Another Post on Rape

I don't know if you know this about me, but I was raped. I was raped just after my 19th birthday; without getting into the aspects of it, I'll explain that it was one of the darkest and most traumatic times of my life. I never saw the guy again, thankfully. Let's be clear though: he raped me at gunpoint, acknowledged that he did it, and may well have killed me that night.

Subsequent to my rape, I ran away to the university from which I would eventually graduate; however, in the time between my fleeing as far away as I could then stand and college graduation, I drowned in a pool of emotion. I became self-destructive. I was depressed and suffered terrible anxiety and panic attacks. I was imploding.

By graduation, I was rebuilt. Somehow, I rose above it all. I graduated with honors; in fact, I was the student of the year. I had the support of the people I cared most about, but they were not the people that most would suspect. Now, of course, the depression seems like a flash. It seems like I woke up one morning and with the blink of an eye, I am where I am. Having experienced the trauma, heartache, and internal death, I realize that the process of rebuilding was by far the most difficult struggle I've ever endured.

Moving back to the city which the rape occured was never part of a plan for me. In fact, since my graduation not-that-long-ago, I have been fortunate enough to travel about briefly, and it was just by chance that I landed back here with a career.

I implore you to understand, reader, that my life is very pleasant now. I hardly ever reflect to my personal experiences with rape. I don't want sympathy because I am a survivor; I fully acknowledge this experience and know that I grew to be a stronger warrior woman after it happened.

And so, my friends, life went on. Happily.

Very lately, I have been out and about and wondered if I would ever run into him again. I've been out and seen someone that looks familiar to him and had to process the idea that he may still be in the city. Call it intuition or something stronger, but I thought that I was bound to bump into him again eventually, and wondered how well equipped I would be to deal with the situation if it ever happened.

And it happened yesterday. I was in the market to pick up a can of peas, and I saw a man on a cell phone pushing a baby. Yet, he turned his head and I saw his face but he did not see me -- until I rushed to another isle to keep myself from having a mental avalanche. And he followed me. And I froze facing canned goods while he pushed a baby in a cart and spoke on the phone. And I could feel him slow down, and even though he hasn't seen me since I was 19 years old and a completely different person, he recognized me. And I felt sick to my stomach and disgusted. And I trembled as he spoke a 'hey, (my name)!'

I didn't look at him. I said 'hey' and ran to the other side of the market for check-out, feeling naked, terrified, vulnerable, and angry. What gives this horrible excuse for a human being the right to live, have children, speak to me as if he didn't -- in everyway imaginable except for the literal -- kill the 19 year old me?

I don't know. I don't have the answers. I am safe and collected; yet, I wonder why the universe is injust. It was a hassle to contact any person for any support; it was a struggle to avoid an internal whirlwind, and an external explosion. And I still feel like my internal London Bridge is falling down.

The thing that is keeping me going today is knowing this: I am better than him and that he does not/did not/will not get the satisfaction of seeing me fall apart.

Finally, my first of several counselors post-trauma told me that I was numb and unemotional. (I still hear this very often today when I don't react to situations the way that people anticipate I should. I am rational and reflective, and that does not make me unemotional. That does not mean I am not reacting, it means that I have my own system to process emotions and it is right for me). The counselor explained the concept of "righteous anger" to me; and I tried to be angry that he raped me then. It was not right for me. I truly learned and experienced, only years later, just yesterday, what righteous anger feels like. I don't feel like I am betraying my true self in being angry. I don't feel like I am a coward, or that I am less strong for being emotional yesterday and at this instant. I don't feel wrong in questioning why the imbalance in the universe resulted in the theft of my life, my virginity, and why he is allowed to live. And I recognize that I'll never know or understand, but I feel it.

And I also feel thankful for the few people who were able to help me breathe and process.

Be Righteous(ly angry with me).

The first counselor I saw is the actual reason I end my posts with "be righteous". Whatever I do, righteousness minus a connotation based in religion, is my motivation.

...Speaking of Whoopi

Admittedly, I have to sometimes take breaks from technology and the news in order to keep myself from going crazy. I have an intense (sometimes read: serious) personality a lot of times, and that doesn't make me unhappy. I care about issues to the point of exhaust; and it's because I also act on these issues. I get so mentally involved in issues, and for that reason, a joke - that is parody and not satire - at the interest in any of the issues and injustices that I am so involved in protesting is more damaging, in my opinion, than the humor that may be in it.

At any rate, in an effort to work on my zen and create an ambiance, I'm goofing off on facebook for a bit yesterday - just after reacting to Whoopi Goldberg's "he-has-black-friends-so-he-isnt-racist" defense - and noticed that good friend of mine made an inappropriate joke in reference to the situation. And the joke made it to facebook, twitter, and eventually a variation of it made the blog. Ready?

C'mon Whoopi, sure Mel Gibson isn't racist; you don't have to worry about being raped by a pack of niggers; you look like a man.

Well, okay. I realize that the comment was meant to be taken lightly but my problem with these comments is this: of the many issues with sexual abuse and domestic violence, major issues that many victims deal with are feelings of guilt (like they may have perpetuated the assault) and feelings of low self-worth which could stem from a number of things, including physical appearance. Moreover, the comment speaks to standards of beauty and maintains the myth that rape is about sexual attraction and desire.

I would not be true to my character if I didn't say anything, even to my good friend and mentor (smile). I'm not into blog-wars as I don't have enough readers for that anyway, so I don't want people to get me wrong and believe that that's the point of any of this.

While the joke was at the expense of Whoopi, the words of the joke say something to people who believe that people who "look like a man" (or unattractive people, or people who have been told they are physically worthless and have internalized that abuse) cannot or have not been abused. It appears to support a myth of people who are ill-informed and do not know better - even if it is a joke. Having worked on the side of victims, this is a trend that is seriously furthered by law enforcement, nurses, and anybody who isn't fully aware and sympathetic to the dynamics of rape. Period. (Ironically, this theme is illustrated to perfection in "The Color Purple")

And while I understand that there has to be a silver lining, and there has to be some sort of light in this sick, sad, dark world of ours, I'm not entirely certain that any joke sending that sort of message (about the rape of a woman who "looks like a man", not the pack of niggers) is the something that I can take lightly. This isn't about an individual, but those comments and attitudes have to die. Seriously.

Would it be Whoopi Goldberg-esque of me to point out that this person doesn't hate women, ugly people, or rape victims, but that it was a stupid comment? Shrug. This isn't to defend Whoopi's disillusionment, but one has to wonder how to defend the character of a person who makes stupid comments. I'm not taking it personally, again this isn't about a person, but an idea. A whole set of ideas that need to end.

Be righteous.

It was also kind of a jackass thing to add a faux apology in small print, too..#justsayin.

Way to Go, Whoopi.

I'd like to take the time right now to discuss two separate, but loosely connected issues. As a matter of fact, I will takcle the initial issue in this post and then discuss the separate issue in a post after this one. Ready? Okay!

Whoopi Goldberg. I suppose I should note, for every person incapable of picking up on the subtlety in my sardonic wit, that there is nothing serious in the title of this post.

In 1993, Whoopi Goldberg defended Ted Danson's performing in Blackface. While I don't necessarily remember this event specifically (or caring; I was a kid and this was just before I was tainted by the horrors of the real world), I do remember my catching wind of it when I was a bit more mature and saying "hmm, maybe I shouldn't be supporting someone who thinks that this is okay; whether it's intended to be offensive doesn't really take away from the fact that..it kinda is."

In 2009, I remember officially decided no longer to support Whoopi, as much as I love her (and as beautiful as I think she is - agree or not, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I've always thought she was physically intriguing. Fuck conventionalism). This was because she decided to discuss on The View how Roman Polanski's sexual encounter with a 13 year old kid, who was also under the influence notthatitmatters, was not rape-rape. I remember being outraged and saying aloud, several times, shame on you, Whoopi. Shame on you.

In 2010, I am even more disgusted with Whoopi, after acting as a free-standing character witness for Mel Gibson after his infamous bigoted, misogynistic tirade days ago. Per Whoopi:

"I know Mel, and I know he's not a racist...I have had a long friendship with Mel. You can say he's being a bonehead, but I can't sit and say that he's a racist having spent time with him in my house with my kids. I don't like what he's done, make no mistake."

Well, that's just great Whoopi. I made this point the other day when I was in a heated discussion with a perfect stranger about making anti-gay, anti-black-anti-woman, bigoted comments; how can you expect these issues to be taken seriously if you attempt to defend a person's (alleged, previous) character? Even the most horrible of people have to maintain a social life. How many times have we heard racists say, "I'm not a racist, I have Black friends!" What about homophobes saying, "I don't hate gay people, I know plenty of them!" Or even the friends and family members of domestic violence abusers saying, "my baby would never do anything like that!"

Exactly. Shame on you, Whoopi.

I can't say that I expected more, but she should stop refrain from commenting on issues regarding her famous friends. She's beginning to sound like a whoopie cushion. Hey, I get one corny joke per day.

Small Victories: Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani

Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani will not be executed by stoning for adultery. She's an Iranian mother of two and was set to face stoning - any day now - after her 2006 conviction of adultery. Yes, folks, adultery. What a relief; all the petitions and global awareness raised by people and organizations to stand against death by stoning. Phew, what a relief! Right?

Wrong! Why is this wrong? Because Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani still faces the death penalty for adultery. And while anything that isn't stoning is a lot more a humane way to go, especially in terms of execution for wrongdoing...the death penalty? For adultery? Really?

I'm not saying that "adultery", in all of its usual heavily religious contexts, is not wrong. That isn't what I'm saying, but my opinion on adultery is not what's important. The two things that strike me as the major issues are: the obvious issue that has been a main stressor internationally is the cruel and unusual nature of stoning. and the other is the fact the law is based on the indoctrition of a specific religious text as a means to make people submit to this system.

For those of you who do not know at stoning consists of (as if the above image is not graphic enough) picture this: a person is buried in sand. If it is a man, they are buried to their waist; if a woman, she is buried to her chest area. And members of the crowd, the societal jury of your peers, pummel stones at you until you are bludgeoned to death. Literally, this is a stoning. This is a cruel and unusual punishment for any crime. Keep in mind, though, that I (and my few readers) are reading from an American perspective where "cruel and unusual" means that the punishment exceeds the severity of the crime. I'm not certain that cruel and unusual exists in Iran (and that is an honest statement; not my normal, everyday sarcasm and wit). However, I can think of few things that would make me think 'hmmm, you should be stoned for that. The fact that this form of punishment is allowed any where makes me sick to my stomach and confirms frustration with the lack of progress humanity has made. Nothing warrants that form of punishment.

The major issue for me, though, is the fact Iran, which is a country that bases it's legal code on sharia - the laws of god as interpreted by Islam - is a really troubling piece of this equation that is being overlooked. When will people learn that the marriage of politics and religion is one of the ultimate stains on any culture's progress? Thank goodness we're in America, where there is separation of church and state, right? Right?(that was my normal, everyday sarcasm.)

In a drive-by discussion on this situation with a friend of mine the other day, and explaining my issues with the situation, less my opinion on adultery, he hit me with the "moral behavior is not religious" bullet, even though he is a religious subscriber himself. But you know, I agree with that and that's the point that I attempt to hit believers with: moral behavior is not religious. However, don't ever say that if you've also decided that you don't "agree" with same sex marriage, a woman's right to choose, or understand that this issue is an issue where there is an intentional relationship between the Iranian judicial system and the religion of the overwhelming majority. And don't hit me with that "proud to be an American" shit when adultery is punishable by criminal law in some US states as well. And while this is not even necessarily as much about the death penalty as it is the imbalance in "crime" and punishment, I'll just say that we also execute people in the US. Your ideas sound progressive enough aloud; the US has separation of church and state on paper. But still, in a lot of social aspects, we do not. #justsayin

Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani's life is ending because she committed adultery with two men while being married. And this is a human being. She is a mother of two. Set to be killed for having two extra marital affairs while her husband was alive; and your thoughts on whether or not adultery is right are meaningless because religious law has already overruled Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani's right to live and her children's right to have a mother. And I truly hope that the advocates against her being stoned, including myself, will continue speaking out about the fact that she is being executed any day now. P l e a s e, do your part and increase awareness at the very least.

Be Righteous.

Mel Gibson's Rant: More Than The N-Word

Apparently, Mel Gibson has been recorded on tape going off on the mother of his infant saying the following:

"You're an embarrassment to me. You look like a fucking pig in heat, and if you get raped by a pack of niggers, it will be your fault."

"How dare you act like such a bitch when I have been so fucking nice."

"I am going to come and burn the fucking house down...but you will blow me first."

Amazing. The blog world has majorly been focusing on the fact that he used the n-word, which is also amazing to me. He went on a tirade and threw the ugliest racially offensive in the mix. I understand the outrage of his usage of the n-word. As a matter of fact, I've oftened joked(?)/wondered if white people say the n-word if they're mad enough. The rant was sickening. Yet, the entire tirade in and of itself is absolutely repulsive.

The hope or insinuation that any person is raped is disgusting; and silently or very loudly and angrily expressing that the fulfillment of another person being raped would be their own fault is plain despicable. And then, threatening violence (in burning the house down) but saying that your significant other will perform oral sex on you before you do such a thing makes you a perpetrator of rape; I'm quite sure that if she was forced into such a situation, she would be able to press rape charges because the act was performed under coercion and threats.

Further, look at this snippet of the initial quote:
..if you get raped by a pack of niggers..
So naturally, as if any part of this is acceptable at all, the grouping of "rape" and the n-word grouped together says much more than is written: it speaks to a historical depiction of Black males in American society. The black beast rapist is an image that was created by white society to maintain both slavery, and then segregation, and it was used to define the racial and gender social structure in America. This is not to say that some Black men do not rape; yet, when I see the association of Black men with (interracial) rape, I immediately get imagery of lynchings in the South and the desparities in convictions and punishment where interracial alleged sex crimes occur.

Black women aren't the only ones with image issues; Black men have been depicted in several different ways, including brutes, rapists, Nats and Toms, as America developed and socially evolved. Unfortunately, just as some Black women feel the need to behave a certain way, feeding into the jezebel stereotype, Black men are feeling their way in terms of the development of social masculinity. Mel Gibson's comments illustrates an uncaring and expectation that Black men are nothing more than predators.

...and you probably thought that Matt and Trey's depiction of Mel was exaggerated!

Be Righteous.

EDIT: also, Mel's usage of the word "pack" as in "pack of niggers" equates Black males to animals. I kinda hinted at that, but did not spell it out, and it's important to the overall context of the post.
EDIT: 7/10/10 below is the actual audio.

Bamboozled! Chris Brown and aficionados

You know, I was really fighting the feeling; I was not interested in supplementing the blog world and mainstream media's recent explosion of reporting on Chris Brown and the BET awards. As a matter of fact, I was certain that my computer, itself, would literally explode because the internet must be exhausted with the everyone having an opinion on Chris's "breakdown" at the award show. I refused to have anything to do with the BET Awards early on; I was on twitter and threatened to unfollow the bulk of my friends for tweeting about the awards. And I got sucked in -- it began with my flipping back and forth and somehow, forth stopped on the awards on a network that I am sure the Black community should not be in support of. Back in the day, Black Embarrasmentntertainment Television actually had some positive aspects to it and one day, poof! No more. It's sole output has been degrading and exploitative and for that reason, I try my best to avoid anything related to the network. Personally, this upsets me because I believe in supporting Black business because we cannot expect the success of our own if we lack faith and support; yet, it directly conflicts with my own personal beliefs about the worth and strengths of the Black community to do so in this particular instance. But, alas, I was sucked in. I'll admit to you this: I'm disappointed in myself for giving in.

It was nothing more than I expected it to be: a bad car accident that you just could not look away from. Right up to Chris Brown's tribute to Michael Jackson. Sure, the award show had its high points, relative to the rest of the show. But, oh..Chris Brown.

If, by chance, you've been living under a rock without access to the television or internet, here's what happened in my home (and during Chris Brown's performance):
I'm stretched out across the couch, glued to the tube. I have my blackberry in hand and when Chris Brown began dancing, I was messaging my best friend about what a skilled dancer he is. I was not surprised that BET permitted him to perform since he was disallowed at many events last year. I got a little bored with the transition of his performing, looked down at all of the tweets and it sounded like my audio was screwed up on the tv. Confused, I look up, to see Chris Brown doubled over, "crying".

Now, I'm sure that my readers (and even non-readers) can guess my reaction: staged, phony, publicity stunt to win his way back into the hearts and minds of those who had decided not to support him. Now, I'll tell you this: the rational individuals who have chosen not to support the brother any more are probably the ones who did not support his music initially because I know several teenage girls that have rallied behind him immediately after his assault on Rihanna, his court trial and conviction, his internet "apologies", his colorist and degrading comments toward blogger Sandra Rose, the creation of #teambreezy on twitter (which, further invited the public into the ugly battle between he and Rihanna, causing a similar twitter trend on her behalf), the ranting on twitter about certain stores not marketing his music, and most recently the UK taking a stand and not allowing him into the country to tour. And from the very beginning, there was the victim blaming: "she gave him an STD", "she hit him first", "you're a hater", et al. And you know what? He was convicted, he served his sentence, and my issue with Chris Brown is not solely an issue with Chris Brown.

Having direct experiences with victims and perpetrators of relationship violence and also having done the bulk of my research on issues of sexual/relationship violence within the Black community, there are issues with domestic violence. One major issue that does not get as much attention as it should is the social consequences as they relate to the abuser. In fact, I'm sure that some of you may have released a mental gasp at my referring to Chris as an "abuser"; I've had grown women and men ask me to not refer to him as such because, in their own rationale, "abuse" dictates something long term and ongoing. This is silly because I'll tell you this - domestic violence agencies and reserachers refer to the perpetrator of violence, whether it happened once or several times, as abusers.

This is a prime example of a major problem. Why is Chris Brown - the celebrity that you do not know - an exception to what is common and logical in examining relationship violence? Chris Brown does not know me personally, and as such, he does not owe me a personal apology. He does not owe his fans a personal apology, because they have been excusing his behavior from the beginning of his socially perceived fall from grace. I also am not aware of whether or not he is continuing counseling. Chris Brown as a person and individual is not the entire problem with Chris Brown.

As a celebrity, he has been placed on a pedastol and, as a result, demands that his fans continually support him - despite acknowledging his wrong doing. The fans and the celebrity feed into one another; you fans, you've told Chris Brown who and what he should be and, like a minstrel show, he has given you everything that you've craved and applauded, both before and after his assault on Rihanna. This is about maintaining an image. Yet, what are the reasons that his behavior has been excused besides the above hater-isms?
Besides hearing "he didn't hit you/she asked for it", a major reason that, within the Black community, relationship violence is so far underreported and overlooked is because of a perceived necessity for racial solidarity above all else. This is also a major reason that women's rights within the Black community is taken as a sour flavor - because we shouldn't be focused on the disparities of hurt and injustice that come from within because we are a family. As a matter of fact, the day after the award show, I turned the radio off because I heard someone on the radio saying, "we can't just let one of our own..."; seriously. The next day, 106 and Park dedicated the show to Chris Brown, saying he's back. The blogworld has referred to his performance as a redemption song. For crying out loud, the kid won an award that very night. Just like that...all is forgiven in social media's world.

It is unreasonable that as a community of people, we turn our backs and leave a celebrity or non-celebrity perpetrator of relationship violence to fend for him/herself. Yet to continually support their career without blinking an eye and acknowledging, as fans, that their behavior is completely unacceptable in any form of society, is also not a reasonable answer. This isn't about anyone giving their lives to whatever-higher-power you may or may not believe to be true. Instead of spending so much time defending, rationalizing, and supporting their actions, though, we should be encouraging them toward a healthy lifestyle as examples to our young children. If you want the Black community to remain unified, why not move it along in a healthy and reasonable light?

What I don't want is for people to say "he/she is one of our own and therefore, we cannot do ______". That's silly to me. Chris Brown (and others) is a human being that fans and supportors of his entertainment have made into an image, and if you choose to support him (or others), do so at the best interest of the community and not in the best interest of the image that you want for him. The entire Chris Brown-Rihanna situation was higher profile than other relationship violence because of their celebridom and as such, was the perfect opportunity to engage in dialogue, as a community, about relationship violence and unhealthy behaviors. Yet instead, every main social networking outlet that I find young Black people on (mediatakeout, twitter, facebook) are filled with children and adolescents ignoring the abuse and excusing relationship abuse.

The fact of the matter is this: women are physically and sexually abused by their partners every single day. And many cases do not even make it to court because, as a result of "real life" apologists and defenders of abuse, women stay in these relationships. The same can be said for women abusing men (though there is not as much research to prove), and homosexual relationships. I've encountered people who think twice at celebrity relationship violence but are black and white about "real life" violence, and there are also the same types of people, besides the victim, that defend the actions of the abuser and blame the abused. The violence will not stop if the community is unwilling to, not only acknowledge wrongdoing and abusive relationships of celebrities as such but also, apply our standards of thinking in a universal manner and teach young children and adults what is acceptable and what is not.

I'll admit that I feel repetitive in that this post is nearly identical to my other Chris Brown-Rihanna/relationship violence post. I am not of the opinion that abusive relationships are private matters; if we are unwilling to speak out, then we can never expect any improvement. Teach the youth - including Chris Brown and other celebrities - that violent relationships are never acceptable, instead of creating images of what they should be based on your salivating as fans or supporters.

Be Righteous. And watch Bamboozled..those themes don't just apply to racial identity and entertainment.

Vagina Dentata (nom nom nom)

In fairness, I'll warn you that this post is a bit graphic and sensitive. There may be triggers or even a major level of discomfort provided in this post. It isn't exactly pretty, and I'd warn you to proceed with caution.

When I was in college (just a couple years ago), my best guy friend was a film major. Some people may express that I haven't seen many films (but I haaaave), but I do love flicks. One night, my good friend and I were hanging out and we ordered a pizza and decided to watch a movie called "Teeth" - an indy horror flick crossed with a little black comedy. While he spent much of the film utterly terrified, I just loved it. Roll tape!

Scared yet? This poor young girl was involved in some church cult group and her boyfriend, also a member of the abstinence only squad, took her to a cave in whatever bum cluck town they were in and tried to rape her. And her vagina bit his penis off. And throughout the movie, various males attempt taking advantage of her and suffer the same fate, and the poor girl - a virgin at that - cannot figure out what's wrong with her. Hey, we were all a little confused our first times, right?

A little later in real life, there were talks of developing a condom that would simulate vagina dentata to a less than lethal extent, but the idea floated and then disappeared. Until 2010: the year of Rape-aXe - a female condom type device that is inserted in the vagina and bites grasps on the rapists penis in a painful, but again non-lethal, way.

I know what you're thinking: with all the pro-woman propaganda I share on my blog and in real life, I'm bound to be pro-anything-to-take-the-dicks-off-of-men, right? Well, surprise surprise! I find this device and its concept to be problematic; yes, seriously! Blind-sided you, eh?

While I understand all those cute little preventative techniques they teach young college girls that's supposed to prevent them from being raped, we know that the majority of rapes are acquaintance rapes. If women (and men, even) felt it necessary to protect themselves around the people that they are familiar with, there would be a lot fewer acquaintance rapes. And, on that same note, if women (because there is only a female version of this device available) are preparing themselves to be nervous and on pins and needles at every turn awaiting a blitz by a total stranger, the chances of that happening are slim which makes the necessity for the device illogical in that regard.

As I understand from the illustrations, the device is identified as a "condom" but it works a bit more solidly, like, say, a diaphragm. So this condom-diaphragm hybrid sits in a lady's vagina as she awaits a sexual act against her. Does anybody not see anything wrong with the fear factor? And beyond that, who tested this? What if it doesn't work correctly and hurts the woman, or doesn't work against the perpetrator?

This part could get graphic; consider the previous statement your warning!
So, a woman is being raped by a man. He goes in and out, but in the "out" action, this device chomps down on his man parts, right? This is painful. Is this just painful enough to stun the perpetrator into whatthefuckjusthappenedIgottagetouttahere? Or is it more like holyshitthathurtandIcan'tMOVE? If it's the latter, how is a potential victim to call the police or get to a safe place with a rapist laying on top of her?

Also, I'm very worried about the potential misuse and abuse of the device; what's to say that there is not a woman who is attempting to teach her cheating boyfriend a lesson? Yes, I'm sure it would be assault. I'm also sure, though, that it creates another dynamic to victimization of sorts. I'm not saying that majority of women would do something like this; I'm not attempting to turn my back on rape victims or the act. I am saying, though, that there are quite a few screwed up individuals in the world, unfortunately, and I could see immature-but-sexually active girls and women majorly misusing the device.

While I could drone on and on about my qualms with this device, the most important of them all is this: the problem with rape isn't women, it's R A P E. The condom is another way to scare women into feeling perpetually vulnerable and it isn't solving the problem of rape, but rather compounding, complicating, and completely avoiding it. I understand the good intentions behind this advice, but instead of working on illogically calculated preventative tactics to "avoiding" rape, why not focus on educating young girls and boys about appropriate sexual behavior and why any forms of forced sexual acts are wrong? I know that there are women (and children!) who do everything "right" and still wind up in situations where they are abused or assaulted. And you know why that is? It's because they only have control over their own behavior. By introducing a device that supposedly shifts the focus to the victim, it disallows for sympathy in a situation where their control was temporarily taken from them. A single person can only control themselves; the actions that another person forces upon them - no matter what the circumstance - was not a choice made by them, but by the other person. Thsi device is attempting to put the "power" in the victims hands, but it discounts the psychological and emotional aspects of rape/sexual assault and only focuses on the physical. I'm of the opinion that with all the guilt and shame that comes after being victimized, a victim might be effected negatively by the thought that they may have hurt another individual and are at fault in some way or another.

Just think about it.

Be Righteous.

Disparities: Missing White Woman Syndrome

The point of this post is illustrated between 1:58 and 3:33; it's the best I could do!

My studies are all in the realm of social science. I've recently discovered contemporaries with similar mindsets as myself in some regard, but in other regards social science seems less than important as it is specifically (in my studies) constructed by the history of a very diverse bunch known as America on the whole. My goal in life since I was two years old was to save people; no, not in a spooky religious sort of way, but in a way that is long-lasting and more affecting of the people: I want (and have) hands on experience working with people to improve the condition of their lives. And while I very much realize that all people are in need of assistance and "saving", I feel for women and persons of color (as a woman and person of color). As such, many of the things that I have studied and worked to change deal specifically with the imbalance in our (American) social reality as it relates to women, people of color (largely Black people), and women of color.

The media and society have a mutual give-and-take relationship when it comes to the definition of reality on the whole; an individual's own reality and definitions do matter but are sometimes not representative as what is presented by society. The old chicken and egg argument dominates: does the media maintain a true reflection of the people (though society has been around as long as the media), or does society influence more what the media should be portraying as society's needs?

My college courses (at my predominately white university, for the record), often discussed a phenomenon known as Missing White Woman Syndrome(MWWS): the apparent racial bias in the media's (over-)reporting of young, attractive, "conventional", upper-middle class white girls/women over impoverished-to-middle class girls/women of color. I often ponder on this; there is a serious pattern of local and national panic when white women are abducted (or, even victimized in one way or another) versus when women of color are victimized at all. So much so, in fact, that there are websites available that post pictures and information for women of color because of the expressed imbalance. Remember: there's "justice", but there's also, very often, "just-us".

MWWS has only recently received the acknowledgment of its unfortunate reality. LaToyia Figueroa was a young pregnant woman of color that was reported missing in 2005 after not showing up for work. She was murdered south of Philly...an entire month after she disappeared. Her case was overshadowed by Natalee Holloway's disappearance and reported little by the mainstream media.

Last night, I'm sitting at work and I began thumbing through the most recent People Magazine. As I've made apparent, I have an interest in sex crimes and, what many police divisions describe to be "special victims". As such, I am always very caught up in the killings of young women and, admittedly, I've been very caught up in the details of Natalee Holloway's disappearance from the day she went missing. I mean, she was(/is?) the same age as me and the fact that they've yet to discover her whereabouts is terrifying and must be absolutely tragic for her parents. And when the suspect in her disappearance and alleged death popped up on the national media's radar weeks ago, I thought '...so, he killed this poor girl on five years to the day of Natalee's disappearance because she was asking him about whether or not he actually murdered her?' Odd way to prove your innocence. There was a difference though: he confessed to killing Stephany Tatiana Flores Ramírez and is taking his punishment. Now, though he has made off the record contradicting statements about killing Natalee and/or selling her into sex slavery (which is very possible considering he has a serious gambling and drug addiction - that caused his lawyer-father to stop supporting him), he was never even charged or tried for Natalee's murder because of such little evidence. It is devastating, and very unfortunate but these things happen in real life. Everything is not always Law and Order, and many missing persons and/or murders go unresolved.

Equally unfortunate to me, though, was People Mag's cover:

I feel for Natalee Holloway and her family. I also feel for Stephany Tatiana Flores Ramírez, who is hardly pictured to the right of Natalee Holloway. Joran van der Sloot confessed to brutally murdering her. He is being tried for this crime. He is not currently being tried for the murder of Natalee Holloway. So why is Natalee Holloway the feature of this cover?

We could argue that it is American-centric, which I also have a problem with given that the crime and alleged crime still occurred elsewhere. I don't intend to disrespect Natalee Holloway, but it seems as though the young, beautiful, upper-middle class white woman - the feature - is of greater value than the young dead Latina who is the most recent victim of van der Sloot's crimes.

I have no problem that the article mentioned Natalee Holloway; I understand wanting to draw parallels and hoping to bring van der Sloot to justice for the disappearance of Natalee. Truly, my heart goes out to everyone who was personally affected by Natalee's vanishing into thin air. Yet, I'm disappointed; if the media feeds into the subconscious of society, what is it telling us about the value of young women of color who are missing or murdered?

Be Righteous.

Tupac Shakur

I had a talk about Womanism last night, and the intersection of race and gender that every Black woman has to deal with. I don't have an agenda against men or Black men; I don't, however, feel as though not speaking the truth or an opinion that is generally overlooked to maintain any person's (man/woman/entertainer/whatever) legacy is cool. I don't think Black men (/any men) are the scourge of society. I love men. No, really, I looooove men.

I don't hate Tupac Shakur. I think he has a lasting legacy that speaks to multiple sides in him; from Tupac the poet to Tupac "Thug Life" Shakur. I awakened this morning and among "Happy Birthday Tupac" tweets were tweets about Tupac's real, genuine love for Black women as evidenced by his lyrics:

And since we all came from a woman
Got our name from a woman and our game from a woman
I wonder why we take from our women
Why we rape our women, do we hate our women?
I think it's time to kill for our women
Time to heal our women, be real to our women
And if we don't we'll have a race of babies
That will hate the ladies, that make the babies
And since a man can't make one
He has no right to tell a woman when and where to create one
So will the real men get up
I know you're fed up ladies, but keep your head up

Now, I love this song because it is uplifting and I can appreciate the struggles being acknowledged. I love some of Tupac's music and can appreciate the aspects of his life and personality; in some regards, he was poetic. I realize that music is entertainment and entertainment is not real life, which is why I decided to offer a counter opinion in stating that Tupac was also convicted of rape and has demeaned women to a certain point; regardless of if you want to distinguish the difference between "women" and "bitches":

I did point out in my conversations about the brotha that, true enough, he has inspired many people. Many of the people my age when I was coming up were caught up in the "Thug Life" message, though. A lot of people are able to point out the positive messages in his music as well but I pointed out that praising a man as a hero and ignoring his wrongdoing is sending a poor message to young men and women coming up.

A person that I was engaged with completely doubted the fact that the victim was sexually assaulted because of a retraction of statement, though, after he was convicted of a crime is, to me, a form of victim blaming/precipitation in that a young woman (who still contends in articles and online to this day that she was raped) is being disbelieved because of a man's own celebrity. I wasn't there, but let's look from a socio-cultural and legal/historical standpoint:

Yes, "convicted" of does not always mean guilty, especially in terms of Black men and the American justice (or "just-us") system. However, rape/sexual assault has a low conviction rate because of the he-say/she-say nature of a trial. Fact. Also fact is this: Black man on white woman sexual assault (or alleged sexual assault) is typically punished far more than rape that allegedly occurs within the same race. Fact. More factually, though, is the historical idea that crimes WITHIN the Black comunity the Black community alone have been isolated by the American justice system, forcing them to become Black issues - which is one of the reasons that sexual assault is reported far less from within the Black community.

I'm not saying that there has never been a woman that has alleged that a rape happened that did not occur. I am, however, saying that the dynamics from within the Black community tend to speak to our history from inside America and regardless of conviction or not, rape allegations should be taken seriously. Imagine being raised to believe that you have to protect your brotha and look out for the best of the community, by any means necessary. Do you turn your brotha in for sexually assaulting you? Do you deal with the harassment of his friends, family or fans for a lie? Do you listen to and allow your name to become everybody's description of a whore to get back at someone in criminal court (which translates to jail-time, not money)? Why would you lie?

Regardless, my point in acknowledging his convictions - not a supposed opinion of him - is this: how do you explain to your sister, daughter, little cousin, or niece that he held this incredibly deep love for his sistas, as evidenced by his music, but is caught up in illegal activities, has been locked up, and yes - has been convicted of sexual abuse? And that he should be praised and celebrated?

Unfortunately, the things that we see are not all of man. I have no interest in demonizing Tupac Shakur as a man because his music is left behind and has some positive messages in it for the community. I do, however, want to bring an issue of conflicting persona to everyone's attentions. People can be profound. People are human, and that does not excuse any wrongdoing whatsoever. People, however, should be interested in explaining the complexities and roundness of the people that they choose to "praise" instead of ignoring the bad for the sake of what you perceived their character to be?

EDIT: I'd like to point that one of my major beliefs is separating "entertainment" from reality. While I note that one feeds the other in terms of the ideas perpetuated as "truths", entertainment is valid but does not take away from the reality of any situation. For instance, I do realize that I've quoted Biggie in a post, and that doesn't take away from his upbringings and the realities - even when he continuously rapped about the selling of drugs and has also said disrespectful things about and regarding women. My point is this: ignoring the human side of an individual where they have publicly illustrated their own wrongdoing to sustain a positive image and/or legacy of them is wrong. For the sake of our youth, just tell the entire truth.

The Banality of Heterosexism

Heterosexism, or the presumption that man-woman relationships are the norm, is a dangerous spirit that haunts the eventual future burial ground of gender-based discrimination. You know how they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions? Well, see…I don’t know about that heaven and hell thing in the literal sense, but there is definitely a metaphorical context that makes the saying true. Think about it: the crazy people that think whatever they do about whatever they do are so moved by their own personal truth, however sick and demented it may sometimes be, that they disregard the fact that their "truth" is, not only largely offensive, but also not believed by the people that they choose to judge using their belief system as the standard.

Does that sound right? Or preachy? It’s definitely far too early on Saturday morning (as I write this) to get preachy. I just know this much: people have to open up and accept the fact that the driving force behind who we are is our own free will. That isn’t specifically to go against any particular set of religious beliefs, though we know my feelings on the matter; but chew on this for a minute: how do we grow into whoever we are without will?

Get this, dear readers – I am on Facebook days ago and I see a status up by a friend of mine that had very apparent heterosexist ideas in it. Now, I’m not one for internet beef (or real life beef, I don’t eat the stuff). I think that shit is so 8th-grade and passé bullshit really isn’t my thing. Though, if I am to have an intelligent and healthy debate, as I do with aforementioned friend regularly, we tend to keep Facebook out of the picture because, to me, it’s so much more personal than a forum, a blog, even twitter. And it got out of hand.

Featured below, m’loves, are screen shots of all the action. The last two comments were not captured before the entire exchange was deleted. My self-diagnosed OCD kicked in and I actually color coded the conversation for your convenience – I am featured in the yellow-gold color. The intention of this post is not to ruin any relationships that I have with any of the people directly or indirectly involved (which is why I even colored out the avatar images). Note: you may have to click the images for a better view of the conversation.

p>

Now, much like the work of Hannah Arendt, I feel that the banality of an individual’s ideas and actions of any sort are lost in the dominating force that is group think. Unfortunately, people think they are enlightened; they think that they believe these things to be true and they have some sort of social advantage (without basis, mind you) over other groups – whether directly or indirectly – because of the overwhelming support they have from other people who believe the same thing. It takes a considerable amount of courage (and, hell, sometimes even insanity) to move away from the wrong ideas you’ve been spoon-fed for lifetimes.

This conversation spilled over to twitter. After it spilled over to twitter, it spilled over to a telephone conversation of my dear talented, passionate(but misguided on this particular topic) friend pleading with me that he is a good person, not a homophobe, that wants to encourage "men" to be "men" - whatever that means and however that should happen. And my entire problem with that is this: far, far too many individuals allow their beautiful individual selves to die within someone else’s definition of who and how they should be. Aside, what makes a man a man? Do you not see the skewed origin of this thought pattern? I have friends, many great people, caught up and torn in the ideas of what the mainstream deems “normal” – and the scariest part is the fervor and depth of their rationalities.

And though some (and not all) people’s ideas of normality – especially in dealing with the banality of heterosexism” or the ignorance of passing, albeit rationalized-to-them, hate speech – is backed by “good intentions, it’s still just another way for a member of the social status quo to further impose their belief system on other people. So, uhh…how else do you approach individuals with good intentions? I mean, besides the inter-technological beating of a dead horse to a pure pulp? You do what I did – email several different educational resources about gender versus biological sex, so-called “gender roles”, heterosexism/homophobia, hate speech and the idea that all people are actually people!

...being a decent human being does not excuse any of this. It doesn't make it less wrong, and it doesn't make my volume against the issue less audible. As I told my friend, if he were anybody - and I do mean anybody - else saying the things that were said, I'd have been just as riled up and vocal about it all.

Be Righteous.

...but, is it right?

As an all around human rights activist, I often become torn between human rights and cultural/religious values (and/or freedom of expression of such from a more legal nature). Most recently, I've been connecting online with fellow nontheists (even Black ones - and that really helps my not feeling erm, well...alone in thought). Unfortunately, between my work schedule and my not even knowing where and how to get out and meet people, the majority of these acquiantances have been made on twitter and the like while lurking in the wee hours of the morning. I'm beginning to make time for people, but it's a little aggravating to seem to only attract sexual deviants or losers of varying other degrees. I've gained a few other friends and am slowly but surely making progress, though I miss my best friends from home incredibly.

Yet, recently stumbling upon more people with similar not-so-religious world views has become encouraging to me in more ways than one. Most of all, though, it's good to be able to engage in religious debate without being seen as combative or some fisherperson looking for a fight (because, contrary to popular belief, we don't all believe the exact same thing). I was engaged in a conversation with a nontheist friend of mine from college weeks ago, and we shared the same gripe that more and more, atheism/non-religion is becoming organized and behaving religious-like in congregation, even though in our own minds, it's about "unbelief". I truly take pride in contemplating carefully the words choose to use as descriptors, and like another good friend of mine, I loathe labels. I yam what I yam!

At any rate, recently being engaged in another stimulating conversation with a new acquaintance while at work, we were discussing human rights and religious tolerance. And upon reading this re-post on Richard Dawkins' blog, I felt it important to write about. The general gist of the post is the fact that the Saudi Arabian police and fire department "actively hindered" 15 young girls from the escape of their burning school. Why would they do that? Why would the people who maintain an occupation where they ideally would want to help other people participate in trapping young girls in a burning school turned-graveyard? Well, because in fleeing for their lives, they were attempting to escape the school without their head-coverings. Now, as for the recent post on Dawkins' website, there was recently a legislation passed by the religious police to allow male emergency response workers to enter girls-only schools in the event of an emergency (and sorry, the only link that was attached was Dutch, but there is a translation on the other blog). Of course this raises church and state issues, the same issues that seem to cause most social issues in seemingly every society, and that is an issue?

What about Afghanistan's epidemic of child rape? Or in South Africa? Or the women in the Congo? Or the abuse of nuns (that is largely ignored by the mainstream media!) and children's sexual abuse by the Catholic church as an establishment?

He asked if I thought this practice, mainly speaking to Afghan child-rape, to be right and while I naturally said no and elaborated on why - even when abusers claimed the young girls participate in these actions - children cannot consent, why there's no circumstance where an adult should even feel justified in having sex with a child, why it's wrong, becauseweallknowhowlongwindedIcanbe.
And he said, "Okay, I understand what you're saying...but, is it right?"
Well no, hell no it's not right. As a matter of fact, under no circumstances is rape acceptable -- let alone child rape. Not in Islam, not in Catholicism, not in less religious society, not in any form of human interaction is this at all "right".
"...then, why aren't we doing anything?"
Well, now..when you say we? When you say we, are you meaning we, the US? We, the non-religious? We, Black people?
"We, every other person on the planet that behaves under the assumption that this behavior is abusive. Why aren't we doing anything?"
And while I could think of so many reasons that people use to justify why we don't get involved, I couldn't honestly think of one rational reason as to why we don't get involved and stop it.

Now, this isn't about my opinions on religions. This isn't even about my own personal "religious tolerance" - though I hate the term tolerance because it insinuates uncaring acknowledgment versus acceptance of other people. This is about human rights over the right to practice what you believe, however radical and warped a version of whichever concept you believe. Who cares what religious/social/cultural/political/whatever-al label you identify with if you are using that label to justify sexual and physical (and, psychological, as a result) harm toward another person, child or otherwise?

I'm not on a crusade against any ideological group in particular because I am completely fine with who I am; does that mean I don't voice my opinion tactfully with religious people willing to engage in an open discussion about their beliefs? Not at all. I don't go around instigating such situations. I don't passively allow people to discuss religion, prayer or the like as a means to "other" people who may hold the same belief, either. However, upon reflection, is passive non-theism just as allowing of such crimes as the passively religious? -- you know, the people who say "well, see, the way I interpret it..", etc. Is religious tolerance more important than intervening - as people from all over, not governments - where we can without waging war and further upsetting the balance of human and environmental rights worldwide? Should we be doing something more?

Then why aren't we?

Be Righteous.

Sexual Deviants Need Not Apply

Sula: I'm speechless. Like...
Me: Yeah, I know.
Sula: I mean...
Me: ..I know. So, uhm...yeah.
Sula: I really...I mean...
Me:...that's when I knew.
Sula: I didn't see that coming at all...

As old Sophia Petrillo says, picture it:
A few weeks ago, I met a guy who actually seemed pretty cool. After deciding that I just wanted to meet people without any expectations of anything more serious happening, I was really excited that I met someone who seemed to have a very fun and lively personality. We exchanged numbers and began communicating from there; admittedly, he got extra points for being so cool about hearing my trash-talk during our first conversation, and he's so animated and funny to maintain a conversation with.

We went out recently, but it was a really rough day for me. I figured, though, that I would definitely give him another shot at hanging out because he knew the things that unexpectedly ruined my day and he seemed really sincere about offering support in any way.

We had lunch the first day, and it went incredibly well. We parted ways and after a while, he began texting me. I think that he must have been feeling extra flirtatious and wanted to test his boundaries, and that's fine because I have no problem correcting certain behaviors in awkward or inappropriate situations. He began telling me how gorgeous I looked, and even made a joke(?) that the waitress at the restaurant was checking me out. I tried to keep the conversation tame, but somehow he decided to be bold and it went left.

...and that is when he revealed to me that he enjoys watching bestiality porn.

He said he wasn't into acting it out or actually seeing anyone he knows act it out, but that he enjoys watching it has much as he enjoys watching lesbian porn.

Now, in the time I've ever discussed pornography with anybody (including with such issues as ethnically insensitive acts and the objectification of women) I have nevereverevereverevereverEVER had anyone come out of the closet as a deviant saying, "yeah, I love the type of porn where people are fxcking animals." Ever. Naturally, I deflected and just ignored his messages.

What the hell does one even say to that? Before we even had this conversation, I had an idea that our hanging out would not really be on a boyfriend-girlfriend level and I was fine with it, but do I really want to spend any amount of time with someone that...likes bestiality? Like, I don't even know what to say to that...(confused face)

Now, let's discuss bestiality for a minute. I think that many people are anti-anything a lot of times without the ability to articulate why they feel a certain way about a taboo. This is how, in my opinion, morons so easily equate consensual non-heterosexual relationships with things like zoophilia; they just know that they wouldn't do it without understanding why not. In my opinion, the defenseless need protecton and I have very strong views on sexual assault, including engaging in sexual activities with those who don't truly have a say-so in the matter. Animals aren't equipped with the mental capacity to be able to say "I don't really think this is right" or the ability to give verbal/non-verbal cues as to their level of discomfort with the situation. Further, engaging in sexual behavior with animals is similar to sexually abusing children, the elderly, the physically/mentally-disabled, or any other group that is unable to protect themselves. As such, someone coming out of the closet to me about enjoying Tijuana horse shows is along the same lines as someone saying "I only like kiddy porn; I don't actually have sex with children!"

No, but seriously.

So what do you even say to that? Is it okay to just spend time with someone..like that if you're for sure about it never progressing to a certain point? Further, what is it about me that attracts this type of person? (confused face, again)

I..don't..really..get it.

Edit: Thanks to @dredpiraterob for much of the conversation that inspired my writing this post. I'm not sure that I'd have fleshed out these ideas a bit more without discussing the above incident with him.

Rape Victims: Who Cares?

As an advocate and activist, I find myself constantly reminding people that people choose not to report rape/sexual assaults (and may even change their mind down the road) for a number of reasons. While crime dramas can sometimes do a great job portraying how things maybemightsometimes go down, there are a lot of situations that aren't necessarily as "ideal" as TV makes them to be. I'm not going to jump on my "the police aren't your friends" soapbox because I have a confused relationship with the law: I've disclosed being a Detective's kid, and I've also butt heads with several police officers (that know him!). I've read about tensions between Black people and the police, and I've even seen police in my current city go overboard (leave it to me to relocate to South Central, lol). I mean, even my Detective father instructed me on dealing with the local police upon moving because of their heavy-handed reputation. With that said, I have also found myself having to remind all people of this fact: the images that you see on television are for entertainment - they are not real. In other words, the smart, witty, passionate, hardworking detectives you see on Law and Order: SVU are not real people; not every police officer you encounter will have the same caring-"we're-gonna-get-the-bad-guy"-attitude. I am not completely of the opinion that, as a member of the Black community, the support of the police is always lesser. Yet, the Black community minimizes contact with police on a number of issues and a main issue is sexual assault. Sexual Assault Awareness Month fact: 60% of rapes go unreported. With the knowledge that Black women are compounded with the tension of race and the police, can you imagine the statistic for Black women who are sexually assault?

I've had the pleasure of collaborating with the police in combating sexual assault and advocating for victims. I've met SVU detectives that I felt should be in a different line of work. On one occasion, I was advocating for an 18 year old Black lady that had been sexually assault by a way older family friend. She told me that the investigating detective, a white woman, told her that it was her fault she was raped. Ideally, the police would work together with advocates and, maybe sometimes, they do; yet, it is difficult to bridge the gap when there are few Black women advocating (because of the inherited silence on the matter) and when young Black women are being told by the police that there would be no investigation on their attack - proof or not - because of something they did to perpetuate the attack.

I browsed this article on Alternet a couple of days ago, and my attention was redirected to it last night by my good friend Rippa (check out his blog: The Intersection of Madness and Reality). The story is, unfortunately in my experience, not uncommon: young woman drugged and date raped, goes to police, is given the run around, and ultimately, not believed by the authorities. Further, the authorities try convincing her that she was drunk (when she was drugged!). This happened to a student of an HBCU, so if you assumed she was a young white girl by default, figure race into the equation. Now, read on, The Story of the Night Hannah Was Not "Officially" Raped:

April 17, 2010

On Saturday, Dec. 9, 2006, Hannah* woke up in her Howard University dorm room with a piece of her life missing. Hannah, a 19-year-old sophomore, had unexplained pain in her rectum and hip. Her panty liner, which she had worn the night before, was missing. Vomit dotted her gloves and coat. Her friend Kerston lay beside her in the skinny dorm room bed. Kerston told Hannah not to shower -- they had to go back to the hospital to secure a rape kit. That weekend, Hannah claims that she was provided the following excuses for why she could not receive a sexual assault medical forensic examination: She was drunk; she ate a sandwich; she was a liar; she didn't know her attacker's last name; the police had to authorize the exam; she was outside the hospital's jurisdiction; she wasn't reporting a real crime; she was blacked out; she changed her story; her case was already closed.

The article continues:

"We think she's been raped," Kerston and Sade informed an orderly as they dragged her into the hospital. Hospital officials handed Sade some paperwork to fill out on Hannah's behalf. In the box indicating the reason for the ER visit, Sade testifies that she wrote, "raped, possibly drugged." A nurse sat Hannah down and took her blood pressure. Hannah threw up on the floor. Kerston and Sade helped to clean it up off of the ground. The nurse put a vomit bag in Hannah's hands. She was incoherent and barely conscious. She threw up into the bag. According to the girls' testimony, when a doctor finally saw Hannah, she determined that she was too incoherent to consent to receive a rape kit, because she couldn't verbally confirm that she had been raped. According to the girls, the doctor told them to take Hannah home, let her sleep it off, make sure she didn't shower, and then return to Howard University Hospital for a rape kit the next day. When the girls begged the doctor to treat Hannah's symptoms of sexual assault and drugging, the girls claim that the doctor told them to leave the ER. (The doctor testified that she informed Hannah's friends that they would have to wait six to eight hours before Hannah was treated, and that the girls chose to leave the hospital without treatment). When Kerston and Sade took Hannah back to her dorm, she threw up again.

This incident is also in my new location, and I have to catch myself from saying what should have happened since I am a newbie to the area. However, where I used to live, this is what, ideally, would have happened: immediately taken to triage based on the symptoms, an advocate from the local sexual assault agency called, and then, if the victim indicates, the police will be called. It should happen in that order (if the victim is over 18 years old) because of (new) blind reporting legislation that allows the victim, as long as there are no sustained injuries, to decide whether or not she would like to press charges. The advocate should arrive before a rape kit is done to ensure procedure is followed, the support the victim, and to serve as a liaison between the hospital and the victim. I am of the opinion that if any of these links are missed, if any part of the protocol is skipped, then it falls apart at the interest of the victim.

There are so many organizations in this area that advocate for victims and, from what I've heard, they do a wonderful job. What happened to "Hannah" this night was a complete disaster on so many fronts beyond the physical and mental trauma associated with being sexually assaulted; "Hannah" faced every rape victims fear: not being believed or treated fairly and, ultimately, being punished for her victimization.

Be Righteous.

Rape of 7 Year Old in Jersey

I was discussing this incident with my aunts this weekend, and it's a difficult thing to understand. Where does a fifteen year old even get it in her mind that selling her seven year old sister -- let alone herself -- and allowing several men (who should know better) to do something like this? Why is a twenty year old man at a party with a fifteen year old girl? Very frustrating.

The upside of anger is that the Hip Hop Community is set to become active in raising awareness as a result of this incident. While it may be a little late, it's inspiring. Especially when Black women activists like myself have mixed emotions about our relationship with hip hop.

Be Righteous.

Rape Video Games?

Question:

Do we really need to discuss why a game that simulates sexual violence is NOT okay? Seriously? You stalk a girl of your choosing (that you can dress to your desire), rape her, even gang rape her and "suggest" she get an abortion, and the way to win the game is to rape her? And the rape, by the way, is a "revenge rape" -- which was motivated by accusations of molestation by the character in the game? And this is all okay because it's a video game? Are you f@*#ing kidding me?

And I can see a counter argument for this being violent video games being accessible and legal. And I think that while they are similar, it is a poor argument. This isn't new; I've expressed a clear disdain for Hentai and rape fantasy pornography in the non-internet-world before. It's sick, degrading, disgusting. Sexual violence is a whole 'nother ball game, folks.

Be Righteous.

Let's Discuss: Robin Quivers!

While I was a little perturbed by Jamie Foxx's comments about the "Notorious Precious", especially in the wake of Howard Stern's verbal attack on Gabourey Sibide, I thought it was less malicious than Howard and Robin's comments. While not justified (or funny, really), it didn't seem to be fueled by hatred, just miseducation.

I have my feelings about Robin Quivers, Howard's token sidekick who happens to be a Black woman. I can sympathize with the idea that she has a "house n^#%a" personality: rejecting her own cultural identity, appearing to do whatever to please the master. I can see that. I understand that point of view and I am even willing to cosign.

What I am not willing to cosign is the below video of Jamie Foxx and co on "The Foxxhole" taking the disrespect to another level.

...of all the things to "joke" about, continual molestation jokes? Corey Holcomb, an apparent regular personality on show, was the main issuer of such jokes. There's nothing funny about molestation. Also featured in the video is slut-shaming and lesbian bashing and tran/gay-bashing toward the end (after the caller).

You know, I don't really have a problem with "counter attacks" that are justified and logical in approach, but this was just distasteful.

I'm not sure how much Robin Quivers acknowledges her black/womanness, but it just illustrates, to me, that these things aren't invisible to others, no matter how much you are willing to ignore them; Black women are attacked on all sides. Even as a survivor of child sexual assault/molestation, she is being shamed for someone else's actions.

Shame on The Foxxhole. How distasteful.
Be Righteous.

Early/HyperSexualization of Children

I decided upon sleep early tonight, once again, and at 12am I woke up and started flippin' out like I slept til 12pm and missed something! It was a much funnier scene than I could describe, and since everyone in my home was in their respective quarters, nobody was around to share the giggles with me.

At any rate, once awake and unable to go back to sleep as a result of my foul mood I decided to go to the computer and catch up on some blog/news reading. I came across an article over at Alternet entitled "Is Our Sexed-up Society Creating Prosti-tots?" It reminded me of a conversation that I was having with someone, otherwise an incorrigible asshole, about pageant moms and the children victimized and dragged into a world that they don't understand (or really need to). Aside, it also reminded me of the several conversations I've had to force upon have with my pre-teen cousins about maturity, image, positive female role-models, and - well - Nicki Minaj. They're crazy about her, and this, in turn, makes me crazy. Also, very recently the oldest began listening to "Tik Tok" by Ke$ha (she's so 2000-and-late) and I'm positive that she doesn't know what a "bottle of Jack" is. This peeves me because I've never been the person to say things that I don't understand (or haven't researched thoroughly in my analytical nature), so naturally, it's another unrealistic expectation I have of people. I guess if sense and courtesy were both common...

Snippet below:

Last week’s YouTube sensation was the adorkable 12-year-old Avery, all haystack hair and crooked glasses and giant Bugs Bunny teeth, lip-syncing in her messy bedroom to the Ke$ha mega-hit "TiK ToK.” (Sample lyrics: “I'm talking about everybody getting crunk, crunk / Boys tryin' to touch my junk, junk.”)

What’s awesome about Avery is that -- especially given the other sagaciously smart-ass material on her YouTube channel -- it’s safe to say she is totally in on the joke. (Doofy kid + “brush my teeth with a bottle of Jack” = funny!) She’s not trying, pathetically/disturbingly, to be grownup “hot.” She’s letting her creative eccentric ironic sarcastic confident dweeb flag fly. “I’munna fight!” indeed.

But much of Avery’s charm comes from the fact that she embodies a refreshing counterpoint to (if not commentary on) everything that is disturbing these days about pop culture for young girls. In other words, she’s not Azucena Diaz, the Peruvian 9-year-old who remade Britney’s “Toxic” video shot into terrifying soft-porn (and was then applauded for it, when she wasn’t being enthusiastically slut-shamed, slash, threatened with sexual assault). Diaz is not just shaking what God gave her. (Though God did appear to give her an unusually large budget.) She is shaking what we gave her and her tween peers: the super-sexualized "prosti-tot” culture that re-packages porn as mainstream "sexy" and posits “hotness” -- as opposed to, say, math -- as a girl’s highest attainable goal.

Be Righteous.

Stand Up To Live

I was recently asked where my interest in activism originated. I never really thought about it, but I replied my thoughts on the fact that, I think, some people are just born with an activist's mind and spirit. I know the things that I am passionate about, and I am very firm in my convictions, but a lot of my beliefs are very different from those of my family members, and even some of my close friends. And they've always been.

I've always been interested in Black leadership and human civil rights. I've always been crazy enough to believe that if enough of us wanted to make change happen, it will happen. I've always believed that if you aren't willing to speak out and against wrongdoing, then you are silently allowing it to happen. I've constantly spoken about my proud roots in nerdom; but I think that intelligence without the willpower to motivate any form of change or without the slightest bit of social labor is meaningless and selfish. Henry David Thoreau said: "How vain is it that you have sat down to write when you have not stood up to live." This is one of my favorite quotes. I love applying it to politics and the rule-makers, especially in the ongoing debate on health care, because many of the people who are in charge don't know the needs of the people because they've not been there. I do think that writing is a beautiful form of activism; blogging is still an evolving process. To inspire people who have traditionally cared little about moving forward in resolving the issues of the world is one of the most fantastic things about the internet. Sure, you have to push past a lot of bullshit before you get down to the good stuff, but it's there and people are, at the very least, becoming advocates in their minds; delivering words of encouragement, motivation, revolution. People should do what they can, and if writing is all that they are able to do, so be it.

In the last year, I met two of my sister-inspirations. On separate occasions, I met SisterLegend Angela Davis and SisterWarrior (heh, I stole that from her) Aishah Shahidah Simmons. Over the course of my life, several other sister-inspirations that aren't "famous"(?) for their social activism have come into my life and I've always been attracted to forcing change and balance into a world that has, for too long, lacked both qualities. Many people don't know that I was considering studying History in school (after my stint as both a Music and Creative Writing Major). I always enjoyed learning about slavery and civil rights in school, and you know what? I've never had a problem arguing with my teacher about the supposed "truth" that they fed me versus what my Dad schooled me on at home.

I wish I could say I developed this spirit in high school or college like most people I know (and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that), but the truth is I've thrown my fist in the air without regard to when and where; I've burned a bra before I wore one. Even though my mother chose to straighten my hair when I was young, I've eternally internally maintained the spirit of my nappy roots (and proved it when I cut my long, straight hair off in high school).

Why should anybody else care to be an activist?

1. It not only helps the people who need it, but it improves the quality of life for people who do not directly benefit from it.
2. It's a challenge, and something that people can commit to for the rest of their lives.
3. For the next generation.
4. For the generation that has yet to be born; who wants to bring children into a world stuck in social desolation?
5. Because Black people/women people/bi-gay-lesbian-trans(sexual AND gendered) people/Immigrants (legal or otherwise)/Native Americans (who were here before any of us)/poor people/abused persons/children/victims of crime/people who are looking to change their lives after committing crime/the religious AND secularists/atheists/religious minorities/any other disadvantaged group of people are still people. It doesn't matter if you "don't agree" or think it's "okay as long as they keep _____ away from you"; disagreeing isn't your business and by contending that someone else can live a certain way as long as you don't have to see it forces people into boxes and closets.
6. It could always get worse.
7. If you allow it to get worse, you could be directly affected.
8. Being complacent in a situation where you have and always directly benefited only makes you a perpetrator of the wrongdoing.
9. If you don't care now, will you care when things get drastically worse?
10. What did the historically disadvantage fight for? For THIS?! Would they be disappointed?
11. The progress that has been made is great, but is it enough?
12. Your great-great-great-grandmothers were slaves , Black people (not even that many "greats" for some people). And white people, you are also related to this slave; you know why? Because your direct great-great-great-grandmothers were nursed by her and your great-great-great-grandfather raped her and had kids with her too.
13. Because people are still discussing whether or not the first Black President is a citizen, only to avoid saying flat out that they don't think he's capable because of his skin color.
14. Because no great movement is a movement of one person; they have to have back-up to move forward against the people who don't want them to.
15. Because there is a Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.
16. Because far too many people are unaware of their rights!
17. Because the media disproportionately reports crimes occurring to young, single, white, females far more than they report Black women that have gone missing.
18. I know if feels safe to not be involved and not feel obligated to question what is spoon fed to you, but I know seven words that should dissuade any person's complacency: Who is in control of your mind?
19. The "big" movements were not that long ago; my mother was a young child when Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated.
20. We take for granted the little things that we have in life, like clean air and water.
21. The world's natural disasters are scary enough without having to be concerned about whether or not people respect you behind closed doors.
22. To teach someone who "doesn't know better" to feel, think, and act better.
23. Because hate speech motivates hate acts, especially among those who aren't able to distinguish the difference between reality and entertainment.
24. Because if we continue to fight each other, the job of the person that expects failure from us is done without much effort on his/her own part.
25. Because far too much bullshit gets taken seriously (and as such, serious issues are regarded as bullshit and, eventually, ignored).
26. The people who are really in charge (forget all that official stuff) are more concerned about their money than your rights.
27. Because people are ingesting toxic food daily, and fast-food chains and supermarkets are allowing it to happen.
28. All people are still not regarded as equal in the eyes of the law!
29. For the people who have died on death row before advancements in DNA evidence, and for people who are STILL being exonerated. I met a death row exonoree two years ago and it changed my life. How the fuck would you feel after you've been on death row for over 18 years for a crime that you had absolutely nothing to do with?
30. Because people still use religion as a reason to harm other people.
31. Female genital mutilation.
32. Because so many people don't even know that there are conflicts and civil wars currently happening that people do not know about.
33. People still think that only gay men can contract and spread HIV/AIDS.
34. Because I have been called a nigger in my lifetime. I was three, and it was by my three-year-old white best friend who, by the way, was the daughter of a preacher.
35. Because even if I didn't know gay people, I'd still have sense enough to know that they are people.
36. Because minorities are disproportionately affected by the recession.
37. Because when I began typing "Black people" in my google search, the first prediction was "Black people jokes". Word?

38. Women only gained the right to vote in 1920. That's less than 100 years ago.
39. Rosa Parks was not the first or only arrested for refusing to give her seat up to white people; she's just the most famous. If it weren't for the others, though, Rosa wouldn't have become such an influence. Believe that.
40. Because of police brutality.
41. Because people who take rape jokingly are laughing all the way to to bank, while you're broke and laughing at their tv shows.
42. Violence against women starts young and often goes unreported.
43. Because being involved with something positive is the right thing to do.
44. Activists and advocates live longer because they feel as though they have something to stick around for.
45. Thousands of people are killed by drunk drivers every year.
46. Because life is beautiful; how do you know how good yours is if you don't know how bad it has the potential to be?
47. To be someone's role model. I love feeling like I've inspired someone, and it's an even better feeling when they tell you that you have.
48. To be remembered when your time is up.
49. Because democracy is defined by nearly every source who knows the word as: a political government either carried out directly by the people or by means of elected representatives of the people.
50. Because if you don't stand for something, you're bound to fall for anything. And fighting doesn't have to be physical to make an impact.

Be Righteous.