QuoteReplyTopic: Anne, meet Zlata Posted: 11-May-2006 at 15:42
ANNE, meet ZLATA
Most people are
aware of Anne Frank and all that she both endured and accomplished, so
I will bring in Wikipedia to introduce her:
Annelies Marie "Anne" Frank (June 12, 1929 March, 1945) was a German-born Jewish girl who wrote a diary while in hiding with her family and four friends in Amsterdam during the German occupation of the Netherlands in World War II. Her family had moved to Amsterdam after the Nazis
gained power in Germany but were trapped when the Nazi occupation
extended into The Netherlands. As persecutions against the Jewish
population increased, the family went into hiding in July 1942 in hidden rooms in Otto Frank's office building (the Secret Annex). After two years in hiding, the group was betrayed and transported to the concentration camp system where Anne died of typhus (in Bergen-Belsen) within days of her sister, Margot Frank,
in February or March 1945. Her father, Otto, the only survivor of the
group, returned to Amsterdam after the war ended, to find that her
diary had been saved. Convinced that it was a unique record, he took
action to have it published. It is published in English under the name The Diary of a Young Girl.
The diary was given to Anne Frank for her thirteenth birthday and chronicles the events of her life from June 12, 1942 until its final entry of August 1, 1944. It was eventually translated from its original Dutch into many languages and became one of the world's most widely read books. There have also been theatrical productions, and an opera,
based on the diary. Described as the work of a mature and insightful
mind, it provides an intimate examination of daily life under Nazi
occupation; through her writing, Anne Frank has become one of the most
renowned and discussed of the Holocaust victims.
Zlata Filipovic, on the other hand, fewer people are aware of.
"Tuesday, May 4, 1993. I've been thinking about politics again. No
matter how stupid, ugly and unreasonable I think this division of
people into Serbs, Croats and Muslims is, these stupid people are
making it happen. We're all waiting for something, hoping for
something, but there's nothing. Even the Vance-Owen peace plan looks as though its going to fall through. Now these maps
are being drawn up, separating people, and nobody asks them a thing.
Those "kids" [politicians] really are playing around with us. Ordinary
people don't want this division, because it won't make anybody
happy--not the Serbs, not the Croats, not the Muslims. But who asks
ordinary people? Politics asks only its own people.
Your Zlata."
Zlata was born in Sarajevo and, unlike Anne Frank, survived her war.
Her diary, named Mimmy, has been published in countless languages
around the world and she is described in the media as Bosnia's Anne
Frank.
I find it interesting that both diaries,
from both wars, were written by women. It was women who, as the book
review reads, expressed their situations with humanity.
Beyond their words, what do you believe we
can learn from Anne Frank and Zlata Filipovic? What does it say about
women in general, or women's role in conflict?
I believe there are two novel perspectives here that would be helpful if integrated into the broader political spectrum: that of a woman, and further, that of a child. As this forum aims to concentrate on the former, I shall concentrate on the former in the context of the latter.
The perspective of a little girl is particularly moving, both because it is that of an innocent child--children are seldom sucked into the prevailing winds of bigotry and hatred--and because it is that of a woman--which is moving, partly I believe, because we still identify women with vulnerability (perhaps unjustly so, but then again perhaps not; please do not misinterpret this as sexism).
In war this is particularly poignant, for although women and children have been known to fight, wars are generally begun by men (although this might be an accident of history; men have traditionally held positions of power, and I do not, for a moment believe that, were these positions held by women, there would be no more war). I think the main reason we find these narratives so moving is because they express the disgust, and childlike innocence of those who have not yet given themselves over to the most deplorable, self-interested, hateful, vile instincts of humankind.
Hope nothing I said will be construed as sexism. It would be a shame to be identified as "the sexist" in the Women's History forum .
I believe there are two novel perspectives here that
would be helpful if integrated into the broader political spectrum:
that of a woman, and further, that of a child. As this forum aims to
concentrate on the former, I shall concentrate on the former in the
context of the latter.
Interesting idea.
Originally posted by Akolouthos
The perspective of a little girl is particularly
moving, both because it is that of an innocent child--children are
seldom sucked into the prevailing winds of bigotry and hatred--and
because it is that of a woman--which is moving, partly I believe,
because we still identify women with vulnerability (perhaps unjustly
so, but then again perhaps not; please do not misinterpret this as
sexism).
I don't think it's sexist, but my impression of such things in
somewhat skewed. I focus more on the person's intentions than the words
or thoughts themselves.
I agree that children rarely exhibit the hatred and other negative
emotions associated with war but they do, at least, understand them -
as is evident in the writing of both Anne Frank and Zlata Filipovic.
I also agree that being a woman carries some extra... something...
in such situations. It's a lady in danger reaction, really - it's
probably biologically a part of us to feel more sympathy for women in
distress because, perhaps, women were more likely to need help escaping
whatever danger there was. It could be just a primitive instinct we
evolved to ensure men took their women's hands while fleeing hairy
mammoths...
Originally posted by Akolouthos
In war this is particularly poignant, for
although women and children have been known to fight, wars are
generally begun by men (although this might be an accident of history;
men have traditionally held positions of power, and I do not, for a
moment believe that, were these positions held by women, there would be
no morewar).
I'm undecided. I read a study somewhere that showed most wars erupt
at exactly the moment when young, unmarried males form 25 per cent of
the overall population in the territory.
I think there would still have been wars, but they certainly would
have been carried out differently. At the very least I'd expect to see
less of the rape and pillaging of women and children in conquered
lands. Historical female rulers are kind of bad example because of the
patriarchial nature of their socieities they had to be worse than the
men just to reach the same heights. But in a matriarchial society, and
there have been examples I'm sure, it'd be interesting to study
conflict and how it is carried out.
Originally posted by Akolouthos
I think the main reason we find these narratives
so moving is because they express the disgust, and childlike innocence
of those who have not yet given themselves over to the most deplorable,
self-interested, hateful, vile instincts of humankind.
Hope nothing I said will be construed as sexism. It would be a shame
to be identified as "the sexist" in the Women's History forum .
I also agree that being a woman carries some extra... something... in such situations. It's a lady in danger reaction, really - it's probably biologically a part of us to feel more sympathy for women in distress because, perhaps, women were more likely to need help escaping whatever danger there was. It could be just a primitive instinct we evolved to ensure men took their women's hands while fleeing hairy mammoths...
Interesting. I tend to lean more toward societal conditioning, but I do believe your "Mammoth Hypothesis" is also a plausible explanation.
Originally posted by Mila
I think there would still have been wars, but they certainly would have been carried out differently. At the very least I'd expect to see less of the rape and pillaging of women and children in conquered lands. Historical female rulers are kind of bad example because of the patriarchial nature of their socieities they had to be worse than the men just to reach the same heights. But in a matriarchial society, and there have been examples I'm sure, it'd be interesting to study conflict and how it is carried out.
I think I agree with you. I do believe that wars would be carried out differently. That doesn't mean, however, that we wouldn't find new, inventive, ways of causing each other pain.
I also agree that female rulers, both historical and modern, are poor examples, being reared in a patriarchal society. Still, in societies where we suspect similarities existed between the roles of women and men, it doesn't seem to make much difference. The Scythians, for instance, were feared by many ancients.
I don't know of any strictly matriarchal societies (except for the prehistoric, gynocentric, global matriarchal culture a few quacks have proposed). It would be interesting to see how such a society redefined common human issues. A more interesting question would be as follows: Could it do this in light of the patriarchal historical record?
I think the patriarchial historical record is one of the most powerful
things we, as women, have on our side when we make claims like: there
would be less, or different, wars in a matriarchial society. Human
history in general is very bloody and labelling it either patriarchial
or matriarchial paints that societal structure with the same brush. It
gives us a "and you've done better?" response to every possible
scenario. So I don't think it's a problem.
Now battling cultures to bring women to the top can be difficult, but
it's spotty. Take Pakistan, for example, which is a fairly conservative
Islamic nation and has had a female leader, while the United States -
the very symbol of western democracy - has not.
It's very deeply ingrained and very biased against women but in the
strangest ways. Nothing, really, is universal. For example, a woman who
wears a veil and stays at home is often considered the very picture of
rebellion against society in Bosnia whereas in Saudi Arabia she'd
probably be the very picture of what's expected. Doctors in Bosnia,
historically mainly women, are paid less than municipal politicians,
historically men - the exact opposite of the situation in the United
States where doctors are historically male.
So it's not really the specific things that guide a patriarchial
society but it's fitting these pieces together to form a patriarchial
society. If it wasn't so, being a doctor would be a respected and
well-paid occupation anywhere in the world regardless of the gender
associated with it.
Hm. Got a bit of the cultural relativism going on, eh? Well I won't say your wrong. It is very interesting how we value different things across cultures, but I feel that gender is one of many factors at play, albeit sometimes a primary one.
With so many mitigating factors then, don't "patriarchal" and "matriarchal" become invalid terms? I've never liked them much myself when they have been used to describe anything as broad as an entire culture. I think, then, that it is up to us to define our so-called "patriarchal" society and come up with an alternate definition that fits what we've been terming "matriarchal". Any ideas?
Perhaps it is impossible to come up with satisfactory definitions other than those we have for gender status in society. If you could come up with a couple I can use, I'd be in your debt.
Well, that's interesting but I think you're making it more complicated
than it needs to be. Obviously an entire society cannot truly be
universally patriarchial or matriarchial, there are very few things it
could be universally - even the culture in question itself wouldn't be
universal on the territory it's associated with. So we have to be able
to speak in general or we'd never speak at all.
I think patriarchial societies can allow a woman to reach,
metaphorically, the position of Vice President but there must always be
a man's face on the top, or they might not even let women vote at the
other extreme. A matriarchial society would be the same in reverse...
but for me, a healthy society is one in which it's male or female, and
no one cares or notices. If there's 15 male presidents in a row and
then one female, no one blinks. If there's 3 female presidents in a row
and then 1 male and another 10 females, no one notices the genders
because its not an issue.
Affirmative action and these sorts of things you see in the US and some
places are realistic responses to societal prejudices but the fruits of
those labors don't... how do you say it? Three black receptionists at
Chase Manhattan does not a tolerant society make.
Heh. Gotcha. I agree that an ideal solution to sexism and racism would be a society in which we simply didn't notice. I think all of us are morally called to chastise ourselves when we do notice. However, I don't see how we'll ever get to the ideal when so many are opposed. For instance for every K.K.K. member in the U.S. we have a "civil-rights" advocate who depends upon the conception of a "Culture of Intolerance" for their relavence. Likewise, for every beer-drinking, belching, misogynist in the U.S. we have a rabid, hairy-armpitted feminist who depends on the conception of a "Culture of Patriarchal Oppression" in order to remain relevant.
That isn't to say for a moment that racism and sexism aren't real problems. I just find it hard to see how we can even come close to the ideal when the entire dialogue has been hijacked by militant ideologues.
Well there will always be such people and they have a very important
purpose. They start societies off, their extremism pushes the society
slightly towards or away from them, depending on if their goals are
generally appreciated or not. Without the hairy-arm-pit feminists,
general women's rights would not have proceeded as quickly or as fully
as they did. Without Madonna, women wouldn't wear tank-tops as quickly
or fully as they did, etc, etc, etc.
The problem then becomes dealing with them once society has moved as
far as its willing to go. That's when they become disillusioned,
frustrated, and get crazy. I am thankful for feminists and suffragettes
and all of the things they did that helped get us where we are today,
but I don't want to cut any man's balls off or get testosterone
injections.
All I want is for women's place in society to be defined by the women
themselves, not by men, and for women to be validated, appreciated, and
respected for their contributions - and compensated for them - equally
as men. Housewives should be paid some form of government support,
their job is very important and very hard. Tampons should be federally
funded to the same extent viagra is... these are the things that I want
to see. Not testicles hanging from skulls outside the Girls Only club.
I think we are in agreement on the basics of how society should function. Now if only we could get it to function the way it should. BTW:
Originally posted by Mila
Housewives should be paid some form of government support, their job is very important and very hard.
I'd never considered it before, but I'm on board 100%. Subsidize a very important societal function and, at the same time, shut-up the "Housewives are an insult to feminism," crowd. Wonderful idea!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum