Not sexism
I take issue with Brandon Astor Jones' contention that "The collective silence and total disregard for the lives and human dignity of men in prison is 'sexism' in one of its most insidious forms." (GLW #110).
The shocking treatment of prisoners, male or female, and the very existence of such barbaric and patently dysfunctional institutions as prisons, are the result of a system which produces a society which is itself dysfunctional, but not of a system which favours women over men.
Sexism plays a very specific role in our society, it is not random, spontaneous nor "natural". Whilst in the end it harms both men and women its specific function, as one big gun in the arsenal of ideological weapons used to maintain the current system, is the economic, social, political and cultral subjection of women. This subjection is vital to the maintenance of a servile, unpaid, female domestic labour force, and to keep working people divided by gender (as by race and sexuality) and thus distracted from our real antagonists.
Jones's contention that "the humanity of female prisoners is routinely valued with greater care and concern than men" is an example of the way in which oppressed people can undermine their collective interests by attempting to score points from one another. The result is no net gain, and often a considerable net loss. The charge of "sexism against men" is an old chesnut designed to undermine the fight for women's liberation. It is the propaganda of our oppressors and we should not use it.
I would suggest that, contrary to Jones's view, the rape and sexual assault of female prisoners is more and not less acceptable in a sexist society than similar treatment for men — and that is why sexual abuse of male prisoners remains more of a "dark secret" of the prison system than that of female. Jones is right to welcome action to improve the lot of inmates at the Georgia Women's Correctional Institute. If his support for them is unstinting, then so will theirs be for him. It is only this level of unity which will achieve, first reforms, and then real change.
Karen Fredericks
Maroubra, Sydney
Holocaust
If Vivienne Porsolt (GLW #110) felt that she must write in reply to Sean Molloy (#109) then I feel that I, in turn, must write to her.
When will you realise that the left is not anti-semitic, well I'm not. But I can't justify the Jewish people living off the holocaust forever. The holocaust was a tragic thing. No people deserve to be exposed to genocide, be they Christians, Jews, Moslems, black, white or yellow. Was (being the operative word) is a thing of the past, and how then can the Israelis find it in themselves to live off the world how bad it was when they they themselves have attempted, and currently are doing so to the Palestinians?
Can you explain to me why I was rejected entry into Israel in 1989 because my mother is Palestinian born. Maybe the selfishness and Paranoia of the Israeli government should be made open and known to the masses and then maybne the world can see a Palestinian point of view.
"Holocaust" is the proper word to use for the massacres at Sabra and Shatilla, for my mother was there, members of her family were slaughtered, her friends raped and then killed. Why should the word "holocaust" be only for the jews who, having won international sympathy, were only doing the same to someone else?
Why must Palestinian children who have not even reached the age of puberty be forced to work in slave markets? Why must their parents be denied rights which we take for granted?
Everyone wnats to live in a world of peace, and innocent civilian deaths are not the way to go, but as long as the Israeli government stalls the peace talks, deprives Palestinians of basic rights and continues their illegal occupation of Lebanon we will achieve nothing.
Maybe they should study more closely what happened in the holocaust and realise they are no better than the Nazi Germans.
Jihad Dib
Brigadine, NSW
[Edited for length]
Independent environment movement
In a recent letter (GLW, August 4) Toni Begley criticises the reporting of the Students Science and Sustainability conference by Zanny Begg and myself (GLW, July 21). Her central criticism is our comment that the next SSS conference could demonstrate a greater commitment to building an independent environmental movement. Begley does this by counterposing an "independent" environmental movement to one that combines its forces and compliments other sectors in order that it "...achieve the greatest effect, with this conclusion based on a deep recognition that environmental and social justice issues themselves are intricately related."
Begley misunderstood what we meant by an independent environmental movement. We couldn't agree more that there is a need to link environmental issues to women's liberation, the exploitation of the third world, indigenous peoples' rights and so on. I thought our article made this clear.
What Begley didn't mention was the prominence of some speakers who I would say have very little to offer the environmental movement. The opening address was given by Judy Lambert, a former adviser to Ros Kelly, spoke about how we couldn't underestimate the importance of having respectable environmentalists in suits working "inside the system." This theme was continued by speakers such as nvincingly began by denying that the Australian Conservation Foundation was an arm of government policy, and a speaker from Coopers and Lybrand who tried to tell us that big business was now getting more serious about protecting the environment!
The session on "networks" at the end of the conference was dominated by speakers from the National Union of Students who urged campus environmentalists to get involved in NUS. NUS is notorious for its role in distracting and demobilising student anger away from Labor governments.
Sure, we need to network with a whole range of forces including those we might not entirely agree with, but we also have to recognise who our friends and enemies are, and I can't really see the point of inviting big business reps and government advisers to a conference for environmentalists.
The environmental movement has been plagued by those in big business, government, the Labor party and even some in the "peak" environmental organisations that try to tell us that in order to advance ourinterests environmentalists have to be "respectable", "not too radical", and to believe that Labor governments really are trying to do what they can. These views have only served to cripple the environmental movement. What we need is a movement that brings together environmental and social justice issues, and seeks to advance solutions by involving ordinary people in campaigns to force change. This is what is meant by an independent environmental movement.
Sam Wainwright
Environmental Youth Alliance National Coordinator
Sydney NSW