The Injustice of Deportation.

A must see video about the impact of deportation on two villages in Guatemala by Greg Brosnan and Jennifer Szymaszek.

The immigration debate is only discussed in terms of how this “problem” of epic proportions is hurting Americans. Proposals to allow day laborers, domestic workers and other types of service work are generally supported because they support the business and personal interests of the rich. A consideration of the suffering experienced by those that attempt to migrate goes under the radar. But a little investigation reveals the severity of the situation and racist claims by people like Michael Savage become that much more infuriating. This above mini-documentary video Miriam passed on to me speaks to this situation, from the risk of migrating to the amount of money owed to the person that transported you and the corresponding debt, along with the devastation of being deported. The situation is grim.
For some staggering statistics on ICE raids check out the report by the Cardoza Law School, Constitution on Ice: A Report on Immigrant Home Raid Operations.
And to stop the abuses and ensure effective immigration reform, watch the video below and sign the following petition.

Don’t let this fall off the national agenda.

and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

23 Comments

  1. NoMoreBlatherDotCom
    Posted August 10, 2009 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

    Since the situation is so grim, why do “liberals” encourage people to make the journey? Isn’t what they’re doing a bit like someone who cuts the fence around an abandoned swimming pool and then cries when someone breaks their leg?
    By encouraging or not try to stop people from trying to come here, those “liberals” are, among other things, propping up corrupt businesses and governments rather than encouraging those governments to reform and help their own people.

  2. argon
    Posted August 10, 2009 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

    Samhita, I sympathize, and am not trying to be confrontational at all but I have to ask… what exactly does this have to do with what most people call “feminism”?
    I believe it is taking intersectionality a bit too far when we mean that the term “feminism” means fighting ANY oppression anywhere, or at least oppression as seen by the left, to the point where “feminism” merely becomes a synonym of “leftism” with no distinguishing characteristics. It means that other leftist movements can simply take feminists for granted without making any provisions against misogyny in their ranks, since we are assumed to be 100% loyal lefty footsoldiers in every circumstance. (and believe me, some progressive organizations are riddled with misogyny and homophobia, and know full well that nobody will ever call them out on it… not feminists, and certainly not the right.) Furthermore, it alienates many potential pro-feminists, both at the ground level and in politics, for the crime of running conservative on completely unrelated issues such as immigration, Israel, taxes or gun rights.
    My point is that it really sucks that feminists are expected to be always loyal to all progressive causes when we get no support in return from La Raza, pro-palestinian groups or similar — and are also expected to check our differing beliefs at the door when they have nothing to do with women’s rights. (for instance, although I am mostly a liberal, I support Israel but am not exactly made to feel comfortable with that stance on this site.) Maybe it would make a bit more sense to divorce this movement and this site from non-related causes.
    Ok, sorry this went a bit long and again, not trying to be insulting, demeaning or disempowering whatsoever so apologies if it comes across that way.

  3. Suzann
    Posted August 10, 2009 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

    This is sad, but unless you want to argue for unrestricted, unregistered, and undocumented immigration? SOME form of control is required, which in turn requires some form of law, which in tern requires some penalty when that law if broken.
    If you do want absolute open borders ( which this country has had in the historical past) then you will have to accept the internal social price that goes with that. We already have overstressed social services, overpopulated urban areas, exploited ‘sweatshop’ work in the growing underground economy, and a population both alien and alienated which neither knows nor abides by many of our laws.
    (I have zoning in mind specificaly and of my own current experience, but that is just one special case.)
    This is not to say that any given immigrant group is less than welcomable or that any particular culture should not be valued, merely that there is a speed of communication/adaptation and when that is exceeded than much of the mechanism of a civil community breaks down.
    And yes – I agree with argon. It seems that sometimes posters on this site can see no difference between ‘feminist’ and ‘leftist’ – catagories that may at times overlap but which I personally do not see as interchangable.

  4. puckalish
    Posted August 10, 2009 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

    I’d love for you to point out which “liberals” are “propping up corrupt businesses and governments” in Mexico and Central and South America. Last I checked, it was the centrist Democrats and Republicans who supported NAFTA… the far right who gave weapons to the Contras… and who assassinated Allende… who funded Noriega’s reign in Panama… and on and on.
    If you want to blame someone for corruption in governments and business, I’d say you’re not going to have much luck looking to the left. And this is coming from a guy who’s far to the right of you (I’m an Emma Goldman Republican, lol)…
    You do also realize that the problem focused on in the first clip is caused by national borders. If there weren’t border enforcement, there wouldn’t be coyotes taking advantage of folks. Of course, what kind of crazy guy am I who thinks that nationalism is pretty much just a way to turn struggling people against struggling people in order to ensure the success of the leisure classes?
    And I don’t know any “liberals” who encourage people to illegally cross the border… further, as far as not trying to stop them, most of the danger comes from attempts at interdiction and attempts to circumvent that interdiction. On the other hand, things like Fair Trade certification and such, things that make working conditions more livable on, say, coffee plantations, are very much the pet projects of “liberals.”
    Unless, of course, you’re talking of neo-liberals, with is very different from the sorts of folks on feministing.
    Awww… whatever… glad you care about your swimming pool…

  5. puckalish
    Posted August 10, 2009 at 8:44 pm | Permalink

    Argon and Suzann,
    I don’t want to get too into how borders are simply ways of keeping working people from controlling the value of their own labor, so I’ll just stick to this point Argon and Suzann made about “non-related causes.”
    Well, look, it may not be something you identify with, but can you really ask Samhita to leave her “brownness” at the door if you’re not willing to leave your abstract politics at the door?
    And that’s assuming that immigration issues are really all that removed from feminism – which is only true if you don’t count undocumented women as women or if you don’t count women of color as women (considering that many legal citizens and immigrants are rounded up because of the color of their skin in raids aimed at undocumented immigrants). Oh, yeah, and have you ever listened to the “mintemen”-supporters? Folks like Glenn Beck, who talk about the “fertility” of undocumented immigrants – didn’t this ever give you pause that, perhaps, the humanness of not only immigrant women, but even white women was being undermined?
    Some interesting reading material that might get you started on understanding how immigration is a feminist issue… Of course, you could always rewind for a minute and start with this fab book… but then, I guess I’m dating myself…
    Perhaps, for Samhita, like for me, the oppression of women is necessarily connected to the oppression of working people and the oppression of people of color and the oppression of differently abled people and the oppression of people living in the “third world” and the oppression of lgbtqi people and so on – in which case, you’d be asking her to modify her politics for your reading pleasure. Well, to me, that’s crazy, because that means that readers, like you and I, will be getting an inauthentic and substandard product and it’s certainly not asked of you. If you want to reasonably debate immigration or racism or reproductive freedom with Samhita, or any other editor on here, in a courteous (if somewhat profane) manner, you’re free to do so. So why ask her to hold her politics back from you?
    And, Argon, don’t worry about going long… I mean, shoot, I don’t!
    Peace and blessings

  6. Bea Moreira
    Posted August 10, 2009 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

    Well said puckalish!
    My mom came to US when I was 11, everyone thought she was crazy -a woman, alone, going to a different country; she did it after divorcing my dad and because she was struggling to give me (and my siblings) a good life.
    Immigration reform has everything to do with feminism for me. My mom’s story, and even my own (being now a nationalized American -latina- citizen), is tied with feminism and immigration. I can’t separate them.
    Hope Argon and Suzann can understand and respect that.

  7. Rachael
    Posted August 10, 2009 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

    This is so tragic. I could never condemn anyone who’s trying to make a better life for themselves or their family.
    I know there’s something wrong with the overly violent enforcement of the immigration laws. I also feel like there’s something inherently wrong with a system where the poor and uneducated–those who need the most help–are the least likely to be able to come to the U.S. “the right way.”
    I’ve heard people say that only those who are skilled and can “contribute to society” should be allowed in–and they almost always mean white, upper-class Europeans and Canadians who were already considerably well-off in their home countries.
    Whatever happened to “Give me your tired, your poor” and all that?

  8. argon
    Posted August 10, 2009 at 10:16 pm | Permalink

    “And that’s assuming that immigration issues are really all that removed from feminism – which is only true if you don’t count undocumented women as women”
    Well see, using that definition, ANYTHING can be described as a feminist issue, which causes the term “feminism” itself to mean very little and instead just becomes a synonym for “leftism” or “progressivism.” I prefer a feminism, as a *political* movement, that stays focused and leaves other liberal issues to other groups.
    Don’t get me wrong. I am personally pro-immigration, pro-amnesty generally speaking. But that is neither here nor there for a movement or website that is supposed to be dedicated to women’s and queer issues, as opposed to just another DailyKos knockoff. Loose “intersectionality” may be great as a philosophy, but as *politics* it (sorry) kinda sucks (again, sorry).
    For a contrast: Consider the NRA, one of the most wildly successful political movements of recent times. It promotes policies that are generally considered to be conservative, just as women’s and LGBT rights are considered liberal. However, the NRA limits themselves ONLY to gun issues — and this is the secret to their success. It allows them to recruit Democrats and other non-conservatives to their cause by staying focused. Hell, even Obama had to give lip service to gun rights due largely to the NRA. If they were merely just another right-wing pressure group, one among many, they would not have gotten far and certainly would never have recruited moderate Dems, and would never had made much of an impact. Instead, gun rights are just about a done deal in this country. All but the most left-wing of Dem politicans do not seriously question gun rights anymore.
    I say this not to admire the NRA’s philosophy but to admire their politics. Imagine if a feminist lobby were just as targetted and demonstrated the message-discipline of the NRA. This is one of the things the second-wave got right: they stayed *focused,* made huge gains and came within an ace of passing the ERA.
    Anyway, there I go again with the wall of text… :)
    p.s. While Samhita is, as you say, “brown,” she is not Hispanic but a POC of South Asian origin.

  9. puckalish
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 12:34 am | Permalink

    Argon,
    Didn’t mean to rouse your ire quite so much, but I’ll bite.
    First, I’m not talking about “loose intersectionality.” I actually pointed out some very clear examples of how immigration is an issue that disproportionately affects the lives of women, but that’s not relevant, is it?
    Further, I do think that an individual can choose to construct his or her politics however he or she chooses. If you don’t like it, you can disagree, but you have no right to tell someone who’s been writing for this site for so long that she’s wrong to talk about issues that are important to her and to her feminism, as she defines it on this site.
    Moving on… regarding a kind of fractured political landscape – I think it works great for maintaining the status quo. The NRA doesn’t care if hunters can’t hunt because large game is dying off – because those hunters are only giving 25 – 50$/year… gun and parts manufacturers and retailers (like Midway USA), on the other hand, are donating millions. who is on the board of directors? is it hunters? violent crime victims? nope. and, sure, it’s not hitting them in the purse that much, but some hunters are looking elsewhere.
    As far as this mercenary attitude goes in the larger politic… Well, look at what it’s gotten us… modest gains and great losses. Safe abortion is nominally legal, but hanging by a thread; a greater proportion of young black men are in prison now than thirty years ago; the gender wage gap has pretty much plateaued at 77/78 cents; the wage gap between the classes has widened significantly in the last 30 years; the military is deployed with about as much popular oversight as it had during the 60s; and the list goes on.
    This strategy can work for a group like the NRA that (a) has incredible amounts of resources at their disposal (over $200m a year of income) and (b) is working to buttress the current system and resist change.
    Are not our goals different? Don’t we want to take a holistic approach to how the world can change? Wasn’t there a time where “mainstream” feminists would shout down anyone who would distract them with discussions of LGBTQI issues? Is that the legacy we should continue? Wasn’t there a time when Truth had to stand up and demand to be recognized as a woman by women too focused on their issues to recognize her humanity?
    If we continue to present only those points of view that seem to fit what the audience wants to hear, we’re going to continue to be ignorant of each other’s struggles. If we demand that those who are marginalized within our movements stay quiet about the issues we’re “not working on at the moment,” and those brave folks like Samhita decide not to talk about such “inappropriate” issues, then who will?
    Further, Feministing is not a one-issue lobbying firm, like the NRA is. Feministing is a community of people discussing their feminism, doing the intellectual labor that shores up their actions in politics or in their lives. Because Feministing’s goal is not so much to simply close the wage gap (for example), but to “[provide] a platform … [for young women] to speak on their own behalf on issues that affect their lives and futures.” Samhita is one such young women and these issues do affect her life and her future, so let’s stick to Feministing’s mission and argue all you want with what she has to say, but not with her right to say it.
    PS. I know Samhita, so you don’t have to tell me “what” she is… what I was pointing out, though, is that, for her, issues related to race, immigration and cultural marginalization are not the sort of academic exercises that they are for many of her readers. So asking her to leave issues important to her at the door because you don’t see how it relates, on an abstract level, to the struggles of women denies something that is very obvious to her – that a person can be both of color and a woman. And it’s not just you. I’ve seen this polemic rise up on posts she’s written about Sean Bell, about the Prison Industrial Complex, about immigration, and many other topics before.
    PPS. Just try to beat my word count! ;)

  10. puckalish
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 12:45 am | Permalink

    PPPS. Maybe you weren’t all that ire-y after all, I just saw those all caps and it was kind of jarring… so nevermind that sentence.
    you know you can use bolding (“less than”b”greater than” and the same but with a /b to close it) and italics (the same but with i’s) on here?

  11. Suzann
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 3:02 am | Permalink

    puckalish
    Who said I disagreed with you about ‘letting people set the value of their own labor’? And could you point out where I said Samhita couldn’t have any interests or opinions she chose?
    My only points were that a) there has to be SOME mechanism for ‘controling’ immigration (even if it is just ‘please sign in as you pass over the border’) if only for planning purposes and that b) whatever mechanism is put in place will have to have SOME enforcement mechanism.
    Propose a better system than the current chaos and I will be cheering for you all the way. (And any system would be better than the current non-system of fake laws.) Otherwise I’ll go with my point c) Just randomly feeling sorry for people is not a valid policy position. Think it though and tell me what YOU would suggest be done instead.

  12. puckalish
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 4:36 am | Permalink

    Suzann,
    First, for clarity, I addressed you as you went along with Argon in stating that “[i]t seems that sometimes posters on this site can see no difference between ‘feminist’ and ‘leftist’ – catagories that may at times overlap but which I personally do not see as interchangable.” It’s this policing of whether or not Samhita’s perspective is appropriate by your standards of what is “feminism” to which I was directly replying.
    I would love to see where I claimed that you stated Samhita couldn’t have opinions of her own. However, it was eminently clear that you were stating – and supporting Argon’s statement – that Samhita’s views on immigration have no place on feministing.com. You said “I agree with argon,” who claimed that Samhita was “taking intersectionality a bit too far” by shamelessly stating her opinion on, um, a website for which she writes.
    As far as setting the value of labor is concerned, I never said you’d disagree with me, just that my views on how nationalism is simply one cog in a machine of exploitation isn’t necessarily germane to this conversation and would take a while to break down (ie, derail the thread).
    To answer your final question, as though it were really fair, I don’t think any form of border regulation is going to ease this stress in any more than a superficial manner. Our borders are in place in order to divide people; the only ones who benefit from nationalism are those who run the nations. So, if you want to know my long-view solution, it’s to dissolve nations and allow communities to determine their own destinies.
    In the shorter term, an active involvement in supporting land rights and workers’ rights movements in Mexico and Central and South America would be an excellent way to stem the tide of illegal immigration. However, the United States has consistently opposed such movements and even longstanding protections in order to increase the profitability of US corporations. Have you heard of FTZs or of the removal of Article 27 from the Mexican Constitution?
    If we stopped actively and aggressively pursuing the impoverishment of our neighbors, that would be a start. Making friends with our neighbors and working with their governments, home-grown entrepreneurs and workers to establish sustainable options for their economies, rather than simply focusing our international trade relations on siphoning capital out of other economies.
    Another step would be to recognize that there is enough of a demand to steadily employ undocumented workers and shape policy changes from there. Some possible options would be a work exchange program to legitimize the labor already being done – such that undocumented workers would be able to organize for better conditions and wages without the threat of deportation (or, worse, of violence against which there can be no legal recourse). It would be nice if our government didn’t make it so difficult to get a visa without great cost (you know most countries don’t want to charge us for visas, but do because ours cost so much for their citizens?)
    Of course, considering that the OP was about deportation and aggressive ICE actions, I would say that a first step would be to treat immigrants, both documented and undocumented, as human beings. As it stands, a good deal of the ICE actions referred to in the second video and gone over in better detail here, are not only abusive, but are unconstitutional. Of course, the standards for what constitutes abuse of power are very different in immigration cases, so what would be an illegal search in any other case, may be admitted in an immigration case.
    To remedy this, I’d suggest ensuring that law enforcement officials, no matter for what department they work, respect both their suspects and the Constitution of the US. Ensuring that ICE agents actually adhere to their own agency’s “official” policies would be a nice idea, too, considering that their policies aren’t all that bad, especially when compared to their actual practices.
    So does that sound like a little more than “randomly feeling bad for people”? God I love being talked (written?) down to! I mean, really, to suggest that I (or Samhita) have no place criticizing a system that abuses even US citizens without check because I’m not simultaneously proposing the cure-all for immigration issues is absurd.
    In the end, though, I think that your argument that I need to provide policy suggestions in order for my opposition to institutional violence to be “valid” is absurd.
    Perhaps, you could provide some life suggestions for people who’ve had their farmlands sold to multinational corporations in Mexico or for people who’ve been displaced by the government of Columbia or for US citizens who happen to be brown-skinned and have spanish names.
    p&b

  13. Suzann
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 9:55 am | Permalink

    OK – you want absolute open borders.
    I’ll accept that as a valid POV – even though I see the problems that it would bring.
    Actually, I’d ACCEPT total open borders – as long as it went both ways.
    [One of the most complex immigration with Angelino's is the difficulty the Mexican gov. puts in the way of moving south. They allow land purchases to Mexican citizens , but exclude and/or restrict non-citizen spouses ( And let's not even talk about status for non-spouses or non-het-spouses)I Industrial capital is also over-severely excluded IMO. l know many people who would go south if they could - but pragmatically they can't. So they employ the same work force here and worry about being raided.If work could go south, people wouldn't need to come north.]
    So there – that’s me with an idea of how things could be fixed – at least a little.
    Without some suggestion? Well, I didn’t say your opposition wasn’t valid – just that it wasn’t very useful in terms of future action.

  14. puckalish
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 11:42 am | Permalink

    Actually, without policy suggestions, my opposition to ICE brutality and illegal raids is actionable. It’s actionable through legal means (as many of these raids contradict basic constitutionality). It’s also actionable by protecting undocumented workers through misdirection and being an active witness.
    To assume than any policy suggestions you or I have will be listened to with any seriousness by policy makers is ridiculous. These folks have set up a system that, far and away, privileges large agricultural and industrial interests in the US and don’t have any intention of radically transforming that situation.
    Not only are many US companies set up in Mexico, but there are FTZs all over the border. Further some of these companies have even sued the Mexican government for trying to enforce labor and environmental legislation.
    Do you think that these interests and the legislators in their pockets really give a crap about US or Mexican working people? Or even the entrepreneurs of whom you spoke (who just absolutely need to hire undocumented workers because the minimum wage is way too high).
    Also, you do realize that there’s a world of difference between people immigrating to find work or live with their loved ones and immigrating to gain access to a cheap labor pool? I can’t really feel bad for folks who are motivated by the latter. However, as much as I don’t feel that bad about their “plight,” I also recognize that they don’t hold any sway over “elected” legislators, especially when compared to the large companies that have no problem setting up shop in Mexico.
    Ooops! Wrote a book anyway!

  15. Suzann
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

    OK I get your message. I should just STFU because I’m noone and powerless and don’t matter at all. Thanks.
    Also – no, I really don’t see the difference between person A moving up to work at job B ( created by person C) and person C moving job B down to where A already lives. Other than that it cuts down the moving costs for person A and puts more money into person A’s local community. Which I guess I just don’t see as a bad thing.

  16. hfs
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    ‘Whatever happened to “Give me your tired, your poor” and all that?’
    You really want to know? What happened was we actually started caring about the tired and the poor! In the “good old days” of unrestricted immigration, if you didn’t make it here, you (and your family) were allowed to go without basic necessities, and ultimately, to starve and die. This was just part of the deal – it was sink or swim.
    Nowadays, we have hospitals with emergency rooms that anyone can go to if they are badly ill, alien or native alike. We have public schools for all the children. We have food stamps, medicaid, and finally social security for the elderly. Those things costs a hell of a lot of money – indeed, entitlement reform is desperately needed – and is utterly unsustainable in the face of an unrestricted flow of poor immigrants.
    Usually, the (logically consistent) argument for open borders comes from the extreme libertarian position. Maximum economic opportunity for everyone is indeed created by abolishing borders, but guess what else has to go out the window too? People would have to be allowed to fail catastrophically, which I suspect you don’t really want.

  17. puckalish
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    Suzann,
    First off, let’s squash the antagonism. I never suggested that you “STFU” or anything of the sort. On the contrary, I think open debate is really useful. So, please, stop putting words in my mouth – particularly mean ones, like “STFU”.
    I don’t think it’s necessary to have an alternative immigration program lined out in order to oppose what are essentially illegal police actions by ICE agents. Maybe I went too far in explaining why I don’t think the “elected” officials of the US or Mexico are going to bite on any suggestion you or I come up with.
    In the end, I do think that reasoned debate is valuable for determining policy and, ideally, the voice of any thoughtful person in a democracy should be heard. And who knows who’s reading this? I don’t even know who you are – maybe you’ll be running for a national office in a couple of years and this conversation will really matter. I’m not holding my breath, but that would be nice.
    As far as having an actionable item, you know that Samhita posted a link to a petition in her OP, right? Simply contacting one’s elected representatives (by phone or email) will add up – and you don’t have to request sweeping immigration reform, simply that ICE teams stay within the confines of legal search and seizure. Standing in solidarity with immigrant communities can take many forms, from providing services to marching in demonstrations to conspicuously observing police actions.
    I mean, if you were looking for actions to take, there are plenty. I’m sorry that I took your initial “challenge” the wrong way – it reminded me way too much of people who argue that the only alternative to police misconduct is the complete absence of law. I know you were being much more genuine in your question than that, but it sounded really familiar when I first read your comment. So, please, accept this apology; I hope you can see from where I was coming.

  18. argon
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

    puckalish, sorry if I came across as sounding pissy when I really was not trying to be confrontational.
    I wasn’t writing in admiration of the NRA’s philosophy, but rather of their tactics and ability to effect change the way they want it, and key to their winning strategy is recruiting centrist Dems to their cause as opposed to being exclusively for right-wingers. I think feminism would go a long way if it too reached across the aisle and recruited centrist-leaning conservatives and Republicans who might disagree with you and me on immigration, but agree with LBGTQI rights and fixing the pay gap.
    Call me crazy, but I think it would be kinda cool if Feministing got a center-right-leaning editor to demonstrate that feminist ideals transcend how you feel about the tax code or about Iraq.
    Anyway I suppose I’m just rehashing at this point. :) And thanks, I did not know about the bolding trick… won’t have to use caps in the future! :)

  19. Mina
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

    “…you know you can use bolding (“less than”b”greater than” and the same but with a /b to close it) and italics (the same but with i’s) on here?”
    Better yet, did you know that you can use the strong (less than, “strong”, greater than and the same but with a /strong to close it), emphasis tags (less than, “em”, greater than and the same but with an /em to close it), and citation tags here (less than, “cite”, greater than and the same but with an /cite to close it)? Personally, I didn’t know that at first either but felt good (“cool, now I can code better!”) when I finally learned it! :)
    According to a cool discussion at the HTML/CSS forum at bytes.com,
    Darin McGrew said at July 20th, 2005, 06:19 PM
    http://bytes.com/topic/html-css/answers/96586-em-vs-i-strong-vs-b#post332031 ,
    [I replaced the angle brackets with square brackets so they'd show up here]
    “Using [i] or [b] doesn’t say
    anything about *why* you want italics or
    boldface. It specifies only the presentation that you want.
    “In contrast, using [em], [strong], [cite], [var], etc. specifies a
    structural meaning. And it’s easier for browsers (or style sheet authors)
    to use some other presentation for the structure when the typical default
    presentation is inappropriate (or undesired).”
    David Dorward said at July 20th, 2005, 06:19 PM
    http://bytes.com/topic/html-css/answers/96586-em-vs-i-strong-vs-b#post332033
    “[i] and [b] are purely presentational. How do you render ‘bold’ using a
    audio output browser? and have meaning.”
    For example, for all I know someone else set her or his browser to use different tones of voice for emphasis and citation, so I’d rather respect that and use the em and cite tags when I want to emphasize something and when I quote a book’s or movie’s title :) instead of just italicizing both of them.

  20. Mina
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    Oops! I forgot the change some of the abgle brackets to square brackets. One of those quotes should be:
    David Dorward said at July 20th, 2005, 06:19 PM
    http://bytes.com/topic/html-css/answers/96586-em-vs-i-strong-vs-b#post332033
    “[i] and [b] are purely presentational. How do you render ‘bold’ using a
    audio output browser? [em] and [strong] have meaning.”
    Sorry!

  21. Mina
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    “I believe it is taking intersectionality a bit too far when we mean that the term ‘feminism’ means fighting ANY oppression anywhere, or at least oppression as seen by the left, to the point where ‘feminism’ merely becomes a synonym of ‘leftism’ with no distinguishing characteristics…”
    Actually, that reminds me of the difference between intersections and unions in set theory. There’s a quick description here: http://www.efunda.com/math/settheory/settheory.cfm :
    “…The intersection of A and B consists of only elements which belong to both A and B…”
    “…The union of A and B consists of all elements which belong to either A or B…”
    So, examples like the ones pickalish linked to in the comment August 10, 2009 8:44 PM about gender, inequalit, and borders; NOW fighting for immigrant mothers’ and children’s rights to each other; international patriarchies; and and Chandra Talpade Mohanty’s book Feminism Without Borders (thanks, puckalish!) are clearly cases where feminism and immigration reform intersect! This is why intersectionality is so useful and kicks so much ass. :)
    However, I’ll admit that using those cases to argue that all of immigration reform is within feminist issues would be “taking intersectionality a bit too far” (or more accurately, going beyond intersectionality altogether to focus on a union instead of intersections – would that be called unionality?).
    “…It means that other leftist movements can simply take feminists for granted without making any provisions against misogyny in their ranks, since we are assumed to be 100% loyal lefty footsoldiers in every circumstance. (and believe me, some progressive organizations are riddled with misogyny and homophobia, and know full well that nobody will ever call them out on it… not feminists, and certainly not the right.)…
    “…My point is that it really sucks that feminists are expected to be always loyal to all progressive causes when we get no support in return from La Raza, pro-palestinian groups or similar — and are also expected to check our differing beliefs at the door when they have nothing to do with women’s rights…”
    Exactly.

  22. puckalish
    Posted August 12, 2009 at 3:47 am | Permalink

    you’re absolutely right… it takes so much longer to explain, though, lol… b and i are just simpler… and it is a comment thread, so i got lazy on my semantics, but i guess that no job is too small from meaningful html semantics (especially when accessibility is always an issue)!

  23. Mina
    Posted August 12, 2009 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

    “you’re absolutely right…”
    Thank you! :)
    “it takes so much longer to explain, though, lol… b and i are just simpler… and it is a comment thread, so i got lazy on my semantics, but i guess that no job is too small from meaningful html semantics…”
    So we explained it in two little comments instead of you writing one huge comprehensive explanation. That works. :)
    “…(especially when accessibility is always an issue)!”
    Yeah!

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

180 queries. 0.642 seconds