I found what follows *here* at Towleroad: A Site With Homosexual Tendencies. (I love that subtitle!) That lesbians and gay men are harassed by white Christian haterosexuals isn't new. But it needs to be in the news.

08/23/2010
Watch: Toronto 'Christians' Pray in Front of Gay Couple's House and Neighbors Drive Them Out


Torontoist posted this video of a prayer group from Highfield Road Gospel Hall in the Dundas and Greenwood area of Toronto that apparently prays outside the homes of regularly harasses gay and lesbian couples.

The videographer, resident Geoffrey Skelding, writes:

"This is a group from a church at the end of my street. Apparently they have been grouping in front of a gay couple's house and reading their bible loudly for the past 7 years. They may have also driven a lesbian couple from the area as well by doing the same thing. Tonight most of our neighbours came out and were successful in getting them to leave. The people who go to that church don't even live in our area! Police came by shortly thereafter."

Says one worshiper in the clip: "We have an authority to preach the gospel. We've been doing this seven years."

(via slog)


Posted 7:53 PM EST by Andy Towle in Canada, Evangelical Christians, Evangelicals, News | Permalink

This is a cross post from the Conducive Chronicle. You can link back by clicking on the title below. I offer up this post in conjunction with others, especially *this one* on the excellent work of Patricia Hill Collins on heterosexism and African American society. The video here is mentioned in the article that follows.




Written on February 14, 2010 at 3:41 PM by Eryn-Ashlei Bailey

Black and Gay? No Way!

Filed under Culture & History, LGBT 16 comments

Homosexuality touches the ultimate soft spot within the black community. Homophobia causes division, exclusion, and hatred. Homosexuality in and of itself has been the source of great misunderstanding and persecution in mainstream society. Because I am writing a series for Black History Month, I will look at homosexuality specifically in the black community. I will identify the historical, religious, and social reasons why homosexuality gets the greater populations panties in a bunch.

In order to understand the current state of affairs within a community, it is essential to understand what the community experienced in the past to establish a context. Historical records show accounts of homosexuality spanning centuries, continents, male and female alike. However, the black community tends to feel a certain sense of “immunity” to the condition of homosexuality. Some members of the black community reject homosexuality to the point of saying that is “the white man’s disease”. It is thought that homosexuality was forced about blacks by colonizing nations. I will explore this idea later as it is not completely untrue.




Dr. Frances Cress Wesling, author of the Isis Papers in 1991, posits that black homosexuality is a result of white supremacy and oppression. For Wesling, white supremacists have emasculated and effeminated the black male in order to undermine the black family. Wesling believes that this oppression has taken place since childhood and hence, homosexuals and bisexuals should not be persecuted for their orientation as it wasn’t their personal choice in her perspective. Weslings’ view is interesting because she differs from black Christian fundamentalists who believe that homosexuality is a choice.



Understanding the root of the extreme homophobia of blacks on other blacks, we must turn our eyes to the black church. Most Christian blacks don’t support the idea of homosexuality because it is understood to be outside of the plan of the Judeo-Christian God. This idea of homosexuality as the ultimate sin beyond all others is not supported by Biblical text. In reading the Christian New Testament, readers will find that the only unpardonable sin is “blaspheming the Holy Spirit”. Whenever one is in search of gospel truth regarding an issue like homosexuality, it is important to thoroughly research the topic. Researching with pure intentions, readers will find that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, (the town that is thought to be burned solely because of homosexuality) is quite more involved than what the conventional synopsis holds. It can be speculated the chaos stirred up by homophobia in the church is a crafty device to divide Christians further and move them away from the message of love, acceptance, and brotherhood.

Gay Black Men Talk is a YouTube video of a diverse group of gay black men discussing their gayness and their blackness co-existing simultaneously. From watching this video, we will see the popular notion of gayness negating blackness cast down. These gay men discuss the issues of family, religion, and the “Down Low phenomenon”. One of the speakers on the video denies claims that gay black males do not want to have a family. Although gay black men may not have the conventional nuclear family, he says that black men are still heavily involved in taking care of their immediate family such as sisters, nieces, nephews etc…

A powerful point that is made in this video is the affirmation of gayness by these black men. In affirming their gayness and coming into themselves, they are accepting who they are. In affirming their gayness, they are protecting the black family and the black woman by not leading her on to believe that they are heterosexual. An immediate danger that results from homophobia within the black community is the subculture of “undercover brothers”, “homothugs”,and “DL brothers”. These are black men who identify as heterosexual meanwhile they are engaging in homosexual sex. In so doing, these MSM (men who have sex with men) are potentially putting their wives, girlfriends, and lovers at risk for STD’s, HIV, and AIDs. Black women who believe that they are in a monogamous heterosexual relationship are less likely to use a condom and are officially at risk for contracting an STI or STD. This video also discusses the role of the black church in ostracizing black gays. The host of the meeting suggests that the black church could in fact bridge the gap between homophobics and homosexuals. However, the likelihood of this coalition forming is very slim.

Outwardly gay black males can be seen as doing more to preserve the heterosexual black community. The ideals of openly gay black males about their sexuality are found in this video clip: Gay Black Male Pledge.

History of Homosexuality & The Black Community:

As mentioned earlier, homosexuality is considered “the white man’s disease” especially for Caribbeans. Although not directly true, slavery and colonization forced slaves to participate in homosexual acts. This forced homosexuality on slaves and the subsequent emasculation that followed, caused embarrassment, hatred, and anger amongst victim slaves. These residual feelings morphed into homophobia. The term “porch monkeys” is used to describe slaves who served their masters and their masters company on the porch of the plantation estate. Porch monkeys served as entertainment for the master and his or her guest. Disgustingly, slave masters would force their slaves to perform homosexual acts to entertain themselves and their guests at the cost of any remaining shred of a slaves dignity and pride. Porch slaves might have been ridiculed amongst other slaves for having to do this.

The master’s porch was not the only venue for homosexual acts within the slave community. Slaves were quartered according to their sex. Men quartered with men and women quartered with women. Most sexual interaction that took place between male and female slaves was for breeding slave children to be bought and sold at the masters request. Hence, out of this living arrangement, homosexual acts were taken part in by slaves as a means to release sexual frustration. Modern-day prisons mimic this arrangement. Understanding this system, one can glean that homosexuality may not have been turned to as a first recourse for slaves. Because slaves had no control over their sex lives, they may have harbored immense hatred in their masters and themselves. And from this, we see the surviving acidity of homophobia in the black community.

Bayard Rustin & Gay Rights:

The beacon of hope for gay rights in the black community is Bayard Rustin. He was the Harvey Milk of the black community. Rustin was the son of a Pennsylvania Quaker who was raised around NAACP leaders such as W.E.B. DuBois and James Weldon Johnson. Rustin was born to be an activist. He was oriented in the Ghandian passive resistance model and went to work alongside Dr. Martin Luther King in organizing the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. Rustin was a self-proclaimed homosexual. In 1953, he was arrested in California for partaking in a “lewd act”. Rustin would later plead guilty to “sex perversion” which was consensual sodomy in California at the time. Rustin was also a civil rights leader and fellow leaders in the Civil Rights Movement were afraid that Rustin’s open sexuality would inhibit supporters of the civil rights cause. Attempts were made to curb Rustin’s recognition. Unfortunately, most attempts succeeded and luckily a few failed. Strom Thurmond, the racist politician, doctored an FBI photo of Rustin and Dr. Martin Luther King showing Rustin talking to a bathing King to insinuate that the two were having a homosexual affair. Dr. King and Rustin denied these false allegations. Because of his passive tactics, Rustin was written off by Malcolm X and other black militants as a “sell out”. Rustin would defend himself by saying that he sported the Afro style long before many other brothers caught on to the movement. With his “The New Niggers are Gay” speech, Rustin advocated on behalf on the New York Gay Rights Bill. Tragically, Rustin passed in 1987 from a perforated appendix leaving his followers with much work to do.

Now that we have a contextual understanding of homosexuality in the black community from a historical, religious, and social perspective, we can initiate steps forward towards change. Knowing where images of black homosexuality come from and why they are seen as portrayals of an unacceptable existence for a black individual, particularly male, we can unravel the century wound cord around the psyches of homophobic blacks. By ridiculing black homosexuals, are we causing more division which the likes of Dr. Frances Wesling might say is quite possibly succumbing to oppression? Shouldn’t we want to join forces in brotherly love? It is important for some to not compromise their ideas and personal principles. That I understood. I am not proposing that all blacks become homosexual now. Rather, I propose that in our efforts to unite and create a common black community, we suspend the age-old notions of homosexuality. One doesn’t have to agree with everyone’s lifestyle, but we do have to respect that as individuals we are given a free will and only the respective person deals with the implications of their actions. Hence, what a fellow friend does in the privacy of their own home will not affect how I live my day today…unless I let it.

image is from here

TIME fucking lies.

I've already discussed how TIME refuses to print what's truthful, in favor of a propagandistic, pro-Empire war version of reality that suits rich white men. Men who profit from our wars across the globe: economic, political, and military wars, including domestic wars, using domestic violence as a primary form of terrorism--against women and children, by men who supposedly love those they maim and murder.

TIME magazine would like you to believe that U.S. men don't do things like cut the features off of women's faces. But we do. There's nothing done to women anywhere in the world that U.S. men don't do to women somewhere. Below is that exploitative cover, grossly misusing the photograph of a young woman maimed by an abusive man in her life under circumstances that the U.S. government and military not only could not have stopped, but is working to ensure happens a whole lot more. That's something TIME won't tell you.

All patriarchal war is war against women even when it is publicly determined to be men fighting men, and even when it is also men killing men. And so in every war, women are raped, blown up, murdered, by men. This is necessarily and strategically part of any war game that men play with one another off the video-screen. And in most places--but not everywhere, men who are with women intimately commit criminal acts against them: degrading them, disfiguring them; dominating and subordinating them; acting out various emotional-political lethal potions of misogyny and projected self-hatred--which is the only functionally, institutionally existent form of misandry that exists anywhere. Men do horrid things to women, and when women complain about it, women are, yet again, called horrible names by men, or are beaten, cut, and killed. I abhor TIME magazine's cover choice; if you haven't seen it, you won't see it here--if you haven't seen it and want to, click on the linked phrase "Time Magazine Cover" in the article below, which is where the image appears on the RAWA website. TIME owes every Afghan woman an apology, but needs to follow up that apology by demanding in every issue, on their cover, that the U.S. must stop its atrocities against women domestically and internationally, not by exploiting that violence with images, but by naming it accurately, in politically unambiguous text. Everything that follows is from that RAWA website, which you can link back to by clicking on the title just below.

The real story behind Time’s Afghan woman cover: American complicity

Now they (warlords) have posts in the new government, or if they do not, soon might.

image/poster is from here

Historically in the White West, Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are three political-economic solutions for arriving at an equal, fair, and moral society. Just one problem: none of them accomplish this, especially with regard to women. None of them, as theorised and practiced by white men--regardless of the white men's ideological identities and affiliations, factor women as anything other than beings that exist to serve men, or workers who exist to serve the State. While Capitalism typically exploits women's sexuality, encouraging sex to be paid work; Communism typically exploits women's labor, pretending her gender-class isn't subordinated to men through sex and work. Engels tried to theorise on the matter of women in society, and failed miserably. Catharine A. MacKinnon analyses what is missing from Marxist theory in her book Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. 

Ward Churchill, a white man and batterer who is seen by some as an American Indian, discusses how Marxism fails to centralise the political and social well-being and survival of Indigenous people.

I have yet to encounter white men's theories and practices that set as a priority the liberation of women of all colors from male supremacy, economic exploitation, and men's sexual terrorism. I am not pro-Capitalism, pro-Socialism, or pro-Communism for these reasons and more. I don't believe money economies will free anyone or bring about sustainable living predicated on the value of spirit, not the worth of money.

What you will read below are the mental offerings of a WHM who goes by two names on Yahoo Answers: Unisom and Die Hard PC Parrot. He either makes up or finds a made up quote [not] by Catharine MacKinnon, and believes she is a Communist. Once he makes this inaccurate statement, using a quote she never wrote or said, others weigh in on the matter of whether feminism and communism are one and the same political phenomenon.

This post examines the logical phallusy presented by Unisom, and, with supporting quotes from him, make the case that what many anti-feminism, "anti-misandrist" men claim radical feminists think and feel is, rather, what many men who are both woman-hating and man-hating think and feel.

As you can observe below and from many other posts on A.R.P., there is an abundance of actively anti-feminist men online who project their own hatreds onto radical feminists, and pretend those women are "the enemy" because they carry such awful assumptions about men. That men carry these same assumptions, and have, for centuries, well before "radical feminism" existed as we know it in the last forty or so years, appears not to matter to these men.

Below, you'll notice that it is an anti-feminist and otherwise bigoted man who carries precisely those assumptions attributed to radical feminists, except here he reveals them as his own. Whether it's being pro-rape in some circumstances, or pro-murder of women by men, or pro-murder of men by women, he reveals what most men have learned to not so overtly display in many-gender social environments that pretend to value being humane. Many of his views are as vile as they are obnoxious. They reveal a person who seems to have little grounding in reality, little understanding of feminism, and a gross contempt for most for humanity generally. The only group of humans he seems to show repeated compassion for is heterosexual men who are under six feet tall. (I'm not kidding.)

When this particular anti-feminist does get around to quoting a radical feminist, he gets the quote very wrong, and shows that he hasn't even read the one page of text he's quoting from (and he cites the misquote!). We begin with a series of comments from this woman-hating and man-hating person called Unisom, also known as Die Hard PC Parrot, on Yahoo Answers.

Unisom asked a question "Gender difference: Most educated women live on the cloud while their male counterpart live on the ground?"

"Some men (over 6 feet or rich) get much more than average man share of women. Or some women are serial polyandry by being hookers" -- Die Hard PC Parrot, aka Unisom

Toto is once again engaging with silly if determined-to-make-all-men-look-bad men on Yahoo Answers. Thank you Toto for alerting me to the latest clear case of "a misinformation campaign" designed to discredit feminists who are, in fact and in practice, human rights activists trying to alleviate the suffering of women who are oppressed by men in grossly and abusively male supremacist societies.

The answer to "Who in the world is Die Hard PC Parrot?", with many examples of his racist, anti-Semitic, anti-gay, misogynist, and anti-feminist questions, answers, and colleagues on Yahoo Answers, appear below. But first, let's get right on with his recent question, which Toto answers in a way that makes the questioner look like a Die Hard Patriarchally Correct Parrot.

• 
  
  by In With a Meh

  why does you always say one IN the same? it used to be AND. that makes more sense. think about it.

  • 15 hours ago

  
  
• 
  
  by peterdou...

  Well, obviously she is/was a Marxist Feminist, and can't be taken to be speaking for all Feminists, most of whom do not link Feminism with Socialism or Communism.
  
  Even so, she got it wrong: Socialism, according to Marxist theory, is just a stage on the road to Communism, which you don't get until the State "withers away." With Socialism, you still have a State.
  
  Marx and Engels worked together on the Communist Manifesto, and Engels was a Feminist. So it is not surprising that some modern Feminists are Marxists.
  
  Any social structure in preexisting society (such as marriage or the family) is likely to be seen by revolutionaries (such as Marxists or radical Feminists) as an obstacle that needs to be abolished, so that new structures can be set up.

  
  
• 
  
  by Rio Madeira

  That's what she thinks. I can combine feminism and libertarianism.

  
  
• 
  
  by Toto Gotawa

  Below I describe exactly how your entire argument is built on a house of cards, cards loaded with great inaccuracies, at the most basic level, including the spelling of her name.
  
  First of all, the top quote above is not on page 10 or any other page of Catharine MacKinnon's book Towards A Feminist Theory of the State. Instead, in that very book, MacKinnon harshly critiques Marxism, including how it devalues women's work in the home as not actual work. (Quotes provided below in this reply.) Have you read the book? Because that's so clear it puzzles me how you could miss that. Anyone can do a phrase and word search of the entire text at the URL provided below. You may also read all of page ten there. I'll offer quotes to support my argument, from page 10:
  
  "Feminist observations of women's situation in socialist countries, though not conclusive of the contribution of marxist theory to understanding women's situation, have supported the feminist theoretical critique. [If you read the whole chapter, or even the entire page, it is extremely clear she is saying that marxism is inadequate to remedy the oppression of women by men: marxism, in practice in Communist or in Socialist countries, fails to accomplish this. She goes on:] In the feminist view, socialist countries have solved many social problems--women's subordination not included. The criticism is not that socialism has not automatically liberated women in the process of transforming production (assuming that this transformation is occurring)."
  
  [Also on page 10:]
  "The basic feminist criticism is that these countries do not make a priority of working to change women's status relative to men that distinguishes them from nonsocialist societies in the way that their pursuit of other goals distinguishes them. Capitalist countries value women in terms of their "merit" by male [supremacist] standards; in socialist countries women seem invisible except in their capacity as "workers." This term seldom includes the work that remains distinctive service to men, regardless of the politics of those men: housework, prostitution and other sexual servicing, childbearing, childrearing. Sexual violence is typically barely mentioned."
  
  [Also from page 10:]
  "When women's labor or militancy suits the needs of emergency [of men's military emergencies, such as in the U.S. during and following WWII], she is suddenly man's equal, only to regress when the urgency recedes. Feminists do not argue that it means the same to women to be on the bottom in a feudal system, a capitalist regime, and a socialist regime. the commonality is that, despite real changes [and real differences in each] bottom is bottom." [The point is that in societies that are or have been feudal, capitalist, or communist, none have ever valued women as equals to men and have all treated women as inferior.]
  
  [Also from page 10:]
  "Where such attitudes and practices come to be criticized, as in Cuba or China, changes appear gradual and precarious, as they do in capitalist countries, even where the effort looks major." [End of quotation of C. A. MacKinnon's writing on page 10.]
  
  Second, Catharine MacKinnon was never a president of N.O.W. Where did you get your very easily verified information, and can you get back to the person or website to tell them it's grossly inaccurate? Here is a list of all the presidents of NOW from start to present, from NOW's own website. (URL provided below)
  
  Betty Friedan, Aileen Hernandez, Wilma Scott Heide, Karen DeCrow, Eleanor Smeal, Judy Goldsmith, Molly Yard, Patricia Ireland, Kim Gandy, and currently Terry O'Neill.
  
  Third, taking quotes out of context, and including misquotes--making up things that someone never wrote or said--is a poor way to build a case that what you're discussing has any validity, merit, or is worth engaging with in any serious manner. Arguments prepared this way make someone appear to be very ignorant rather than knowledgeable on the subject at hand.
  
  Fourth, Lenin ruled a very large country. Catharine MacKinnon rules no country, state, or organisation--including NOW. She commands no military or police forces, governs no land, and has no authority to do anything that State commanders can do. To compare a past totalitarian Communist leader of Russia to a contemporary U.S. feminist writer, lecturer, Constitutional law professor and attorney, and human rights activist, is to not understand the meaning of the term "fair comparison."

  Source(s):

  http://books.google.com/books?id=Shn5xHywtHIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=mackinnon,+toward+a+feminist+theory+of+the+state&hl=en&ei=GuxvTKC1AsKC8gb6yNTxDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
  
  http://www.now.org/history/past_presidents.html

Here is some information about the Parrot of Patriarchal Correctness, only using information he himself provides on Yahoo Answers. Absolutely no "digging around in the dirt" was required to unearth what was found. Just click on his name on Yahoo Answers: it's all there.

• 45 - Male - Montreal, Quebec
  
  
  2 months ago

And here are many more of his questions and answers to life. Some of what follows has been copied and pasted above, to highlight some of his preposterous views.

• 
  

  Unisom answered a question "what is some of the feminist biggest fear?"

  
  

  Masculist Revolution.
  Posted at 7 hrs ago Posted to
  
  
• 
  
  
  

  Unisom answered a question "Are women tamed by the type of beeting and ownership you give them in bed.?"

  
  

  Yes, esp. Masochistic women like you.
  Posted at 8 hrs ago Posted to
  
  
• 
  
  
  

  Unisom answered a question "Are mesomorphic women least desired?"

  
  

  It's the Misandristomorphic type that is. (a.k.a. Andrea-Dworkinomorphic type)
  Posted at 10 hrs ago Posted to
  
  
• 
  
  
  

  Unisom answered a question "Why is it that when two drunk adults have?"

  
  

  Brilliant, yet I think it's more than Kafkaesque nighmare, rather, it's feministed Stalinism comes to United Soviet of Anti-Men (USA), where at anytime a man can be thrown to jail. Few years ago, I've heard a black man on TV rant that "…
  Posted at 10 hrs ago Posted to
• 
  
  
  
  

  Unisom answered a question "Okay fella's, don't you think that's enough?"

  
  

  No, it never enough, manginas as you have been one of the main culprits of Draconian Oppression of Men . Wait till the Masculist Revolution, baby! The reason you get laid easy because you are 6 feet tall or more, please admit it! You have more than your …
  Posted at 10 hrs ago Posted to
  
  
• 
  
  
  

  Unisom asked a question "Men wear Bras so women can go topless: Can you be more feministed than these men?"

  
  

  http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/article/men-wear-bras-so-women-can-go-topless/19590056 Excerpt: ".... male supporters of the cause will show their support by wearing bras and bikinis...........…
  Posted at 12 hrs ago Posted to
  
  
• 
  
  
  

  Unisom answered a question "Opinions... Are women by nature monogamous while men are polygamous?"

  
  

  Since ratio of men/ women are 49/51, mathematically it is impossible for such conjecture to happen, except that : Some men (over 6 feet or rich) get much more than average man share of women. Or some women are serial polyandry by being hookers or have m…
  Posted at 12 hrs ago Posted to
  
  
• 
  
  
  

  Unisom answered a question "Ladies, do you enjoy showing cleavage?"

  
  

  Ha ha ha, the fervent Jewish feminist Rio now have a change of heart & confess to being dependent on Patriarchy Approval! Ha Ha Rio, get back to the Synagogue & be a good Orthodox Judaist Ashkenazim woman! Now march!...Thy shall pray G_d for being the C…
  Posted at 12 hrs ago Posted to
  
  
• 
  
  
  

  Unisom answered a question "Which Women Do You Find To Be The Most Gold Digging? Asian? White? Black? Hispanic?"

  
  

  Depend on her morality & the depth of her swallowing of Misandry Propagandas.
  Posted at 12 hrs ago Posted to
  
  
• 
  
  
  

  Unisom asked a question "Feminist: do you know who pay for the US war in Iraq?"

  
  

  Guess what? The hated "Patriarchy China", to the tune of 1 TRILLIONS DOLLARS! Uncle Sam , after years of Anti-Male Laws & Policy, now no longer capable of funding its own war, even its side effect is to liberate Oppress Muslim Sisters! In the …
  Posted at 13 hrs ago Posted to
  
  
• 
  
  
  

  Unisom asked a question "Viagra or Meat protein, which one is more effective?"

  
  

  Ladies, don't feed your spouse too much meat, lobsters or shrimps...after a good night sleep, in the morning, his gun would be at 3' o'clock position all day long. That's my experience. Viagra, IMO, is only for men who suffered from Heart…
  Posted at 13 hrs ago Posted to
  
  
• 
  
  
  

  Unisom answered a question "is PMS a mental illness?"

  
  

  It's a temporary insanity for some women. It produce 2 problems: -If a women on PMS get hallucinated, she may claim Sexual Harassment, Rape, Violence against any Man unlucky enough to be near by, most likely her spouse. The guy AT LEAST would spend a…
  Posted at 13 hrs ago Posted to
  
  
• 
  
  
  

  Unisom answered a question "Which man is more likely to win in a fight?"

  
  

  Gays would generally win, since Aspergers is a debilitating disease, further more there are many kinds of Gays, some of them have as good Coordination as straight. Some even have very high Visual-Spacial Intelligence (though in a much smaller population…
  Posted at 13 hrs ago Posted to
  
  
• 
  
  
  

  Unisom asked a question "Gender difference: Most educated women live on the cloud while their male counterpart live on the ground?"

  
  

  At least, that's true for readers nowadays (keep in mind that most readers have good education, fools rarely read ): Excerpt: "...If it's even metaphorically true that men and women hail from different planets, it seems safe to assume that …
  Posted at 14 hrs ago Posted to
  
  
• 
  
  
  

  Unisom asked a question "Men: Don't you dare walking alone with your daughter in Gynocratic Republic of Canada?"

  
  

  You may end up in the Slammer! , because the Public Witch Hunt for "all Male are pedophiles" has reached a climax: http://www.thestar.com/article/223150 or here: http://petepatriarch.blogspot.com/2007/06/don-go-walking-with-your-daughter.html
  Posted at 15 hrs ago Posted to
  
  
• 
  
  
  

  Unisom asked a question "Is this the future of our Western Anti-male educational system?"

  
  

  “Our culture, including all that we are taught in schools and universities, is so infused with patriarchal thinking that it must be torn up root and branch if genuine change is to occur. EVERYTHING MUST GO – even the allegedly universal disciplines of log…
  Posted at 15 hrs ago Posted to
  
  
• 
  
  
  

  Unisom asked a question "Dear GS members, what do you think about this former N.O.W President Catherine MacKinnon's claim?"

  
  

  “Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.” - Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10 ============================…
  Posted at 15 hrs ago Posted to

image of Founder and CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, is from here

My own awareness of this matter was due to the following Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=418952528982#!/event.php?eid=106807292708162

I want to thank the organiser of that page and all its members for supporting this effort to hold Facebook accountable to its own policies and stated values and practices.

What appears next is a cross post from the blog Jezebel (to link back, please click on the title just below). Following that, are comments from me and others calling for direct action to various Facebook email addresses.

Facebook Allows "Pro-Rape, Anti-Consent" Group To Stay On The Site For Months

A group of students, both past and present, of the all-male St. Paul's College at Sydney University, decided to create a pro-rape Facebook page called "Define Statutory" that reportedly was allowed to stay up on the site for several months.

The site, which went up in August, was shut down recently, but Reverend David Russell, an outgoing master at Wesley College, tells the Sydney Morning Herald that the Facebook page is simply an encapsulation of the rape culture that has pervaded the campus for some time. "This is a story that has to be told," Russell says, "there is no question in my mind, women are seen as meat. That is the awful, ugly truth of it.''

The site has already been condemned by the University, the New South Wales Police sex crimes unit, and the New South Wales Rape Crisis Centre, and New South Wales Minister for Women, Linda Burney, rightly tells ABC Australia that "The idea that a group of young men that are going to become leaders within our community - leaders in the law, leaders in medicine, leaders in business - studying at an elite college, at an elite university, think it's OK to post information like this encouraging rape on a website is absolutely abhorrent.

The question that remains, however, is why Facebook allowed a pro-rape group to exist on the service to begin with. This is a social networking site that refuses to let women post pictures of themselves breastfeeding, mind you, but it's okay to make a "hilarious" pro-rape group in the "Sports and Recreation" category? The group was public, by the way, accessible to anyone and visible to all. Interesting, isn't it, that in the eyes of Facebook, a woman shouldn't be allowed to show her breasts while feeding her child, but it's perfectly acceptable for men to make a highly public "sport" out of rape.

Detective Superintendent John Kerlatec of the New South Wales Police sex crimes squad tells the Herald that "this is the first occasion I have heard of a Facebook site being set up to promote, or publicise ... sexual assault or any other behaviour that is criminal behaviour.'' Something tells me that it won't be the last, unless Facebook starts paying as much attention to the rape culture brewing on the boards as they do to pictures of new mothers just trying to feed their kids.

Pro-Rape Facebook Group Condemned [The Australian Broadcasting Corporation]
Facebook And Sexual Violence, Assault [Sydney Morning Herald]
Facebook's Breastfeeding Ban [LATimes]

My attention was brought to this matter because of this webpage calling for a protest of pro-rape Facebook pages and groups:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=418952528982#!/event.php?eid=106807292708162


I recommend sending letters/emails to Facebook with similar messages as the one below, to the following addresses:


privacy@facebook.com 
abuse@facebook.com 
appeal@facebook.com 
legal@facebook.com

To all Facebook rule and code enforcers, policy setters, and assessors of abuse and threats,

According to your own stated policies, this page and many other active pages on Facebook like it, violate your terms and policies.

This page: It isn't r.a.p.e.... It's SURPRISE SEX. (:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=131902836844892&v=info#!/pages/It-isnt-rape-Its-SURPRISE-SEX-/106823992684587?ref=ts

has been up since March 31, 2010. If that doesn't strike you as pro-rape, how about these comments by users on Facebook?

"i prefer rape with machetes"
"sneak attack rape is the way to go"
"hands up if you like rape".
raping and pillaging
raping bitches
it's not R A P E if you yell "surprise!"
It's not R A P E if you like it ;)
Its not ràpe if you yell surprise!

I am writing to ask you to take these and related pro-rape comments and pages down because they violate the terms of service, and you clearly stated policies.

Rape isn't a joke, it's a trauma, and for all the many survivors on Facebook, it is triggering to see their own trauma joked about in a social community.

You have trail-blazed a new way for people to be in contact, to stay in contact, to disseminate information no matter how banal, brilliant, or brutal.

Fortunately, you have expressed and reinforced a responsibility to maintain a safe and friendly environment that doesn't overtly infringe upon any of the rights of Facebook's staggering five hundred million users.

Within Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, within the Safety sub-category, you have listed three relevant responsibilities or statements:

You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence;

You will not use Facebook to do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious, or discriminatory;

You will not facilitate or encourage any violations of this Statement.

Moreover, in order to report a page, group, image or person, etc, it must meet a list of criteria which includes Racist/Hate speech, direct call for violence and/or excessive gore or violent content.

Many community members have borne witness to a series of pages, groups, etc, that are egregiously breaking these policies and in general, promoting reprehensible agendas that are threatening the proposed safe & friendly community that Facebook is supposed to be, including white supremacist groups, pro-racism groups, and pro-misogyny groups.

With particular attention to the Facebook group: It isn't r.a.p.e.... It's SURPRISE SEX. (:  I offer additional information:

Within that group exists a number of comments I will also bring to your attention in order to properly demonstrate the hostile and aggressive content within this group:

"i prefer the term struggle cuddle"

"Is surprise buttsecks in this same category?"

"IT'S SURPRISE SEX TIME! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D", "I actually prefer rape." These comments go on and on.

"Rape" is another group, with the following comments littered throughout the wall, "i prefer rape with machetes", "sneak attack rape is the way to go", "hands up if you like rape".

The following groups or pages should be moved by nature of their titles alone:
raping and pillaging
raping b*tches
it's not R A P E if you
yell "surprise!"
It's not R A P E if you like it ;)
Its not ràpe if
you yell surprise!
it isnt rape, its suprise sex :O.

Among those groups, pages, and public comments are thousands of callous, pro-hostility/sexual aggression Facebook users who find the promotion of rape and violence against women to be a course of humor primarily.

The reality, prevalence, and consequences of rape make it about as funny as genocide and mass starvation.

Here are some numbers and facts that aren't funny:

One in four women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime in the U.S.

One in THREE Native American women are raped primarily by white men who don't live where they live. White men come onto reservation land, or procure Native American women living on the street in urban areas.

One in four traditional college-age students will be sexually assaulted, with a female student's first year in college being the year she is most
vulnerable.

Every three minutes someone in the U.S is sexually assaulted.

At least 80% of sexual assaults are not reported to the police.

Only 6% of rapists will ever spend a day in jail, and with our classist and racist judicial system, that means
white wealthy men rarely get time for raping anyone.

Over 80% of women with disabilities will be sexually assaulted during their lifetime.

Assuming you welcome and appreciate these populations of people being part of the Facebook community, why would you wish to support and endorse--by leaving up--Facebook pages which mock their assault and trauma and and create a grossly callous and contemptuous social environment, especially towards women generally?

Thank you for taking the time to read this. I appreciate you attending to this matter.

In the autumn of 2008, I began to lay out some of the major themes of this blog: challenging profeminists and antifeminists who purport to be acting on behalf of justice and freedom; identifying the dangers of white privilege and white supremacy; and offering up perspectives on radicalism, rape, and white men's ageist sexism and misogynist racism in media.

I have been deeply dismayed and disheartened to learn that Ward Churchill, who I regard as a white man with a strongly pro-Indigenist politic and perspective, has since been identified as a batterer of at least one American Indian woman. This raises the on-going question of who we look to for leadership on matters of liberation from oppressive systems of dehumanisation and degradation. In my own experience, one definitive answer is "not white men". I find white men, on both structural and experiential levels (the two being intimately related) ill-prepared to lead anyone out of white male supremacist ways of being and systems which benefit them. The investment in them is too great, and white men believe themselves too great to not be leaders.

Here are some excerpts:

“[...] it is obvious to most of us that under socialism, and certainly under communism, social relations will be ruptured and go through lots of changes, in line with the necessities of building a new society.” [a comment from another website's discussion on socialism, by Linda D.]

The question, of course, is whose new society, and is there just one? If just one, is it based and constructed on the political philosophies and practices of white europeans and their descendants? If so, this is deeply problematic, which is to say, white supremacist. See, Yurugu: An African-Centered Critique of European Cultural Thought and Behavior (1994), by Marimba Ani for much more on this matter.

Although not strictly on the topic of LGBT community and its future, Ward Churchill does tackle this matter rather impressively. I shall first pull the passage from the above discussion I am responding to, posted by Dave:

The issue is a line that says that it is an open question whether or not a certain group of people will “cease to exist” under socialism or communism. This is wrong, and worthy of derision and scorn.

What follows is from the book Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader (2003), page 260. I believe it can apply to some degrees to many marginalised and oppressed ethnic/cultural groups, but here he is discussing Indigenous populations/nations. I will note that I consider Ward Churchill to be a U.S. white man, as am I, but in the passage below he speaks of himself as someone directly descended from American Indian nationalities. This is beside the point, in terms of accepting his analysis of marxism-leninism, however. His work is thoroughly researched, and not only academically.

Our very right to exist in a national sense, and usually as distinct cultures as well, has instead been denied as such. Always and everywhere, marxism-leninism has assigned itself a practical priority leading directly to the incorporation, subordination, and dissolution of native societies as such. This is quite revealing, considering that the term “genocide” was coined to describe not only policies leading to the outright physical liquidation of “ethnical, racial, religious or national” aggregates, but also policies designed to bring about the dissolution, destruction, and disappearance of these “identified human groups as such,” by other means. [see note 113 in the book] Viewed this way, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that marxism-leninism is and always has been a genocidal doctrine, wherever indigenous nationalities/cultures are concerned. [see note 114 in the book]

I also want to recommend two other books to the readers and commenters here on the matter Linda D. specifically raises. One is titled Black Sexual Politics, by Patricia Hill Collins (2004) and the other is called Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism (expanded edition, 1997), by Suzanne Pharr. With those two books, and Churchill’s and Ani’s, I strongly agree with Linda D. that Dworkin’s analysis, too, is needed in this discussion.

Related concerns:

Whose LGBT culture are we talking about? Is our understanding of this culture u.s./eurocentric? Does it place the experiences of Two Spirited people and Womanist woman-centered women at the center of its theories on heterosexuality and queerness? What is our analysis of heterosexuality and its causes? Heterosexuality, not having an asocial or cross-cultural history, nor a future that is eternal, is infused with political ideology, is it not? (It sure seems that way to gay ole me!)

Do those who discuss "the LGBT community" mean white people in the middle class or those who are part of the bourgeoisie? If so, this is but a small piece of the whole of Queer experience and culture.

On Roger Ebert's sexism and ageism (and if you read the whole post, we can note how this also includes racism and heterosexism):

What irks me even more is this comment by Roger: "What a pleasure this movie is, showcasing actresses I've admired for a long time, all at the top of their form. Yes, they're older now, as are we all, but they look great, and know what they're doing." Well, we're not all "older now", as the film stars one actor who is all of thirteen; let's hope she's not yet hit the top of her acting game. And I doubt he's been admiring her for a long time, or, well, I hope he hasn't.

So, getting to the most sexist portion of his review: why do men ALWAYS say things about women's appearances like "they're older now, BUT they look great"? What, exactly, does "great" mean: not old? That they've had enough cosmetic facial surgery, but not too much? First, older women are older than younger women AND they look great. Age doesn't take away beauty; it adds more dimensions to it. And what's with the obsession about how great older or younger women appear, particularly to white heterosexual men who write movie reviews? This film's actors are whatever various ages they are (and they are various ages: a teenager performing in a film with women in their thirties, forties, fifties, sixties, and at least one woman in her eighties). And whether or not they are still lookin' great really ought to be entirely irrelevant. It would appear looks don't matter when we're dealing with white male actors who are "older." There's plenty of unattractive older male actors, and plenty of ugly-as-f*ck younger ones as well.


On September 2, I published another piece on the sexual assaulter and former profeminist activist Kyle Payne, who I'd dealt with in several posts already and who I regard as a dangerous man, psychologically and politically capable of sexually assaulting women again. I regard him as such because he has demonstrated no appreciable empathy for his victim, nor a willingness to be accountable to feminists, or, even this one profeminist. He has refused to answer basic questions about his crime and his awareness of what he did that was destructive to another human life. He has remained utterly preoccupied with how his life was harmed by being caught.

On whiteness, white privilege, and white supremacy, there was a posted video promoting the work of Tim Wise, who, increasingly, I find to be in need of a deeper immersion in radical feminism, particularly that radical feminism which firmly embraces intersectionality as a core theoretical practice, based in the reality that most women, intersex people, men, and transgender people, occupy multiple locations socially and politically such that focusing on just one--say racism/white supremacy--insufficiently deals with the complex of oppressions ALL oppressed people endure, resist, and challenge. There is not one single human being who is only located as oppressed by color or race.

I also noted a few personal-political observations about white folks like me, the content of which is reproduced below:

1. We know best. When we fight for justice, for, say, animal rights, we are quick to condemn those other human cultures (you know, the ones we have colonized and are exploiting and destroying) because they, allegedly, "don't get it" that animals are not inferior to us. Never mind that this view doesn't inhere in Western Philosophy, in our Civilizations at all. Our religions, laws, and customs place men above women, (some) humans above animals, (some) men above the Earth, as a ruler, as a dominator. Never mind that most white folks, disproportionately men, are or have been barbarians and savages (currently often by proxy). Never mind that any notions of animals being like us, not being inferior, being spirited and sentient, comes from the cultures we oppress, not from our own.

2. We behave, without acknowledging it as reprehensible and wrong, as if white folks were adults, and people of color are children. We will actually argue (not in so many words, necessarily) that because some people of color participate in the systems which disproportionately harm them and benefit us, that they are not equipped to lead a struggle against oppression.

3. We actually believe that because not all Indigenous cultures were/are [fill in the blank: respectful of women, respectful of animals, peaceful, sustainable] that we ought to decide who owns the land, as if it is ethically ours to begin with. (It isn't: we stole it, and ought to give it back "without reservation.")

4. We think we are the experts on everything that isn't about us, while being profoundly ignorant about how and what we do that is so harmful and oppressive to others. We call our oppression of others "good", "moral", and "right".

5. We don't think we are raced: we actually believe that "those people" are a race of some kind, and we are, well, just people. We refuse to acknowledge that in any social space, we are white supremacists. Whether we behave like white supremacists has a lot to do with what we recognize in ourselves as racist actions. There are exceptions to this belief: white liberals think we are white, but that race should just be invisible, meaning we should all act like white people. White Nationalists do believe in a white race, and that it is in danger, or must be "pure" as if that was ever the case, or as if creating "purity" involves anything other than bigotry and violence against people of color. White Nationalists, the ones I've heard speak out, believe that race is natural, inevitable, not political and cultural. White Nationalists believe in genocide against non-white people, even if they don't promote it publicly. Such white folks, it may be concluded, aim to be purely evil.

6. We argue there is such as thing as "reverse racism" and reverse ethnic bigotry. We carry around a ridiculous belief that we either have been living in, do live in, or will soon be living in, an Indigenist Supremacist, Asian Supremacist, Latina/o Supremacist, Arab Supremacist, Jewish Supremacist, Muslim Supremacist, or Black Supremacist society. Never mind who still controls every political institution and economy in this country and other white-dominated countries. (The answer is white Christian men.)

What follows is a cross post from Brenda's excellent website, Censored News. Thanks again, Brenda!!!

What is in bold and in larger text, within the post, was put in bold and made larger by me. For the original post at Censored News, please click *here*.

Photos: World Indigenous Peoples Day Tucson

What follows was found online, with Andrea's last name spelled wrong and some formatting problems, some of which remain, some of which were corrected here by me. The original location, of course, is in Andrea's first feminist book, Woman Hating (Plume, 1974). The online version I found is from *here*.

For an EXCELLENT feminist discussion of the book, please see, from the blog LonerGrrrl, this post titled Re-reading Andrea Dworkin's 'Woman Hating'. In that post, LonerGrrrl revisits some important points from Dworkin's introduction on the necessity of radical feminism contending with gender, sexuality, race, and class. She also discusses to what degrees the book accomplishes this intersectional approach to understanding the condition of women's oppression. And she corrects flawed analysis of the book promoted later in the Academy. Thank you, LonerGrrrl!

For excerpts from other sections of Woman Hating, please see this website: http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WomanHating.html, which also links to other writings by Andrea Dworkin, including from other books, speeches, and essays. With gratitude to Andrea Dworkin and especially Nikki Craft for making those writings so available to anyone with access to an internet connection. Thank you so very much, Nikki!

And now, let's venture back into the patriarchal life of Western Fairy Tales.

photo of Dr. Mehmet Oz is from here

photo of Dr. Phil McGraw is from here

These are two white het male doctors who owe their fame and great financial success to Oprah Winfrey: Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz. (We get to Dr. Laura shortly.)

The first man, who has a PhD in Clinical Psychology, supported her during a trial the commercial/atrocity-protecting meat industry put her through for simply stating her own point of view on the subject of burgers. The second is am M.D. who is a heart surgeon and is a proponent of complimentary medicine, to promote several less invasive methods of treating heart disease. He's also more infamously known for showing Oprah's audiences deceased humans' diseased organs and talking about healthy pooping. He's got some very good things to say--generally I like him and his style, and he's got a good bed-side manner, unless you're a battered woman in a hospital bed, that is. I also sometimes like Dr. Phil, when he isn't using his television series to exploit conditions and people and instead sincerely tries to alleviate human suffering, usually in the context of personal relationships. While I've seen Dr. Phil hold men accountable for the violence they do to women, I've never seen Dr. Oz do this.

I realise he didn't study sociology, social psychology, or the sexual politics of psychopathology, but Dr. Oz couldn't be more clueless about the reality and dynamics of men's war against women. He actually discusses inner brain structure to explain why it may be that some women kill their terrorist husbands or battering boyfriends. He doesn't seem to get that women who are terrorised and sadistically abused do not usually kill anyone, while the terrorists often kill a whole lot of people: most commonly the women in their lives, the women who leave them, and their children, in disgustingly horrid ways. But Dr. Oz's brain structure discussion isn't about THE TERRORISTS. He's concerned about the brain structures of the TERRORISED WOMEN who [usually don't] kill. What are the sexual politics of THAT?

In a case linked to below, he tries to explain to the audience why a woman guest may have killed the male terrorist in her life. He is wrong at every turn, and fortunately he has another "expert" guest on to set the audience clear on what is really going on. Unfortunately, it is yet another white man. (To be clear: Dr. Oz's family's background is Eastern European and Turkish. Dr. Phil is all white.) How it is that white and light-skinned het men have become the people women should turn to for expert advice on anything and everything, is a trick of the trades called WHM supremacist media and education. What undermines feminist knowledge and activists, scholars and doctors, is the owners and producers of mass media talk shows refusing to make women of any color the experts in matters that impact women--and men.

Well, there IS Dr. Laura, who has a PhD in physiology--which is not at all why she's on the air. At least Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil are discussing matters that usually fall within their own educational areas of study. She gives anti-woman, overtly racist, anti-gay relationship advice. She's way more WHM supremacist than Dr. Phil or Dr. Oz in her public advice. She should be removed from the airwaves. Immediately, as she should have been years ago for calling "homosexuals" deviant.

photo of Dr. Laura Schlessinger is from here

She is in the news this week for her arrogantly privileged racist-misogynist assault against a Black woman caller who wanted wise counsel on how to deal with a white husband who, along with his friends, makes racist remarks in front of her. He obviously enjoys trying to humiliate her. Would Dr. Laura pick up on that? Well...

Dr. Laura used the question--while berating and abusing the questioner--as an opportunity to pretend that THE ISSUE is African Americans who are the problem population who uses the n-word and COMPLAIN when whites do the same. Dr. Laura managed to work the word into her radio show eleven times in way fewer minutes than that. The caller, understandably, was totally taken aback and very respectfully attempted to call Dr. Laura's attention to the problem of turning this problem back on a Black woman, which only led Dr. Laura to intensify her own vitriolic volume, utterly silencing the woman seeking wise counsel. Dr. Laura understood the caller's predicament about as well as Dr. Oz understands why [very few] women kill terroristic men. NOT. AT. ALL.

While I think Dr. Phil makes mistakes many times with regard to appropriate forms of advocacy for women-in-patriarchy, too often presuming a kind of level playing field that patriarchal societies will never let exist, I'll say this: he's way ahead of where Dr. Oz and Dr. Laura will probably ever be on the matter of understanding that far too many men terrorise and grotesquely abuse women--and that men's use of physical violence is NEVER the women's fault! Proof of this difference between the two male doctors is in very intense (and potentially very triggering) programs each recently did about the subject of domestic violence leading to murder.

Dr. Oz's show wasn't about patriarchal abuse. It was about how the brain sometimes doesn't work right so some people cannot moderate their violent impulses. And he means women's violent impusles, not men's!

Dr. Phil's program was a VERY good program, if also deeply disturbing and triggering, about the FAILURE of FAMILY COURTS across the U.S. when it comes to adequately protecting children and women from adult male terrorists. His show centered around one case, in which a woman's baby was murdered by her ex- and the baby's father, after she repeatedly went to the court for orders of protection for herself and the baby--each time she was told by the white het male misogynistic judge that she was lying and had no evidence, even when she brought evidence. But there was another interview he did with a teenaged young woman who is a survivor of incest and witnessed a court give custody of her little sister to the incest perpetrator, after she testified about his abuse of her. Yes. It happened. The audience was also filled with women who had similar stories to tell, which appeared to have a VERY supportive effect on anyone who spoke out on this horrendous issue of VIRULENT PATRIARCHAL PREDATION PROTECTIONISM in family courts across the country.

What gets revealed is that the terrorists and their attorneys, along with generally misogynistic society, have effectively convinced the courts to not believe mothers if they raise "domestic violence" as a factor in why those mothers should get custody of their children, not the fathers. Even the women's attorneys are counseling women to not bring up the fact that the ex-husband is a batterer or incest perpetrator because too many judges hear that as a big ol' lie--an allegedly sure sign that the woman is trying to manipulate the court against the interests of the fathers' "right" to have more access to their children. When it comes to court manipulation, however, look no further than the battering, raping, incesting men and their attorneys, who convince the courts that the lack of evidence presented means they aren't sadistic brutes. In this case, the rule "presumed innocent until proven guilty" cannot apply, because no one's attorney will let the proof into the courtroom to begin with.

This is the case across the white het male supremacist globe, from the U.S., to the UK, to Australia. That there are WHM organising to undermine women's credibility in the courtroom even more is despicable and evil. There's nothing loving or just about such efforts by these misogynazis (fascistic, terrorising woman-haters) at all.

To note how this impacts U.S. women, compare these two episodes of programs that, one would hope, are supporting both physical/emotional health and human rights:

Dr. Oz: http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/tuesday-dr-oz

vs.

Dr. Phil: http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/1442/ 

But I cannot write about Dr. Phil without noting this CLEAR FORM OF MISOGYNY he regularly engages in. HE REFUSES TO STOP SAYING THE B WORD WHEN REFERRING TO WOMEN, and as an adjective (b-word with a y at the end). He a conservative guy, socially-politically, in many ways, and doesn't welcome cursing on his show, generally. I'm not sure you can get away with saying ASS on his show without it being bleeped! But he says the b word like it's going out of style, which of course it won't while he and other major media personalities keep legitimising it on TV. Please write to him and ask him why that's the only derogatory curse term he allows on his show.

And visit *here* for more on the Dr. Laura story of the week. TRIGGER WARNING for OVERTLY RACIST LANGUAGE AND GROSS MISTREATMENT OF A BLACK WOMAN BY A WHITE WOMAN.