This method of understanding different frameworks was from La'Tasha Mayes of New Voices Pittsburgh: Women of Color for Reproductive Choice, also here on Facebook.  She presented to our congregation at the most recent Sunday morning forum, and opened us up!


Since the picture I took is a little fuzzy, here are the contents of the chart:

	FRAMEWORKS
	Reproductive Rights	Reproductive Health	Reproductive Justice
Mode of Delivery	Legal Systems	Healthcare Delivery	Movement-Building
Issues	Abortion; Contraception; Informed Consent; Privacy	Access to full range of reproductive health services; low/no-cost, and culturally-competent care; comprehensive sex education; contraception; pre-natal/pregnancy care; abortion services; cancer prevention; health insurance	RR + RH + Human Rights; systemic oppression; self-help; intersectionality
Key Players	Lawyers, judges, policymakers, elected officials, advocacy groups	Healthcare providers, medical professionals, community and public health educators, researchers	Community organizers, Women of Color, marginalized groups, social justice organizations, Allies

From a quick review of this chart, I think many of the terms ought to be fairly clear with a little reflection or conversation with others.  However, a few that I think could require a little learning curve (for someone like myself) may include:


Human Rights: UN Universal Declaration.  Pittsburgh Human Rights Network.


Movement-Building: The Gamaliel network is one example.  The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is another.  There is more than one way to build power, and a good start is leaders who are themselves organized, and can organize masses of people, masses of money, or both.


Systemic Oppression:  Here's a static definition from pcc.edu:

Institutional Oppression is the systematic mistreatment of people within a social identity group, supported and enforced by the society and its institutions, solely based on the person’s membership in the social identity group. 

Institutional Oppression occurs when established laws, customs, and practices systematically reflect and produce inequities based on one’s membership in targeted social identity groups. If oppressive consequences accrue to institutional laws, customs, or practices, the institution is oppressive whether or not the individuals maintaining those practices have oppressive intentions. 

Institutional Oppression creates a system of invisible barriers limiting people based on their membership in unfavored social identity groups. The barriers are only invisible to those “seemingly” unaffected by it. 

The practice of institutionalized oppression is based on the belief in inherent superiority or inferiority. Institutionalized oppression is a matter of result regardless of intent.  

And here's a dynamic definition of systemic oppression.


Self-Help: 

Central to several key women of color organizations has been the self-help model. Using a process of dialogue and active listening as a way of demystifying the health problems communities faced, the self-help model assumes that collectively participants can thread through the difficult problems — including racism, poverty, low self-esteem and stress — and use their intelligence to find meaningful solutions.  This approach is central to sparking self- healing as well as social action.

Intersectionality: My understanding of this is that pretty much every one of us fits into some categories of privilege and some categories of oppression.  Sometimes, the intersection can be seen as a multiplier (as in being female and a person of color), and sometimes a mitigator (as in being female and white, or female and able-bodied, etc.  Noting the link just above from the WWHATSUP training on white supremacy, "arguing hierarchies of oppressions is not helpful."

And here again, Tumblr is a great resource for providing a conversation on a crowd-sourced definition.


Allies: My understanding of an ally is somebody who is outside of an oppressed social identity group, and who stands with others who are bearing the brunt of that oppression -- because often people in privileged categories are more likely to hear folks from their same categories, rather than writing somebody "different" off as "just acting on their own self-interest."  This can be in the form of a group of men who speak up for women or third-gender folks.  This can be a white person who marches with people of color.  This can be an able-bodied person, or a cisgender person, or a heterosexual person, or anybody who could be identified as outside of certain oppressed social groups, who is there to work together with people within those groups, and use their voice as an amplifier.  Note with intersectionality, it is possible for ally-ship to be multi-directional or reciprocal, so working together helps us all.

It's important to note that speaking up for somebody is NOT the same as speaking FOR somebody.  It's pretty much always best to speak from one's own experience, and be clear about when you're speaking from your understanding of another's experience.  In other words, it's important to work on self-differentiation.  And note that being an ally is most effective when it's in collaboration and conversation, on common ground, in community and accountability, with people you are allying with.

And finally, an ally is somebody who comprehends deep-down that the privilege they've been (arbitrarily) afforded is less valuable than the right-relationship of common ground, and willing to do the hard work of dismantling the privilege/oppression paradigms, thereby turning that which each of us inherently *deserves* into RIGHTS.



Back to the importance of the presentation itself, and what I see as a clear call to work for the larger vision of holistic justice: I believe that when women and girls of color (all colors actually -- from 2B1505 to F5F1E9 to 4D7BD1) achieve/receive/perceive equity and justice, we will ALL be free in an age where we each can be our authentic selves.  ALL justice is connected, and the human rights (or lack thereof) in this area is a clear indicator of the condition of justice at present.


pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel

Labels: 1st UU principle, 2nd UU principle, anti-oppression, classism, Community, education, equal rights, oppression, sexuality, universal health care, women, Women's Rights

# posted by Rev J D @ 07:43 0 comments

I found this in the American Journal of Theology and Philosophy (Vol. 3 no.1)

It's from Henry Nelson Wieman's book Creative Freedom: The Vocation of Liberal Religion


Comments from thread on FB:

• 
  C: Shut up, watch your TeeVee Showz, and leave the rest to the "Big Boys" you stupid gits. Words cannot express how degrading, demeaning, and down-right maddening that attitude is.
  This defines the problem very well, as well as the arrogance that has brought us to where we are.

  10:55am (3 hours ago) · 
• 

  This piece, written in 1982 [edit: oops, published in journal in 1982], is actually quite accurate for today, if not moreso. 
  
  The statement in the box, I do believe. There is a giant mass of people in the US who are not able to (or choose not to) see the big picture and would not choose to allocate funds toward that which is needed in a complex society, and THAT is why we elect representatives and executives, who should do their jobs with as little corruption as possible when they've chosen to take on that specialized role in our society. Sadly, most of those who've been governing have been neglecting to do so with the common good front-and-center.
  
  Wieman argues that in a democracy, the people tend to argue for their own interests to the degree that for anybody to get into office, they have to kowtow to the voters' ill-informed [see 'media reform'] or myopic localized private demands; and anybody who gets into office (or tries to get in) and attempts to divert the process of governing AWAY from supporting these local interests toward the big things that only government can do is quickly voted out. Somehow military and prisons still receive support, but I imagine that's because they represent private moneyed interests whom the government is no longer able to govern, but rather now acts as a siphon of public funds.
  
  The two solutions he presents are problematic in that I can't see a way to connect the dots between the present situation and attitudes to what is required to get out of this: "1) Demonstrable truth concerning the common good which underlies and sustains the diversity of local and private interests but not identical with any part or whole of them. And 2) a form of religion which leads [people] to trust and commit themselves to the common good sufficiently to allow their government to command resources and concerted action in its service independently of local and private interests. Also this devotion of religious commitment must control the leaders as well as the people and control [men] who exercise the power of authority in high positions of government."
  
  I think he sees "religion" here secularly, in a way similar to my view of it: the way we live our life, rather than the narrow view of all the buildings, rituals. "Religion" being "that which holds us together," and "politics" being "how we choose to be in community with each other."
  
  The big problem I see with #1 is that the framework for talking about the common good needs to be rebuilt, and that won't happen until there are a preponderance of voices doing so in the media. A media revolution would be required. And with #2 the problem I see has to do with the argument that Bo has made (I here paraphrase and add my own extension): Why would you want to support a government with your tax dollars that is doing so much bad with it and NOT putting it to the common good (drones, wall street, military and prison pork projects....)? 
  
  I would rewrite #2 (CAPS are new): a form of religion which leads [people] to trust and commit themselves to the common good sufficiently to allow AND DEMAND THAT their government to command resources and concerted action in its service independently of local and private interests. Also this devotion of religious commitment must control the leaders as well as the people and control [men] who exercise the power of authority in high positions of government." IOW we have to develop the willpower to REALLY inculcate ourselves and our future generations about the importance of the common good. I don't have any idea how many people would agree with that philosophy, or would be willing to offer up that much of their energy toward that even if we did have a really accountable government. Anarchy (aside from the "if men were angels, no government would be needed" mantra) would suck. Totalitarian dictatorship would suck. Democracy IMHO, done right, would suck less.

  12:38pm (about an hour ago) · 
• 
  

  C: Military and Prisons also receive money because they are directly associated with Fear and a hypothetical lessening of fear by penalizing "bad people". Sadly the really bad people aren't always the ones incarcerated.

  12:41pm (about an hour ago) · 
• 

   I wonder just where are these really bad people hiding out?
  
  Wieman may provide an answer to this: "In all ages and among almost all peoples excepting recent Western society, a few persons had privileges traditionally established which the masses did not have. They had leisure, did no manual work, could wear ostentatious clothing permitted to no others and develop manners and qualities of mind which set them apart from the common people... which made everyone view these privileged few as a different kind of being from the rest of humanity."

  12:46pm (about an hour ago) · 
• 
  

  C: Yes, and history shows that many of these were not good people. We have the same today in the "privileged classes" of the 1%.

Labels: 5th UU principle, 6th UU principle, education, government, media, oppression, organized religion, our mission, theology, USA

# posted by Rev J D @ 07:39 0 comments

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

• The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
• The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
• The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
• The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
• The right of every family to a decent home;
• The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
• The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
• The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

Labels: anti-oppression, classism, economics, education, equal rights, freedom versus freedom, homelessness, personal bookmarks, politics, sacred texts, theological sources, universal health care, USA

# posted by Rev J D @ 00:52 0 comments

Labels: education, personal bookmarks, politics

# posted by Rev J D @ 23:42 0 comments

"The problem is that in order to have a region of spacetime moving in relation to the outside universe, space has to expand behind it and contract in front, which demands negative and positive gravity in those regions. You need a large negative mass held in place in front of you, and a large positive mass behind." [Joel adds: All you have to do is carry around your own quasar and black hole, and you're set. But put the black hole at the front, and try and scale it back a bit so it doesn't actually tear a hole.]

Labels: astrophysics, education, renewable energy, slashdot, technology, USA

# posted by Rev J D @ 01:51 1 comments

Labels: astrophysics, education, personal bookmarks, theological sources

# posted by Rev J D @ 15:39 0 comments