Now this is interesting. Girlfriends and wives of gang members in Pereira, Colombia are calling for a "strike of crossed legs" as a call to disarm gangsters in a very violent part of Colombia. I have never heard anything like this and I think it is really interesting for a variety of reasons. First of all, to de-link the connection with sex and violence and to say, no violence is not sexy, is profound. I only hope that such a strike doesn't create more potentially violent circumstances.
"We met with the wives and girlfriends of gang members and they were worried some were not handing over their guns and that is where they came up with the idea of a vigil or a sex strike," the mayor's spokesman told Reuters news agency."The message they are giving them is disarm," he added.
Studies found that local gang members were drawn to criminality by the desire for status, power, and sexual attractiveness, not economic necessity, Colombian radio reported.
One of the girlfriends, Jennifer Bayer, told Britain's Guardian newspaper: "We want them to know that violence is not sexy."
Ms Bayer said the women had come up with a strike anthem rap song that included the lyrics: "As women we are worth a lot. We don't want to fall for violent men because with them we lose too much."
I do have to say it is interesting that women lobbying against gun violence isn't enough. And that in some way our sexuality/body has to be the site of resistence to get these men to *listen*. What do we think about that? Is this a misguided attempt at de-naturalizing the connections between sex and violence?
Or is this a wise move to truly end gang violence?
via BBC and Broadsheet.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Colombian women try sex ban to stop gang violence..
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/3953
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
Lysistrata.
Shit, you beat me to it... ;-))
Shit, you beat me to it... ;-))
Did you hear about the African womyn who, when taught the american-imposed ABC method of hiv prevention, put it into practice as: A-abstain from sex with any man who won't wear a condom. B-don't have sex with your husband if he is not B-ing faithful, or with another woman's husband. C-if your husband's behavior is acceptable, consent to intercourse with a condom in place, only. Here are some of my thoughts on Womyn's perogative: http://lesbesquet.blogspot.com/2006/06/women-of-earth-unite.html .
Why would a woman date or marry (or continue to date or remain married to) a violent gang member in the first place?
And in other news, domestic abuse and prostitution on the rise in Pereira.
My post could be mis-read as making light of domestic abuse. That was not my intention. I do think these are legitimate concerns, but I should not have presented them in such a flippant manner.
I think that this is actually a great idea. I think it does show violent men that the women around them will not stand for their violence and are not attracted to it. It is healthy for the men as well because it takes away a big part of the positive reinforcement for their violent behavior (feeling that they are only desirable if they achieve power through violence). I do not think this will cause these men to turn their violence towards their partners or turn their desires towards prostitutes. These men are not evil or entirely immoral. I am sure they love their partners as much as anyone else. I do wish that the women only had to use their voices to get the violence to stop and I wish that the men would listen to that. But alas, I do not think that it's the worst idea to use the power that they have by denying sex in order to achieve non-violence. Plus, if these women were afraid of violence being inflicted on them they would not use these means. Oh and attraction is complicated, you cannot blame these women for being with men involved in gang violence. From the outside it may seem like a bad choice, but I don't know very many people who always make the best choices in partners and we really don't know these people. Maybe I'm just optimistic or maybe I'm biased because one of my closest friends is with an ex-gang leader, probably both.
You're not all that well-read are you?
This idea's only been around since about 415 BC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata
Well thank you so much for the link, I did find it informative. I thought that the question had been posed to whether we thought this was a good tactic or not. (What do we think about that? Is this a misguided attempt at de-naturalizing the connections between sex and violence? Or is this a wise move to truly end gang violence?) Did I miss the part where she asked if we thought it was an original idea? If so, I'm truly sorry.
Or maybe my post is just a tribute to my not being very well read...
Either way, thank you for your kindness.
And by the way, that link was posted in the first comment.
One of the girlfriends, Jennifer Bayer, told Britain's Guardian newspaper: "We want them to know that violence is not sexy."
Yeah, I thought that statement was kind of odd as well. If she doesn't find violence sexy, then why is she dating him?