1. "I come out of a tradition where those things are valued; where you talk about a woman with big legs and big hips and black skin. I come out of a black community where it was all right to have hips and to be heavy. You didn’t feel that people didn’t like you. The values that [imply] you must be skinny comes from another culture…Those are not the values that I was given by the women who served as my models. I refuse to be judged by the values of another culture. I am a black woman, and I will stand as best I can in that imagery."

    Bernice Reagon, Black Women and Liberation Movements

    (The great epigraph from Alice Walker’s fantastic essay “Saving the Life That Is Your Own: The Importance of Models in the Artist’s Life”. I hope to think this every time I sit down to write: I refuse to be judged by the values of another culture.) 

  2. Violence and Victim-Erasing

    Appreciated this article on The Feminist Wire about the media’s erasure of the murder victim Kassandra Perkins in its coverage of the Jovan Belcher murder-suicide. I’m not sure what’s sadder—the fact that during all the media coverage of this tragedy, its victim has become a footnote, or the fact that the reason she has become a footnote is because intimate partner violence is so common, it’s almost unremarkable. 

    Ladies, if you’re ever shot someday, odds are good that your husband or boyfriend will be the one to pull to trigger.

    As of 2000, 1 out of 3 female murder victims were killed by an intimate partner. 

    2/3s of women killed with a firearm were killed by their intimate partner. 

    The number of women shot and killed by their husband or boyfriend? More than three times higher than the number murdered by male strangers using all weapons combined. 

    So in the wake of the Belcher murder-suicide, there’ve been conversations about gun control, and head injuries in the NFL, and masculinity, and a lack of mental health counseling among professional athletes—important conversations to have, yes. But the reason why many in the media are ignoring the most glaringly obvious aspect of this story—Belcher didn’t go on a random shooting spree, after all, he targeted the mother of his child—is because what’s remarkable is that Belcher is a professional athlete. The fact that he’s a man who killed his girlfriend is so common, it’s barely newsworthy. 

  3. The Great “Hate Chicken” Protest of 2012

    I could say a lot about the Chick-Fil-A kerfuffle following company president Dan Cathy’s remarks about same-sex marriage; or the significance of several mayors refusing Chick-Fil-A franchises in their cities and the implications that has on free speech; or the sheer insanity over the fact that a chicken fast-food franchise has become a divisive political symbol and the latest battlefield in our rampant and unending culture wars. 

    But you know what bothers me the most about “Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day”? It’s just the latest example of the pitiful state of American protest. 

    Seriously, this is what y’all consider a protest? Going to Chick-Fil-A and gorging yourselves on chicken sandwiches and waffle fries? You know, America, there was a time when political protest held a degree of danger. Protest meant risking life and limb for ideals, risking personal and financial security for principles, sacrificing safety and reputation for causes. It meant blacklisting, crosses burning on your lawn, high-pressure water hoses, vicious attack dogs, policemen swinging batons.

    It did not mean standing in line in a nice, air-conditioned fast-food restaurant and enjoying chicken strips with polynesian sauce and a hand-stirred milkshake. 

    “Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day” is the ideal contemporary American protest. Eat chicken and somehow feel like you’re defending your principles. Little effort, maximum self-satisfaction. 

    Look, there are some interesting ideas raised by this Chick-Fil-A controversy: the implications of political speech, the often tense relationship between the values we hold and the businesses we patronize. All things worth discussing further, to be sure. But can we agree on one thing first? You are not a religious martyr for eating Chick-Fil-A. You are not a progressive hero for not eating it. I’m over y’all swearing you’ve turned into Joan of Arc or Harvey Milk over some damn chicken. 

  4. The more I think about it…

    I think Tosh apologists think that they’re defending the right for comedians to exercise free speech, even about controversial topics like rape. 

    But since Tosh’s comment was not a joke, rather an angry response to a woman interrupting his set, his apologists are actually defending the right for men to use the idea of rape in order to silence a woman who needs to be put in her place. 

  5. Thoughts on Tosh-oversy

    One of the best comments I’ve read so far about the Tosh controversy: 

    Tosh says he was joking. Comedians make rape jokes every day, so why is this one getting so much attention? Because Tosh was more than “just kidding.” He was angry. His “joke” was reactive to the so-called heckler who called him out in front of an audience. He used humor to cut her down, to remind her of own vulnerability, to emphasize who was in control. The “joke” ignited a backlash is because it was not a joke.

    I love this last line. I’m so fed up with all of the dudes mansplaining to all of us ladies “how comedy works.” I get that comedy is often provocative and absurd and shocking and irreverent. But saying “wouldn’t it be funny if that girl got raped by five guys, like right now?” isn’t a joke—just like Michael Richards screaming “he’s a nigger!” at a Black audience member isn’t a joke. 

    Comedy often pushes boundaries—but there’s a difference between a joke and an angry, violent statement. 

  6. "The experience of being raped has touched every aspect of my life. People like Ron Rosenberg, the PR head for Tomb Raider, tend to talk about rape like it’s some character-building challenge to overcome, a wound that heals into scar tissue, making you tougher. That’s a fundamental misunderstanding. Rape isn’t a scar, it’s a limp — you carry it with you as long as you’re alive, and it makes life harder, not easier. Being raped does change you: it’s more than non-consensual sex, it’s psychic murder. The person you were beforehand ceases to exist and you can never, ever be them again."

    anonymous, “The R Word” (via morecoffee)

    The last 2 sentences. Read them over & over & over. They are the most truthful sentences I have seen in years. 

    (via missgingerlee)

    Super-creeped out by the idea to add a potential rape in a video game plot line, especially considering how many gamers will try to fail the level on purpose because they want to witness Lara Croft’s rape. Sickening. 

  7. Today, while shopping for file folders, I stumbled upon this in the “travel accessories” section of my university bookstore.

    We live in a world where a weapon someone carries in hopes of protecting herself from being mugged or raped or killed is considered a “travel accessory” and sold, in a campus bookstore, alongside batteries and chapstick—and, don’t forget, packaged as a cute bright pink model so that the buyer can feel feminine and altruistic (it benefits cancer research!) while she purchases a weapon in hopes of protecting herself from being mugged or raped or killed.

    This is a bizarre world.

  8. 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.

  9. 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. 

  10. 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. 

  11. 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. 

  12. »  NICKI MINAJ: THE FLYEST FEMINIST

    thefeministsocietyatnyu:

    A Stanford activist asserts that Nicki Minaj is a feminist by analyzing her lyrics and persona. 

    Written by one of the Stanford homies. Take a look! 

  13. 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. 

  14. 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. 

  15. 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. 

About me

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