#global feminist

[arakkne]

Gender apartheid: oppression of women should be made a crime against humanity – feminist academic explains why

Published July 15th, 2014, written by Penelope Andrews

"Crimes against humanity are occurring with impunity around the globe; from Myanmar to Sudan, Ukraine and elsewhere. And yet, unlike international treaties for the crimes of genocide, torture, apartheid and forced disappearances, there isn’t a treaty specific to crimes against humanity.

That lack is now being remedied.

The International Law Commission, a UN expert body, has submitted draft articles for a treaty to the UN’s Sixth Committee. This is the main forum for considering legal questions in the UN General Assembly. The intention is to give countries more legal tools to hold accountable those who commit crimes against humanity. It is expected that the treaty process will conclude in October 2024.

The new treaty may include special protection for women.

We believe good journalism is good for democracy and necessary for it.

A group of women activists is lobbying the committee to consider including in the treaty a new definition aimed at protecting women against all forms of oppression. They are advocating for a definition of this discrimination as “gender apartheid”. The idea is that it would track the definition of racial apartheid by replacing the word “race” with “gender”.

Apartheid (Afrikaans for “apartness”) policies were codified in South Africa between 1948 and 1954. The ideology divided South Africans on the basis of race in all spheres of life.

The lobbyists argue that the international community responded comprehensively to racial apartheid after the Apartheid Convention made it a crime in 1973. This forced the South African apartheid state to be held accountable for the crime. It also imposed an obligation on UN member states to eradicate the institutionalised systematic oppression and domination of black South Africans.

Read more: Ordinary white South Africans and apartheid – bound to a racist system they helped prop up

As an academic who has researched and written extensively on racial and gender equality, I fully support broadening the definition of the crime of apartheid to include gender. I believe this is necessary given the persistence and ubiquity of structural discrimination and violence against women in the world.

I first made a case for this in my 2012 book From Cape Town to Kabul: Rethinking Strategies for Pursuing Women’s Human Rights. I argued that when one reads the Apartheid Convention closely, and substitutes “gender” for “race”, the situation of Afghan women, in particular, is identical to the plight of black South Africans under apartheid.

I argued that thinking about constructing a genuine alternative to the realities of women’s lives in Afghanistan was to consider the way the international community confronted the eradication of apartheid in South Africa. It would enable a structured global approach responsive to the institutionalised systems of domination and oppression of women, girls and the LGBTQI+ community.

Codifying “gender apartheid” could go much further than protecting Afghan women and girls.

Great progress has been made in the pursuit of gender equality and in stemming gender-based violence. I believe that codifying gender apartheid under international law is an essential component of that continued progress.

It could offer significant relief to many victims and survivors who otherwise would not be entitled to adequate recourse from the international community and from states. It could also lead to a more effective and concerted international response to gender-based oppression.

Fighting gender apartheid

The crime of gender apartheid stands out as unique and pernicious in intent and consequence. It is what legal scholar Patricia Williams has referred to as “spirit murder”. That is a system of dehumanisation, erasure, oppression, domination and persecution.

Read more: Students on the frontline: South Africa and the US share a history of protest against white supremacy

The Taliban’s ever deepening and institutionalised oppression of Afghan women and girls is the most vivid illustration of the case.

Multiple UN experts, member states and Afghan women’s rights defenders have warned of the deteriorating situation of women and girls in Afghanistan. The concerns became more pronounced after the UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina J. Mohammed on 12 January 2023 warned the international community that in Afghanistan,

unprecedented, systemic attacks on women’s and girls’ rights and the flouting of international obligations are creating gender-based apartheid.

A sign in Johannesburg in 1948 saying 'non-European' people are not allowed to use a lift reserved for Europeans (whites).

Apartheid signage in Johannesburg in March 1948. AFP via Getty Images

In September 2023, UN Women executive director Sima Bahous called on member states to support an intergovernmental process to codify gender apartheid under international law. She said that

the tools the international community has at its disposal were not created to respond to mass, state-sponsored gender oppression. This systematic and planned assault on women’s rights is foundational to the Taliban’s vision of state and society and it must be named, defined, and proscribed in our global norms, so that we can respond appropriately.

Why the argument holds water

One question that needs answering is whether apartheid can be separated from its association with South Africa. Can we think of apartheid as a crime against humanity that can be removed from its racial context?

The evidence from Afghanistan, for example, suggests the answer is a resounding “yes”.

There is a precedent for this. The crime of genocide originated as a term to describe the crimes in Nazi-occupied Europe in the second world war. It was then applied to genocides that occurred elsewhere in the world, like Rwanda, Cambodia and Sudan. In the same way apartheid ought not to be confined to its racial origins.

Read more: South Africa’s genocide case against Israel is the country's proudest foreign policy moment in three decades

International opponents of racial apartheid played a significant role in bolstering South African anti-apartheid activists. In the same way the backing of the global community is crucial to advancing gender justice and women’s human rights. It is particularly necessary to support frontline defenders of women’s human rights who challenge gender apartheid at great risk to themselves.

As the government of Malta noted in its 2023 written comments on the Draft Crimes Against Humanity Convention:

[t]he codification of the crime of gender apartheid will enable victims and survivors – present and future – to hold perpetrators to account for the totality of crimes committed by systematized oppression which the crime of gender persecution alone cannot and does not capture.

This view ought to be widely endorsed by the international community."

[liberaljane]

❤️ Our shared humanity will always shine brighter than the darkness of conflict, war and chaos.

It is time we #UniteForPeace for for the millions of girls and young women around the world living in conflict areas. Share your heart illustration or selfie and #UniteForPeace ❤️

created in collaboration with Plan International

Digital illustration of two people holding each other. There's a Black woman with long blue hair, wearing a blue sweater with a cloud pattern. She is looking down, sad, while a white redhead fem with a soft smile and yellow heart sweater holds her. Behind them are stars and text that reads, 'unite for peace.'

[she-is-ovarit]

"I don't question how embarassing it would be for a man to come forward and admit that a woman is abusing him. But don't underestimate how humiliated a woman feels when she reveals abuse; women crave dignity just as much as men do. If shame stopped people from coming forward, no one would tell."

- Lundy Bancroft, Why Does He Do That?

[ayaahh00]

The West often claims to lead the way in women’s empowerment, but when it comes to education, especially in STEM, the Global South is leading in that sense. In Algeria, over 50% of engineering students are women, while in Egypt, women frequently pursue higher education in fields like medicine and engineering, often surpassing men. In Palestine, even amid genocide, women remain highly educated, using their knowledge as a form of resistance. Education is deeply valued across the Middle East, where literacy rates are among the highest globally. Iran stands out with a huge percentage of women in engineering, including female leaders in university departments, even under the constraints of the Islamic regime . Meanwhile, while Western women do pursue education, a huge gender gap in STEM remains, raising questions about the progressiveness of a society that often discourages women from entering these fields. In contrast, in the Global South, families prioritize higher education for their daughters. So, why does the West continue to disregard the achievements of women in these regions?

[poetessinthepit]

Some facts for those who want to purplewash Palestinian society and portray it as anti-women:

- Palestine has one of the highest percentages of educated women in both the MENA region and the world. Palestinian culture encourages women to get university degrees, and this is not a recent development but something that has become the norm over the last 50 years.

- Women across Palestine have had active involvement in resistance movements for over a 100 years, and during the first Intifada, the women's liberation movement played a vital leadership role with women fighting both for their rights as women and as Palestinians. Palestinian women during the first intifada invented some pretty ingenious organizing strategies, such as disguising their political meetings as homemaking groups and hiding their political pamphlets in loaves of bread.

- There is no mandatory hjiab anywhere in Palestine aside from some high school dress codes in Gaza.

None of this is to say that Palestinian society is not a patriarchal society deserving of feminist critique, but it is to say the picture of Palestinian women painted by Israeli propaganda is not accurate, and any assumption that it is accurate is easily impressed upon ignorant westerners who see muslim majority nations as a total monolith.

[safirefire]

“Why was the international community letting Israel get away with it? Khalida* explained to us that while it was very important for us to use international law and international humanitarian law as a mechanism to advance our cause for self-determination and equality, we had to understand that our fate ultimately depended on politics. Many politicans around the world were willing to sacrifice the rights of people and turn a blind eye to violations, especially when it came to Israel’s occupation. She reminded us that international law had been created by colonial powers and was disproportionately applied to serve their interests…I now understood…how countries like the United States shielded Israel from any sort of punitive measures.” — Ahed Tamimi and Dena Takruri, They Called Me A Lioness

*Khalida Jarrar (famous Palestinian feminist) is another fellow inmate of Tamimi’s who decided to teach the imprisoned children high school and law courses herself when the Israelis failed to provide an actual teacher and continuously threatened her for doing so. She was helped by her cellmate Yasmeen Shaaban who served as the cell block representative and they both fought for the children and prisoner’s rights while being imprisoned and constantly threatened

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

by Phyllis Chesler

What’s unique is that, instead of the world having sympathy for the victims, the sight of Jewish blood unleashed global bloodlust for more Jewish blood.

I was not surprised by the great American feminist silence after Oct. 7. I’ve been dealing with antisemitism/anti-Zionism on the left and among feminists since 1971. I’ve written books and hundreds, maybe a thousand, articles on the subject.

Thus, I may have been among a handful of people not surprised by the feminist silence about Oct. 7 and the ongoing denial of this atrocity.

Such a silence has deep roots in the politically correct academic world.

You are either a victim or a victimizer; you are oppressed or you are an oppressor; you are colonized or you are a colonizer. Israel has been designated as the world’s chief oppressor and colonizer. 

Some victims are more sacred than others. Men of color are more important than white men; Muslim men of color are even more important, unless they’ve been killed by other Muslims. Then, their deaths do not matter. The murders of women of all colors matters even less.

In addition, there is the belief in multicultural relativism—that all cultures are equal; that there is no objective truth. Everything is relative, subjective; everyone is entitled to their own narrative.

Here’s one reason my views are so different:

Most Western pro-Palestinian feminists, leftists and academics have never lived in a Muslim country or moved in Muslim circles or worked with Muslim dissidents as I do.

I wrote about this in An American Bride in Kabul.

They have absolutely no knowledge of Islamic gender and religious apartheid; Islamic imperialism, Islamic colonialism, or Islamic conversion via the sword; no understanding that Muslims practiced anti-black slavery and sex slavery—and many still do.

Demonizing Israelis as “worse than the Nazis” allows Europeans to continue the Holocaust against the Jews and feel that they are rendering themselves safe from radical Islamic hostility by appeasing the Islamist Muslims who live in their midst. It is also a way of scapegoating Jews and Israel for the crimes of European and Muslim racism and colonialism.

Like so many, I had assumed that the world’s hatred and persecution of Jews had ended; that Jewish history would never again repeat itself. 

I was wrong.

It was foolish to have thought that Jew-hatred would suddenly become extinct or that Israel would not remain under siege.

We must shed our illusions—permanently. We cannot expect that conditions will always improve, or that one country or another will always be a safe haven for Jews. 

One cannot win a war of ideas if one refuses to fight it.

[madamepestilence]

The Class Solidarity Flag

Alternate name: Class Consciousness Flag Credits: - Conglomerate flag: Myself - Colours: 1871 Paris Commune (Red), 1917 October Revolution (Red, Yellow), Spanish Civil War (socialist) Republicans (Red, Black), USSR (Red, Yellow) - Crossed arms: Sándor Pinczehelyi, "Hammer and Sickle" - Fist stylization: Black power fist - Yellow star: USSR, various socialist and communist groups - Book outline: Adobe Stock photos Image description: A black flag with a 1 to 2 ratio. In the centre are two red crossed fists at the wrists in solidarity, with an inverted, yellow, five-point star at the wrist junction. Above the crossed fists is an open red book.

Symbolism breakdown: In basic symbolism, the black and red colours represent Communism, liberation, and leftist ideology. The black may also be used to represent Anarchism.

This flag also uses the colour red and crossed fists to represent solidarity between different oppressed classes (e.g. black people, lower class workers, queer people, trans people, disabled people, etc.), and also uses the colour black to represent the sacrifices of people fighting for class liberation.

The star is used to represent humanity's solidarity under the Sun/Sol, as well as Polaris/The North Star, extending the scope of solidarity beyond nationalism to a full human scale.

The open book is used to represent the importance of education, especially in law, to help liberate oppressed classes.

This flag is intended to be flown above or beside other flags of oppressed classes (e.g. pride flags, the black power flag, the Communist flag, the Palestine flag, etc.), but may be flown alone to express solidarity or in times of class struggle.

[likealittleheartbeat]

Will continue to believe Elizabeth Welch Ehasz was one of the most important team members of ATLA

[liberaljane]

Today marks #WorldAIDSDay, a time to show support for people living with #HIV and those who lost their lives to AIDS.

First commemorated in 1988, World AIDS Day raises awareness to end the spread of HIV and the stigma and discrimination that surrounds it.

Despite the progress made, HIV is still a major public health threat globally. In 2021, there were 1.5 million new HIV infections. In particular, girls in sub-Saharan Africa continue to be disproportionately affected by HIV, accounting for 63% of the region's new HIV infections in 2021.

However, it's important to know that in our modern era, people with HIV live long and happy lives thanks to access to antiretroviral therapy (ART). People living with HIV deserve care, not punishment.

To end AIDS, we must look and address underlying inequalities. Solutions include:

Increase availability of HIV testing, treatment and prevention (such as PrEP).

Reform laws and policies that perpetuate the stigma and exclusion of people living with HIV.

Ensure equal access to the best HIV science, between the Global South and North.

Collaboration with UNFPA

[Digital illustration of a Black fem with long curly hair. She’s wearing a white shirt that reads, “Living with HIV doesn't define me.” She’s also wearing gray jeans, a red ribbon and a black choker necklace. Behind her is a sky of gray clouds and a moon.]

[butchkaramazov]

thinking about how i love murakami’s writing & narrative style, the way he subtly catches the reader’s attention etc etc & and at the same time despise the way he writes women & sex scenes. thinking about how i’m starting to appreciate him while hating the misogyny in his writing, & simultaneously recognising how his culture & upbringing played a major role in forming his misogynistic views & also understanding that he's a man before he's a writer &c &c........

[sapphia]

radfem discourse (and other extreme/simplified radical discourse) infesting the internet did so much damage to modern conversation. the terf-y 'hierarchies of oppression' concept that holds that some people are more oppressed than others and you can get rankings or levels like it's some sort of global pvp contest.

what we've got now isn't that combatatitve on the surface but there's still this underlying principle that oppression is like a scoresheet you can tick off and add points up for to redeem on your carrd or whatever, rather a complex interweaving of factors of everything from race, sex, class, religion, upbringing, global location, etc etc.

[dracomort]

Hello! I noticed you recently used the radfem tag on a post. Being a HP author, are you aware of the message this sends considering the source content for this fandom?

I debated whether or not to answer this, as I am well aware of the hornet's nest I'm kicking—particularly on this site. However, I believe the contemporary rhetoric that assumes one's support of 'x' means they must believe 'y' to be reductive, dishonest, and particularly troubling when it comes to silencing the voices of women. It's the very same false equivalence that has led large swathes of the population into claiming that support of Palestine = antisemitism (including, ironically, JK Rowling).

I consider myself a radical feminist and I won't censor that simply because I also happen to like a magical school kid's book series written by a conservative moron. Does this mean I agree with everything every single radical feminist has ever said? No. But I believe that sex-based oppression is alive and well and can be seen most prominently in law-enforcement response to rape and domestic violence, abortion rights in many countries, access to maternity leave, research into women's health, household labour distribution and the commercial objectification of women (be that advertising or pornography).

Does this mean I think sex-based oppression is the only form of oppression? No. Does this mean I associate myself with TERFs? No. Was the radical feminist movement without flaws? Also no. Just as the socialist movement did not adequately address the disadvantages women faced in the 60s and 70s, the second-wave feminist movement failed to address the unique struggles of non-white women and queer women. There is always room to grow from the starting point of a movement created ~60 years ago. Intersectionality is critical. But we have not progressed as far as most would like to pretend (looking at you, America), and the way that women hasten to distance themselves from the 'harsh' type of feminism is partially at fault for this, in my opinion.

Without radical feminism, we would not have had the Women's Liberation Movement. Without radical feminism, we would not have abortion rights, access to credit, equal pay protections, etc. The demonisation of a branch of feminism that was so critical in fighting for the rights that modern women enjoy today is harmful and something I am very suspicious of. I mean, we're at a point where I can't even use the tag radfem without having people in my asks sending messages like this? Really? If there is something that I have reblogged or posted that you disagree with, then I am always open to a good-faith discussion, but I don't respect this style of internet discourse that strikes you down as guilty by association.

(Also, since I know that's what you're getting at — my opinion on TERFs is that they've done a great disservice to radical feminism and have gotten themselves worked up about something that is a non-issue outside of their corner of the internet. My question when people come to me IRL with anti-trans rhetoric is always, "have you ever actually met a trans person?" and the answer is always no...)

While I don't agree with everything said in it, this is an interesting article from Dr Charlotte Proudman which I recommend you read: Being a radical feminist means being a trans ally at the same time.

[omegaphilosophia]

Theories of The Philosophy of Peace

The philosophy of peace is a complex field that explores the nature of peace, its principles, and the conditions required to achieve it. Here are some prominent theories and perspectives within the philosophy of peace:

Pacifism: Pacifism is a foundational theory of peace, emphasizing non-violence and the rejection of war as a means of resolving conflicts. It includes various subcategories, such as absolute pacifism (opposition to all forms of violence) and conditional pacifism (accepting non-violent resistance but opposing armed conflict).

Just War Theory: This theory, rooted in ethical philosophy, provides a framework for determining when wars can be morally justifiable. It sets criteria for the initiation and conduct of wars and emphasizes proportionality and the protection of non-combatants.

Positive Peace: Positive peace goes beyond the absence of war and focuses on the presence of conditions that contribute to a just and sustainable peace. It considers socio-economic equity, social justice, human rights, and environmental sustainability as essential components of lasting peace.

Conflict Resolution Theories: These theories aim to resolve conflicts through non-violent means. They include negotiation, mediation, diplomacy, and alternative dispute resolution methods. The works of scholars like Johan Galtung and his "positive and negative peace" concept contribute to this field.

Cosmopolitanism: Cosmopolitanism promotes a global perspective that transcends national boundaries. It suggests that a sense of shared humanity can lead to a more peaceful world by emphasizing global citizenship and cooperation among nations.

Feminist Peace Theory: Feminist perspectives on peace challenge traditional notions of masculinity and warfare. They argue for the inclusion of women's voices in peace processes and highlight the links between gender equality, security, and peace.

Transitional Justice: This theory focuses on addressing the legacies of conflict and human rights abuses in post-conflict societies. It explores mechanisms for accountability, truth-telling, reconciliation, and reparations to establish a foundation for lasting peace.

Human Rights-Based Approaches: These approaches assert that peace and human rights are intertwined. They emphasize the protection of individual rights as a prerequisite for achieving and maintaining peace.

Gandhian Philosophy: Inspired by Mahatma Gandhi's principles of non-violence and civil disobedience, this philosophy advocates for peaceful resistance as a means to challenge injustice and oppressive regimes.

Global Governance: Global governance theories explore the role of international institutions, such as the United Nations, in promoting peace and stability at the global level. They propose mechanisms for collective decision-making and conflict resolution.

Conflict Transformation: This approach views conflicts as opportunities for positive change and transformation. It seeks to address the underlying causes of conflicts and create conditions for lasting peace by changing the dynamics between parties involved.

Ethical and Religious Perspectives: Many ethical and religious traditions offer insights into the philosophy of peace. These perspectives often emphasize values such as compassion, forgiveness, and the importance of community in achieving peace.

These are just a few of the theories and perspectives within the philosophy of peace. Each theory contributes to a deeper understanding of the nature of peace, the conditions necessary for its realization, and the ethical considerations involved in striving for a more peaceful world.

[hadesoftheladies]

friendly reminder that the state of feminism is not relegated to whatever is happening in the west

[spiderfreedom]

gender around the world

thinking of making an effortpost elaborating on my 'gender is about power' post. a lot of people don't know just how common gender roles are across the world. like, every society that we know of has gender-segregated labor. they're not all equally strict, but this division is one of the few human universals we know of. and another one is that in every society we know of, women are responsible for childcare.

not all societies denigrate women. the extreme denigration of women is basically societies that imprison women at home, because to appear in public is to be 'indecent' and therefore mark you as a bad woman worthy of punishment and violence. these are called ideologies of female seclusion. examples include, to varying extent, ancient athens, modern iran, ancient china, the modern christian fundamentalist movement. these societies also tend to culturally devalue women's contributions to society. lip service will be given to the importance of mothers, but the most important and recognized people in society will be men. any influence women have tends to be behind the scenes influence on particular powerful men. this type of seclusion is somewhat more common in europe and asia.

some societies culturally recognize women's value and allow women to become high-status individuals publically. women appear in public, have spheres of power they control, and are not systematically degraded (but a caveat, which i explain soon). these societies include the ancient oyo benin of western africa (modern day descendants are the yoruba), the iroquois, the inuit, the !kung people. this type of cultural recognition is somewhat more common in africa and the (indigenous) americans.

now for the caveat - even societies that viewed women as valuable, important, powerful, often have anti-women organizing principles. arranged marriage exists among the inuit and !kung people, for instance, with an older man betrothed to a girl or young woman. there are multiple yoruba proverbs that denigrate or patronize women. these societies are not feminist utopias. they are societies that believe in the complementarian value of women's work, recognize it, and where women are expected to be full members of society. this does not mean that men and women are utterly equal in dignity.

there are many manifestations of the arrangements above - the lamalerans of indonesia don't have a culture of seclusion but do value men's labor over women's. even among fundamentalist christians, we see different levels of female seclusion and leadership among the different subgroups. i note trends, and trends are not absolute.

why does this matter to us? because it proves that gender is not a liberatory principle. gender is not even primarily an aesthetic principle. gender is a script handed to people that they must play so society can function. some scripts say that women's roles are important and valuable and ought to be celebrated. other scripts say that women's roles are less important and women are shameful and should stay secluded. but it is worth noting they are scripts nonetheless.

understanding that gender exists to organize labor, values, reproduction, also means you understand why feminists should study economics. male anxiety about female empowerment rises when male employment is threatened. in other words, rising unemployment for men = increasing anxiety about women "replacing" them = increasing desire for strict gender roles that "assure" men places in society. (btw - many women also feel the same in societies where they depend on men, and employed women are viewed as enemies.)

until we figure out how to get men to stop being existentially concerned with their place on the masculine hierarchy, decreases in male employment and male success will continue to be boons to anti-feminist. and so, in addition to being worried about unemployment because of how it affects women's labor directly, feminists should be worried about unemployment because it ferments anti-female resentment. (could managing unemployment levels thus turn out to be a way to control anti-feminist sentiment, so that feminists can lay groundwork for more advanced feminist points? instead of always worrying about maintaining the gains we have? food for thought)