feminist blogs

Continuing on with the theme of privilege, today I am cross posting something I wrote in May.  I thought about writing and updated version but I don’t believe that I can improve upon my original commentary.

As a Woc I find myself often being pulled in two different directions.  White women often try to play the sisterhood game and remind me why feminism is important.  Black men are quick to remind me of the racism that we are subject to, as a reason why I should identify with civil rights movements, and or equity projects.  Both white women and black men always seem to approach with their hands out ( in friendship they claim) when actuality they are both looking for something.  It is never a neutral request, it is always a demand for solidarity, despite the fact that declaring so may be counter productive to my needs as a WOC.

I started this blog, so that I could finally say my peace. I had been lurking in the blogosphere for a while without commenting.  Now when I throw my two cents out there, I find that the response is always the same.  Black patriarchy will not own their privilege, and white women will not own their racism.  Neither party is willing to shut the hell up and listen for two minutes.  Yet they want me to be of use.  Yep I can just see myself making copies, coffee, filing, you know the important support staff role without any power or an actual voice.  That is exactly the role that black women have been playing in both movements since their inception.  Now there have been a few notable black women who have been strong enough, to be forces to be reckoned with.  They are the exception, rather than the rule.  Most of us just end up juggling identity politics trying desperately not to be swallowed whole.

Hear me when I say that WOC are not divisible.  I am not more black, than I am a woman. Both are essential to my identity and as such, expecting me to privilege one over the other for your benefit is selfish, and cruel.  The guilt baiting tactics have got to stop.  My body does not represent your proving ground.  If I choose to speak out about a particular subject, that does not mean that other is somehow less important in my life.  Racism may be my issue today, but sexism may take center stage tomorrow.

I love black men most unashamedly. You are my brothers, father, sons, and friends. Do not abuse this love by making sexist comments because we have the same culture.  Using words like ‘ho, bitch etc are just plain hurtful.  Expecting me to sacrifice myself continually so that you may achieve success does not uplift us a race, it uplifts black men.  You cannot refer to black women as ball busting shrews, and expect us to continue following along faithfully like obedient dogs, begging to be kicked, and beat down again.  We share a culture, but that gives you no right to exploit my labor, sexuality, body, womanhood or the essence of who I am for your amusement, or to enhance your self pride.  There are definite issues in this world when it comes to racism, but they will not be solved by “othering” black women.  Creating your own version of patriarchy does not uplift you, it only gives injustice, and bitterness to the ones that bore you.

White women have been my friends, and allies.  I have cried with you, and shared many instances of intimacy.  We have laughed, and danced in celebration.  But our friendship does not give you the right to silence me.  I have something to say, something you might even find valuable, if you could take the time out to listen.  You do not represent all women despite what the media has told you.  When Betty Friedan was writing the Feminine Mystique she certainly did not have black women in mind.  You see, we have always had to work outside of the home, and you in particular should know that, as we have been your cooks, housekeepers, and nannies.  Even today when you rush off to your womens conferences it is by enlarged women of color that you have employed as domestic workers.  It is our labor that provides you with the freedom to pursue your feminist agenda.  You want us to rail about injustice when a woman is kidnapped or otherwise abused, but where are you when black girls, and women go missing?  Where are your screams for media coverage?  Why don’t our assaults seem to carry the same kind of weight? Perhaps Lacie Peterson is the only pregnant woman to be killed by her husband?  Have I missed something?  Do black pregnant mothers not get assaulted to? We are united, and yet so unequal.

I know that even as I am typing furiously away, it is the equivalent of blowing kisses into the wind.  Both sides are too myopic to see themselves as the exploiting soul crushing silencers that they really are.  Both are so busy confronting the evils of white male oppression, that they have ignored the ways in which they have become oppressors.  Well the milk stand is closed, and mammy is done serving.  Don’t tell me that you can identify with me, or understand where I am coming from, because you can’t.  Until you spend a day living in the body of a WOC, you have no idea what it is to occupy the bottom rung of the racial, and social hierarchy. Stop playing a tug of war with my body as though I am some possession that can be owned, and trained.  I don’t want to be your token representation of diversity. I am not some trump card that can be played at the end of the day. I know your game, I have seen it played, and you will just have to excuse me because I think I would rather get my ball, and go home.

Cross Posted from Womanist Musings

I had to show this video to all of my friends, and now I am sharing it with you. I can't remember the last time I have seen a politician addressing not only poverty with such absolute understanding of the issue, but also the interconnectedness of people and all of the issues we face as a nation and a world.

This quote made me cry:

"One of the greatest responsibilities of the next president is to convince americans that we are completely linked to one another, both as americans, AND we're completely linked to the people in the rest of the world. In fact, we are all ENTIRELY connected." -John Edwards

Here's the link. Watch it all. It's amazing.

Brancaccio: What is it about now...that gives you any hope?
Edwards: That we're faced with great challenges that can not be dealt with, except together.

I was not aware that lethal injection was being challenged:

BBC NEWS | Americas | Judges delay death in Mississippi

There has been only one execution - in Texas - since the Supreme Court agreed to consider the challenge to the use of the lethal injection lodged by death-row inmates Ralph Baze and Thomas Clyde Bowling Jr in Kentucky on 25 September.

The pair argue that the method constitutes "cruel and unusual" punishment - forbidden by the US Constitution.

I am tired of reading reports about Imus' racist comments that are couched in this language of "black people are angry."

Seriously...what the fuck is up with THIS:

"[Howard Kurtz was quoted on NPR as saying] he thinks Imus is NOT bigoted, and he thinks most listeners understand that, but several major groups of black and women journalists have called on the networks to fire Imus..."

Relegating the offense Imus' racist bullshit inspires to the realm of "women and minorities" is just the same bullshit racism that makes it ok for someone to make the fucking comments in the first place. And what the fuck is up with this "Oh, he's an ass to everyone, therefore it's ok." bullshit? I am going to start walking around and kicking everyone in the shins, and no one better arrest me, because I'm not kicking any one racial/political/cultural/orwhathaveyou group any more than I am another!

Shit fucking A. It is all OVER the media, too, this "Well, what do you have to say to these black leaders" line.

I guess I am just glad I am a woman, and am therefore justified in my anger. Oh, thank you, holy media...for giving me something to be justifiably pissed about!

frickin' frackin' fuckin' a!

"Why We Banned Legos" is an article in a magazine I subscribe to called Rethinking Schools. I wish the article was accessible online without fee, but unfortunately it is not, so I will attempt to summarize it here.

Basically, a group of teachers in an after school program at a school in Washington State were struck by the social dynamics surrounding the construction of a Lego town. They found that kids were excluding other kids and hording "cool pieces" in an insidious way that wasn't always vocally objected to (in fact, many of the excluded kids seemed resigned to exclusion, in spite of the fact that they later proved that they wished to participate and did not know how to break through the invisible wall). So, the teachers banned the Legos and created a unit study to examine the issues of wealth, power, privilege, and inclusion with their students (ages 5-9).

The original article goes on to describe a fascinating and well-organized exploration of this concept designed by the teachers. Students were asked to voice their opinions about property rights, ownership, and power...and they examined those opinions by taking field trips and playing games that were geared towards helping the children question the notion that power can somehow be benign and that really brought the idea of meritocracy into sharp focus for these children.

However, the reinterpretation of this article is somewhat staggering and reveals much about how strongly we want to protect the idea that the capitalist system of meritocracy. An article was sent to a homeschooling list I subscribe to that basically completely misinterprets the lesson in such a way that it could only have been intentional. I responded to the article thusly:

I suggest you read the actual article on which this editorial is based before leaping to the conclusion that the crafters of this lesson were in any way advocating that landowners be stripped of their property rights so big businesses can have them. I have this issue, and I have only skimmed the article, but I find the article below to be grossly slanted and inaccurate.

[...]

In fact, now that I think about it...it would be a really good homeschooling lesson on media to read this editorial and then go back and read the actual article about the lesson to note the evident slant of the editorialist.

Of course, the response to this was to skip right to communism. One of my fellow listmates said, basically, that while he believed the article wasn't supporting the usurpation of property by big business, he did feel that the lesson was promoting communism, to which I replied:

I imagine the responses on this list will also be useful in a study of media, as well as individual responses to the media. It is interesting to me that Brad has immediately decided that the only possible system of shared wealth is communism, and therefore declared any questioning of how property rights are handled in our society to be answered before they are even asked.

I think critical thinking would encouage children to experiment with several alternative methods of creating equity, and from what I have read in the original article, it looks like that is exactly what the children were encouraged to do.

Of course, all of that was before I actually read the article. hahaha. I had skimmed it, but had not had time to sit down and read it. Later that night, I did so, and found the lesson to be quite well-planned and executed, and nothing at all like it had been described by the author of the editorial linked above. So, this morning when I found another response that insisted the lesson was an insidious method of brainwashing our children to accept the tenets of communism (evil, evil communism!) I responded:

If you read the article, you would find that property rights were a very minute portion of the lesson. The main objective of the lesson was to encourage egalitarian and inclusive behavior among the children, while at the same time exploring the larger issues of power and privilege. Also, there was a lot of discussion and insight in the article about how we tend to assume that power is benign if it is not misused in such a way that would spark verbal protest. There was a really interesting portion of the lesson where arbitrary point values were applied to legos (to mirror how privilege based on skin color, family of origin, and other factors give some of us an unearned advantage over others), and those who "won" were allowed to make rules for the next round of the game.

Additionally, there is a huge leap from discussing equitable sharing of resources by a community and stripping individuals of rights to give them to corporations. The point of the experiment, and I think the objective of a communal social order (of which communisim is ONE example), is to distribute wealth and power in such a way that all members of society have an opportunity to participate. Perhaps we haven't seen such a social order yet in our lifetimes, but I am not sure why anyone would object to exploring how power and privilege operate in our society to give unearned advantage to some and undeserved disadvantage to others.

Later, someone equated the lesson with that urban legend that has a child skipping to school with all of her wonderful school supplies, only to get there and find that she is FORCED to dump her supplies in a communal bucket and comes away with *gasp* INFERIOR CRAYONS! Evidently, those individuals who send their children to public school to mix with the masses are very indignant about this concept of forced sharing. I gotta say, if you hate it so much, keep yr kids home. You won't hear me complaining about the taxes I am forced to share with the school district in spite of the fact that I have chosen to not participate. We LIVE in a society. We all benefit from its resources, and those resources include the other people in our communities. If you can't bear the thought of your child going to school and sharing his or her crayons, honey, I dunno what to tell you! At any rate, my response to the idea that "social engineering" was overtaking our schools was this:

That would be an interesting thing to discuss, but it does not have anything to do with the redistribution of legos that were already assumed to be a shared resource. I am curious how you think this experiment, and the exploration into how power and resources are shared, is equivalent to social engineering, and yet the very world we live in and are shaped by is not.

In fact, I think that's an interesting thing to think about. Do we all just assume that the way we live and the society we are shaped by is natural? And therefore any attempt to question and/or reorganize the order of things is somehow unnatural, or "engineered?"

And then I decided to explore further, and read a discussion about a reaction to the article (there is very little actual reading of the article in any of this. Mostly, people were just responding to the slanted reactions to the article, which led many to believe that the teachers noted that students were not behaving appropriately and therefore they simply yanked the legos away in a reactive manner, rather than the actual reality that the teachers got together and planned a very sophisticated lesson surrounding the removal and subsequent reestablishment of lego privileges, which encouraged the children to examine the issues of ownership, power, inclusion, and equity.

Boy, do I ever NOT have my finger on the pulse of America. What I read on this board shocked me. People are actually decrying the lesson these teachers were attempting to teach, and basically saying "children will be children" and therefore should not be encouraged to examine the power dynamics that come into play when groups of children exclude other children. In fact, I imagine that many of the people on that board believe that it's probably preferable that children learn to grab what is theres without considering how their unearned privilege influences their "rights" of ownership.

While I realize there are many within the public school system who are trying desperately to counteract this idea that the distribution of wealth and resources in this country is somehow equitable and meritocratic, I am frankly somewhat appalled by the response to this article by people who are allegedly parents of children. Are there really that many people who are so opposed to their children learning that perhaps our system is less equitable than those in positions of privilege would lead you to believe that they need to demonize an earnest attempt to point out the inherent inequities of our system and work with children to combat those inequities in the classroom?

Obviously I am in total support of any curriculum which moves our children towards examining "rights" that are essentially extensions of unearned privilege. I am concerned, however, that this is such a controversial thing to stand for. If we can't even address these issues with something so benign as Legos without a firestorm of opposition, how on earth do we address global poverty, hunger, and health care crises?

Since I'm a total goob and missed the Day of Action entirely, I figured the very least I could do was read some news stories about the important events of the last couple of days to the children as our morning circle reading material. I read this one first:

The crowds at many of the protests also cheered speakers who denounced a system that has driven more than 11 million illegal immigrants into shadowy lives of subterfuge, and who called for a new deal that would extend basic rights to them and a chance of eventual citizenship. Organizers said the protests would not stop until Congress passed laws to improve their lives.

Much of the anger yesterday and at the protests in recent weeks was directed at a bill passed by the House of Representatives last December. It would have authorized a 700-mile fence along the Mexican border; raised the crime of illegal immigration to a felony; and criminalized giving assistance, including food and water, to illegal immigrants.

After I read that article, I went to move on to another. Monk stopped me. "I get the picture, mom," he said.

"OK," I replied. "What do you think?"

That's a scary question for a parent. Asking what your child thinks, especially when at least attempting to run somewhat of an egalitarian household, opens you up to a world of shit. I want to support and encourage their honest opinions, but there is always a part of me that wants to guide the thoughts into "correctness."

Thankfully, Monk has played enough computer-simulated war games to know where it's at.

"I think that people should just be checked over briefly to make sure they aren't criminals, then we should exchange their money, then maybe offer some basic english classes, and that's it."

At that point, I attempted to play devil's advocate with him, but he stood firm. "Like the article said, mom...we're all immigrants."

I asked him what he thought of borders, and he said that borders were too much work (!) (my little anarchist!) and that they only served a purpose during war. So I asked him if maybe he thought borders might CAUSE war.

He said Yes.

"One time, when I was playing Civilization IV, Ghandi and I were always at war over our borders because I wanted to maintain my territory, and Ghandi wanted to expand. It was never ending. Borders are dumb. People should live where they want to."

If I were to attempt to instigate a revolution, I would begin at the laundromat. In fact, I wish I had more time today to hang out and talk to the men who were there, talking about hard times and how "Those people in the government need to be told, once and for all, that there's no incentive to work! Making money only forces you to owe more money, and they get it all in the end!" Wow! If that's not the seed of revolution, I don't know what is. And it's all happening at the laundromat.

In fact, when I think about it, what better place? Generally speaking, laundromats are utilized by people who are not property holders and who have limited means. You have to sit there and wait for your clothes, so there is plenty of time to gab and shoot the shit and you are also sort of trapped there to listen to the opposing viewpoints of your neighbors. In such close quarters, civility is a necessity. I think, when my kids are a bit older and more able to do without me here for an hour or so at a time, I might just start hanging out at the laundromat - at least on wet, cloudy days like today where the clothesline is not an option. Maybe I'll just start hanging out there without even doing any laundry. Reading a book and waiting for an opportunity to engage in interesting conversation with my neighbors.

I spent the weekend at the Historians Against the War convention at UT, which was kicked of ceremoniously with a brilliant keynote one-two of Andrea Smith and Howard Zinn. I thought both of them gave compelling presentations, and I jotted down copious notes in spite of having to deal with really cramped quarters. At some point, I will share my notes from that keynote and from the rest of the event, but I think I really just want to write about my experience of the event in general.

First of all, DAMN, people are impatient. Including myself. The first person who approached the mic for Q&A rambled on a bit about the lovely performance activism she is doing, and within a minute, the audience was telling her to get to the point, in a not very nice way. I felt myself feeling the same way - and it happened multiple times throughout the weekend. By the 3rd or 4th time I really began to grow uncomfortable with the whole method of mob silencing that was happening & I was pleased when some with louder voices would counteract the "Shut up and ask a question" crowd. I wondered, too, why I wasn't the person counteracting, considering I was one person feeling uncomfortable with it. So, one lesson learned at the history conference was that I need to find my voice and use it.

The panels and the speakers throughout the event were informative, intelligent, and remarkable. I did kind of wish there was a way to include dissenting voices among the crowd to get a richer discussion, but in my heart of hearts I knew a) that wasn't really the point of the conference and b) it is rare for that kind of dialog to take place in a non-threatening way - particularly when there are elements of the crowd who find it necessary to silence even the voices of agreement.

At lunchtime, I situated myself in the far corner of the room to avoid all human contact. I guess I'm in that kind of mood lately. I dunno. I sat eating and pretending to write in my journal, but really I was observing everyone. Mr. Zinn was sitting two tables away, facing me...so I laughed to myself about the fact that I was practically eating lunch with one of the greatest historians of our time. I thought about maybe going back to school to study history. And then two nice boys joined me and we talked briefly about last night's speech and education and whatnot. It was a nice, pleasant conversation & allowed me to feel good about the fact that I didn't avoid human contact altogether, in spite of my best efforts to the contrary. Ha!

I was exhausted when I arrived home Saturday night, but I went out to dinner with J anyway. We went to Swad and it was pleasant, but there was dis/ease. I get the feeling it is painful for him to hang out with me, and that painfulness is maybe exacerbated by the fact that it's NOT painful for me. Or maybe he's just in pain in general. I don't know/can't claim that it has anything to do with me at all, but the dosa and chole bhatura and sev potato puri was fabulous, and it was nice to see J as he has been ill for a bit. He even helped me to fix a computer problem I have been having. I couldn't find the R. Kelly videos I told him I was going to make him watch with me, which was kind of a bummer, and he left early in the evening...which was probably good because I was so tired & sort of overwhelmed with being around people.

I was invited to a party, which had been making me nervous all week. The person who invited me is someone who I really enjoy hanging around, and actually would love to go to a party with at some point, because he always makes me feel at ease...but I just have not been feeling the whole "large crowd" thing lately & I was balking. So there was this dynamic of me feeling torn that I wasn't going to get to see my friend, but fairly certain that I would have a crappy time going to a party that was making me feel extra-super wishy washy about giving a definitive answer. I did SAY no to the party several times, but I'm fortunate that my friend is pretty sensitive about how I'm feeling, so even though he heard no, I think he sensed my feelings of hesitation and kept asking (because normally he accepts my boundaries pretty readily, actually, which is why he's so very very dear to me) - but the thing is that in addition to the original party, he was now going to be attending a fucking FRAT party, and all of the reasons for me not wanting to go were suddenly increased 5 million fold & not only that...suddenly the very idea was making me feel upset and agitated. I told my friend I was just going to go to bed, but when I laid down to sleep, I started feeling really upset about the whole party/meat market atmosphere.

I dunno...it started to really get to me that what I look like - and what others look like to me - dictates to such a great extent whether or not we ever really get to know them on a deeper level, whether we are even talking about a relationship level or not. Plus, it made me feel all shaky and weepy to think that going to a party is an exercise in dressing myself up to be judged and evaluated and deemed worthy/unworthy by random strangers in a room. blah! I'm not quite sure what actually precipitated all of this. I can't really say it has anything to do with hanging around in a room full of history nerds all day. And it's not even that I don't feel like I "measure up" or whatever...it's just the very act of feeling like other people are measuring me...in mass quantities...that started to ook me out a bit. Maybe, too, you know...I'm 36 years old! I guess to a certain extent I feel like my friend is inviting his mom out to a party with him, which seems kind of silly.

At any rate, I was able to express these feeling abruptly to my friend and get them out enough to where I was able to actually fall asleep, but it's still bothering me today that I felt so weird about it. Part of me feels totally justified in feeling that way, and part of me is like "Whatever, lady - it's just another background for whatever you experience...why get all bent out of shape." And I wonder if I would have refused to go last month or if I will refuse to go next month or the month after that. I spent much of the day today trying to figure out when I have last been to a party - like a house party of someone I don't know - and I just can't remember. And then I started trying to remember when I have ever actually met anyone worth knowing at a party, and I can't remember that, either...so I don't feel so bad. But, then, I do recall having been to some parties with friends and just enjoying the experience...so maybe that's the key. But, I guess going to a party with a male friend who is scouting for a relationship is probably what was making me feel like it wouldn't be such a good idea.

I dunno. I've already spent way more energy on this than it probably deserves, but I'm just sort of interested in why being asked to a party evoked such a strong, reactive emotional response in me. So I'll probably think about it more, but if anyone out there has any thoughts about that, I'd love to hear them.

Today I woke up late, but managed to only miss the one speaker in the whole event who made me feel impatient and irritated. There were only about 5 people on the 3-hour panel this morning, so there was lots of time for discussion in the end, and I really enjoyed hearing from all of the regular people in the room. One woman mentioned that the closest she has ever been to going to university was attending university conferences & I wanted to stand up and applaud her as she mentioned that it might be good for the panelists to consider that there are lots of people who don't have degress who could benefit from what they are saying. Then the ever-present Carl Webb made the important point that we need to bring this stuff off-campus and share information and solidarity with those who don't ever set foot on campus. I requested more resources for younger children, which is something I'm probably going to write about later, as so much of the historical research and documentation is geared towards high school and up - and even in our very good library, there are still tons and tons of books that teach the kind of history that I have to go back later and say "Oh, by the way, everything in this book is either wrong or told from a perspective that invalidates what really happened."

And now I am home. And it is fucking cold out there. And I have a million bajillion things to do, but I just want to curl up in a little ball under all of my covers and think through all of the events of the week - both educational and emotional - and breathe, and listen to music, and think, and allow myself to feel all of it, and work through all of it, and come out on the other side with some ideas about how to deal with it all.

But first I need to make myself a fucking sandwich, because I am HUNGRY!!!!!!!!

"AN ITALIAN judge has ordered a priest to appear in court this month to prove that Jesus Christ existed."

Those zany Italians. I can't believe while we in the US are still having a fucking debate about whether humans rode fucking dinosaurs, this Italian guy is bringing the mere existence of god up in court.

[link via pen-elayne]

TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)

Comments on this Entry:

BBC NEWS | Americas | Chavez moves against US preachers

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has said he is about to expel a US missionary group, New Tribes Mission.

The leftist leader said the missionaries were "imperialists" and he felt "ashamed" at their presence in indigenous areas of Venezuela.

He accused the Florida-based group of making unauthorised flights and setting up luxurious camps amid poverty.

TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)

Comments on this Entry: