Social Justice Journal Issue

Community Accountability: Emerging Movements to Transform Violence, a special issue of Social Justice: A Journal of Crime, Conflict & World Order (Vol 37, No. 4, 2011-2012), critically examines grassroots efforts, cultural interventions, and theoretical questions regarding community-based strategies to address gendered violence.  This collection encapsulates a decade of local and national initiatives led by or inspired by allied social movements that reflect the complexities of integrating the theory and practice of community accountability.

edited by Ana Clarissa Rojas Durazo, Alisa Bierria, Mimi Kim

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BOOK REVIEWS
Review of Arab and Arab American Feminisms: Gender, Violence, & Belonging, edited by Rabab Abdulhadi, Evelyn Alsultany, and Nadine Naber
– Mejdulene B. Shomali

Review of The Revolution Starts at Home: Confronting Intimate Violence Within Activist Communities, edited by Ching-In Chen, Jai Dulani, and Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha
– brownfemipower

Review of Normal Life: Administrative Violence, Critical Trans Politics, and the Limits of Law, by Dean Spade
– Marcia Ochoa

Review of Queer (In)Justice: The Criminalization of LGBT People in the United States, by Joey L. Mogul, Andrea J. Ritchie, and Kay Whitlock
– Jakeya Caruthers

Review of Captive Genders: Trans Embodiment and the Prison Industrial Complex, edited by Eric A. Stanley and Nat Smith
– Andrea Ritchie


8 responses to “Social Justice Journal Issue

  1. Pingback: Captive Genders: Trans Embodiment and the Prison Industrial Complex

  2. Pingback: queer abolition « EXCO QUEER STUDIES

  3. For my part, I am encouraged that some gender based societal customs are coming down. Like, the ones that said “women don’t wear pants” (’50s), “women don’t get tattoos” (’80s), “women don’t sleep with women” (’00s). But I’m discouraged that all of these are denials of femininity – all are examples of women being “allowed” to do things formerly reserved for men only – and I’m afraid that these changes REINFORCE the underlying premise that “feminine is bad”. So called “crossdressing” almost exclusively exists for men – imagine a couple, he wears jeans & NFL sweatshirt, she wears khaki pencil skirt & button-down shirt…. now imagine she wears his jeans & SS, and he wears her skirt & shirt. He’s now a “crossdresser”, wearing “women’s clothing”, while she is just wearing “clothing”.

    As I see it, the whole practice of assigning “masculine” or “feminine” to clothing (pants v. skirt) / shoes (hiking boots v. heels) / body art (tattoo v. nail color) / handbags / hairstyles etc.., is a tool for perpetuating prejudice and gender discrimination – by marginalizing the “feminine”. If the labels were dropped, if ALL clothing was JUST “clothing” – if it became as common to see men in skirts AS men as it is to see women in pants as women – if men were allowed to wear anything without their masculinity being questioned – THEN I would believe we were making real progress toward accepting both genders equally.

    I love the look of color on my fingernails, and I enjoy the comfort of a skirt. I have no desire to “be a woman” or to misrepresent my gender – I just want to be free to wear whatever I like without prejudice.

    • Also, if it became “acceptable” for anybody to wear anything – if there were no gender labels associated with any style of clothing – then I believe there would be less violence against trans people because they wouldn’t be using (and their haters wouldn’t be interpreting) their clothing as an expression of their gender identification.

      I can only guess, but maybe part of the reason trans people have so much interest in their gender identification, is because society places so much emphasis on gender. Especially some of the macho BS expectations society places on manhood – “don’t cry, no emotion, work work work, guzzle beer, follow sports, watch porn, get lots of sex” – it’s totally understandable for anyone to think “that’s not me, I’m more like the opposite of that – maybe I’m more feminine than masculine – maybe I should have been born female…” MAYBE I’M WRONG – I am just guessing – but it seems to me that when someone identifies “opposite” (re: their anatomy) traits in their personality, they are unconsciously accepting societal definitions of “masculine” and “feminine” that are largely false, prejudicial and not really necessary for society to even think about.

  4. Pingback: WOW! | Prison Justice

  5. No New Jim Crow Seattle Campaign (started in the late winter/early spring 2012) is working alongside a number of other groups in Seattle/King County to end mass incarceration, and we are becoming increasingly aware of transformative justice as the alternative to what we’ve got now in our very sick country, America. Thank you for this resource!
    Mary Paterson and the No New Jim Crow Seattle Campaign

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s