Blackmail in D.C.

Le Monde diplomatique's Serge Halimi recently published an insightful analysis of President Barak Obama's back-peddling during recent debt negotiations between the White House and right wingers. My translation of the editorial appears below, along with the original French.

août 2011: Chantage à Washington

August 2011: Blackmail in Washington D.C.

by Serge Halimi

Where the reduction of the American national debt is concerned, the dispute placing President Barack Obama in opposition to the Congressional Republican majority conceals what’s really at play: giving in to adversarial blackmail.  Mr. Obama immediately conceded that more than three quarters of the budget for the next ten years – 3 billion dollars – would come from budget cuts to social programs. The American right wing could have settled for this win but it always wants more, even at the risk of losing popularity.

Relative à la réduction de la dette américaine, la querelle qui oppose le président Barack Obama et la majorité républicaine au Congrès dissimule l’essentiel : cédant au chantage de ses adversaires, M. Obama a concédé d’emblée que plus des trois quarts de l’effort budgétaire des dix prochaines années, soit 3 000 milliards de dollars, proviendraient de coupes dans les budgets sociaux. La droite américaine aurait pu se satisfaire de ce triomphe, mais elle veut toujours plus. Y compris quand son intransigeance risque d’entamer sa popularité.

In December 2010, in a first buckling to pressure, the President of the United States opted to maintain the very unequal tax cuts of predecessor George W. Bush, for a period of two years.  Four months later, sounding like Ronald Reagan, Mr. Obama delighted in “the biggest annual reduction of expenditures in US history.” He continued negotiations with the Republicans of the Congress, announcing that he was prepared to be reprimanded by his party in order to get results. Result: more White House back-peddling…

En décembre 2010, cédant une première fois à sa pression, le président des Etats-Unis avait prolongé de deux ans les baisses d’impôts très inégalitaires décidées par son prédécesseur George W. Bush. Quatre mois plus tard, parlant cette fois comme Ronald Reagan, M. Obama s’est réjoui de « la réduction annuelle des dépenses la plus importante de notre histoire ». Il a ensuite enchaîné les cycles de négociations avec les parlementaires républicains, annonçant : « Je suis prêt à me faire taper sur les doigts par mon parti pour arriver à un résultat. » Résultat : de nouveaux reculs de la Maison Blanche…

The right wing is opposed to any debt reduction that would call for tax hikes. This preliminary condition may seem odd in a country where the avalanche of fiscal privileges heaped on the wealthiest results in a level of global deductions at its lowest point in fifty years. In reality, beyond a determination to target expenses only, Republicans want “to starve the beast,” that is, in the words of one of their strategists, “to reduce government to the size where [we] can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”

La droite s’oppose à toute réduction de l’endettement qui passerait par un relèvement des impôts. Ce préalable pourrait sembler farfelu dans un pays où l’avalanche des privilèges fiscaux déversés sur les plus riches fait que le niveau global des prélèvements n’a jamais été aussi bas depuis cinquante ans. Mais, au-delà d’un entêtement à ne cibler que les dépenses, les républicains veulent en réalité « affamer la bête » — c’est-à-dire, pour reprendre l’expression d’un de leurs stratèges, « réduire la taille de l’Etat de façon à ce qu’on puisse ensuite le noyer dans une baignoire ».

How can the recent soaring of the American public debt be explained? Firstly, by the economic crisis, largely provoked by decades of financial deregulation. Secondly, by the consistent renewal of temporary tax reductions voted in 2001 (2,000 billion dollars income loss). And finally, by the post-September 11 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (1,300 billion dollars). The party of Reagan and Bush nonetheless claims to resolve the debt problem by protecting both the rich, whom they call “job creators,” and the Pentagon budget, that has increased (in real terms) by 67% in ten years.

Or comment s’explique l’envol récent de la dette publique américaine ? D’abord par la crise économique, que la déréglementation financière des dernières décennies a largement provoquée. Ensuite, par la reconduction régulière des baisses d’impôts provisoires votées en 2001 (2 000 milliards de dollars de manque à gagner). Enfin, par les guerres de l’après-11-Septembre en Afghanistan et en Irak (1 300 milliards de dollars). Le parti de Reagan et de M. Bush prétend néanmoins résoudre le problème de l’endettement en protégeant à la fois les plus riches, qu’il appelle les « créateurs d’emplois », et le budget du Pentagone, qui a augmenté (en termes réels) de 67 % en dix ans.

Last April 5, Paul Ryan, president of the House Budget Commission, in fact outlined Republican projects for the coming decades. His plan proposes that public expenses, presently equal to 24% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), will not move beyond 14.75% of the GDP in 2050, with the maximum tax rate moving from 35% to 25% (the lowest level since 1931). All the tax havens for the privileged would be preserved, but health benefits for the elderly and the poor would be frozen.

Le 5 avril dernier, M. Paul Ryan, président de la commission budgétaire de la Chambre des représentants, a d’ailleurs détaillé les projets des républicains pour les décennies à venir. Son plan prévoit que les dépenses publiques, actuellement égales à 24 % du produit intérieur brut (PIB), n’atteindront plus que 14,75 % du PIB en 2050, le taux d’imposition maximal passant de 35 % à 25 % (niveau le plus bas depuis 1931). Toutes les niches fiscales des privilégiés seraient préservées, mais les remboursements de santé destinés aux personnes âgées et aux pauvres seraient gelés.

If Mr. Obama continues to avoid this battle, the social missions of the American government may very well soon look like the cadaver in the bathtub.

Si M. Obama continue à esquiver ce combat-là, les missions sociales de l’Etat américain risquent bien de ressembler sous peu au cadavre dans la baignoire.

Serge Halimi on the Western Intervention in Libya

Serge Halimi's editorial "Révoltes arabes, chaos libyen : Les pièges d'une guerre" appears in April's online edition of Le Monde Diplomatique.

Click on the above link to read the original article in French. Continue here to read my English translation.
---
Arab Revolts, Libyan Chaos
The Snares of War

by Serge Halimi

For several months now, the Arab revolts have been reshuffling the political, diplomatic and ideological cards of the region (read “Une région en ébullition”). Libyan repression was threatening this dynamic. And the UN authorized Western war has just added to the landscape a factor with unpredictable consequences.

 

Even a broken watch shows the correct time twice a day. That the United States, France and the UK have taken the lead in the Security Counsel resolution authorizing the use of force against the Libyan regime is insufficient in and of itself to object to it. An unarmed movement rebelling against a regime of terror is at times reduced to calling on disreputable international police forces for aid. Focused on their own problems, they will not refuse this aid, even though it comes from who turn a deaf ear on the pleas of other victims – the Palestinians, for example. The rebellion will even forget that the international police force is better known for repression than for support.

That which logically guided the Libyan insurgents facing extreme danger is not enough to legitimize this new war by Western powers on Arab soil. The intervention of NATO member countries constitutes inadmissible means for trying to reach a desired end (the fall of  Muammar Qaddafi). If these means seem obvious, a “choice” between Western bombings and the crushing of Libyan rebels, it is solely because other possibilities – the intervention of UN, Egyptian or Pan Arab forces alongside the rebel forces – were rejected.

Past results of Western armies prevent us from regarding them them as motivated by the generosity they claim today. Who believes that States, no matter which ones, consecrate their resources and armies in order to accomplish democratic objectives? Recent history is enough to remind us that if wars claiming such motivation initially achieve dazzling success, with equally dazzling media attention, what follows is more chaotic and sober. In Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq, fighting has not ceased, although Mogadiscio, Kabul and Bagdad “fell” years ago.

The Libyan rebels would have preferred toppling despotic powers on their own, as their Tunisian and Egyptian neighbors did. Franco-Anglo-American military intervention threatens to force them into a debt towards those never before concerned themselves with Libyan freedom. The responsibility of this regional emergency, however, lies with Qaddafi. Without the repressive rage of a regime that, over the space of forty years, moved from an anti-imperialist dictatorship to pro-Western despotism, without his tirades treating all opposition as “Al-Qaida agents" or "paid moles and informants working for foreigners,” the fate of the Libyan uprising would have depended solely on the Libyan people.

The 1973 Security Council Resolution authorizing the bombing of Libya will perhaps prevent crushing a revolt condemned by the poverty of the insurgents. It resembles nonetheless a dance of hypocrites. For it is not because Qaddafi is the worst or the most murderous of dictators that his troops have been bombed, but because he is also weaker than others, with no nuclear arms or powerful friends likely to protect him from a military attack or defend him in the Security Council. The intervention against him confirms that international law does not lay down clear principles, the violation of which, in every case, would lead to disciplinary measures.

The same goes for diplomatic and financial whitewashing: the moment of righteousness permits the erasing of decades of turpitude. Thus the French president has his former business partner bombed, the partner he welcomed in 2007 and while everyone knew the nature of his regime – we will be grateful to Mr. Nicolas Sarkozy for not having proposed to Mr. Qaddafi the “savoir faire of our security forces” offered last January to Tunisian President Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali… As for Mr. Silvio Berlusconi, the “close friend” of the Libyan Guide who made eleven visits to Rome: he is rallying the righteous coalition by dragging it by its feet.

A majority of old men contested by the democratic thrust are headquartered in the heart of an Arab league that joins the UN movement then pretends consternation when the first American missiles are fired. Russia and China held the power to veto the Security Council resolution, to amend it in order to reduce its reach and the risks of escalation. Had they done so, they would not have had to “regret” the use of force. Finally, to size up the honesty of the “international community” in this affair, it must be pointed out that the 1973 resolution reproaches Libya for “arbitrary detentions, forced disappearances, tortures and summary executions,” naturally things that do not exist in Guantanamo, Chechnya or China…

The "protection of civilians” is not simply an indisputable demand; in times of armed conflict, it also imposes the bombing of military targets, that is of soldiers (often civilians obliged to wear the uniform…), mingled among the unarmed population. Control of a “no-fly zone” for them means that planes patrolling the area risk being shot down and their pilots captured, which will then justify their liberation by the ground commandos. Scrub the vocabulary as you will, war cannot be eternally euphemized. 

And in a final analysis, this war belongs to those who decided it and who lead it, not to those who recommend it, dreaming that it will be short and joyous. Drawing up spotlessly clean plans for a war without hate, without “blunders," is a charming notion, but the military force to whom falls the task of executing the plans will do so according to its own inclinations, methods and requirements. It may as well be said that the corpses of Libyan soldiers machine gunned during their retreat are, as the joyful crowds of Benghazi, the result of the 1973 UN resolution. 

The progressive forces of the entire world are divided on the Libyan affair, according to whether they stress their solidarity with an oppressed people or their opposition to a Western war. Both standards of judgment are necessary, but one cannot always demand simultaneous satisfaction of the two. When there has to be a choice, it remains to be determined just what an internationally obtained “anti-imperialist” stamp of approval authorizes its people to be subjected to each day. 

In Mr. Qaddafi's case, the silence of several leftist Latin American governments (Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia) on the repressions ordered by him is disconcerting, just as much as the Libyan Guide's opposition to the “West” is pretense. Mr. Qaddafi denounces the “colonialist plot” against him -- after reassuring the former colonial powers that “we are all in the same fight against terrorism. Our information services work together. We have helped a great deal these past years.”

Like Hugo Chávez, Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro, the Libyan dictator claims that the explanation for the attack against him lies in the desire to “control oil.” And yet the oil is already exploited by the American company Occidental Petroleum (Oxy), the British BP and the Italian ENI (read Jean-Pierre Séréni’s article on this subject: “Le pétrole libyen de main en main”). A few weeks ago, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was hailing “Libya’s strong macro-economic performance and its progress in the reinforcement of the private sector's role." Mr. Ben Ali, Qaddafi’s friend, had received comparable compliments in November 2008, served up personally by IMF’s General Director, Mr. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, arriving straight from... Tripoli. 

 

Mr. Qaddafi’s antique revolutionary, anti-imperialist spin, fed in Caracas and Havana, no doubt equally escaped Mr. Anthony Giddens, a theoretician of Blair’s Third Way. He announced in 2007 that Libya would shortly become a “Norway of Northern Africa”: prosperous, egalitarian, turned towards the future.” Compared with the very eclectic list of his dupes, how is it still possible to believe that the Libyan Guide is as crazy as he is purported to be?

There are several reasons for some leftist Latin American governments' mistakes about Mr. Qaddafi.  They wanted to see him as the enemy of their enemy (the United States), but that should not have been enough to make him their friend. A mediocre awareness of Northern Africa – Mr. Chavez says he informed himself about the situation in Tunisia by calling Mr. Qaddafi… – led them to position themselves opposite the “colossal campaign of lies orchestrated by the media” (according to Mr. Castro). All the more so because this campaign took them back to personal memories whose pertinence was questionable in this particular case. “I do not know why this is happening and has happened in Libya, the Venezuelan president declared to me. It reminds me of Hugo Chavez on April 11.” On April 11, 2002 a coup d’état had attempted to overthrow Chavez; the media supported it through manipulated information.

Other factors leaning towards poor analysis of the Libyan situation include: a model for reading events that was forged by decades of armed intervention and violent domination on the part of the United States in Latin America; the fact that Libya helped Venezuela gain a foothold in Africa; the role of the two States at the heart of OPEC and Africa-South America summits; the geopolitical approach of Caracas aiming to re-balance its diplomacy towards closer relations between Africa and South America.

To this one must also add the tendency of President Chavez to consider the diplomatic ties of his country as a personal, close relationship with chiefs of State: “I was a friend of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, I am a friend of King Abdallan, who was here in Caracas (…). A friend of the Emir of Qatar, a friend of the president of Syria, who also came here. A friend of Bouteflika.” When Qaddafi’s regime (“my friend for such a long time”) engaged in the repression of his people, this friendship weighed in the wrong direction. In fact, Mr. Chavez missed an opportunity: of presenting the rebellion on the African continent as the younger brothers of leftist Latin American movements he knows well.

Beyond this error, diplomacy is no doubt the domain that best reveals, in every country, the flaws of exercising a solitary power made up of opaque decisions, no parliamentary control and no popular deliberation. Moreover, when diplomacy pretends to defend democracy through war, as in the Security Council, the contrast is necessarily striking.

After having exploited, and not without success, the geopolitical, anti-Occident recourse and the progressive argument of the defense of natural resources, the Libyan director did not long resist the temptation to play the ultimate card of religious confrontation. “The big Christian powers,” he explained last March 20, "have engaged in a second Crusade against the Muslim people, with the Libyans at their head. Their objective is to wipe Islam [off the map].” Thirteen days earlier, Mr. Qaddafi had nonetheless compared his work of repression to the repression suffered by one thousand four hundred Palestinians.” “Even the Israelis in Gaza had to resort to tanks to combat such extremists. It is the same for us.” That must not have increased the Guide’s popularity in the Arab world.

At least this last about-face has one virtue. It recalls the political noxiousness of the approach that reproduces, by inverting it, the neoconservative thematic of crusades and empires. The Arab uprisings, because they mixed the religious and secular – and because the religious and secular were opposed therein – may announce the death of a self-proclaimed anti-imperialist discourse that is nothing more than anti-Western.  In its hatred of the “West,” it confounds what is the worst in it – gunboat diplomacy, the disdain of “indigenous” people, wars of religion – with what is best in it, from the Enlightenment philosophy to social security. 

Barely two years after the Iranian revolution in 1979, the radical Syrian thinker Sadik Jalal Al-Azm scrutinized, in order to refute them, the characteristics of a “backwards orientalism,” that, refusing the path of secular nationalism and revolutionary communism, was calling for a fight against the West through a return to religious authenticity. The main postulates of this "culturalist" analysis, summarized then submitted to criticism by Gilbert Achcar, stipulated that “the degree of emancipation of the Orient must not and may not be measured by the yardstick of Western values and criteria, such as democracy, secularism and the liberation of women; that the Eastern Muslim cannot be understood through the epistemological instruments of Western science; that the factor that moves the Muslim masses is cultural, that is to say, religious, and that its importance surpasses that of economic and social factors that condition Western political dynamics; that the only path of Muslim countries towards rebirth is through Islam; and finally, that the movements brandishing the standard of a “return to Islam" are not reactionary or regressive, as perceived by the Western eye, but rather progressive, in that they resist Western cultural domination.”

 

Such a fundamentalist approach to politics has perhaps not had its last say. But, ever since the shock wave that began in Tunisia, one senses that the relevance of such an approach has been shaken by the Arab people who do not want to position themselves “against the West, nor in its service ." They prove this by sometimes targeting an ally of the United States (Egypt), and sometimes one of their adversaries (Syria). Far from fearing the defense of individual freedoms, freedom of conscience, political democracy, unionism, feminism as constituting as many “Western” priorities dressed up as emancipating universalism, the Arab people take hold of these things to mark their refusal of authoritarianism, social injustices and police states that treat their people like children, all the more spontaneously since they are lead by old men. And all this – recalling other great revolutionary upsurges, that day after day make social and democratic gains being lost elsewhere – is undertaken energetically, at precisely the moment when the “West” seems split between its fear of decline and its lassitude in the face of a dead and stagnant political system. A UN resolution as much for the struggles of Western peoples… 

Nothing says that this Arabic energy and courage are going to continue to score points. But they are already revealing unexplored possibilities. Article 20 of the Security Council’s 1973 resolution, for example, stipulates that the Security Council “declares itself resolved to insure that (Libyan) holdings frozen (by a previous resolution) are at a later date, as soon as possible, made available to and used for the people of Arab Libyan Jamahiriya.” It would therefore be possible to freeze financial holdings and return them to the citizens of a country! Let us wager that this lesson will be remembered: States have the power to satisfy the people. For some months now, the Arab world has been reminding us of another lesson, just as universal: the people have the power to constrain States.

http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2011/04/HALIMI/20379 - avril 2011 

  

Women's Rights Threatened in France

This month's issue of Le Monde diplomatique has a number of interesting and important articles. Four in particular caught my attention immediately: "Traité secret sur l'immatériel" by Florent Latrive (treating intellectual propriety rights and the sharing of ideas), "De la valeur ignorée des métiers" by Pierre Rimbert (weighing what people are paid for their work against their contributions to society), "Et pour quelques tomates de plus" by Pierre Daum and Aurel (the plight of farm workers in southern Spain, pointing to a multitude of reasons to boycott tomato sales in Europe), and lastly, the article I chose to translate and post below:  Sabine Lambert's "Le droit à lavortement menacé, 'une affaire de bonnes femmes.'" Some of these articles are found in this month's online issue of Le Monde diplomatique. Not all are available in the International issue in English

The Right to Abortion Threatened

written  by Sabine Lambert, student in sociology

On the set of Les maternelles, broadcast by France 5 on January 21, a woman emotionally describes the abortion she'd undergone in a hospital...without anesthesia. She isn’t talking about an abortion 40 years ago: she’s not even 25 years old, lives in the Paris suburbs. On the verge of tears, she recalls the details of her ordeal, from the usual struggle to get an appointment, to the operating table where she had the abortion amidst the incessant comings and goings of hospital personnel, and with no anesthesia. She was not given the option. As she tells her story, the journalist interviewing her repeatedly exclaims in surprise, “unbelievable!” Finally the interviewer turns to the doctor sharing the stage with them to ask how such a situation could still be possible in France. The gynecologist wearily affirms that there are indeed some doctors who use pain and humiliation to make women pay for their decision to get an abortion.

Abortions without anesthesia are apparently rare. While knitting needles and blood poisoning seem to be things of the past in France. Being shown your “baby” on the ultrasound or being asked condescendingly how you “managed to get pregnant” are not. And the question of how to abort? Drugs, for example, are often presented as a progressive alternative to surgery. Given the current shortage of hospital beds, drugs may become a means of “freeing up the operating rooms,” as it is sometimes more prosaically put. Clearing abortion patients from the holy operating block, delivering the immaculate temple, so to speak, of this irrelevance, might free up time for the big brass to remove tumors and implant eggs in courageous albeit infertile women – obviously more lucrative and gratifying than an ordinary suction abortion.

Apparently abortion, like contraception, is considered solely a "women's issue." When their pregnancy tests show positive, it's their problem; if they decide to have an abortion, the weight of the decision is again on their shoulders. Those who think this way will respond, “obviously” – since it concerns women’s choices and women’s bodies. Women asked for this freedom; let them deal with it. Only a vaguely subversive, exotic sexuality seems to emerge from the domain of the “private.” Little does it matter that women spend more time cleaning toilets, taking care of children and slaving away for unequal pay than they do playing with the latest sex toy in vogue.

It appears that a woman’s life is only of interest if filled with glamor and excitement — a description that doesn't fit abortion. Abortion is too often left to the militant anti-abortionists, who are all too happy to take it on, and seriously. They may not be as numerous in France as in Spain, the US or in Latin American countries, where religion feeds their numbers, but their views are blossoming on fertile ground in France. The media contributes to anti-abortionist growth by often putting them in a favorable spotlight. The movement is also developing modern tools to isolate women and relegate them to the recesses of their fragile psyches. Pro-lifers take advantage of this climate and increasingly use their Internet sites to advance anti-abortion goals by responding subtlety to women “in distress.” We would be wrong to consider these groups simply as a mish-mash of reactionary crackpots. They are abandoning flagrant lies, shocking slogans and illegal provocations. Their web sites consistently resemble genuine ancillary sites of the Ministry of Health…to the point of being mistaken for them. Names such as the “National Rating Center,” toll-free numbers and Anglophone university studies, are helping them build a very real respectability.

This allows them to more easily insert themselves into the “psychological turmoil”— notably the famous “post-abortion syndrome”— to which all women are supposedly vulnerable after a voluntary abortion. Women who choose abortion are depicted as veritable wrecks, susceptible to a multitude of dangers: alcoholism, suicide, poverty, loneliness, or job loss. These apocalyptic descriptions are generally supported by grandiloquent statements, waxing lyrical on the “urge to bear children” that is some sort of natural occult force for any self-respecting woman…and whose emergence at times requires forceps. It’s on this point that the discourse of anti-abortionists joins the more common and omnipresent discourse of those that describe motherhood not as a choice, but as a force above and beyond women. The recent debate on “pregnancy denial” has contributed to accentuating this psychologizing vision. It once again calls into question, by a very practical magnifying glass effect, women’s capacity to decide what is good for them.

If we add to that multiple articles regularly consecrated to the sublime fertility rate of French women, why would it surprise us in such a climate that deciding to have an abortion may be painful? And consequently, how can abortion be experienced as anything but the “obligatory drama” that the experts describe as a villainous and indelible scar on female nature, the failure of a woman’s life? How surprising can it be that this necessarily painful act becomes so? Skimming through Internet forums to read the long laments of women who have had abortions reveals the effects of these self-fulfilling prophecies. Those who dared go against the dictates of nature and their “female instincts” seem to have perfectly internalized their punishment. It is translated through nightmares or imaginary babies who grow up, who have birthdays; it expresses itself by heavy feelings of guilt, anxiety, loneliness and shame. As for those women who do not experience this pain and regret, they are reduced to silence if they do not wish to be seen as abnormal, heartless or mentally ill.

The threats weighing against the right to abortion go beyond the waiting period and the list of the latest abortion clinics shut down, even though physical access to abortion remains an obviously crucial issue. More often an indirect than head-on, this threat consists of overlapping, multiple factors. Among them, a division between “private” and “political” – or “public” – that hangs on like a village of very gallant Gauls. It is highlighted, for example, in the attitude of the OFPRA (French office for the protection of refugees and stateless people), which argues that the rape and violence done to women are not valid reasons to request asylum, since they concern problems related to “the private lives” of women (1).  This dichotomy is possible because of the constantly updated anchoring of women in nature and family circles, as “less social” beings than men. It excludes them from history and submits them to specific and implicit laws. It is this division that sends battered women back to their "responsibilities" and encourages indifference to the lamentable inequality of the division of household tasks.

This last issue, which often provokes sarcasm from those who rarely pick up a broom, is not trivial. On the contrary, it reveals that relations between the sexes, while perhaps individually harmonious, are nothing less than social and, whether lovers of social light-mindedness like it or not, they are the fruits of a power relationship. If it were a matter of attitudes needing a tweek then “we would have to undertake the education of supervisors and managers so that they would do their part of the typing and industrial work,” humorously writes French feminist Colette Guillaumin (2). This way, “by reforming people’s attitudes,” we would see a “benign society” emerge.

In a word, this dichotomy allowed a doctor to decide with complete impunity, based on his good grace or his mood of the day, that the (not quite really a) patient on his table would be just fine without anesthesia.

1) Jean-Marc Manach, “Le viol des réfugiées ‘relève de leur vie privée’”, Bugbrother.net, December 11, 2009.

2) Colette Guillaumin, Sexe, race et pratique du pouvoir. L’idée de nature, Indigo et Côté-Femmes, Paris, 1992, p. 231.