Community hubs

This is the global Feminist Blogs aggregator. It collects articles from many smaller community hubs within the Feminist Blogs network. For stories from particular places, groups, or other communities within our movement, check out some of these sites.

Posts tagged Race

Denver Art Museum Displays Alternative Masculinities

When I was home in Colorado for Thanksgiving last week, I got the chance to swing by the Denver Art Museum and was thrilled at the quality and diversity of the modern art on display (including a sculpture by Kiki Smith, who I blogged about last week!).

Here are my two favorite pieces that I ran across in the permanent collection:


Fatherhood by Wes Hempel

Hempel on his current body of work:

I've actively cultivated this traditional look for a number of reasons. One of my ongoing projects (which I've written about at length elsewhere) is a re-visioning of what art history might have looked like had homosexuality not been vilified. A walk through any major museum will reveal paintings that depict or legitimate only certain kinds of experience. Despite the good intentions of critical theorists questioning the validity of the canon, paintings of the old masters on the walls of museums like the Met, the Louvre, Rijksmuseum still have a certain cache. They're revered not just for their technique but because they enshrine our collective past experience.


Passing/Posing (Marriage of the Virgin) by Kehinde Wiley

The Getty on Wiley's work:

Kehinde Wiley hot-wires the studied attitudes and dramatic backdrops of Old Master portraits with a Day-Glo palette and a hip-hop sensibility, creating a radical artistic mash-up that has been praised as hip, provocative, and technically brilliant. By asking his subjects to assume poses found in historical paintings and sculpture, he transforms ordinary urban men into saints, kings, even Christ. Wiley blurs the boundaries between traditional and contemporary, self-consciously celebrating and subverting the propaganda of self-aggrandisement in European art.

Tagged with: , , ,

Fat Bitch

I promise a much better review when I get time to write it up, but for Chicagoans, TONIGHT is the last night to catch Erica Watson and you had better not miss her. 

Last night I got to watch an amazing show. Watson is genius at critiquing our weight & beauty-obsessed society (as she says, ugly fat bitches who lose weight just turn into ugly skinny bitches) as well as patriarchy. OK, she doesn't use the word patriarchy and that is where her genius lies. 

Watson is able to do what PhD students do in an entire thesis, but she makes you laugh the entire time and without academic speak. For someone who flunked out of UIUC with Ds and Fs, she should type up that routine and get handed the PhD. Dr. Fat Bitch!

And her use of the word bitch is partially empowering, partially not so much. But it's used well. 

While the audience was overwhelmingly African-American, us lighter skinned peeps were laughing just as loud with the jokes. She critiques race issues without resorting to stereotypes like other comics. 

TONIGHT's show has many specials attached:

1. Two for one tickets at the box office. That's two people for $15. Can't beat that deal in Chicago!
2. There will be a raffle for a pair of Bulls tickets versus the Charlotte Bobcats - 6 tickets for $5 was last night's prices. 
3. The after-party is at Funky Buddha!

Seriously, if you can make this show, do it. 

I got to see if on a media pass after Watson's agent contacted me after a friend in NYC sent her to me. But if I didn't almost pee my pants from laughing so hard, I would NOT tell you to go. 

I do have to warn you that the Chicago Center for the Performing Arts had some major heating problems last night. Wear an extra sweater if you want to take off your coat. It was COLD in there last night.

Erica Watson's Fat Bitch is playing at: 
Chicago Center for the Performing Arts, 777 N. Green St., Chicago (handicapped access)
Some street parking one block west of Halsted (off Chicago Ave.)
$8 parking lot directly across Green Street next to Thalia restaurant
CTA Buses - #66 Chicago and #8 Halsted. CTA El - Red Line Chicago/State; Brown Line
Chicago/Franklin; Blue Line Chicago/Milwaukee/Ogden
Categories: Events
Tagged with: , , ,

Paternity Coverage and Race Stereotypes

This article had the potential to be my song.

The writer should certainly be commended. She penned a fact driven, well-written article that grappled with some of the complex issues that surround paternity. But some things about this piece, and the pictures that complemented the coverage, utterly disappointed me. The root of the problem was the racial stereotypes of black fatherhood that were reinforced.

I knew something was up when I did a mouse-scroll over the pictures of the Dads involved in paternity disputes. I was greeted with white father after white father clutching some paraphernalia that attested to his involvement in his child's life. Then the lone black man appeared, head facing down, sans stuffed animal. It is true that two of the men in the photographs are repeated. But this doesn't take away from the visual message that was sent: white fathers are present fathers; black fathers are absent ones.

The exhaustive article profiled men who were legally mandated to shoulder the child support costs of children after DNA testing revealed they were not the father. No photograph revealed the identity of the men who, in some cases have married the mother of these children, evaded supporting their biological children. Thus, black men weren't indicted by the run of the mill, dead beat dad label per se. But as the narrative on fatherhood evolved to focus on the behaviors of non-biological fathers, black men remained the villain.

The heartless ass-hat award went to the black man pictured, Carnell Smith, an activist of the men's rights variety. His claim to fame was a law he helped pass in Georgia that took non-biological fathers off the hook financially for paying child support -- regardless of how this impacted the child involved.

Then we learned about the fate of the child Smith helped raise for 11 years. After he figured out they didn't share the same DNA, he abandoned her:

Chandria, who is now 20, remembers it, Smith just disappeared from her life. "I was just a kid, so I didn't really understand what happened or why," she said. "He never did explain why he didn't want anything to do with me anymore." Chandria says he wouldn't answer when she called him at home, or he would promise to call back but never did. Smith says he doesn't recall Chandria calling him.

She stopped seeing friends and holed up in the bathroom, scratching and picking at her skin until it bled. The more it hurt, she told me, the calmer she felt. Her hair started to fall out, her grades slipped and she had trouble sleeping, details her mother and her mother's lawyer at the time corroborated. Chandria received counseling at her school and privately for years.

Smith's behavior was a stark contrast to the white fathers who challenged payment of child support only to the extent that it wouldn't compromise the relationship they had with their non-biological child. The thought of losing the child for one white father was described as "terrifying." Additionally, the other white father photographed pursued custody of his non-biological child. It's also worth noting that Smith was not the downtrodden, low-income brotha who slipped through the cracks. He is an engineer. He has policy literacy, his own non-profit and enough clout in the red state of Georgia to pass legislation on -- of all things -- paternity. Thus, the weight of his actions were even more damning, as he was outnumbered by white fathers who put the best interest of their children over sticking it to a former partner.

In the end, I am not suggesting that the state of black fatherhood doesn't deserve attention and even scrutiny or that Smith's story wasn't factual and important to include in a paternity article. But it is clear that the writer has chosen the voice of Smith over other voices of Black men that are just as valuable. This NYT's piece has reinscribed the Maury Povichesque portrayal of black men cheering in glee, exiting stage left once he learns he is "not the father." I can't say by the numbers how many men of color who are happily raising children who are biologically linked to another male. But I know they are out there and deserved recognition in a news story with almost endless inches to spare. It's just disarming to know that for as many miles this writer traveled to capture the complexities of paternity, on the question of race, she came up disastrously short.

Tagged with: , ,

Quick Hit: Melissa Harris-Lacewell on representations of black motherhood

Read it at The Nation.

Tagged with: ,

Colorado car dealer’s sign tries to tie Obama with terrorism and Ft. Hood tragedy

by Pam Spaulding

The 2008 campaign was great for armchair psychologists as we saw a good slice of color-aroused America that had been hiding its true feelings about the prospect of the country being led by a man of color.

Is it me, or have the out-and-proud racist bigot stories have continued in a steady flow post-Inauguration as well? With Barack Obama now resideng at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, these same people have now created a rag-tag bunch of overlapping groups clearly untethered from reality and fact-based discourse—teabaggers, birthers, death panel wailers, flat-earthers, womb controllers, eliminationists, etc.

A car dealer in Colorado decided to let his inner bigot birther hang out for all to see on the sign at right. It shows a taste-free caricature of the President (two, actually), one with a turban on, and ”President...or...Jihad?” with the bottom text reading ”PROVE IT” and ”Wake up America! Remember Ft. Hood!

In another photo of this sign the yellow box said “Birth Certificate” on it, along with the phone number of the dealership. in the white space along the bottom of the sign.

WTF is this clown saying—that the Obama is a Jihadist? That the nutbag suspect in the Ft. Hood shootings took orders from the President to blow away those people on base? Actually, what’s amusingly sad is the headline about this on Denver’s Westword news blog - ”Is this anti-Obama billboard racist? You be the judge.”

Is this billboard, on display outside Wolf Interstate Leasing & Sales, 4855 Miller Street in Wheat Ridge, a bold (and legitimate) statement of displeasure with the Obama administration that has the guts to link the shootings in Fort Hood, Texas, with Islamoterrorism? Or is it an offensive throwback to the Little Black Sambo imagery that typified race baiting for far too much of the 20th century?

Is there an argument to be made that it isn’t racist and Islamophobic? One commenter: ”the cartoon of President Obama is just missing either 1) a watermelon or 2) a banjo.” Anyway, the man responsible for this intellectual bit of First Amendment prowess is…

The general manager of the dealership says the man behind the message is Phil Wolf, who supplied billboard space for “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” signage on I-70 backed by KHOW’s Peter Boyles.

I have to go with this commenter’s sentiment:

Truly another example of the militantly stupid. This stupidity can be devastating since it distracts us and makes room for other even more moronic presentations of stupidity. All the while these morons think that they are being put upon.

These simply don’t know what to do with their anger and resentment regarding the perceived loss of political, economic and cultural power and control to the melanin-enhanced portion of society. As I said, perceived—these are the people riled up by the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck—too ignorant and scared to think for themselves enough to see that the current leadership of the Republican party has no real interest in the welfare of these people. They had eight years of Bush and what do they have to show for it? No matter, the sheeple are dazed, confused and just finding out their savior Sarah Palin isn’t all smiles, winks, and just like them.

ProgressNow Colorado has called for a boycott of Wolf Automotive Group:

The “tea party” movement and the “birthers” are becoming more and more outrageous. They’re in the thrall of demagogues like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Peter Boyles, Sarah Palin, and conservative elected officials in Colorado like Senator Dave Schultheis--who sent out a statement last week comparing President Obama to the 9/11 terrorists who flew United Flight 93 into the ground.

We’ll defend anyone’s First Amendment right to speak their mind. However, the “marketplace of ideas” that the First Amendment protects only works when everyone speaks out. If hate like that spread by Dave Schultheis and the owners of Wolf Automotive is allowed to go without a response, then we allow the perception that these ideas have merit.

The Feministing Five: Rose Afriyie

chocolate high.JPGRegular readers will have noticed that in recent months, Feministing has brought in a number of new contributors: Ariel, Jos, Lori, Rose and myself. No doubt you're getting to know them by reading their posts and engaging with their ideas in the comments section, but I also suspect that you might want to know a little more about these wonderful women (I know I do!). Over the last few weeks, I've been interviewing my fellow new contributors so that you and I can get to know them a little better. This week, last but not least, I interviewed Rose Afriyie.

Rose is a first generation Ghanaian American who grew up in the Bronx and the Poconos. She got her B.A. at the University of Pittsburgh and is now at the University of Michigan pursuing her Masters in Public Policy, focusing on Science, Technology and Public Policy. Rose is particularly interested in sexuality and in how racial and gender inequities affect access to technology and, in turn, in participation in civic life. She has worked as an organizer with NOW and before she joined the Feministing crew this September, her writing was published in The Chicago Tribune and in her college paper, where she was a sex columnist, which officially makes her the coolest older sister ever (she's one of five siblings).

And now, without further ado, the Feministing Five, with Rose Afriyie.

Chloe Angyal: How did you become involved with feminist activism and writing, and with Feministing specifically?

Rose Afriyie: I started blogging when I went to Europe last summer, just a small travel blog, writing about what I'd seen and experienced there, because I wanted to have a record of it. And I'd been writing in the college newspaper about sexual health for most of my college career. For me, writing has always been about trying to address, in some way, shape or form, a political question. And the political questions have become clearer as my feminism and political identity has become more developed. But, writing for me is about being able to share some sort of truth that I'm experiencing, or that I feel women are experiencing, or that my community is experiencing. I think it's just a natural thing to want to talk about the things that have happened to you and that have changed you, and to want to see if other people have had the same experience.

Feministing I totally credit to Samhita. I definitely was that young organizer who stole a few minutes everyday to see what was going on and to see what feminists thought was important that day. When I met Samhita this past summer, she was just half-woman, half-amazing. She has this gripping, hardcore analysis on race and on gender. I also learned a lot from her about the Internet and gender. From that experience, I started blogging on the community site, and I started blogging a lot more. The rest is history, I guess. Suddenly I've got this platform, and I'm just so thankful and blessed to have met Samhita, and also to have gotten to know the other badass editors, like Ann and Miriam.

CA: Who is your favorite fictional heroine?

RA: Dorothy from The Wiz. It's such a fascinating story of feminism. This woman is travelling around the world - this alternate view of the world, that is - to get back home. Not to get back up under some man, but to get back to her aunt, to her uncle, to her family. And to lead a group of male characters who apparently are lost. It's this idea that this woman is going to lead everybody home. The feminism in that story cannot be disputed.

CA: Who are your heroines in real life?

RA: Every woman who's ever survived violence is a heroine in my book. And even those who haven't survived violence - the ones who are enduring injustice every day and are living to tell about it, who are willing to speak their testimony, are my heroes. My mom is a huge heroine to me. I don't tell her this stuff, and she doesn't go online that much, so she might not find out unless I tell her about it, but, hands down, my mom is my hero. She has provided for her kids and has made sacrifices for us in ways that really humble me. It's powerful -- the things women have done to be able to invest in the next generation. I think that's heroic too. And I think it's hard because feminism is about a kind of equality that doesn't always look like investment in the next generation. But I think that it's equally heroic to pursue this hybrid type of equality. So that's why, yes, people who have endured sexism and have lived to tell about it are heroes, but so are those people who have made the ultimate sacrifice so that women like me can make different choices.

CA: What recent news story made you want to scream?

RA: What has really been on my mind is the Stupak amendment, and what that says about how negotiable women's rights are, and what a low priority they are. It's not that I think, for a second, that it wasn't going to be imminently dealt with in the Senate. It's about the idea that so many different political actors - Democratic political actors - completely disregard the national constituency of women in America. When I heard about the amendment, I was in a state of political paralysis for days. I can't even really express how upset I was about it, about the fact that Democrats could cheer with that kind of amendment in healthcare reform. That's how completely inconsequential women's rights are. And what does that say about the state of feminism right now, that the amendment could make it in this bill? That everything else could be more important than this? I'm not even an abortion-means-everything kind of person, but what does it mean that this bill could pass to deafening applause, with this restriction in there, without bothering so many people who call themselves pro-choice?

CA: What, in your opinion, is the biggest challenge facing feminism today?

RA: I have two roles to play in this. There's what I observe in the movement and there's who I challenge myself to be as a feminist.

For the movement: I think we need to gain more control over how the term feminism is framed. It's really hard to get media coverage that doesn't make the housewife and the head of Planned Parenthood polar opposites. It's really hard to try to embrace complexity, and to try to talk about feminism as a complex strand of beliefs about equality, where many different women have different perspectives about what that looks like. I know that feminism isn't racial justice but I think it's really telling that lots of folk will be able to tell you a little bit about Martin Luther King. They'll be able to tell you a little bit about the Panther party or Malcolm X. And now they'll be able to tell you about Barack Obama. So the Civil Rights movement has all these people factored into this perspective about what racial justice might look like. But feminism doesn't have that in a way that's akin to mainstream recognition. In the eyes of many, it's not a huge space for all these equally legitimate perspectives to exist. And I think that's a really big challenge that has to be addressed.

For myself personally: It is about challenging myself to model feminist practices in my everyday life. It's about balancing feminist lobbying with feminist living. It is clear to me that while I am still marginalized in many ways, I am privileged. It's important for me to utilize any newly acquired privileges, especially on the education front, to fully undertake the project of building a feminist romantic partnership and ultimately a feminist family. That's not to say that I am naïve about the constraints of the work-world. Obviously, work/family balance and economic justice policies will do much to facilitate any feminist family structure I stand a chance of sustaining in the long run. But I have agency. It's true that feminism takes a lot of hits when anti-woman lawmakers write us out of healthcare reform, but feminism also takes hits when I entertain an ain't-shit, anti-equality male partner long past his expiration date. I have a part to play in advocating for equality in my relationships and remembering that I can show someone feminism much better than I can tell them about it.

CA: You're going to a desert island, and you're allowed to take one food, one drink and one feminist. What do you take?

RA: I'm going to take fufu and soup, which is a Ghanaian food. I'll also take pineapple juice and Patron - that's all I drink! The feminist that I want to bring is a Ghanaian feminist, a pugnacious feminist, but you've gotta have folks like this in your corner. Her name was Yaa Asantewaa. She was an Ashanti Queen Mother who led a famous rebellion against the British colonizers in Ghana. In my book, her activism ultimately led to Ghana being the first African country on the continent to gain their independence. She's someone I am reminded of when I think about standing up for what I believe in and challenging the status quo. No matter where I am, I need co-signers who will affirm that the status quo needs to be challenged and changed. I also would bring her because when I am far away from my parents or elders in my family, what I miss most is the sound of Twi, the Ghanaian language spoken in my household. Yaa would help me bone up on my Twi skills and never let me forget my roots.

Categories: 91

NC: Rep. Virginia Foxx claims GOP led on civil rights in the 60s

by Pam Spaulding

Ah, it’s pathetically ignorant, perpetually re-elected NC U.S. Congresscritter Virginia Foxx opening her trap again to contribute batsh*ttery to the public discourse and historical record with the ludicrous claim on the House floor that the Republican party had a progressive record on civil rights and Congress passed legislation in the 1960s without much help from Dems. (Think Progress):

During a debate on the House floor today over designating 21 miles of the Molalla River as “wild and scenic,” Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), who opposes the legislation, tried to claim a progressive environmental record for her party. “Actually, the GOP has been the leader in starting good environmental programs in this country,” said Foxx.

Foxx then extended her claims of the GOP’s progressive history to the issue of civil rights. “Just as we were the people who passed the civil rights bills back in the ’60s without very much help from our colleagues across the aisle,” said Foxx. “They love to engage in revisionist history.”

Since she’s making the claim that Republicans are the party of civil rights, then she and her party should be ready to promote civil equality for LGBTs, no? Someone should challenge her on that point. Anyway, she was slapped down by Dennis Cardoza (D-CA):

I mean savvy politicians are good at an artful dodge, but this bumbling performance is classic. Mike:

Vitter graduated Tulane Law School in 1988.  Loving v. Virginia, decided in 1967, was a unanimous Supreme Court decision that declared state anti-miscegenation (interracial marriage) laws unconstitutional.  It is one of the bedrock civil rights cases, right up there with Brown.  It is simply not credible for any lawyer to claim ignorance when asked about Loving.

Tagged with: