I'm still making my way through that European Feminist Forum PDF book. (
http://europeanfeministforum.org/IMG/pdf/EFF_Herstory_web.pdf)
It explains its concept of affinity groups as an attempt to organize. The book highlights that sisterhood and solidarity have failed as approaches (sisterhood because it's exclusive; solidarity because it's incompatible with the reality of fragmented organizing and thinking). The book asks if anything can be built on identity, since "womanhood" is a mellifluous category with all kinds of experiences that's been used to keep out certain supporters, like men, lesbians, and transgenders. The authors then write that there's been potential in defining things as countercurrents and anti-movements, like anti-globalization, anti-environmental destruction, and so on. It still notes that thinking is fragmentary and big movements have lost their funding in recent years.
The book then explains the concept of affinity groups, which are incredibly open ended. The EFF was basically a call for a bunch of self-identifying "feminists" or women's rights activists (or really, any interested parties) to come together in like-minded groups to define Europe, feminism, and issues they cared about. The fact that the call is what resulted in their coming together is theoretically important to the writers, who argue that movements built on static foundations sometimes fail because they encapsulate sentiments and alliances at a particular time, which erodes as the future drags on. They say these affinity groups were a success.
I'm not halfway through, but I just had to stop and write how dearly, dearly tired I am of this and disgusted that so much effort in combating sexism is spent on this damn paralysis by analysis. These organizers are admirably trying to do the impossible. To unite against women's rights internationally, one has to include a host of people with their own ignorance and prejudices. Feminists have to ally with Latin American union organizers who don't give a flying fuck about gender roles, but care about workplace conditions. They have to ally with Islamic women who retardedly have no problem wearing hijab, but do care about stopping domestic violence. They have to ally with rich, elite women who hold conservative politics but are willing to fund them on certain issues. This is a minefield of in-fighting and political maneuvering.
But who is "they" in the first place? Where is the head of this creature; the top of the pyramid that's doing all this allying? There
isn't one, as Western feminists encountered problems of prejudices and "hierarchical abuse" during the second wave period, offending feminists and activists in third world countries and sparking massive in-fighting. So there is no head to this chicken. It's a massive, fragmentary clusterfuck of disconnected, frayed organizations focusing on individual problems and thus lacking the allied power needed to combat the international forces (and pervasive, underlying root of sexism) causing them. You might point to UNIFEM and call that the head, but UNIFEM, like most top-level feminist organizations, is constrained by its own organizational culture and donor-politics. It's also understaffed, compared to other, more successful UN initiatives. Who can organize anything like this? There is no leadership, and there is no common platform. What can be done with this? If you don't define the purpose of something, and define the problem across a million shattered pieces of isolated humanity, what can you accomplish, no matter what you may seem to be doing?
So, some personal thoughts, while waiting for more knowledge or more-informed opinions.
HumanismI can't see much ever being done without a concerted, organized force. UNIFEM and other rights networks are effective because they
do define a common platform, even if it runs afoul of all the over-analyzed grievances of postmodern organizational thought (god, I sound like a poseur to even type something like that). They have a purpose. They know where they're going. They can construe and plan all their actions and all their strategies through the lens of their singular purpose, and focus with clarity.
There is a movement today aiming to do the same; it's humanism/the Brights. First, a concession: humanism, atheism, rationalism, and the Brights aren't an organized political force or movement, and don't have a crystal clear foundation. There are humanists who believe in New Age spiritualistic bullshit. There are atheists who believe in religions without ostensible Gods, like Buddhism. There are rationalists who have closed minds because of tradition or ingrained ideology. And there are Brights who do all of the above. But in spite of these, humanism comes closest to the purity and clarity of human advancement. After all, it is named after such. It's increasingly synonymous with the potential of humanity for greatness; the unyielding desire to understand humanity and its environment; and above all else,
reason. It is
reasonable that humanity be reasonable. It is reasonable that no segment of humanity be oppressed because of ignorance or prejudice. And it is reasonable that humanity should strive to improve itself, to the extent of fighting for women's rights.
I have thus come to hold reason (or, more palatable for some, humanism) as the proper, crystal-clear foundation of ideals for women's rights. It is painful to read these thoughts about organization in this EFF document, written by people who are struggling to herd cats without an idea of the grander setting; who, because it would invoke hierarchy and disagreements of reason against allies, cannot see the forest of reason for the trees. Even worse is the fact that many rationalists and humanists are technologically-inclined, "nerdy" males, who, as is evident in trips to reddit, Digg, or any profession involved in IT, have their own brand of pervasive misogyny and sexism. Their behavior, and the lack of understanding of the problem of sexism by humanist and atheist males at large, has demonized humanism to several feminists, to the point that making an argument as I am doing now sounds like a request for them to hand over the keys of their kingdom to sexist, white male atheists. This is unfortunate. It was because of the patriarchy and sexism that males are the first, and the most, to drop out of religion and other irrationalities to compose the mass of Brights and humanists. And it was extant sexism again in common behavior and thought that stigmatized the group. (Not to mention, again, the problem of adopting a base of reason when there are all these offended-at-the-drop-of-a-hat myth-believers who must be allied with to accomplish reforms.)
So, what to do? UNIFEM and other networks are effective precisely because they have mission statements and foundations. The United Nations is virtually a humanist organization unto itself, transcending nationalities and religions to advocate human rights and international law. No wonder UNIFEM's been effective, despite its limitations and the problems of influence. But all these advances are being done in an atmosphere largely absent of movements. Sure, there's a token Scandinavian country or two at any given time whose badass government is leading the charge for women's rights, but largely, there is no palpable movement. In the United States the right wing has demonized the term feminist so much that several women's rights activists are afraid to even call themselves that label, and many others are clueless what feminism is actually about (but assume it's evil and misguided). What to do?
I'm not sure what the answer is, given my early stage of experience. I fantasize about a true, crystal-clear-founded humanist organization, truly free of all prejudice and irrational belief, and committed to the illumination of humanity, but that might be a ways off. The United Nations is pretty attractive to me personally, but I haven't researched it enough to know how much of an impact I could make there. In the meantime, the EFF's affinity groups have done some good, yeah. But unlike so other movements like environmentalism or animal rights, feminism is focused on rectifying problems of half of humanity as caused by sexism,
all of , and sexism pervades all the institutions that can be conveniently overlooked in other movements of less scope. There can be Christian environmentalists, sure. But can there ever be a Christian feminist, when Christianity is so deeply sexist? (Just to use one example.)
What an annoying problem. I almost want to ask the authors if they're actually atheist, but are taking this conciliatory tone with the affinity groups and their other publications as to maximize fragmented organization and alliances with believers and other impure allies—to avoid stepping on toes, so to speak. I wish a city on a hill did truly exist, and that illumination could spread out from there. Instead, we're having to unify different degrees of discorded, flawed peoples. Ugh.
I'll find the answer. We'll find it. Whether it's humanism or feminism, we won't waste a step towards the illumination of humanity. The stars are calling us. Adventure awaits. Let's clean the human house of sexism and its other afflictions and start exploring space and all our wild dreams.
The springtime of youth waits for no one.
It's a determined promise. We'll never give up. Our burning blood will cut through fate.
