Those who forget the past...

Are doomed to repeat it.

Today, in my gender and labor class (please refrain from making any childbirth jokes, thanks), I gave a presentation about women in trade unions and their work to organize for better working conditions. It's very interesting seeing how our society has really progressed in a century. I was talking about how the female unionists faced hostility in the workforce (which was dominated by men) and harassment in the unions (which were controlled by men), giving them a huge battle to fight. My professor then asked me, "What are some events that you think may have helped or hindered their cause?"

My immediate answer to that was, of course, the horrific Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire. About half the class looked confused, and one undergrad tentatively asked, "What was the Triangle Fire?"

Now, I'd known about this event since I was in grade school, and being the history buff, I explained what it was. For those of you readers who don't know, the Triangle Fire was a fire that engulfed the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in New York in 1911. Hundreds of young female workers were busy putting together garments, and the doors to the factory were locked from the outside, preventing them from leaving work early. Because the doors were locked, the women could not get out of the building as it burned. As the minutes ticked by as they waited for help, many of the women jumped out the windows of the highrise and the rest of them perished in the fire.

The Triangle Fire is the reason behind a lot of protective labor laws, such as having mandatory fire escapes in businesses, windows in doors, and generally, a way out if disaster struck. As I was telling the story, my classmates stared in shock. "That really happened?" asked one girl. "I have such a scary image in my head of those women jumping out the windows--how awful for them!" added another. The lone guy in the class pulled up a picture of the fiery factory on his smartphone and added, "Says here it was one of New York's deadliest disasters." I was glad that I got to educate the class about this very important topic but felt a little sad that they didn't know about it before.

Then I got to thinking that, maybe, things might not have changed as much as we would have liked since the Triangle Factory burned. We unfortunately still live in a very class-segregated society. Sure, the laws passed since then certainly help to prevent a similar incident from happening, but I am aware that in many sweatshops that serve American companies, the doors are locked and workers may not leave. This so begs the question, whose safety do we value? At one time in our country's history, the young, single, and immigrant women doing the piecework in the factories or cleaning up after their employers were considered expendable and not worth the labor protection. In sweatshops, it's primarily women and children who have no other resources.

Who do we want to be safe? And how much have we really learned from that event?

Life above the shop

So it's not much of a secret that I live above a shop along the main thoroughfare of my town. I have always been a big, big fan of mixed use development and see it as a great and sustainable form of architecture. My building's seriously old--it was built in the 1930s, and a somewhat nondescript entryway leads up into some pretty vintage apartments. The apartment was love at first sight, and I really like living there. My sister once said, "Some girls live to shop, but you live over the shop!" and she's right. I don't mind that it doesn't have a dishwasher or that I have to use a window unit for my air conditioning. Living in the downtown historical district more than makes up for any disadvantages my complex has.

Along the lines of my life in the historic district, I really got to wondering about what things were like before. My town's got a long history, and this building's quite old. They've worked hard to keep the downtown viable but with the older features of the buildings preserved (unlike my once and always hometown, which really fell into decline). My own unit's kind of unusual, as it had originally been 2 studios (and before that, just rooms for rent) that were joined together. Most of the units here were originally rooms for rent. So....it makes me wonder at times when I'm overlooking the main street or in my room hearing the cars go by (I've come to like that sound). What kind of people were here before? Did they work in the shops below me, and which shops were those? (I doubt my downstairs neighbors have been here 100+ years.) Did they have spouses? And what brought them here? Since I have the equivalent of 2 studios, what were each of their residents like? I'm really curious. I love local history, so I'll be checking out some of the town's archives when I get the chance, but I'm wondering what they might say about my building.

There's just this really cool sense that something and someone has been here before. I like that.

Raging revel

So now I'm about to get serious and historical on you all. Don't say I didn't warn you.

I got really upset the other day as a history buff and activist ally can. I was driving through the residential area of Waukegan, one of the larger towns in the county when I saw this house with a huge Confederate flag flying in front of it. And by huge, I mean you couldn't drive near the neighborhood without seeing that thing.

This really irked me for a lot of reasons. I really don't like what that CSA flag stands for, and I can easily say that I hate seeing it flown. Or on bumper stickers. Or pretty much anywhere you find the stars and bars. Honestly, I really don't know what some people's preoccupation with the antebellum South really is all about. Some say it's all about their "heritage," but the CSA only lasted 4 years. The United States as a country has been around for over 50 times that long! So, 4 years is not exactly much in the way of heritage. I don't see many 13-star American flags flying, nor many flags with 48 stars. So why this one? And when you really think about it, that period was among the ugliest in American history. Considering that a huge proportion of the population was considered chattel and oppressed, I really fail to see why anybody would want to put up a flag honoring that. You don't see countries that had ethnic cleansing or genocide or something else horrible in their past having some sort of nostalgia or wistfulness for that.

As an anti-racist white ally (and yes, I know that there are some problems with allies and progressives as well, as I detailed a couple posts ago), that flag really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Why the glorification of this period, that was dependent on racism and slavery? Why the glorification of a region that seceded so it could own other human beings? That's just disgusting! But what especially irked me was where its owner chose to fly it. The city of Waukegan's at least 70% non-white (primarily black and Latino/a), so I really don't want to know what kind of a message its owner was trying to send. With that sort of a loaded history behind the flag (and with anyone's knowledge of Waukegan's demographics!), it definitely comes across as anything but innocuous. It comes across as pretty damn hostile if you ask me.

I would never trespass on private property and I am not into vandalism; however, I can't say I didn't feel tempted to spray paint the words, "Your side lost! Get over it by now!" all over their lawn in response to that damn flag.

I am the history geek!

Okay, this is probably the first time you've heard me call myself a geek, but I just received dramatic proof that I am indeed one! No, I can totally dress fine and I do have some social skills.

BUT...for one of my classes, I have to go into the archives (same place I found that amusing article about The Lavender Menace, see my post about the unaccompanied women). I wish they were a little closer to campus, but once I'm in there, you cannot stop me! The archivist lady brought out the boxes of material, and I was voraciously digging into into them! I'm serious! She dumped this giant box of articles about student protests (did you know there was an archive for protests alone?? How cool is that?), and I'm all like, "WOOHOO! LET'S GET THIS PARTAY STARTED!" And I just couldn't extricate myself from them!! Guaranteed, not all of the articles were all that positive (history is not always happy), but I was sooooo into reading about the student groups and coffee houses and protests of yore. Not to mention thinking about modern groups that probably grew out of them! AAAAAHHH....I so want to go back tomorrow and Wednesday! I've got an appointment to look through the archives of the YWCA tomorrow, and I'm more than stoked about it. This is way more addicting than the time I went into the microfilm room back during soph year. With microfilms, you see the image on the screen. In the archives, you get to TOUCH the materials. You get to feel what old feels like! You get to have your hands on something that has seen activists before you and see how they did it (yes, I am more tactile of a learner).

WHO would have thought it? I am the history geek! Hear me roar!

Be still, my heart

What's this again? I didn't hear it right...could you repeat it?

In April, towards the end, there's gonna be...

ANOTHER Big Fat GWS Conference!

(Well, actually, it's not quite a big fat GWS conference because it is put on by the Ethnography of the University Initiative and not the GWS program. It's more like a big fat history conference, and my LGBT studies class is allowed to present as long as we have a ten-minute-or-less speech prepared.)

Needless to say, I'm already petitioning to present there! We don't need to submit our proposals until March, so I have time to prepare. I just really want to present something I've created again.

You know, sometimes I wonder why I'm not interested in teaching college as a profession. Then I can talk all I please, and get paid for it!

Searching for Sisterhood

Or, "How I Learned to Find the Power in Sisterhood and Cross This Bridge"

Here is some lovely feminist theory analysis courtesy of me!

Over break, I was reading two classics of feminist anthology. They are both wonderful books, and total must-reads for anyone who is interested in the great tradition of American activism and feminism. I would highly recommend them to anyone. One is Sisterhood is Powerful, and it is compiled by Robin Morgan. The other is This Bridge Called my Back, and its editor is Cherie Moraga. I liked them both, but I've noticed that they both have their own very distinct methods of promoting women's equality. My question is, which way is best? Or does an activist need to strike some sort of balance? (And yes, I am ultra-analyzing, but bear with me here.) Let me elaborate, as both do have their own backgrounds and quirks.

Sisterhood was published in the 1970s as "an anthology of writings from the women's liberation movement." It's considered one of the classics of that time, and it contains writings from both well-known and more obscure authors regarding what its editor, Robin Morgan, sees as the "women's experience." Morgan is the author of two other Sisterhood books, and they take their names from substituting "global" and "forever" for "powerful." My blog post "Sisterhood and Brotherhood Are Powerful, Global, and Forever" is actually based on the titles of the three Morgan books. She's also written about terrorism (Demon Lover) and politics (Anatomy of Freedom) and bills herself as a radical feminist.

What Morgan promotes is a focus on the "women's experience." She notices the way that history has often been written from the point of view of men, and she seeks to compile writings by and about women in order to pay attention to a much-overlooked "female experience." By pointing out what women have gone through, she hopes to foster a sense of solidarity and to prevent female voices from getting lost in the writing of history. Morgan is devoted to fostering a sense of "sisterhood."

The other book, This Bridge, is considered the seminal text that ushered in the third wave of feminism, and it's billed as "writings by radical women of color." The third wave is marked, among other things, by an expansion of feminism's outreach and an attention to the interlocking problems that women have faced (i.e. they also focus on racism, classism, faithism, and homophobia as well as sexism). Moraga, its editor, is adament about blurring the boundaries between groups and striking up alliances between social justice groups. She has written that one cannot be focused on ending sexism if one is not also willing to take on the problems of racism and homophobia, among others as well. Sure, she implies, sisterhood may be powerful, but forming alliances and expanding that definition of sisterhood is even more so.

Now these two views, promoting a "women's experience"/sisterhood and fostering alliances and expanding outreach, are equally valid and have their share of problems.

Morgan sees solidarity as based on a shared experience, a sisterhood, something women can all claim as their own. By having an experience that women can relate to, feminism becomes an "everywoman" sort of movement. Moraga, on the other hand, sees alliances as the way to go and that feminism should take a more active role in other social movements as well.

However, the trouble with sisterhood is that it leaves a ton of people out. Sisterhood is Powerful is a radical anthology, but most of the contributors identify as White and were fairly well-educated. None of the essays are by male allies, and only a handful are written by or about lesbians. Sisterhood certainly can be powerful, but according to whose terms? For every woman who complained about a feminine mystique (with no disrespect intended to Ms. Betty) and dissatisfaction as a domestic wife, there was another woman who was upset over having to work incredibly hard and have no time for her family. Or a woman who loved another woman and was feeling like her relationship was being ignored by the media and by a supposedly progressive social movement. If a "woman's experience" is promoted, any woman whose life did not measure up to those terms would feel left out.

But how much better is forming "this bridge" between groups? Moraga and her coeditor Gloria Anzaldua see the formation of alliances between groups and expanding feminist politics to include anti-racist and anti-homophobic activities. All of the writings in This Bridge are by minority writers. By focusing on ending racism and other social ills as well as sexism, women can then be truly empowered. The book does make a lot of sense, as many women, in particular lesbians and minority women do face interlocking forms of oppression. By being women in a patriarchal society and women of color/of a lower class/in relationships with other women in a white-preferential/materialist/heterosexist society, their burdens are even more augmented. However, the problem that Moraga runs into is the loss of a unique voice of a group. If one takes on the views and problems of others, one's voice is co-opted and expanded to include that of others. The issues that are unique to one group can become lost in the quest for alliances.

I am not entirely sure of which activist's way is best. Maybe I am overanalyzing it, because they are both legendary anthologies and should be treated as such. However, I personally think that the best way would be a delicate balance between them. Know your group and the issues that make it unique and different. But don't be afraid to reach out to other groups to gain allies and to help them in their struggles as well.

Change has come

I really do identify with what Michelle Obama said, that this time, I really feel proud to be an American.

Regardless of what side you're on, you can't deny that this was truly a historic election and a historic inauguration. I watched the inauguration, and I was really crying when Obama gave his speech. Obama's story is one that many people can relate to, a lot more so than the previous Presidents! Barack really had to work hard to get his education and his jobs. He formed alliances with community groups such as churches and social services, ones that many ordinary Americans also are a part of. He wasn't born clutching a silver spoon, and he didn't get to be president by pandering to special interests. This was an election that everyone was excited about, and it wasn't some unrelatable gray-haired guy versus another unrelatable gray-haired guy. This campaign and election were energetic, dynamic, and upbeat.

And my post about my concerns over Pastor Warren giving the invocation? As wrong as wearing socks with sandals or getting worked up over Y2K! Yep, even the revel can be wrong at times! Warren's speech was actually pretty classy. I was pleasantly surprised. The guest speaker I was most impressed with was Senator Feinstein. She really knows how to please a crowd! But, of course, the star was the President. Not President-"elect." President Obama. It sounds good. It is good. I'm excited about seeing what he does during his time in office.

Oil to the World

I was watching a news report, and it really made me aware of the huge power the oil industry has over this whole world.

The US Government decides that it should invade Iraq, saying that the people need to be "liberated" and that they need our help. In reality, we've only managed to protect the oil fields and not the people or any semblance of order.

In the Sudan, there is a real and actual genocide (this is a real crisis--one that's been ongoing for far too long) going on, and no one steps in or does much of anything. Why hasn't anyone stepped in? The Darfur region is full of (you guessed it) oil that much of the world needs.

Oil's well that ends well, I guess.

A woman's place is...Anywhere she wants to be!

The above quote is a pearl of wisdom from one of my professors, and it will do very well for the title and topic.

My horrendously huge history paper was turned in today.

I finished it two days in advance.

I actually enjoyed poring over two decades of Look magazine to analyze representations of women in advertising. My teacher told me that if I could stand researching that thing and scrutinizing it to death, it would make a very good dissertation project. Seriously, I liked it. It was like a treasure hunt to find and scrutinize the ads in a way only the most militantly radical-feministy GWS students can do...

In sixteen pages (not counting works cited) of pure feministy goodness that is guaranteed to satisfy.

Is there something wrong with me?

I actually enjoyed said paper!