feminist blogs in english

To follow up on my previous post, let’s discuss a few more things about Fast Fashion.

Who says women love to shop? It’s obviously not true that every woman everywhere loooooves to shop. Personally, I hate shopping. I think it’s boring; it’s time consuming, tedious and expensive. If I have absolutely have to, I prefer to do it online so I don’t have to interact with annoying store clerks and I can try things on in the comfort of my own home. Even women who don’t like to or, more importantly, cannot afford to shop still face societal pressure to do so.

Who defines “cheap”? If you have ever been to Forever 21 or looked at the website I shared, you’d know most of the dresses go for about $20-$30 dollars. Now whether you think a $20 dress is cheap or expensive is a matter of perspective, priority, and relative privilege, but in our current retail structure, a $20 dress is considered cheap both in terms of quality and pricing. I am reminded of German fashion designer Jil Sander, who told the New York Times earlier this summer “My mother always said that we were too poor to buy too cheap.” I also did not have a wealthy upbringing in West Africa (surprise! I’m a WOC!) and this is a philosophy my mother drilled into all her children. We rarely bought new clothes and when we did they were meant to last for years because my younger siblings and cousins would have to get mileage out of them as well. There were no Wal-Mart or Target equivalents in Africa when I was growing up, and the first “mall” in Lagos was built in the late ’90s. So unless you were wearing traditional clothes, western clothes were almost always imported. A lot of our clothing consisted of discarded items from the closets of Americans and Europeans just like you. I hated wearing someone else’s second-hand clothes because they reminded me every day I couldn’t have new clothes like the wealthier kids at my French private school. It’s ironic that, for both admittedly aesthetic and financial reasons, I now do the bulk of my shopping at thrift stores.

What about fat women? I did not address the size issue because I was planning to do so in another post. Just because I shop at vintage/thrift/consignment stores doesn’t mean I’m not aware their politics can be fucked as well. Just last week I had to scratch Mustard Seed, a well-recommended store in the DC metro area off my list because according to the woman on the phone they rarely buy clothes over a size 12. Yes, size 12 because that’s considered plus-size. I don’t have to remind you the average American woman is a size 14. I am bigger than the average American woman. (Surprise! I’m fat!)

What’s style got to do with it? Consumers at Fast Fashion stores are style-conscious. Yes, I know it sounds vain! But shopping at Wal-Mart and shopping at Forever 21 are not one and the same. Fast Fashion thrives on our desire for the latest clothes from magazines and the runway. Styling tips always tell larger women to “dress for their body type”, whatever the hell that means. Yes, I recognize that I am an able-bodied, childless woman and this allows me to take to time experiment with different lengths, patterns, and structures. And it’s still a frustrating process. Many things I try on don’t fit. I’m lucky to have a good friend who will hem my muumuus and turn tube dresses into skirts for me. Even when I go into straight size stores, I try on things that are not marked my size. (Yes, this is style advice, not feminist life advice.) More on fat fashion later…

Why don’t you just stop buying clothes? Take it from an African woman: Western women (and men DUH), in a global context, have unsurpassed buying power. Their choices affect people all over the world. This is not meant to shame anyone but rather to force us to confront our consumer choices. The reason I started this discussion is precisely because I don’t have a good solution to this problem. Actually, no one has a good answer. To those of you that say “stop shopping altogether” I’m glad that’s working out for you because you never have to buy anything ever.

This conversation about women and consumption is not a new one, and probably be culturally relevant for as long as we have to wear clothes. It is especially relevant this week as Inditex, Zara’s parent company, announced its aggressive expansion plans. The company opened more than 90 stores in 29 countries in the first quarter alone. This is American Apparel on crack. Also this week Uniqlo’s parent company, the appropriately named Fast Retailing, outlined plans to launch a non-profit initiative in Bangladesh, alongside Grameen Bank, that would create jobs for garment workers. This venture would produce high quality items that cost around $1. While they currently only have plans to sell to Bangladeshis, this and similar nonprofit approaches would go a long way in improving Western women’s cheap clothing options- allowing them to buy stylish clothes that aren’t quite as harmful to women in other parts of the world.

In the meantime, I am trying to make small, practical changes in my life. You can decide what changes work for you.

You can blame Barbie, Mall Madness, the sexualizing and gendering of kids and their toys, but there’s no denying that women love to shop. Got a date? Buy a new dress. Feeling sad? There’s a sale at the mall. Your boyfriend broke up with you? These new shoes will show him! Women are socialized from a very young age to embrace the “born to shop” and “shop ’til you drop” mantras.

My sister’s birthday is coming up soon and caught in the pandemonium of getting a last-minute gift for her, I wandered over to Forever21.com, where I found painfully on-trend dresses and a handful of accessories for around $100. $100! You’ve got to be kidding me. Over and over, I found myself thinking “WHY IS THIS DRESS SO CHEAP?”

Naomi Wolf’s latest dispatch answers that very question:

But what has been liberating for Western women is a system built literally on the backs of women in the developing world. How do Primark and its competitors in the West’s shopping malls and High Streets keep that cute frock so cheap? By starving and oppressing Bangladeshi, Chinese, Mexican, Haitian, and other women, that’s how.
We all know that cheap clothing is usually made in sweatshop conditions – and usually by women. And we know – or should know – that women in sweatshops around the world report being locked in and forbidden to use bathrooms for long periods, as well as sexual harassment, violent union-busting, and other forms of coercion.

Most of the two million people working in Bangladesh’s garment industry are women, and they are the lowest-paid garment workers in the world, earning $25 a month. But they are demanding that their monthly wage be almost tripled, to $70. Their leaders make the point that, at current pay levels, workers cannot feed themselves or their families.

Fast Fashion — much like Fast Food — is cheap, addictive, and built on an unsustainable, low-wage system. These throwaway clothes are purposefully designed to be worn a few times and discarded, which contributes the growing problem of textile waste. According to the EPA Office of Solid Waste, the average American household throws away more than 68 pounds of clothing and textiles per person per year so it’s not hard to imagine how the constant production of new clothing poses a number of environmental challenges, especially in developing countries. Don’t even get me started about H&M trashing its unsold merchandise rather than donating it to charity.

With the advent of cheap-chic stores providing both big-name designer collaborations (H&M and Target) and disposable knock-offs (Forever 21), this problem is worsening at alarming rates. Shopping for clothes has changed radically since H&M introduced the concept of high-end designer collaboration to fashion retailing in 2004 with their Karl Lagerfeld capsule collection. (I would be lying if I didn’t admit I was devastated when this collection sold out in a matter of hours and I didn’t stand a chance of owning any of it.) Consumers today are much more savvy and experimental, and far less patient. So impatient, in fact, that in 2005 Zara bragged that it “can design and distribute a garment to market in just fifteen days.” Fifteen days. I bet you it’s even faster now.

For a long time, I justified shopping at American Apparel because of their relatively good labor policies — so thanks for ruining that for me, Dov Charney. I appreciate Wolf’s candor in admitting that despite her knowledge of the horrible work/life conditions endured by the women creating these clothes, she also shops at H&M and Zara — something I am equally guilty of. It is difficult to deny the ease of Fast Fashion even as I’ve been challenged to think even more deeply and more morally about my shopping habits.

Wolf also brings up the fact that it’s largely women producing these clothes and largely women buying them. I’ve lived in developing countries enough to know that jobs in certain “sweatshops” can empower rural women and their families. But unfortunately most garment jobs do not create enough opportunity and prosperity for workers to pull themselves out of poverty. What does it mean for feminism when women are primarily responsible for creating appalling environments for other women? Fast Fashion is a perfect case study that the action—not the gender of the person committing it — is what determines whether it is feminist or not. Just because something is done primarily by women doesn’t automatically make it “more feminist.” Women have historically been at the forefront of successful consumer boycotts and there is no reason we cannot commit to pushing for larger political change — a Slow Fashion movement, if you will — to improve the conditions endured by these workers. We are, after all, the target consumers in these retail venues.

Truly committing to Slow Fashion would require us to learn more about the clothes we buy and who produced them, and using that knowledge to make socially and environmentally responsible choices. This alone won’t be enough, because we all know big systemic, change takes time. But it’s a start. One way I’ve curbed my Fast Fashion addiction is by thrifting. Yes, the clothes are secondhand and they were probably made in a sweatshop before they became second hand but it’s better than nothing.

Statistically women experience more poverty than men. I have cited figures from the 2005 General Household Survey before, merely because I used it for some coursework at university, thus it is important to remember that there are many more comprehensive analyses that can be used when proving that the feminisation of poverty is a fact – however, it is useful all the same. It shows how female heads of households are two times more likely to be in poverty than male heads of households, with poverty levels at 43.4% and 21.4%, respectively.

Given that women are already more likely to be in an economic situation that can mean that they are dependent on their husband/partner etc. or the state – the detailed audit that was commissioned by Yvette Cooper (who incidentally would have had a much better chance of winning the Labour leadership than Ed Balls) showing how women are set to face three-quarters of the cuts “with more than 70 per cent of the revenue raised from direct tax and benefit changes to come from female tax payers” is disastrous when it comes to striving for equality and fairness. Consider this, for example:

“Of nearly £8bn net revenue to be raised by the financial year 2014-15, nearly £6bn will come from women and just over £2bn from men.”

A specific budget policy worth highlighting when considering these figures is the inability of the rise in income tax threshold to help women out of poverty. As women are less likely to pay income tax, they are not likely to be as helped by this change – and will actually be even worse off when taking into account that the income threshold rise will be paid largely from cutting the public sector – which women predominately work in – 65% –  (in part-time work mainly, I may add).

Consider also the recent comments by Frank Field, who is all but in name a Tory, (after recent Twitter discussions, there are many of us who just try to pretend he isn’t real) who is very much toeing the traditional conservative line that women are the ‘natural’ carers and should stay at home and look after the child whilst the man goes to work and fulfils his ‘natural’ breadwinner role. It is utter rubbish, and is proudly something the feminist movement has helped overturn. The economic dependence that is promoted through these damaging traditional attitudes only seek to make women’s poverty experiences more likely.

The ‘Big Society’ also has to be factored in here. This is something I have commented on before, as the promotion of the private sector, charity and voluntary services all seeks to undermines women’s paid work. Women are less likely to work and be employed in the private sector, whereas they are more likely to work in the thrid sector – which is often unpaid. Added on top of this, is often house duties which women are unfairly pressured into thinking is their ‘natural’ obligation to fulfil, and this only seeks to make them dependent on the state and their partners etc.

So for many women who have basically had no choice but to rely on the state for benefits because of the still prevailing corrosive attitude towards women, the ideological disposition of this current government to cut and shrink the state is only going to make their situation 10x worse.

In summation, it is only more damning evidence that falsifies any credible claim that this budget is somehow a beacon of progressive policy and direction.

On August 1, 2001 I became a statistic.  I was officially homeless. My daughter was thrown in a truck, I was beaten and left there to figure it out.  I owned nothing except a suitcase fiilled with photographs of  my daughter, as many of her clothes as I could pack, two pairs of underwear and a T shirt for myself.  I felt I could survive with just the clothes on my back and actually, I didn’t really care, I was just too traumatized and absorbed in the search for my child as well as the monumental task of staying alive.  I will admit to being exceptionally grateful to be out of the filthy rat infested shack my daughter and I had been forced to live in for five years of our lives.  I would be sleeping in a house with a roof overhead that wasn’t full of holes and that in itself was a marvel.  I didn’t expect my child and I to get out of there alive and my ability to write about all things related to this period in time is miraculous indeed.

I have to fight each and every day to focus and concentrate because the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder that clings to me like a hungry alligator is a constant companion and foe that challenges my every attempt to function and write.  So far, I’ve endured.  At the time of these events in my life, I lived in a state of urgency and the present, with no thought of tomorrow being a viable truth.  When the shelter system spit me out with the rest of the women and children who’d used up their sixty days, I had no idea what to do but my survival instincts kicked into high gear pretty damn quick. Living on the street is not something anyone can write with cogency, unless they’ve spent time in that particular gutter, isolated and desperate.

One reason I wanted to write this post, is that in my travels around the internet, I’ve come across two separate items about homelessness.  Each one was written by people who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about and it is insulting to those who do.   One is about exploiting the poor for money under the guise of helping them overcome their plight and it is a scam and utter bullshit.  The other is written as observational poetry by someone who’s work is mediocre at best and ridiculous at the worst.  This particular poem was bending down the ridiculous end like spaghetti until it snaps.   I had an enormous “How dare you!” moment, I admit it and after reading this crap, I sat and cried.  Yep, I did. I sobbed a tissue soaker,  because here I am, with a million stories to tell, stories about real people with the authenticity that comes from suffering  and guess what?  No one wants them.   I won’t delve into my submission history, but it appears,  if I write fluff for print magazines and take a few cutesy photos,  an editor will lap it up like a cat does cream.  However, if I produce something real and valuable,  with my heart bleeding on every word, they won’t even give me a glance.  I’ve been having some serious doubts recently about whether I should continue with what appears to become a fruitless endeavor that is completely related to the corruption and politics that is inherent in the publishing industry.  I want to be proven wrong about this, to be given the opportunity to give someone a memoir that would make us all a lot of money, but no takers.  I clearly don’t know the right person/people, or possess the degree necessary to make me palatable to those who can give my words to the world.

As it stands, I have two books in various stages of development and a third is completed, although I’m tweaking it and polishing it, (thank you Bryan, your input was very important to me and priceless.) It will be ready to submit this week and I’m facing the prospect of  that inevitable editorial boot in the face, with such despair and trepidation it is crushing my soul.   I’ve survived so much and I made a promise to some very broken people, to write this book and sell it.  I’ve written it, but the selling it isn’t up to me and once again, just like those days spent in hell, living on the streets of Bellingham  Washington, I am at someone else’s mercy.  It isn’t a good place to be because in my experience, there isn’t a surplus of mercy among the rich and powerful.  Wish me luck, I’m going to need it over the next little while and if there happens to be, by some quirk of fate, an editor or agent cruising by this blog, I have this to say to you:  I have a best seller in my hands, it’s entitled, The glass Tulips.  please, email me and request partials, full, a proposal, whatever, just ask for it and it’s yours. Of course, I won’t hold my breath because this glass is not only half empty, it’s been drained.

Okay, off to do the usual grind,  be good to yourselves and have a  Happy and safe July 4th to everyone south of the border.

Last week, I had the opportunity to participate in a really interesting webinar about Emergency Contraception with Dr. James Trussell, a leading researcher in contraceptive efficacy and contraceptive methods. The webinar was focused on updates on research about emergency contraception and some of its reasons for failure, as well as information about the newest EC option, Ella, which was recently approved by an advisory committee to the FDA. Much of the information presented related to the participants of the studies that were done to calculate the effectiveness of EC.

One of the most interesting aspects of the presentation was actually the question and answer period at the end of the presentation.  The main audience of this webinar turned out to be health care providers and medical professionals who counseled women about emergency contraception options across the country and even Canada. The questions that they asked Dr. Trussell reminded me that there are so many unique situations that people can find themselves in. Some expressed concern about their patient’s ability to access medication that is not available over-the-counter in rural areas, being able to afford emergency contraception without insurance, and whether using emergency contraception could interfere with breast-feeding. It was great to hear so many people who would be able to provide them with accurate information in a non-judgmental setting.  Since the announcement of the FDA’s consideration of Ella, the amount of misinformation represented on blogs, websites and news reports reminds me how important it is to have accurate, fact-based information from professionals readily available. It hopeful to know that many of the people giving advice and counsel to young women have taken the time to educate themselves on the facts of emergency contraception from one of the leading experts in the field.

Jeryl Hayes

(Description and transcript, to the best of my beginner’s ability, below the fold — additions and/or amendments appreciated!)

Friends, I’d like you to meet the East Bay Meditation Center, one of the dopest sanghas (dhammic spiritual communities) I have ever had the good fortune to encounter. For the month of June I’m the open/close volunteer for the Thursday night People of Color sit (terminology that, as Chally and others have pointed out, may be useful in this context but not in all! :). So tonight I’ll be setting up the chairs and cushions, the tea (so many kinds of tea — yummm), the sound system, arranging the chairs and cushions, lighting some candles…and then breaking everything down at the end of the night. I’m technically the bottom-liner but there are always other sweetheart regulars who are eager to help out, make the work go faster.

The video pretty much speaks for its own rad self, but basically this tremendously awesome organization, kind of little-cousin to the more famous Spirit Rock Meditation Center in Marin, is rooted in values of diversity and justice. They have been so inspirational for me, not only by offering a space for me to maintain and strengthen my meditation practice, but in presenting that practice in a language I understand and care about. Back in March, I got an email from the listserv advertising a “Beyond Buddhist Patriarchy” 1-day workshop:

Alternating periods of silent meditation with facilitated discussion, we’ll explore what forms of spiritual practice, and both lay and monastic community structures, may arise as we collectively go beyond internal and external patriarchal structures.

Can I tell you how happy it made me to hear that in a spiritual context? Really happy.

I know that not everybody agrees on the utility of POC-only or LGBTQQI-only spaces (of note: only 2 out of 7 days a week at EBMC are caucused in this way), but I for one am a big fan. I am also a big fan of dana (“DAH-nah,” generosity) -based micro-economies, both on a spiritual level (cultivating generosity: helpful) and on a political level (more aligned with the socialist framework, “to each according to need; from each according to ability”).

Also important and encouraging is the attitude of EBMC sponsors who come from more privileged sanghas. Instead of focusing exclusively on ‘integrating’ or ‘diversifying’ their own populations, groups like Spirit Rock that are largely white, older, and wealthy are also offering some material and financial solidarity to self-led communities like EBMC. Key! So key.

If you’ve got a dollar to spare and would like to support our work, it would be especially appreciated now, as we’re trying to afford a bigger space so we can have childcare! Hell yes. And if you live in the Bay Area and have never been, come check it out!

Description of The East Bay Meditation Center Video

Text and graphics from East Bay Meditation Center (EBMC) website. A Buddhist statue. Text: “Carrying the Lamp of Love”; East Bay Meditation Center; Copyright © 2010; All rights reserved.

Fade to: Colorful Buddha bust with a rainbow banner. Text: DHARMA: Teaching of the Buddha and others leading to Spiritual Liberation.

Text: SANGHA: A Spiritual Community practicing these Teachings

Text: DANA: The Practice of Generous Giving to support Dharma and Sangha

Fade to: a forest stream

Voice #1: It’s like a dream. It’s like a vision of something in the process of being fulfilled.

Fade to: a candle

Voice #2: Everyone is welcome to bring all of who they are into that spiritual space.

Fade to: an altar with statued, framed pictures, flowers, and candles, flanked by potted plants and Japanese folding screens

Fade to: Outdoor street shot of center, blue awning and Tibetan prayer flags visible through the streetfacing windows. People walking by.

Voice #3: A refuge for all people looking…

Traffic shots

Voice #4: What’s really special about EBMC is the friendliness of the community. People say that all the time.

People walking into the center, greeting each other. (I’m the one with the orange scarf on my head! ;-)

Stills of people with eyes closed

Street/foot traffic shot

Folks, most POC, entering the door, removing their shoes, and signing in at a small front table staffed by a greeter

Stills of people sitting in meditation posture and doing yoga. Various races, ethnicities, sizes, some with facial piercings, dredlocks…

Alice Walker sits in a palmy outdoor setting next to a rock sculpture with a sun hat on top. Music plays in the background throughout the film. Text: Alice Walker, Poet: Hard Times Require Furious Dancing

Alice Walker: I think the most profoundly changing practice that anyone could have is a practice of meditation. And a practice of meditation that involves other people, a practice of meditation that is urban, because so many people in urban places feel a special stress.

Stills and shots of people entering and sitting in EBMC, people walking on the streets in downtown Oakland

Indoors — Larry Yang, Core Teacher, Leadership Sangha member: East Bay Meditation Center is a meditation center that was created to create full access to as many diverse communities as possible with the principles of full economic accessibility and social justice.

Outdoors, in a field with tall grasses, next to a small stone Buddha statue — Dr. Marlene Jones, EBMC Community Teacher: Compared to other places there’s a sense of strong community there.

EBMC from street, fade to Larry Yang next to a potted palm, orchid, and bowl-shaped bell: So the mission of EBMC is to celebrate our diversity and to be as inclusive as possible, which means going out into the communities and asking, What makes a spiritual home for you?

Spring Washam, EBMC Core Teacher, Leadership Sangha member Indoors next to a bookshelf, Buddha statue, potted plants, and candle: Many people were really interested in issues of diversity and class, gender, and we didn’t feel like those issues were being addressed at some of the bigger centers.

Larry Yang: I think it was [Jesse Jackson, Jr?] that made the comment that Sunday mornings are one of the most segregated spaces in North America.

Member #1: I feel safe there. So that’s an important aspect of being able to really practice, really hear what’s being said to me in the dharma.

Stone statue of seated Buddha

Larry Yang: We got a beautiful Buddhist statue for the altar. Before the statue was installed, we had hung a rainbow banner (shown) on the wall behind it because it was really important to be inclusive of communities that don’t ordinarily feel included from the onset

Dr. Marlene Jones: It wasn’t until a location was found with the sincere hearts of those that started this center, who are coming from a heart place, who love the dharma, who love the community, that this became possible.

Indoors, in front of the alter, Charlie Johnson, EBMC Core Teacher, Leadership Sangha member: Really we wanted to be located in downtown Oakland.

Downtown Oakland traffic

Charlie Johnson: We’re doing our best to reduce the suffering in the world.

Run-down or poor parts of Oakland, corner store

Charlie Johnson: We’re trying to get the word out to everyone, especially the diverse population of the Bay Area.

Outdoors, near a glen and forest path, Jack Kornfield, Buddhist Teacher, Co-Founder Spirit Rock Meditation Center: The fact that EBMC is located in Oakland has allowed it to become one of the most diverse sanghas or communities of spirit that I’ve ever seen in the entire Buddhist world.

Spring Washam: Traffic’s going by, and it’s almost to me as if it’s, as if it’s still nature. It’s life unfolding. And so we use that, we use the location to look at ourself.

Dr. Marlene Jones: The East Bay Meditation Center operates on a dana basis only!

Charlie Johnson: We didn’t want a center that people had to pay to come to. Many of the people that we are trying to reach frankly just can’t afford it!

Spring Washam: We serve a community that is struggling. You know, not everyone has a job. Not everyone’s able, not everyone can give. But those who can, do.

Member #2: To me it’s extraordinary that there’s like so much spirituality in the Bay Area, but a lot of it is offered at a price, where, if you can’t afford, you almost can’t access, you know, increasing your own mental health, physical health, spiritual health, because you can’t afford the price tag at the door. So EBMC’s really, you know, broken down barriers as far as giving me access and also a lot of people that I know that would not have been able to afford to benefit.

Indoors, on a floral-print couch with a printed cloth behind, Mushim Ikeda-Nash, EBMC Core Teacher, Leadership Sangha member: Dana is an ancient Buddhist word that means the practice of generous giving.

Larry Yang: It is radical because it is not an economy of, of exchange. It’s an economy of gift. And so to bring the economy of gift into a market economy is going upstream.

People putting cash donations into vessels marked “Dana.”

Spring Washam: Anybody could just walk in the door, you know, completely accessible.

Outdoors, on a patio, Anushka Fernandopulle, Community Teacher There’s a beautiful sangha there. And there’s many different sanghas, I would say, of people who, I think because of the spirit in which it’s given, the teachings are given there, and the way it’s run, it feels like the community of people in the sangha have more ownership of it than in many other centers, I think.

Member #3: I even moved up to Oakland from San Francisco because this community was so important to me.

Mushim Ikeda-Nash: Our foundation groups have been a meditation group for people of color, and a meditation group for members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and questioning communities.

Member #4: Without the center I haven’t had a home for deepening into meditation practice. And as a transgendered and queer person, it’s important to have that safe space to feel comfortable going deeper, without feeling misunderstood or invisible.

Outdoors, sitting in a field of yellow flowers, Faith Adiele, Author, Speaker, Teacher: I recently became the new coordinator for the People of Color sangha, the Thursday night sits. And I did it because I just moved to the Bay Area, and I was amazed that something like this existed.

Member #5: I call it the peace movement in Oakland.

String of flags saying “peace” in different languages inside the EBMC door

Member #5: When I go there, that expansion is happening, and when I leave there I feel larger, I feel my heart has expanded, my mind has expanded. One of the fertile, potent seeds is always being planted at EBMC.

Stills of people sitting and meditating. Calligraphy print that reads, “Meditating.”

Spring Washam’s voice: You know, meditation is about connecting to what’s true. It’s about connecting to your truth, your true self. It’s really transformational.

Mushim Ikeda-Nash: For three years we’ve been building our programming level and at the current time, we have weekly groups meeting Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday evenings, we have class series on Monday and Tuesday evenings, and we very often have at least one, if not two, day retreats on Saturday, and/or Sunday.

Yoga teacher conducting a class in EBMC, students of various colors and sizes participating.

Mushim Ikeda-Nash: So the center is being used a lot.

Folks setting up chairs, cushions, and candles for an evening sit

Larry Yang: I think that we have over 150 volunteers, who are very precious to us.

Faith Adiele: Every week there are new people that are coming who have, like, never meditated, or didn’t know about the center, and they kind of come in, [Mimes with eyes wide, looking around], they’re like, Is this the place where folks of color are? You know, Do I have to have a paper and pencil? You know, it’s so cute, someone has told them, “You have to go!”

Larry Yang: It’s amazing how positive the feedback is, considering how young an organization we are.

Spring Washam: Our classes are really popular right now, they’re so popular that I would say 50% to 60% of whatever we do has a wait list now.

Charlie Johnson: We have become so successful over the last three years that we’re kind of bulging at the seams.

People sitting in EBMC, shot of a buddha statue and green plants

Spring Washam: The next step for EBMC is a really, um, as I mentioned, a state-of-the-art meditation center. We would *love* to have a beautiful space that fits a couple hundred people.

Mushim Ikeda-Nash: Where people can go outside into a protected courtyard area to do walking meditation…We need a family room where there can be a child-safe space.

Dr. Marlene Jones: It’s too small. And who knew?! Who knew it was gonna get so small, so fast?

Spring Washam: The vision of the different space, a new space for EBMC, for me is huge.

Mushim Ikeda-Nash: What East Bay Meditation Center needs in order to grow to meet the needs of our specific communities is financial commitment and support.

Lovely diverse crowd sitting together :)

Spring Washam: The other way that people can give is becoming a monthly donor, and that’s a really important program.

Mushim Ikeda-Nash: Some people might give $15 every month, some might give $100 or more every month.

Sylvia Boorstein, Mindfulness Teacher: When I open my bank statement, I get to see, in between Long’s Drugs, and the grocery shopping that I do, and the dry-cleaner’s that I visit, I get to see Spirit Rock meditation and East Bay Meditation Center, and Insight Meditation Center, in between — sprinkled in between when you read your statement — you’re thinking, oh yeah, oh yeah, I remember that, I wonder if I needed that, oh yeah, Oh look! Look what I did, look what I did, look what I did, look what I did…

Member #6: I started donating to the East Bay Meditation Center, as a Friend of the meditation center, before I ever came in.

Member #7: I do the monthly giving, because I really support what’s going on here, and want people to know about it. It’s just terrific that it’s here, in Oakland.

Green buddha face with rainbow banner

Mushim Ikeda-Nash: I feel that we have met the goals of our original mission in the most exciting way. We’ve been called the most diverse spiritual community on the planet, and I thought about that and I thought, That may not be overreaching, it may actually be true!

Larry Yang: In spite of all of that which we need, I really wanna emphasize all of that which we have. Because EBMC actually has an energy on its own now. And will continue, if people support it.

Member #8, Hey that’s me Kloncke!: The feeling of community, and trust, and shared experience in that room is just palpable.

Member #9: Unlike most, many places in my daily life, I find myself not having to explain who I am here, where I come from…never have to answer that question.

Jack Kornfield: I get asked to do benefits for organizations that are terrific all around the world. EBMC is one organization that is really dear to my heart, because it is a model for the planet, it is an offering that is beautiful, wise, diverse, strong, clear…and I want to do anything I can to support it.

Alice Walker: I think that supporting the East Bay Meditation Center in an urban area, in Oakland, is one of the best things that people can do.

Jack Kornfield: EBMC is a bright light, saying this is how — this is what’s possible. EBMC is showing what’s possible, and I am honored and thrilled to be asked to be a part of it and support it in any way I can.

Charlie Johnson: Come join us. [Adorable smile and chuckle!! :D]

Credits:

A Savannah Films Production
Produced & Directed by Konda Mason
Editor: Beli Sullivan
Graphics: Taku Hazeyama
Associate Producer: Ellie Arielle

Special Thanks: We are grateful to all who have contributed time, expertise, and energy creating the East Bay Meditation Center. ~EBMC Leadership Sangha

Copyright © East Bay Meditation Center

There are no new ideas. There are only new ways of making them felt.

~Audre Lorde

Hey y’all, thank you so much for all the incredibly thoughtful comments on my first two posts. (For those just now hopping on board, they are here and here — the first one, which has my comment guidelines, might be especially helpful to read.)

Today I thought I’d share a post from my own blog (Kloncke! rhymes with honk, wonk, and badonkadonk) that speaks to similar themes (harm v. suffering; being open to situations v. putting yourself in danger) and might help illustrate some of the principles. In general I tend to write more about how dhamma might be useful for feminism (mainly because that’s what I’m working through for myself these days), but this one is a bit more about how a feminist lens can help make dhammic teachings more relevant. (And we’re not talking Add-Women-And-Stir.)

I promise I’m not always so serious! :) In fact, the vast majority of the work on my own blog has quite a different vibe, based on my own theories of mindful blogging as spiritual praxis. More on that later. For now, goodnight — looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this one!

—————
—————

I’ll be the first to admit it, folks: non-resistance, one of the core elements of Buddhist or dhammic praxis, seems like a sham. On its face, non-resistance sounds like one or a combination of (a) weakness: a sort of rationalized fear of fighting back; (b) delusion: playing Mary Sunshine and pretending that there’s nothing to resist; or (c) apathy: leaving it to fate or karma or whatever to sort everything out.

With a slightly more nuanced view of non-resistance, we realize that it doesn’t so much refer to external conflict or confrontation, but has more to do with our internal states, as a tool for reducing suffering. A British professor, a guest speaker I heard at the Cambridge Insight Meditation Center back in September, cited as an example the moment you open a delicious-looking box of chocolates, only to find that they’ve all been eaten up — except the coconut ones, which you hate. The more we resist reality (by fantasizing about the missing chocolates; resenting the scoundrels who devoured them), the greater our suffering will become.

Ok, understandable, but something still feels off. It was at that moment, when he pulled out the bonbon anecdote, that the thought occurred to me: This white guy has no idea of the weight of the words he’s using.

Resistance. Struggle.

These words carry a lot of meaning for a lot of people. How could he use them so blithely, so unawares?

Now, it wasn’t just a matter of the professor: his explanation, language and vocabulary were also tied to the audience he was addressing: largely wealthy, white, overeducated, and middle-aged. But there was also a larger context: the neighborhood in which this dharma talk was taking place. Area 4, poor and gentrifying, a long under-resourced and heavily policed area, with lots of homeless and near-homeless people of color.

When talking about non-resistance, how often do we hear examples of irritation like sitting in traffic? Not getting a bonus or promotion at your firm? Undergoing chemotherapy?

In my experience, A Lot.

And how often do we hear examples of police profiling and brutality? Eviction? Domestic abuse? Racist education? Colonization? War?

It’s a shame that so many dharma talks by convert Americans in the U.S., from what I’ve seen and read, are couched in terms of a white ruling-class (and often straight, male, cisgendered, non-disabled) experience. Some may include the “social justice question” as an afterthought, or as a response in a Q & A, but rarely do dharmic explanations center around the people who must resist routinized oppression in order to survive. Talks ignore these realities. And that ignorance, willful or not, can raise a lot of skepticism about the dharma. Earlier in 2009, brownfemipower approached this same question from a different angle: the notion of submission, and whether it can ever be relevant to people who don’t really have a choice.

Fortunately, though, the way I see it, when we get to the deep meaning of non-resistance, we understand that it is totally compatible with political and social struggle. Lately I’ve run across a few explications that speak to confronting violence or abuse.

Some psychologists, among them Tara Brach and Marsha Linehan, talk about radical acceptance—radical meaning “root”—to emphasize our deep, innate capacity to embrace both negative and positive emotions. Acceptance in this context does not mean tolerating or condoning abusive behavior. Rather, acceptance often means fully acknowledging just how much pain we may be feeling at a given moment, which inevitably leads to greater empowerment and creative change.

- Christopher K. Germer from “Getting Along” (Tricycle, Spring 2006)

Non-resistance means looking at the totality of a given situation: not denying any aspect or focusing too narrowly on one area. And not getting lost in our own imagination, our own reactions, or our own desires to appear strong, calm, courageous, or unperturbed. In a conversation with Pema Chödrön, Alice Walker makes a similar point about the importance of acknowledging and accepting pain when somebody tells us to “go to the back of the bus”:

The cause of someone’s aggression is their own suffering. So we can connect with our own aggression and provocation, feel that, and exude good wishes for ourselves and others.

Let’s be clear: exuding good wishes for ourselves and others doesn’t rule out strong action. Even physical, militant action. In his essay “Loving the Enemy” (2002), Jeffrey Hopkins writes,

If your own best friend went mad and came at you with a knife to kill you, what would you do? You would seek to disarm your friend, but then you would not proceed to beat the person, would you? You would disarm the attacker in whatever way you could—you might even have to hit the person in order to disarm him, but once you have managed to disarm him, you would not go on to hurt him. Why? Because he is close to you.

If you felt that everyone in the whole universe was in the same relationship to you as your very best friend, and if you saw anyone who attacked you as your best friend gone mad, you would not respond with hatred. You would respond with behavior that was appropriate, but you would not be seeking to retaliate and harm the person out of hatred. He would be too dear to you.

We’re not talking docility here. What makes non-resistance so great and useful is that it’s not a prescription for action or non-action, but rather an aid to clear-sightedness that we can apply to any given situation. It says: look at the reality in front of you. Much as we might want to deny that our friend is brandishing a knife, he is, and that needs addressing. Much as we might want to concoct some story of betrayal — that our friend has now become our enemy — in truth he’s only our enemy if we make him so. Otherwise, he’s only sick, changed from what he was before.

As my teacher Goenkaji says, Accept each moment as it is — not as you would like it to be, but as it is.

And when the moment comes to resist, you’ll resist.

There are talks that the budget tomorrow may include a proposal that involves freezing benefits, something which will be highly regressive when taking into account the worries that inflation will increase and therefore the benefit freeze will turn into a benefit cut. Right wingers are highlighting what they see as a ‘economic benefit’ of such a freeze. For example, The Telegraph cite the following figures:

“According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, freezing all benefits would save £4.1bn a year. Freezing benefits for an entire parliament would generate savings of £24.6bn by the fifth year, or 1.5pc of national income.”

This would be a disastrous move, and would be miles away from the progressive ‘aims’ of the coalition. Consider the 2005 General Household Survey, which provided a very stong link between poverty experienced and the benefits claimed by the heads of households. For example, 93.1% of Job Seekers Allowance heads of households claimants experienced poverty, and 75.2% heads of households did when claiming Income Support. This shows how damaging the cuts would be, as it would only see an increased level of inequality as the poorest become poorer.

This links to an interesting blog by Left Foot Forward that addresses how the coalition has failed and is failing to meet progressive values/bench marks. When considering progressive aims, if the benefit freeze does take place this would only further undermine government ‘attempts’ to make society fairer.

Take health inequality. Benefit levels being effectively cut would result in an increase in poverty and would make it harder for many people to eat properly, for example. The desire to abolish child poverty by 2020, well that will be further undermined if this came in place – as we would see families become poorer – and this will be compounded by increases in VAT, tax credit cuts and child benefits cuts. Income inequality has remained steady throughout the past decade after experiencing a sudden increase in the 1980s, the benefit cuts will only seek to increase income inequality and make it harder to reduce the income distribution in society.

Overall, cutting benefits would be extremely regressive. Instead, benefits need to see an increase alongside the introduction of a living wage. But seeing as the government only intend to increase minimum wage by a few pence, there is no sign that they would introduce such progressive measures.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has reported that Blair and Brown ‘mitigated’ income inequality. This undermines one of the Tories’ central campaign themes, which focused on how income inequality has increased dramatically under Blair/Brown. Whilst it has hardly been reduced, the Institute claims that without the changes to the tax and benefit system, income inequality would have risen dramatically.

The ONS provides interesting figures on income inequality:

“There were substantial changes to the UK income distribution in the period between 1977 and 1991, while in contrast, 1992 to 2006/07 was a period of relative stability…During the 1980s, there was an increase in income inequality caused by greater inequality in the distribution of income from wages and salaries…In comparison, the changes which took place between 1992 and 2006/07 were much smaller…Income inequality narrowed slightly in the early 1990s, widening again in the late 1990s. It narrowed again between 2001/02 and 2004/05, only to widen once more between 2004/05 and 2006/07.”

Briefly put, it was the Tories and Thatcher that created the immense income inequality that still exists, and that there has been no real reduction of these inequalities.

What all this shows is that we have to be really wary of where this current government takes us in terms of tax and benefit reform. I have already commented on the regressive nature of the compromised change to the income tax threshold, but to repeat what I said, there is a quote from a previous blog below:

“This LibDem tax policy had been attractive before the election, however, it was far from redistributive in the true sense of the word, with those on higher incomes benefiting more. However, it will now be funded primarily through public spending cuts as the policies LibDems intended to fund it with(e.g mansion tax) have been dropped.”

There are other aspects of the government’s tax policies that are worrying, such as making child tax credits means tested, as well as a very likely regressive VAT increase (I know what I would rather have if it came to VAT or NI increase!). But attention should be paid to the benefit situation. For example, Left Foot Forward remark on the problems that making child benefits means tested would cause, interestingly referring to how 73% of children are within the bottom three fifths of the income distribution and thus most people who claim the benefit need it anyway. Means tested benefits just create am unnecessary stigma, and interestingly as the article points out, will actually cost money due to administration costs cancelling out any possible ‘savings’.

There are clear concerns over Iain Duncan Smith’s Dynamic Benefit proposals, especially by disability activists (see here for example). This would involve

“The replacement of 51 separate working age benefits with just two:

• Universal Work Credit would replace out of work benefits (JSA, IB, ESA, and IS), and would require participation in welfare to work programmes in order to ‘earn’ it
• Universal Life Credit would replace more general support benefits (HB, CTB, DLA, WTC, and CTC).”

Many have raised concerns over the practicality of the proposal and how specific needs will be ignored in an attempt to meet an ideological agenda to get everyone to work and fit into the ‘ideal’ capitalist machine. This is obviously going to result in people such as disabled people, being forced into work. Policies such as these will actual threaten a rise in income inequality, not a mitigation.

What is needed is a living wage, where wages are calculated to ensure people are not living just above or under a level of subsistence. Furthermore, there needs to be an increase in benefits, but not to the same level as the living wage so that there is still an incentive to work. This would reduce poverty within society, and ways to pay for this include introducing a maximum wage – this would actually help reduce the income inequalities, instead of just letting them carry on at a stable and damaging rate.

We will have to wait and see whether the government’s policies increase income inequality. My bet is they will.

Just a few quick links for you today, and a little Tina Fey video treat at the bottom. Have a great weekend, ya’ll!

Poverty & The Pill: The Impact on Developing Countries – New York Times
< ahref="http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&vps=1&jsv=239b&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=117408617889200578854.000486927aa0069856535" target="_blank">Put Yourself on the Feminist Map
Outcry Over Abortion is About Power, Not Saving Fetuses – The Guardian