1. How to talk to kids about race

    At a gospel choir show tonight on campus, a white family sat down behind me. As the band warmed up, the daughter—four or five years old—turned to her father and gushed, “Look, Daddy! Everybody’s Black!”

    The father either thought she said “everybody’s practicing” or pretended to mishear. 

    “That’s right,” he said, “the band is practicing.” 

    “No,” the little girl said. “I said everybody’s Black!”

    “Why’d you say that, honey?” the father said. “Why does it matter? We’re all here to praise the Lord.”

    I snickered to myself a little during this exchange, mostly because I have a tender spot in my heart for painfully awkward situations. But later, I thought about how the father responded and what it says about how we teach children to talk and think about race.

    First of all, was there anything inherently wrong with the little girl’s comment? Not really. Might not have been the most appropriate thing to say, but it wasn’t hurtful. She made a fairly accurate observation about the racial makeup of the room. Her glee at finding herself surrounded by so many Black faces certainly suggests it was a novel experience for her, but her comment still seems pretty harmless to me.

    Yet the father’s immediate response was to censure the child, as if she had said something offensive or hurtful. The lesson there? It is not okay to mention race. Conversations about race should be avoided. By asking his daughter “why does it matter” that the crowd is Black, the father seemed bothered by the fact that his daughter noticed racial difference. His decision to reprimand her for it suggests that there is something wrong about acknowledging racial difference, specifically Black racial difference. And if it’s bad to say that someone is Black, then doesn’t that also mean there is something bad about being Black? 

    To be clear, the intent of this post isn’t to trash the father. He seemed like a well-intentioned parent trying to navigate a public, awkward situation. But his response to his daughter’s comment is an interesting example of how we seamlessly pass along our troubling thinking about race to our children. 

  2. everythingiscopacetic:

    I like to touch your tattoos in complete
    darkness, when I can’t see them. I’m sure of
    where they are, know by heart the neat
    lines of lightning pulsing just above
    your nipple, can find, as if by instinct, the blue
    swirls of water on your shoulder where a serpent
    twists, facing a dragon. When I pull you
    to me, taking you until we’re spent
    and quiet on the sheets, I love to kiss
    the pictures on your skin. They’ll last until
    you’re seared to ashes; whatever persists
    or turns to pain between us, they will still
    be there. Such permanence is terrifying.
    So I touch them in the dark; but touch them, trying.

    First Poem for You
    - Kim Addonizio

  3. I think one reason I don’t mess with period pieces much is because as a Black woman, there’s no historical period where it’s cute and fun and nostalgic to be us.

  4. Ann Romney and the “War on Moms”

    You guys, I’m so over this fake “war on mothers” the Democrats are supposedly waging. 

    If you missed it yesterday, Hillary Rosen, a Democratic strategist, commented on CNN that Ann Romney is ill-equipped to serve as Mitt’s advisor on women and the economy because “she has never worked a day in her life”. In hours, the Twittersphere exploded, blasting Rosen for insinuating that stay-at-home mothers don’t work. A war on mothers, conservatives proclaimed gleefully. Liberals distanced themselves from Rosen’s comments. Ann Romney joined Twitter to respond to Rosen. Even Michelle Obama offered a tweet in support of Romney. 

    In other words, in our manic, 24-hour news cycle, we had a full-blown controversy errupt based on one comment about Ann Romney.

    First, let me say this: Rosen’s comment was stupidly-worded. Rosen is a mother of two herself; I’m sure she’d agree, out of all people, that motherhood is work. She’s since apologized to Mrs. Romney for the wording of her comment.

    But second, let’s look at this statement in its full context:

    “What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country, saying, ‘Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that’s what I’m hearing.’ Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She’s never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing, in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry about their future.”

    terrible wording aside, since when is suggesting that the wealthy wife of a rich politician isn’t the expert on the economic issues facing the majority of American women akin to declaring a war on all mothers? This is insane for a couple reasons:

    1. The comment of a liberal pundit is not a declaration of war. 
    2. Ann Romney does not represent all mothers!
    That’s perhaps what’s being lost in this whole kerfuffle, Rosen’s entire point. Today on FOX News, Mrs. Romney argued that “we have to respect women in all the choices they make.” That’s it right there: choice! Many women would love the opportunity to stay at home and focus on raising their children, but they don’t have the choice Mrs. Romney has. They don’t live in San Diego dream houses, they don’t have rich husbands, and they have to focus on both earning a paycheck and doing what Mrs. Romney calls “the most important job there is”. 

    The idea that Ann Romney—a wealthy, white, privileged woman who was able to make the choice to stay home with her children—somehow represents the economic concerns of most American women is laughable. It’s sad that this point was lost because of Rosen’s terrible word choice. It’s also unfortunate that this so-called “war on mothers” has distracted us from the real issue: a consistent, proven, legislative record of the GOP’s attacks on women’s choices and women’s rights. 

    Not even to mention all the GOP efforts to restrict women’s access to birth control and reproductive options—just look at the Wisconsin GOP’s repeal of their equal pay act. Just yesterday morning, the Romney campaign was unable to say whether Mitt supports the Lily Ledbetter Act. Someone running for the president of the United States in 2012 is unable to say whether he believes that women deserve equal pay. Where’s the outrage there? 

    If the Republicans love mothers so much, why won’t they give them equal pay? Or help defeat discrepancies in health care costs for women? I just hate this fake, self-righteous outrage. Let’s focus on the issues that concern mothers and all women, but please, stop making Ann Romney the martyr for this cause. 

    In defense of Mrs. Romney, former First Lady Barbara Bush said, “I go to the grocery store, and I know Ann does to.” Well, shucks, guys. Look, they’re just like us! Maybe Ann Romney goes to Whole Foods in her luxury SUV to buy food for her family, but what about the housekeeper who gets off from her eleven hour shift to ride the bus to the local grocery store, where she struggles to come up with enough money to feed her family? Who speaks for her? 

    Sure, Mrs. Romney is entitled to have a say on the economy. But please, let’s stop pretending like she’s an expert on the issues facing all mothers, and instead, let’s focus on the real issues affecting women, not these sensationalized, fake controversies. 

  5. Album Art
    [Flash 9 is required to listen to audio.]

    My “Bible as Literature” class just makes me want to listen to gospel music all day long. Now playing “Children, Go Where I Send Thee” by  Cissy Houston.

    Title
    Go Where I Send Thee
    Artist
    Houston, Cissy
    Album
    Face To Face
  6. The Great Contraception Debate & Silencing of Women

    I’m tired of the media pretending that the contraception insurance debate is about religious freedom, when it’s clear what it is actually about: the right for men to control women’s sexuality. 

    It’s becoming more obvious that the big divide on this issue isn’t between Catholics and non-Catholics, or even the religious and the secular. It’s between women and men. Polls continue to show that Catholic women use contraception at comparable rates to non-Catholic women and the majority of Catholic voters approve of employers providing their workers with insurance plans that cover contraception. 

    Despite the fact that most Catholics are not outraged by this declaration of holy war, as the GOP would have us believe, the narrative still persists that this is an issue about religious freedom. It becomes even more obvious that this is an issue of gender when you examine the fact that female voices have been silenced during this entire debate. For one, ThinkProgress found that cable news programs overwhelmingly brought in male commentators to discuss women’s access to contraception. 

    If this isn’t bad enough, consider what happened today at the House Oversight Committee hearing on the contraception insurance mandate. Republican Chairman Darrell Issa refused to allow the testimony of a female college student, arguing that the hearing “is not about reproductive rights and contraception but instead about the Administration’s actions as they relate to freedom of religion and conscience.” Because of this, Issa concluded that the female college student “is not an appropriate witness.”

    The result? A witness panel of all dudes. 

    Let me get this straight: we’re having a hearing about women’s access to contraception, yet testimony from women on this topic is irrelevant? The opinions of women who actually use birth control doesn’t matter, but the opinions of male religious leaders do? 

    Look, I respect religious freedom. If you don’t believe in using contraception, then don’t. But it’s ridiculous that a handful of bishops and church leaders and male congressmen are afforded the platform to dictate the terms of women’s healthcare, while women—the people who are most directly affected in this whole debate—are silenced. 

    Let’s be real: this war on women’s reproductive health is really a fight over who gets to control women’s sexuality. GOP candidate Rick Santorum put it best when he said that contraception is “not okay” because it “gives you a license to do things in a sexual realm”. This is the issue here, that birth control gives women “a license to do things” sexually. Behind the fake outrage over the loss of religious freedom, there’s a deep anxiety over the idea that birth control allows women the ability to be sexual in a way that men can’t control. And it terrifies them. 

  7. An Elegy

    I’m flying home tonight to see my grandfather, who is dying.

    Not dying in the way we’re all dying, slowly, with each sweep of the clock’s hand. I mean, actually dying: hospice care, drips of morphine, “making him more comfortable”, calls from home from my mother who is going through his things and found a card I wrote him when I was young that said I loved him with all of my little heart. 

    Don’t worry, she says. Dad’s had time to prepare himself. 

    It’s just part of life, she says. 

    We’ll call you if anything else happens, she says. 

    Now my phone is a ticking bomb. Short buzz is good—new email, new text message, Facebook notification, Farmville invitation. Long buzz is bad, especially if “Mom” flashes across the screen. 

    I keep my phone on the other side of the room. I’m no good with grief. 

                                                           *

    I’ve made it twenty-one years without losing someone close to me. 

    Sheer luck. A miracle, even. 

    When I think of my first experiences with death, I think about losing my dog who died in my teenage years, his joints stiff with arthritis, his liver damaged, unable to make it outside to use the bathroom although he tried so hard not to mess up the carpet. My dog was a cantankerous little terrier who ate everything—bowls of dog chow, table scraps, toilet paper, half a rubber doorstop. As his health worsened, he finally graduated into the world of fine dining he’d always wanted as he sat on his haunches near our dinner table. My mother cooked him scrambled eggs for breakfast and scraps of boiled chicken for dinner, vet’s orders. 

    His golden years were short. Soon he stopped walking and eating, and one night, my mother brought him to the vet and returned home empty-handed. 

    Whenever I think about death, I think about the way my mother came home from the vet, gathered up all of our dog’s things—his water bowl, his chew toy, his green sleeping mat we moved to the family room after he couldn’t climb the stairs anymore—into a big white garbage bag, and threw them out. 

    It made her too sad to look at them. 

                                                                      *

    It feels silly to bring up a dog, when I’m talking about my grandfather. 

    My grandfather, who is elderly and sick now, but who I still remember as robust and healthy. He used to lift weights into his eighties. When I think about hugging him, I think about the crushing stiffness of his chest, his hugs that always hurt a bit. 

    My grandpa is a funny man, even when he’s not trying to be. 

    He fought in Korea, and describes his service overseas as a fun time. He tells me about his brief stint in community college, where he loaded up on units in order to gain benefits from the GI Bill, and relied on the help of pretty girls who helped him cheat on his tests. (“I probably shouldn’t have done that,” he says now, with a wry smile that makes me doubt his regret.) He’s been nocturnal for most of his life, a habit acquired through his work in the jail as a police officer, and even now, long retired, he still likes to stay up until the early morning, watching Mo’Nique or Wendy Williams, and sleep until noon. Not the marrying type, my grandfather has always been a ladies’ man. Too charming to be creepy, too vain to realize that women are not always flirting with him. 

    This is how I’ll remember him. Not sick and feeble, but grinning, as he walked out of the bank, holding hands with the pretty young teller. 

                                                                               *

    It feels selfish to grieve and selfish not to. 

    Out of all the tragedies that have happened today—murder, genocide, starvation—I feel like I don’t have a right to wrap up in my sadness. My grandpa has lived a long, full life and he will die surrounded by people who love him. My sister reminds me that our grandpa said he’s ready to go. My father quotes Scripture before choking up, and I have to set down my phone because I’ve never seen my dad cry before.

    I’ve emailed my professors to explain my absences. I’ve typed the same sentence over and over, until it feels surreal, until it feels like I’m writing about someone else: My grandfather is dying and I’m flying home tonight to be with my family. What I don’t tell them is that I’m also flying home because it feels better than doing nothing. It feels better than sifting through emails about career counseling and psychology studies and parties—better than sitting through lectures, unable to focus. 

    The only thing I could think about during Bible as Literature is how Enoch and Elijah cheated death. 

                                                                        *

    I hate to call you with bad news, my mom says. But I didn’t want you to find out on Facebook.

    That will be funny later, right? 

  8. I gave a presentation on Black Feminism today. Shoutout to my friend Alex for designing the flyer. Check her out at andtheyloveit.tumblr.com. 

    I gave a presentation on Black Feminism today. Shoutout to my friend Alex for designing the flyer. Check her out at andtheyloveit.tumblr.com

  9. FOX: Why Gingrich’s Three Marriages Mean He’d Make a Great President

    If you’re a progressive, a fan of entertaining political theatre, or a Republican waiting wo see your party implode, you’re likely thrilled that Newt Gingrich grabbed the South Carolina primary victory yesterday.

    While the political junkie inside me is salivating at the unpredictability of this race, the Obama supporter inside me over the possibility of Newt as the GOP challenger, my enthusiasm is tempered by the fact that even cheering for Newt Gingrich ironically feels disgusting because he’s an awful human being. Beyond his troubling and dangerous political positions, look no further than Gingrich’s three marriages—not did he cheat on both wives, but he divorced his first wife while she was getting treatment for cancer, the second months after she was diagnosed with MS.

    Gingrich may try to argue that his marital history is irrelevant, but it’s a flimsy case for him to make, given his role in leading the charge against President Clinton’s impeachment during the Monica Lewinsky scandal (coincidentally while Gingrich was having an extramarital affair himself—a fact he claims that does not make him a hypocrite) and Gingrich’s investment in “defending traditional marriage”, which apparently to him, means a sacred union between one man and one woman until that woman gets cancer and/or a hotter woman comes along. 

    But never fear! FOX News Contribute Dr. Keith Ablow (of The Pink Toenail Apocalypse and Chaz Bono DWTS Hysteria fame) is here to tell us why Gingrich’s three marriages are actually an asset to his presidential candidacy. 

    Ablow’s main argument? The fact that “three women have met Mr. Gingrich and been so moved by his emotional energy and intellect that they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their live with him” means that we should “worry more about whether we’ll be clamoring for a third Gingrich term, not whether we’ll want to let him go after one.”

    So according to Ablow’s logic:

    1. All of Gingrich’s wives—and another other woman he’s had an affair with—were drawn to his rich, compelling personality, not any other factor, like wealth, power, prestige, status, etc. 
    2. The more times a man has been married, the better mate he is. It might seem to the layperson that a man incapable or unwilling to commit faithfully to two different wives would make an unsuitable spouse. But actually, if a man has been married multiple times, it’s because he is so amazing, multiple women just can’t stop themselves from falling in love with him. No wonder we’ve been duped, America! Look at President Obama and his twenty-year-long marriage to the same woman. Michelle Obama must be the only woman willing to put up with him.

    Ablow concludes that under President Gingrich (That hurt to actually write), “we would need to worry that another nation, perhaps a little younger than ours, would be so taken by Mr. Gingrich that it would seduce him into marrying it and becoming its president.”

    Ha! That’s so cute, Dr. Ablow! I see what you did there. For one, I appreciate how you painted Gingrich’s subsequent wives in the role of the seductress, placing any responsibility from Gingrich’s infidelity solely on the women involved. And I like how you painted infidelity as a mere matter of seduction, not a blatant disregard for commitment, family, and the sacred institution of marriage Republicans like Newt are so determined to defend from the gays.             

    I’d also like to add that with a President Gingrich, we may have another fear: we might need to worry that our country gets cancer and is cruely abandoned by Gingrich in our time of need in exchange for the younger, prettier country he’s been banging on the side. 

  10. Although I think the “Shit ____ Say” meme has been killed by now, there’s a new video worth watching: ”Shit Everybody Says to Rape Victims”.

    While the goal of most “Shit __ Say” videos is humor, “Shit Everybody Says to Rape Victims” is aggressively not funny; it challenges you to laugh at the endlessly ridiculous statements, but given that many of those comments are actually said to rape victims, the viewer feels uncomfortable and disturbed, not amused.

    But more importantly, I think the true power of this video is the effect of the camera’s gaze. Although the camera sometimes pulls back to show the two actors talking, most of the time, the main actor directly addresses the camera—and by extension, you, the viewer. As a result, we the viewers experience the perspective of the rape victim who is forced to listen to this barrage of offensive comments. This video makes a convincing argument for why victim-blaming is so harmful by positioning its viewer in the role of the rape victim. 

    And while I still think this meme has been overdone, I also love how people have transformed a silly concept into a real form of social critique. The format has evolved from a semi-mocking catalogue of things that certain types of people say to a critique of racial ignorance, homophobia, transphobia, and now victim-blaming. Well done, Internet. 

  11. Born This Way?: Santorum, Sexuality, and Choice

    Last November, GOP Presidential hopeful (and extremely Google-able) Rick Santorum had an interesting exchange with Kristina Lapinski, a lesbian filmmaker, after she asked if he supports a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

    Lapinski: What would you do if I was your daughter?

    Santorum: I would love you!

    Lapinski: Would you want me to get married and have a family?

    Santorum: Only if it were with a man.

    Lapinski: But I’m not attracted to men.

    Santorum: But it is your choice.

    Lapinski: Rick, it is not my choice.

    Santorum: Like anything in life, it is a choice. You may feel this is the way that it is supposed to be; you make decisions in life and you choose what is right.

    When I first read this transcript, my gut reaction was to chuck my computer at the wall in frustration over Santorum’s offensive, condescending dismissal of a woman’s sexuality. Although that computer-chucking feeling hasn’t quite ebbed, this transcript has helped me realize one of the causes of this intellectual stalemate over “choice”: an oversimplification of sexuality. 

    I’d argue that sexuality is composed of many different, and sometimes conflicting, components, and when we discuss sexuality, we often conflate these different areas. 

    For the sake of this discussion, I’ll focus on the Big Three:

    1. Sexual identity: the way you chose to label (or not label) your own sexuality
    2. Sexual orientation: the type of people you’re generally attracted to
    3. Sexual behavior: the types of sexual encounters you engage in 

    Now when we revisit the Santorum exchange, things become a bit more nuanced. The discussion pivots on the idea of choice, which is a very contentious element to introduce when discussing sexuality. The difficulty of engaging with ‘choice’, I’d argue, is that there are aspects of sexuality we don’t choose and aspects we do. When Lapinski brings up her lack of attraction to men, she frames her sexuality in terms of her orientation—not a choice. But when Santorum presents her with the option of marrying a man and living a heterosexual life, he describes sexuality more in terms of sexual behavior—which is a choice. None of us are complete slaves to our sexual desires, after all; when we engage in consensual sexual encounter, we exercise our choice. 

    Let me stop and clarify: I am, by no means, justifying Santorum’s ignorant and offense response, or any of his other horrifically, homophobic remarks for that matter. What I am saying, however, is that our general inability or unwillingness to acknowledge the complexities of sexuality often prevents us from gaining any ground during discussions of LGBT rights. 

    Many pro-LGBT rights arguments are staked on the “born this way” doctrine, which I’d argue is an orientation-heavy way of viewing sexuality. No one chooses to be gay, this train of thought claims. You’re either born gay or you’re not. Much has already been written about why this can be a problematic framework, but here are a few of my reasons:

    1. It essentializes sexuality and restricts the possibility of sexual fluidity.
    2. It creates this uncomfortable narrative that LGBT people should only be tolerated because they “can’t help being the way they are”.
    3. Also, filed under: the well-meaning but offensive, “Well, of course being gay isn’t a choice. Who would choose to be gay?” This idea that, if given the choice, everyone would obviously want to be straight only reinforces heteronormativity. 

    One of my biggest problems with this orientation-based framework is that it gives people who stake out anti-gay positions an easy way out. It allows someone like Santorum to say, “It’s okay for you to be gay (orientation) as long as you remain celibate or marry someone of the opposite sex (behavior).” In doing so, he can take a “love the sinner, hate the sin” type stance, effectively having it both ways; he can position himself as personally tolerant of “the way the LGBT person is”, while simultaneously condemning any expressions of queer sexuality. 

    The problem with this is that there is nothing wrong with same-sex or otherwise queer sexual and romantic relationships, even if people actively choose them! This is why I wish we could adopt more of a sexual behavior framework, where it wouldn’t matter whether you were ‘born this way’ or not. As far as I’m concerned, however consenting adults express their sexuality in a way that does not actively harm anyone else should be respected. Even if it’s a choice. But on the same token, I understand that’s not politically expedient. Sadly, we still operate in a world where presenting something as essential and natural is a more convincing argument that advocating for the freedom of choice. 

    Still, I think this oversimplification of sexuality is something worth discussing. Sexuality is more complicated than most people allow, but I think one way to acknowledge this complexity is to allow for more nuance when we discuss it. 

  12. generalbriefing:

cognitivedissonance:

questionall:

politicalprof:

Because all African Americans are unemployed and on welfare. 
Ladies and gentlemen: Newt Gingrich.

Racist Pig!!!

Because the African-American community won’t resent an old rich white man telling them what to do at all. It’s not like that’s ever happened. Never in history has any group of old, white men thought they knew best for the African-American community at all. The African-American community is saved now that Newt Gingrich is coming to their rescue. </sarcasm>

ALL of this!

I could say how condescending and offensive Newt’s comments are because they assume that a) the only people on government assistance are Black b) Black people on welfare aren’t currently looking for work and c) that the ALMIGHTY Newt has all the answers on how to heal the Black community’s woes.
Instead, I’ll just say that I really wish Newt tries this. Really! I want to see THE ALL-KNOWING, ALL-POWERFUL Newt strut right into the NAACP Convention and stand in front of hundreds of Black delegates touting this uninformed, useless “advice”. Like he even has the guts.

    generalbriefing:

    cognitivedissonance:

    questionall:

    politicalprof:

    Because all African Americans are unemployed and on welfare. 

    Ladies and gentlemen: Newt Gingrich.

    Racist Pig!!!

    Because the African-American community won’t resent an old rich white man telling them what to do at all. It’s not like that’s ever happened. Never in history has any group of old, white men thought they knew best for the African-American community at all. The African-American community is saved now that Newt Gingrich is coming to their rescue. </sarcasm>

    ALL of this!

    I could say how condescending and offensive Newt’s comments are because they assume that a) the only people on government assistance are Black b) Black people on welfare aren’t currently looking for work and c) that the ALMIGHTY Newt has all the answers on how to heal the Black community’s woes.

    Instead, I’ll just say that I really wish Newt tries this. Really! I want to see THE ALL-KNOWING, ALL-POWERFUL Newt strut right into the NAACP Convention and stand in front of hundreds of Black delegates touting this uninformed, useless “advice”. Like he even has the guts.

  13. Single-shaming

    Definition: verb; the act of stigmatizing someone by approaching him/her with pity or scorn because he/she isn’t in a romantic relationship. 

    Can be benign (“I can’t believe a pretty girl like you doesn’t have a boyfriend!”) or aggressive (“See, maybe if you weren’t so smart/outspoken/opinionated, you’d be able to find a man”). 

    Also filed under: every conversation I have with my extended family. Ever. 

  14. guardian:

Photograph: Brian J. Clark/AP
 Two women share historic kiss at US Navy ship’s return 
For the first time since the repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ a same sex couple takes part in a traditional public embrace.

Can&#8217;t wait to see this picture in my children&#8217;s history textbooks. 

    guardian:

    Photograph: Brian J. Clark/AP

    Two women share historic kiss at US Navy ship’s return
    For the first time since the repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ a same sex couple takes part in a traditional public embrace.

    Can’t wait to see this picture in my children’s history textbooks. 

About me

A college student's musings on school, art, culture, and life