Which women deserve rights?

 (Hint: All)

In the Oxford University Press peace text Approaches to Peace: A reader in peace studies, 4th ed., David Barash writes about the evolution of human rights and international law, noting that, pertaining to the humans who make up more than half of the species--women--rights in many societies in both previously colonized and colonizer nations are often protected more often for men.

"...forced seclusion and isolation of women in certain contemporary Hindu and Muslim societies; sexual mutilation, as currently practiced on millions of young women in numerous African societies; polygyny; restricted or nonexistent choice as to marriage; substantial discrimination regarding educational opportunities, especially in some conservative Islamic countries, and--even in such ostensibly liberated societies as that of the U.S. and the UK--restricted economic and professional opportunities along with underrepresentation in political life" (p. 187).

We see it in the US in large pockets of various subcultures, such as Christian nationalists who abide by some of their pastors' commands[1] to women to vote as their husbands instruct them to vote. Donald Trump--who famously threatens to sue any school he attended which releases his transcripts--consistently refers to women he likes as "really attractive," and women he doesn't like as "dumb" (or equivalents[2] to those terms). It absolutely follows that "conservative" politicians and "justices" are anything but conservative with the rights of women, overturning a half century of a woman's right to make her own health care decisions.

This moral arc of the universe is not a smooth one, with some jagged edges as rights fought for and won are erased, setting the stage for the next struggle to both regain lost rights and win new ones. That is the long story, which will only continue when we help each other and the next generations understand what previous generations suffered, struggled for, and succeeded in getting.

References

Barash, D. P. (Ed.) (2018). Approaches to peace: A reader in Peace Studies (4^th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

 

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/01/maga-trump-men-supporters-womens-rights

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/21/trump-harris-dumb-stupid-low-iq/

Systemic conversion: War to peace

In a war system, the rational thing to do is to strive for global dominance by means of overwhelming force.

--Kent Shifferd (2011, p. 98)

Kent Shifferd (1940-2024), a renaissance man of the highest order, started the first Peace and Conflict Studies academic degree program in Wisconsin. I was one of his many students in his 30+ years of teaching. We, his students, knew that he would challenge us with the logic of the destructive methods of conflict before seeking, with us, a path to the constructive methods of conflict. We knew two things when we finished such deliberations: 1) We would be facilitated to find possibilities in the most collaborative possible way, and, 2) Dr. Shifferd would gently intervene to help us regain momentum if we began to sputter and stall. 

In the end, in his 2011 book From War to Peace: A guide to the next hundred years, was all about the incremental yet quickest and surest road to a peace system, something which would all but obviate the need or even the possibility of war. He never had a magic one-step whoosh of a wand, but rather the recognition of the infinite subsystems that needed conversion from war to peace, thereby flattening the hierarchy of peacemakers. A preschool teacher could account for a key component of such conversion as well as a Pentagon strategic planner or an elected official. Everyone is part of a system every day and Dr. Shifferd's challenge to all of us was to be, insofar as daily possible, a great or small part of converting some societal subsystem away from war and toward peace. That is a feminist, uplifting, nurturing analysis and picture of a line of sight from war system to peace system.

References

Shifferd, Kent D. (2011). From war to peace: A guide to the next hundred years. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Make America Hate Again

I'm writing this bit three days before the 2024 US election. Jess Bidgood just noted in the New York Times[1] that: 

When Trump won the presidency in 2016, the Me Too movement had not yet forced a reckoning among women about the way sexism shaped their lives. The Dobbs decision had not turned women’s right to an abortion into a matter of geographic privilege, nor had it imprinted searing stories about those denied care into the national consciousness.

It is this logic that persuades me that the polls are wrong; Harris will sweep the swing states and run the table. Mark my words. Also know how erroneous I have been in the past about these matters. Perhaps I have made a career out of overestimating the decency of the American people, my people, my fellow citizens, co-workers, and neighbors...

Nah. I got one thing right every time; where I live I understand. What I have come to realize is that the US is not some extension of where I live. I've lived in Minnesota, Illinois, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, and Oregon. Where I've lived and when I've lived there the voters--my people, my country fellows, voted for good decent people, and I joined them. 

When I lived in Massachusetts I could feel the strength of the George McGovern campaign--but, as it turned out, only in the state where I lived. 

Obviously, the common decency of the folks in Minnesota when Walter Mondale lost big was my environment, but more isolated than I understood. 

 When I lived in Wisconsin it was safe for me to vote for Winona LaDuke (yeah, and Ralph Nader) because it was overwhelmingly clear that Al Gore would take the state, so my vote was not "thrown away." It's been the same in Oregon. 

So the fact that I "know" that Harris is about to win and Trump is about to become a sadass footnote is something to take with a block of salt.

But if Trump wins fair and square it will fire up the secessionist in me. His time in the White House was the longest lucid nightmare of my life; I have no desire to enter that waking horror picture show again. Maybe a new Confederacy can secede, but without the violence this time. 

---

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/01/us/politics/harris-trump-womens-health-election.html

 

But isn't the Third Side much more work?

It has been noted that cities with the highest crime rates are "liberal" cities. 

Yes, and the bulk of the populace expresses that via voting for empathic human social safety nets, which helps both the deserving poor and the criminal poor. We know that. 

The Third Side challenge is to have both empathic social services and robust law enforcement, which would feature restorative justice and rehabilitation in proven ways to reduce recidivism. We can be both empathic and strong on law and order. 

The ongoing challenge is that cities with strong social safety nets constantly attract new people from elsewhere who need that, some of whom prey on others. It's much more work to be a successful liberal city than a lock-em-up or light-em-up rightwing city. But many of us feel it's worth the work.