feminist blogs

Lil' Wayne recently pleaded guilty to gun possession and next year he will likely join the cadre of rappers that have gone to jail post-fame and post-economic security. He will lose many rights as a prisoner in New York. However, it is likely that he will also lose the right to wear his hair in the natural style of locs:

"Male prisoners are only allowed to wear their hair in cornrows, going straight back. And they can't exceed the 'natural hairline' in length." Now of course our question is: what does 'natural hairline' mean?

"It means it can't extend the neck." But there is one loop-hole in the issue - though I'm not sure it's going to help Wayne. "Prisoners who claim Rastafarri as their religion are allowed in most cases to keep their locks. But even then there's a process to determine if it's genuine."

I know there is a tendency to not prioritize an injustice until it happens to an entertainer. I also know that it's more likely to see the freezing over of hell than to hear a feminist coming to the defense of a man that has contributed to the worldwide mass distribution of words, sounds and images that present women as sexual beings and nothing else. But I cannot allow my contempt of his misogyny to allow me to be silent on this. To be silent on this is to collude with racism that masquerades as "rules on personal grooming."

I will admit that this hits even closer to home for me. I have had my locs for 2 years and 2 months. Already, they are such a big part of me. They represent my ability to strive for patience, as they have gone through different lengths and stages. (Last spring was the first time I could put my hair in a pony tail.) But most of all, my hair texture and it's ability to coil tightly like tendrils, simply with shea butter and some drying time, represents my heritage. My Blackness. Me. And while this is one variation of blackness, it's a legitimate one that shouldn't be sanctioned by the prison system.

Some argue that a marker of one's very identity should be suppressed in the name of a security risk.

The rules on personal grooming have everything to do with safety and control. Authorities argue that contraband can be hidden in the hair and that i[t] can be shaved to quickly alter appearance in the event of escape.

I believe that this provides an opportunity for us to truly examine whether some of these guidelines are legitimate. For example, friends of mine that work in the Michigan prison system have informed me that prisoners aren't always told about their health status, when certain health procedures will occur, and what medications they are prescribed. What about if a condition is fatal and one wants to notify their family? In short, how far can the justification of a "security risk" go?

It's important for feminists and activists of different types to recognize that we all have something at stake in the sanctioning of ethnic hairstyles of this sort. As we near the end of this decade, these past 10 years will go down in history as a time when the threat of security has been utilized as a weapon to deny people of basic civil rights. The passage and implementation of the Patriot Act epitomizes this phenomenon. I am not saying that it is unreasonable to enact regulations on people when they are punished for unequivocal wrongdoings. After all, the point of prison is to lose privileges enjoyed by many. But meaningful civic engagement involves interrogating and assessing whether guidelines or policies are effective and just. This shouldn't change when those who are subordinate to these policies are prisoners or if the subject is racial identity.

This is a recent bit of correspondence that I received from an anonymous victim-blamer through my online contact form. Apparently in response to my post from October 2007 on Officer Dan Gilroy, a grown-ass man who has no problem using his position as government police to repeatedly punch 15-year-old black girls in the face over allegedly walking outside after midnight. Our anonymous correspondent thinks that Shelwanda Riley — the 15-year-old victim of Officer Dan Gilroy’s sado-fascist power-trip anger management problem — is the one whose conduct ought to be at issue. And would like us to know, I guess, that she ought to feel grateful that the pig didn’t break her ribs or something:

From: Anonymous (no e-mail address provided)
Date: 10/28/2009 10:47 AM
Subject: Shelwanda Riley (radgeek.com feedback form)

I know this is old. I just saw the youtube video of the cop and the resister. That girl was fortunate to only have been beaten as badly as she was for the terrible behavior she exhibited. Police brutality is different with each situation, and if I was that cop… The cops will not mess with anyone who is not acting stupidly.

Oh, O.K., what with the girl walking alone at night and not doing exactly what this hyperviolent control-freak ordered her to do, well, obviously she was asking for it. Of course.

The discussion below this post has grown heated, with the topic of debate being less the original post itself and more feminist epistemology and what is sometimes called “standpoint theory.” SamSeaborn quotes Elizabeth Andersen, who writes:

Feminist standpoint theory claims an epistemic privilege over the character of gender relations, and of social and psychological phenomena in which gender is implicated, on behalf of the standpoint of women.

Sam wants to know how that impacts my marriage (which I labeled as “feminist”), but he also seems to be asking how this “standpoint theory” affects the role of male allies in feminist settings. Though he kindly takes me at my word when I note that I don’t go through my married life with an apology for being male always on my lips, he wonders how a male feminist cannot help but defer to what, according to Andersen, is the “epistemic privilege” of a woman’s perspective. Sam gets a vigorous, and to my mind, very effective response, from commenters Oldfeminist and Mythago, and I recommend folks check out the whole thread.

I may be the son of two philosophers, and I may have done a graduate field in medieval scholasticism many moons ago, but I am no theorist. Phrases like “epistemic privilege” make my head hurt, and I must bite back the urge to plead, “But I am a bear of very little brain.” I’ve labored through Cixous and Irigaray and Butler because they’re important and necessary, but feminist theory ain’t my bag. I defer to the many wonderful folks in the blogosphere whose intellectual capacities exceed my own, and whose talent for explicating in plain English the difficult philosophical nuances of feminist theory is infinitely greater than mine.

That said, I do have some thoughts on standpoint theory and its practical application.

Epistemology is the study of how we know things. In a relationship between two people who are of different sexes, classes, or ethnic backgrounds, it’s reasonable to assume that each person’s knowledge of the world will have been shaped in no small part by their status. Class and sex and race and faith are some of — but surely not the only — prisms through which we see and interpret the world. Patriarchy, the complex system through which male identity is privileged in an extraordinary number of ways, impacts everyone. Yes, as the famous phrase notes, it “hurts men too.” But one particular thing that patriarchy does is warp our understanding of everything around us, particularly things like power dynamics, sexuality, and how we communicate with one another. Feminists point out the deeply obvious: the class of persons most likely to be discriminated against by the system are also those most likely to be aware of the system itself. This “greater awareness” is the epistemic privilege to which Andersen refers.

Epistemic privilege means that in a heterosexual relationship, it is generally — though not universally — the case that the woman will see gender-based power imbalances more clearly than will her boyfriend or her husband. This isn’t because of “feminine intuition”, it’s because folks in an historically oppressed class are always required to be more aware of power dynamics than those who belong to the dominant group. The same epistemic privilege can occur in race and class relations, regardless of the sex of the people involved.

Obvious example: rape and parking lots. Both men and women are cognizant of the reality of rape, and most understand that it is men who generally do the raping and women who are generally the ones attacked. But because of his privilege, a man can walk into a parking lot by himself at night and forget about rape, because his maleness affords him the luxury of remaining unobservant of the possibility of sexual danger. A woman walking alone in a parking lot at night will have a different experience, rooted in her vulnerability as a member of a class targeted for sexual violence. Not only is she more vulnerable, but her very understanding of the issue is superior to that of a man walking in the parking lot. He has the privileged luxury of ignorance; she’s forced to reflect, constantly, on rape and its threat to her. That means that when the discussion of women’s vulnerability to assault comes up, women ought to enjoy “epistemic privilege” in the conversation. (more…)

Now here is a Barbie that you don't see everyday. This one was done by Loanne Hizo Ostlie. She is a bad-ass artist who sells Barbies on ebay with the hair re-rooted in diverse styles that are more representative of Black women today.

I often have this image on my desktop because it's the closest image of Barbie that resembles my look and we all need a little affirmation every now and then. It's not to say that Barbie with locs is problem free. But this work is an important contribution and it should be acknowledged.

I don't know if I am on a hair kick because I am still reeling from Chris Rock's Good Hair shenanigans, but I can't help thinking about this image in the wake of the disappointment regarding these new black Barbies that were released this month.

Here are just some of the notable quotables about the hair texture of these new Barbies:

A 'So In Style' hairstyling set that allows girls to straighten their dolls' hair completely has alarmed observers, who say it will fuel the "beauty issues" that many black girls have .

"Black mothers who want their girls to love their natural hair have an uphill battle and these dolls could make it harder," said Sheri Parks, an associate professor of American Studies at the University of Maryland.

Barbie's skinny figure has long come under fire for promoting an unrealistic body image. But Kumea Shorter-Gooden, author of Shifting The Double Lives of Black Women in America, said the diminutive, primarily Caucasian frame of Barbie dolls had a more negative impact on black girls.

"They are already struggling with messages that 'black skin isn't pretty and our hair is too kinky and short'," she said.

Mattel needs to employ Loanne as a consultant if they truly want to create a doll that represents black women.

I wear a few hats on campus. Along with being a graduate student and a Feministing contributor in constant search of my next post, I am also the President of the Campus Coalition for Sexual Literacy (CCSL). CCSL, an org that is an affiliate to the National Sexuality Resource Center, promotes sexual literacy through community forums and serving as a liaison between students and campus health providers. This past Wednesday, with the help of HBO, film distributor Roadside Attractions, University of Michigan academics and student organizations, we held a private screening of Chris Rock's Good Hair 2 days before the film premiered in Michigan.

While the event, and the conversation that followed with the 300 audience members was powerful and revealing, the film really underwhelmed me. The sexist comments and the framing of black hair issues was striking. In addition, the portrait of Black hair excluded some important voices that were equally vital to the black hair conversation. However, the film did make a contribution by grappling with the relationship that decision-making about hair has with age. Lastly, it educated the masses about the harm involved with relaxers using two methods that are bound to be widely received--humor and famous people.

So let's break this down.

What do I mean by sexist? I am not just referring to Andre Harrell, music executive, referring to women as broads. I am talking about the fact that Rock never used his interviewing time to pose a moral question to black men about their role in promoting the straight-haired standard of beauty. Instead, he asks them about how they feel about having to fork over money for weaves and relaxers. And this just seemed like a totally irrelevant question. Additionally, the issue of black women restricting themselves physically because they are afraid their hair will go from straight to kinky was not presented in the film as something that could negatively affect the overall health of black women. The conversation instead became about the frustration some black men have with not being able to touch black women's hair and engage sexually with wild abandon. While I think it is important for black women to feel limitless when creating sexual intimacy, this is also about the importance of an exercise regimen and the possibility that some may shy away from that because they want to preserve straight hair.

So who was excluded? Well, just about all the black hair experiences that fell outside of Los Angeles, New York City and Atlanta. This struck me as odd because having spent some time living and working in the DC metropolitan area, it just seems that black hairstyles are on a different wavelength there. It was interesting to me that he spotlighted Oprah Winfrey, Michelle Obama and Condoleezza Rice's hair as linked to their success. However, it also means something that congresswomen who have risen to prominence in the DC Metropolitan area, such as Eleanor Holmes Norton and Donna Edwards have their hair cut short in Ceaseresque styles. Additionally, rural black women and their hair stories simply had little to no representation in the film. Finally, Dominican hair salons, a crucial player in hair relaxation in black communities on the east coast, were totally omitted. And since the film only lasted 90 minutes, it just seemed that he could have filled the final 30 with a more inclusive picture of Black hair.

On to a pro, the strength of the film was that it grappled with age and hair through featuring parents and their children with Rock and his daughters as the main subject of the film. It's not to be missed that relaxers are a choice often made by parents for their daughters. Often, these young girls are either not at the developmental stage where they can even grasp the weight of the decision to relax, straighten or add extensions. Or they are informed and their parents have decreed that relaxers are the only option. In this way, many black girls don't really get rights to their hair until after they leave home or they are 18. And even then, the influence of their parents is monumental.

I am usually the first to be critical when people shelve the blame of social problems on the parents, but with black hair we have to be more critical about parental influence. I am not exactly ready to call parents child abusers who douse relaxers filled with potentially harmful sodium hydroxide on their 3-year-old. Many black mothers who relax their daughters' hair are probably not as informed about the health consequences. Additionally, they might do so to demonstrate how much they care about their daughters appearance to challenge stereotypes that frame them as neglectful. However, the fact remains relaxers are potentially harmful. And if the film accomplished anything, it transmitted this important message humorously (That [soda] can's gotta GOOD perm!) that people of color should take seriously.

Yesterday was the The National Day of Action Against Police Brutality, and guess what went down in Brooklyn? Yes, just that. From a reader:

This morning at 11:30am a young woman was having an altercation with about 8 folks from the nypd at the R/M 25th st stop in bklyn. After it was over and she was on her way to the turn style, they came back to arrest her. When she resisted, they tasered her. Clearly, I don't know the background, but she was one, unarmed, woman and the tasering was undeniably excessive.

Here's the video that this amazing reader shot on the spot:

This is breaking news, so I don't know if anyone is organizing around this incident, but please use the comments section as a place to link folks to that work if and when it happens!

Related posts:
Police Taser Disabled Man for Not Leaving Bathroom
Obama on Skip Gates
Understanding the Dialogue Around Lovelle Mixon
Understanding the Dialogue Around Lovelle Mixon Part II
Justice for Oscar Grant-Please spread widely!
Justice for Oscar Grant: Update on Fruitvale BART Protest

When I had originally posted on Facebook this shockingly well summarized study from OKCupid about race and reply rates on the popular dating website, I had just written the word, "duh." Race has always been a part of dating for me, whether it be what race my parents find acceptable, finding that my white boyfriend that I thought wasn't racist really was, or figuring out on first glance when a man likes you for you, or because he has a thing for Indian chicks. But my friend Dave took me to task and noted that they actually analyzed an enormous set of data that they then published, so that gets more than a, "duh." I will upgrade to a, "that is fucked up," and "duh."

But enough with my Facebook shenanigans. This study is interesting to no end and not just because I am writing a book on dating. The study found that even though OKCupid has a unique matchmaking system where race shouldn't matter...

First of all, how do we know that race shouldn't matter? Are we just making some after-school-special assumption that "true love is colorblind?" No, we're not: we know race shouldn't matter to replies because the races all match each other more or less evenly, and reply rate correlates to matching.

...it does:

* Black women are sweethearts. Or just talkative. But either way, they are by far the most likely to reply to your first message. In many cases, their response rate is one and a half times the average, and overall black women reply about a quarter more often.

* White men get more responses. Whatever it is, white males just get more replies from almost every group. We were careful to preselect our data pool so that physical attractiveness (as measured by our site picture-rating utility) was roughly even across all the race/gender slices. For guys, we did likewise with height.

* White women prefer white men to the exclusion of everyone else--and Asian and Hispanic women prefer them even more exclusively. These three types of women only respond well to white men. More significantly, these groups' reply rates to non-whites is terrible. Asian women write back non-white males at 21.9%, Hispanic women at 22.9%, and white women at 23.0%. It's here where things get interesting, for white women in particular. If you look at the match-by-race table before this one, the "should-look-like" one, you see that white women have an above-average compatibility with almost every group. Yet they only reply well to guys who look like them. There's more data on this towards the end of the post.

And specifically on reply rates? They found the following:

* Men don't write black women back. Or rather, they write them back far less often than they should. Black women reply the most, yet get by far the fewest replies. Essentially every race--including other blacks--singles them out for the cold shoulder.
* White guys are shitty, but fairly even-handed about it. The average reply rate of non-white males is 48.1%, while white guys' is only 40.5%. Basically, they write back about 20% less often. It's ironic that white guys are worst responders, because as we saw above they get the most replies. That has apparently made them very self-absorbed. It's interesting that white males do manage to reply to Middle Eastern women. Is there some kind of emergent fetish there? As Middle Easterners are becoming America's next racial bogeyman, maybe there's some kind of forbidden fruit thing going on. (Perhaps a reader more up-to-date on his or her Post-Colonial Theory can step in here? Just kidding. Don't.)

And the zinger? They found this to prove that racism is still alive. I have a crush on OKCupid.

Professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell has an amazing piece up at the Nation about marriage. If you don't know Harris-Lacewell's work, you should. Check out our recent interview with her.

As someone who also feels critical of the institution of marriage, it makes me really happy to see a straight feminist ally so thoughtfully reflect many of my feelings about the work ahead of us.

You can read the entire piece here.

So what are we to make of marriage? It is both a deeply personal relationship for which people will make almost unthinkable sacrifices, and it is a declining social institution offering little security for most who enter it.

As a black, feminist, marriage-equality advocate I reside at an important intersection in this struggle. This movement must acknowledge the unique history of racial oppression, while still revealing the interconnections of all marriage exclusion. This work must reflect the feminist critique of marriage, while still acknowledging the ancient, cross cultural, human attachment to marriage. This work must be staunchly supportive of same-sex marriage, while rejecting a marriage-normative framework that silences the contributions of queer life.

Typically advocates of marriage equality try to reassure the voting public the same-sex marriage will not change the institution itself. "Don't worry," we say, "allowing gay men and lesbians to marry will not threaten the established norms; it will simply assimilate new groups into old practices."

This is a pragmatic, political strategy, but I hope it is not true. I hope same-sex marriage changes marriage itself. I hope it changes marriage the way that no-fault divorce changed it. I hope it changes marriage the way that allowing women to own their own property and seek their own credit changed marriage. I hope it changes marriage the way laws against spousal abuse and child neglect changed marriage. I hope marriage equality results more equal marriages. I also hope it offers more opportunities for building meaningful adult lives outside of marriage.

I know from personal experience that a bad marriage is enough to rid you of the fear of death. But this experiences allows me suspect that a good marriage must be among the most powerful, life-affirming, emotionally fulfilling experiences available to human beings. I support marriage equality not only because it is unfair, in a legal sense, to deny people the privileges of marriage based on their identity; but also because it also seems immoral to forbid some human beings from opting into this emotional experience.

We must do more than simply integrate new groups into an old system. Let's use this moment to re-imagine marriage and marriage-free options for building families, rearing children, crafting communities, and distributing public goods.

by Pam Spaulding

We are talking about five students who are living a gay lifestyle that is leading them to dress a way we do not expect in Morehouse men.”
-- Dr. William Bynum, vice president for Student Services

When sweeping statements like this are made, it makes you want to ask Bynum if he knows if there’s a difference between gay/trans/cross-dressing, since it’s pretty apparent from the ignorant statement that he probably doesn’t. (CNN):

An all-male college in Atlanta, Georgia, has banned the wearing of women’s clothes, makeup, high heels and purses as part of a new crackdown on what the institution calls inappropriate attire. No dress-wearing is part of a larger dress code launched this week that Morehouse College is calling its “Appropriate Attire Policy.”

The policy also bans wearing hats in buildings, pajamas in public, do-rags, sagging pants, sunglasses in class and walking barefoot on campus.

Senior Devon Watson said he disagrees with parts of the new policy, especially those that tell students what they should wear in free time outside of the classroom.

“I feel that there will be a lot of resentment and backlash,” Watson said. “It infringes on the student’s freedom of expression. I matriculated successfully for three-and-half years dressing so how is this a problem?”

It’s one thing to ban droopy drawers and dressing in pajama bottoms on campus because it looks unprofessional, but when you cross into the territory of a blanket statement about gender expression, it’s discriminatory. What if a male student shows up for class dressed in a sharp tailored woman’s business suit, appropriate footwear, etc? to Bynum, that’s equivalent to dressing up like Carmen Miranda with a basket of fruit on her head.

According to the CNN article, Bynum met with the campus gay organization, Morehouse Safe Space, which voted on the policy and overwhelmingly supported it, 27-3. MSS says on its Twitter page that ”We are the ONLY LGBT Organization @ Morehouse College. We strive to find an alliance amongst Gay & Straight Students in the AUC.” I think it’s a safe assumption to say the “T” is there as lip service based on that vote. Given how there’s already a lack of affirmation for LGB at many HBCUs, the trans issue is simply not enough on the radar to put up a fight, and that’s sad.

An another article (Atlanta Journal-Constitution), Bynum gives additional reasoning for the no-dresses policy that are also revealing and relevant to note.

“This is necessary, this is needed according to the students,” he said. “We know the challenges that young African-American men face. We know that how a student dresses has nothing to do with what is in their head, but first impressions mean everything.”

It shows you how black (and other POC) trans folk are double damned in their communities—they are the living hurdle to cultural acceptance and thus are vilified in policies like this.

***

The article also notes that at Hampton University that would enrage me—students with braids or dreadlocks are encouraged to cut their hair. Again, locs are becoming more acceptable in the workplace, HBCUs are concerned that aside from an afro (I assume it would only find a short one acceptable), that locs and braids even a well groomed styles, are an impediment to employment when one is already dealing with racial discrimination. It’s not fair, but I’d have to say, in some parts of the country and some professions, this crap is still true. You have to land the job first, and then see if you can “go natural.”

The Morehouse Dress Code Policy is below the fold.

Morehouse College Appropriate Attire Policy
October 2009

Published in The Maroon Tiger

It is our expectation that students who select Morehouse do so because of the College’s outstanding legacy of producing leaders. On the campus and at College-sponsored events and activities, students at Morehouse College will be expected to dress neatly and appropriately at all times.

Students who choose not to abide by this policy will be denied admission into class and various functions and services of the College if their manner of attire is inappropriate. Examples of inappropriate attire and/or appearance include but are not limited to:

1. No caps, do-rags and/or hoods in classrooms, the cafeteria, or other indoor venues. This policy item does not apply to headgear considered as a part of religious or cultural dress.

2. Sun glasses or “shades” are not to be work in class or at formal programs, unless medical documentation is provided to support use.

3. Decorative orthodontic appliances (e.g. “grillz") be they permanent or removable, shall not be worn on the campus or at College-sponsored events.

4. Jeans at major programs such as, Opening Convocation, Commencement, Founder’s Day or other programs dictating professional, business casual attire, semi-formal or formal attire.

5. Clothing with derogatory, offense and/or lewd messages either in words or pictures.

6. Top and bottom coverings should be work at all times. No bare feet in public venues.

7. No sagging--the wearing of one’s pants or shorts low enough to reveal undergarments or secondary layers of clothing.

8. Pajamas, shall not be worn while in public or in common areas of the College.

9. No wearing of clothing associated with women’s garb (dresses, tops, tunics, purses, pumps, etc.) on the Morehouse campus or at College-sponsored events.

10. Additional dress regulations may be imposed upon students participating in certain extracurricular activities that are sponsored or organized by the College (e.g. athletic teams, the band, Glee Club, etc).

11. The college reserves the right to modify this policy as deemed appropriate. *All administrative, faculty, students and support staff members are asked to assist in enforcing this policy and may report disregard or violations to the Office of Student Conduct. ”

by Pam Spaulding

OMFG. When I read the AP version of the story of the justice of the peace Keith Bardwell in Hammond, Louisiana’s Tangipahoa Parish’s 8th Ward—the man who refused to marry an interracial couple out of “concern for the children,” I thought that was bad enough.

But the CNN, USA TODAY and AP reports oddly left out the real money quote Bardwell offered up. You may have read this:

“I’m not a racist,” Bardwell told the newspaper. “I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house. My main concern is for the children.”

Well look at what The Guardian and several others published—also from the AP—that you might not have seen:

“I’m not a racist. I just don’t believe in mixing the races that way,” Bardwell said. “I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else.”

WTF? So the intimacy of letting a black *ss sit on your pot is proof positive that you’re not racist Mr. Bardwell? Wow. He must have just gotten rid of the outhouse he had reserved for the black bride and groom.