-Nakba, in London on May 15. 

Banishing war on Mother’s day, every day

Posted: 14 May 2012 04:30 AM PDT

Lucine Kasbarian
author, writer, illustrator

What do mothers and entire societies undergo when their offspring fight in wars?

Social justice activist-journalist Susan Galleymore had the experience thrust upon her when she became a reluctant "military mother," and made it her business to go forth, find out and publish her findings.

Her book, Long Time Passing: Mothers Speak about War & Terror is the ambitious, stunning result.

When Galleymore's son was deployed to Afghanistan in 2003, she awoke from nightmares nearly every night. This scenario could describe any mother whose child is embroiled in armed conflict, and struggles with the possibility that she may never see that child again, or that the child will likely return as "damaged goods," physically and/or psychologically.

In 2004, Galleymore joined Code Pink, a women's delegation to Baghdad to visit her son who was by then deployed to Iraq.

Between 2004 and 2008, she interviewed ordinary people she encountered – including mothers in Iraq, Israel/Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Afghanistan – where war and terror have become a way of life.

Back in the US Galleymore went on to interview military mothers, war veterans and soldiers on active duty, as well as those gone AWOL or who were stop-lossed (commanded to involuntarily extend their tour of duty), wounded, and/or discharged.

While the mothers she interviewed expressed views that span the political spectrum, each described how she viewed her child's involvement in war, and how it impacted family, community and country.

By also interviewing men engaged in armed struggle in their native lands as well as soldiers speaking about disturbing facts on the ground in the countries in which they had been deployed, Galleymore adds layers of meaning to this unique book.

By further relaying her own personal experiences, observations and ruminations along the way, the author manages to write the equivalent of many books in one volume.

Long Time Passing touches on a variety of interconnected, fundamental issues that are missing from national and global discourses, whether through media, mainstream cultural sources or inter-communal dialogue.

What sets the author apart as particularly suited to write such a book are her natural gifts as an empath, a "seeker," and one whose life choices are/have been made on moral grounds.

An idealistic Galleymore worked on an Israeli kibbutz in the 1970s, where the racism and apartheid she encountered reminded her of the years growing up in South Africa.

A progressive activist and radio interviewer in adulthood, Galleymore more recently adopted the role of military counselor on the G.I. Rights Hotline and became the founder of MotherSpeak, which fosters cultural and environmental awareness through talent- and story-sharing.

While Long Time Passing provides an insider's view into the tremulous circumstances of occupation, what emerges is that maternal and human suffering – both deeply personal and extraordinarily universal – highlight the private tragedies behind the public spectacle of war.

Galleymore's profiles illustrate that the average mother or family precariously surviving under occupation is more informed, civilized, humane and nuanced in perspective than the Western media routinely give them credit for, all while those occupied struggle, under unnatural circumstances, to live freely, safely and in charge of their own destinies.

By contrast, the reader can't help but notice, through the trials of Galleymore and her interviewees, how the military industrial complex and the culture it engenders emerge as zealous, xenophobic, arrogant, irrational, intolerant, and even ignorant, unstable and incompetent. Much the same as how occupied peoples are painted.

Long Time Passing is a tribute to mothers everywhere who, through the interviewees, honor our common humanity by sharing their stories of courage, despair, questioning, anger and resilience.

However, it would not do to simply say that the book is about the tribulations of military mothers. It is an absorbing, discriminating and enraging look at the devastating impact of war, world affairs, the history of lands under occupation, and what is being done in the name of freedom and democracy.

A complete reading of Long Time Passing leaves no doubt with this reader that the culture of war seeps into and undermines every aspect of our lives:  physical, spiritual, emotional, intellectual, moral, racial, familial, cultural, social and sexual.

The book will also be eye opening for anyone who has not traveled beyond "First World" nations to see the ravages of war, poverty and disenfranchisement.

That reader – who enjoys gainful civilian employment, an intact family, creature comforts, disposable income and extended leisure time – will no doubt develop a greater appreciation for a lifestyle they may previously have taken for granted.

Long Time Passing (taken from Pete Seeger's "Where Have All the Flowers Gone", one of the first songs to protest the Vietnam War) acts as a reminder that war and the military are inimical to mothering.

Frequent readings will also urgently remind us that our common humanity, our obligations to one another and this earth, and our collective efforts to shine a light on truth, equality and global justice can—and will—make a difference. 

To purchase the book (published by Pluto press for US$20) go to MotherSpeak.

Being editor of the Sun is like being queen of the sewer

Posted: 14 May 2012 03:03 AM PDT

Bidisha
writer, critic and broadcaster

The Leveson inquiry into media standards in the UK has shocked the nation by revealing that those in power are quite bent, that they all know each other and that some of them are liars and cheats governed more by petty politics, short term populism and power-moves than social or cultural ideals.

Now that we've seen the underbelly of the overclass, let's remember that Shakespeare was writing about exactly these issues in his history plays, which spanned several centuries of the medieval and early Tudor period and were popular because they reflected all too accurately the machinations of the late Tudor court and its ruler.

Just as Shakespeare had his red-haired paragon in Elizabeth I, we have our own auburn figurehead, Rebekah Brooks, erstwhile editor of the Sun.

You know – The Sun. Tits, sport, paedophiles and immigration. Like a bad one night stand or a Pot Noodle, it takes three minutes to experience and leaves you feeling slightly soiled.

Brooks' charismatic image has often been the only thing breaking the monotonous coverage of besuited male power-players and Leveson lawyers and (often) female hacking, surveillance and media harassment victims.

She has been portrayed by both her supporters and detractors as a larger-than-life character you couldn't make up: ambitious, bulletproof, wily, beautiful but deadly.

She is equal parts 'flame-haired temptress' (a true tabloid phrase, that)  and succubus, Scarlett O'Hara survivor and Becky Sharp social climber, cruel as Mrs Danvers, calculating as Lady Macbeth, the Bouddica of the boardroom, the Godiva of the galleys, the red-topped queen of the red tops, a predator whose chosen consort is a mere actor and not an equal.

Like all women who capture the public’s attention, she is cast in mythic, atavistic terms, her rise both feted and fated, her effect supernaturally powerful.

She is represented as having an inexorable, Medusa-like attraction, so that the Prime Minister D-Cam 'must' have his weekly exchange with her and even Rupert Murdoch's reptilian features soften into fatherly mistiness when she's around.

To those who abhor tabloid culture and want to find a woman to blame she's an immortal siren luring hapless male hacks to their sacrificial deaths; or else she's Kali the destroyer, Goddess of death. The death of journalistic ethics, that is.

But Brooks is a person, not a myth. She is neither a high priestess of Nietzschean willpower nor an epic, avaricious monster.

She has been unfairly singled out, objectified, physically fetishised, rated and debated as if she is the sole ringleader in some nasty female voodoo project, the lust-object linchpin connecting Murdoch, the Tory government and the tabloid media.

In fact, the problems Leveson has uncovered are wideranging and the overwhelming majority of perpetrators brought before the committee are men.

These men, whichever sector they work in, are not subject to either the overblown myth-making or petty over-analysis and character assassinations which Brookes has been subject to.

They are treated as what they are, and what Brooks is: leaders of media outlets which under-represent women in every section of their pages except fashion and beauty, under-employ women in every department of their offices except as assistants, secretaries, cleaners and caterers and slander women in their stories as lying rape victims to be disbelieved, brainless totty to be looked at or scheming harridans to be loathed.

Brooks is a busy, highly capable, successful, experienced, resilient and effective tabloid newspaper editor who has probably battled incredible prejudice to get where she is. She is to be respected for sheer staying power and insouciance under arrest and interrogation.

But she has repaid the world by making sure she will not help any other woman in person or in print.

As such, she is exactly like her peers: a patriarch, a market-led conservative capitalist businesswoman, a mainstream player who rates ratings above all else, someone who is on the inside where the power-holders of the media, politics, sport, policing, culture and national institutions scratch each other's backs.

Brooks demonstrates just how far you can go if you are a tough woman who wants to edit a tabloid rag which has never done anything for justice and equality (for anyone) in its life. She knows how to make a newspaper that trolls, bigots, oafs and yobs will love.

I too have been involved in Leveson recently, attending a post-committee conference to review the submissions that women's groups made to the panel.

They reported on tabloid newspapers' representation of rape cases, rape victims, women's bodies, domestic violence cases, perpetrators of violence against women and the treatment of women in power in politics and public life. The results were damning and often stomach-turning in their misogyny.

While Brooks is no worse in her values or behaviour than her peers, equally she is no better. Charisma does not excuse narrow-mindedness.

Editor of the Sun? That's like being queen of a sewer.

Two members of Congress urge Google to stop ads for online human trafficking

Posted: 14 May 2012 01:30 AM PDT

Auveen Woods
WVoN co-editor

In a show of biartisan unity two members of Congress wrote to Google CEO Larry Page last month challenging the company to examine its policies in an effort to stem the growing tide of online human trafficking networks.

In the letter Republican Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, along with Democrat Carolyn Maloney of New York expressed concern regarding Google AdWords which may be allowing human trafficking rings to exploit women and girls online.

They have yet to receive a reply.

They said they are “particularly concerned” because Google has acknowledged that it has advertised illegal products in the past and ask what percentage of Google profits might be coming from global advertisements tied to human traffickers?

Last year, Google paid $500 million to settle charges that it placed ads for illegal pharmacies and in January was accused of advertising illegal London Olympic tickets sellers.

The multinational also recently lost a case in an Australian court about being “engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct” in relation to AdWords.

The International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates that there are at  least 2.4 million trafficked persons at any given time and that the annual profits of trafficking human beings could be as high as US$32 billion.

Over one million victims of human trafficking are minors. ILO estimates indicate, however, that 32% of all victims were trafficked for labour exploitation, while 43% were trafficked for sexual exploitation and 25% for a mixture of both.

Women and girls make up the overwhelming majority of those trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation (98%).

A report published by the UK Home Affairs Committee in May 2009 highlighted the lack of accurate statistical information, but estimated that there were at least 5,000 trafficking victims in the UK.

In August 2010, the Association of Chief Police Officers published a report which suggested that 17,000 of the estimated 30,000 women involved in off-street prostitution in the UK were migrants.

Nearly 12,000 of these women are understood to have been trafficked or are vulnerable to human trafficking.

Between 14,500 and 17,500 people, primarily women and children, are trafficked to the US annually.

Google employes 31,353 people, has more than 70 offices in more than 40 countries and made $36.5 billion in advertising revenues in 2011.

Google Adwords is a self-instructional, user friendly program, designed to make it easy for users whatever the size of their budget.

Earlier this year, Google Adwords announced that one person could now have 10,000 advertising campaigns, using a combination of  three million keywords per ad.

Google would not be the first internet company to accidentally facilitate human trafficking. Two years ago it emerged that Craigslist was being used for the same purpose.

Women News Network has set up a petition page “STOP Google Adwords from Internet Sex-trafficking of Women and Girls” to lobby the multinational to review its internal policies with regard to AdWord users.