And I'm still trying to figure out what to tell my son and when. You did not die in vain!
Thursday, March 22, 2012
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!
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
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'.
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'.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
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'.
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'.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
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'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
