White guy explains why “Shit White Girls Say To Black Girls” isn’t racist

Every white person who claimed they were offended by Franchesca Ramsey’s videos need to watch this man, who blogs at Future Talk, break it down as to why these videos aren’t racist. Who knows, maybe having a white person explain what black folks have been saying for decades will finally serve as a breakthrough for white people…

Posted in racism, whiteness | 1 Comment

Santorum to pregnant rape victims: “make the best out of a bad situation”

We all knew Rick Santorum was a raging anti-abortion politico who finds it appalling that a black man like President Barack Obama can have a pro-choice stance. But, he’s also a cold, callous anti-abortion political has-been who believe rape victims should embrace their pregnancies:

From an interview he did with CNN’s Piers Morgan:

MORGAN: On abortion, you did harden your position on that as you got older. Why was that?

SANTORUM: Life. You know, when I decided to run for public life, I was informed very quickly people wanted to know what my position on that was. So I went through the process of trying to better understand the facts.

It became very clear to me that life begins at conception and persons are covered by the Constitution and since life — people, a human life is the same as a person, to me it was a pretty simple deduction to make. That’s what the Constitution clearly intended to protect.

MORGAN: But do you really — do you really — let me ask you this. Do you really believe, in every case, it should be totally wrong, in the sense that — I know that you believe, even in cases of rape and incest — and you’ve got two daughters. You know, if you have a daughter that came to you who had been raped.

SANTORUM: Yes.

MORGAN: And was pregnant and was begging you to let her have an abortion, would you really be able to look her in the eye and say, no, as her father?

SANTORUM: I would do what every father must do, is to try to counsel your daughter to do the right thing.

(CROSSTALK)

MORGAN: It’s an almost impossibly hypothetical thing to ask you, but there will be people in that position, and they will share your religious values.

SANTORUM: It’s not a matter of religious values.

MORGAN: And they are looking at their daughter ,saying, how can I deal with this, because if I make her have this baby, isn’t it going to just ruin her life?

SANTORUM: Well, you can make the argument that if she doesn’t have this baby, if she kills her child, that that, too, could ruin her life. And this is not an easy choice. I understand that. As horrible as the way that that son or daughter and son was created, it still is her child. And whether she has that child or doesn’t, it will always be her child. And she will always know that. And so to embrace her and to love her and to support her and get her through this very difficult time, I’ve always, you know, I believe and I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created — in the sense of rape — but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to youAs you know, we have to, in lots of different aspects of our life. We have horrible things happen. I can’t think of anything more horrible. But, nevertheless, we have to make the best out of a bad situation.

First I want to say I’m proud of myself for not destroying my cell phone after reading a quick story (H/T to ThinkProgress) on this issue. My restraint for not slamming my phone down in rage has saved me a couple hundred bucks…

So, Rick Santorum not only wants victims to suffer at the hands of a system set up to sustain rape culture, but he also encourages them to carry their fetuses to term just to embrace the “gift of life.”

Hm…I wonder if he’s even talked to rape victims about the gift of life actual rapists attempt to away in their quest to violate a victim’s body.

(New Black Woman breaks it down)

Posted in abortion rights, anti-choice, politics, rape, rape culture, Rick Santorum | 2 Comments

“Why are you so angry?”

It’s a question many social justice activists get from those who are more than contempt with the way things are. When we are asked this question, it’s never out of genuine interest about the things we are passionate with; the inflection in the inquisitor’s voice is one of befuddlement, agitation, annoyance that you are committed to rocking the boat in the name of full equality.

I can’t tell you how many times this question has been hurled at me. It’s usually from some oblivious soul who is oblivious of (usually) his privilege. It’s usually from some asshat whose blinders have become so attached to his eyes that removing them will most likely consist of microscopic surgery.

The most recent inquiry actually came from a loved one. I didn’t answer the question right away, because I knew it was rhetorical and asked out of frustration on being on the receiving end of my rants. So, in an attempt to explain why I was at that moment fitting into his stereotype of the angry black woman, here are just a few things I’m angry about:

I am angry because I am a black woman who lives in a society that  devalues my dark skin, my kinky hair, my thick lips and big hips and other ethnic features that are only lauded if placed on women of European ancestry.

I am angry because black women’s “woes” have been dissected and packaged for public consumption and our so-called marriage crisis has become yet another thing for whiteness to gawk at and analyze for their amusement comprehension.

I am angry because people have used the statistics on the number of black children born out of wedlock and black marriage rates to brainwash black women to believe that we–only we–need to be held accountable for our community’s “problems.”

I am angry because pushers of “black love” often criticize black women who refuse to tow the line on the same tired narrative of black women in America: strong, stoic, unwomanly and more than willing to be alone rather than expanding her dating/mating options.

I am angry because my reproductive organs are constantly used as political footballs by right-wing reactionary conservatives hell-bent on stripping away my constitutional right to an abortion.

I am angry because if I am raped, I will ask questions such as, “why did you go running at that time of day,” “what were you wearing,” “did you fight back,” or “why did you invite him to your place if you didn’t want it” while my actual rapist won’t face such an inquisition.

I am angry because I live in a world where girls like Amber Cole are widely criticized for their actions while the guys she gave oral sex to walk away unscathed.

I am angry because I live in a world where oppressed cultures and peoples are fair game for appropriation only when whiteness deems them cool and hip.

I am angry because the black community routinely turns a blind eye to the capitalist forces that exploit, degrade and dehumanize black women and children.

I am angry because white people feel they have a right to touch my kinky hair, neglecting any sense of autonomy, privacy and respect me and my black body are entitled to.

I am angry because white feminists fail to check their privilege and have consistently proven themselves unworthy of alliance by not speaking out on the racist, sexist attacks on Michelle Obama.

I am angry because white feminists can’t accept the fact that feminism leaves no room for women of color, trans women, disabled women or women who are poor.

I am angry because feminism routinely preaches solidarity, yet makes no time to address issues that aren’t primarily the concern of white, middle to upper-middle class, cisgendered straight able-bodied women.

I am angry because the traditional LGBTQ community routinely appropriates the Civil Rights Movement, but refuses to check its own privilege and racism when it comes to the marginalization of people of color in the LGBTQ community.

I am angry because the traditional LGBTQ community blamed the Prop 8′s passage in California on the homophobia of the black community, but didn’t label majority white states as uniquely homophobic when other anti-gay measures passed.

I am angry when white men feel they have the authority to appropriate the lives and experiences of Middle Eastern citizens, only to act confused at why they’ve experienced so much backlash.

I am angry when I see white women participating in the SlutWalk movement believe women are the niggers of the world and act shocked at the backlash.

I am angry because my race can be used as the reason why I’m late to work, publish an error in one of my articles, or the reason why I lose my cool with a source.

I am angry because my race gives people the opportunity to doubt my professionalism, my dedication and my ability to effectively do my job just as well as my white, male or female, counterpart.

I am angry because my black skin, thick lips and hips and kinky hair are only appealing to a certain group of white men after dark and after a few drinks.

I am angry because being a black female means that I can’t be raped, used or abused.

I am angry because whiteness has equated my black skin, thick lips and hips and kinky hair as being lascivious in nature, thus fair game for male groping, touching and violation.

I am angry because fat shaming and the relentless promotion of the thin, blonde woman as the ideal forces me to believe that skipping meals to fit into an overpriced bikini will somehow make me hot.

I am angry because the fatty police feel it’s okay to exploit the bodies of fat children to communicate the dangers of childhood obesity and to fat shame their parents into making their children fat.

I am angry because fat shaming has become so entrenched in our culture that dieting and counting calories have become common place in the lives of toddlers and young children.

I am angry because my black womanhood has been used as a villain by politicians looking to cut social services.

I am angry because my black womanhood automatically makes me desirable as a mammy, but I can’t be trusted to raise my own children.

I am angry because the only images of black women I see in the media are either loud, angry, boisterous, arrogant or promiscuous.

I am angry because cable networks believe there’s money to be made with exploiting parents who allow their five-year-old daughters to resemble hookers and prostitutes in the name of beauty contests.

I am angry because after nearly 20 years of the Americans with Disabilities Act, many of those who are disabled continue to face public spaces that aren’t fit to accommodate them.

I am angry because I’m surrounded by people who somehow believe that making sidewalks/pedestrian areas ADA compliant is a waste of money because “no one will ever use them.”

I am angry because ableism is often masked as commending a person with a disability for being “brave” and “courageous” for living life.

I am angry because those who care for those who are disabled are often lauded as super-humans who give up their lives to care for dependent disabled folks.

I am angry that children with special needs often have to attend schools where they are faced with ineffectual staff members who haven’t a clue on how to deal with them and their needs.

I am angry that children with special needs sometimes have to face hours of isolation and abuse in the same schools that are bound by law to provide them with equal access to quality education.

I am angry because ableism allows society to somehow believe that disabled people have no interest in their sexuality or other measures of pleasure able-bodied people take for granted.

I am angry because society believes that those who are gay,  lesbian, bisexual, transgender, do not deserve the liberty to marry whomever they wish.

I am angry because society allows people to hide behind their religion to practice full-scale bigotry.

I am angry because some media outlets feel it’s okay to edit a young black boy’s comments to make him appear like a miniature thug, a future delinquent the criminal justice system will eventually have to deal with.

I am angry because society consistently tells me I’m less of a woman if I don’t want children or if I don’t care for the patriarchal forces of marriage.

I am angry because the forces of patriarchy compel a woman to give up any sense of identity and take on her husband’s surname in the name of tradition.

I am angry because anti-abortion activists feel it’s okay to appropriate slavery and my lived experiences as a black woman in a racist country to rollback my reproductive rights.

I am angry because anti-abortion activists have no problem with labeling my black female uterus as the most dangerous place for a black baby.

I am angry because my fellow trans sisters and brothers are routinely disrespected, degraded, abused, maimed and murdered in the black community as well as society at large. I am angry because the black community continues to reduce and erase the experiences of black trans women and men.

I am angry because the black community continues to turn its back on its GLBTQ brothers and sisters, often using harmful homophobic ideology masked as religion to justify oppression and hatred.

I am angry because the black community continues to ignore the destruction of HIV/AIDS by using a vengeful, eye-for-an-eye ideology masked as Christianity to justify their belief that those inflicted with the virus and syndrome got what they deserved.

Whew…

That’s quite a bit to be angry about and any social justice activist dedicated to dismantling privilege can’t turn the other cheek from those dilemmas. So, my response to anyone who wants to question the passion of a social justice activists would be, “Well, why aren’t you angry?”

 

Posted in ableism, abortion rights, black community, black women, fat shaming, feminism, homophobia, misogyny, natural hair, politics, Prop 8, racism, white privilege, whiteness, womanism, women | 1 Comment

Ron Paul: a Confederate sympathizer?

Dontcha just love the revisionist history Ron Paul is spitting out in this speech!? I also love how he plays up the mantra that the south was attacked by those aggressive Northerners who want to impose an abolitionist lifestyle on unsuspecting good ol’ boys.

The message about the south being “right” about the Civil War isn’t surprising, though. It’s not like Paul has been an avid supporter of civil rights that sought to cure the wrongs stemming from the legacy of Jim Crow.

His website provided a speech Paul gave before casting the lone dissenting vote on the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act in 2004:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society.The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

Looks like the libertarian ideology of personal liberty and freedom only applies if one is a white male who doesn’t have to deal with whiteness and institutionalized racism invading one’s personal space. Paul is obviously of the mindset that one’s constitutional rights to freedom should also include one’s right to openly discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sexuality, national origin, etc.

A Ron Paul America obviously has no room for those who actually believe in equality and liberty to live free of institutionalized oppression and discrimination.

Posted in civil rights, Civil War, racism, revisionist history, Ron Paul, whiteness | 3 Comments

Santorum staffer: a female president would harm children’s lives

I saw this story on Think Progress and I visited the original article from the Des Moines Register, which referenced the staffer’s beliefs in a rundown on nine reasons why Michele Bachmann’s campaign imploded. Sexism among conservatives was listed as number 5:

Rival presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s Iowa coalitions director, Jamie Johnson, sent out an email saying that children’s lives would be harmed if the nation had a female president. He wrote it in June, but it surfaced on the campaign trail in the fall.

The question then comes, ‘Is it God’s highest desire, that is, his biblically expressed will, … to have a woman rule the institutions of the family, the church, and the state?’ ” Johnson’s email said.

Johnson said the email was meant to be a private message to a friend, that he sent it from his personal email account, not his campaign account, and that he hadn’t intended it to be read by anyone else. Did Iowa’s Christian conservatives hamper Bachmann’s campaign? Such accusations are counterbalanced by Iowans’ willingness to give her the straw poll crown, the first woman in history to claim that throne.

But in the final weeks of the campaign, as Bachmann’s poll numbers hovered in single digits, her national aides and evangelical organization team privately complained that sexism coursed through Iowa’s religious conservative community, even as the aides publicly rebuffed questions on the topic.

We did believe that sexism — I use the stronger word misogyny — was at play,” said Peter Waldron, Bachmann’s faith outreach coordinator.

Three influential pastors called for her to bow out of the race, and numerous others said “that a female could not be a civil magistrate,” said Waldron, who lives in Florida and has worked six presidential campaigns dating to Ronald Reagan’s in 1980. (SOURCE)

The Des Moines register did note the email was sent in June, but it wasn’t discovered until the fall.

One can’t be surprised at how much of a role sexism played in Bachmann’s campaign. It’s no secret that women, no matter which part of the political spectrum or political party they identify with, have all faced the question of whether their gender will somehow prevent them from making irrational decisions. They’ve all had to contend with their uteri, ovaries, breasts, cervices and vaginas will somehow transmit harmful hormones to our brains, thus limiting our ability to think and comprehend those big, scary, complicated issues only male presidential candidates are fit to deal with.

However, I wonder if the Bachmann campaign knew about the email and, if so, why did they neglect to bring the topic up for discussion? If these staffers and Bachmann were serious in their presidential bid, they could have used the email as an opportunity to possibly court male and female voters on the fence who were lukewarm to Bachmann’s campaign.

But, I guess it’s easier said than done to convince members of the good ol’ boys club that one’s gender doesn’t equate to having less of an ability to be an effective president. I guess it’s also easier for conservative female politicians to discuss sexism, misogyny and gender discrimination as some abstract concept rather than joining other women in the trenches and advocating for the destruction of these all-to-realistic and often violent ideologies.

Posted in misogyny, politics, pregnancy, sexism, women | Leave a comment