Response — March 7, 2017, 6:51 pm

A Feminism for the Masses

Four women make the case for a strike

Protestors at the Women's March in Washington, D.C., January 21, 2017. Photograph by the author.

Protesters at the Women’s March in Washington, D.C., January 21, 2017. Photograph by the author.

In the fall of 1909, more than 20,000 female garment workers in New York City took to the streets, demanding better hours and wages. Several months later, in what seemed like progress, their union came to an agreement with most of the factory owners. But in March 1911, the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, whose management had refused to sign the union settlement, burned down, killing 145 workers. More than 80,000 people marched down Fifth Avenue to grieve and protest the conditions that had led to the fire. On Wednesday, March 8, 2017, women in more than 30 countries will again take to the streets and decline to work—abstaining from both formal and informal labor. They won’t attend meetings, they won’t shop, they won’t cook. It’s a celebration of International Women’s Day and a demand for recognition of the uncompensated work that women do. We spoke with four women in New York about what the strike means to them.

Bridget Gaitor, an African-American woman, is a special education teacher at a public school in Brooklyn.

I have a lot of kids who ask questions. They’re always asking me, “Miss, are you participating in this march? Did you hear about this in the news?” They asked if I heard about the strike that’s happening on March 8th, and I told them I’m definitely participating. They asked me why it’s happening, and we talked about women’s issues, wages, and abortion rights.

As an educator, you provide the first foundations of knowledge. If adolescents believe that we are equal, that everyone is capable of sports, that everyone is capable of any job that they put their minds to, despite their gender, then they will grow into adults knowing that, “Oh, women can do X, Y, and Z, just like men can.” It’s a teacher’s job to make sure that students understand this, so that they grow into adults that have the same mind-set.

Under Betsy DeVos, I am very nervous for education. I’ve been a public school teacher for six years. A lot of her ideas about the charter school movement scare me, and make me think that she’s moving toward privatization. I think things may get a little rocky, especially when it comes to including all students, particularly students with different gender associations.

Over the years, when it comes to feminism, myself and other women of color have felt left out of the conversation. That’s one of the main reasons I wanted to participate. I want to show a united front, to say: I understand that this is what happened in the past, but as we move forward, I want to make sure that all voices are heard.

On Wednesday, I hope that people see every aspect of feminism. That they see you have women who have special needs, women of every economic background, every social background, from different cultures, from different ethnicities, and that as a whole, we disagree with what’s happening, and there needs to be a change. We’re here standing in a united front against anyone who’s going to overturn the abortion laws that we have in this nation. We’re standing up for the education rights of women across the world. We’re standing up against microaggressions. Against anyone who thinks that tampons or pads are luxury items that need to be taxed.

I don’t think the ability to strike is a privilege. I think it’s a right. If you don’t stand up for what you believe in, there’s no point in believing in anything. If you don’t stand up for what you think is right, people will continue to do you wrong.

Mia White, an Afro-Asian woman, is an assistant professor of environmental studies at the New School. She is planning to attend the rally in Washington Square Park with her undergraduate students.

A lot of my students say, “Well, Mia, the world is a shit storm right now. What do we do? I don’t know what to do.” We have to resist this need to know exactly what the answers are before engaging in the struggle. We can only discover it collectively through the uncertainty and contradictions of coming together.

Fear travels through bureaucracies and it seems to be this very neutral thing because everybody just wants a paycheck. People capitulate and become ensnared in these systems. But we have to be willing to engage fear—to be scared, and to not know the answers. A revolutionary practice begins with saying: I love myself, and I love these people, and I’m willing to not know what exactly this means.

The idea that this is a day for the “feminist 99 percent” is key. I used to work for the Ms. Foundation for Women. We often struggled with this idea that feminism was a white woman’s phenomenon and that it did not speak to the most marginalized women. Feminism for the 99 percent is about justice beyond striving. As women, we’re told that the more credentials we have, the more likely we’ll be to achieve some measure of equality. That’s all bullshit. What we need to do is to look around and understand why it is that so many women and people are suffering, hungry, sick, depressed, alone, without health care, and without opportunity.

My mother and I were street vendors in the Eighties and Nineties. We would never have identified as feminists then. We were selling socks, three for five dollars. I want those women, who are still street vendors and home health aides, who are largely women of color and immigrants—to feel empowered to help lead whatever is coming next.

Women and humans who are feminized are on the front lines of environmental disaster. I did post-Katrina work in Mississippi, and it was black women who were basically census monitors, going from house to house. They knew who was missing their diabetes medication and who wasn’t. It was the women in Flint who were complaining to the mayor that something was wrong with the water, and who were told that their knowledge was illegitimate because they were not experts. It’s usually the most marginalized people who have learned the skills of resistance.

This is what I explain to my students. We need to think about this from a heterogeneous perspective. We have to think about anti-blackness, patriarchy, nationalism, white supremacy. We have to see this as a smog in the air that we’re all subject to. White supremacy does not mean white skin. It’s a smog we have inherited historically, just like the patriarchy. We’re all impacted differently depending on our embodiment, but it is something that we’re all impacted by. When we think about it structurally, it makes perfect sense why we need to strike.

Lamis Deek, a Palestinian woman, is an attorney and human rights advocate who is on the strike’s national planning committee.

In the United States, the voices that have been traditionally considered by the mainstream media as feminist voices have been white women, who have often, to our great dismay, parroted government rhetoric and propaganda. And in fact they have been part and parcel of using feminism in service of imperialism, as we’ve seen in the Arab world. We’ve seen many American feminists and U.S.-based feminist movements mobilize to, in their language, “liberate” and “free” Arab and Muslim women. But they do that by subjecting Arab and Muslim women to war and violence, just by a different set of people—in this case, American and European forces. We are saying that we don’t need feminism that serves existing systems of power and oppression. We’re not interested in a feminism of the elites. We’re interested in a feminism of the masses. And in order for it to be a feminism of the masses it must be an anti-racist and anti-imperialist feminism. So it was very important for me to be part of organizing this movement, to mobilize Arab and Muslim communities, to say we are agents of our own change.

Growing up in Palestine, I was raised largely by women, by my mother and my grandmothers, all of whom had to raise us, had to fend off Israeli soldiers and kidnappers, and had to farm at the same time. I come from a place where women toiled and labored under severe conditions. In that society, however, there was more reverence for women and elders, and coming to the United States, it was shocking to see the abject lack of reverence.

When my father passed away, my mother started wearing the veil. It was new to us; we were a nationalist secular family. She lives in the Midwest. And only over the past couple of years have I, for the first time, found myself constantly worrying about my mother’s safety. We had lived under a brutal, violent Israeli occupation. Now I found myself in this place where I was supposed to be safe, or at least safer, constantly worried about who was going to hurt my mother because of this new escalation and mobilization of anti-Muslim violence and racism. It made me consider how vulnerable my mother was in a way that other women aren’t — physically, socially, culturally, because she’s so visible as a Muslim woman.

Sumer Samhoury, an Arab-American woman, is a physical therapist in Brooklyn and a mother of two.

Breaking the mold of oppression takes a lot of work. The appearance of Arab-American women in the media is that they are housewives. They’re barefoot and pregnant. Their men call the shots and they have no authority in their own households. They have no voice. Our religion, Islam—not all Arabs are Muslim, but for the women that are—our religion tells us to be authoritative, but to do it in a delicate way.

I happen to be a covered woman. I wear a veil. But just because I cover my hair doesn’t mean my voice is not heard. It doesn’t mean my knowledge is not worthy. I’m a doctor. I treat pelvic pain. I treat women when they’re pregnant and in postpartum, at their most vulnerable, women who can’t be penetrated during intercourse because of certain conditions. And if that’s not empowering—teaching a woman to take control of her own vagina—I don’t know what is.

This is how I give women their voice. I say, “You’re a woman, you are just as intelligent as a man.” We are not the oppressed Arab-American women that you see on CNN. We are intelligent, we are educated, and we can offer a lot to the world.

Like I said, I treat pelvic pain. I treat urinary incontinence. I treat vaginismus, which is a condition where a woman cannot tolerate either a medical vaginal exam or intercourse. And these are all, believe it or not, often considered cosmetic. It’s a fight to convince the people behind the phones at insurance companies that a woman’s livelihood is dependent on this. And the interesting thing is, men can also experience erectile dysfunction or urinary incontinence, especially after prostate surgery, and those things are quickly covered. So, I even see some sexism happening in insurance companies. I treat both men and women, and I’ve never had to convince the insurance company when I need to treat a man. Whereas a woman, she just pushed out an eight-pound baby and now she’s got urinary incontinence. I have to convince them that this is not normal. It’s common, but it’s not normal. This is not cosmetic. This is a medical necessity. It’s really very depressing that I have to fight for these women to get medical care.

Recognition is important—recognizing that women are just as important to society as men are, and that women’s health concerns are just as detrimental to their quality of life and health as men’s conditions are. The ideal outcome of the strike is recognition: women are stronger and a lot more capable than they’re given credit for.

Share
Single Page

More from Stephanie McFeeters:

Weekly Review December 30, 2016, 3:50 pm

Weekly Review

The U.N. Security Council condemns the construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, an ordained Pagan priest receives permission to wear goat horns in his driver’s license photo, and snow falls in the Saharan town of Ain Sefra for the first time in 40 years.

Weekly Review November 8, 2016, 11:49 am

Weekly Review

The Ku Klux Klan endorses Donald Trump, the FBI says Hillary Clinton won’t be prosecuted, and Americans pick their next president

Weekly Review September 20, 2016, 12:34 pm

Weekly Review

A homemade bomb explodes under a dumpster in New York City, Donald Trump admits U.S. president Barack Obama was born in America, and a fertility doctor in Indiana is accused of artificially inseminating his patients with his own sperm

Get access to 168 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

October 2018

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
The Printed Word in Peril·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In February, at an event at the 92nd Street Y’s Unterberg Poetry Center in New York, while sharing the stage with my fellow British writer Martin Amis and discussing the impact of screen-based reading and bidirectional digital media on the Republic of Letters, I threw this query out to an audience that I estimate was about three hundred strong: “Have any of you been reading anything by Norman Mailer in the past year?” After a while, one hand went up, then another tentatively semi-elevated. Frankly I was surprised it was that many. Of course, there are good reasons why Mailer in particular should suffer posthumous obscurity with such alacrity: his brand of male essentialist braggadocio is arguably extraneous in the age of Trump, Weinstein, and fourth-wave feminism. Moreover, Mailer’s brilliance, such as it was, seemed, even at the time he wrote, to be sparks struck by a steely intellect against the tortuous rocks of a particular age, even though he labored tirelessly to the very end, principally as the booster of his own reputation.

It’s also true that, as J. G. Ballard sagely remarked, for a writer, death is always a career move, and for most of us the move is a demotion, as we’re simultaneously lowered into the grave and our works into the dustbin. But having noted all of the above, it remains the case that Mailer’s death coincided with another far greater extinction: that of the literary milieu in which he’d come to prominence and been sustained for decades. It’s a milieu that I hesitate to identify entirely with what’s understood by the ringing phrase “the Republic of Letters,” even though the overlap between the two was once great indeed; and I cannot be alone in wondering what will remain of the latter once the former, which not long ago seemed so very solid, has melted into air.

What I do feel isolated in—if not entirely alone in—is my determination, as a novelist, essayist, and journalist, not to rage against the dying of literature’s light, although it’s surprising how little of this there is, but merely to examine the great technological discontinuity of our era, as we pivot from the wave to the particle, the fractal to the fungible, and the mechanical to the computable. I first began consciously responding, as a literary practitioner, to the manifold impacts of ­BDDM in the early 2000s—although, being the age I am, I have been feeling its effects throughout my working life—and I first started to write and speak publicly about it around a decade ago. Initially I had the impression I was being heard out, if reluctantly, but as the years have passed, my attempts to limn the shape of this epochal transformation have been met increasingly with outrage, and even abuse, in particular from my fellow writers.

As for my attempts to express the impact of the screen on the page, on the actual pages of literary novels, I now understand that these were altogether irrelevant to the requirement of the age that everything be easier, faster, and slicker in order to compel the attention of screen viewers. It strikes me that we’re now suffering collectively from a “tyranny of the virtual,” since we find ourselves unable to look away from the screens that mediate not just print but, increasingly, reality itself.

Photograph (detail) by Ellen Cantor from her Prior Pleasures series © The artist. Courtesy dnj Gallery, Santa Monica, California
Article
Among Britain’s Anti-Semites·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

This is the story of how the institutions of British Jewry went to war with Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour Party. Corbyn is another feather in the wind of populism and a fragmentation of the old consensus and politesse. He was elected to the leadership by the party membership in 2015, and no one was more surprised than he. Between 1997 and 2010, Corbyn voted against his own party 428 times. He existed as an ideal, a rebuke to the Blairite leadership, and the only wise man on a ship of fools. His schtick is that of a weary, kindly, socialist Father Christmas, dragged from his vegetable patch to create a utopia almost against his will. But in 2015 the ideal became, reluctantly, flesh. Satirists mock him as Jesus Christ, and this is apt. But only just. He courts sainthood, and if you are very cynical you might say that, like Christ, he shows Jews what they should be. He once sat on the floor of a crowded train, though he was offered a first-class seat, possibly as a private act of penance to those who had, at one time or another, had no seat on a train.

When Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party, the British media, who are used to punching socialists, crawled over his record and found much to alarm the tiny Jewish community of 260,000. Corbyn called Hez­bollah “friends” and said Hamas, also his “friends,” were devoted “to long-term peace and social justice.” (He later said he regretted using that language.) He invited the Islamist leader Raed Salah, who has accused Jews of killing Christian children to drink their blood, to Parliament, and opposed his extradition. Corbyn is also a patron of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and a former chair of Stop the War, at whose rallies they chant, “From the river to the sea / Palestine will be free.” (There is no rhyme for what will happen to the Jewish population in this paradise.) He was an early supporter of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement and its global campaign to delegitimize Israel and, through the right of return for Palestinians, end its existence as a Jewish state. (His office now maintains that he does not support BDS. The official Labour Party position is for a two-state solution.) In the most recent general election, only 13 percent of British Jews intended to vote Labour.

Corbyn freed something. The scandals bloomed, swiftly. In 2016 Naz Shah, Labour MP for Bradford West, was suspended from the party for sharing a Facebook post that suggested Israel be relocated to the United States. She apologized publicly, was reinstated, and is now a shadow women and equalities minister. Ken Livingstone, the former mayor of London and a political supporter of Corbyn, appeared on the radio to defend Shah and said, “When Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.” For this comment, Livingstone was suspended from the party.

A protest against anti-Semitism in the Labour Party in Parliament Square, London, March 26, 2018 (detail) © Yui Mok/PA Images/Getty Images
Article
Nothing but Gifts·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

If necessity is the stern but respectable mother of invention, then perhaps desperation is the derelict father of subterfuge. That was certainly the case when I moved to Seattle in 1979.

Though I’d lived there twice during the previous five years, I wasn’t prepared for the economic boom I found upon this latest arrival. Not only had rent increased sharply in all but the most destitute neighborhoods, landlords now routinely demanded first, last, and a hefty security deposit, which meant I was short by about fifty percent. Over the first week or so, I watched with mounting anxiety as food, gas, and lodging expenses reduced the meager half I did have to a severely deficient third. To make matters even more nerve-racking, I was relocating with my nine-year-old son, Ezra. More than my well-being was at stake.

A veteran of cold, solitary starts in strange cities, I knew our best hope wasn’t the classifieds, and certainly not an agency, but the serendipity of the streets—handmade for rent signs, crowded bulletin boards in laundromats and corner grocery stores, passersby on the sidewalk; I had to exploit every opportunity that might present itself, no matter how oblique or improbable. In Eastlake, at the edge of Lake Union between downtown Seattle and the University District, I spied a shabby but vacant one-story house on the corner of a block that was obviously undergoing transition—overgrown lots and foundation remnants where other houses once stood—and that had at least one permanent feature most right-minded people would find forbidding: an elevated section of Interstate 5 just across the street, attended by the incessant roar of cars and trucks. The house needed a new roof, a couple of coats of paint, and, judging by what Ezra and I could detect during a furtive inspection, major repair work inside, including replacing damaged plaster-and-lath walls with sheetrock. All of this, from my standpoint, meant that I might have found a solution to my dilemma.

The next step was locating the owner, a roundabout process that eventually required a trip to the tax assessor’s office. I called the person listed on the rolls and made an appointment. Then came the moment of truth, or, more precisely, untruth, when dire circumstance begot strategic deception. I’d never renovated so much as a closet, but that didn’t stop me from declaring confidently that I possessed both the skills and the willingness to restore the entire place to a presentable—and, therefore, rentable—state in exchange for being able to live there for free, with the length of stay to be determined as work progressed. To my immense relief, the pretense was well received. Indeed, the owner also seemed relieved, if a bit surprised, that he’d have seemingly trustworthy tenants; homeless people who camped beneath the freeway, he explained, had repeatedly broken into the house and used it for all manner of depravity. Telling myself that inspired charlatanry is superior to mundane trespassing—especially this instance of charlatanry, which would yield some actual good—I accepted the keys from my new landlord.

Photograph (detail) © Larry Towell/Magnum Photos
Article
Checkpoint Nation·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Laura Sandoval threaded her way through idling taxis and men selling bottles of water toward the entrance of the Cordova International Bridge, which links Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, to El Paso, Texas. Earlier that day, a bright Saturday in December 2012, Sandoval had crossed over to Juárez to console a friend whose wife had recently died. She had brought him a few items he had requested—eye drops, the chimichangas from Allsup’s he liked—and now that her care package had been delivered, she was in a hurry to get back to the Texas side, where she’d left her car. She had a …
Checkpoint on I-35 near Encinal, Texas (detail) © Gabriella Demczuk

Acres of crossword puzzles Americans fill in each day:

54

In Burma, a newly discovered noseless monkey was assumed to be critically endangered because—despite its efforts to keep its head tucked between its legs on rainy days—it sneezes whenever rain falls into its nasal cavity and thereby alerts hunters to its presence.

Paul Manafort accepts a plea deal; Brett Kavanaugh accused of sexual assault; Jeff Bezos gets into the kindergarten racketon the clock

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Happiness Is a Worn Gun

By

Illustration by Stan Fellows

Illustration by Stan Fellows

“Nowadays, most states let just about anybody who wants a concealed-handgun permit have one; in seventeen states, you don’t even have to be a resident. Nobody knows exactly how many Americans carry guns, because not all states release their numbers, and even if they did, not all permit holders carry all the time. But it’s safe to assume that as many as 6 million Americans are walking around with firearms under their clothes.”

Subscribe Today