social movements – hippiegrrl explains it all

9 April 20147 November 2014

Riot Grrrl: Better Late Than Never

The 90’s were a time of new music with an undercurrent (and sometimes blatant current) of radical feminism. L7, Sleater-Kinney, Bratmobile, and, the leaders of feminist punk, Bikini Kill. Back then, I listened to the music, but I wasn’t fully in the scene. Living in Niagara Falls and attending school in Buffalo removed me from the angst-ridden, raw intensity of the scene in Portland, DC, and NYC. My life was pretty good and, as such, I didn’t have much to riot about.

I did create a ‘zine, but it was focused more on movie reviews with occasional pieces on homophobia. I was in touch with the sexism, racism, and homophobia of my hometown, but I didn’t quite yet know how to express my rage. Riot Grrrl culture would have saved me, had the internet existed. This, I suppose, is where the disconnect began. In the early 90’s, before the prolific nature of the internet could infect our homes, we had to get our music and cultural news from MTV and the radio. Living in Buffalo afforded me a wealth of great music, coming out of Toronto, Ontario, on CFNY, but not so much a wealth of female voices. I saw stories on MTV news about the Riot Grrrls movement, but that movement never really made it to Buffalo. Sure, we did “Take Back The Night” walks every year at school and we had speakers come in and talk about women’s issues, but we didn’t have anything on the level of Riot Grrrl. There was no Kathleen Hanna to scream for us in Buffalo and Ani Difranco was pale in comparison to that level of rage.

So, my path leads me back to Riot Grrrl. It always, inevitably, does. I may not have had a name for it in the 90’s, but radical feminism has always been a huge part of my existence. I’ve always been outspoken in my defense of women, myself and others, and have tried to convey my utter disgust for the lack of feminist sources in my hometown. The difference though, between Kathleen Hanna and myself, is that I am not as motivated as her. Although we share a birthday, (12 November, along with Neil Young, Grace Kelly, Charles Manson, and Ryan Gosling) she is way more fierce!

She got up on the stage and screamed out the reality of her own life and the lives of others. I could barely write a word about my life until the last few years. She yelled at the audience to bring the ‘girls to the front’. I kept my mouth shut, while growing up, through a lot of patriarchal bullshit. She stuck to her principles in the face of complete and total sexism. I let shit go. She always stayed true to herself and the cause of radical feminism. I let my desire to be liked get in the way of my activism for too long. Not any more! I am revitalized! After watching “The Punk Singer” documentary, I am reenergized and ready to move forward.

Since we moved into the 21st century, the riot grrrl movement seems to have fizzled. There are still pockets of the radical feminist scene, but the overall music and zine culture that was directly connected to riot grrrl has dwindled. My question then is, what happened? Was the scene not sustainable without big figures like Hanna? Was a change in music the death knell for grrrl punk? Or did the boys just retake their places at the top? Why do women need to continuously fight for their places in music?

Feminism is not dead, but the patriarchy wants it to be. The second wave feminists are still pushing ahead, but the ERA is still not ratified. The third wavers have taken the struggle online, but the social media spaces are crawling with misogynists waiting to pounce. Women are baited with articles about career women vs. stay at home moms, shifting our focus from feminist goals. We should be gathering together and fighting for our lives. There are too many attacks, in the United States (not to mention around the world), on our collective rights as women.

The powers that be, which often include other women, wish to take away our right to control our own bodies. They want to take away our agencies and our voices. They want to make us helpless and powerless as a group so they can continue to control us. The patriarchy will never quit fighting so neither should we. We have to push onward. Continue marching! Continue running for office and retaining feminist values while leading! Organizing as if our lives depend on it, because they do! And never believe the media when they say that feminism is dead. It is alive and kicking and we will continue in the riot grrrl path. Never compromise! Never concede! Never go back!

Peace and Happy Patriarchy Smashing!
Chantale

11 November 201315 January 2015

Things I Learned at the Caffe

The scent of coffee lures you in, while the camaraderie you experience from the patrons makes you want to return and, perhaps, become a regular. In all public spaces, there are annoyances to be had, but in the caffe these annoyances become quirks. In this environment, all people are equal, and we co-exist in a space where improvement is inevitable. Here are a few things that I have learned, over the years of hanging out at one particular establishment in the hip area of Buffalo, NY. You know it, right?

The customer is never right
This is adverse to everything we know as customer service employees, and yet, caffe workers can get away with it for some reason. Being rude is an essential part of the job description and you rarely get in trouble for talking down to customers.

If you want to have a private conversation, go somewhere else
If you are looking for a place to discuss important matters and you don’t want the opinions of complete strangers, this is not the place to be. However, it is always possible to get new insight from the regulars. If you need to discuss private matters, this may not be the place, but if you are just discussing the events of the day, where input is welcome, feel free!

Exes can coexist in a space without fighting
There is no ownership of the caffe by any individual customer. If you go there with your significant other and then you break up, you can still go without it being weird or awkward. It is the only small space in the city that you can coexist without there being a fight. Vortex of caffeine ends animosity.

Always bring a book, even if you are not going to read
A book can be a wonderful distraction. This does not mean that you should choose a book you would not be reading in actual life, but you may not actually get through any of it. You may end up reading the same chapter three times and still not comprehend the material, but it can certainly give you a way to ignore that particular person you were hoping not to (but expecting to) see.

When using a computer, the person next to you WILL look at your screen
This is simple logistics. The tables are in very close proximity to each other. Very European. So, if you are thinking you will have privacy, you are mistaken. You can do whatever you like, but just know someone is always watching.

Anyone can be a barista, but not everyone can be a barista
Pulling espresso is an art. It takes patience to learn the correct, Italian, method. This does not mean that that one cannot learn, but not everyone has the capacity to care. Some baristas are rude, but as long as they pull a great shot it makes no difference. No amount of niceness, though, can make a bad shot, better. Therefore, the quality of the beverage trumps the poor attitude. A great shot of espresso can make you forget any snide remark that comes from the other side of the counter.

Culture is created, and revolutionized, in the caffe
History is filled with caffe culture. In the Paris of the 1920’s, art, writing, philosophy, music, sociology, dance, and intellectualism came together in the caffe’s. The great ideas of the 20th century were hashed out over shots of espresso or cups of java. The caffe provides a third space (or place), as discussed by Ray Oldenburg in The Great Good Place. This concept revolves around community building and allows for the idea that most people have a first place (home) and second place (work), which leads to the need for a third place (community space) to gather and socialize.

Prior to the internet (and wi-fi) this third space was somewhere that the majority of individuals went to share ideas and build community. This community building has declined with the advent of small computers/tablets and the ability to be in a crowded room, alone. However, there is still potential for community building, provided by these spaces, and they are invaluable parts of our neighbourhoods. Without caffe’s, there would be nowhere to gather, therefore erasing the ability to share ideas and create new concepts and expand intellectualism. The classroom is a start, but without a social space to open up the discussion, many current day concepts would fall to the wayside.

Life is worthless without time spent at the caffe
This may not be the case for everyone, but it certainly is for me. Even though you could most likely do the same activities at home, for a lot less money, nothing replaces the ability to sit in a crowded room and be alone. The level of inspiration that comes from being in public is irreplaceable. This can certainly be accomplished in other places, but nothing can replace the sights, sounds, and scents of the caffe. If you have not experienced a caffe or caffe-like setting, please do. I think you will like it. If not, at least you will have a little buzz for your effort. Take the caffeine and carry on.

Peace and Java,
Chantale

Agree? Disagree? Something I missed? Comment below to let me know YOUR thoughts!

30 March 20137 November 2014

On Allies and Cataloging Practice

While watching my favourite weekend morning show, the Melissa Harris-Perry show on MSNBC, I was struck by the idea of cataloging practice and how it can be demonstrative of a critical point in social movements. This moment of clarity, however fleeting, made me giddy in knowing that I may have truly found my calling. Finally.

So, to better demonstrate my point: the topic at the top of the show was on “How to be a good ally”, referring to social movements in general, but the marriage equality movement specifically. In order for movements to move, for lack of a better term, there needs to be allies from outside the community. Harris-Perry used Viola Liuzzo as an example of an ally to a movement. Liuzzo, a white woman from Tennessee (by way of California) joined the march in Selma, Alabama, in 1965, and was gunned down for her ally-ship. She was in the midst of driving marchers back from Selma to their far reaching locations, when she was shot. Being an ally is not always a good experience, and sometimes, as demonstrated in this situation, can be deadly, but it is still important and necessary work. It is something that one does because they are moved to, as Liuzzo was, regardless of the consequences. Ally-ship is important work, but movements must reciprocate.

In cataloging, this would be referred to as a cross reference. Without the broader and narrower terms, we cannot find the information we need. Information seekers cannot understand the whole picture of what they are searching for, if the sources are not cross-referenced.

For example; a book is received in circulation that has many topics it deals with. Perhaps it is a Sociology text that deals with social movements. This book would encompass such topics as civil rights, feminist theory, marriage equality, socio-economic status, and race relations. According to Library of Congress subject headings, the cataloger needs to determine the broad purpose of the text and catalog it within that subject heading. So, the book would appear on the shelf in the Sociology section, sub section: Social Movements. But cataloging does not end there. It is merely the beginning. The book deals with more narrow subjects such as civil rights and marriage equality. In order to assist information seekers in finding this book when they are searching for gay marriage, a cross reference needs to exist for this narrower term. In the catalog, when searching gay marriage this text should appear, just as it should appear when searching the broader term of social movements.

This demonstrates the same concept within social justice. If you look at the full social justice movement as rows of stacks, with a network of individuals as the cataloging system, we see how ally reciprocation (cross reference) comes to be of the utmost importance. If one organization assists another in their struggle, but the struggling org does not reciprocate we lose the cross reference. This weakens the network (catalog) and movements lose steam. So, both cross reference, in cataloging, and ally reciprocation, in social movements are not just important, but imperative.

Overall, the understanding that comes out of librarianship and social justice is the need to work together as a community. If there is a crack in the system everyone loses. Social movements are a web of activity that needs to remain intact for the good of all. Without civil rights, there can be no equal rights. Without equal rights for minorities there can be no marriage equality or reproductive rights. Without marriage equality and reproductive rights there can be no healthcare reform. Without health care reform, there can be no workers rights. Without workers rights, there can be no environmental justice. Without environmental justice, there can be no local food movement. You see the point. It is a huge network of active participants that needs to overlap and dovetail and continue to strive toward cohesiveness in all things human. For the overall movement should be, just as Sociology was the broad term for the text in my previous description, Human Rights.

So, let us struggle in solidarity toward this main goal of equality for all, and along the way we can pick each other up, assist in individual goals for each community, and move toward a better world for everyone. We must work together as a community of progressives if we expect the goals of peace and justice can be achieved in our lifetime. The struggle continues, but we don’t have to go it alone. We always have each other.

Peace,
Chantale

26 March 20137 November 2014

What Is A Family?

This week, the supreme court will hear arguments to overturn both the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8. These two pieces of legislation have brought injustice to a segment of the population for many years now and it is time to end the inequality.

A poll that came out this past week showed that in the 20 years since DOMA was signed into law (Bad Clinton. I love you, but c’mon man. What were you thinking with DOMA and DADT?) that public opinion of gay marriage has shifted greatly to the side of being for, not against, it. Just ten years ago, only 37% of the population would say they were for gay marriage, whereas, 53% say they are today. This is a huge stride and one that can make anyone who survived Stonewall proud. These are the days of change. We WILL see it in our lifetime and times are good.

But, there is always an opposition to good sense and that is where the lawyers defending prop 8 come in. The basis for their claim that upholding Prop 8 is the right thing to do comes from a traditional view of marriage. To quote them directly, “The concern is that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic traditional procreative purposes, and it will refocus, refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults, of adult couples” (Charles J. Cooper, lawyer representing the proponents of Prop 8).

This got me thinking about my Sociology of Family class, from a few years back, and the first question we were asked and discussed in depth.

What is a family?

Of course, the first answer that was yelled out, from the back of the room, was two parents and their children. Ah ha! Two parents. Not a mother and a father, but two parents. This is telling. Later, this same person went on to say that he believed two parents were a mother and father, but the first reaction was two parents. This definition, although inclusive of same sex couples, does leave out many other people.

How about single moms or dads and their children? How about same sex or opposite sex couples with no children? Are these not families? Are a woman and man that want to get married, but hold off on having children (possibly never having biological children at all), not a real family? Well, if that is the case, I guess the writer and I will have to hand in our marriage license pronto! By defining family in such narrow terms as two parents and their children, it leaves out legions of others. We all become outsiders in this pursuit of narrowly defined family.

This is why DOMA and Prop 8 must go and that no new bills should be brought to any legislature in any state that try to define marriage as one woman one man. This is too narrow a definition for marriage, which also leads to an even narrower definition of family. So, go go Supreme Court! Do us justice now, so that we don’t continue to slide back into the injustice that was around when the country was formed.

We are supposed to be always looking ahead in America. Leading the world with innovation and equality. Well, we have fallen down on the promise that is a free society and if we don’t pick up the pieces and start making it right we might as well forget about that promise.

After all, this same day in history, 26 March 2013, North Dakota passed the most sweeping restrictions on choice since prior to roe v. wade released us from the burden of laws on our bodies. They are attempting to roll back women’s rights, but hopefully the voters won’t let it stand. Two steps forward and one step back.

We will get there someday, slowly but surely, rights for all living, human beings. And by the way, that means breathing on ones own, not just the potential to do so. Just sayin’.

Peace,
Chantale

links:
Full transcript of Supreme Court Arguments On California Gay Marriage Ban – 26 March 2013
‘It’s Bad For Business’: Employers Side With DOMA Opponents – a reason to actually LIKE Starbucks.

love is love is love.