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'.

Belated piece about Lara Logan

While the sexual assault on Lara Logan has faded from the press' memory as she heals from this event, I personally cannot shake what happened to her. I can't shake it not because she's a beautiful blonde, but because it reminds me, all too well, of the risks that all women face when we do work anywhere in the world for any number of disciplines - not only journalists, but anthropologists, historians, musicologists, doctors, lawyers, Peace Corps workers, and the list goes on! Secondly, we cannot underestimate the extent to which male domination is a powerful factor not only in the lives of women, but also men. And lastly, the way that sexism and male domination plays out "in the field" does not diminish our love of what we do and in that way, sexism and male domination hold no power over any of us who love our work.



I am still writing my dissertation, but before I could write, I had to to go "in the field." Doing research in the field meant two things for me. Not only did I have to copy government files from archives located in Kingston and Spanish Town, Jamaica and London, England, but I also had to collect oral histories and conducted interviews with residents of Jamaica's Accompong Maroon community. I could regale you with so many stories of the bizarre interactions I had with men while doing this work (this is a kind characterization). Any woman who would dare to go, by herself, to do this work is fair game. Without a man by her side to make sure someone else's butt would get kicked, we are fair game, whether or not by choice. When Logan's story broke, I could only think but for the grace of God, so go I. But I also knew that many other women had to endure such indignities to conduct their research. The way that we dress, conduct ourselves, decide who we will speak to, develop relationships with so that we can have allies to turn to is a reflection of the threat that (sexual) violence plays as we simply do our work. I know that I have a silver band I always wear on my left hand, 4th finger to signal that there is potentially a man in my life who will make sure things are taken care of. I also know that I'm slightly safer bringing my young son along with me than if I went by myself. SICK!

This only reminds me of the extent that male domination effects all of our lives. Did I really write "male domination?" I certainly did. The process by which a male asserts themselves over another displaying their "power." The important thing is that such an assertion of power is not only experienced by females, but males as well. Nir Rosen, the journalist who tweeted such inexplicably thoughtless and brutish tweets in the wake of the Lara Logan's assault demonstrated this point thoroughly. Not only did he explicitly state that Logan's assault was just an attempt to take the spotlight from CNN's Anderson Cooper (implying that something real had not happened) and implying that it was even deserved, he also tweeted wouldn't it be funny if the same thing had happened to Cooper. Funny?! Is sexual assault (ok, any assault) ever funny?! Under what circumstances? So why would he say this? It would have been "funny" if Cooper had been punked - raped by another man? What disturbed man would imply this? Not only was it ok for men to assert their domination over a pretty gal who thought she could be a foreign correspondent and become a star for her work, but it would also be ok for the same to happen to a pretty, rich boy as well. And the silence about this point was deafening! For people who go in the field, male or female, it is alright to assert your dominance by raping them and . . . well what will we accomplish, Nir Rosen, when this is done? Male dominance is a critical component of sexism and clearly, it does not discriminate whether its target is male or female.

Finally, for those of you who are determined to make the lives of us who do work in the field as painful as possible, know that we are undeterred. We will continue to publish our stories, teach kids, deliver medical care, and write histories because we love what we do. We will do the best we can to flexibly handle the sexism and male domination that crops up along the way. And to Lara Logan, pull your community together and heal as quickly as you can. Many of us are cheering for you. We need your voice and it cannot go silent in the face of sexual violence! Just sayin' . . .

The Tuscon Fallout

First, let me start by saying, like many others, that the victims of the Tuscon Massacre are in my thoughts and prayers. Some folk started the day doing the ordinary things they do, and it ended on such a terribly tragic note. To all who were injured and to the families of the deceased, your country is with you.



Since Obama has been in office, there have been a number of discussions about why certain events should not be perceived as racist, sexist, etc. Specifically, I'm thinking about the discussions about the Tea Party and their motivations and supporters as a prime example. I think, for the target group of any oppression, the oppressive society spends A LOT of time trying to convince you that the oppression isn't happening, no matter what the outward visible signals are. So the general explanations, lately, go something like this: the people carrying the signs with Obama looking like an African chief at health care rallies were just carried by a few wackos who do not characterize who is part of the Tea Party. Ron Paul is just a pure libertarian - it wasn't racist that he decried Civil Rights legislation. After all, it's bad economics to discriminate. So it's not racism. Fundamentally, what these explanations try to do is convince you that you're not seeing what you think you're seeing so the oppression isn't real. There's nothing to complain about, accept our democratic society the way it is. Do not challenge racism because it isn't there to challenge. The same goes for sexism, gay oppression (remember the youth that killed themselves because of gay oppression? Yep, I think that's connected and don't forget the hubbub about Don't Ask, Don't Tell) and, most relevant to this discussion about Tuscon, Jewish oppression.

So after the massacre on Saturday, the discussion became "don't make this a political matter. It was just one crazy guy and this has nothing to do with the surrounding politics." And I tried to buy that. Really. And then I saw the headline of the HuffingtonPost.com that started with assassinations are inherently political acts. After all, Loughner tried to kill a POLITICAL figure, a member of Congress. I got to thinking that crazy people do have politics. And NO, this massacre is not inseparable from the political world we inhabit. To deny the oppression (the anti-female, anti-Jewish nature of this act) requires us to dismiss Loughner as just crazy and to sever this act completely from the world we live in.

I'm sorry. It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck - this was a political, anti-Jewish, anti-female act and I'm going to STOP pretending that the nonsense we have heard over the last two years has nothing to do with it. We have been so numbed by this anti-Black, anti-immigrant fervor that we cannot even see the ugly stuff being targeted at Jews and women. When Jews get targeted, I get particularly nervous because it starts to close the door to who is safe in this society ("And soon there was only me"). We are all being targeted by ugly oppressions in one way or another and we all have to have the guts to take a stand against it. It will not do to rail against Obama and call him racist anymore. It will not do to keep insisting that we build our fences to 'protect our borders'. It will not do to block the building of mosques. It will not do to harass kids and adults who are gender non-conforming and taunt them with anti-gay remarks. And it will not do to shoot Jewish members of Congress. Stop the madness.

Which brings us to Sarah Palin's most unfortunate comment today about "blood libel." Is her particular corner of America so numb, indifferent, or uncaring that she could do no better? Is she so isolated that she can't tell the impact of her words? How could she say this when a Jewish woman is fighting for her life in a hospital room in Tuscon. This is no longer who is politically for or against you. We are all Americans, like us or not and even if we weren't all Americans, as human beings we all deserve incredible respect, love and connection.

I'm not that interested in who's a racist or who is not. I only lay this out because I think we have to move beyond looking solely at people's intent and look at the impact of their actions. The IMPACT of all of this for two years now is anti-Black, anti-Jewish, anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-poor, and frankly, anti-American. It is creating a toxic environment for all Americans. We can't afford this anymore! Just sayin'.

The Gulf, Other Environmental Disasters, and "Big Government"

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has been heartbreaking at best. I, an avid news junkie, have had a hard time watching this story unfold. The combination of this country's ravenous desire for oil, outright greed, and lack of consideration for ecosystems is enough to make one both figuratively and literally sick (the people working to clean up the coasts are becoming ill, as if this wasn't bad enough!). I am also rooting for President Obama as the guy in charge of all of this, but he must do more.

First, I must say that President Obama needs to walk and chew gum. What do I mean? So much of what we hear about is how they are going to "plug the hole." This is critical
because we cannot continue having thousands of gallons of oil flowing into the Gulf of Mexico, particularly as we are in hurricane season. However, we also must aggressively try to stop having the oil come on shore and start immediately cleaning up any spaces where oil has come ashore. There are marshes where there is no sign of life - Anderson Cooper reported that there were not even BUGS in the air.
This is frightening and much more resource must be devoted to keeping the oil from coming to shore and cleaning up the areas where oil has come ashore. BP must hire all the hands necessary and aggressively clean up. No penny pinching. No watching the profit. They don't deserve profit. They deserve to make right with the residents of Southern Louisiana, Mississippi, and other Gulf states.

I actually agree with many critics that the government needs to set up a command center. This would coordinate the activities between government agencies and between private industry and the government. All orders about how to proceed would be issued from here. If for no other reason, the optics would finally look like the government was in charge.

Second, I can only say we reap what we sow. What do I mean? Here is my longer view - ever since Ronald Reagan's administration, Americans have complained about too many taxes and too large a government. The Tea Party is the most recent incarnation of this mantra, but there are implications for this. Cut taxes, that means there is not enough income for the services that government provides. In the last five years, how many problems has this country faced? Spinach and peppers that were contaminated with salmonella (yeah, we dramatically cut funding for the FDA), drugs that killed Americans (see the same agency), the levees in New Orleans were not properly built and the marsh land that historically surrounded New Orleans now held housing and there was no natural or human-created barrier for Katrina. Never mind the two mine accidents that have happened where miners lost their lives. All of this has serious implications for our environment.

What's my point . . . when we shrink the size of government and refuse to collect taxes to fund it, it handicaps the government's ability to respond to problems. The government does not have enough labs to test water samples. The government does not have experts to think through solving this problem. The government does not have enough people hired to clean up the disaster. As a result, it is entirely too dependent on industry to handle this. Hell, things were so bad for government workers that they were sleeping with and receiving gifts from oil industry executives. This is what happens when we have lower taxes and smaller government.



The only disaster I haven't mentioned was the financial meltdown. However, all of these events might have been prevented with robust government that was properly staffed and kept independent. The Tea Partiers' noise must stop. Given all of the challenges in this country, this is not the time for cutting back government. It is a time for shared sacrifice. I would be down for tax increases that allowed government to do this important work of regulating industry and keeping us safe and secure (as well as educating our kids!). Capitalism needs oversight - unfortunately greed has really undermined any ability for me to trust any industry. I said it before and I'll say it again, we are reaping what we are sowing. Just sayin'.