Wednesday, April 30, 2008
"The displays of personalities such as Barbie, Batman, Spiderman and Harry Potter ... as well as the irregular importation of unsanctioned computer games and movies are all warning bells to the officials in the cultural arena."
Yikes...Barbie, superheroes and some annoying magician boy could erode their cultural arena. Hush yo mouth, boy! I mean...Barbie has been destroying my "cultural arena" since the day I was born. So in a sense, he's right: Barbie is a "danger". I think we all understand that she represents everything wrong with femininity, race and beauty ideals. On the other hand, she was an astronaut, a chef, a CEO, a surfer, a cowgirl and a butterfly princess. Girl keeps a job.
So she looks like a whore? Isn't that what you think all women are anyway? Don't get mad a some doll because she openly questions your puritanical, oppressive ideologies that force women into sub-human conditions all while balancing on 4-inch heels and rockin a sweet, pearly white smile. It'd be different if Iran were rejecting the Mattel icon on a strictly feminist basis, but of course it isn't. The sad thing is that these Iranian girls long for these white, plastic dolls and they don't know that to gain the "freedoms" that Barbie has, they would have to leave one oppressive state for another.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
The editor pretty much said she doesn't give a fuck what people think about her decision in response to concerns that racist assholes won't buy it.
Again, equity is finally here. Now Black women can pose in clothes the average woman can't afford with bodies the average woman doesn't have. Thank God Black women can now maintain impossible European beauty standards, too!
Hat Tip to WAOD.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Secondly, and more importantly: it's super duper crazy laugh funny that a media/society that supports the oppression of women, particularly the sexualization of girls somehow has a problem with this red lipstick, draped sheet, bare back photo of 15 yr old Cyrus. "Why, she's a role model for young girls", scream the pearl clutchers of America. And Miley's
Miley herself says that she is "embarrassed" by the photo despite having initially thought it was "artsy". (Artsy? What is artsy about the cliche bed sheet pose?) I want to believe that a 15 yr old has the right to change her mind, but in this country, grown ass women can't even do that, so I'm going to assume that her "handlers" told her to say that.
The photo is a pretty lame ass way to portray a minor (and most grown women for that matter) and I can't understand what the hell was going through Annie's mind when she took the shot. Maybe she thought that racist photographs weren't enough and she needed to move on into pedophilia.
Regardless of the screwed up circumstances, the real loser here is
Companies still make sexist ads, but the fact that private and public entities exist to not only address the fuckedupedness of such ads, but to also balance the right of free speech makes me wonder what the hell we're doing over in the US of A.
Take this orgasm inducing statement:
"In Norway, sexist advertising has been banned since 2003. The ban forms part of a much broader package of legal limits on advertising, protecting the depiction of religion, sexuality, race and gender.
"Basically, if something is offensive or it makes the viewer feel uncomfortable when they look at it, it shouldn't be done", explained Sol Olving, head of Norway's Kreativt Forum, an association of the country's top advertising agencies.
"Naked people are wonderful, of course, but they have to be relevant to the product. You could have a naked person advertising shower gel or a cream, but not a woman in a bikini draped across a car."
Or this one from a man no less:
Denmark's advertising ombudsman recounts a recent example of a male underwear company which was forced to withdraw adverts portraying women in low-paid jobs, after outrage from several trade unions.
One ad in the series showed a nurse lying on a bed with the male underpants covering her face, implying that she had just had sex with a patient.
"People in these different occupations already have problems with sexual discrimination," says ombudsman Henrik Oe. "You cannot play on the male fantasy that a patient can have sex with a nurse just to sell a product."
"These areas of employment are already ones where women are already vulnerable to sexual harassment," he added.
It really is that simple. Take note, Madison Avenue, take note.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
This is a great example of how "science" and academia tries to justify asshole male oppression. Do I really need a study to know that men don't care what women say, think or feel? Is it no surprise that a college campus is full of men who don't understand the words "no" "not tonight" "get off me" etc.?
I may be hyper-sensitive, but this reeks of rape apology: oh those silly boys! They are so stupid - they just don't understand women. Like, in some way, their behavior is simply brutish and uncouth because you know, they just thought she meant something different when she said, "No, I don't want to have sex."
The only annoying parts were the condescending white liberals during the post-performance discussion and the one man who hit on one of the women in front of the entire theatre. Other than that, absolutely awesome show. And it was FREE!
I went to dinner at Cheddars (soon to be Krazy Mac's formely Snickers...long story) and ran into my old roommate who was visiting from NYC. He makes these. It was fun to chat with him about his VIP serving job at this place. I finished up the night walking home in the nice, spring night.
One of those days when Cleveland truly rocks.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
If you do anything today, do something. Vote, write a letter, recycle, raise some hell, call a white person out (even if you too are a white person), call your senator and bitch about something, blog, or give someone a hug.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Now do you see why I long for the days when a cross would be burned on my lawn? At least then, the racism wasn't so subversive. We live in a society today that pats itself on the back for making racial progress, yet we have nothing to show for it except whispered epithets and code words.
Can you imagine the race wars that would break in out cubicles every Monday across America if more Blacks knew about this?
Note to self: send link to this post to BlackPeople@yahoogroups.com.
Case in point: Human Rights Watch (they always watchin' sumthin) just released a report that says Saudi laws and policies (which are religious-based) keep women in a child-like state requiring them to get male permission for everything from personal health care to child rearing. Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that doesn't allow its female citizens to drive.
The rationale behind this sick segregation is the idea that a woman's morality and purity is the crux of society's stability. In other words: wild, untamed pussy could lead to all sorts of crazy things like women thinking and having jobs. Yikes! Should women actually have control over their own bodies and earn their own money, why the men would have no one to control, beat and rape. Jimney Crickets...
So to speak to my point: male domination in this country is rooted in religion and permeates the culture so that the two are synonymous. It's a dangerous thing to pontificate on when you're pansy ass liberal apologist. We like to think that we are so advanced and progressive in our thinking that we dare not push our Western ideals onto another group of people.
Right, but not in this case by a long shot. I am not one to question a Saudi woman's decision to wear a hijab (and many women do), however, I strongly doubt she chooses to be stoned to death because her wrist was showing in public, or she was in a car without a male relative. These sorts of ideals are wrong. Just like when European abolitionists spoke out against the American oppression of Black slaves (And slavery was an industrial economic institution. It was justified by racist Christians and thusly an American way of life), so should western feminists when women are persecuted simply for being women under a fundamentialist hierarchy.
No religion or culture can safely state that its subjugation of women (or anyone for that matter) is justifiable because of some higher, unseen power. I won't question the existence of Allah, I won't question your belief in Him either. However, I will question you when you abuse others in the name of faith.
People are fleeing to bordering South Africa. Those brave enough to run are subjected to hot desert heat, barbed wire fences and South African border authorities.
Meanwhile in Happyland, we're arguing between which slice of white bread is better. There are Democrats who claim they will stay home or even vote for McCain if Hillary Clinton were to secure the Dem nom. How stupid are we in our privilege? How quiet are we in our complacency? When Bush won his second term (and there is no question in my mind that he won the second time - people were that stupid to vote for him), I just waited for the street riots to start and there was nothing. People went back to their routine, privileged lives and look at where our silence has gotten us.
Now we have the fortune to have two people who are qualified to start fixing what the Bush regime broke and we're calling one "shrill" and the other "elitist". Whatever. Hoes are dyin in Zimbabwe just trying to exercise basic human rights. At least Bush doesn't block you from getting food at your grocery store and at least Obama supporters aren't beating McCain backers in the street (though at times I wish they would).
Reading the ongoing stories about countries like Zimbabwe makes all the stupid in-fighting of American politics seem a bit of a trifle. Just think about it.
The catch: the thing about Danica is that she - unlike her male counterparts - is marketed using her sex appeal. If one were to look at most ads with Danica in it, you would wonder what exactly she is selling. I wish wish wish that Danica could sell WD-40 or motor oil in her racing suit (zipped up, not down so you can see her bra) and not all glamed up with lip gloss and flowing hair. Nobody races cars that way.
So with this progress, which is worth celebrating, comes a small caveat: now that Danica has made certifiable history as a driver with proven skills, leave the bikini pics out.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Nevada is the only state in the US that allows legal prostitution, but in its largest city, Las Vegas, prostitution is illegal. When the mayor suggested changing the law, it sparked a huge debate.
Mayor Oscar Goodman grabs the headlines whatever he says or does - and he relishes it. He is proud of Las Vegas' image as "Sin City" and happily calls it "an adult playground".
He boasts about his love of gin, cigars and pretty women and calls himself "the happiest mayor in the universe". [Yes, I am sooo ready to hear this man's argument for legalizing paid sex.]
Before he became mayor, he was the top criminal lawyer to the Las Vegas mafia. [So, he's trustworthy. Got it.]
But when he suggested legalising prostitution and creating a red-light district and a string of "magnificent brothels" in downtown Vegas, the mayor got his most dramatic headlines yet.
He had opened up a debate on a taboo subject: Las Vegas' illegal prostitution.
Everybody knows it goes on, many businesses profit from it, but in-keeping with the city's slogan "What happens here, stays here", it is rarely discussed.
"It's disingenuous when people say they don't want to legalise it," says Mr Goodman. "Right now it's uncontrolled and unregulated. There's no check and balance as far as the women's health is concerned and legal brothels could be an important revenue-raising device for the city," says Mr Goodman. [I didn't know my vagina could be a "revenue-raising device". Sperm depository, yes. Baby expeller, yes. Revenue-raising? Nope, didn't know that. And yes, there is no regulations regarding women's health. That is so kind of you to value a healthy puss.]
"When you speak about it intellectually, not morally, it makes sense," he says. "If we had a referendum or ballot on legal brothels, it would probably pass."
Not without a fight, though. The vested interests in this city are legion.
Spectrum of workers
It is estimated that there are as many as 10,000 prostitutes operating illegally in Las Vegas, in an industry that may be worth as much as $6 billion a year.
Over 150 pages in the Las Vegas phone book advertise "escorts" and "massage", and leaflets promising to deliver "hot babes direct to your room in 20 minutes" are handed out to tourists openly on Las Vegas Boulevard, usually called "The Strip".
"Lucy" [name has been changed to protect her identity] is a top-end "companion" selling her time with men at $4000 a night. She explains how the sex trade functions in Las Vegas.
"There are women who get propositioned in the casinos, bars and hotels," she says.
"There are women who do 'extras' out of strip clubs and who 'give pleasure' in massage parlours. Women who do what we term 'outcall' - going to specific apartments to spend erotic time with gentlemen. ["Erotic time" with "gentlemen"....is that what the kids are calling it these days? Getting abused and ordered to perform sexual acts for some drunken, coked up asshole is definitely my idea of erotic time.]
"There are women who work by print ads or on-line. And every casino host has a bevy of girls to call at a moment's notice to satisfy their high-rollers."
At the other end of the spectrum - in the seedier parts of downtown Las Vegas, among the cheap motels and ganglands - there are women who sell their bodies to pay for their drugs. They might charge as little as $20. [Exactly. And how exactly do you plan to address this problem, Mr. Mayor?]
Robert Clymer, a former FBI agent in the city working in organised crime, says human trafficking adds to the industry.
"The number one problem, according to the FBI, is Asian prostitution," he says. "That means Asian organised crime and human trafficking into the US, straight into Las Vegas. And it's all fuelled by money."
With 600,000 people, Las Vegas is the largest city in Nevada.
Its illegal sex trade operates in a strange vacuum because in most of the rest of the state prostitution has been legalised.
In fact, Nevada is the only state in the US to allow legal brothels, which stems from a 1970 state law allowing Nevada's individual counties to licence their brothels. But this only applies to counties with populations under 400,000, which excludes Las Vegas and Reno.
The question today is - is what is good for Nevada, good for Las Vegas?
There are nearly 30 state-sanctioned brothels in Nevada.
With names like "Mustang Ranch" and "Moonlite Bunny Ranch", their owners say they contribute to the local economies and provide safe, clean sex. [Yes, way to glamourize prostitution. Yes, all prostitutes get cash bonuses and their own rooms. It's like one big fucking sorority party.]
Brothels are so much part of the Nevada culture that Home Box Office (HBO) even films a reality TV show inside the Bunny Ranch called "Cathouse". [Yeah, why doesn't HBO film the realities of those $20 prostitutes? That seems like real entertainment: recording the exploits of crack whores.]
George Flint is the chief lobbyist of the Nevada Brothel Association. [Any relation to Larry?]
"Legal brothels could work anywhere," he says. "They could be huge in Las Vegas. It would be great for the women and for our industry which is today fragile because it remains a teeny business in a big state." [Great for the women. I just love all these men speaking up about how great legal prostitution would be for the women.]
But some religious groups, academics and campaigners say that all prostitution is wrong and legalising it does not stop sex trafficking or the abuse of women.
"I see it as sexual slavery," says Candice Trummell, director of the Nevada Coalition Against Sex Trafficking. "I think it's morally and ethically wrong for governments to say it's OK to sell humans in that way. The government should not pimp the girls."
When asked if she was calling the government a pimp, Ms Trummell answered: "Yes, absolutely". [I know dat's right. Candice.]
Kate Hausbeck, a sociology professor at the University of Las Vegas, has spent nearly 10 years researching both the legal and illegal sex trade in Nevada.
She concludes that the best model for Nevada - and any country in the world - is the decriminalisation of prostitution.
"Empower the women who do the work. Give them labour protection and the rights given other workers. Because it's a job and a choice for many women," she says. [Um, job and choice for the women at the Bunny Ranch, maybe, but how is this a job and a choice for women who will allow a man to anally invade them for $20? Yes, I choose to give strangers blow jobs for $10 so that I can continue to live in absolute poverty. Yes, I choose to subject myself to sexually transmitted infections, murder, rape and abuse at the hands of my pimp.]
But, when asked about Mr Goodman's idea of legal brothels for Las Vegas, she says she doesn't think prostitution will ever be legal here.
"There's too much money to be made from the illegal sex trade. The casinos and convention industry fear it would be a step too far," she says.
Needless to say, Chevron is peeved about this annoying little lawsuit launched by a lawyer and a community organizer. So what the PR geniuses think to do when Mendoza and Yanza got the prize? Go public and accuse the men of lying about their good works to the Goldman committee. Chevron was hurt to discover that no one gave a shit about how they felt about honorees.
"We believe they were misled," said Chevron spokesman David Samson, who also retained a room at the Fairmont to be available to the press. "We tried to reach out to the Goldman Foundation when we heard they might be in consideration, but we were stiff-armed. No one ever cared to hear our side of the story."
Um, I believe consumers have been mislead by your company, Mr. Samson.
"We feel confident that we'll ultimately prevail," said Chevron general counsel Charles James in a telephone interview from the company's San Ramon headquarters. "Even if they get a bogus decree out of a court in Ecuador, their ability to enforce this is going to be very limited. We would contest enforcement based on the poor (legal) process."
You hear that, judges of Ecuador? Apparently your stupid little judicial system is no match for Chevron.
Way to go, Chevron. I mean, God knows these two men were just making your lives a living hell. If it wasn't for you guys whistleblowing on their corrupt organizing practices, why the people of Ecuador might have had clean land and water.
So in Spanish like many other romance languages, there are gendered articles that the speaker uses to indicate the gender of the noun. In the case of víctima, which is a feminine noun, you would think to use el before the word to describe a male victim or casualty. However, the word víctima is always spoken and written in the feminine voice. Always.
¿Qué interesante, no?
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
She basically argues that Clinton and Obama both have it wrong with their condescending, over generalized views on working class white men. They just don't get this overlooked segment of the population. Because you know, class is important to Barb and both Senators made some serious oversights when trying to explain poor white folk to the rest of America.
Gee, Barbara (can I call you that? Thanks.), let me first say that half the shit that comes out of either Senator's mouth is condescending to somebody at the moment it is spoken. They both elitist as fuck. So yeah, what Obama said sounded a little janky, but I'm sure his intentions were not meant to be bigoted in any way.
So who gives a shit? I certainly don't. Since when should I give a flying fuck about working class white men? And since when after that should I be concerned about how they are portrayed and viewed in mainstream media? Maybe it will be when they give fuck about working class women, people of color, poor people, immigrants, gays and any other oppressed classes of citizens.
When I think about working class white men, I think that they're solid, Christian members of the KKK. They came out of the woodwork in central Ohio to hand Bush the election. They sure as hell don't like the gays. They would rape a Black woman before actually marrying her. They beat their wives. They drink. A lot. They think all immigrants are out to steal their jobs. Generalizations? Sure. Stereotypes? Maybe.
My point is that I don't give a shit about offending any white man because he certainly doesn't give a fuck when he offends me with his actions, thoughts, deeds, beliefs, values and policies. I sure as hell don't.
Where the hell were working white men in 2002 and 2004 when it was time to elect a fucking president? Many of them were too busy voting down gay marriage amendments and against reproductive rights policies to united with ALL working class people. They were too busy buying American flag decals for the Chevy trucks and buying Toby Keith albums to speak out against a jacked up war.
I'm not going to be the bridge builder in this situation, let me just tell you. And until people can recognize all their fucking privileges and make a committment to eradicating them, I aint gone be no damn uniter. Fuck it. If Obama's comments offended some people, then so fucking be it. It's about goddamn time they felt a little fucking heat. Feels good to be the butt of assumptions and misconceptions doesn't it, Bubba, Hank and Joe?
And I'll be damn if you, Barb, try to tell me that working class white men are misunderstood. Try + Again = Try again.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Some of the organizations that received gifts include:
- Crawford Volunteer Fire Department
- Malaria No More Fund
- Martha’s Table, a soup kitchen in Washington;
- Susan G. Komen for the Cure (formerly known as the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation)
- St. John’s Church, an Episcopal parish near the White House
The Cheney's on the other hand, made a combined total of $3.05 MILLION dollars and they donated um.....$166,547. And they won't even tell you who they gave it to. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the unlisted organizations is PFLAG.
In this case, it's the Smithsonian (America's Museum!) and the official is Pilar O'Leary (how is that for a melting pot of names?). Apparently Ms. O'Leary was in charge of the museum's Latino outreach and stuff and junk. She is accused of improper spending with the museum's accounts charging up for all sorts of shit like limos, spas and expensive hotels. She also is accused of trying to get tickets to events, which is against rules for public officials.
So, yeah I'm disappointed a Latina is in such public trouble, but this has to be the best part of her whole fucking defense:
"The report found that prices of the hotel rooms were often steep because they had been made at the last minute. When an investigator asked why this occurred, O'Leary said her corporate contacts "often don't realize that we aren't as flexible in making our travel arrangements as they are." She then cited cultural differences, saying that the center's Latino constituency "doesn't operate in the same time frames everyone else is used to -- in many Latin cultures, arrangements are made at the last minute.""
You may be thinking: "Oh, no, she didn't!" But you're wrong: she did. She went there and used the race card to excuse her improper spending. So if I am to leave reality and follow her logic for a moment, I could argue that Latinos must also be fradulent prima donnas who can't take the charge of being a public official seriously. Thusly, we should all be denied jobs with high prominence and levels of responsibility. And you might as well deport any of us who weren't born on American soil.
I would also add that anyone who sends a professional email like this should be fired:
"An Oct. 31, 2006, e-mail sent by O'Leary indicates she sought tickets to the Latin Grammys from someone who might have business before the institution. "We should definitely find ways to collaborate, we do a lot of evens as I am sure [name blacked out] has told you," O'Leary wrote. "I am desperate for Latin Grammy tix -- I have been invited to a bunch of vents surrounding the actual awards, let me know if you know how I could possibly get 2!""
Dang, chica, you's embarassing to yo peoples.
Monday, April 14, 2008
The case being brought to the Court centers around a Louisiana man who raped his 8 yr old stepdaughter, harming her so badly that she needed surgery. And this is why I sometimes can't argue with the death penalty. If you were the parent of this child, wouldn't you want to see this man dead? It's human to feel that way. The Jesus-loving thing to do, of course, is not wish death on someone, and wait for another sort of Judgement. But my human mind can't wrap itself around that all the time.
So, opponents of this policy argue that by making the death penalty possible for perpetrators, it may reduce reporting of crimes and even put victims are risk of death at the hands of their rapists: if the kid is dead, who is going to tell?
The ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund argue that capital punishment is tinged with racial bias. I see where they are going with this and it's part of why I still question capital punishment in this country. But, rape isn't about race. It's about power, abuse and control. I mean, the man who raped his stepdaughter is a man of color, but I could give two shits less about his race.
I suppose the one flaw I find in Louisian's argument is the sanctity of young life angle. It fits, strangely, in with the whole mindset of protecting young life and could in some indirect way fit nicely in the legal arsenal of vehement pro-lifers. I can see a brief now citing this case as basis for the value of a child's life and livelihood. I mean, all life is valuable, right? But there is something that alarms when we talk about how sacred children are as opposed to all living human beings. It gets us sliding down a slippery slope of protecting young lives....even embryos and fetuses.
It's a murky, slimey pond to wade in when you're dealing with capital punishment. There is a systemic bias in the system and there are probably countless people who have died unjustly because of errors and screw ups in the justice system. But I also know that rape is a crime that never leaves you and stays with you forever and there is something to be said about a person who does the unspeakable to a child. Criminals have the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, but often times their victims (usually women) don't have the same right. So tell me: who in the hell speaks for them?
I know it's not violating any laws, but the mere symbolism of his visit is pretty fucking disturbing. I know other religious leaders have paid visits to the Casa Blanca, but there's just something about Benedict and Bush that makes my uterus quiver in fear.
And why isn't the Pope going to be at the dinner? A scheduling conflict and it's his muthafuckin' birfday that day. Catch him at da club I guess.
I read and re-read this article that speaks with "filmmakers" about their feminist porn. It's funny how they try to justify their films as feminist. They try rationale like: let's not even define feminism. Or: I mean...what is feminism exactly? I think that is different for everybody.
I especially like the woman who reasoned that facials in her film were OK because, well, the female actors choose to have men ejaculate on their face. You know, because that was explained in the ultra-feminist interviews contained in the movie.
"But even with all the context and consent in the world, some sex acts are just more contentious than others. Perhaps the best example is the "facial," the ubiquitous mainstream porn moment in which a man ejaculating onto a woman's face or into her wide-open mouth. Some argue that if you're going to peddle facials in your film, you might as well forget about calling it feminist. Others argue that facials reflect the authentic sexuality of some women, and that in fact it's impossible to call any sex act inherently nonfeminist. Says Ray, "It makes me angry when people makes lists like, 'Oh, a woman receiving cunnilingus is feminist, but a woman receiving a facial is not feminist.'" Taormino felt strongly enough about the image to leave facials out of her Expert Guide to Oral Sex instructional sex videos, but subsequently decided that her performers' ability to make their own choices and contextualize them onscreen was more important than axing any one image, and thus facials make an appearance in her reality series. Whether specific sex acts can be considered feminist or
nonfeminist is, simply, murky territory."
Whoever needs to watch an instructional video on how to perform oral sex shouldn't be having sex if you ask me. Watch a video OR ask your partner what feels good to them?
And this snippet is nothing short of sickening:
This win was, to put it mildly, unprecedented. "Gonzo" technically refers to a style of porn that places the camera directly into the scene, but in recent years the term has become shorthand for films that depict women being choked, insulted, spit on, and worse. "It's essentially become an antiporn feminist's worst nightmare come true" says Taormino. "I've always made the joke that if you're going to go to all the trouble of sticking my head in a toilet -- a dominant image in some gonzo porn -- at least I better get a really good orgasm out of it. But we're seeing this pent-up aggression and hostility towards women; [there's] rough sex, but it's not clear that they're consenting to it, and it's clear that they're not getting off on it, because we never get to see their pleasure."
And with titles such as Attention Whores 6 ("We are just sex toys sent here for your amusement") and Teens for Cash 7 ("Nothing can stop these dirty old men from finding dumb and desperate teens who will do anything for a little bit of dough") competing in the same category, it's pretty easy to imagine Taormino's film sticking out. "It was truly, truly shocking," she laughs. "It was a surprise to everyone in the industry."
I can't even answer the question of whether there is a such thing as feminist porn. My inclination is to say that there is no such thing. But like the existence of God, it will continue to be a debatable subject with many sides and perspectives. Of course, whatever side I am on is right.
Oh, it makes me sad. Chances are she didn't want to do it. Marilyn was consistently exploited by rich men and assholes when she starting her career. God only knows what conditions were in place when she made it. I want to think she was doing it because she wanted to, but I highly doubt it.
The film made it to the hands of the freaking FBI and it was recently sold to some rich guy for $1.5 million. The buyer said: "I'm not going to make a Paris Hilton out of her. I'm not going to sell it, out of respect."
So he'll just jack off to it in the privacy of his own home.
Friday, April 11, 2008
At this point, in case you didn't know, I don't care anymore who gets the nomination. I never really did. I have yet to knock on a door, make a phone call or write a check for either Senator Clinton or Obama. I obviously hate John McCain (and his wife and daughter), so really, anyone who can defeat him November has my vote. There is little difference between Obama and Clinton to warrant my intense dislike of one or the other. I did vote for Hillary in the Ohio primary because I liked her as a candidate. (despite her voting for that silly war and all) But, do I think that Obama has a better chance of defeating McCain? Sure. Except I think that McCain will win because of all the fighting and clawing Dems are doing right now.
So why, as a woman of color, did I vote for Clinton? You may want to assume that I think my experiences with racism far outweigh my experiences with sexism. Well, they don't. And this isn't to say that the first time I got called a nigger wasn't as hurtful as the first time a man forced himself on me sexually. They sucked all the same. One happened in a store in a checkout line and the other happened in my college dorm room. The fact is this: women of color are at a crossroad of oppression. We know this. But some, find one ism to be more defining of their lives than the other.
For me, my gender connects me with 50% of the world's population. My race connects me with a fraction of that. I like to think that I identify with all women of color because we're not white. But I am not so naive to not understand that among people of color there are lines drawn and factions formed. That is how the dominant culture likes it and we want to keep the white man happy, right? *cheesy smile*
We are fighting a pointless identity war because two people from oppressed classes have made it far enough to be consider POTUS. At times, it takes my breath away to know that I am living in this moment, in this reality. I honestly did not think I would live to see the day when these people would be viable candidates. I am too lazy to find the link, but I remember posting in mockery about both Clinton and Obama. I had become so jaded in my cynicism that I never saw the light at the end of the oppressive tunnel: A woman president? yeah right. A colored in the white house, heck naw. And I was born into a world where I could use whatever drinking fountain I wanted. I had white classmates. I could go to college. I had the right to a safe and legal abortion. So why wasn't I more optimistic about their chances? Because all the lynchings and cross burnings and barefoot and pregnant women were replaced with systemic, ingrained discrimination. Racism and sexism reared its ugly head in the form of policies and legislation that worked to erode Blacks and women's place in American society. Rape still exists. Violence against women still exists. So I still have plenty to be angry about.
And here we are. Pitted one against the other. But why do people think that Obama can resolve the legacy of racism in America simply because he talks a good talk and he's brown? I can't honestly say that he is Black because he's a person of mixed descent. Just by calling him a Black man concedes to the one drop rule that negates and denies his entire racial history. But I digress...and why would Hillary not be suited to resolve the legacy of racism in America? Because she is not a person of color? Why do we anticipate sweeping changes in the current state of affairs in race if Obama became president? Do we figure that the ERA would actually pass if Clinton became president? Why is the answer to race seemingly more important than solving an issue that affects half of the human population?
If majority rules, then isn't sexism just as important an issue? I need not remind people that Black men earned the right to vote before any woman. I need not point out that Black men were not open to Black women taking a lead role in the civil rights movement. That isn't to say they didn't have a vital place, but still. Black churches are beacons of homophobic and sexist rhetoric that relegates Black women to secondary roles because that's how God wants it. I don't have to remind you that Black women suffered at the hands of not only white masters and mistresses, but also at the hands of Black males during and post slavery. I need not remind people that Black women suffer attacks from Black men who say they are emasculating them because we're in college more, that we make more money because of it. That Black women don't allow Black men to be men. These arguments about how our successes are somehow debilitating to their masculinity. I need not remind people that it was Black women who spoke out against lynchings, and that after that we went home and cleaned our house and raised our children.
I don't need to waste my time telling you these things, because you already know this.
I don't have a special allegiance with white women. I never have, but I can empathize with their middle class, second wave struggles somewhat. Feminism, of course, has moved beyond that and women in The Struggle understand that there is more to equity than equal pay and work outside the home. I often don't even like white women, but Clinton doesn't represent what I hate about white women. Cindy McCain does that. I know that white women slept in their beds while their husbands raped Black women and killed their husbands. I know there were white suffragists who deserted Black women in order to appeal to Southern voters who would grant them to the right to vote if Black women were excluded from the ballot. So no, I don't think white women are my sisters. But I also don't think Black men are my brothers.
I have no allegiances to Obama or Clinton because neither one represents me wholly or symbolizes everything I believe in and would die for. Neither one has had to live with and confront the dual oppressions that I experience in my life. I cannot forsake my body anymore than my skin color. When a Black man gropes me in a club, or when a white woman asks me for help in a store because she thinks I work there, I am reminded that I cannot ever pick one ism over the other. When I walk into a room and people make assumptions because I am Black, it infuriates me just the same when a man assumes he has right to sex with me because he bought me dinner. Obama isn't a feminist any more than Clinton is the beacon of racial equity. Neither one of them have spoken to my needs as a woman of color. I mean, yes, Clinton and Obama overcame their own very specific trials to get to where they are today: two wealthy U.S. Senators with Ivy League educations, book deals worth millions and a shot at the presidency. To be quite honest, how many Black men and how many white women actually have that much in common with either of them?
It bothers me that some Black women think we owe our loyalties to Black men because we share a history. I don't see Black men being that loyal to us. If I did, maybe I would feel, think and act differently. I don't see how our 400+ year history binds us any stronger than motherhood, menstruation, sexual violence or our second class status. Today, women of all creeds, colors, races, classes and religions suffer from systemic oppression and violations - some more than others. And yes, it is very true that Black men are severely persecuted in the judicial system, in education and in the medical system. This shouldn't be a tit for tat race to the bottom. I shouldn't have to list every concession and every oppression, but I want to acknowledge that everyone suffers but a certain, privileged few and that group of people rarely looks any different now than it did 4, 5, 1,ooo years ago. Surprise, surprise it looks like John McCain.
Besides, having a brown colored president doesn't shift the dynamic that much. There will still be a First Lady - I doubt Michelle Obama will return to her corporate leadership position. The default salutation will still be Mr. President and men will still be the de facto gender of power. The only thing that changed was the name on the door and the color of the face, but he will still pee standing up.
I see America having a female president sending out a message to all the women around the world whose lives suck way more than mine. I see it saying that women are valuable. Not for what it between their legs, but for who they are and what they think. I think about women in Tibet and in Afghanistan and in Darfur and in Brasil and in India and in Timor and in Thailand and in Mexico and in Bosnia. I think about them and the experiences we share.
I know what divides us, but what good is fighting about those divisions when we ultimately have the same oppressor? If both white women and Black men and everyone in between can't connect on a common enemy (in this case, McCain), then we can't see the true beauty that Obama and Clinton's quest really is: the realization of so many people's hopes, dreams, fights and struggles. People who aren't alive to see the fruits of their labors. If that notion can't unite us, then nothing can.
Another madam has been busted by authorities for running a prostitution ring in the DC area. What makes this story a little different from all the other madam brothel vice crusade stories are the women she employed. One was a naval officer. The other a mom. The other a college professor. Years ago, these women found employment as sex workers...ok, prostitutes, and now their resumes are on trial with their former boss.
The asshole prosecutors (boy and girl ones) are grilling these women about the meetings between them and their clients.
"The prosecutor, Daniel Butler, had the woman spell her name slowly and clearly, then had her talk about when she was "aggressive" with a client, when she was "more submissive," when she had a difficult client ("he tried to remove the condom") and how often she got "intimate."
"What do you mean by 'intimate'? "
The soon-to-be-former naval officer looked at him in disbelief. "Touching, caressing," she explained.
"What happened" after that? he demanded.
"What type of sex?"
"Sometimes it was oral sex; usually it was normal."
"Normal?" Butler persisted.
"I'm not sure what you're getting at," the stricken witness pleaded.
"What's normal sex?" Butler again demanded.
Judge James Robertson intervened. "He wants to know if you mean intercourse."
Butler pressed on with more humiliating questions until the judge cut him off. "
Might as well ask her what his scrotum felt like in her mouth when he teabagged her why don't ya? What the hell does that have to do with prosecuting illegal prostitution? We all know what happens when someone pays another person for sex. Sex. But for some reason, punishing former prostitutes is so important that we are wasting taxpayer money on it.
Public humilation is so hot right now. Of course: it makes TOTAL sense to interrogate women and make their names public for selling their bodies and sexual services. I mean they are the true threat to society, American values and our basic FREEDOM. These powerful men who grew bored screwing their brainwashed wives are the true victims here. They were forced to PAY for sexual intercourse and blow jobs. Those poor things. Those WHORES were rolling in the HUNDREDS (not thousands or millions of dollars like their customers make) of dollars they were paid to participate in paid rape, sometimes without condoms. Those lucky bitches.
The kicker: the "johns" in this case will most likely walk away without punishment.
"Oh, I know—I’m guessing there are single 30-year-old women reading this right now who will be writing letters to the editor to say that the women I know aren’t widely representative, that I’ve been co-opted by the cult of the feminist backlash, and basically, that I have no idea what I’m talking about. And all I can say is, if you say you’re not worried, either you’re in denial or you’re lying. In fact, take a good look in the mirror and try to convince yourself that you’re not worried, because you’ll see how silly your face looks when you’re being disingenuous."
I'm pratically slap happy has she recounts tales of friends who, once they approached the point of no return also known as 35, settled for men who they didn't even like just so they could have a baby daddy under the guise of marriage. You know, someone to sit around and suck the life out of you while you child rear, work outside the home, clean the home and lay there while he deposits his sperm into you once or twice a month. At least he splits the bills, right?!
"Those of us who choose not to settle in hopes of finding a soul mate later are almost like teenagers who believe they’re invulnerable to dying in a drunk-driving accident. We lose sight of our mortality. We forget that we, too, will age and become less alluring. And even if some men do find us engaging, and they’re ready to have a family, they’ll likely decide to marry someone younger with whom they can have their own biological children. Which is all the more reason to settle before settling is no longer an option."
"Just as the relationship books fail to mention what happens after you triumphantly land a husband (you actually have to live with each other), these single-mom books fail to mention that once you have a baby alone, not only do you age about 10 years in the first 10 months, but if you don’t have time to shower, eat, urinate in a timely manner, or even leave the house except for work, where you spend every waking moment that your child is at day care, there’s very little chance that a man—much less The One—is going to knock on your door and join that party."
Do I need to point out all the ageist, sexist bullshit that spews from her ball licking little mouth? I don't. These excerpts alone should tell you what a fucking idiot she is, but still reading it made me laugh a lot. Not your regular laugh, but that crazy laugh you do when you just can't take it any more.
I can't help but care less that he's into BDSM - I like BDSM (though I shouldn't for philosophical reasons). I mean aren't all powerful, old white men into paying for all sorts of sex, so that in and of itself isn't off-putting. But of course, I am more offended that he gets off on one of the sickest periods in world history. It bothers me that this revelation will only highlight and encourage the negative perceptions of people who engage in consensual BDSM acts. I wonder what in the hell his fascist loving wife thinks about all this. Then again, they're fascists so I don't care.
The most important thing I can walk away from this article with is this lil brown, British cutie, Lewis Hamilton. He's an F1 driving champion. Apparently Mosley made it a point to address issues of racism in the F1 industry when Lewis was attacked by fans in Spain (Spaniards not being the biggest fans of Blacks historically) during a race. Yeah, this video kinda squashes that effort, huh, Max?
The essay talks about how this photo invokes the memories of other photos. Particularly, how the incident in this photo reminds one of the depictions of the Boston Massacre. Ironically, the location of this assault is not that far from where Crispus Attucks was killed by British soldiers. Reading this made me think about Crispus and how I was never really that impressed with him. While many people laud him as a heroic figure in both Black-American and American history, I can't help but think of him as a total fucking idiot. Why would any Black person want to help defend the very country that oppresses them? Did Crispus actually think that by gaining freedom from the British, Americans might give his people freedom? Please don't tell me he thought that. Please.
I've had three winners since I've been a director," Lewis said. "Two have been
African American, two of four in the history of the state pageant. And the current Miss California USA is 25 percent Filipino," Lewis said, referring to Beezley. "I think my record speaks for itself."
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Custom made robes come in cotton or satin and are blessed before shipping. Her husband sells white pride merchandise at local flea markets. They work hard to earn money to take care of their quadriplegic daughter who needs round the clock care. I'm almooooooooost moved.
The audio for this photo essay is priceless.
(Comes in kids sizes, too! Order yours today.)
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Why do they even want his fucking attention? No, seriously. Tell me. No, don't. I still think any answer would be pretty stupid.
Obama Is No King
Today, the national civil rights pulpit is largely occupied by second-rate shakedown artists.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, April 7, 2008, at 1:26 PM ET
When Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered, I was 19 years old and fancifully considered myself to be far to the left of him. Notwithstanding that, he felt to me like one of my moral elders and tutors (as he still does). When I was first asked to sign a petition to make his birthday a national holiday, on a Manhattan side street in 1970, I was 21 and signed with pride. When, in 1983, President Ronald Reagan finally signed also, authorizing the bill for the King holiday, I was humbled to think of how far along I was in my 30s and how comparatively little I had to show for it. And last weekend, reading a beautiful reminiscence by King biographer Taylor Branch, I was arrested by the realization that King has now been dead for longer than he was alive, and that it's been 40 years.
On the very same weekend, as it happened, I was reading Nicholson Baker's much-discussed book Human Smoke, and I came across the following passage:
A union organizer and socialist, Philip Randolph, was in President Roosevelt's office to talk about jobs for Negroes in defense plants. It was June 18, 1941. Randolph had announced a huge march on Washington. "Our people are being turned away at factory gates because they are colored," he said to the president. "They can't live with this thing. Now, what are you going to do about it?"FDR offered to intercede with the heads of the defense industries, but only if the march on Washington was called off: Randolph wanted an executive order prohibiting racism in hiring. In the end, the march was called off, but only in return for a strongly written executive order.
Whenever I leave my current hometown by train, I always make a little salute to the obscure and disfigured statue of Randolph that is erected in Washington's Union Station. It was 22 years before he had to try the same tactic on another vacillating Democratic incumbent. And this time, President John F. Kennedy didn't get the point until the marchers, organized by the United Automobile Workers as well as the civil rights leadership, actually flooded the city.
On the same weekend as I was reading Nicholson Baker, I also absorbed a news item about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the recently retired pastor of Barack Obama's church in Chicago. Here is the form that the reverend's "retirement" will take: a $1.6 million home, purchased in the name of his church and consisting of more than 10,000 square feet, in a gated community in Tinley Park, a prosperous white section of the city. There used to be a secularist line about fat shepherds and thin sheep, but the joke here is not just at the expense of a man who never pretended to be much more than a hustler. The joke is on those of the "flock" who tithed themselves to achieve this level of comfort for a man who must be pinching himself when he wakes up every day.
But, then, so must the Rev. Al Sharpton, routinely described by the New York Times as "the civil rights activist," be pinching himself each morning. By evening, after all, several limos will have arrived to transport him to several studios where he will be flattered and taken seriously. And this enviable existence is watched with avaricious jealousy by more junior practitioners, like the raving Rev. James Meeks of Chicago's Salem Baptist Church, who may not yet be quite ready for prime time, and by the members of Louis Farrakhan's racist and sectarian crew, who affect to think that Christianity is a slave religion and that white people are the products of a laboratory experiment gone wrong.
The thing that this gaggle of cranks and parasites has in common is the extreme deference with which it is treated by the junior senator from Illinois. In April 2004, Barack Obama told a reporter from the Chicago Sun-Times that he had three spiritual mentors or counselors: Jeremiah Wright, James Meeks, and Father Michael Pfleger—for a change of pace, a white Catholic preacher who has a close personal feeling for the man he calls (as does Obama) Minister Farrakhan. This crossover stuff is not as "inclusive" as it might be made to seem: Meeks' main political connections in the white community are with the hysterically anti-homosexual wing of the Christian right. If Obama were to be read a list of the positions that his clerical supporters take on everything from Judaism to sodomy, he would be in the smooth and silky business of "distancing" from now until November. And that is why he hopes that his Philadelphia speech, which dissociated him from everything and nothing, will be enough. He seems, indeed, to have a real gift for remaining adequately uninformed about the real beliefs of his "mentors."
This is a lot sadder, and a lot more serious, than has been admitted. Four decades after the murder in Memphis of a friend of the working man—a hero who was always being denounced by the FBI for his choice of secular and socialist friends and colleagues—the national civil rights pulpit is largely occupied by second-rate shakedown artists who hope to franchise "race talk" into a fat living for themselves. Far from preaching truth and brotherhood, they trade in cheap slander and paranoia and in venomous dislike of other minorities. Elijah Muhammad and the Black Muslims used to relish their meetings with Klansmen and Nazis to discuss the beauties of separatism. These riffraff, too, hang out with Farrakhan and make opportunist coalitions with the James Dobsons and Gary Bauers of the white right. This is the lovely clientele of the faith-based initiative. Who now cares to commemorate Philip Randolph or Bayard Rustin or the other giants of struggle and solidarity in whose debt we live? So amnesiac have we become, indeed, that we fall into paroxysms of adulation for a ward-heeling Chicago politician who does not complete, let alone "transcend," the work of Dr. King; who hasn't even caught up to where we were four decades ago; and who, by his chosen associations, negates and profanes the legacy that was left to all of us.
Then I remembered that Mama Moxie's birthday is this week. I was about to order her flowers when I got an email reminding me about this program that this org is hosting this week about exploited workers. I realized that I couldn't buy her sweatshop flowers (not that she would care), so I went in search of fair trade flowers and found this place. Just look at the happy brown people! I support happy brown people!
I then charged the flowers and I probably killed the planet with the carbon emissions it will take to express ship them from California, so that little self-righteous buy high was replaced with good old-fashioned shopper's guilt.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
It's not so much the theology, but the ideology.
"Both religions strongly emphasize family. They tend toward patriarchy, believing in feminine modesty, chastity and virtue. And although Islam discourages dancing involving both sexes, Mormons report that church-sponsored "modesty proms" commonly draw Islamic youths."
Did I call Muslim and Mormon women brainwashed? Maybe. I tend to think that any woman who subscribes to the culture of these two religions has to be under the influence of something. They have to be. We all subscribe to the patriarchy, but at least some of us try to resist it.
Besides my point...
My point is that here is yet another example of fuckedupedness that involves organized religion, men and the oppression of women. Stories like these help me understand why many radfems reject religion.