[Cmi-mulheres] Fwd: [NextGenderation] NG@ESF 2003's Essay for
Feminist Review
Isadora
isadoralins em yahoo.com
Domingo Abril 25 19:53:27 PDT 2004
--- Rutvica Andrijasevic <nig4982 em iperbole.bologna.it>
wrote:
> Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 09:40:56 +0200
> To: NextGenderation em nextgenderation.net
> From: Rutvica Andrijasevic
> <nig4982 em iperbole.bologna.it>
> CC:
> Subject: [NextGenderation] NG em ESF 2003's Essay for
> Feminist Review
>
> Dear all,
>
> some of us have written a collective piece
> reflecting on ESF 2003
> for feminisr Review. Here is a copy of it.
> Enjoy and comment, Rutvica
> -----------------------------
>
>
>
> Refusing to be “the women’s question”… Embodied
> practices of feminist
> intervention at the European Social Forum 2003
>
>
> by the NextGENDERation network
>
>
> La question des femmes
> n’est pas la question des femmes
> nous sommes les femmes
> qui posent les questions![1]
>
>
> The European Social Forum (ESF) is a gathering where
> the alterglobalization
> movement in Europe discuss and exchange visions and
> strategies of
> globalized resistance. The alterglobalization
> movement[2] is an umbrella
> term for a broad range of groups and movements
> dissatisfied with current
> globalization, driven by corporate and imperial
> interests, characterized by
> democratic deficits. The idea of organizing such
> gatherings on a
> continental level came out of the second World
> Social Forum (WSF) that took
> place in Porto Alegre (Brazil) in January 2002.
> Rather than being just
> events the social fora seek to be about a process in
> which new alliances
> can be built. This ‘movement of movements’ has
> adopted the slogan ‘another
> world is possible’.
>
> At the first ESF in November 2002 in Florence, a
> number of us within the
> NextGENDERation network thought it was important to
> connect our feminist
> politics with the process of the social fora and the
> new impulses of global
> resistance. We recognise how the movement of global
> resistance is nurtured
> in crucial ways by feminist, anti-racist, migrant
> and queer embodied
> struggles which generated crucial tools such as “the
> personal is the
> political”, the politics of everyday life and the
> politics of desire.[3] We
> are also concerned that in many practices and
> visions of the
> alterglobalization movement these critical
> genealogies of political
> struggle are unrecognized. It remains difficult to
> get issues of gender,
> ethnicity, ‘race’ and sexuality on the agenda in
> meaningful ways. In old
> and familiar ways it seems as if those issues get
> divorced from
> anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist agendas, and
> subsequently get located
> at the margins of the struggle or considered only in
> terms of ‘effects’ of
> global economic processes.
>
> During the workshop “Missing Links: Feminism and
> Globalised Resistance” –
> which we held at the ESF 2002 in Florence[4] –
> emerged the idea of
> organizing a feminist day that would be a ‘gathering
> of forces’ just before
> the official start of the next ESF, in Paris 2003.
> We understood this
> project as the creation of a feminist ‘centre’, i.e.
> a place grounded in
> feminist desires. This would offer moorings in a
> location that would avoid
> being trapped in a positionality that was marginal
> and constantly reacting
> to that marginalization. This feminist centre, we
> believed, should be a
> space with a double aim: firstly, to engage in
> re-articulations of feminist
> visions and strategies in the light of changing
> geographies of power, and
> secondly, a space to invest in the building of
> alliances, knowing that
> alliances can never be assumed beforehand or taken
> for granted, but are the
> result of a careful process of construction.
>
> This dialogue piece was imagined as a round table
> discussion.
> However, given our geographical dispersion the
> discussion could take place
> only over email and only some women from our working
> group, some speakers
> and some active participants[5] managed to
> contribute.
>
> Selma Bellal: Sisterhood is not something easy to
> find, not in this world
> and even less in that ‘other world’ that is seeking
> itself, and whose
> energies manifest themselves at the social fora.
> From the ESF in Paris it
> was obvious that sisterhood cannot be constructed
> outside of locations that
> are always already invested by relations of power.
> This was especially
> apparent in the contrast between two very different
> spaces – one the
> self-managed and marginal space of NextGENDERation
> and the other the
> Women’s Assembly that claimed to represent a unitary
> voice without leaving
> any place for contradictions. My search for feminist
> solidarity, nourished
> by the exchanges and enrichments that the encounters
> with other women
> offer, was frustrated at the Women’s Assembly but
> fulfilled in the
> alternative space created by NextGENDERation. For me
> this experience made
> sure that one lesson will never be purely
> theoretical again – unity only
> emerges in the face of contradictions. If a
> diversity of opinions and the
> plurality of experiences only become a force when
> conflict is not denied,
> then I think I can say that this conflict is
> desirable.
>
> Sarah Bracke: When I think of how much enthusiasm
> we had after the Forum
> in Florence to realise the project of a feminist
> gathering, and how much of
> that enthusiasm was subsequently turned into
> frustration, it makes me sad.
> But frustration is not a place where we can afford
> to linger for too long.
> So, we need to understand what happened at the ESF
> in Paris and what is to
> be learned from this experience. The ESF 2003 was
> preceded by many months
> of preparation, with the first European Preparation
> Assembly (EPA) taking
> place in February 2003 in Brussels. It was at that
> meeting that we first
> fully understood that the feminist gathering we
> imagined and wanted to
> engender would not materialise. Women from the World
> Women’s March in Paris
> who were in charge of the organization happily
> announced that what they
> named ‘The European Assembly of Women’s Rights’
> would be part of the
> official ESF forum. This immediately made clear that
> decisions concerning
> the Women’s Assembly and its format were made by a
> group in Paris, which
> represented only a small, and particularly white
> section of the wide range
> of women’s movements. Moreover, this decision tied
> the preparation of the
> Women’s Assembly to the preparation of the ESF in
> terms of structure,
> format and timing. Our experiences during the ESF in
> Florence had shown us
> again and again that the issues of gender, ethnicity
> and ‘race’, and
> sexuality were marginalized within the official ESF
> structure and its
> panels. Instead of investing energies in getting
> ‘recognition’ from the
> official ESF, while at the same time attempting to
> subvert its power
> arrangements, we supported the idea of autonomous
> feminist spaces
> especially since it was clear that the ESF
> structures themselves were part
> of the problem.[6]
>
> Laurence Hovde: I presume the Women’s Assembly was
> organized as an
> introductory event to the ESF in order to show what
> a visible active force
> women are in changing the world. But since the
> organizers were so
> auto-referential, the result of the Assembly
> unfortunately shows how
> superficially organized and internally marginalized
> women can be.
>
> Sarah Bracke: The Women’s Assembly indeed turned out
> to be a niche; the
> ESF’s very own ‘women’s question.’ But we did not
> want feminists agendas to
> be neutralised and de-politicized as ‘the women’s
> question’ because of a
> double risk involved. It allows the main forum to go
> on with
> business-as-usual since the ‘women’s questions’ are
> already addressed
> somewhere else, and it pushes towards a
> homogenisation – and in particular
> in relation to ‘race’, ethnicity and sexuality, of
> the ‘women’s day’
> agendawhich in turn becomes overwhelmingly white
> and heterosexual.
>
> Selma Bellal: Our concerns are neither particular
> nor specific, rather they
> speak of the lack of equality in society and in a
> movement which defers to
> tomorrow transformations that are needed today. The
> ESF really was a space
> where we had to fight for feminist visibility,
> instead of being the space
> to construct new links and solidarities between
> different struggles.
>
> Sarah Bracke: What interests me most in all the
> confrontations and
> conflicts with the organizers of the Women’s
> Assembly, is the labels they
> used to disqualify our contributions and critiques.
> At first we were ‘too
> academic’ or ‘too intellectual’. This was mainly
> used when we insisted, in
> various ways and with many elaborations, on
> questions of who speaks for
> whom. In other words, when we questioned the
> legitimacy of how they tried
> to pass a very particular feminist agenda for
> ‘universal feminism’, we were
> told that we are raising ‘abstract’ questions
> typically asked by those who
> are not ‘doing’ but merely ‘reflecting’. We know
> that the division of
> labour between ‘doing’ and ‘thinking’ is a heavily
> charged one in terms of
> gender, ethnicity and ‘race’.[7] But the way in
> which the organizers were
> invested in this scheme was truly bewildering. They
> for example made
> regular references to the fact that our kinds of
> questions and reflections
> would fit better with the ‘boys’ of the main forum.
> At a certain moment we
> were even accused of displaying a ‘masculine’
> approach.
>
> Within these divergent strategies there was a
> recurring positioning from
> the organizers’ side of ‘women from the banlieue’ as
> the voiceless
> subaltern: ‘Women from the banlieue’ needed to be
> ‘reached’, the issues
> should not get too complex in order for ‘women from
> the banlieue’ to
> understand, ‘women from the banlieue’ really suffer
> oppression…,’ and so
> on. The racialized structure of power was also
> clearly visible in the
> minutes that followed the EPA meeting in Berlin in
> April 2003 where a white
> ‘we’ was systematically invoked for a decision
> making subject while migrant
> women or women from non-western countries were
> situated as those providing
> ‘moving testimonies’. As we continued to insist on
> the question of who
> speaks for whom, we were subsequently deemed as
> being ‘too radical’ and as
> those who stunt the ‘unity’ of the women’s movement.
> Now for me who speaks
> for whom goes hand in hand with how can we speak
> together – the latter
> insisting both on ‘speaking together’ and on ‘how’,
> i.e. the process of
> doing this. However, the Women’s Assembly was not
> about how to speak
> together nor how to build alliances. It was about
> trying to mobilise as
> many women as possible ‘in unity’ behind an already
> established, and
> problematic, agenda. There were some flagrant
> instances of the exclusion of
> positions that did not fit this agenda, notably with
> regard to the
> headscarf[8] and prostitution[9].
>
> Laurence Hovde: My cynicism about the Women’s
> Assembly comes from asking:
> what was the real motivation for this assembly? It
> seemed to be
> predominantly about the organizers looking ‘good’
> and not about a
> productive cross-border exchange in strategies. I
> felt there was no serious
> consideration or commitment on the part of the
> organizers to facilitate a
> concrete exchange among different activists. With no
> clear format that
> would enable an exchange of strategies, the
> presentation became a
> hierarchization of women’s suffering, with each
> guest speaker describing
> how brutally unjust it is the place from where
> ‘they’ come from. And then
> there was a ridiculous practice of the audience
> applauding how terrible it
> is for women ‘over there’...
>
> Chiara Lasala: Yes, there really was a strong
> perspective that privileges
> victimhood at the Women’s Assembly. Some workshops
> were a line-up of
> stories of victimhood, with very little space for
> transformation and
> radical agency. The type of events that took place
> and especially decisions
> over who is allowed to speak and on what issues,
> reflected how much the
> women’s assembly, but also the ESF itself, are
> anchored in Eurocentric
> approaches and perspectives. We noticed a number of
> limitations in the ESF
> seminars: there were interventions where speakers
> were lined up in a
> parade-style that fulfilled the necessary quotas
> (for women and
> minorities). Furthermore, often the material
> organization was structured in
> a way that did not facilitate participation of those
> who were not included
> as speakers.
>
> Laurence Hovde: I really have to ask: how much were
> the organizers of the
> Women’s Assembly trying to hear/understand the local
> practical reality of
> women activists when they didn't even consider that
> the 'guest from crisis
> countries' might not have cash or a credit card to
> cover the costs of an
> expensive plane ticket, and to wait until the third
> day of the conference
> to reimburse them. This is an ordinary example of an
> invited guest taking a
> 22 hour bus trip instead of 2 hour plane trip. I
> found that a lack of
> sensitivity from the organizers to ‘race’,
> immigration and sexual
> orientation characterized both the Women’s Assembly
> as a matter of process
> as well as discourse. The assembly hence became a
> classical ‘show case’
> conference where the Western organizers made a big
> deal about
> ‘inviting/paying’ women from crisis countries and
> giving them 15 minutes to
> speak.
>
> Nadia Fadil: In declaring that ‘another world
> possible’, the
> alterglobalization movement seeks a relationship
> between the West and the
> ‘Rest’ that is characterised by more justice. Given
> the contextualisation
> of the roots of global injustice in terms of
> liberalism and capitalism,
> this globally ‘different world’ is subsequently only
> possible when the
> resistance is also globalized. I find that this is
> the merit of the
> movement of globalized resistance. Considered on a
> global level, it
> transcends an older ‘centre/periphery’ model and
> tries to organize –
> through the World Social fora and the different
> continental fora – a global
> mobilisation. But it strikes me that in practice the
> mobilisation of the
> ESF continues to take place along the lines of the
> ‘centre.’ We can clearly
> say that a Western perspective has a crushing
> dominance in terms of which
> problems and issues are put on the agenda, and how
> these are analysed and
> discussed.
>
> Many Europeans still think that the slogan ‘a
> different world is possible’
> is about the ‘far-away other’. But it is time to
> realise that it is mainly
> about the self. I was perplexed to see that none of
> the plenary sessions of
> the ESF were dedicated to reflections on the Forum
> itself. These
> reflections should have started with the question:
> who is here? and in
> particular who is NOT here? Globalized resistance
> only has a chance when
> one is reflective about one’s own limits in terms of
> mobilisation. The
> notion of global intellectual resistance might be
> compelling and can lead
> to interesting discussions, but on a political level
> it remains ineffective
> as long as its force does not come from what is
> often, and problematically,
> called ‘the grassroots’ – the subjects that are
> continuously the topic of
> discussion, i.e. the eternal absent ‘other’ (the
> unemployed, the subaltern,
> the migrant, the woman, the ‘woman from the
> banlieue’…).
>
> Sarah Bracke: I would like to add something about
> the demonstration at the
> end of the forum. The movement of the Sans papiers
> offered to lead the
> demonstration and thus opened up a possibility for
> the ESF to make a strong
> common statement against ‘Fortress Europe’. But the
> organizers did not
> allow this lead to occur. This raises many
> questions. Could it be that the
> organizers found the struggle of the Sans papiers
> ‘too particular’ for the
> forum’s common focus? Or perhaps they could not
> conceive of the Sans
> papiers taking ‘the lead’? Or is it that a strong
> visible statement against
> ‘Fortress Europe’ was deemed too ‘risky’ for those
> tendencies dominant
> among the organization of the Paris ESF that would
> like to refashion the
> movement towards more ‘established’ and
> ‘respectable’ modes of politics,
> modelled on the existing structures of political
> parties and trade unions?
> Whatever the answer might be, the fact that the Sans
> papiers movement could
> not take the lead of the demonstration points to the
> persistent inability
> to take issues of migration, ethnicity and ‘race’
> seriously in relation to
> the workings of capital and globalization. Moreover,
> it also indicates that
> in comparison to past Iraq anti-war demonstrations
> which allowed the ‘the
> movement of the movements’ to unite against US
> hegemony, a strong struggle
> against ‘Fortress Europe’ can count on less
> consensus exactly because it
> implies dealing with the realities and
> responsibilities of the social
> movements within Europe itself.
>
> Nadia Fadil: I really missed the ‘how’ of this
> globalized resistance that
> is promised to us again and again. The ESF could be
> a prime moment to think
> together about how we can coordinate our different
> agendas. Such a process
> will always be marked by dilemmas and tensions about
> how to effectively
> organize, without undermining the claimed network of
> the ESF and without
> imposing a top-down structure. This top-down
> structure was clearly in place
> and the cause of much frustration. It’s clear that
> this yearly meeting of
> the ESF does not seem to create the much needed
> moment of rest and
> reflection, new inspiration and new encounters.
>
> Rutvica Andrijasevic: One of the dimensions of our
> project of a ‘feminist
> centre’ was to explore a number of themes from an
> intersectional
> perspective. We were not interested in celebrating
> (superficially) women's
> diversity as the organizers of women's day were. Nor
> were we interested in
> de-politicizing the event in order to avoid
> conflicts between women and
> with the main ESF organizers. For us, this was not
> about showing that women
> exist and that they are present at ESF (we all know
> and see that). But
> instead it was about thinking transversally about a
> number of issues which
> we consider pivotal for a re-articulation of
> feminist politics by starting
> from the intersection of race and gender.
>
> For example, over the last few years certain groups
> from the ‘movement of
> the movements’ have adopted the issue of migration
> as central to their
> politics. Some of these groups struggle for the
> rights of residency for
> migrants within the EU and for the closure of
> detention camps. These
> struggles are all absolutely indispensable,
> extremely valid and important
> but they also left us with a number of questions.
> Since many of these
> groups are comprised predominantly by white male
> leftist
> activists/intellectuals, could it be that the issue
> of migration has become
> for these groups a new arena from where to advance
> their political struggle
> against the State especially at the moment when many
> other spheres of
> intervention have been closing down? And if this is
> so, where does this
> leave migrants themselves and also on what basis is
> it then possible to
> build alliances which would see migrants as
> protagonists and not as having
> mere testimonial presence? This is similar to the
> Zero Tolerance discourse
> which often draws upon the language of protecting
> women but actually
> results in the criminalization of migrant and
> especially Muslim communities.
>
> Nadia Fadil: The absence of migrants as protagonists
> of the forum was in
> fact really impressive. And the whole commotion
> around whether or not TARIQ
> RAMADAN, a protagonist that represents an important
> voice for many
> thousands of Muslims in Western-Europe, should be
> allowed to speak at the
> forum was indicative of the ESF. For me it amounted
> to a profound loss of
> faith in the forum and the good will of the
> organizers to effectively
> include as many actors as possible in the process,
> actors who effectively
> mean something and can count on the support of a
> great deal of the
> population. I really regret the dominance of a
> certain left-wing centralist
> discourse, and the absence of alternative ideologies
> and visions that also
> exist. Latter, such as for example the Islamic
> mobilisations in the Arab
> World can count on support but hardly ever get real
> attention within these
> leftist circles.
>
> Rutvica Andrijasevic: In fact, when deciding to
> structure our seminars
> around the issues of leadership, security and
> migration we wanted to
> challenge the current way of doing and thinking
> politics within the
> 'movement of the movements' and the woman's movement
> in order to open up
> possibilities for a different form of political
> struggle.[10] In the
> seminar Embodied Leadership: Politics of
> Representation in Social Movements
> co-organized with FEMINIST REVIEW COLLECTIVE, we
> raised the issue of
> symbolic authority in social and political
> movements. We looked at the ways
> in which this authority is granted to those who
> occupy positions of
> leadership and discussed how this links to the
> gender and race of
> individuals in those positions. We wanted to look at
> the representation of
> the migrant, the refugee or the trafficked victim in
> the women's/feminist
> movement as well as the alterglobalization movement.
> What concerned us was
> the ways in which the positioning of migrants in
> terms of the 'particular'
> and the 'authentic' provides 'Europeans' with a
> (discursive) position of
> power which in turn consolidates the gendered and
> racialized frameworks of
> domination already in place.
>
> The second seminar called Questioning Securitarian
> Europe: Feminist
> Interventions was concerned with the rise of
> securitarian discourses all
> over Europe and the presentation of repressive
> measures (more police,
> tighter control over borders, the emergence and
> reinforcement of notions of
> social hygiene in many respects) as solutions
> instead of being recognised
> as a crucial part of the problem. As feminists, we
> wanted to problematise
> the fact that this securitarian tendency often draws
> upon the language of
> protecting women, and that a part of the women's
> movements might actually
> fall for this racist macho zero tolerance discourse
> and by doing so
> contribute to the criminalization of migrant and
> queer communities as well
> as of radical social movements. We need to be asking
> questions such as:
> which women might be protected with such measures,
> what is the cost of this
> protection and how these measures in turn make the
> majority of women's
> lives insecure.
>
> The issue of migration was at the centre of our
> third seminar, Migrant
> Labour as a Feminist Issue. Migrant Women Workers'
> Mobilisations Across
> Europe. The leading idea was that different as they
> may be in many ways,
> domestic work, caring labour and sex work have in
> common the fact that they
> are predominantly female occupations solicited by
> western Europeans willing
> to pay for them. This positions migrant women in a
> very particular place
> within the gendered European landscape. Thus, we
> wanted to scrutinize the
> link between the increased solicitation of these
> occupations with a
> transformation of gender roles and the meaning of
> certain models of women's
> emancipation in western European societies for both
> migrant and non-migrant
> women. By looking at the current global
> redistribution of domestic, care
> and sex work among differently located women we
> aimed at calling into
> question persisting gendered and racialized
> divisions of labour and care.
>
> Chiara Lasala: Our point of departure in all of this
> really was a deep
> desire for interjecting contention within simplified
> feminist debates in
> order not to remain immobilized when facing the
> complexity of the real
> world and to search for new subversive forms of
> feminist protagonism. In
> contrast to the women’s assembly, NextGENDERation
> tried to create a space
> that allowed for real moments of confrontation
> between women of divergent
> political positions and heterogeneous experiences
> that might make possible
> a debate and articulation of different reflections.
> The discussion
> highlighted again and again the necessity to
> problematize the topics
> addressed in order to avoid the danger of
> superficiality, typical of those
> debates that sacrifice the complexity of issues in
> the name of simple
> consensus.
>
> Rutvica Andrijasevic: Working from the
> intersectionality of race and gender
> and focusing on the transversality of topics is
> crucial if we are to build
> alliances which can empower our local politics and
> practices of resistance.
> For example, when it came to the seminars, this
> meant that we invited the
> discussants who usually would not sit at the same
> table. For me, the
> biggest achievement of the security workshop was the
> fact that it made an
> exchange of ideas among divergent groups possible.
> This discussion showed
> us that a number of racialized and sexualized
> communities, including the
> migrant, Muslim, unemployed and queer are all being
> criminalized through
> the securitarian discourse and by extension their
> access to citizenship
> increasingly limited.
>
> Bénédicte Martin: What was interesting to me in
> NextGENDERation’s way of
> working and get me involved, was the desire to
> rethink and renew feminist
> thought and practice. I was particularly interested
> in exploring the
> possibilities for direct action during the forum,
> including the Women’s
> Assembly, in order to disrupt some of the
> celebration of unity that was in
> fact based on exclusion. When one of us was
> prevented from talking about
> the mobilisations of sex workers in Madrid and
> Barcelona at the Women and
> Violence workshop of the women’s assembly, we
> decided is was necessary to
> interrupt the plenary session where the results of
> this workshop were
> presented in consensual terms. Women from La
> Eskalera Karakola had brought
> the pink umbrellas they used as part of a pink
> action (operación rosa)
> during the anti-war mobilisations in the winter and
> spring of 2003, and we
> opened these umbrellas as a silent but visible
> disagreement with the false
> consensus. During the demonstration at the end of
> the women’s day we
> distributed little flyers with phrases like ‘How do
> you recognise a
> woman?’, ‘Who is here?’, ‘‘Indigenous’ Europeans…
> who is taking care of
> your children?’ in order to prompt questions and
> impel reflections.
>
> When we were preparing for the ESF, for practical
> and financial reasons, we
> planned that our seminars and events would take
> place at Saint Denis
> University. But once we were there, we immediately
> realized that this
> format of speakers presenting and audience listening
> was inappropriate for
> what we wanted to do, and that it got us caught in
> an institutional form of
> asymmetrical knowledge transmission which we wanted
> to question. In that
> sense, we did not manage to realize what we desired.
>
> At the same time, an important and really satisfying
> dimension of our
> project of creating a ‘feminist centre’ was the
> house in which thirty of us
> lived together during the forum. It made us realize,
> once more, that in
> order to develop common visions, we needed both the
> physical space and time
> together. Those four days of living together
> provided us with tools to
> consolidate our feminist projects. Often we only
> knew each other through
> email exchanges, and living together enabled us to
> get to know each other
> better, to share experiences, to invent new
> projects, to weave connections…
> but also to simply each other’s company. Social
> transformation is nourished
> by daily life experiences and human relations. The
> form of social criticism
> is as important as its content and they continuously
> feed each other. In
> order to invent a new world we have to experiment
> and we have to date.
>
>
> NextGENDERation network
>
(<http://nextgenderation.let.uu.nl/>http://nextgenderation.let.uu.nl)
> is a
> European transnational network of students,
> researchers and activists with
> an interest in feminist theory and politics, and
> their intersections with
> anti-racist, migrant, lesbian, queer and
> anti-capitalist perspectives. The
> interventions as the ESF were prepared by the
> working group NG em ESF2003, in
> connection with the Feminist Review Collective, La
> Eskalera Karakola
>
(<http://www.sindominio.net/karakola>http://www.sindominio.net/karakola),
>
> Precarias a la Deriva
>
(<http://www.sindominio.net/karakola/precarias>http://www.sindominio.net/karakola/precarias),
>
> Scovegno
>
(<http://www.sconvegno.org/>http://www.sconvegno.org/),
> Mujeres
> Sin Rostro, Forum of the Left (Slovenia), Act-Up
> Paris, Women in Black
> Brussels, AK Wi(e)derSprache, Association Solidarité
> Mauriciennes d’Europe
> and Teatro Cittadini del Mondo. Mama Cash
> (<http://www.mamacash.nl/>http://www.mamacash.nl)
> financially supported the
> project, which included travel grants for about 30
> women who joined us in
> Paris.
>
>
>
> [1] One of the slogans we adopted during the
> demonstration closing the
> women’s assembly, roughly translated as: The women’s
> question is not the
> question of women, we are the women asking
> questions!
> [2] ‘Alterglobalisation’ envisions alternative
> worlds possible, a
> resistance and hope that is transnational and
> therefore shakes off the
> misleading ‘anti-globalisation’ label.
> [3] See Cristina Vega (2002) “Firenze, Feminism,
> Global Resistance. Some
> (personal and shared tips) to go to Firenze”,
>
<http://nextgenderation.let.uu.nl/projects/esf2002/index.html>http://nextgenderation.let.uu.nl/projects/esf2002/index.html
>
>
> [4] See
>
<http://nextgenderation.let.uu.nl/projects/esf2002/index.html>http://nextgenderation.let.uu.nl/projects/esf2002/index.html
> [5] As Laurence Hovde from Women at Work (Zene na
> delu), Belgrade,
> [6] In the end, the women’s assembly didn’t really
> manage to achieve get
> the recognition it aimed for: the event was
> announced on the last pages of
> the ESF programme among other ‘cultural events’.
> [7] For a reflection on gendered and racialized
> aspects of the distinction
> between theory and practice, see Andrijasevic, R.
> and Bracke, S. (2003),
> “Venir à la connaissance, venir à la politique:
> réflexions sur des
> pratiques féministes du réseau NextGENDERation”,
> Multitudes. Féminismes,
> queer, multitudes, No. 12, pp. 81-88.
> [8] There was much debate on banning the headscarf
> in France at the time of
> the forum, yet except for some slogans against the
> headscarf, the issue was
> largely silenced during the women’s assembly. Women
> politically mobilising
> against the ban, and more largely around questions
> of citizenship for
> Muslim women in France, were not welcome at the
> Women’s Assembly; they took
> their debates and concerns to a seminar within the
> main ESF. Saïda Kada,
> one of the speakers in this seminar, is the
> co-author (with Dounia Bouzar)
> of L’une voilée, l’autre pas. Le témoignage de deux
> musulmanes françaises,
> published by Albin Michel, 2003.
> [9] The dominant position on the issue of
> prostitution what the one
> commonly know as abolitionist feminist position
> which sees prostitution as
> violence against women and women as objects of male
> domination. In order to
> publicly pass this position as the universal one,
> other readings of
> prostitution and/or trafficking from the perspective
> of migration and
> labour were silenced. In this way, the complicity of
> certain feminists in
> supporting measures that criminalize prostitution
> and by extension foster
> vulnerability of both migrant and non-migrant women
> in sex work was left
> not addressed.
> [10] For more elaborate descriptions of questions
> central to the seminars,
> see
>
<http://nextgenderation.let.uu.nl/projects/esf2003/index.html>http://nextgenderation.let.uu.nl/projects/esf2003/index.html
> > _______________________________________________
> NextGenderation mailing list
> NextGenderation em nextgenderation.net
>
http://nextgenderation.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nextgenderation
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
Mais detalhes sobre a lista de discussão Cmi-mulheres