Discussion List for campus-based and allied personnel working to end gender-based violence on campus.

   RE: the role of men -- 
 
 I would add only that we need to talk about the importance of "political 
gender" -- not biological gender in thinking about who gets to be in the 
"club" -- 
 
 in all seriousness -- lani guinier has long talked about "political race" as 
beign far more valuable than biology when determining who "fits" in the 
anti-racism movement -- 
 
 (i just gave a talk at usc where i pushed this idea and students responded 
well -- i made a point of celebrating the men on campus who formed a 
wonderful group to do anti-rape work -- and i respect the fact that they 
might want only men to bond in such a club -- as they begin to formulate what 
it means to be a male doing anti-violence against women work) -- 
 
 I talked about "political gender" and the importance of all "types" of 
people becoming "politically female" -- and we laughed about making "girly 
men" a label of progressive power -- 
 
 all that said -- it is really hard stuff -- and the best example i can come 
up with to articulate why BEING male or female is not the issue so much as 
BEING on board with the goal -- is Clarence Thomas -- 
 
 he is most certainly biologically black -- but as anti-racism goes, he is 
hardly politically black
 
 (this sometimes provokes people to accuse me of racism for suggesting that 
there is a political unity around "blackness" -- and to be sure, there is 
much disagreement in anti-racism and anti-sexism work -- but it is also true 
that people can agree re whether a certain idea, policy or law is good or bad 
for equality) -
 
 as we all know -- bonding in social activism requires a kind of group 
identity -- and it is certainly easier to create groups that LOOK like the 
same "types" are in the club -- but i think we've moved past that idea and we 
know quite well how to "bond beyond" superficial characteristics.
 
 this seems essential to real change for anti-violence work because the very 
idea that women agree long ago lost favor (overtly anti-feminist advocates 
such as hoff-summers call themselves "feminists" -- and an awful lot of 
groups have popped up purporting to represent the "women's view" of 
anti-violence work -- ) so it seems to me there's really no choice but to 
rethink who is in the club -- who gets leadership voice in the club and how 
decisions are made about what it means to be "on board" -- 
 
 i think we can easily agree about some basic goals and ideas -- even if we 
disagree about how to get there - but we need new leadership -- 
 
 there is no real leadership at the moment -- and i hear on a daily basis 
from people in the field who talk about divisive and stagnating work -- and 
how nothing is getting done and people don't agree -- and there's so much 
infighting about funding and so much waste in terms of resources -- 
 
 the universities are the test kitchens for the next generation of leadership 
-- and this gender issue is so important to the abililty of today's students 
to create new energy and pathways to real reform - 
 
 we've had so little success in the past 30 years -- it really is time for a 
philosophical shift and new leadership and i have no problem letting men be 
in those leadership positions -- as long as the goal of equal citizenship and 
eradication of targeted violence is clear and the voices of women are leading 
the understanding of the problem.
 
 Wendy Murphy
   
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from 
AOL at AOL.com.