Violence Against Women: A Way Out

Our Network for Peace staff attended many side events of the meetings of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) that took place in March 2013 at the United Nations.

We learned about the importance of the involvement of communities in the mission of ending violence against women. Many of these events also related to the legal aspect to prevent and remedy this type of violence, but in all of them the support of the community were cited as crucial in order to obtain advancements.

Certainly, the creation of laws is an essential part of the change we need. However, courageous action and community involvement are necessary to insure that the laws are implemented. We should not under-estimate the power that organic movements have in the process of modifying behavior and attitudes towards the social acceptance of violence against women and girls.

In addition, an important step in this process is to educate women about the problem and to make them the main agent of change. In many of the side events, the need to educate women about their rights and that violence of any sort should not be acceptable were mentioned as indispensable tools to eradicate violence against women. Unfortunately, it was stated that a considerable number of women who are in abusive relationships cannot even recognize themselves as being violated. Therefore, educating women, men and the whole community about the issue are essential parts of changing behavior and the mentality of a society.

Peggy Ray one of our staff discussed an event in which she participated which shows a good example of what has been discussed. She told us of about a campaign that has made great use of incorporating women and the community as tools to eradicate violence against women in South Asia. She reported about the work of the WECAN campaign that aims to change social norms of acceptance of violence against women by encouraging women to become change makers by their recognition of being violated and then their sharing that recognition with ten other people in the community. The program started in 2004, and reports have shown that the initiative has been quite effective and efficient. To learn more about the program go to http://www.wecanglobal.com .

Surely, WECAN is a good example of how a movement that started within the communities is able to expand and bring the change needed in our male dominated/patriarchal society. In terms of gender inequality, another important aspect of the issue is that many communities have legitimized violence against women by accepting it as part of their culture. However, we should be careful to not misinterpret culture with ancient set behaviors of oppression. Culture should not violate human rights in the first place. Culture should not be preserved at the cost of perpetuating violence against women. In resume, these were our reflections and main ideas that came out of the week of side events of the CSW.

By Taina de Carvalho, intern for Network for Peace through Dialogue

Abolish War?

Can war be abolished?  What would it take?

This is what has been on my mind since attending meetings connected to the recent session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women.   The theme this year was violence against women.  Women from around the world brought their stories to New York, and I was assaulted by accounts of women being raped and killed before their children’s eyes (Congo, Georgia), women murdered at the rate of one every 15 hours (Honduras), brothels serving as recreation sites for over 1,000 U.S. bases around the world (Okinawa, everywhere), UN Peacekeepers consorting with internationally trafficked women held in sex slavery (wherever the Peacekeepers are sent).
A lot of this information surfaced at a meeting called “Economics, Resources and War.”  The pursuit of valuable minerals in Georgia (an oil pipeline passes through that country), in Congo (especially tantalum, needed for electronics like cell phones), and in Honduras (gold, silver, copper, lead, zinc, iron) has been accompanied by warfare and wholesale violence against women.  All of these minerals are essential to the economies of rich, industrialized nations – like mine – whose corporations are determined to get whatever resources they think they need.  Often, their depredations are backed up by U.S. military power.
Toward the end of this meeting, Nobel Peace Prize nominee Betty Reardon declared that the only solution to such atrocities is to abolish war entirely.   After hearing the women’s stories and in tears at that point, I could only think “right on!”   But how would this come about?
Betty Reardon had two particular recommendations:  1) nations must implement UN Resolution 1325 which requires that women be included in all levels of policy making, especially those involving decisions to use military interventions.  2) Impunity for the horrendous crimes committed against women and against the earth by corporations and states must end.   The criminals inside them must be held accountable.
I try to imagine either of those things happening in the U.S.   It seems to me that our whole way of life would have to change.   First of all, UN Resolution 1325 is a challenge to male domination, the system in which a small number of males (in this country mostly white) get to make important economic and military decisions for the rest of us, both women and men.  And if impunity ended, those would be the very people who would have to go to jail.
Male domination is based on the ideology that it is right and natural for men to be tough, aggressive, competitive and in charge.  I think of a gun as the primary symbol of power underlying this system.  A gun is a tube that spits out lots of speedy little projectiles that penetrate a target.   The more bullets the better.  Guns can be used to terrify victims into submission even when not used to immobilize or kill them.  In war, occasionally guns are even inserted directly into a woman’s vagina.   Given that it is proving impossible in this country to get even a modicum of control over the manufacture and use of guns, we can see how difficult it will be to challenge male domination in total.
Besides a challenge to male domination, in order to end war over natural resources, we will have to re-design our whole economy and learn to do more with less.  Alluding to the situation in the Congo, Betty Reardon summed the problem up this way, “We are so tied to our technologies, we carry war in our pockets.”  To abolish war we will not only have to empty our pockets, we’ll have to change our minds.

Written by Peggy Ray

The Only Thing We Have to Fear is Fear Itself?

Why are so many people so afraid today of so much?  As a peace educator remarked recently in a blog discussing guns, “The U.S. seems to have become a culture constrained by fear: fear of some threatening other invading our homes, schools, and even places of worship, not to mention crossing our borders to inflict harm to us as a nation; fear of a tyrannical government coming to confiscate all the guns of ‘law-abiding citizens.’”

In a recent post here I talked about my first encounters with guns way back “then,” soon after World War II.  My family moved into a cottage in rural Illinois where it was normal to own rifles and shotguns that were used for hunting.  This time let me look back at circumstances when I learned to fear “outsiders” and then how that has receded.

Growing up in rural Illinois, I don’t recall adults being worried about needing a gun to use against thieves or marauding strangers of any kind.  In fact, we never even locked our doors.  When I moved as an adult to New York City I had to be continually reminded to lock the door behind me when I left home.  It just did not seem necessary, and I was even a little contemptuous of people who feared that somebody was going to violate their homes.

I did learn to lock my door in New York City and, in the 1980s particularly, to fear for my safety on the street.   There was a lot of crime and gun violence in the city;  we read about it in the newspapers every day.  The neighborhood where I lived was changing.  Black and Latino people were moving in, white people like me moving out.  There was a lot of interracial tension, some of it based on real events.   A few black youngsters snatched the handbags of elderly women.  I was mugged by a black man in the elevator in my building one night, which I patched up by attending a women’s self defense class.  White neighbors stood on the street and talked loudly about how they were going to leave because of the low-bred kind of people who were moving in, comments that black people could easily overhear.

By the late 90s most of the white people in my neighborhood had departed and there was less fear of violence in the city as a whole.  Once they were familiar, I felt safe among my black and Latin neighbors and comfortable walking in the street except late at night.  No interracial tension any more because no inter-race to speak of.  I have to say that dialogue groups I have participated in have helped me as well to feel more at ease with all kinds of people.

The secret to our sense of security in rural Illinois was probably that nobody was either rich or destitute and there were not that many of us in the community.  We enjoyed low population density and not much income disparity.   Where there were racist or anti-semitic feelings, they were focused on people who lived miles away, in or near Chicago.

Obviously the situation in a densely populated city filled with people of many different ethnic backgrounds is different from rural Illinois, but surely there are things that can be done to produce a more harmonious environment.  What can we do to make sure that no one is destitute?   What can we do assure people that “different” is not the same as “dangerous?”

What has your experience been with fear of “outsiders.”  What can we learn from it?

* (http://drheiannie.blogspot.com)

Guns and Me

What kind of gun control makes sense?  The national conversation tends to be polarized between staunch pro-gun or anti-gun positions.  To break up polarized thinking and open  dialogue,  sometimes it helps to begin by asking people to tell their personal stories relating to a particular issue.  I’ll start this conversation with the story of my introduction to guns and maybe you’ll join me by telling yours.

My story starts way back because I’m old.  Just after World War II, there was a housing shortage and my family was forced to take refuge in a relative’s summer cottage in rural Illinois.  This house was set amid fields of tall grass, Illinois prairie.  My mother was shocked the first fall we lived there to see pheasant hunters with guns walking through the yard where her children played.  I don’t remember what she did to bring this problem to official attention, but afterward we did not see any hunters in our yard.  Apparently, some boundaries had been set.

We adopted the local gun culture, though.  My father acquired a 12 gauge shotgun and my mother a .410 over and under, which I also learned to shoot.   To make friends and socialize, my parents joined the pheasant hunters wherever the legal hunting grounds came to be.

I made a friend named Sharon whose Dad hunted raccoons; he collected the skins and was saving for a raccoon-skin coat.  The family ate raccoons, too.  My father went along one time on a raccoon hunt but refused to go again because he thought it unsporting.  The raccoons were chased by hunting dogs into trees and then shot once they were trapped there.

This man once brought home a baby raccoon to keep as a pet.  The family called him Billy Coon and kept him mostly in a big wooden barrel.   When he got older he was not so easy to handle.  One day when Sharon let him out of the barrel to play Billy turned vicious.  Sharon found her Dad’s shotgun and fired.  Her aim was perfect even though she was pretty scared and really didn’t want to kill Billy.

I had a cousin, Bob, who liked to visit us so he could hunt squirrels in a nearby farmer’s woods (with permission).  My mother, who did not approve of shooting small animals for target practice, gamely stewed the squirrels for dinner.  They were not at all bad eating.

Living in the country, owning and using guns seemed normal.  And back then, the ideas of vegetarianism and animal rights I entertain today were unknown, at least to the people we knew.

What was your early experience with guns like?  Please comment.

//

EVANGELICALS AND CATHOLICS MEET IN DIALOGUE

Do Evangelicals and Catholics have similar or different conceptions of God?  What beliefs do they share?  Is there a basis for solidarity between them?  A small group including theologians, church administrators, and lay persons has been meeting in dialogue over a period of three years to find out.  Following is an account of how it all began written by Sue Mosteller, C.S.J., one of the participants.
*     *     *    *    *    *     *
Four evangelicals, named by the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, and four Roman Catholics, named by the Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops, were invited by their respective Churches to enter into a three-year period of dialogue to see if there might be ways of working together on a mutual endeavor of solidarity.   Some were theologians and working in university settings, some were in Church administration, and some were laypersons with a desire to find common ground.  Most of us did not know the others prior to our first meeting.

The first meeting began in the office of one of the Church administrators, and we were seated around a large table with a pad of paper and a bottle of water before each one of us.  After an opening prayer, the Chair gave a historic overview of our ‘call’ to serve on the committee, inviting us to this two-year dialogue and the request to send an annual report of our meetings to our respective denominations.

After introductions we were faced with the question of what might be a possible outcome from our dialogue in the time assigned.  Many suggestions were put forward including hosting an ecumenical event/conference, writing short papers on topics of mutual interest in our Evangelical/Roman Catholic dialogue, or writing one longer paper on one topic of mutual interest.  We were loath to come to conclusions too quickly, so we left those options on the table and focused more on the topic of our second meeting.

One of the members said she would be interested to hear each person’s ‘spiritual history’ prior to our entering into any theological or philosophical discussion.  With that in mind, we planned our second meeting in a quiet setting for a full two days and an overnight.  One member volunteered to give us some guidelines for sharing our ‘spiritual history.’  She sent us the following questions to be used as a guideline if necessary:
1. What is your first memory of hearing about God?  Who first told you about God?  What do you remember hearing and feeling in and after that conversation?
2. Can you describe a significant experience of God or Church that influenced your spiritual journey?  (Joining the choir? First Communion? Confirmation? A certain service?)
3. What persons, events, or books influenced your spiritual growth?
4. What would be one of the challenges your experience within your Church life today?
5. Why do you love your tradition?
6. Were there any other significant moments along your way?

A few months later, our second meeting began in a small retreat house in a quiet living room environment, with a candle, coffee, tea, and snacks, on the coffee table in the center.  The sharing began.

No one seemed to find this task difficult.  Rather, it was a joy to share about that which we each loved so much.   Several of us talked for more than the suggested half hour allotment!  After each person’s sharing we sat together for about five minutes of silent reflection and thanksgiving for what we had heard.  We then went around the circle to give people an opportunity to reflect back to the sharer, what had touched them from the sharing.  We did not have a question and answer period.  Our times of sharing were only interrupted for breaks, meals, a worship time, sleep, and longer periods of silent reflection together.

We really had no idea of the significance of this time together.  Each story, so personal and so precious touched hearts deeply, while also giving each one such an appreciation of the other on their very unique spiritual path.   Being together in silence seemed to have a ‘bonding’ effect on the group, as we marveled at the circumstances, the challenges, the beauty, the courage, and the spiritual depth of our new friends’ experiences.  In the silence and in our worship together, we marveled in the wonderful works of God in each life.

Needless to say, our preliminary time of being together in this prayerful and personal way impacted on our future dialogue and work together.  As one who did not look forward to sorting out theological points of convergence and difference, I looked forward to being with my new friends in the search for God’s ways of allowing us to find and discover, not so much the problems of our differences, but the beauty of our calls.  After four years, we continue to give thanks for all that is and has been given by the bonding and friendship that God provided in our beginning.

Submitted by Sue Mosteller, C.S.J.  Dec. 11, 2012

A Young Boxer Breaks a Mold

Claressa Shields, the young boxer who won a gold metal in the first-ever women’s boxing event at the Olympics, challenged some deep-seated stereotypes when she was interviewed last week by Stephen Colbert.  It seemed to me that this young black woman (she’s 17) bravely confronted these notions about women in general and black women in particular:  She’s a boxer, and women aren’t supposed to be aggressive,  especially if they are black.  If they are black and aggressive, they are labeled “angry black women” and scare people.  I thought Claressa Shields a) probably was very tired of being asked why she became a boxer and b) thought the Colbert show would be an OK place to play with the stereotypes.

I was so impressed by Claressa that I wrote a poem in which I tried to capture the interview moment.

A Young Black Woman Goes Too Far

Back home in Flint, coming out of the boxing ring
Claressa Shields is sweating.
Her straightened hair is pasted to her face
or sticks out in tufts.
Her strong muscles shine, and
she tells an interviewer she wins because
she is aggressive and never gives up.

Now, an Olympic gold medal around her neck,
she’s relaxed and dressed up for TV.
Long strands of unbraided hair
flow around her head.
She wears her best jeans with a jacket that
artfully covers her bulging biceps.
Wide smiles gleam in her brown face.

Colbert asks the inevitable question:
“Why did you pick boxing as a sport?”
She does not say, “The boys would not let me
play basketball,” or
“There was no Little League in my neighborhood.”
Instead with perfect deadpan delivery
she says,

“Because I love hittin’ people”
“I make ‘um cry and that’s a wonderful thing.”

Colbert cracks up.
–Peggy Ray

Violence is the Arab response to American Free Speech

Protesters in Yemen – Huffington Post

Tragically on the Tuesday September 11^th, the 11^th anniversary of 9/11, an attack on the US Embassy in Libya, killed well-respected U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three members of his staff.  Apparently the attack was motivated by anger over a 14-minute, American-made video that depicted the Prophet Muhammad, Islam’s founder, as a buffoon, questioned his sexual orientation as well as made references to his participation in acts child-molestation.   In just a few hours, the attack in Libya was followed by an Egyptian militia storming the compound outside the United States Embassy in Cairo. On Wednesday, new crowds of protesters gathered outside the United States Embassy in Tunis.  On Thursday the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa, the Yemeni capital, was surrounded by a mob apparently angry over the same inflammatory film.  As of this writing, Thursday September 13, protests have also been sparked in Sadr City, Baghdad, Iraq. Sadly, one can only guess how many U.S. Embassies will be embroiled in the latest violent controversy revolving around the fragile relationship between the U.S. and the Arab World.

But the question must be asked, could a 14-minute film spark such outrage?   The film, titled Innocence of Muslims, was produced and directed by an Israeli-American, Sam Bacile, a California real-estate developer who called Islam “a cancer,” in an interview. Mr. Bacile told The Journal that he raised $5 million from about 100 Jewish donors and shot the two-hour movie in California last year. Since the attacks on U.S. Embassies Mr. Bacile has gone into seclusion.

In the U.S., a country that believes and values free speech, we find it reprehensible that people could be killed in response to a form of “artistic expression.” Surprisingly, some in the Arab world find it equally reprehensible that Mr. Bacile wasn’t killed for his form of “artistic expression”.  Innocence of Muslims was neither sanctioned by the U.S. government nor seen by most of Americans, yet innocent Americans are dying because of the film’s message.  U.S. attitudes towards the Arab World in particular as well as American cultural attitudes towards “expression” highlight the friction between the two cultures. In response to the attacks Secretary of State Hillary Clinton mounted a strong defense of free speech by saying. “‘We do not stop individuals from expressing their views, no matter how distasteful they may be.” However, Clinton warned that there “should be no debate about the simple proposition that violence in response to speech is not acceptable. We must draw the line at violence,” she said.

What are your opinions about the film, the Arab response, American involvement in the Arab world as well as the Political football that has been passed by Mitt Romney as he has claimed the Obama administration responded “weakly” to the attacks?

-Network for Peace through Dialogue Staff Member:

A.C. Evans