Newtown and the Undercurrent of Race

One week after the tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, let me extend my condolences to that community. 

My condolences are genuine, but consider this. I grew up in Chicago during the 1970s, the height of White flight. The inner cities (where Black people lived) were dangerous places, the schools were bad, and property values were tanking, so White people had to go where they had to to protect themselves from these problems. The South side of Chicago was considered one of the most dangerous places, although I lived in integrated Hyde Park (NOT a gated community as I heard it referred to once on CNN). The Lorraine Hansbury play and movie, A Raisin in the Sun, depicts the circumstances leading up to White flight well. Those Whites who never lived in inner cities considered themselves lucky not having to deal with those problems.

Ultimately, living patterns in the U.S. are designed to reflect both economic and racial segregation and the results are generally that Whites design things to be "safe" from the imagined threats Brown skinned people bring with them. This includes the threat of violence. 

So, piling on what Tim Wise argues, perhaps the danger isn't "those people with their inner city problems," but the ways in which White people are complicit in defining themselves. You can no longer isolate yourselves from yourselves. You cannot assume safety in perfect nuclear families. You cannot assume safety in lilly White communities with high property values and excellent schools. White, not inherently, but as a sociohistorical phenomenon, can be dangerous too.

Isolating yourselves will not provide you safety. You will no longer be able to assume that someone else's family (White or Brown) is none of your business. You need to learn to take a wayward child aside and talk to them as if they were your own. You need to visit people who look antisocial and figure out how to connect with them, no matter how awkward it feels. You will need to speak openly and publicly about the challenges you are having. You will need to speak openly and publicly about the challenges your wife is having, the challenges your children are having. You will have to embrace your siblings, your aunts, uncles, cousins, and grandparents, even if they're nuts. Brown families were pathologized because they weren't nuclear, yet they got us through the worst of times. You will have to ask other people for favors, like your crazy aunt or the next door neighbor, including can Jimmy crash on your couch for a while because I don't know what to do with him. Because for you, these are the worst of times.

You think we (Brown people) don't know what's going on, but it's been apparent to us, like that spray of bullets that hit Sandy Hook Elementary. It was apparent long before that happened, like during lynchings, etc. Really. Our communities felt the brunt of violent White behavior and we didn't need automatic weapons to be clear about it. You seemed to have protected yourself from the worst of what you could do.

Gun control will be useful. Personally, I don't really understand why someone who isn't hunting or fighting a war needs a gun. I hear lots of talk about an improved mental health system. But I'm not optimistic if it's being used to make sure that White males are not that kind of White male that makes you look bad. The mental health system will not get us out of that mess if it's simply a device to weed out the good Whites from the bad. The only thing I know of to abate the actions of those who are awry is connection, it's harder for them to act out on these thoughts if they are really connected to people. Isolation is the key problem that Whites face and you can afford it no more. And that isolation can't be blamed on Brown skinned people. Go talk to each other. Now. Because the people you fear most are yourselves. The victims of Sandy Hook suggests all that needs to be said . . . 

Just sayin'.

Condi for Secretary of State

I have a solution to this Secretary of State nomination problem: I think President Barack Obama should call Condoleezza Rice and have the following conversation:

POTUS: Condi, I would like to thank you for your service to your country.

CR: Thank you Mr. President. [I like to fantasize about people actually still having respect for the office of the President. Indulge me.]

POTUS: Condi, your country calls again. You know that Secretary of State Clinton plans on leaving this post at the start of my next administration, and we're looking for a good candidate. Many names are floated around, but I believe, like that great leader of your party, Abraham Lincoln, in a team of rivals. I think you would be perfectly suited for the position as you've done it before. However, ultimately the decisions made for Secretary of State end with me, so you must be willing to follow my lead.

CR: Mr. President, I really appreciate your considering me, but I'm not sure that would be workable at this point . . .

POTUS: Look, I don't think there is as much daylight between you and me as you think. For instance, I think the drone strikes in Afghanistan and over the Middle East are bloody brilliant and have not only continued them, but stepped them up. You would have LOVED to be part of an administration that killed Osama Bin Laden. Guantanamo Bay is still open and it's MY administration that has sold and delivered more arms to Israel than ever before. Further, we opposed the creation of observer status for the Palestinian people in the U.N. I think we can work things out. Besides, disagreement is good for creating policy and your perspective could truly enhance what I'm trying to accomplish.

CR: You have a point . . .

POTUS: And there would be no bruising confirmation fight. Although I think the optics of going after Susan Rice, an Oxford educated PhD, who, like yourself, is a Black woman would ultimately force the Senate to fold, they certainly can't go after you for misleading the American public for claiming Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction . . .

CR: [Pointedly] Mr. President . . .

POTUS: I'm just being honest. Look, this would be good for you, good for your party who desperately needs brilliant people at its forefront, and good for our country as we bring all of the best ideas together for a foreign policy that most benefits our interests at home and abroad. What do you say?

My interjection: Besides, the old White men in the Senate could save face for opposing everyone with a Black face in the administration and their war on women which has now been directed at Dr. Rice (Susan). And it would leave Kerry's Massachusetts seat intact. Are they really going to throw Dr. Condoleezza Rice under the bus for Kerry's seat? How do those optics look?!

Just sayin'.

My Condolences to the GOP

Dear GOP:

I would like to extend my condolences about your recent electoral losses. Enormous amounts of time, energy, resource, and money were used trying to wrest the White House from President Obama and it certainly looks like it was dispiriting to have nothing to show for it. I won't recall the tally, others have done this.

So now, you have the task of sorting out what worked, what didn't, and what to do about it. It's only been a week since the election, so the issue is a little tender, and the post Mortems may seem off pitch. However, one theme is that people of color, women of all races, GLB people of all races, and some White men did not vote for your candidates. White men are no longer the majority, particularly when they break off and ally with other segments of society. How do you draw these other people to the party?

Immigration reform has been touted as the silver bullet to your problems.  I would argue not so fast. My medicine is much slower and, well, perhaps for the people most entrenched in 1950 USA, bitter. But this will produce the longest lived connection to the majority of the US electorate. And you can no longer afford to be this disconnected from the electorate.

I will start with my story of forming opinions about political participation. I was twelve when Ronald Reagan took office. I remember the language about Black women as welfare mothers who buy Cadillacs with their food stamp money. My Black mother was (and still is) a Registered Nurse who gave up much for herself to make sure my sister and I were in the best private schools in Chicago because she was deeply concerned about the quality of the public school system. I remember the rhetoric about students who took out loans to live the high life and never finished college. I lived with a cousin who was trying to become a registered nurse herself and needed those loans to pay tuition so she could obtain her part of the American dream (immigrants really believe in it!). I remember the refusal of the Surgeon General to utter the word AIDS because no one wanted to say the word gay. A family friend nearly died 5 years ago of the word Reagan's administration refused to utter. A conductor I knew was likely one of the people who would never have the word AIDS written in his funeral program because of the stigma attached to the word, indeed, he died of "pneumonia." 

Needless to say, the advice I'm about to offer you won't work with me because I have long been hostile to the GOP: the stories you made up about people in my everyday life drove policies that made our lives more difficult and did not reflect the reality you painted. Never mind that I was raised as an Evangelical Christian. You lost me. From my twelve year old eyes, it looked like you hated me. 

But many are more forgiving, and I suspect you don't have much time to deal with them. So here's the bitter pill. Stop talking to people you know well. This includes Rubio, Jindal, etc. You need to talk to regular folk. You need to go to, wait for it, cities. Yep, big cities. You can't just talk to the affluent folk. You actually need to visit the places that scare you to death. To the barrios, to the ghettos. To regular middle and working class areas. To non-White places. To gay neighborhoods, to barber shops, to beauty shops, to Union meetings, to grocery stores, to non-White churches, to gay bars, to neighborhood pubs, and to schools. To liberal universities, public libraries, and bookstores. And then, when you get to these places, you need to talk to people. Not about your agenda. You need to talk to them about their actual lives. Yes. 

You need to talk to us about what we do to get our kids to school and what works about that and what doesn't. You need to talk to kids about their lives and see what works for them and what they wish was different. You need to talk to people about their jobs. You need to know what they want to be different about their work situations. You need to speak with the unemployed. What happened? What have they tried to do? Do they need more help? Are things getting better for them? You need to speak with Latinos. What is their immigration story? Their particular one? Where do they work? Do they go to school? What are their hopes and dreams? Talk to Black people. What are their work histories? Do they have kids? Who do they support with their income? What is their health like? Talk to lesbians and gay men. How did they meet that special someone? Do they have kids? What are their kids like? What do they really do in bed? Do they have time to do it? Are they out? How are they within their families of origin and with their in-laws? There are so many other questions about so many other groups - Asians really do exist and have a point of view. Multiple points of view. What are they?

You will feel awkward and dorky. Don't gloss over this. You'll seem disingenuous if you do. You may just have to be in these spaces and stare at us. Really. Then you'll have to screw up the courage to speak to us. And I promise you'll say stupid things. And we'll look at you funny when you say them. Don't give up and go away! Why was what you said stupid? Don't argue with us. Follow our lead and be respectful to our communities. Some of us sprung from your loins (I was raised in a White evangelical Church, theoretically, I'm one of you), show us you care about what happened to us. 

When you're done with this extensive listening project, you need to see if the stories of our lives are really that different from the lives of the angry White men you've been hanging out with. Are our hopes and dreams that much different from theirs? Do the policies you've advocated actually match what we've said about our lives? They may be a perfect match. If that's the case, carry on. If not, the soul searching will be even worse. Ultimately, are policies or people more important? The future of your party depends on the answer to that question. And you have my permission to tell Democrats that they should do the same thing now that Barack Hussein Obama is serving his second term. Just sayin'.

Yes, women's issues (birth control, abortion) ARE economic issues

Finally pockets of the media are starting to pick up on this theme. Here's Jezebel's take on it. And I love the snarky and direct tone of the piece!

That's right Charles Blow: Women's health care IS an economic issue! Make sure you read the link in its entirety. Just saying' (again!).

Birth Control, Abortion, and Economics

I can't help but to wonder whether there is a campaign to push women out of the workforce. Let me start by addressing what some have said labeling birth control and abortion as "unimportant" issues in this election because voters are more interested in the economy.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again: women's participation in the economy wholly depends on birth control. Why? Raising kids is no joke. Kids who are 0 - 5 are the least independent years. Infants can't feed themselves or go anywhere on their own; they don't have enough language to communicate their needs; and they can't articulate, beyond tears, what's bothering them. This means a parent has to communicate/handle these needs. Stunningly few of us can afford high quality child care, espeically for the youngest of kids (including nannies) and don't get paid maternity leave. Real economic considerations factor into whether to have a child and delinking the job challenges we face as a nation from trivial considerations like birth control really demonstrates a lack of undersatnding of how women's lives work. There is a profound lack of undersatnding of what child care requires. Alternatively, birth control IS an economic issue.

To add insult to injury, factor in the fact that women apparently have no judgment about their sexual encounters - indeed, we can't decide if we actually wanted sex or not and our bodies know better. Therefore, the only rape is forcible because, ladies, rape generally isn't forcible. Which implies that there's no such thing as rape. If all sex is wanted, all children are wanted and there are no emotional (or financial) reasons to terminate a pregnancy. All children are wanted! And we all want to take 5 years out of the workplace to care for those wanted children.

Which brings me back to I wonder if the real issue is pushing us out of the workplace and stop taking jobs away from men. Just sayin'.

A Closet By Another Name

My response (a couple of weeks later) to Anderson Cooper's acknowledging what we all knew . . . No pics this time.

Mr. Daniel Mendelsohn’s article "A Closet by Another Name" about Anderson Cooper's "coming out" mirrors the obstacles GLBT people face when we are public about our identity. The story hiding in the glass closet is the level of oppression GLBT people face in the society at large. Mr. Cooper, intentionally or not, explicitly discussed the impact of gay oppression on his and all of our lives. We are brutally regarded in this society.

 Mr. Cooper wrote that he tries to tell other peoples’ stories and not his own for everyone’s safety. The viciousness of gay oppression is such that people, no matter the social circles one associates with, are subject to physical danger and can be killed. While Mr. Cooper runs in elite circles that love and cherish him, this does not protect him from the possibility of losing his life in other situations. Those who wish us harm do not consider our pedigree, education, race, gender, wealth, or professional accomplishments. They will harm us solely because we are GLBT identified.

Mr. Cooper also worried that people would attribute bias to his reporting if the audience knew he was gay. Once a gay person reveals their identity, the society-at-large regards them as “the gay carpenter,” “the gay doctor,” or, “the gay journalist.” Doctors diagnose and treat sick people regardless of their emotional and intimate connections. Carpenters build and repair woodwork regardless of who they go home to. For years journalism explicitly avoided hiring women and people of color because the profession assumed that they could not be “objective.” These concerns linger for many members of the profession, including those who openly identify as gay. In an environment where objectivity is constantly challenged, identity complicates how reporters are perceived.

 Finally, Mr. Cooper argued that he was concerned about his privacy. I suspect he is concerned that the sordid details about his intimate life would be available for public consumption. None of us are immune from the splashy headlines on tabloid magazines and websites about people’s intimate lives, and Mr. Cooper has been no exception. Once one publicly identifies as gay, the public becomes alternately fascinated and disgusted with our sex lives, a distraction from his journalistic work.

 Ultimately, Mr. Cooper’s letter should not be reduced to a discussion of his privacy, although that is one component he clearly had to weigh in coming out publically. The larger issue is the systematic oppression and mistreatment of people who identify as GLBT. We’d be wise to ignore his sex life and take heed of the dangers GLBT people face and take a stand against that.

Birth Control is a Minor Issue?

Since birth control issues were raised in the context of the requirements for health insurance companies to provide insurance, we've heard pundits say that women will vote for what really counts, the economy. They are not interested in such trivial issues. Here's the problem. Our issues (jobs included) are always seen, through sexist eyes, as trivial. Therefore, birth control is trivial. But I have news for you - There is nothing small or trivial about birth control. Without birth control, women do not have the ability to control what they can do in their lives, when they can do it, or even start to leverage how much they want to earn doing it. Period.

Birth control affects our ability to complete high school, college, graduate school, and to find work. How many teenagers can't finish high school because of child care? How many women can't finish college because of young children? We know that having a B.A. allows one to earn over a hundred thousand dollars over a lifetime over one who only has a high school diploma. How many women can't study what they want to because of children? How many women are challenged in their work everyday from child care? We love our children. We would not have our lives any other way - but we do want to control over what we're doing in our lives and when we're doing it, and the inability to access low cost birth control directly impacts this because we can't control when we're having kids. Young children take a lot of resource and deciding when you take on raising young kids matters! So before we continue to insult women while we're at war, politicians and pundits need to take note. Birth control is no minor issue. It impacts our economic possibilities. Of course, if men took responsibility for where their stuff ended up, this might be less troublesome. But until then, hands off of our birth control! Just sayin'.

Trayvon, I love Skittles too!

And I'm still trying to figure out what to tell my son and when. You did not die in vain!

Trayvon Martin

No pictures on this posting today . . . maybe I'll throw in a hoodie.

I must say that I can barely bring myself to look at this story. It occurred to me it hits too close to home.

I have a Black male child. He's 7 and will turn 8 in June. He's tall - 2/3 of my height and I'm 5'10".

A story ran in the New York Times about how Black males are disproportionately targeted by the police. I used that article as a teachable moment. When you become of a size that's much closer to mine, the police may do this to you. Please just do what they say. This has nothing to do with you. They target Black males. The people who are police officers are very scared and take action in this frame of mind.



I was criticized for scaring my child. I responded that as a Black male, he needs to know early and often how to handle himself in public. I know it's scary! It's probably scarier if you don't have a clue.

And then there's Trayvon Martin. George Zimmerman isn't a police officer. He killed this child and the police didn't even bother to investigate because he invoked self-defense. Trayvon was shot for holding skittles and a drink.

Now what do I tell my son? What do mothers tell their Black boys? How should we portray those who do these things to us?

James, don't run in public. Don't wear hoodies. Don't wear loose jeans. Don't hide your hands. Keep ID on you. And know that I have to let you be in this world. I can only warn you. And I want you to be all of you.

I can't go to the hoodie march tonight. I have to teach. I will be there in spirit. Because my son is a black male.

Just sayin'.

Every Sperm is Sacred

I'm tickled pink! Really, and this is no reference to Susan Komen. Finally I see the glimpse of a discussion requiring men to take responsibility for their sexual behavior. Really.

As a society, we've been greatly concerned about women and the lives we are capable of housing. We have beautifully dodged how the lives got there in the first place. Many legislators who voted for laws requiring vaginal ultrasounds and targeted Planned Parenthood because it provides abortion but spends much more of its resources on contraception, failed to recognize how important contraception was to us. Regulating when we bare children has enabled us to take on remarkably different things in our lives.

But with legislation perculating in the states protecting sperm, we have a window to look at how these pregnancies occurred in the first place. A sperm fertilized an egg! The egg did not fertilize itself. Further, it was sexual contact with a male (generally, I understand the logistics surrounding artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization) that caused the sperm to get there to fertilize the egg in the first place. So now, through legislation setting up conditions under which men may purchase viagra, cialis, and other related laws, we have to confront male (mis)behavior.



When men have all of this indiscriminate sex enabled by these medications, with no intention of bearing children, they are hampering the ability to create life, an unacceptable by-product of such drugs. Surely the Catholic Church (of which I am a member) will closely evaluate this situation! Further, men don't really grapple with the potential of spreading sexually transmitted diseases among many partners. I think this legislation should mandate monthly STD testing for every month they take the medication in addition to the affidavits of prior sex partners vouching for the man's impotence. (I'm serious!) This allows us to keep tabs on who men are sleeping with. Finally men, by law, would have to be responsible for their own behavior.



Also central to this debate is the way legislators discussed this issue. It sounds like taxpayers are paying for birth control, and therefore, are paying for drugs treating impotence. In these laws, I think that we should make it clear that taxpayers are not required to pay for this. Indeed, the government is setting conditions that health insurance companies must follow in selling their products, such as covering people with pre-existing conditions, but they are still private health insurance companies bought by employers or individuals. So this would be no more of a burden than insurance companies covering birth control! Any insistence that tax payer dollars are involved is simply a political bastardization of the health care law. At least make sure you're critiquing the problem that exists, don't make up a new problem. If taxpayers were paying for this, it would be a single payer plan! And that's socialism.

Finally, I have to note that the woman working on this legislation in Ohio, Nina Turner, is Black.
I find this fascinating because Black women are often in the cross hairs of birth control/sterilization disputes. During the 1990s, increasing focus was paid to the women on public assistance who were having "all of these children" and taking care of them with money from the state. Not only did the new government programs require women to work for their benefits, but some states required that while they were taking welfare, they would have to take injectable hormonal forms of birth control that prevented women from becoming pregnant for over a year at times. Once again, these women were not allowed to agree to this, it was simply a requirement. Ever since the Reagan administration, welfare moms have taken on a Black face and it is hard not to notice the backdrop of race in this debate. Latina and Black women went through periods in this country went through periods where we were forcefully sterilized - ask the states of North Carolina, Carolina, and ask Puerto Rican women. A woman's autonomy over her body is not merely about abortion and birth control, it is also about the ability to refuse these services as well.

But now that we will regulate the use of erectile disfunction drugs, perhaps every pregnancy will be planned and wanted. No more unplanned pregnancies in our lives, no more unnecessary spreading of STDs. Finally more male personal responsibility for their sexual behavior! Or hopefully, it will start this dialogue. Just sayin'.

Yoga and Male Domination

OK . . . you must be thinking I've lost my mind. Hear me out . . . remember that I studied history because truth is stranger than fiction. With Andrew Breitbart's death (no comment), the Senate barely defeating a moral conscience insurance clause, and the Syrian government pounding Homs to a pulp, I am writing about something that hits terribly close to home for me . . . yoga. Yes, yoga. I practice Ashtanga yoga. It was one of three calming, head clearing forces while I wrote the dissertation. It is currently the activity I have that reminds me to pray and go to sleep (yes members of the far right . . . I am a wayward sinner). So, the New York Times has published a number of articles about yoga and . . . well, its seamy underbelly. Now add this one to the mix (read the article before you continue reading): http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/health/nutrition/yoga-fans-sexual-flames-and-predictably-plenty-of-scandal.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=yoga&st=cse



Many might be surprised that male instructors have taken sexual advantage of their female students. I am not, which brings up one of my favorite themes. I think we need to remember the following: male domination is a factor in every single institution that you can imagine. From the most seemingly benign, yoga, to the most vicious - slavery, the Third Reich, it is an oppressive structure that cannot be escaped. If institutions cannot explicitly examine the ways in which males set and execute their agendas, no number of backbends, downward dogs, and meditation can enforce the yogic principles of ahimsa (non-violence) and brahmacharya (abstinence), and so gurus (teachers) who are supposed to be teaching you satya (truth) will fall short. Ultimately, religion, and yoga as an accompanying religious practice are designed to encourage people to treat each other and the world well. However, when the people who claim the authority to teach religious principles cannot examine basic gendered relationships (remember that males also dominate other males, something that still challenges the Catholic Church of which I am a member), we will continue to mistreat the men, women, boys, and girls in our midst.



I will continue to practice yoga. I will continue to see my teacher . . . he has brought unknown benefits in my physical and spiritual life. Breathing, poses, and meditation cannot be harmed because of John Friend's indiscretions. Those who pioneer yogic methods should consider self-inventory. You are not entitled to anyone else's bodies but your own, no matter how aroused you may feel after your practice. I am not concerned about your abstinence, I am concerned that you practice non-violence. Male domination violates that principle.



Meditate on that! Just sayin'.

The Personal is Very Political

I'm noticing a trend. When women came out publicly and said that they had an affair with Herman Cain, he called them liars and couldn't understand why that might be seen as offensive. Newt Gingrich blamed the media for asking about his affairs. Congress wanted to pass a bill interfering with the FBI redefining rape in ways that would have let people such as Sandusky off at the federal level - it wanted to force them to use a more restrictive definition of rape.
Susan Komen wanted to stop giving grants to Planned Parenthood because it, in addition to all sorts of health care for women including providing manual breast screenings, provides abortions. Conservatives are upset because the Department of Health and Human Services says that institutions such as universities and hospitals that may have a religious affiliation must adopt insurance plans that cover birth control. And finally, one of the co-owners of Staples claims that allowing women to breastfeed their children on the job will kill jobs!

Let me make sure I'm understanding this: women never say no to sex, they lie when they assert extramarital sexual relationships, they should not be able to use contraception, and they are stuck with the consequences of unwanted pregnancies. Oh yeah, women are not entitled to basic health care to handle the manifestations of all of this sexual activity and are not permitted to take care of these newborn children.

Two words: male domination! Apparently men are the only parties in our society who should be making decisions about when people engage in sexual activity, regardless of their marital status. Men decide when women have kids. Men take no responsibility for women's health. Men are not responsible for the children born from their seed. Women who would challenge this order in any way, shape, or form are murderers and radical people who are hellbent on society's destruction. We're hellbent on the destruction of sexism. We're hellbent on being able to make decisions about our bodies that work not only for the pleasure of men, but so that we can create lives that are satisfying for all of us.

I understand that not every male feels this way. However, actions speak louder than words. How many times have you had unprotected sex with any woman knowing that she did not necessarily want to create life in that particular coupling? How many times did you take the initiative for birth control, be it abstinence in a particular situation or volunteering to wear a condom? How many times have you walked away from a woman who was pregnant and blamed her for sleeping with someone else and that it couldn't be your child? How many times did you walk away from your partner because she had to deal with the kids?


These are the consequences for forced sex, voluntary unprotected sex (I haven't even gotten to STDs), pregnancy, and childbirth. This is why I will continue to speak out against these draconian policies. Just sayin'.