In 2012, women’s emotions, birth control remain controversial

Apparently, women’s emotions may not be in the “best interest” of combat missions, according to Rick Santorum.

Politico has a transcript of what Santorum responded to when CNN’s John King asked him how he feels about women on the front lines of combat missions.

“Look, I want to create every opportunity for women to be able to serve this country, and they do so in an amazing and wonderful way. They’re a great addition to the – and have been for a long time – to the armed services of our country,” Santorum said. “But I do have concerns about women in frontline combat.”

He added, “I think that can be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interests of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved. And I think that’s probably – you know, it already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat. But I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat. I think that’s probably not in the best interests of men, women or the mission.”

*Sigh*

This comes on the heels of the U.S. Department of Defense unveiling a plan to allow thousands of women to serve in roles closer to the front lines.

Defense officials say the new rules will still mean that woman are barred from serving as infantry, armor and special operations forces — considered the most dangerous combat jobs. But the changes will open the door for more opportunities and promotions for women by allowing them to perform jobs they are already performing, but in battalions, which are closer to the fighting and once considered too dangerous for women.

A 1994 combat exclusion policy bans women from being assigned to ground combat units below the brigade level. A brigade is roughly 3,500 troops split into several battalions of about 800 soldiers each. Historically, brigades were based farther from the front lines and often include top command and support staff, while the battalions are usually in closer contact with the enemy.

In the past decade, the necessities of war propelled women into jobs such as medics, military police and intelligence officers, and they were sometimes attached — but not formally assigned — to battalions. So while a woman couldn’t be assigned as an infantryman in a battalion going out on patrol, she could fly the helicopter supporting the unit, or move in to provide medical aid if troops were injured.

I can’t help but to wonder if Santorum believes women are inherently incapable of serving on the front lines in active combat due to his belief that our roller coaster emotions make us more susceptible to making decisions that aren’t in the best interest of the military.  I guess by stability he means having soldiers who think before photographing themselves urinating on dead Taliban soldiers, pillaging Iraqi villages and raping Iraqi women before killing them.

Santorum’s comments got me thinking, though, about how women in general continue to be viewed as the weaker, less capable gender. Women’s emotions and our priorities when it comes to health care are debated and analyzed by Santorum and politicians like him as if we are the red-headed step children of real, meaty, pressing issues that plague the country.

(More…)

Posted in politics | Leave a comment

Arizona state lawmaker suggests holiday to celebrate white people

No joke! State Rep. Cecil Ash is suggesting it’s time for whiteness to get its formal recognition in lieu of all these brown and black folks getting their own holidays and special months. The lawmaker supposedly made the recommendation during a debate with a democratic lawmaker in Arizona’s state house:

“I wanted to speak to you all about Latino Americans here in Arizona,” said state Rep. Richard Miranda on the House floor Monday, starting the conversation that sparked the controversy.

Miranda said Arizona should have a Latino American day in Arizona.

After some heated debate, Rep. Cecil Ash stepped up to the mic.

“I’m supportive of this proposition. I just want them to assure me that when we do become in the minority you’ll have a day for us,” Ash said.

Ash isn’t backing down from his claims, adding he thinks the idea is “appropriate.”

“It was appropriate for the mood that was in the House and I think that if and when the Caucasian population becomes a minority, they may want to celebrate the accomplishments and the contributions of the Caucasian population the same way.” 

I can’t be surprised with this type of nonsense–this is a state where they have banned ethnic studies; where local law enforcement agencies have been given the green light by the state government to engage in racial and ethnic profiling people of Hispanic origin.

So after proclaiming to the world that Arizona is not friendly to racial and ethnic minorities and are ambivalent to their contributions to the state, this Arizona lawmaker wants the state to formally give whiteness a pat on the back for its historical contributions. Considering this state’s track record in putting racial and ethnic minorities on notice that they are no longer welcome in Arizona, I feel pretty confident this type of legislation, if drafted, would be approved and signed into law.

Posted in Arizona, racism, whiteness | Leave a comment

House GOP memo: abortion is “leading cause of death” in black community

I wish I was kidding, but I’m not. H/T to Mother Jones for making this type of propaganda known to the public.

A memo on Monday was circulated by Republican members on the House judiciary committee on Monday before Arizona Republican Rep. Trent Franks’ Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act’s scheduled markup. The memo seems to promote the bill, and uses some interesting statistics to back up its inaccurate claims. As we all known, the bill would outlaw abortions based on race or sex and would also give family members the ability to sue if they can prove an abortion was done on the basis of race or sex.

Part of the memo reads:

Even more invidious, a thorough review of the American family planning movement reveals a history of targeting African-Americans for “population control,” arguably resulting in the current statistic that a black baby is five times as likely to be aborted as a white baby. Abortion is the leading cause of death in the black community. With greater than 450,000 black abortions per year, more blacks Americans are lost to abortion annually than are lost to cancer, heart disease, diabetes, AIDS, and violence combined.

I should note that the memo cites Susan Cohen’s Abortion and Women of Color: A Bigger Picture, published by the Guttmacher  Institute, as one of the sources for its stipulation that black babies are “five times as likely to be abortion as a white baby.” While the report does admit the black abortion rate is five times higher than that of white women, Cohen presents  slew of economic, racial and social disparities that contribute to this statistic. She further notes that activists, “including some African-American pastors, have been waging a campaign around this fact, falsely asserting that the disparity is the result of aggressive marketing by abortion providers to minority communities.”

More:

These activists are exploiting and distorting the facts to serve their antiabortion agenda. They ignore the fundamental reason women have abortions and the underlying problem of racial and ethnic disparities across an array of health indicators. The truth is that behind virtually every abortion is an unintended pregnancy. This applies to all women—black, white, Hispanic, Asian and Native American alike. Not surprisingly, the variation in abortion rates across racial and ethnic groups relates directly to the variation in the unintended pregnancy rates across those same groups.

Black women are not alone in having disproportionately high unintended pregnancy and abortion rates. The abortion rate among Hispanic women, for example, although not as high as the rate among black women, is double the rate among whites. Hispanics also have a higher level of unintended pregnancy than white women. Black women’s unintended pregnancy rates are the highest of all. These higher unintended pregnancy rates reflect the particular difficulties that many women in minority communities face in accessing high-quality contraceptive services and in using their chosen method of birth control consistently and effectively over long periods of time. Moreover, these realities must be seen in a larger context in which significant racial and ethnic disparities persist for a wide range of health outcomes, from diabetes to heart disease to breast and cervical cancer to sexually transmitted infections (STI), including HIV.

Looks like the GOP has been caught red-handed distorting the facts and picking and choosing sentences without providing any context in order to promote their paternalistic, racist, anti-choice agenda.

(More…)

Posted in abortion rights, black children, black community, black women, politics, race baiting, racism, white privilege | Leave a comment

Pete Hoekstra airs racist campaign ad

This ish is bananas, y’all. Michigan U.S. Senate candidate Pete Hoesktra is in hot water for perpetuating racist Asian stereotypes from a campaign ad that ran during last night’s Super Bowl. For those who don’t want to watch the ad, here’s a transcript of what the young woman says:

“Thank you, Michigan Senator Debbie Spenditnow. Debbie spends so much American money. You borrow more and more from us. Your economy get very weak. Ours get very good. We take your jobs. Thank you, Debbie Spenditnow.”

A Washington Post article notes the ad has been criticized by at least one GOP operative and an Asian-American voter organization:

GOP consultant Nick De Leeuw flat-out scolded the Holland Republican for the ad.

“Stabenow has got to go. But shame on Pete Hoekstra for that appalling new advertisement,” De Leeuw wrote on his Facebook page Sunday morning. “Racism and xenophobia aren’t any way to get things done.”

The nonpartisan Asian & Pacific Islander American Vote group’s Michigan chapter said it was “deeply disappointed” by the ad, noting that the Asian-American community is a major contributor to Michigan’s economy. In 2010, Michigan’s 236,490 Asian-Americans made up 2.4 percent of the state’s population, up 35 percent from 2000.

“It is very disturbing that Mr. Hoekstra’s campaign chose to use harmful negative stereotypes that intrinsically encourage anti-Asian sentiment,” the group said in a statement.

Hoekstra campaign spokesman Paul Ciaramitaro said the ad is meant to be satirical. Hoekstra’s Facebook page, which by early evening was getting a barrage of criticism on the ad, snapped back that those “trying to make this an issue of race demonstrates their total ignorance of job creation policies.” On YouTube, the ratings buttons on the ad were disabled after it aired.

Democrats talk about race when they can’t defend their records,” Ciaramitaro said. “The U.S. economy is losing jobs to China because of Stabenow’s reckless spending policies. China is reaping the reward.”

Why do people think they can hide behind satire and/or humor when it comes to not only appropriating an oppressed group’s culture, but also promoting long-held racist, xenophobic stereotypes? Why is humor and satire the default defense one employs when it comes to making racist, xenophobic, transphobic, ableist, and homophobic beliefs known to the public at large?

(More…)

Posted in Michigan, Pete Hoekstra, politics, racism, xenophobia | 2 Comments

Humor is no defense, Roland Martin

I actually like Roland Martin. Not only are his tweets and Facebook postings humorous, but he also gives some of the best political insight that’s available for us who live outside The Beltway.

So, I was disappointed to see Martin play into long-standing gender stereotypes with tweets he made about a commercial during Sunday’s Super Bowl:

Since I’ve been following him for close to a year, I understand his long-running jokes he makes about soccer, as he notes about an hour after posting the above tweets. However, the tweet, “Ain’t no real bruhs going to H&M to buy some damn David Beckham underwear” caused a shit storm among some GLBTQ folks on Twitter. Of course, Martin defended his tweets by accusing people of not fully reading his timeline to fully grasps what he *really* was getting at.

I’m still pondering what Martin meant by “real bruhs,” though. I’ve read his timeline for 15 minutes before writing this and I still can’t grasps what he means by real bruhs. Do real bruhs purchase Hanes, formerly pitched by Michael Jordan, from Wal-Mart instead? Do they purchase their underwear from mall stores? Gap? Old Navy? Abercrombie & Fitch? Aero? Ecko? So, what if a dude at someone’s Super Bowl party was hyped about Beckham’s H&M underwear ad? Why does he deserve to have the “ish” smacked out of him, as Martin directed to his followers?

Does a man getting hyped about Beckham’s underwear ad make him less of a bruh, Martin? Does that make him worthy of ridicule? Mocking? What if a real bruh’s young son were to get hyped about Beckham’s underwear ad? Does that young son deserved to have the shit smacked out of him, reminding him of how real bruhs are supposed to conduct themselves in the presence of other real bruhs, young and old?

Here’s another screenshot of Martin’s tweets. Notice his defensiveness…

Martin’s response to his critics is typical of cisgendered, straight folks who refuse to check their privilege in the presence of GLBTQ peeps. Here’s the thing Roland Martin: if a member of an oppressed group criticizes your tweets as offensive and homophobic–just like GLBTQ folks regarding your tweets–you have no right to question their reasoning or their perception of your tweets. As a cis, straight man, you have no right to lecture gays, lesbians, bisexuals or transgender folks on how they should perceive homophobia. You have no right to dictate to GLBTQ folks on what is or isn’t homophobic. Your cis, straight privilege doesn’t give you that ability. Plain and simple.

Cracking on men wearing skinny jeans is very different than advocating violence towards those who aren’t “real bruhs” because they would get excited about seeing David Beckham’s underwear ad.

The difference, Roland Martin, is you are perpetuating gender stereotypes and promoting the idea that real men only act a certain way or like certain products. You’re promoting the idea that real men don’t get excited about going to H&M to purchase David Beckham’s new underwear. Furthermore, you’re promoting the accepted hypermasculine response to anything that goes against gender conformity as subject to ridicule and violence as an effort to put those misfits in check.

The idea that Martin would even hide behind humor to explain away the latent homophobia in his tweets is beneath a man of his intelligence. I can bet on my 2005 Honda Civic that Martin wouldn’t excuse Newt Gingrich if he tried to hide behind humor to explain his racist, sexist or homophobic statements. So, why should he expect his Twitter followers to accept his haphazard excuse for his homophobic tweets?

Posted in homophobia, Roland Martin, Super Bowl | 3 Comments