Posted on 09/17/2001 11:23:11 AM PDT by BigTime
From: Robin Morgan
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 16:02:33 EDT
Subject: NYC report . . .
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Dear Sisters and Friends,
Forgive the mass emailing of this letter, but in this situation it seems more important to get some personal, basic lower-Manhattan news/impressions to you all than take the time to reply one-on-one to each of your many, many, moving emails. I've received emails and phone calls from women in 18 different countries over the last 24 hours--from South Africa to Jordan, Malaysia to Brazil, Nepal to Canada, Australia to the Caribbean, The Philippines to Peru, all across Europe and the USA--and from West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
First, thank you from my heart for all your thoughts, concerns,invitations to come stay with you, expressions of sadness, solidarity, and political anxiety. So many, many of you have astonishingly cited my book The Demon Lover as the essential expression/analysis of what has just happened (as well as the background and underlying conflicts) that even in the midst of deep sorrow and grief you have renewed my belief that art, an attempted clarity of thought, and a stubborn politics of transformation do make a contribution, make a difference. But so far, as we know all too hideously, not enough.
I am well and safe, as are those dearest to me. (I've also been in touch with dear friends who were in transit around the US, who are safe, though some stranded in hotels and airports.) Here in Greenwich Village we are, as many of your worried, in lower Manhattan, but north--about a mile and a half--of the catastrophic area. We have electric power, water, the basics.
Friends who live(d) much closer to it staggered here yesterday morning, covered with ash, shaking with fear, and spent the day and last night here.
The infrastructure of the city is holding extraordinarily well: subways and busses are already running again (though not south, near the site itself); there was a brief run on the banks and food stores but that seems to have passed. (Personally, I'm supplied enough even to be able to help others; have garden vegetables growing plus leftover Y2K water, candles, and canned goods--but that seems probably unnecessary.)
This morning the National Guard arrived--and on my dawn walk I could just as well have been walking through a military state: police, state troopers, and emergency personnel on every corner below 14th St., with trucks filled with Guardsmen, rifles bayoneted and at ready, beginning to roll through the streets. Since this area is uptown from the site itself, you can imagine how tight security is closer to the WT Center. We must be calm but truly vigilant, since in such a time of crisis, the danger of a turn to the extreme Right is genuinely real. The press continues to roll, though no newspapers could be delivered below 14th St.
Media coverage has been nonstop, and relatively cautious to avoid rumors(especially in the wake of misreporting the election results last year). As of this morning (first day "after") the expectable patriotic blabber and religious jargon had started, along with pundits and politicians issuing media cliches about "beginning the healing process" and seeking "closure."
Maddeningly, there have been frequently repeated airings of film clips of some Palestinian men in West Bank celebrating the attack with laughter, dancing, and v-signs--but unfortunately there have NOT been as frequently repeated press airings of Palestinian leaders, Arab leaders, and leaders of the Arab American community deploring it; equal time has NOT been given; only once in 24 hours have I heard major media announce the official statement of the Muslim community in the US that heatedly denounced the attack. But there HAS been heartening journalistic comment--including from the mayor of NYC--warning against bigoted responses to this tragedy.
As those of you with whom I've managed to speak know, in fact, that has been one of my great worries, because a few years ago, in the 48 hours after the Oklahoma City bombing (before it was discovered that the perpetrator was a white Christian right-wing male) three Arab Americans were lynched in the Midwest of the US. Already, mosques are being defaced and Internet chatrooms spewing hate against "all Arabs." We (feminists, progressives, etc.) are doing everything we can to avoid this kind of escalating nightmare--and a network of safe houses is already being set up to shelter and help innocent Arab or Muslim civilians who might be persecuted in the wake of this tragedy.
This morning I was touched to learn that the Pagan and Wiccan community is doing the same thing, in the name of religious freedom from persecution. We are also trying to organize a press conference of support--but whether that will be covered or not is questionable, given the major news that breaks every hour or so.
Politically--well, it's too early to say, of course. But some things can be hypothesized. It may be heartening that this disaster might deter Bush's star wars anti-missile fantasy--since, as so many of us have said for so long, THIS kind of attack, not missiles, is the real 21st century threat (and it was amazingly "low-tech": ceramic knives, commercial flights, 3 to 5 men ready to die for a cause: simple). Furthermore (despite the expectable "let's all stand together behind our president" rhetoric) general press analysis plus public reaction seems fairly critical of Bush's handling so far, noting 1) Bush's policy of withdrawal from Mideast peace process talks, 2) Bush's administration having ignored warnings 3 weeks ago of a major "unprecedented" attack to come, and 3) Bush being incapable of projecting leadership or even a sense of basic competence.
In talking with colleagues in feminist leadership, a number of us have noted that for years we've tried everything to get the US to move forcibly against the Taliban, given the literal attempted genocide of women and girls in today's Afghanistan--and each time we've been impeded by the powerful boys of Big Oil--who care only for their beloved pipelines. Perhaps this may finally make a difference.
As I write this, news breaks that the FBI has picked up possible "suspects" in Florida and in Boston . . . but that kind of story you will hear or read as it evolves, in your own press, or if you can access CNN, where you are.
So I will sign off for now. Feel free to share this communique with your own networks. I trust with all my heart that you will each do all you possibly can in your own countries, cities, and situations to educate people as to WHY this kind of tragedy happens--that it is NOT just "madmen" or "monsters" or "subhuman maniacs" who commit dramatic violence, but that such acts occur in a daily climate of patriarchal violence so epidemic as to be invisible in its normality--and that such tactics as this attack come from a complex set of circumstances, including despair over not being heard any other way; desperation over long-term, even generational, suffering; calcification of sympathy for "the other"; callousing of sensibilities, blatant economic and political injustice, tribal/ethnic hatreds and fears, religious fundamentalisms, and especially the eroticization and elevation of violence as a form of "manhood" and "solution." Violence IS psychosis --but it's a psychoses that contemporary incumbent leaders of most nations share with their insurgent opponents.
Even as we mourn, we somehow must continue to dare audaciously to envision and revision a different way, a way out of this savage age, to a time when our species will look back and gasp, recoiling at its own former barbarism.
Even as we weep, we must somehow reorganize to reaffirm our capacity to change the world, each other, and ourselves--to insist, even in the teeth of despair, on a politics that is possible and necessary: a politics not of thanatos and death, but of eros and joy.
I send each of you my gratitude and my deep affection.
Robin Morgan
Sure you are. I'll ask again. When you were 6 years old, could you have stopped Susan Smith or Andrea Yates.
I ask this to make a point, which is that every male is not bigger and stronger than every female.
No, not quite. You see I can read, "(I'm not, but I'm playing devil's advocate)" besides in order for me to have included you as a feminist I would have written, "The only argument you or any Other feminist...Which I did not.
You can read better than I can keep track of my posts sometimes.
Nope, sorry, the rules still apply. I know several "built" women in my gym and NONE of them would even think of taking me PERIOD. The biggest of which can press over 200lbs.
Well, if you're that big and invulernable, then more power to ya.
Martial arts make no diference whatsoever, mass is mass, no amount of technique can compensate for it.
And no amount of mass can protect targets such as eyeballs, the throat, or our two favorite little subjects. That's where awreness must come in.
...cause I assure you she can die of lead poisoning just as well as me, only thing is if she runs out of ammo she'll surely die of MAN poisoning.
As the old saying goes, God made man and woman, but John Colt made them equal.
NOW I KNOW YOUR A WOMAN. are you sugessting that women Don't?
Not in the least. By all means review the answers to my original challenge. If I was making that point, then I have been thoroughly refuted by now.
So your sugesting that we just allow this attack to stand unanswered? Would you have made the same desicion with the attack on perl harbor?
Of course not. I only made the point that it was men who initiated it. Bin Laden is a man, so I'm told.
THIS IS NOT A WOMANS WORLD IT IS RUN BY MEN PERIOD.
Oh well, at least you admit it.;-)
(your pretty good at this DA thing)
A lot better than I am at remembering I was playing that.
You're the first poster to tell me that.
If a girl I'm dating gets mad and hits me, it is my duty to shrug it off.
You just made my point for me. It's your right to defend yourself and disable your attacker, not to just "shrug it off".
If she continues to hit me, I will restrain her...
Ask Warren Moon how well that works.
...or leave, depending on the situation, and terminate the relationship.
So now you're using common sense against me, huh?
If a total stranger runs up and hits me (not counting small children), I will beat the living crap out of them, again regardless of gender.
As is your right.
I am still having trouble understanding what point you are trying to make.
My original point was how would one rebut that violence is the result of men. Excellent historical evidence to the contrary, as well as the comment the they who rock the cradle rule the world, was provided in response.
Hopefully, this post will clear up any other confusion.
Any religion that enforces totally hiding women under black clothing just because their males can't controll their carnal urges, can NOT be populated with real men.
The very fact that . . . you don't consider in-utero living humans (male and female) to be worthy of legal protection, proves that you would use a technicality to re-define humans as non-humans like Hitler did the jews. Further more, you would ignore the moral and civil-injustice of the act on the basis that it is legal ... just the same as the oppressive male-dominated societies justify their abuse of women as "legal".
You are what you hate!
You just made my point for me. It's your right to defend yourself and disable your attacker, not to just "shrug it off".
It's my duty to society to be civilized and not squish like a bug anyone who crosses me. It also seems wrong to use my power (physical strength, in this case) in retaliation for a brief emotional outburst. We sometimes argue with those we care about, and should try to moderate our response. Those who would maliciously harm us deserve the best (or worst, depending on POV) malice we can dream up.
So, I guess I agree with you, I just couldn't see where you were coming from or going with all this. Best Wishes, Good Will, and Good Night. :-)
http://www.capitolgrilling.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002270
prambo
It's not just about retaliation. You don't know that your attacker isn't going to come after you with weapons or injure you somehow. Once you're attacked, it's your right to stop him or her before he or she injures you. That's my only point there.
And Bryan, if you want to look at the scoreboard, let me point out that Democrats have been in the White House for 40 of the last 69 years. Doesn't matter if they won in landslides or not...just ask our current Prez.
She wants us to forcibly good-vibe them into being mellow.
And I'll point out that 1964 was a benchmark year. It was the last time that we saw a classic liberal party in this country, and it won a landslide victory. After that, it completely redefined itself by adopting homosexual rights, the right to murder unborn children, the disarming of law-abiding citizens so that they can become defenseless victims of violent crime, and affirmative action quotas as the cornerstones of their party platform.
Since then, out of nine elections the conservative party has won three genuine landslides (1972, 1980 and 1984). The now-radical liberal party has won only three, and two of them were plurality victories (less than 50% was still good enough for a win, thanks to Perot).
I choose 1964 as the benchmark because the vast majority of Americans never voted in an election prior to 1964. This is really the modern era of American politics. So much has happened since 1964 that distinguishes this era from every election before it.
Safe houses? Why the language of the radical underground instead of the more innocuous sounding "shelter"?
Sounds like a hint to fugitive terrorists: come to us progressive feminists! We'll take good care of you!
I was a history major way back when, and most survey courses chose the end of WWII as the start of post-modern American history. Starting at 1964 would exclude the Marshall plan which defined much of our modern foreign policy, as well as the beginnings of the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement. So if you wanted to start at 1945, which excludes FDR, we have 28 years of Democrats in the White House and 28 years of Republicans in the White House. That's about as even as you can get. Of course, Bush will make it 29-28 at the end of this year, barring a whole slew of executive assassinations. But if one Supreme Court vote had went the other way, we might very well be talking about Gore making it 29-28. =) I chose 1932 because that's where you have the real start of the liberal Democratic party and the conservative Republican party IMO. Republicans are still trying to undo FDR's New Deal to this day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.