Nell Geiser

HANNAH MESSKOUB

ncite! Women of Color Against Violence is a national activist organization of radical feminists that works to end violence against women of color and communities of color through grassroots action. Incite! focuses on the intersections of identities and forms of oppression; thus its work addresses violence on a local, national, and global level. Nada Elia is a member of Incite!'s national steering committee. She lives in Seattle, Washington, and is a professor at Antioch University.

Nell Geiser: How does Incite! define violence against women as it identifies it in its name?

Nada Elia: I think that's a key question in so many ways, because clearly we are Incite! Women of Color Against Violence and there's often a miscomprehension around our mission. Violence against women has many manifestations. There is, of course, violence within our own communities as communities of color. There's also [violence] against our communities by the state, that is, violence at the national level. And there also is, on the global level, the fact that the majority of poor and exploited women in the world are women of color. We must understand that poverty and exploitation are aspects of violence.

NG: As a national activist organization of radical feminists of color, how do you see the definition of “radical feminist,” given the history of white radical feminists in the second wave of the U.S. women's movement who identified gender as the central axis of oppression and ignored other issues of racism and classism?

NE: Basically, we don't want those feminists to co-opt the term “feminism.” You know, there is the definition “womanist” [a woman of color activist]. I don't think that we can give the mainstream, as in white-dominated feminists, the right to claim radical feminism for themselves and then have us come up with a different term. If we think that [radical feminist] defines our own vision, then we can use that term ... The root of the word radical is “roots.” When you think of women of color, it is not simply a race issue. We're talking about poor women of color; we're talking about queer women of color; we're talking about women of color with disabilities; we're talking about immigrant women of color. We're talking from the roots, so I think there's no arguing the fact that we are radical feminists.

NG: What is the difference between Incite!'s conception of radical feminism and the work carried out by the mainstream reproductive rights and anti-domestic violence movements?

NE: Reproductive freedom still is, in the mainstream mind, the right to terminate a pregnancy. I fully, absolutely, 100 percent support a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy, but when you are subject to forced sterilization, then your right to terminate a pregnancy becomes in some ways irrelevant. You don't have that option in the first place. Many of the tests being done in reproductive science are done on women of color. We are at the receiving end of a healthcare system that is extremely deficient. So when you have a very limited budget and you go to your healthcare provider and your healthcare provider says, “You have this option, it costs $10, or you have that option, it costs $100,” and you have $10 if you do have any money at all, you go for the cheap option. Well, the cheap option is usually long-term sterilization ... I want a woman's right to abortion. I also want a woman's right to have a child if she wants it, and as women of color, that right is frequently taken away from us.

NG: Some mainstream feminist organizations might say that you can't make a difference or convince people if you have too broad of an agenda. How do you respond to the idea that there should be a narrow focus on one kind of violence against women or one aspect of women's rights?

NE: I think unfortunately it has been the case that mainstream feminism tends to look at things in a binary way. It's either/or. Are you a woman? Or are you a person of color? Well, you know, you can't divide me; I happen to be both ... Progressives, radicals, and feminists have made fun of the president's claim that either you're with us or you're with the enemy [and say], “What kind of binary are you creating? The world is not a binary.” Incite! also realizes that the world is not a binary. There is not a part of me that speaks to you that is the woman speaking to you and another part that is going to come out in two hours that's going to be the person of color. If I don't address my circumstances as both at the same time, then I'm not addressing my circumstances. There are people who say, for example, “I'm color blind. I look at you and I don't see you as a black person, or I don't see you as a black woman.” Well, then you're not seeing me. My focus happens to be a multiplicity. What if I also happened to be an immigrant and queer? If you don't see that in me, you're not seeing me.

NG: How do you see yourselves as different from 1970s radical feminists given that we're operating in the context of corporate globalization and a different kind of global militarism today?

NE: Because of our capacity, our focus remains the U.S. at this point ... but one thing that we deal with is the hyper-militarized world that we live in. We are living in a world that glorifies violence and violence is a transnational phenomenon. When we are exposed to a glorification of violence, we can't simply switch that button off within our own communities. Violence is not something like a pair of muddy boots that you take off as you enter the door. Military debriefing involves a unit on domestic violence because it is well-acknowledged, even though we conveniently forget it, that to be trained in army violence is to be trained in violence and that violence translates within your own community.

NG: One of the rationales given for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan was to rescue women from oppressive regimes and, especially in Afghanistan, to rescue Muslim women from their culture. How do you see the argument that looks at violence against women as a cultural phenomenon on a global scale as opposed to what you promote?

NE: Let's not let the President get away with [giving the rationale] that we went there to liberate the Muslim women. That was never one of the reasons given for going into Iraq ... Eventually, and very, very fortunately, we did get rid of Saddam. But for me to say that was the rationale given? No, weapons of mass destruction was the rationale given, and women are not better off today in Iraq than they were under Saddam. Saddam was an equal opportunity oppressor. He oppressed women as much as men, and we did not go to liberate the women.

NG: These rationales were ex post facto, as you say, but particularly in Afghanistan, there was activism on the part of some U.S. feminist groups that dovetailed with U.S. foreign policy at the time. These groups argued that the Taliban needed to be pushed out of power because of their severely repressive policies towards women, but also implied that Muslim women are made subservient by their religion and culture and that violence is done to them through their religion.

NE: Absolutely, and I do think it's a very, very Orientalist view that views Islam as more oppressive of women. All religious fundamentalism is oppressive of women, whether it's Islam, Judaism or Christianity. If you need to hold anyone accountable for what's going on, then it's Western intervention that is accountable. Yes, the Taliban was extremely repressive of women, but would the Taliban have risen to power in the first place without U.S. support? There is always a very convenient amnesia at play with how the mainstream, the feminists, or the progressives view any aspect of the U.S. outside intervention. Just like your question was about how we went into Iraq to liberate the women, which of course was not the case, or about how the Taliban was oppressive of women, which was the case — the amnesia comes in. We're cleaning up our own mess.