Conspiracy Theories: Pro-Choice and Eugenics

It is entirely possibly to discuss the choices in reproductive freedoms and birth control without entertaining the ideas of eugenics and genocide. I don't praise or worship Margaret Sanger for her classist, and subsequently racist, stance on eugenics and birth control. Similarly, let the record reflect that I'm not thrilled about positive eugenics propoganda handed over by the conspiracy theorist militant Negroes of our communities.

Okay. I understand that this might sound harsh. I also understand that people specify desirable qualities they look for in their mate, which may support a degree of positive eugenics in future family planning. Let's ignore the minor degrees of positive eugenics theories and jump right into the extreme ones. For example, I have an associate that I very much value for a lot of different reasons and opinions. However, in our initial correspondances, he made it clear that he was impressed with my beauty as a young Black woman; aside from my physical beauty, he made it clear that I am very intelligent, knowledgable, and resourceful. And so, in complimenting my personal characteristics, his solution to our friendship was this: we should have children together to improve the quality and condition of the entire Black community, and so that the Black race could better compete with the world. And I did not find this to be brilliant, but instead insulting. Positive eugenics is the practice of encouraging the so-called "genetically advantaged" to procreate. Before, during, and after my dear mixed-up associate identified me as genetically desirable, I leaned away from the idea of having a family. And so, the feeling in my stomach when discussing such theories as his pushed me further and further away from the idea of being a mother. As I often say, not in the forseeable future.

In my veryveryvery not-so humble opinion, when minority communities embrace pro-positive eugenic theories, it not only detracts from the work and responsibility of parents and community in raising children (nurture), but it validates the things that white slave masters actively practiced and believed in with regard to the reproductive exploitation of women slaves in America (nature).

In the early 1900s, Margaret Sanger did fully support negative eugenics - or using birth control to limit fertility as a means to eliminate those deemed genetically unfit - and she did birth the American Birth Control League. As a Black woman, I do not deny nor excuse any of this. This is factual, despite my personal ideologies. She, however, raised a substantial amount of positive points not specific to eugenics, that bleed into different realms of reproduction and human sexuality.

While I am becoming better at respectfully disagreeing and not using what I deem to be, well, just wrong and using it to invalidate all of a person's opinions, it has always been difficult for me to not look at a person and judge them based on their evils. Yet and still, I will respect and defend my mixed-up associate as I will certain aspects of Margaret Sanger in being pro-choice.

The idea that I am supposed to procreate with the aforementioned associate is an inside joke that often comes up between us. When recently joked about, my response was simply that the world is overcrowded and beyond capacity in terms of human population, and that I'd rather not be part of the problem. And while the joking response of my assicate turned my stomach, the theme that anti-choice sentiment included sparked a teeny tiny debate. Yes, there is such a thing. "Our child might be the solution," he says, "with my ferocity and your attitude, he could one day kill millions." I sighed a 'no thanks' to avoid what could have been a match of repartee, and he continued, "I don't think you could make a greater contribution to the resolution of over-population." Laugh, "He could be deadlier than Planned Parenthood."

My response, quick and simple, "Planned Parenthood has helped many women. Not having Planed Parenthood is 'deadlier' than Planned Parenthood. Word." Word. I often think that people like starting with me to see my fire and passion. To see my mind work. To see if I'll back down. (As recent as this morning, my dad tried his best to set me off and then told me that my eyes were really pretty when I am angered.) And so, here we are:

Him, "I thought that would enliven you." Laugh, "But what is the ethnic breakdown of abortion in America and the world. If a people have an adversarial perspective of us, isn't it easier to kill a warrior as an embryo than kill him later on the battlefield?" That was poetic.

Me, "Abortion, unless it isn't a choice to have or NOT have one, is a choice that women make. The problem with anti-choice sentiments is that they don't take into account the choice, and on the other end -- the nonsafe abortions that have and will continue as a result of limiting our resources. One could argue that limiting our resources and having anti-choice billboards specific to the Black community is their way of having us kill ourselves." This is the problem with conspiracy theories.

Him, "What Black people don't consider is demography and the correlation between population shifts and power on our planet. That's why China is such a beast now. They outnumber Americans 5 to 1." Well now, what's that got to do with the price of tea in China? Oh wait.

Me, "That's a separate issue to genocide and certainly to the population overcrowding. And also, poor exdample as China has a limit on children they can birth. And since male children are socially more desirable, female children are adopted out, abandoned, or killed. Which goes back to anti-choice in issues of reproduction and women's bodies. Boom." Boomboomboom.

Him, "I'm talking about birth control as a part of a genocide policy. What are your views on that?"

Me, "I think that if you aren't considering the idea of choice in birth control tactis, you're missing the point. And it isn't genocide unless mandated and/or institutionalized."

Him, "So the issue of choice is tantamount, even in a mass murder plot? Restrict resources and promote pro-choice billboards as part of a genocide campaign? Pretty crafty, but the people are awakening today. And since when does Congress vote on a genocide resolution? The demographers say that at the present rate of birth, Blacks and latinos will be the majority in America by 2050. And you don't think a racist mind would employ and fund Planned Parenthood regardless of its mission statement, to prevent the rise in our numbers?"

Instead of addressing each and every impassioned point that he point he made, the bells sounded and I brought the conversation to a halt. Scrrrrrrrrrrrch. Do I find conspiracy theories interesting? Absolutely. I do not entertain every one thrown at me, of course, but the ones that are detailed enough to illustrate any level of serious reflection at their own inception should be entertained for the amount of effort utilized. I don't know that this was one of those moments. Looking back on it, the response was so well articulated that it may have deserved more than I gave it.

Me, "You can't have it both ways -- you can't say the enemy is plotting and then suggest we are too awakened to fall for it. You're contradicting yourself and eery argument you've ever made. That you suggest the 'enemy' is plotting against us, but then say that my argument [about the pro-choice billboards encourages us to kill ourselves with back-alley abortions] is unappealing because we're awakened. One cancels out the other. Your argument provides that the level of consciousness be qualified, and that is subjective. You can't cancel out my argument in using the 'awakening' but allow your argument to still be valid." Research: unsafe/illegal abortions.

While the debate did not turn ugly and emotional, it did end as they often do: with my being told to step by game up in order to identify "evil machinations executed from high levels of power" and questioning whether or not I truly identify that there is an opponent.

More than anything, I oppose themes and ideologies; if I opposed people instead, my associate and I would not have any interest in speaking to one another for the fiery debates in the past that often ended in name-calling. (I'm not a namecaller.) I'd have to considering turning away from people much more for their choices and beliefs that are anti-me. It would be difficult to survive in our world, and I would be forced to be alone. My work would be destroyed; I've reluctantly advocated for people who hated me more than the forces that are against us.

I'm learning. Respect. Be Righteous.

Subliminal Messages in Internet Advertising

In searching for the right things to write, especially among my own internal reflections and contemplations, I recently decided to work on independent research projects for myself. In essence, I decided that I'd continue my involvement in academia in this way, and accomplish the things that I'd like to accomplish on my own time; and so, your favorite nerd-activist will be submerged in the depths of academic research, purely for leisure, and hopefully reporting any interesting findings to the masses.

In the midst of researching reproductive exploitation during US slavery, I stumbled upon a page about slave breeding. The page was brief and fairly informative, but featured on the left hand panel was an advertisement. I will add that I have no idea how internet advertising actually works (what goes where and when), but I found it ironic, insulting, and powerful to the point. Screenshot below.

It reads: "AfroRomance: Where Love is More Than Skin Deep" and features a white man appearing to lay on top of a Black woman. Not captured in the screenshot is the "search for interracial singles". Interesting to have appeared on the "slave breeding" site.

Take from it what you will. Be righteous.

Take Two: Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtianti

In my far-too-long hiatus from the blog, I've only consistently received a comment here and there on my post about Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtianti, the Iranian mother who was found guilty of adultery and sentenced to death by stoning. The comments that I did receive ranged from insinuating that I was, simply put, an ignorant American girl who had no concept of anything dealing with the Islamic laws to being in support of the revolution that Iran and other Islamic nations are undergoing -- but from a distance.

I'm not "crying" for true justice as some American-citizen girl with no concept of the world. I am, however, advocating that the few people who stumble upon my opinions be awakened to the horrors of the inhumane nature that some people possess as a citizen of the world. As a matter of fact, this fight is hardly about the constantly purported dangers of Islam - but much rather the dangers of a religiously fundamental (or, even based) political body governing the behaviors, thoughts, actions, and opinions of a set of the people.

Is it just that any person be stoned for any crime at all? If you answered yes, then I'd question the depth and completeness of your humanity. And I'd also ask for what crime is death by stoning not cruel and unusual? This woman was originally sentenced to death by stoning for committing the crime of adultery; and for those who are confused on the definition of adultery, it is simply extra-marital sex. The originally referenced post is not about whether or not adultery is morally wrong. Instead, it is about the cruel and unusual nature of the sentence death by stoning.

Ansar739 3 days ago in reply to livication
Please stop crying... why you people cant see the bombardment of USA on innocccent people in the name of terrorism?? is't that cruel?? Please stop crying and stop saying anything against islam. Islam is the only religion in the universe and if she is guilty then this is the right punishment.

Indeed, many religious individuals see their beliefs to be the only set of accurate beliefs, and indeed - I absolutely disagree with this assessment with every ounce of my ability to do so, and have always held the view that if only one religion was accurate, then there would not be more than one religion. This, no doubt, is one of several roots of my own atheism; the practice of religious fundamentalism is quite dangerous. My opinions on extremism and religious supremacy are not Islam-specific - they also are applied to various other religious divisions. While I may not update my blog very often any more, I have been updating my twitter and on that note, I have several tweets(/facebook posts) that are specific to the current anti-Islamic and Islamaphobic sentiment currently being expressed by some across America. And the updates are along the same note: the marriage of politics and religion is most dangerous and impractical to the evolving nature of society and to true freedom. I have vehemently expressed my disappointment and total disagreement on book burnings and the Jim Crow-esque positions on "Ground Zero Mosque".

Lastly, what makes death by stoning even more cruel and unusual is the same sentiment I apply to the death penalty across America, as unintentionally expressed by the above referenced commenter: the "if" factor. When I was in my last year of college, I met a death row exoneree that was brought to the university for a lecture. He was on death row for 18 years; 18 years of his life were spent behind bars when he had never had any conflict with the law, for a crime that he did not commit. The truth of the matter is that there are biases from within the system, and there are mistakes made. And the above commenter stated that "if" she is guilty, then this is proper punishment. I suppose the logic would follow that, if she isn't guilty...then, oh well.

This isn't about my being American and looking down at Islamic nations, because I acknowledged the lack of separation of church-and-state in my previous post regarding this situation. Yet, as a human being, this is about the right of another human being. This is a human issue.

With all the secrecy of the situation, I'd like to just point out that her sentence is suspended and the situation has not come to a complete resolve. Last I read, her son has requested actual proof of the "on hold" status of Sakineh's sentence, and the government has yet to substantiate it in writing.

Be Righteous.

...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.

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.

The Root of the Problem

I submitted this post a few days ago to another blog; in the event that it is posted, I'll be sure to attach a link!

Initially, I wanted to be outraged at "The Health Care Bill Should Tax Weaves Like It Taxes Tanning", an blurb written by Cord Jefferson of The Root. Here's why: 2010 is the year of scrutiny for Black women. We've been under a perpetual magnifying glass; the blog world and mainstream media have been studying Black women, like a new species that has gone from the wild to domestic life in recent years. We have become a major topic of discussion for makeshift anthropologists who are interested in our lifestyles, mating practices, relationships and income. Not to discredit the social sciences, but news reporters and blog writers are not sociologists and the much focused on question of "why are you successful Black women single" has been given so much attention in 2010 alone that is has become disgusting.

The aforementioned post at The Root was not that, though. As a matter of fact, I found myself nodding in agreement instead of shaking with outrage at the author's rationale. In short, Cord Jefferson proposes, in a tone that mixes logic with a bit of parody, that since the health care bill has recently added a tax to tanning because of its medically unhealthy consequences (otherwise known as cancer), it should follow that fake hair is also taxed for the same reasons. This may sound a little offputting at first; after all, the use fake hair does not cause cancer or other medical repurcussions...does it? Well, I don't have the answer to that, but I will say that the article uses weaves as an example to identify more than it's really saying: the chemicals and other things that Black women use in our hair are unhealthy for us. This isn't simply an attack on relaxers, which is also why I'm not convinced that it is solely an attack on Black women more than it is an attempt to identify that our self-image needs adjusting. There are photos all over the web of women and girls that have had allergic reactions to relaxers, hair color, texturizers, and other chemicals that we plaster ourselves with to adjust the way that the world sees us, and to boost the way that we see ourselves. Some allergic reactions are so severe that they do, in fact, require medical attention and while the dermatological effects may not be as expensive or long term as cancer treatments, they are parallel experiences. White women, too, suffer from body image issues which is one reason for unhealthy behaviors that may just cause cancer. Equally, Black women participate in other unhealthy behaviors that, similarly to white women's issues, have been recycled and evolved over time. That is not to say that we do not suffer a longer, more severe systematic form of psychological oppression simply based on our perception of beauty; rather, it is hitting on just that.

Jefferson pulls examples from Tyra to Beyonce, and even posts a recent picture that hit the web of Naomi Campbell's major hair loss. Even so, the most important thing brought out in this post is the following sentence:

Perhaps some of the money saved could even go toward things like social welfare programs designed to help young black girls stop fetishizing straight blonde hair in the first place.

This is the bottom line of it all: image. While the author did not go in great depth about the historical contexts and the evolution of how Black women view themselves, consciously or subconsciously, I gathered that this was a light hearted attempt for a man to speak out about Black women's body image issues and, in my opinion, it did what it was supposed to do. Disgusted, irritated, confused or, like myself, satisfied with the article, it was meant to create a dialogue amongst ourselves. Black men might just be paying attention to our behaviors, and that makes me wonder if we are giving as much thought to our rituals as some other people may be. As a self-identifying Black feminist/womanist/women's rights activist, there are so many battles that Black women face in our macro- and micro-societies; it's just as important to channel some sort of energy within ourselves to reflect and understand the traditions that we recycle and identify whether or not the real root of the problem is worth defending.

Be Righteous.

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.

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.

Article: Washington Post - 5/30/10

I did not write this but I really enjoyed reading it! Here's a snippet and there is a link to the full article in the title.

The fake feminism of Sarah Palin

By Jessica Valenti
Sunday, May 30, 2010

Sarah Palin sure is dropping the f-bomb a lot lately.
In a widely noted speech this month to the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion-rights group, Palin invoked the words "feminism" and "feminist" no less than a dozen times. She called for a "pro-woman sisterhood" and addressed the "sisters" in the audience. If it weren't for the regular references to gun rights, you might have thought you were listening to Gloria Steinem.

If this rhetoric seems uncharacteristic of the former governor of Alaska, that's because it is. When running for vice president in 2008, Palin flip-flopped on the feminist question, telling CBS's Katie Couric that she is one, but later telling NBC's Brian Williams, "I'm not going to label myself anything."

Today, however, Palin is happily adopting the feminist label. She's throwing support behind "mama grizzly" candidates, describing the large number of women in the "tea party" as evidence of a "mom awakening" and preaching girl power on her Facebook page.

It's not a realization of the importance of women's rights that's inspired the change. It's strategy. Palin's sisterly speechifying is part of a larger conservative move to woo women by appropriating feminist language. Just as consumer culture tries to sell "Girls Gone Wild"-style sexism as "empowerment," conservatives are trying to sell anti-women policies shrouded in pro-women rhetoric.

Check it out!