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.

Wow! A LOT Has Been Going On!

So much has been going on in the last couple of days and it's been quite remarkable. I think I'm finally settled in the new place (and finally have internet access so I'm back in the bloggin' business!), and I've been running around crazily for weeks!

A few great things though! I suppose the first of really important things happening was the decision by the CA court that Prop 8 is unconstitutional! That's a big deal, and after I read through the ruling, I was (1) ecstatic that there are rational individuals in positions to make important decisions (I'd given up hope for sometime) and (2) disturbed that it even required a hearing -- especially with the pro-prop-8ers and their poor case. I mean, seriously? Reading through the lengthy court document made me disappointed in humanity -- especially when religious institutions throw the "they can be gay in private but not in public -- for the sake for the kids!" argument into our contemporary 2010, freedom-of (and freedom from) religion American society. What a headache it is to know that people still exist with so much irrational hatred (and think that it's totally okay and justifiable!).

The "Ground Zero Mosque" (and I the only one offended by the actual name?) has been approved. And good on them. All Muslims aren't "terrorists". It really amazes me that people are so worked up about this mosque. I saw protesters on the news the other day holding signs that said something to the effect of "building a mosque at ground zero is like building a Hitler statue at Auschwitz". Seriously? Is it? That's a little ridiculous and you can't systemically oppress another religious group's practice of their faith because of your own supremacist views. Period. Oh, and I'm a nontheist. So, yeah.

Then there's that whole immigration thing in Arizona. Still and still. I don't have a comment prepared.

I suppose that's all I have for now! Cheers, and have a happy weekend!

Be Righteous.

For the Privileged

A few days ago I transitioned from my old-new-home back down to my new-home-in-my-old-city. I lugged boxes around in 100-degree weather like the wonder woman I tend to be, and when I got down for a break, I reviewed a message from a concerned male acquaintance asking how he as a recipient of privilege (as a male) could move beyond that privilege to aide in change and revolution.

Instantly, with much sincerity and love, I applauded his efforts at acknowledging himself as a recipient of privilege on the basis of his maleness - and in comparison with Black females alone. It has been my experience that getting men of color to acknowledge privilege is a difficult task. The thing that is important to remember is that we are not only one thing; we do not only have to be one thing. The problem that a lot of people have with Black women and feminism/womanism/women's rights is that these ideas are centred around the oppression faced as women, versus the oppression on fronts of our color. Unfortunately for women of color, racial and gender-based oppression can come both separately and together. Also, while men of color (among other classifications) are discriminated against as a result of their color, they are often give special bias as a result of their maleness - hence, "privilege." My answer to moving beyond privilege is that acknowledging it is the best way to start. I mean, if you know you're in a privileged class in our shitty socially constructed hierarchy, then the best thing you can do initially is to acknowledge the privilege and educate other members of your group who don't identify as privileged understand what privilege is and the role that it plays in our society - both historically and in a contemporary context.

The next question, though, was this: if he (and others) know and can acknowledge that there is a disparity in the treatment of men and women, white people and persons of color, the rich and the poor -- what is their incentive for evening out the playing field?

This question always reminds me of those using-religion-to-justify-morality statements; surely someone who is able to acknowledge and fully understand how they have benefited by privilege, in a society that allows the construction of social and systemic inequality on the basis of any characteristic they do not control, should feel for the disadvantaged on want to change it just on that basis, right? Surely there should be no incentive for doing the right thing beyond their own conscience and consciousness, right? I don't know the answer. I don't know that there is an incentive beyond feeling for the those who are disadvantaged and oppressed in a modern and allegedly intellectually advanced era.

Be Righteous.

Also, for more posts on privilege, click here to a post I wrote a while back. It has links to some good work done on acknowledging male privilege in the Black community.

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.

What, to the Slave, is the Fourth of July?

I posted a snippet of this speech in a previous post written about Juneteenth and Black independence. On Independence Day in 1852, Frederick Douglass delivered the speech "What, to the slave, is the Fourth of July", which discussed the hypocrisy of the country celebrating liberation from one nation while enslaving human beings in their own.

I often quote this speech because it truly illustrates so many themes, including the application of certain moral standards where they affect the interest of the person or party making the judgments; while this speech is my main reason for not supporting American Independence Day, these themes can be applied to our government in many other ways today. The contemporary political climate for many Americans is a systemically oppressive and socially enslaving reality. This has to change. We have to change.

Below is the speech in its entirety. I know that it may be lengthy, but my "Independence Day" ritual is to read and reflect upon it. The speech does speak about the "Christian god", but understand that this idea was/still is the socially expected norm during that time. I'm not that anti-American; America as a nation, gained its independence from the British on July 4, 1776. However, the truth of the matter is that there were many people, even beyond slaves, that were looked down upon and treated unfairly. Many people may ask why the majority of Blacks in America even identify with the enslaved if they are unable to trace their roots directly back to slavery. I'll say this: even if you were not enslaved (or if you do not know whether or not your ancestors were), we are bound by more than our skin color; as a result of slavery, and eventually the development of segregation and Jim Crow, we are still at a systematic disadvantage as a result of how we have traditionally been viewed as a result of our skin color. Other disadvantaged groups where these ideas apply include, but are not limited to: the LGBTQ community, women, mentally ill, and non-Christians.

Fellow citizens, pardon me, and allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I or those I represent to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? And am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits, and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?

Would to God, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be truthfully returned to these questions. Then would my task be light, and my burden easy and delightful. For who is there so cold that a nation's sympathy could not warm him? Who so obdurate and dead to the claims of gratitude, that would not thankfully acknowledge such priceless benefits? Who so stolid and selfish that would not give his voice to swell the hallelujahs of a nation's jubilee, when the chains of servitude had been torn from his limbs? I am not that man. In a case like that, the dumb might eloquently speak, and the "lame man leap as an hart."

But such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you this day rejoice are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity, and independence bequeathed by your fathers is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak today? If so, there is a parallel to your conduct. And let me warn you, that it is dangerous to copy the example of a nation (Babylon) whose crimes, towering up to heaven, were thrown down by the breath of the Almighty, burying that nation in irrecoverable ruin.

Fellow citizens, above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions, whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are today rendered more intolerable by the jubilant shouts that reach them. If I do forget, if I do not remember those bleeding children of sorrow this day, "may my right hand forget her cunning, and may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!"

To forget them, to pass lightly over their wrongs and to chime in with the popular theme would be treason most scandalous and shocking, and would make me a reproach before God and the world.

My subject, then, fellow citizens, is "American Slavery." I shall see this day and its popular characteristics from the slave's point of view. Standing here, identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine, I do not hesitate to declare, with all my soul, that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this Fourth of July.

Whether we turn to the declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity, which is outraged, in the name of liberty, which is fettered, in the name of the Constitution and the Bible, which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery -- the great sin and shame of America! "I will not equivocate - I will not excuse." I will use the severest language I can command, and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a slave-holder, shall not confess to be right and just.

But I fancy I hear some of my audience say it is just in this circumstance that you and your brother Abolitionists fail to make a favorable impression on the public mind. Would you argue more and denounce less, would you persuade more and rebuke less, your cause would be much more likely to succeed. But, I submit, where all is plain there is nothing to be argued. What point in the anti-slavery creed would you have me argue? On what branch of the subject do the people of this country need light? Must I undertake to prove that the slave is a man? That point is conceded already. Nobody doubts it. The slave-holders themselves acknowledge it in the enactment of laws for their government. They acknowledge it when they punish disobedience on the part of the slave. There are seventy-two crimes in the State of Virginia, which, if committed by a black man (no matter how ignorant he be), subject him to the punishment of death; while only two of these same crimes will subject a white man to like punishment.

What is this but the acknowledgment that the slave is a moral, intellectual, and responsible being? The manhood of the slave is conceded. It is admitted in the fact that Southern statute books are covered with enactments, forbidding, under severe fines and penalties, the teaching of the slave to read and write. When you can point to any such laws in reference to the beasts of the field, then I may consent to argue the manhood of the slave. When the dogs in your streets, when the fowls of the air, when the cattle on your hills, when the fish of the sea, and the reptiles that crawl, shall be unable to distinguish the slave from a brute, then I will argue with you that the slave is a man!

For the present it is enough to affirm the equal manhood of the Negro race. Is it not astonishing that, while we are plowing, planting, and reaping, using all kinds of mechanical tools, erecting houses, constructing bridges, building ships, working in metals of brass, iron, copper, silver, and gold; that while we are reading, writing, and ciphering, acting as clerks, merchants, and secretaries, having among us lawyers, doctors, ministers, poets, authors, editors, orators, and teachers; that we are engaged in all the enterprises common to other men -- digging gold in California, capturing the whale in the Pacific, feeding sheep and cattle on the hillside, living, moving, acting, thinking, planning, living in families as husbands, wives, and children, and above all, confessing and worshipping the Christian God, and looking hopefully for life and immortality beyond the grave -- we are called upon to prove that we are men?

Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? That he is the rightful owner of his own body? You have already declared it. Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery? Is that a question for republicans? Is it to be settled by the rules of logic and argumentation, as a matter beset with great difficulty, involving a doubtful application of the principle of justice, hard to understand? How should I look today in the presence of Americans, dividing and subdividing a discourse, to show that men have a natural right to freedom, speaking of it relatively and positively, negatively and affirmatively? To do so would be to make myself ridiculous, and to offer an insult to your understanding. There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven who does not know that slavery is wrong for him.

What! Am I to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to their masters? Must I argue that a system thus marked with blood and stained with pollution is wrong? No - I will not. I have better employment for my time and strength than such arguments would imply.

What, then, remains to be argued? Is it that slavery is not divine; that God did not establish it; that our doctors of divinity are mistaken? There is blasphemy in the thought. That which is inhuman cannot be divine. Who can reason on such a proposition? They that can, may - I cannot. The time for such argument is past.

At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. Oh! had I the ability, and could I reach the nation's ear, I would today pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be denounced.

What to the American slave is your Fourth of July? I answer, a day that reveals to him more than all other days of the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mock; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to him mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy - a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation of the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of these United States at this very hour.

Go search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the Old World, travel through South America, search out every abuse and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.

Frederick Douglass - July 4, 1852

Please enjoy your family time, and if you are drinking - do so safely!

Be Righteous.

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.

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.

Political Bullshit.

I've been limiting my political commentary to the confines of my home and telephone just based on the fact that I get so riled up about it that I'd rather not ruin my laptop in the heat of the moment. I have so many opinions and my political opinions are among the ones best expressed vocally by me for whatever reason. Could simply be the fact that it's much easier for me to express my convictions offline, or it could be the fact that I get so physically expressive in my opinions that the other party becomes intimidated. In the last few weeks, I've been tearing my hair out in expressing my opinions to people who aren't very politically informed and complacent. I want to encourage people to develop well-rounded opinions, and with all the bullshit thrown at by the different media outlets it isn't easy. I'm not an expert, but I am thorough in developing opinions and becoming active in causes related to said opinions.

First thing's first, let's view this treat:

Now, I have a theory that I'll stand by until the end of time: I'd like to think that the Conservatives keep a Negro or two on their annual payroll for instances like in the above video. For their defense, they need a face of color (or a woman) to defend the bullshit that they are continually looking to feed the public as a harsh reality of circumstance. I don't even know if I want to address what he was saying because after a while, it started to sound like Charlie Brown's teacher: Wompwompwompwompwompwomp. I don't even know if he believed the things he was saying. I mean, how could he? Is he serious? When I first saw the above video, it was in real-time. I was having lunch at a restaurant I stumbled upon, and I looked around the restaurant and said, "is this MSNBC? Or Punk'd?"

Then, there was last night. Last night, I was flipping through channels and stumbled upon The O'Reilly Factor. I don't usually stop to listen to the talking heads, but I saw Reverend Al Sharpton handing Bill O'Reilly his ass, and I thought to sit in on the discussion. The discussion concerned whether or not the tea party is racist in ideology and action. Now, I am of the opinion that there is and will always be far right radical assholes around to defend the bullshit that goes on within the confines of white conservatism. Here's Rev Al and Bill O'Reilly's spat:

I wasn't entirely that riled up at their argument, because I think they were mainly fussing with using semantics to make their arguments stronger. I am concerned, though, with the fact that Brit Hume followed Al Sharpton's piece and, in so many words, argued about how unfair it was that white conservative people cannot get together and do racist bullshit together without being called racists. As a matter of fact, his words were that allegations of racism (by the tea party) were being thrown around "wrecklessly". Following Brit Hume was Bernie Goldberg, who said to quote, "no democratic candidate can have office without kissing Al Sharpton's rink." Of course, the only video clip I've found of last night's O'Reilly Factor was of Rev Al Sharpton. I guess the Conservatives throw the bullshit out there and then work really hard to make sure no one can sit and analyze it.

(Aside, I thoroughly enjoyed Tavis's discussion on the Black Agenda, but I do understand Rev Al's beef. There were so many powerful brothers and sisters in the building..it was DEEP!; my favorite part of it was the fact that it wasn't an attack on President Obama. Instead, it was a way to discuss pertinent issues and hold President Obama accountable -- like we do for every other President. I understand President Obama has a lot to work on right now, even after accomplishing a major feat in American political history just days ago. It's now or never, Pres. We support you.)

That aside, I'd really like to discuss the Republican Conservatives that are so caught up in battling anti-rape legislation and then want the people to sympathize with offensive bullshit from their mini-mes that depict the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES as a RAPIST? I hate directly linking bullshit to my blog but I really think I owe this to the internet world. And so, below is the cartoon I am referring to:

Not funny. Completely inaccurate. Not even the sentiment behind it is understandable. Completely distasteful. And while conservatives have fought against anti-rape legislation and even participated in victim-blaming, they want to use rape as a means to get the message out? I don't even have the words. Bullshit. And it isn't the first time President Obama has been depicted in a most degrading fashion in a doodle. #imjustsayin.

I had a former coworker/friend (white woman, for disclosure) from home contact me tonight and she told me that she received craziest phone calls at work tonight. Some red neck called threatening her boss, a Black man, multiple times -- called him every racist name in the book (and some shit I'd never heard of!) for...dating white women?

To all yous out there that are so convinced that this is post racial America, think again; it's 2010 and this is some ol' bullshit! Don't even get me started on the twerp that decided to post threats to President Obama's life..on Twitter. See above theory on Black conservatives.

Be Righteous.
And in the words of Dap, WAKE UP!!

"...the dude that makes family movies?"

I wanted to begin a post entitled "Matters of the Heart, Part Deux", which was to be a follow up to two posts I've done about love and the single Black woman, but decided that it would be premature; the idea is certainly not ripe enough.

Anyway, I woke up this morning listening to Public Enemy, which isn't entirely uncommon for me since I was ten years old or so (I blame my father...that probably says a lot about my overall mentality, hmm?), and I turned to my favorite PE song (Besides "Revolution Generation"), "Burn Hollywood Burn". I love Ice Cube, but listening to the song always makes me think about one episode of The Boondocks.

In The Story of Gangstalicious, some goons snatch up Gangstalicious and his avid stan, Riley and put them in the trunk of a car. Riley is so disappointed to find Gangstalicious is a fraud; he isn't a real gangsta, he just raps about gangsta stuff. While in the trunk, Gangstalicious says to Riley that when he was growing up, Ice Cube was his favorite rapper. Riley says to Gangstalicious, regarding Ice Cube's gangsta, "...the dude that makes family movies?" [Scene at 1:20]

A while ago, I was talking to a guy that disputed the necessity and relevance of Womanism. Much like the post I wrote yesterday on activism, I explained my burning passion for revolution, and he just laughed at me and said that I was immature. That, when you get older, you have to become more conservative, and that being so wound up in convictions is ridiculous.

I know that there are bills to be paid in the real world, and that you have to get money to support yourself and your family. I don't think that means you have to abandon your beliefs in order to do so. So why has Ice Cube done twelve "Are-We-There-Yets" and Flava-Flaaaaaav has that god-awful show?

Am I wrong? Does becoming more conservative = growing up? Is it all just an act because they've already been established? Is it simply all about the benjamins, and not about the message?

In Cube's defense, he had some rightous Black rage back in the day (as did Flava Flav, the world's most famous hype man). It wasn't even just about "gangsta rap"...it was about the message. I mean, the brotha has dropped some gems long before "You Can Do It Put Your Back Into It"...ugggh. What happened?!

I guess it goes back to my major point about entertainment and reality.

Sigh. 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.

Letter to Oprah

Dear Oprah,

While I respect your ability become on of the most powerful people in America, as a Black woman, I am not a fan. As a matter of fact, there are days where I feel as though I could not dislike you more for the dangerous messages that you have thrown to the public, either intentionally or unintentionally. I do think that you have the ability to philanthropically provide more in terms of becoming inspiring to young Black women. I have heard many sisters, younger and older, describe their desire to be like you; however, I think that they would like having your image and power and not your character. In fact, I am blogging so angrily right now about your current show topic, "Inside the Minds of Child Molesters" and it is not even half way over. I am not a fan, Oprah; I do not watch your show regularly. I used to want to be like you too, but it was about being capable of casting a positive shadow and outlet for young Black women to grow into if they so choose. I'm not perfect. I'm not wanting to be revered as a goddess; I do, however, want to help provide education and inspiration to Black girls at home, because heaven knows that they need it, especially if some parents just aren't providing it for them. The fact is, O, that while you prance around like you went from Sophia to Harpo Industries and should be worshiped on that basis alone, you have become, in my eyes, not much more than a high-folutin' Auntie, and I honestly just can't take it any more.

Oprah, what the hell is this "Inside the Minds of Child Molesters" bullshit? You made quite a few counterrevolutionary points, and as a survivor of sexual abuse, you should know better! My becoming physically ill at your show today was the last straw because, you know what? It was not the first time and I think that you just have to be stopped. There is no respect in my disagreement because you very rarely pick a stance and stay in it; Oprah, I was honestly proud of you for putting your foot down with the Chris Brown situation. Can you just tell me why you did a segment that pretty much decriminalized child molesters? At one point, you made the comment that if child molestation is done right, it will not hurt and agreed with a molester that parents have to be more aware! My stars, I am so very disappointed in the positive you could have done with this.

I understand that these people are people; but you know what? Not all child molesters have the gall to puff up their chests and contend that they did these acts because they love children. As a matter of fact, I've read studies that say that the molestation is not about the child, but about children in general, especially if they are prepubescent. I am willing to bet that many survivors of child sexual abuse have been triggered as a result of this show.

I am very deeply and sincerely disappointed in you. I am confused by your motives in this show because it never really got to a point. In fact, it was just kinda like "hey, look at me, I'm interviewing child molesters". I would like to hope that you wanted to do good in this endeavor, but I would also be willing to say that you are have failed. I hope that your fame and attention grabbing is worth all of the negative that you have potentially caused.

Be Righteous.

Attitudes Toward Rape.

One of the more sickening things of my experiences as an activist and self-proclaimed cultural anthropologist, if you will, is examining the attitudes that are prevalent in certain communities and trying to understand why they are the way they are. For instance, for my undergraduate thesis, I wrote about the historical evolution of rape in Black women (by all men, not just intra-racially) in American society from slavery to contemporary times. I also examined the current resources available, and the criticisms of what may be lacking. Aside, I am quite proud of this work because I think that working toward such a cause can, hopefully, yield awareness and enlightenment. I think that the Black community subconsciously recycles poisonous attitudes about many issues, and the main issue that I find myself concerned with is sexual abuse and domestic violence as it relates to any person; self-care is important in dealing with said issue and Black women are traditionally handed an attitude that says "take care of your community" instead of "take care of yourself". I have also found that a contemporary split in this mindset is the fact that Black women are taught so many different things about identity: who are we? Who are we supposed to be? What are we supposed to look like? Is this sexy? How old should we be before we have kids? Is marriage an option? There is a constant identity crisis..and this reinforces negative concepts and victim blaming in the minds of many Black women without thoroughly evaluating why our opinions are as they are.

I know I should not be surprised when visiting mediatakeout.com (which I do not take seriously by any means; I truly go visit to research the interactions encouraged by online commenters and moderators..it's a project I've been working on for another book idea I am toying with). At any rate, I am never really surprised at the ignorance and stereotypical slander that is thrown around the site. For example, an article was recently posted about the rape allegations thrown toward NFL's Michael Irvin. Apprently, there is a civil suit in place about a sexual assault that allegedly occured in 2007. People tend to think that the court system works a lot like Law and Order, and it clearly does not happen that quickly -- whether civil or criminal. And often times, criminal charges are not filed for a variety of reasons. Aside, though, some of the comments were intensely disrespectful and it made me wonder...what OTHER ways are there to get the message out about the appropriate measures in dealing with sexual assault? I do understand that not every "victim" claiming to be a "victim" is truthful. However, why not err on the side of caution? There are so many reasons that abuse is not reported, and many of these deal with the victims own guilt/doubt about the attack. Anyway, some comments are as follows:

These celebs better start filming sh*t for vindication later... I don't think he did that crap! Disgruntled whore that's all. Sucks he lost his job

Women nowadays are becoming more scandalous.

Dam shame! That's some real live BS tho. If it happened in 07', why she feel da need 2 come 4ward in 2010? And when will these famous guys quit f-ing their life up 4 a piece of puss that is plottin on yall a*s from da get! stop smashin those triflin ho*s & find a real woman! I don't feel sorry 4 u, or Kobe, or Tyson etc.

This is why I stay away from black men. Sistas you gambling with your life when you stay with black men.

damn

why u wait so long to press charges

she grown, why is she being identified as a jane doe--was she a minor when this supposed to have happened...need more info cuz fred has confused me

Ok so SHE drank too much alcohol to the point of her losing all of her faculties right?..See They need surveillance cameras to prove this one.Becoz if she walked to that room on her own accord with 2 men?...The Prosecution has no case.What ever she does once she gets inside that room is on her...She was a grown woman,1 woman 2 men?..you do the math!..But If this IS true in ANY sense, Mike should be ashamed of himself...isn't he married,and supposedly a Christian Man?.*shruggz*...He shouldn't even be caught up in no mess like this!..

No proof of wrongdoing & he still loses his job. That's that bullsh*t. Why would a rich man rape a bitch in the wh0re capital of America anyway? Them bunny ranch wh0res are cleaner than most regular chicks. This story reeks of bullsh*t.

BLACK MEN ARE THEIR OWN WORST ENEMY AND REALLY S T U P I D!! When Jane Doe gets identified, and eventually she will, watch her real name be B E C K Y! DUMBASS BLACK GUYS! HA, HA!!

It's ourageous, and sickening. The victim's race wasn't identified, and you know what - that's cool. This is about the overall attitude toward rape/sexual assault accusations. I do what I can, but what else can I do? How else do we reach the people? How do we open the minds of the apparent younger generation?

Be Righteous.