January 2007 Archives
The majority of the people reading this blog are female. If you're female, and within a certain age range, odds are that you can get pregnant. This truth lies at the core of much in the way of misinformation and fear-mongering.
There's a nasty meme/idea running around, that we who ID as feminist think abortion is "more important" than pregnancy.
Nothing is further from the truth; choice, and the idea controlling one's own body, means all forms of control. Feminism, as a political statement, focuses on abortion and birth control because they are under constant attack, not because they "want to get rid of babies".
I will confess, however, that until Jessica Valenti, over at Feministing, starting posting about her now-completed trip to Hotlanta for the National Advocates for Pregnant Women 2007 conference, I'd not heard of them. But after her report:
Well, I'll be paying a lot more attention in the future!
This is important to dancers. I know dancers who have decided to not have kids -- which, I freely say, is my "default position" as well. I love the children of my dancer friends such as Onca and Ziah, who have been blessed with wonderful, and occasionally wonderfully mannish, kids. I honor my dance sisters, as well as all women, who have kids and work much harder to fit them into their lives than I can possibly imagine. And I also honor those who wish to have a child, but simply cannot.
Organizations like National Advocates for Pregnant Women are critical for developing the value of females, and for female work, in our society. When we support women as more than just a way to make babies, those children rise in important, in love and attention, and it appears that NAPW is playing an important role in the struggle for women's rights.
A interesting viewpoint on the intersection of Pro-Choice and Birth Rights with regard to this conference was in the comments for the article, and is over at RH Reality Check.
There's a nasty meme/idea running around, that we who ID as feminist think abortion is "more important" than pregnancy.
Nothing is further from the truth; choice, and the idea controlling one's own body, means all forms of control. Feminism, as a political statement, focuses on abortion and birth control because they are under constant attack, not because they "want to get rid of babies".
I will confess, however, that until Jessica Valenti, over at Feministing, starting posting about her now-completed trip to Hotlanta for the National Advocates for Pregnant Women 2007 conference, I'd not heard of them. But after her report:
The phrase that best summarizes this past weekend's conference for me: hot damn.
I can honestly say that NAPW organized the best feminist conference that I've ever been to. And I like me some feminist conferences, so that's saying something.
[...]it was the incredible energy at the conference, the remarkable panelists, and the oh-so-important (and ambitious) vision for reproductive justice that the conference put forward.
Well, I'll be paying a lot more attention in the future!
This is important to dancers. I know dancers who have decided to not have kids -- which, I freely say, is my "default position" as well. I love the children of my dancer friends such as Onca and Ziah, who have been blessed with wonderful, and occasionally wonderfully mannish, kids. I honor my dance sisters, as well as all women, who have kids and work much harder to fit them into their lives than I can possibly imagine. And I also honor those who wish to have a child, but simply cannot.
Organizations like National Advocates for Pregnant Women are critical for developing the value of females, and for female work, in our society. When we support women as more than just a way to make babies, those children rise in important, in love and attention, and it appears that NAPW is playing an important role in the struggle for women's rights.
A interesting viewpoint on the intersection of Pro-Choice and Birth Rights with regard to this conference was in the comments for the article, and is over at RH Reality Check.
I once, on a well-regard dance elist, questioned the status quo, asked if we as dancers could not learn from elsewhere.
A dancer I greatly respect responded, and although she meant well, her words struck me -- and perhaps I misunderstood -- as , "it don't get no better than this."
If I understand her correctly, This Is It. There's no improvement in the lives of dancers. We are to starve, to beg, to have our backs broken, time and again, for our art. To be in costume is to be a target, to have eyes meet not the intellect on your face, but the breasts cinched in sparkle, or studded in coins. Dance for dance's sake? Impossible in a world full of fear of the "A-Rabs", of men more willing to pay for skin and ephemeral beauty than skill and endless variety. Forget being rich; it's a choice between artistic integrity and simply being able to drive a car that doesn't break down on a whim.
I'll say it -- "I'm still here" is not enough. We must find ways to continue to grow this dance, to allow it to evolve, and to bring it to new heights, new audiences, and new ways of supporting dancers. The sense of feminist empowerment must come out, be pulled from the cozy life of dancer "sisterhood" and be made willing to fight in the trenches of the real world, day after day. We really, really wants to starve for their art, to be dependent upon others for their security in this world? Why is the kind of economic empowerment that MLK talked of in his later days only a fond wish for dancers?
Until, and unless, we learn to balance the dignity of ancestry with the need to feed ourselves and our families...until and unless we are able to present dancers in this genre in ways that command the money that goes along with the respect we deserve as artists...we will never be truly free to preform our arts as they should be presented.
A dancer I greatly respect responded, and although she meant well, her words struck me -- and perhaps I misunderstood -- as , "it don't get no better than this."
If I understand her correctly, This Is It. There's no improvement in the lives of dancers. We are to starve, to beg, to have our backs broken, time and again, for our art. To be in costume is to be a target, to have eyes meet not the intellect on your face, but the breasts cinched in sparkle, or studded in coins. Dance for dance's sake? Impossible in a world full of fear of the "A-Rabs", of men more willing to pay for skin and ephemeral beauty than skill and endless variety. Forget being rich; it's a choice between artistic integrity and simply being able to drive a car that doesn't break down on a whim.
I'll say it -- "I'm still here" is not enough. We must find ways to continue to grow this dance, to allow it to evolve, and to bring it to new heights, new audiences, and new ways of supporting dancers. The sense of feminist empowerment must come out, be pulled from the cozy life of dancer "sisterhood" and be made willing to fight in the trenches of the real world, day after day. We really, really wants to starve for their art, to be dependent upon others for their security in this world? Why is the kind of economic empowerment that MLK talked of in his later days only a fond wish for dancers?
Until, and unless, we learn to balance the dignity of ancestry with the need to feed ourselves and our families...until and unless we are able to present dancers in this genre in ways that command the money that goes along with the respect we deserve as artists...we will never be truly free to preform our arts as they should be presented.
img_0446
Originally uploaded by Woodrow.
This is me, after a recent show with the Red Sun Tribe in Morganton, NC. Since there's been some call for a more recent photo of me, I thought this would be a good starting point...even if I am drenched in sweat from performing.
If I can re-work the audio, I'll be posting the video of me from the show soon, as well.
