“Yet the audience for a different kind of feminism — one that seeks individualistic and market-oriented solutions, rather than big-government-driven ones¹, and focuses on women’s empowerment rather than oppression — is clearly there. The women who embrace it are likely to transform both feminism and conservatism. The feminist movement ignores them at its peril.”

The above is a particularly smarmy excerpt from a piece of shit that Young wrote for the Boston Globe on Sarah Palin’s new brand of Totally Revolutionary™ right-wing ‘feminism’. Major problems with the article are as follows.:

I’m usually loathe to police labels  – far be it from me to eject someone from the feminist ‘clubhouse’ for disagreeing with me. However, any genuinely liberating feminist politic must be grounded in autonomy – asserting bodily autonomy is such a key component of addressing gender oppression that I’m not sure what to think of people who neglect it. Hence, anyone who seeks to police another person’s body is automatically no ally of mine.

This has nothing to do with ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’, either – the vast majority of radfems who were fighting to squelch sex work during the 80s were leftists; and I don’t consider them my allies anymore than I do ‘mama grizzly‘ anti-choicers² like Palin. Young mentions these issues briefly in her article, but glosses over the fundamental problem:

“If feminism is typecast as a left-wing movement, this automatically limits its appeal in a country with center-right politics. Feminist writer Naomi Wolf noted this nearly two decades ago when she urged the movement to drop litmus tests that excluded millions of women because of their positions on environmental policy, guns, gay rights, or abortion.”

Oh, that pesky litmus test! Who cares whether someone is willing to throw queers under the bus to achieve their goals? Dykes aren’t the women who ‘matter’, anyway. ..and reproductive rights? That’s so yesterday!

Furthermore, conservatives have this cute habit of shallowly co-opting libertarian rhetoric when it suits them (e.g. on guns, on the welfare state, on ‘privatization’), conveniently ignoring it when it doesn’t (e.g. on foreign policy, on immigration), and then restyling this braindead mish-mash of populist drivel with buzzwords like “small government!”, “free markets!”, and “liberty!” in order to cast themselves as a ‘different’ breed of conservative. Palin & the Tea Partiers are no exception – despite all the alarmist hand-waving on the right, Obama is no more of a ‘socialist’ than John McCain is; and Palin is no more of a ‘free market’ champion than Obama is. Frightening that seemingly intelligent adults think otherwise.

Finally, ‘conservatism’ has historically had nothing to do with any of the principles Young claims³. She seems to think that ‘libertarianism’ and ‘conservatism’ are distant cousins, which is strange – libertarianism predates Libertarianism (i.e. the Libertarian Party), and the American strain of free market libertarianism is a mish-mash of classical liberalism and individualist anarchism⁴, both of which sprang from ‘the left’.

Granted, I’m deeply disappointed by the authoritarian trends in mainstream feminism; and as a result, I deeply disagree with most feminists I come across on a number of issues – on ‘gun control’, on involvement in electoral politics, on the efficacy of government authority in general. However, Sarah Palin isn’t any different.

1. ..because anarchafeminists don’t exist, right? Oh, no – if you want a radical picking-apart of state power, turn to Sarah Palin.

2. It’s possible to morally disapprove of abortion without wishing to obstruct others from doing it. That’s not what I’m referring to here.

3. Conservatism’s reputation as a free market lovefest is particularly silly – strict immigration controls, protectionism, and corporate privilege are all hallmarks of conservatism; and they’re all fundamentally incompatible with a free market.

4. Minarchist(ish) libertarians always emphasize the former over the latter, though, with a dash of either ‘paleocon’ or ‘neocon’ thrown in, depending. Indeed, they’ll often deny any affiliation whatsoever with the latter – it’s always fun to watch libertarians who’re ignorant of history say things like, “We’re libertarians, not anarchists!”.

Dear Rand Paul,

You sorely embarrassed yourself in the debate on the Civil Rights Act with Rachel Maddow a few weeks ago. You could have waxed lengthy on grassroots solutions to racist policies that don’t rely on state authority, but you didn’t – instead, you just hemmed and hawed about your (false) commitment to freedom of association and ‘the Constitution’; and as a result, many people accused you of being a racist. Although Maddow never accused you of racism herself, perhaps you deserve such accusations – you can’t invoke ‘freedom of association’ and then violate Americans’ freedom to associate with people born in Mexico¹; you can’t claim to have a love affair with the Constitution and then proclaim your rejection of the 14th amendment².

But not to worry! You have a chance to redeem yourself.

Last week at Portland’s Red & Black Cafe, the co-owner asked a police officer to leave the premises, peacefully exercising his property rights³. Given your previous support for business-owners’ and landlords’ right to decide whom to associate with, I assume you’ll be in full support of the Red & Black Cafe, and of all the undersigned here:

To:  Rand Paul for Senate Campaign

Whereas, Rand Paul, in his capacity as a Republican Party candidate for the United States Senate from Kentucky, has stated his support for the concept of freedom of association for businesses;

Whereas, the Red and Black Cafe in Portland, Oregon – an anarchist coffeehouse and vegan cafe – have expressed their desire to disassociate their business from police officers by asking a police officer to leave and not return;

Whereas, the Red and Black Cafe’s desire to exercise their freedom of association has become a controversial act not only in Portland but nationwide;

Therefore, we, the undersigned, call on Rand Paul to make a public statement in support of the Red and Black Cafe’s freedom of association.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

I appreciate your professed commitment to ‘freedom of association’; and I’m gleefully anticipating your support.

Signed,

Disgruntled Ex-voter

But hey, who am I kidding? It’s the habit of Tea Partiers to shallowly co-opt anti-statist rhetoric when it suits them (e.g. on guns, on the welfare state), and conveniently chuck it when it doesn’t (e.g. on immigration, on foreign policy). So, one really shouldn’t be surprised to see self-described ‘freedom’ activists coming down against anarchists who truly do oppose the state and its violent enforcers.

1. If you say a business-owner has the right to refuse to hire certain people, you can’t go on to argue that he doesn’t have the right to hire certain people. Similarly, if I have the right not to sell my home to bigoted assholes, I also have the right to sell my home to someone born in Mexico. To claim anything else is absurd.

I don’t think the position that private businesses may discriminate is inherently racist.  ..but when that position lies in clear opposition with another position on a similarly racially-charged issue (immigration, in this case); and when someone is seemingly unable to talk about any grassroots solutions to discrimination, it makes the person look like a slimy political opportunist and/or a possibly racist tool.

Furthermore, the division between ‘public’ and ‘private’ is much more complex than ‘Is this supported by tax dollars or not?’  – the distribution of property rights in the Jim Crow south (and elsewhere) largely sprang from systematic government oppression in the first place; public and private spheres often collude to produce adverse conditions; and some entities (corporations, for instance) depend so heavily on government intervention in the economy that calling them ‘private’ would be a sick joke.

..but bringing any of this up would require a thorough picking-apart of state power, which no politician wants to do.

2. I actually don’t care anything about the Constitution – a dusty old document drawn-up by a bunch of patriarchal, slave-owning codgers is of no consequence to me; and I reject the validity of the ‘social contract‘ altogether. It’s still fun to watch people who claim to care about the Constitution get tangled up in their own inconsistencies, though.

3. The word ‘property’ is problematic in this instance, as Red & Black is operated by communist anarchists; but the cafe is still the sole possession of the co-owners/workers.

Just as any lengthy political discussion will inevitably involve a Godwin, any lengthy debate on anarchism must involve Somalia – just as your opponent must resort to ‘But that’s what Hitler would say!’ when he’s run out of arguments, the empty-headed statist who hasn’t bothered to engage in any independent research or critical thinking will say, “We can’t get by without the state! LOOK AT SOMALIA!”, and then smugly stew in his own ignorance, as though invoking Somalia automatically wins the debate. However, the seemingly self-sufficient ‘wut about Somalia, guise’ point actually rests on several assumptions, all of which are either highly dubious or blatantly incorrect.:

• The assumption that poor conditions in Somalia are all (or largely) the direct result of statelessness; or that they’re exacerbated by statelessness. Considering the fact that Somalia also wasn’t stable before 1991, this point is dubious.

• The assumption that a stateless U.S. would resemble a stateless Somalia. If someone has any significant amount of evidence for the argument that a region privileged with extensive infrastructure and a relatively wealthy, well-educated populace would degenerate into a violent, poverty-stricken morass absent government authority, I’d love to hear it – I crave the amusement.

• The assumption that Somalia is in worse condition than it was in 1991. Of the three, this point is the most intellectually dishonest.

Granted, some of the pre-1991 stats can be unreliable due to government misreporting; but marked gains are obvious, particularly in telecommunications. People who wave off these improvements as insignificant often make the mistake of comparing the current stateless Somalia to the current U.S. (or to similar ‘first world’ countries), but this is an enormous mistake – it’s like trying to argue ‘fresh veggies are bad for you and fried snacks are good!’ by comparing salmonella-tainted spinach to a bag of organic potato chips. In short, it makes no sense; and a more honest comparison would be between Somalia now and Somalia before 1991, as above; and between Somalia and its neighbors, here:

From Leeson:

The data reject the hypothesis that Somalia would have improved equally whether it
remained under government or not. Consistent with Table 1, Somalia performs worse on adult
literacy compared to its neighbors between the periods. Still, on the majority of the indicators
considered here, Somalia improved more than its neighbors over the same period, suggesting that
the collapse of government resulted in greater development improvements than would have
occurred in its absence. In a number of cases, Somalia has been improving while its neighbors
have been declining.

To illustrate again just how silly the ‘YOU WANT SOMALIA’ crowd sounds, I highly doubt that statists would respond well if I were to argue the following: “Hitler’s Germany was horrible; therefore statism fails.” Of course not – they’d point out the absurdity of trying to refute statism in general by bringing up its worst abuses; and then they’d chide me for making a Godwin. Interestingly, though, people are incredibly fond of invoking Somalia in just that way. Why?

To sum up: Obviously, if given the choice between living in the current statist U.S. (or a similar country) or the current stateless Somalia, the vast majority of people (including me) would choose the former.

..however, the question isn’t “Would you rather live in Somalia or the U.S.?”, but “Would you rather live in Somalia now or Somalia before 1991?” or “Where would you rather live now – Somalia or Djibouti?”

Somalia isn’t all kittens and rainbows, obviously; and the Somalis are in a great deal of pain. But invoking Somalia to discredit anarchism in general still rests on the above^ assumptions; and apologists for government authority should stop bringing it up as though it’s a particularly novel or relevant critique. In fact, it’s neither.

So, this video of a toddler reenacting Lady Gaga’s ‘Telephone’ is making its rounds on the internet, generating some interesting buzz on youtube and in the blogosphere. While some commentators are simply shrugging it off as something innocuous (though a bit silly), most of the commentary has been rather alarmist and…well, silly. A few common objections I see people making to the video, along with my critique of them:

• “What was her mother thinking?”

..as though all responsibility for a child’s behavior should rest with the mother. Granted, women usually end up handling most childcare duties; but that’s a problem, not something we should accept as a given. Something interesting: Plenty of people clamor for men’s alleged ‘right’ to have some kind of say over his partner’s abortion decisions¹, saying, “It takes two to make a baby!”; but after the baby is actually born, they’ll drop the ‘it takes two’ rhetoric fairly quickly – you often won’t hear the same people complaining when women are expected to handle the bulk of childcare; and if the child does screw up, it’s usually, “Where is that kid’s mom?”

• “Those outfits and poses are too ‘adult’ for a child!”

This point is actually valid, in some ways.  Most of the outfits weren’t too over-the-top, though; and I’ve actually seen much worse in child beauty pageants. Many of the objections to the outfits are framed in ways that irritate me, though, as they usually boil down to “What if pedophiles are watching?” or “Kids are INNOCENT and sex is NAUGHTY!”

I’d just rather not see young girls encouraged to wonder very much about their looks – a byproduct of the sexualization of young girls is the worry of, “Am I pretty enough?”, and quite frankly, if I had daughters, I’d try to shield them from the rest of the world’s hateful messages about their bodies for as long as possible – study after study reveals that girls’ self-esteem takes a sad nosedive at puberty when they start becoming more aware of their bodies and what other people think of them; and I’d like to delay that process for as long as possible.

So, it’s ‘adult’ behaviors that encourage girls² to critique their looks that worry me. Things like dress-up and make-believe are fine for children of all genders; and it seemed as though the outfits in the video were geared that way, which is why they didn’t bother me much.

• “ZOMG DON’T YOU KNOW THERE ARE PEDOS WATCHING THIS VIDEO?!!1″

This final point dovetails nicely with the previous one about sexualization of children. Apparently, the ‘wut about pedophiles’ alarmists don’t get the fact that a pedophile could be anywhere - the pediatrician who sees your child nude could easily be a pedophile; your child’s baseball coach could easily be a pedophile; the guy in the cereal aisle behind you could easily be a pedophile; the lifeguard at the pool where your child is splashing around in a swimsuit could easily be a pedophile. You get the picture – the only way to shield your child from the prying eyes of pedos would be locking the kid in her room at home and draping her in an enormous burlap sack during all outings.

If pedophiles want to look at kids, they can go sit in the back of the movie theater during Shrek; or watch the glitzy crap that passes for entertainment on the Disney channel. Furthermore, most abused children end up being abused by someone they know -  the chances of a random pedophile feeling moved to stalk a little girl because of a Youtube video of her in a tutu are much slimmer than the chances of her being abused by, I don’t know, her uncle, her siblings, or her own dad.

Get a life, everyone. Please.

1. This is different than objecting to compulsory child support payments, which I also disagree with. The ‘it’s his baby, too!’ crowd seem to think that if the mother wants to abort and the father doesn’t, the father’s opinion should have some legal sway over the decisions she’s able to make with her own body

2. I’m specifically focusing on girls because the vast majority of the debate about sexualization of children revolves around young girls; and girls are likelier to develop eating disorders, as well.

Officer James Crooker

From OregonLive.com; emphases mine:

In mid-May, Portland police Officer James Crooker  went to Southeast Portland on a patrol call. With a few minutes to spare, he decided to get a coffee.

So, he popped into the Red & Black  cafe on Southeast 12th Avenue near Oak Street, bought a coffee and was heading out when a customer approached him, saying she appreciates the hard job that police officers do every day in Portland.

One of the co-owners of the cafe, John Langley,  has another point of view. While the officer and customer were chatting, he walked up and asked Crooker to leave, saying he felt uncomfortable having a uniformed officer in the vegan cafe.

The incident, which was brief, speaks volumes about the tensions between Portland police and some members of the community who are more worried about police shootings than protection.

Crooker said he was surprised to be shown the door but left immediately. He said this marked a first during his nine-year in law enforcement, two in Portland and seven in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.

“The places that I’ve been kicked out of before have been places like the methadone clinic,” he said. “I’ve never been kicked out of a regular cafe.”

But the 36-year-old officer, who was born and raised in Portland, said it’s all part of working this city’s streets in a uniform.

“We have a unique relationship with the community,” he said. “You’re there to protect them but on the other hand they don’t know what that involves. Being gracious is part of it.”

…

When Langley asked Crooker to leave, [Cornelia Seigneur] was startled.

“It was shocking,” Seigneur said. “Everyone deserves to have a coffee, and he was served a coffee. It was humiliating.”

…

A former Marine who served in Iraq², Crooker didn’t take the incident to heart.

‘It was humiliating’. But probably not nearly as humiliating as, say, feeling your skull cracked open with a nightstick; being fatally shot while unarmed; or having your property stolen for daring to document cops’ BS in the first place. While cops aren’t all violent bullies¹, every officer still chooses to be part of a wider system of state violence that oppresses others;  hence, they shouldn’t expect to be served in an anarchist cafe, nor should they smugly expect the public to ‘graciously’ welcome their presence – peacefully choosing not to associate with cops is much kinder treatment than they deserve.

In more uplifting news: The Red & Black Cafe has about 1200 fans on Facebook.

…and in more depressing news: The anti-Red & Black group of cop apologists has about 9000 members.

More from the article:

The cafe, too, has received a deluge of calls, with about half supporting the cafe and the rest expressing anger.

“We’ve received threats,” Langley said. “People have threatened to attack us and break our windows.”

Still, he has no regrets.

I unfortunately don’t live in Portland, so I’m unable to financially support the cafe by eating there. But! Their website does have a ‘Donate’ button; and I plan to do so, asap.

1. While I don’t think all cops are bad people, it’s practically impossible to be a cop without engaging in bad actions – if there are any cops out there who’d refuse -on principle- to hassle sex workers, arrest someone on drug charges, or round up ‘illegal’ immigrants, I haven’t heard of them.

2. I reject the notion that cops or military personnel exist to protect or serve ‘the people’ at large.

“The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: ‘Your money, or your life.’ And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a ‘protector,’ and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to ‘protect’ those infatuated travelers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful ‘sovereign,’ on account of the ‘protection’ he affords you. He does not keep ‘protecting’ you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.”
– Lysander Spooner

From the NY Times; emphases mine:

Starchild is one of a handful of working men and women fighting a proposed city law that would make it illegal to sit or lie on public sidewalks in San Francisco for most of the day. Backed by the city’s Police Department and Mayor Gavin Newsom, the “sit-lie” law is being hailed by supporters as a weapon to combat aggressive behavior by the city’s myriad sidewalk dwellers.

But advocates of the homeless and some sex workers see it as a direct attack on the city’s weakest, as well as on the city’s own image as a tolerant refuge for live and let live.

Advocates for men and women of the night like Starchild say the proposed law has the potential to make their difficult lives — what with the fear of arrest, disease and occasionally dangerous clients — even more arduous.

…

Tony Winnicker, a spokesman for Mr. Newsom, a Democrat who is running for lieutenant governor, said the law was not meant to target any specific group, but to protect residents from harassment in neighborhoods like the Haight-Ashbury, the hippie-friendly enclave where groups of youths still congregate to drink, panhandle and smoke marijuana.

“It’s about unacceptable behavior,” Mr. Winnicker said, “and giving police another tool to deal with it.”

Leaving aside the utter absurdity of denying someone’s right to occupy a public space they’re forced to maintain with their own tax dollars¹, the fact that cops are focusing on petty ‘infractions’ like loitering speaks volumes about their priorities – it’s completely disingenuous for supporters to pretend that this law has anything to do with public safety.

Police spend an inordinate amount of time harassing sex workers, homeless people, and street peddlers in upper- and middle-class areas; and far too little energy on going after violent criminals² that terrorize people in low-income, brown communities. Why? Simply put: They care more about ‘cleaning up the streets’³ in middle-class communities than they do about keeping people safe in poor ones.

1. Although people often protest that ‘those people’ don’t pay taxes, they underestimate the state’s ability to squeeze tax dollars from even the poorest of people – many homeless people have jobs, and sex workers often have an additional job, as well. Every worker automatically has some amount of tax revenue deducted from her paycheck. Furthermore, anyone who so much as buys a tiny package of gum pays sales tax; and California has the highest sales tax rate in the U.S.

2. Unless you have a teensy amount of weed in your pocket – then they’ll zero in on you. But if you want to report an actual violent crime in a low-income, black or latino community? Forget it – the police will take their own sweet time arriving, and they might not even properly secure the crime scene and collect fingerprints when they do. Cops – they’re always there when you don’t want them; never there when you actually do.

3. This is basically ‘polite’ codespeak politicians use for using police force to violently clear out various ‘undesirables’ – sex workers, homeless people, panhandlers, and so on.

Lynndie England, Abu Ghraib torturer.

From a post on Feministe about women in military. Emphases mine:

I don’t know why, but I’m a sucker for slideshows. Add a feminist theme, and I’m all over it. So I really enjoyed stumbling upon this collection of images of women in the military, starting way back with the American Revolution.

…

According to the story that goes along with this image, this is Sharon Hanley Disher and she’s part of “the first [family] in American history to send every member to the Naval Academy” – which is pretty awesome, I say. Her story is pretty cool, I suggest you read it if you have some time.

We’ve covered the WASPs (Women Airforce Service Pilots) before, but what are your favorite stories of women in the military?

Needless to say, I was unpleasantly surprised at seeing military service lauded on an ostensibly progressive, leftist blog; and in my initial comment, I said as much.:

what are your favorite stories of women in the military?

It’s difficult for me to answer this question – I don’t accept state authority as legitimate in the first place. Furthermore, America’s post-WWII military history has been particularly brutal and racist; and there is nothing ‘feminist’ about women’s participation in the mass slaughter of innocent people.

Given this stance, I’m not inspired by those who participate in state violence, but by anti-militarist women who boldly oppose it. (A few prominent examples of such women: Ursula Franklin, Angela Davis, Cindy Sheehan.)

I expressed myself respectfully; but another commenter was still offended by my viewpoint and responded with this.:

Saying war is or is not feminist is meaningless. It’s like trying to say grape juice is or isn’t feminist.
Military service, however, is a feminist issue, insofar as it has always been a concern for women to have an equal right to serve.
And that means the right and opportunity to participate whether the cause and actions are immoral or not; you can’t give people rights contingent on them being good people.
The idea that everyone in the military is contributing to slaughter is incredibly ignorant, biased, and offensive in itself.

I tried leaving a comment to respond to these criticisms. But for some reason, my comment hasn’t gone through; and I suspect it never will. So, I’m posting my reaction here, in its entirety:

‘Saying war is or is not feminist is meaningless. It’s like trying to say grape juice is or isn’t feminist.

I’m not usually one to participate in the ‘Is X feminist?’ debates over things like lipstick and blowjobs, as I find them tedious and irrelevant.

..but it’s pretty safe to say that participating in a brutally violent, coercive institution that disproportionately harms poor brown people (women included) isn’t feminist.

Soldiers aren’t ‘heroes’, and their work has nothing to do with keeping us safe. These wars are racist, imperialist ventures ultimately driven by corporate interests. Why is it so taboo to admit this?

Military service, however, is a feminist issue, insofar as it has always been a concern for women to have an equal right to serve.

As a black anarchafeminist, I’m about as concerned with women’s ‘equal right’ to join in the slaughter of brown people as I am with someone’s ‘equal right’ to join a human trafficking ring.

Rather, I’m not concerned about it at all; and I’m disappointed by assimilationists & reformists who seek inclusion in certain institutions without questioning the very legitimacy of those institutions in the first place.

I don’t think a government decree grants violence some arbitrary cloak of legitimacy it wouldn’t otherwise have – war is nothing more than state-sponsored mass murder; and the horrors of war tend to impact women (especially ‘third world’ women) in specific ways – that is the space on the Venn diagram where ‘war’ and ‘feminism’ touch that concerns me most, not some American woman’s ‘equal right’ to drop bombs on innocent people.

To be more clear, I’m not wholly opposed to all militia movements – I very strongly support grassroots, revolutionary movements aimed towards community autonomy (e.g. the Zapatistas) and the feminist elements within them. But a bunch of war-mongering corporatists stomping all over innocent people? No thanks.

And that means the right and opportunity to participate whether the cause and actions are immoral or not

No one has ‘the right and opportunity’ to participate in immoral acts. If you happen upon a bunch of white male skinheads beating up some brown queers, are you going to get pissed off because they tell you, “Sorry, this ass-kicking is for dudes only”?

Would campaigning for women’s ‘equal right’ to bash queers with the racists be a feminist movement? Obviously not.

The idea that everyone in the military is contributing to slaughter is incredibly ignorant, biased, and offensive in itself.

Even if they aren’t actively killing anyone, they’re still contributing to the slaughter by their endorsement of and support for the war.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not perfect – in a way, I also support war by paying my taxes, which fund these atrocities. I also sympathize with people in the military insofar as they aren’t there willingly (e.g. poor people who joined the military due to lack of other options, people forced into duty, etc.); but war is a fundamentally evil activity, and no one should voluntarily participate in it.

My reaction here serves as a further critique I made of ‘reformism’ in an older post about anti-DADT activism – namely, that pushing for inclusion in institutions without questioning the legitimacy of those institutions is a lukewarm, ‘middle-ground’ position that ultimately kowtows to the very forces leftists should oppose.

Ironically, there’s been a recent buzz in the feminist blogosphere about ‘Tea Party feminism’ and the idea of Sarah Palin as a feminist icon; and both ideas have been met with all the derision they deserve.

‘What?’, you might say. ‘A breeding ground for feminists? That bunch of neoconservative godbags who flirt with libertarian rhetoric when it suits them (e.g. on the welfare state, on guns) and chuck it when it doesn’t (e.g. on immigration, on foreign policy)?’

..and of course, you then go on to scoff at the idea that the inclusion of women is enough to label some venture as ‘feminist’.

‘Who?’, you might say. ‘A feminist? That culturally right-wing anti-choicer?’

..and of course, you then go on to scoff at the idea that one woman’s inclusion in a traditionally male-dominated arena (in this case, politics) automatically makes her a source of a feminist inspiration.

But for some reason, people seem unwilling to extend a similar critique to the military – the most brutally violent manifestation of state authority ever to exist; that causes far more harm than Palin & the Teabaggers¹ ever have.

Why?

‘It is a tribute to the humanity of ordinary people that horrible acts must be camouflaged in a thicket of deceptive words like “security,” “peace,” “freedom,” “democracy,” the “national interest” in order to justify them.’

- Howard Zinn

1. Hey, I suddenly have a great name for that right-wing Christian folk band I’ve been meaning to form!

7-year-old Aiyana Stanley Jones

From Associated Press; emphasis mine:

DETROIT — State police will take over the investigation of the fatal shooting of a 7-year-old girl by a Detroit police officer during a weekend raid at the girl’s home, a prosecutor said Monday.

Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said bringing in the state police to investigate the killing of Aiyana Jones would avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest.

“I agree that it is most appropriate that this be done independently,” Worthy said.

Aiyana was asleep on the living room sofa in her family’s apartment when Detroit police, searching for a homicide suspect, burst in and an officer’s gun went off, fatally striking the girl in the neck, family members said.

Her father, 25-year-old Charles Jones, told The Detroit News he had just gone to bed early Sunday after covering his daughter with her favorite blanket when he heard a flash grenade followed by a gunshot. When he rushed into the living room, he said, police forced him to lie on the ground, with his face in his daughter’s blood.

“I’ll never be the same. That’s my only daughter,” Jones told WXYZ-TV.

Assistant Chief Ralph Godbee said officers set off the flash grenade as they entered the apartment with their guns drawn about 12:40 a.m. Sunday with a warrant to look for a suspect in the Friday slaying of a 17-year-old boy. The lead officer’s gun went off after he encountered a 46-year-old woman inside the front room of the home and “some level of physical contact” ensued. Police do not believe the gun was fired intentionally.

Good thing the police were out looking for a murder suspect, huh? I mean, no one would want some murderer to come barging into their homes to murder their children. The bold portion of the article is particularly relevant here – the idea that the state can ever hold cops accountable for their crimes is absurd on its face, as this violence is maintained and encouraged by the state. Expecting the state to hold these murdering thugs accountable is like allowing a murderer to serve as his own judge and jury.

^This video about the incident expresses similar skepticism about the possibility of the state holding cops accountable for their brutality, admitting that cops don’t keep communities safer and are under no obligation to do so. Towards the end, the video also suggests community-based alternatives to cops that don’t rely on the state.

Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted

From AZCentral:

A Catholic nun and longtime administrator of St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix was reassigned in the wake of a decision to allow a pregnancy to be ended in order to save the life of a critically ill patient.

The decision also drew a sharp rebuke from Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, head of the Phoenix Diocese, who indicated the woman was “automatically excommunicated” because of the action.

Just so we’re clear: The well-being of little bundles of cells that are about as sentient as a bowl of tomato soup? Way more important than the lives of feeling, self-aware people¹, clearly. Anyone who disagrees with this is to be immediately excommunicated! We must protect the innocent babies! ..unless they’re children who’re being raped by priests. If that’s the case, some exculpatory hand-waving and paper-shuffling is certainly in order, until we’re able to transfer these blameless servants of god to a parish full of poor and/or brown people.

1. Of course, that’s assuming that wimmenfolk count as people in the first place. The Catholic Church’s official positions seem to indicate otherwise.