Monday, January 12, 2009

Radical Feminist Celie's Revenge's newest writing: "You Told Harpo To Beat Me?": How Hip Hop Music Defines and Devides Black Women

What follows is being reposted from blogger (and blog) Celie's Revenge, which is linked to on my blog roll. Thank you, Celie, for your work.

“You Told Harpo To Beat Me?”: How Hip Hop Music Defines and Divides Black Women, by Celie's Revenge, copyrighted 2008 [by the author, reposted at A.R.P. here with permission.]

I must admit I picked up Karrine Steffans’ first book Confessions of a Video Vixen out of curiosity and a taste for a little gossip. I only had a vague understanding of who she was and what the book would be about. I rarely read reviews and sometimes I seek the unexpected when picking up a book or selecting a film to see. I was not prepared for her voice to be so compelling, her story so tragic, and for her book to cement my already hostile feelings toward Hip Hop music’s treatment of women.

So I have to wonder: Have the people who criticize Karrine Steffans’ actually read her book? How anyone could know her story and not come away feeling anything but sadness for the woman and a burning hatred for the men who exploited and abused her is beyond my comprehension. Her very first experience with sex involved kidnapping, rape, and other violence when she was still a young girl. Her mother didn't even protect her but instead emotionally and physically abused her! If she has decided to market her trauma to make herself feel more than what her experience as superhead made her feel, I honestly can't blame her. I won't fault her. I refuse to mock her and use her as an example for why we Black women, in the words of Tupac Shakur, should wonder why they call us bitch!


Hoe-Bashing as Self Help

The following lines are from the poem “Hoochie Nation,” by Lelani Clarke. Clarke’s poem is dedicated to the Scarlet Knights, the Rutgers Women's Basketball Team, after radio shock jock Don Imus called the members of that winning team "nappy headed hoes." It won the National Association of Black Journalists poetry contest, one of the organizations that called for the firing of Imus after he made those racist-sexist remarks. The poem references Karrine Steffans in the following passage:

a self proclaimed
video ho
confessions of a video vixen
please
i'll pray for you sisters
cuz ms. steffans is busy
on her knees
selling pussy and fiction
sucking and fucking big dicks
a real superheadache
keeping borrowed time
on bill mahrs jock
she cashed in
on your shame
for oprah winfrey kind of fame
and no preacher would bless
her magdaleine hustle

(For the whole poem, please go to:
http://www.poetrymagazine.com/current_poetry/3lelani_clark_page1. )

In these lines and throughout the poem there is a mocking and shaming tone directed at Steffans and "hoochies" in general but no real anger or criticism directed at the men who encourage and really benefit from the sexual exploitation of girls and women. "Superhead" was the pornographic term which marked and marred Steffans. This is not due to her own actions: any woman who behaves in a way that men find sexually objectionable or desirable risks a nickname that becomes their “scarlet letter.” It was a stigma she could not escape.

The idea in the poem, of “praying” for her and women like her, is condescending and sexist because it puts the shame on the women not the men who brand them “hoochies” and treat them as such by sexually exploiting them. Saying “she cashed in on your shame” makes reference to Steffans exposing the famous men, many of them married, that used her sexually. So the men become the victims of their lust for her not egotistical players who used their power to attract powerless women who behaved according to their traumatic conditioning and lack of genuine self-worth. In the introduction to her book, Steffans writes:

The top reason a woman finds herself in a rap video, sprawled undressed over a luxury car while a rapper is saying lewd things about her, is a lack of self-esteem. I know it sounds like a cliché, but no one who values, loves, or knows herself would allow herself to be placed in such a degrading position.

In researching peoples reactions to her celebrity status for being a former music video dancer and groupie, Ms. Steffan's disgrace appears to be in writing a book and still not being well enough to admit that she was nothing more to these men than a "piece of ass." Some argue that she's glamorizing being a "hoochie" and is a bad example for young women. I can't imagine any literate female reading her book and seeing glamour in giving a blow-job until your nose bleeds. Steffans makes herself look bad: no matter how many books she sells or university campuses she visits her past and her rise to “fame” reflects a view of herself that many people will never reconsider. Through the sexist lens we use to judge women's truth-telling and experience she comes out looking even worse than the men. It is misogynistic to solely denounce women for holding a view of themselves that men won't release them from. It is misogynistic to focus on what's wrong with the women without leveling serious criticism at the men who create and maintain systems of abuse that exist to meet men's sexual demands, not women's.


Sisters vs. Bitches: The Ultimate Cat Fight!

It's telling that "Hoochie Nation" was dedicated to the women of Rutgers. It was a poem about bad women dedicated to good women. Throughout the controversy of the team being called "nappy-headed hoes" by Don Imus it was repeated again and again that they were good students, good athletes, and good women. Not hoes. They did not deserve to be called those names, nappy-headed or hoes. They were good girls and college students who did everything right. They were successful and classy. It was important to stress that they were virtuous to distinguish them from hoes who are the scum of the Earth.

In her public statements about Don Imus's remarks about her team, coach C. Vivian Stringer stressed that the women were “talented, articulate, classy, hard working, and gifted.” One of the teammates, Kia Vaughn, even filed a lawsuit for slander against Imus for his comments. As her attorney Richard Ancowitz put it, “Don Imus referred to my client as an unchaste woman. That was and is a lie.” Vaughn reiterated that it was about a soiled reputation and a label she was unfairly branded with because it does not apply to her. She stated, “I've achieved a lot and unless they've given 'ho' a new definition, that's not what I am.” Her coach upheld her sentiment that the definition of a hoe does not apply to her team because, “seated before you are valedictorians of their class, future doctors, musical prodigies and, yes, even Girl Scouts.” If we really believe that Don Imus's remarks were wrong because no woman deserves to be called a hoe, then why did these women have to go to such lengths to distinguish themselves from the label? As if some women who don't do everything right actually do qualify to be called hoes? This wasn't said but it was very much implied in the way the way the women had to defend themselves. If Don Imus had called a group of Black strippers he saw on The Tyra Banks Show a bunch of “nappy headed hoes” how would they defend themselves? And would there be any public outrage?

Black women who “know better” have to be careful not to direct our anger at other women, unless they are seen as being “beneath us.” Do self-righteous Black women who attack Karrine do so because she (and women "like her") really embarrass us, really "bring us down," OR are we really just joining in the chorus of hoe-bashing that Hip Hop encourages? Of course it's easier to take our frustration out on already maligned women than it is to take it out on the men who maligned them. After all, we'd rather be hoe-bashers than male-bashers right? Karrine has stated she forgives the men who pimped her, raped her, and beat her but will never forgive her mother. I would never try to tell an abuse survivor who deserves her forgiveness but it seems to me to be much easier to forgive men than women, much easier to forgive the oppressor than another oppressed person. It's what feminist Flo Kennedy called "horizontal hostility."

Shaming tactics, mocking tactics, self-righteous tactics by other females directed at women like Steffans for their own good have never felt right to me. Growing up a girl I learned early on that you just can’t fuck like a boy. And if you tried to you’d be taught a lesson about your place as a girl with a bad reputation, sexual frustration and disappointment, coercion and violence. These were the sexual realities of growing up a girl but acting like a boy. And my evolution toward a radical feminist politic that rejects the sex industry as a place where women are truly liberated has never felt incompatible with believing that there’s no such thing as a whore; there’s only misogynistic males who fear women’s power. Because I just knew that messing with boys raised on pornography and taught to view females as décor, a mommy, or a hoe was never going to offer a meaningful, healthy, or empowering sexuality to girls. But the hostility directed at bad girls, by good girls, has always felt like the deeper betrayal.

However, I want to believe our hearts are the in the right place when we ask each other to have more self-respect. At the same time, we still need to be careful not to become the "hoe bashers" the male rappers are, by portraying these women as greedy, “slutty,” and stupid. They are none of these things. They are human beings who have been victimized making a living in a world where no woman would be paid to be truly liberated.

In a way that only patriarchal men can do, powerful Black male celebrities hate Karrine even as they desire her! She unmasked them as the egotistical philandering abusive bastards they are. And they fear other abused women in the Hip Hop industry will come forward and expose them for what they are: greedy, abusive misogynists so drunk off their own success that they view women as little more than accessories who exist to assist them in getting off on their own power. But in the process of exposing this world of woman-hating, drug abuse and greed Karrine had to make herself vulnerable and reveal her own trauma at the hands of her own mother and many men throughout her life. Even as she unveiled the twisted world of Black Hollywood she never shied away from admitting her total, unhealthy admiration for celebrity status. She exposed herself as someone with self-esteem so destroyed she idolized entertainers that saw her only as a plaything to use and abuse. There was nothing prideful or glamorous about her story. Clearly bragging and boasting about your talent at giving blow-jobs is pathetic: many women and men agree on this. But when men brag and boast about their sexual conquests we are all supposed to applaud them. We demonize women; we adore men. So when a woman reveals herself in order to expose men who do we stone? Well, the woman of course! We don't go after the rapists and woman-beaters as victimizers but the raped and beaten women as victims! How is there a victim without a corresponding victimizer? Is the reason women aren't supposed to identify as victims because it implies there is or was a perpetrator of violence against her? To speak out as a victim would implicate males, and hoe-bashing is so much sexier, so much more in vogue, than male-bashing. Because any criticism of men, especially men in a community already under siege like ours can be easily dismissed when the issue is always seen as race, not gender. Because all the women are white, and all the Blacks are men. And this harsh truth continues to cripple how we imagine ourselves free.

An abused woman who decides to pay her rent by writing a book that tells the truth about her life and the men who harmed her is seen as both shameless and shameful, and must be dissed! She's an opportunistic hoe, a scorned woman, a mother who should just take care of her son! Details get lost, or are left out, to keep the misogynistic storyline uncomplicated by reality. At seventeen she had a son with Hip Hop pioneer, batterer and rapist Kool G Rap because she thought it would stop, him from hitting her, but her hopes vanished as he continued to abuse her even while the baby was in her arms!

So we hate on Karrine Steffens not only because she's "a self-proclaimed video ho," but also because she's trying to make her fame and fortune off a shameful nickname men branded onto her life. She publicized the men who branded her "to get the last laugh." But any woman similarly stigmatized will be endlessly mocked. The sad truth is there is no way for a woman branded as she has been to get in the last laugh. And because it is too difficult to accept that any Black woman is one street harasser or abusive boyfriend away from being called the names Karrine has been called, because she reminds us of the hate Black men feel for all of us, we hate on her in part by distancing ourselves from her.

How truly sick and disempowered does a woman have to be to market her own history of rape and abuse--which is what being a superhead really means? What does all of this say about the options for women trying to empower themselves in the Hip Hop industry? It means the industry is based solely on women as orifices, “tits and ass.”

You've sucked dick until your nose bled and now you have to wear the name of the men who orally raped you? And yes, I called it rape! I refuse to blame her or blame anyone who does what she does--or more accurately had done to them what she had done to her, which was oral rape! A woman, a human being, with her history of sexual, emotional, and physical abuse, especially if it started as a child, is not responsible for what they become when what they become is so determined for them by pimps eager to take advantage of them. Her extremely traumatized self was vulnerable to being turned into "a sex object" by men who prey on such girls and women. They are not responsible for what they allow others to do to them even if they offer their consent. A woman consenting to be exploited and abused doesn't make what men do to her anything other than exploitation and abuse. The fact that many victims of sexual abuse survive and even thrive doesn't mean predatory and exploitive men don't try and get what they can from them, personally and professionally. Some of girls are bound to grow up to become a superhead in a capitalist system run by men who want sex from women any way they can force women and girls to perform it. And no, I'm not an expert on mental health, I'm just a radical feminist. And yes, I blame the patriarchy!

Steffans doesn't want to be a victim because victims aren't sexy. So you'll see her scantily clad, with blond weave, giving the public a peek at her new breast implants on her latest book cover for The Vixen Diaries. But around her neck she's wrapped a phone cord yanking it to one side as if strangling herself because this hustle is killing her!


Black “Feminist” Pimps Up, Hustling Hoochies Down

I don't think she's hurting anyone but herself in using her groupie past to become a star. If she's "sick" then why stone her? Is it "for her own good?" Should she be punished as a means of controlling other women? The poem continues, "no preacher would bless her Magdalene hustle." First of all, Mary Magdalene-as-prostitute is a misogynist Christian myth, a blatantly incorrect reading of the New Testament. But regardless of that misread, as a "fallen woman" should Karrine seek forgiveness for her wanton ways from followers of a patriarchal religion that stigmatizes women in so many ways? She's vilified for being "a hustler"? Wow! Okay, so whereas Jay-Z and 50 Cent become Gods for boasting about hustling and killing people, a woman who markets " her shame" as "a self proclaimed video ho" only gets ridicule, not sympathy (or social status, as the men do). Obviously in Hip Hop, what's good for the goose is not good for the gander! Selling drugs, killing people, and pimping are all acceptable to celebrate as factors in achieving your fame--if you have a penis, that is. Being beaten, raped, "dancing like a hoochie," and giving a series of blow-jobs damns you, if you are a woman! Gotcha! (How much more glaring can a double standard be?!)

How is it that in the age of "post-modern, sex-positive Hip Hop feminism" we can on the one hand argue that women are empowered by prostitution, stripping, and being porn stars, and then vilify Karrine Steffens for exposing her history of being abused and the men who abused her? Maybe because the only way to sell empowerment through sex is to never admit that you're a victim, and to pretend you were put on this Earth to be what exploitive men want women to be. Like Lil'Kim. Chop up your face and body to look like a "Black Pamela Anderson" and you earn your stardom because you don't admit that you do it out of self-hate but instead claim you have a genuine desire to be the "Baddest Bitch." And keep your mouth shut about the men like Biggie Smalls who've pimped and beat your ass because they are our heroes (Hollywood Movie pending…). Hell, even his mother thinks he should have blown your brains out! Hip Hop, Black Hollywood--whatever you want to call it--is a "dysfunctional family" and I refuse to sit by and let folks beat up on a sick woman like Steffans for doing exactly what men are applauded for doing! Karrine's only crime: calling abuse 'abuse' and naming names. Those acts apparently justify men hating her, and while they're at it, women will too!

Discussion on gender in Hip Hop remains one that is the least threatening to its overthrow as an industry and culture that exploits women. So it allows Black male intellectuals like Michael Eric Dyson to have a platform to co-opt Black feminist thought and reduce it to being about loving but not listening to Black women because the love comes with the condition that we praise him and are grateful that he bothers to consider us at all. Celebrating our behinds and defending our pimps then condescending to their Black female critics in every sexist way imaginable all becomes possible under the banner of Black male "feminism" peddled by Dyson and his crew. All in a day's hustle! Meanwhile, Hip Hop feminists can proudly proclaim that equality does nothing for them erotically; only sexual objectification and male chauvinism gets their "panties wet." Seeking applause for broadcasting one's internalized misogyny whether you be male or female is the new hustle seeking to co-opt feminist liberation. That's the real hustle that should be mocked and stoned: peddling a progressive politic that is, at its core, "guilt-free and sexy"
without any cost or consequence to men and the women who are comfortable pimping Black feminism, but not holding themselves accountable for perpetuating misogyny.


Bitches Get What They Deserve

When asked his take on the Don Imus controversy, Snoop Dogg said in defense of Hip Hop, “It's a completely different scenario. Rappers are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports. We're talking about ho's that's in the 'hood that ain't doing shit, that's trying to get a nigga for his money. These are two separate things.” Snoop Dogg stressed that rappers are not “old-ass white men that sit up on MSNBC going hard on Black girls. We are rappers that have these songs coming from our minds and our souls that are relevant to what we feel. I will not let them motherfuckers say we in the same league as him.” Although he called what Snoop Dogg said ignorant and misogynistic, Black pro- feminist scholar Marc Anthony Neal defended Snoop Dogg in his piece “What’s the Real Reason for the Sudden Attack on Hip Hop,” by stating “At least he was being honest.” Of course he couldn't bring himself to call Snoop's characterization of poor Black women elitist. A gangster rapper acting elitist?! That would fly in the face of Snoop’s and Hip Hop’s much needed image: processors of infallible “street cred.” Never mind that there are tons of examples of Hip Hop music bashing poor people. However, as long as the targets are primarily poor women, it's all good!

Like Crystal Gail Magnum, the alleged victim in the “Duke Lacrosse Rape Case” Karrine Steffans is not what Marc Anthony Neal describes in his analysis “(White) Male Privilege Black Respectability, and Black Women’s Bodies” as a “respectable victim” to the Black community: a female who is morally superior with a reputation untarnished by unwed motherhood or involvement in the sex industry. In order to speak out on her abuse, Steffans had to come clean about her own life and none of it was savory. She had to reveal her consent to and even her admiration for the men who raped, pimped, and beat her and this left her even more vulnerable to judgment and disrespect. However, in his brushing off of Snoop’s statement regarding Imus, Neal fails to mention how Hip Hop’s sister/bitch dichotomy also reinforces the notion of the “respectable victim:” it justifies the name-calling, exploitation and the harmful treatment of poor Black women through lyrics claiming they are deserving of disrespect because they are less than the “sisters making something of themselves” like the athletes at Rutgers.

The song “Pigeons” by the Sporty Thieves was made in response to the song “Scrubs” by TLC. It offers some of the most vicious anti-poor Black female lyrics:

I hate pigeons
dirty braid pigeons
Medicaid pigeons
section 8 pigeons
if you got more than one baby father...ohhh yess girl wez talkin to you
if you strip all week to go clubbin……ohhh yess girl wez talkin to you
buy a dress to front and take it back to the store…..ohhh yess girl wez talkin to you

Male rappers always get props for “keeping it real.” No matter how sexist, homophobic, classist, or racist the artists are, their oppressive and bigoted music is listened to and applauded even by men who should know better. They just can't lose. Women, on the other hand, are viewed with contempt when they speak the truth unless that truth comes across as sexy, non-threatening, and reinforces male privilege and gender roles.

Women are told we are what we wear, we are how we behave (especially when coerced or forced by men to behave that way), and we are what we are called by men who disrespect us. We get what we deserve which is what men decide we deserve based on their contempt for us. In his song "Sisters and Bitches," Jay-Z raps "Bitch! Sisters get respect, bitches get what they deserve." What women deserve according to Snoop Dogg is to be on a leash or hit upside the head. Nelly, on the other hand, believes women deserve to have a credit card swiped through their asses. And of course Ludacris knows what them girls like and that’s for him to be pimping them all over the world! So now that we've established the range of what women deserve based on their actions (choreographed by men), their sexual karma or natures, or their lack of self-respect cultivated in a misogynistic society, we are left with this question: What exactly do men deserve?

In Hip Hop culture it basically boils down to dudes bragging and boasting about their big dicks (Snoop), money (50 Cent), and power (Jay-Z). These men and other Hip Hop artists promote an entire culture in which men complain that women are bitches, hoes, and gold diggers precisely because they only want men for their money, big dicks, and power; the spurious attributes which give men status take away women's status. Boasting about having a big dick is cool. A woman desiring to have intimate contact with one is not or she’s a hoe and a freak.

Unfortunately, as has been noted, women are not immune to adopting and reflecting this same anti-woman value system. Even women who proclaim to care about ending the degradation of their sisters, believe if you dress and act like a hoe you will be--and often should be--treated like a hoe.

So when men rap about their big dicks, their money, and their power, they deserve to be respected and worshipped for possessing the very things they attack women for going after. Gotcha! Why does possession of those very attributes bring men status and simultaneously take it away from women? Because men are the possessors, that's why. The "suckers" who don't have what men claim to have are socially, literally "fucked."

I have been told the song "Sisters and Bitches" by Jay-Z which includes these profoundly original representations of women (please note the sarcasm) adequately explains why some women deserve respect and others don't:

Sisters work hard, bitches work your nerves
Sisters hold you down, bitches hold you up
Sisters help you progress, bitches will slow you up
Sisters cook up a meal, play their role with the kids
Bitches in street with their nose in your biz
Sisters tell the truth, bitches tell lies
Sisters drive cars, bitches wanna ride

Tupac's song "Wonder Why they Call You Bitch" is another gem of male supremacist logic in expressing the sister/bitch dichotomy essential to Hip Hop’s gender troubles. He raps, "And all the other people on my block hate your guts. Then you wonda why they stare and call you slut." While Jay Z hollers “I LOVE MY SISTERS, I DON’T LOVE NO BITCH,” Tupac, being the prodigal son of Hip Hop and all, takes a firm but gentler “pimp hand” to schooling the “bitches.” He raps “I love you like a sista but you need to switch and that's why they called U bitch, I betcha.” Tupac truly believes he’s doing women a service by letting us in on why men hate us. His misogyny cloaked as concern enables us to reform into true upstanding ladies worthy of men’s respect if we take his advice.

"Sisters and Bitches" and "Wonder Why They Call You Bitch" are songs by two Hip Hop legends. Both are touted by Hip Hop’s supposedly "thinking people" as anthems for justifying what makes a woman deserving of being respected or dised. Tupac raps, "I'm hearin' rumors so you need to switch and niggas wouldn't call you bitch, I betcha." So when men give a female "a rep" it's her job to prove them wrong or she's permanently a slut and a bitch. Makes misogynistic sense to me! Tupac continues, “You leave your kids with your mama cuz your headin' for the club in a skin tight miniskirt lookin' for some love.” So the dude who whips his dick out on the dance floor at the club isn't a pervert: he is responding appropriately to your slutty attire. The women at Rutgers are good, they are in college. They dress like athletes, not hoes. They are worthy of our defense. Many in the public were angered not because Black women are called hoes, but because those (mostly) Black women got lumped together with Black women who are strippers, “video vixens”, and with women who go to clubs dressed like hoes.

The dude who grabs my ass while he's passing by on a bike or the dude who calls me a bitch because I wont give him my attention as I make my way from point A to point B on a city street, or the dude who tries to sneak up behind me in the parking lot at night because I was stupid enough to walk to my car with my headphones still on: these men are just practicing tough love on Black women who know better than to see and treat Black women as a group worthy of unconditional respect. We are all negatively impacted by Black men's misogyny. Racist misogyny is designed to divide us internally and to divide us against each other, perpetuating their hate when they’re not around to do it. "Divide and conquer": that's been the strategy in the U.S. ever since white men owned field slaves and house slaves. Except now Black men practice it all by themselves knowing full well it does nothing but prop them up at our expense. That's quite a step forward, huh?

The contemporary version involves Black men giving us the mistreatment we deserve because we are hoes until proven innocent. We are bitches until proven virtuous. Without impeccable "pedigrees" we are assumed to be the most "degradation-worthy" women. (And as Imus demonstrated, not even the most "upstanding" Black women are immune to the same derisive name-calling.) Tupac continues, "Keep your mind on your money, enroll in school. And as the years pass by you can show them fools." Yeah, and I suppose the solution to warding off this tough love by Black men is for me to wear my Master's degree taped to my ass so there’s never any doubt that I’m a sister about something, not just some nappy head hoe unworthy of respect!

Imagine if Justin Timberlake's new song was called "Wonder Why They Call You Nigger" or Eminem came out with a song called "Black Men and Niggers." And it went something like:

Black men are articulate, niggers just sound ig'nant
Black men have wives, niggers have baby mamas
Black men go to the Ivy League, niggers just go to jail
Black men wave the flag, niggers wave their gun
Black men have a shot at anything, niggers just get shot
Black men are loved in Iowa, niggers are hated everywhere
Black men can become the President, niggers can just dream on!

I wonder if it would be a hit on the charts? I wonder who would direct the video? More seriously though, I wonder if we'd ever make the much needed connection between how white folks stereotype Black people and the way Black men demonize Black women? I’m almost certain this will go over most Black men’s heads. Of course you can’t compare racism to sexism! Black men are having way too much fun to give up their toys--those toys being Black women!

It amazes me how much sympathy and celebration we have for men who "have had it rough" and use that as an excuse to be abusive towards women. These men actually profit from exploiting women in their career as entertainers, yet we have no room to understand how sexually assaulted girls then grow up to become "hoes." Black men who become rappers with a history of violence, hustling, or low self-esteem are understood and even applauded for becoming self-proclaimed gangsters and pimps. We excuse them because of their history. Let's not forget the award-winning hook, "it's hard out here for a pimp!" For men it's: What do we expect? Women didn't like him until he got rich, that's why he calls them gold diggers! What do we expect? He had to hustle growing up that's why all he sings about is bling and paper! What do we expect? He grew up without his father and had an overbearing mother--no wonder he resents strong women! What do we expect? All the women around him were acting like hoes; that's why he's a player!

Well, what do we expect from Karrine? All the men around her were shoving their dicks in her face! I don't blame her, but I do wish she had taken a couple bites!

So I'll verbally bash the men who use sexually abuse and physically bash vulnerable women! Karrine was abused and drugged out when she did those things! After a history of sexual and physical abuse, drug use, and a systematically crushed self-esteem, superhead was born. I can't imagine how any human being could come out from under such deeply personal violations and not be thoroughly traumatized.


The Sisterhood of the “Look at Her Pants?!”

So what came first: the hoe or the abuse? If we love ourselves and respect ourselves will that shield us from abuse? Maybe. But I know it's hard out there for a sister and on my best days I've had men cut me down just for ignoring their unwelcomed advances. On my best days I still have to be subjected to pornographic images of Black women at the grocery checkout counter. Every where I turn I must dodge images, ideas and treatment reinforcing unhealthy and disempowering options for women: we are only here to look pretty, to be somebody’s mother or somebody’s hoe. We are allowed to super-maternal, super-sexual, or super-artificial. Even without childhood sexual abuse, poverty, or encountering a pimp as a precursor to becoming one of "those" women, should we really expect all women to act like the women of the Rutgers basketball team? With such unrelenting messages about women's place in this culture, is it reasonable, let alone fair or just, to believe no woman among us will act according to men's standards of who we should be, for them, when they have economic and other advantages over us? Darlene Aiken posted the following to the Facebook message board for the group “100,000,000 Strong Against the Degradation of African American Women:”

Women need to know that we can help further the success of this cause by watching the manner in which we dress [my emphasis] and pay particular care to the references we make to ourselves. Self-esteem is about having self-respect first. That does not mean that our dress and behavior gives anyone a ticket to mistreat women, but by virtue of loving ourselves first [my emphasis] we, without words, will force people to do one of two things, love us or leave us.

This all sounds very appealing, logical, and innocent enough and I don't doubt her sincerity and thoughtfulness in posting this. But is it really asking too much of men not to take advantage of our conditioning or lack of self-respect? Or is the degradation of African American women primarily our own fault? Is self-esteem even possible in a society that treats you like shit? At what point in time did the feminist cause shift to fundamentally gaining self-respect, and away from holding men directly accountable for how they brand and treat us? We are now living in a time when too many women call themselves and one another 'bitch' but that doesn't make it okay for Black men to use the term against me or any other woman. Just like our throwing around the word 'nigger' as Black folks does not justify it being used as a slur by whites.

How does loving yourself force people to love you or leave you alone? We're never left alone. One of the messages and functions of a misogynist society with its ubiquitous hyper-sexualization of women of all colors, is that no matter how great we feel about ourselves, we can be reduced to being seen or treated as a 'hoe.' And the point here is that women inside and outside systems of prostitution deserve to be treated with respect, always. The climate we live in is one that tells us again and again our value as women is first and foremost about being 'sexy,' as corporate pornographers and other racist misogynists define that term.

That's why even our first Black First Lady is subjected to media comments about her "style," and her “booty”. The matter of her husband's style and booty, by comparison, gets relatively no press. Because, her primary value, as First Lady, is in being attractive; his value is in being powerful—with his attractive, polite wife and mother of his children by his side. The headlines about how Michele’s style and body type will affect women in America only reinforces sexist gender roles and the notion that a woman’s place is in being Wife, Mother and Eye Candy. Barak is just allowed to be president, seen primarily in relation to his work, his accomplishments, not his spouse or his body. Is it any wonder that when faced with these messages about value and appearance women take it to the extreme and do what men call “peddle our worth?” Especially when men will pay us—or our pimps—more to be degradingly sexually available to them than to do anything else?! And when even "conservative" long-running Jet Magazine can still get away with continuing its "Beauty of the Week" photo spread of a woman in a bikini between apparently serious news stories for no other reason but to provide Eye Candy for its heterosexual male readership, then I think women are getting the message loud and clear about what we're here for! So no, I don't think our wayward sisters are making a leap about a female’s value being her booty when even the new First Lady gets subjected to it by Black men and women who should know better!

As for the women in the videos, I'm not saying all of them were abused as children but all of them, just like the rest of us, grew up conditioned to believe that a woman's worth is in her face and body not her mind, spirit, or strength. So how can we blame them for doing what they've been taught to do ever since we had (white) Barbies shoved in our hands as little girls? I'm also not saying what these women do is liberation in any feminist sense; it's just the opposite. It's not a form of empowerment that I strive for or want for other black women. But I refuse to mock them or blame them or distinguish myself from them.

We are all victims but those of us who have managed, so far, to steer clear of such objectifying, degrading work, shouldn't act like we've never been where they've been and can't also end up on our knees. We're no better or smarter than they are. We just might be a tad stronger-willed, or had something or someone that got us through the call to be turned out by a pimp or video director.

Men’s value of women is made explicitly clear in the life of Karrine: there was nothing she got from a man that didn’t require her to barter with her body. She clearly states that when she refused to sell her sexuality she starved or had to live out of her car. Does that say something about her? Or does that say more about dudes being unable too see and treat (and employ) women as whole persons without using and abusing us sexually? Compassion and understanding towards other women, even the ones who "makes us look bad" is the only way to hold our real enemies accountable and the enemies are those men who create and profit from this Hip Hop mess.

The bottom line is that I don't believe that any of this is our fault: It's not because of how we dress or behave. No woman, no matter how she "carries herself" or what she does sexually with any amount of men deserves to be called a hoe. No woman. Heterosexual men are not called hoes for being promiscuous. Heterosexual men are not called “loose.” Such terms always carry a racist and sexist stigma. Until we've got equally hateful and stigmatizing names for the men who talk trash about her, cat call her, and use her sexually, then I say leave the sister alone! Yes, there are risky behaviors and foolish choices we all make regardless of gender. The difference is the punishment for our risky behavior and foolish choices is often verbal and emotional abuse, physical assault and rape, or death. Men muttering “bitch” or “hoe,” is what some men and women consider to be "lucky" for women. Men never have to worry about being physically violated and killed by women for being seen as "down and out."

Men’s violence against women is never our fault, although everything from the Bible to media tells us otherwise. There is nothing we have done to deserve our degradation. Nothing! So there is nothing we can do in isolation to stop it! What we can do is stop making excuses for men, stop blaming and shaming women, and stop buying into media, institutions, and ideas that support our degradation when we claim to know better! But changing our dress? Changing our behavior? Ladies… we are fine just as we are! Imagine that? Imagine that we really all are okay: that it's not our fault, but theirs, for treating us the way they do? Imagine for a minute that's it not about us but them! Imagine for a moment that instead of questioning ourselves and putting down other Black women we demanded unconditional respect and equality from Black men, not only because we’re their sisters but because we are also like them: human.

Putting myself out there--yet again--because that’s what women have to do to tell the truth about men: I remember years ago in high school being drunk and leaving a party with a guy I thought I could trust who had offered to make sure I got home okay. Of course even in my drunkenness I could tell that he was feeling me up when he should have just been holding me up. I was too scared and vulnerable to resist as he touched me in ways he had no right to…or did he? My choice to get drunk was a stupid one so maybe I didn’t deserve to be treated with respect. After all, “stupid bitches get treated like hoes?” I think that just might be Lil’Waynes next hit! Maybe it was asking too much of a guy not to take advantage of a drunk girl. Maybe it was asking too much of a guy to treat me how he’d want to be treated if he was also vulnerable. It wouldn’t be asking too much if I lived in a different world, in one where I was considered human, equal and as worthy as he was. Then I could fuck up and still feel safe and respected with a little help from my brothers. Keep dreaming…...

I remember once telling a girlfriend, regarding how men treat us, "It's like you're a bitch if you don't, and a hoe if you do!" You just can't win! It's not set up for us to win. It's set up for us to fail. Men benefit from portraying us as bitches and hoes just as much as they do from calling us sisters. Their male privilege to define conquers all women.

"What About Our Daughters" is a blog set up to challenge the funding of the media war against Black women and girls. Its homepage offers several t-shirts for sale. One in particular makes this divide-and-conquer sentiment so clear with a two-line slogan. The first line reads Black Unity and underneath it is this: Calling me "sister" does not make it so. STOP defending the privilege to call me a "HO"! These ladies are so right on! So when Jay-Z screeches on his track “Sisters & Bitches”, "I love my sisters, I don't love no bitch," we holla back, "Jay you ain't no brother of mine until you stop calling ANY female out of her name!"

Men's sexual desires and practices require us to be forever blaming ourselves, forever questioning our behavior, forever carrying the blame and shame that belongs solely to them! In this world, they can just cut us down and not be seen as responsible, let alone accountable. Atop the gender hierarchy, men determine who deserves respect and who doesn't. And when any individual woman is disrespected, all of us pay the price.

Men’s sexual desires and practices require us to be forever blaming our selves, forever questioning our behavior, forever carrying the blame and shame that belongs solely to them! In this world, they can just cut us down and not be seen as responsible, let alone accountable. Atop the gender hierarchy, men determine who deserves respect and who doesn't. And when any individual woman is disrespected, all of us pay the price.

When I wrote my first piece on Hip Hop, "Celie's Revenge: Hip Hop Betrays Black Women," I received tons of letters. Most of them were encouraging and their authors offered solidarity with my analysis but still critiqued my refusal in the piece to "hold women accountable" for how they allow themselves to be used in the industry. However, my intention was exactly that: to go after the men who benefit collectively and individually from sexually exploiting women in the music industry and in our community through Hip Hop culture. There is enough woman-blaming. I wasn't going to contribute to it. There is no doubt that women are complicit in their own oppression but so are Black folk. There is no doubt that racist patriarchy couldn't continue unless many women supported it but the same goes for white supremacy. But to think that it’s women, especially Black women, who keep racist patriarchy going strong is to pretend men of all colors are socially impotent. In fact, men collectively hold the power to stop racist sexism dead in its tracks.

The unrelenting way this culture both costumes and consumes girls and women leaves many of us with few options that bring or instill dignity and respect for all women. We are taught to hate ourselves unless we appear sexy to a man. It also conditions everyone to despise the women who dress “that way.” This can't be blamed on us. Black women don’t control the fashion and music industry nor e do we benefit from its trends. Yet within the discourse on Hip Hop’s denigration of women, there is too much talk about what women wear or how they behave. There needs to be more talk about the dollars being thrown at them by men and the sexually violent lyrics used by men to shame them.

“Hoe bashing" has become a type of self help born out of the cause to end the degradation of women in Hip Hop. The movement to end Hip Hop’s war on black women has been reduced to instructing us that as women that “we're not what we're called but rather what we answer to.” We are told to disparage and dis-identify with the women who name themselves what misogynist men call us.
From the perspective of this sort of sexism, if we are hurt by the names and treatment it's our own fault for either behaving like hoes or responding negatively (humanely) to being called a hoe.

Unanswered questions linger, attempting to air the on-going neglect and abuse: in our culture, where are the men offering us genuinely healthy and empowering choices in careers and relationships? When will men make each other take full responsibility for the effects of what they do to us? And finally, who is teaching girls and young women, inside and outside systems of sexual degradation, the true meaning of liberation?


References

Wonder Why They Call You Bitch 

http://behindthelyrics.net/browse/0/2Pac_Tupac_Shakur/Wonder_Why_They_Call_U_Bytch/

Bitches & Sisters
http://behindthelyrics.net/browse/j/Jay-Z/Bitches_amp_Sisters/

Pigeons
http://behindthelyrics.net/browse/s/Sporty_Thievz/No_Pigeons_parody_of_TLCs_Scrubs/

Words from a Hip Hop Feminist
http://www.courier-journal.com/blogs/vel20/2008/02/words-from-hip-hop-feminist.html

“Hoochie Nation” by Lelani Clark
http://www.poetrymagazine.com/current_poetry/3lelani_clark_page1.htm

Imus Is Snoop's Frankenstein Monster
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/imus-is-snoops-frankenst_b_45766.html

(White) Male Privilege, Black Respectability, and Black Women’s Bodies by Mark Anthony Neale
http://www.blackcommentator.com/180/180_white_male_privilege.html

SPEECH ON DON IMUS By C. Vivian Stringer (Delivered April 10, 2007 at the Louis Brown Athletic Center at Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey)
http://www.blackinformationhighway.com/Speech%20Stringer.htm

Rutgers team speaks 'for all women'
Posted by The Star-Ledger April 10, 2007 1:17PM
http://blog.nj.com/ledgerupdates/2007/04/rutgers_team_speaks_for_all_wo.html

The Seaspot Week In Review With Nate Money 3/24/03
http://www.seaspot.com/music-news-03242003.htm

DYSON CALLED ON HIS OBAMA BOOTY TALK: Paul Porter says TV One 'After Party' analyst's comment was inappropriate.
http://www.eurweb.com/story/eur46554.cfm

Michael Eric Dyson: The Pimp Revisited
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1467758

End of post. Comments follow:


2 comments:

Tata said...
I've found it difficult throughout my entire life to watch or listen to these stories, because I've repressed memories that are triggered all to often by even just the slightest hint. So I congratulate you for your impressionable blog and will say, thank you for fighting the good fight for her, for me, for all of us.
Julian Real said...
Hello Tata. Thank you so much for that comment. It brought tears to my eyes. I know there are so many of us out there who are so busy just trying to find our footing after being triggered for the first or fifth time in one day, swirling around in the ocean linking past to present, not knowing whether sky is up or sand is down. And hopefully, with the help of caring friends, or other supports, we find the shore, we stand firmly on the ground again, knowing where we are and who we are. I hope that you have loving people around you who understand what you experience, who are, as I've heard it described, "trauma literate". I hope there are people around you, in other words, who don't make you feel crazy or wrong or bad or unusual, for being triggered by any past trauma's reminders in the present. I hope you honor the ways you have found to survive. Peace to you and best wishes in finding whatever forms of constructive healing are available. I know that for too many, the list of resources, the places to go--internally and externally, for the right kind of support, is very short indeed. And I send you a wish that you've found ways to maintain deep compassion for yourself, in whatever state of being you are in. I find that there is a particular strength in knowing, understanding, and honoring my vulnerabilities.

Friday, January 9, 2009

Hurray To Norway's New Law Criminalising Purchasing Sex!!!!!!!!!

This is the best news I've heard in a long time. Read on...

New Norway law bans buying of sex

Norway says the new law targets the clients and not the prostitutes
A new law has come into force in Norway making the purchase of sex illegal.

Norwegian citizens caught paying for prostitutes at home or abroad could face a hefty fine or a six-month prison sentence, authorities say.

The prison sentence could be extended to three years in cases of child prostitution.

The Norwegian authorities say they want to stamp out sex tourism and street prostitution by targeting clients rather than prostitutes.

"We think buying sex is unacceptable because it favours human trafficking and forced prostitution," deputy Justice Minister Astri Aas-Hansen was quoted as saying by the AFP news agency.

Wire-tapping

The tough new measures go further than similar ones introduced by other Nordic countries such as Sweden and Finland.

Norwegian police have been authorised to use wire-tapping devices to gather evidence. [source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7806760.stm ]

There has already been a visible decrease in women working on the streets of central Oslo, local media report.

Prostitutes will be offered access to free education and health treatment for those with alcohol or drugs problems.

The government had already launched a publicity campaign before the law came into force.

Critics of the new regulations say prostitution will simply be driven underground and will be more difficult to control. [ Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7806760.stm ]

_____________________

Pimps' and johns' activities have always been underground, and too often the women in systems of prostitution end up "underground" so fuck the critics. And men who sexually purchase women can go to hell... which, I've heard, is also underground! --Julian
END OF POST.

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Michael Moorcock remembering Andrea Dworkin, Lover of Humanity


The above photo is of Michael Moorcock and appears on at least one of his websites. I was aware of Michael and Andrea's friendship of many years, and here he describes his first encounter with her. What follows was written by Michael within two days following Andrea's death, April 2005.

From this webpage:

Here's a piece I did fairly recently, for Andrea's birthday.
A bit stilted, I fear, but it gives some idea of the woman she was.

ANDREA DWORKIN APPRECIATION
Michael Moorcock

HAVING BEEN HER admirer since Our Blood, I had wanted to meet Andrea Dworkin for quite some time so that when our mutual publisher, Secker and Warburg, told me she would be appearing at the University of East Anglia and asked if I would appear on the same platform I accepted at once! Feeling somewhat reclusive, I had been reluctant to agree to any public appearance until the editor mentioned Andrea's name. What was more I really had no particular wish to share a stage with the other participants who had been mentioned, a poet and a newspaper critic whose work I didn't much care for.

So my wife Linda (also a Dworkin fan) and I travelled on the train to Norwich, East Anglia, with the publisher and the critic, who proved to be as obnoxious as I remembered, though I did my best, for the sake of the occasion, to be pleasant to him. I was more than willing to suffer the unpleasantness so long as I had the prospect of meeting a woman I already regarded as one of the most eloquent and incisive social analysts of our time.

We arrived at the hotel where she was staying and sought her out while the poet and the critic went off to drink at the bar. My publisher was nervous. He had heard that Dworkin was a "man-eater", fierce and uncompromising. Others had said the same about her, yet I could not believe, from her writings, that this was so. The writer I had read was meticulous in supporting her arguments, humane in her judgements, certainly not unfair in her conclusions. And sure enough, of course, when Linda and I were introduced to her she was courteous and gracious, with rather shy good manners, and, as it turned out, she had taken the trouble to read the work of all the other panelists, something neither they nor I had done. Happily I had read all her work to date. The theme of the panel was, as I recall, something to do with subversive writing. I wasn't entirely sure what this had to do with the work of the critic, a pillar of the status quo if ever there was one, but I accepted the theme and had prepared a piece. Eventually, we were taken to the university and the lecture hall where the audience waited for us.

Looking out at that audience it was pretty obvious that the majority of it consisted either of Andrea's readers or mine. There was a good contingent of evidently militant feminists there to see Andrea but this did not mean the groups were mutually exclusive. I was comfortable with the audience, the rest of whom were a scattering of students and academics with members of the English and creative writing schools, Malcolm Bradbury, Lorna Sage and Jonathan Raban in the front row.

The critic was there to talk about his book about one hundred great English writers, managing to mention only Jane Austin and perhaps Virginia Woolf and no other women in his list. Like the poet, he was a little the worst for drink and not entirely sure what he was there to do. In his braying lisp, he set about describing his argument, which immediately upset the sensibilities of the feminists, who, finding no satisfactory answers from him and being met with facetious sexism, walked out. It took Andrea to bring them back. While I was an admirer of her prose, I was not prepared for what I next experienced. She was an inspiring and passionate speaker whose words brought tears to my eyes and applause from the audience.

When Andrea had finished, the poet got up to speak and made some genuinely silly sexist remarks in relation to "battered men" - fairly familiar stuff to those who have attended debates about sexism and violence against women. He then proceeded to read, in a slurred voice, some poems which were equally unpleasant and anti-woman in tone. I looked at him aghast. Even if I had shared his sentiments I would not have dared address that night's audience in that way. There was again a growing anger amongst certain sections of his listeners.

The poet was swiftly dragged off and the publisher, who was also the mediator, hastily pushed me forward to speak. I forget about my own prepared notes and instead found myself supporting Andrea's arguments. The meeting had been politicised not so much by her as by the men reacting against her on the platform. By now the blood of the militants was up and they weren't prepared to hear me out. It took Andrea to quiet them and ask them to give me space. We ended up with a lively political debate which wasn't quite what the English school had had in mind but which most of the audience seemed to prefer. So it was on that stage, rather than in private, that Andrea and I began our friendship! We found we had much in common, not least our faith that feminism was the freshest, most dynamic element of modern politics and the one most likely to provide answers for most of our current dilemmas!

We have been firm friends now for close to twenty years. I have been able to support her several times in print, with reviews, interviews and general polemic. I have been proud to promote her arguments and ideas through my own public appearances, through my journalism, fiction and my website, which has brought many young men to admire her wisdom as much as I do. I do not see it as my business to preach to women, of course, but by addressing men, I think I am doing something worthwhile. Not because I love her and feel a pretty wholly unconditional friendship towards her, but because I believe her ideas are worth promoting, that they bring something good and important to the world.

Since that stormy evening, Linda, myself and Andrea have stood together in mutual support, not only on public platforms but in private, when times have seemed dark and it has taken a great deal to lift us from our despondency. Yet we seem to succeed pretty much most of the time.

What has alway struck me most about Andrea, apart from her qualities of intellect and loyal friendship, is her eloquence, her courtesy and her self-control, all of which she exhibited on that first night. It often surprises me, since we are separated usually by thousands of miles, how lucky we have been to be so frequently in (or near) the same place at the same time, meeting in New York, London and even Corpus Christi, Texas, to talk, enjoy ourselves and offer one another help and insights.

I often thank my stars that, no matter how reluctant I had originally been to attend that debate, I allowed myself to be persuaded to go to Norwich that night. As a result I have received a reward beyond measure.

Andrea Dworkin remains one of my best and most precious old friends. Indeed, she is one of the most valuable people in the world.. As time goes on, I am convinced that more and more of the world will come to appreciate her as much as I do. Even when all the injustice is at last addressed and overcome, when the last predator has ceased to walk the planet, her name and her work will endure for as long as human thought endures.

Michael Moorcock,
Austin, Texas.

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

"You Misuse It, You Lose It": On Biting The Unwelcome Penis, Part 1


The earlier subtitle to this piece was "On Snow White, Snow-jobs, and Blow-jobs" but I've since (1/2/2009) removed the last term from the title, as I find it, well, distasteful.

There's a recent news story about a woman who bit down on her husband's penis during "oral sex". She has stated she didn't want to have sex, and he charged her with battery. He won. "Not wanting to have sex" is not a legal matter, apparently, if you're in the midst of having sex. Not only is this completely fucked-up CRAP, but it reveals a more prevalent issue, the old one--about who owns whom during sex, and who is statused and privileged enough to not have to worry about saying "Yes" or "No" out loud, preferably on a tape recorder. Lost in the misty midst of the "Did she say yes or no, clearly and sincerely, before sex happened?" debate, is the reality of how sex happens for many people, including against many women. The old axiom "It's a woman's prerogative to change her mind" apparently ends at the point when a penis comes into contact with her body.

For more on this see related blogposts over at Womanist Musings and The Curvature. And rock on, Renee and Cara.

Related to these blogposts are two others over at abyss2hope (also linked to from my blogroll), which may be found here and here.

Folded into the batter--or is it battery?--is this is white heteromale supremacist Dennis Prager's stupidity encapsulated in a blog entry posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2008. (Among other things, he writes for Townhall.com as a columnist.) The misogynistic title of his piece is "When a Woman Isn't in the Mood: Part I". (Let's hope some form of ethical sanity intervenes before he posts Part II.)

The historically legal and/or customary declaration by heterosexual married men that the women to whom they are wed should be expected to (that is to say, "must") have sex with their husbands when hubby is horny, are bountiful and bodacious.

I'll open my own discussion with a comment by a man in response to the relevant post at Womanist Musings on the penis-biting/assault charge incident.

My name is Inkognegro and I am a man who is the Father of two sons and the Temporary foster father of another son. I wholeheartedly encourage ANY woman who finds her self witha penis in her mouth that she did not invite to express her displeasure in whatever way she deems appropriate. It would seem to me that if men find themselves with bitten penises they just might be more careful where they put them.

I concur with the author of the comment above. In my own completely untested fantasy-laden moral universe, biting on or attempting to remove any part of a man that he uses/we use as a weapon--as a means of subordinating, violating, degrading, and physically injuring another human being--should be not only legal and customary, but taught in school, responsibly. Heterosexually active women and sexually active gay men should know how to "perform" the removal of the penis by any means necessary, if said penis has been used to harm another human being. I suppose the slogan for the portion of this campaign directed at educating male offenders could be titled, "You misuse it, you lose it".

The whole matter of determining harm based on whether or not consent was present--at which point, one might ask?--is so problematic as to be almost completely worthless, if better than no standard at all. "Consent", interpersonally, within the context of a couple of people, implies a mutuality of agency, will, and power, including the power to determine consequences of acceptance or refusal of an act initiated. This level of consent needs to be not only interpersonally in place, but also institutionally in place.

If a corporation is buying up working class white people's homes in a section of town, and one willful and empowered home-owner says "No" to the rich thugs, are we to conclude that those who said yes gave their consent? When a white male colonialist-genocidalist "recommends" to the living members of an Indigenous Nation on Turtle Island, "We demand that you move onto this small parcel of land we stole from you, or be killed; which of these options do you prefer?" Is the colonized group's answer, "We will move to that land" an indication of willful, meaningful consent? And if they say, "Kill us, motherfuckers" (in their own tongue), is that a statement offered back in the context of consent?

Consider the heterosexually married woman of any color has been traumatised, sexually or otherwise, during an international military war against her ethnic group's people by U.S. white men. Let's also say that the U.S. military's portion of the war is over, including the rapes that constituted the terrorism against her as a woman (a human being), the rapes of the girls and women of her ethnic group as a gendered class, and the grossly intrusive and destructive assault of all of her people as a group. We'll add here that she has a loving husband, a respectful husband, who does not think the way Dennis Prager does. This kind-hearted husband initiates sexual affection but in a way that is similar, in gesture, to how one of her attackers approached her. She is immediately triggered, by this gestural similarity, into a state of deep dissociation. If they proceed to have sex, with her deeply dissociated, is she giving consent willfully and meaningfully?

I believe each of these "hypotheticals" rooted in actual U.S. history, show up the lack of worth of "a consent standard" for determining whether or not sexual assault or a rape happened. Catharine A. MacKinnon has a much more thorough discussion of this matter in her book Women's Lives, Men's Laws, in chapter 19: "A Sex Equality Approach to Sexual Assault".

I will close this portion of the discussion here.

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

What is sex? An anti-normal perspective

I grew up as many did, believing that there were only boys and girls and that they were, eventually, supposed to be interested in "sex".

What "sex" was depended on where you got your information from. In my life there were two primary sources for "Sex Education". In the classroom, students around the age of eleven were shown meaningfully human activities (kidding) like chickens fucking, or some small mammals "doing it". I was clearly not well-educated in grade school about "what sex was". Other than those feathery foul fooling around learned about in sixth grade, the only other reportedly reputable source of information about "what is sex" was pornography. I mean, surely THOSE people know ALL about sex, right? So imagine my confusion when I found out that the creator of Hustler and Barely Legal magazines was, well, a chicken-fucker.(1)

Earlier in my childhood, my very thoughtful and caring dad had a talk with me when I was seven, about what boy-parts were really called. I can now thank him for sparing me the humiliation of being an adolescent and asking a friend "Do you know what it means when a boy's pee pee feels funny?" Not that the term "penis" was spoken of among my friends. "Dick" and later "cock" seemed to be the terms of choice among my peers. Personally, I find the term penis far less obnoxious, but who wants to be an outsider, socially? My answer to that appears later in this post.

From inside school, behind barns, or on the streets, boys passed around the most absurd ideas about "what is sex". Chief among them were some baseball metaphors which involved "getting to first base, then second base, then third base," and, better yet "hitting a home run". Hey, my brothers in the UK--do you have similar sexual lessons and imagery based on cricket or football [soccer, for the US-centric among us]?

Given my options, atop my list of things to do was to to seek out pornography because, well, that's what people did who wanted to know about sex, and experience sexual feelings. You do learn about sex from porn, right? I mean that's where everything happens, isn't it?

But there was a problem. I wanted to kiss boys, not fuck them or be fucked by them. And I got the sense from female friends that heterosexual fucking wasn't all it was made up to be. Many girls and women I've known reported it being either painful, traumatic, boring, or too fleeing to hold as much of a memory. The girls I knew who liked it seemed to like it because of the proximity it put them to a male they wanted to be close to. (That was also my objective when an adolescent: to be close to a boy I liked.) The more sexually aware girls in my circle knew that, besides making out, "getting oral sex" was where it was at, and, unfortunately, performing oral sex on a boy was mandatory if you were either going to go out with a boy, or expected to have him perform oral sex on you.

Since then the value of "reciprocity" among heterosexual youth has disintegrated considerably. Boys now expect or want girls to "go down on them" just about anywhere: in the backs of grade school buses, in school rest rooms, in bedrooms with locks on the doors, and practically anywhere else adults are not likely to appear. Boys want and get it. Girls may want it and most don't get it. How incredibly self-serving and selfish of boys who have sex with girls! At least if boys were sexual with boys, they'd do it to each other! (I didn't learn much about what girl's did together, or wanted to do together, because for the longest time, the only representations of women-being-together-sexually was forced for me by pimps through a lens of heterosexual male self-interest: women were with women because men liked to watch that kind of action going on. This was odd to me, as one could safely assume the idea of a woman being with a woman sexually was that you didn't need a man around.

The more I learned, the clearer it became that sex was what boys and men wanted sex to be, and boys and men learned about sex primarily from pornography, or other boys and men's "stories" of what they'd done to some female, or, if the male was more prone to hallucinations and arrogant gradiosity, to "a group of females". This phenomenon of heterosexual men talking to each other about things like "gettin' p*ssy" made heterosexual men seem about as emotionally empathic and politically dangerous as Larry Flynt. Now that's a scary thought, given that he's also been charged with raping his daughter.

So, to summarise: by the time I was an adult, I'd learned that sex is what boys learn from pornography, what boys tell one another they should want (often based on what they've learned from pornography), or what boys lie about having done, claiming it was the best thing since sliced bread. (The fact that there were more boys having sex using items such as mattresses, pillows, chair cushions, or their own soapy hand, than with female human beings was deduced from additional cultural information.)

The exception in my childhood circles was the whispered about fact that some boys were having sex with their youngest sisters. The younger sisters seemed to not want to talk about it, out of shame or fear. The boys, depending on their peer groups, either bragged about it or just told others about it as "something they do" when between girlfriends, which is to say something they commonly did.

In no regard was sex centered around the interests and wants of girls. Those seemingly selfless boys who claimed "I do what she wants" boiled down to them still doing what they liked, it just so happened that some boys liked trying to please girls sexually, not just treat girls like masturbation devices.

True story:
A male friend of mine was friends with a girl and a boy who "hooked up". They were supposedly interested in getting to know one another. She didn't want to be sexual. He did. My friend was informed by both parties what they did together--just once: the boy told him that he had some kind of sexual contact with this girl, and that it was a good time. My friend soon heard directly from the girl that the boy was a freak: that he sat on top of her waist, pinned her arms down with his knees, and proceeded to do things to her chest, including exposing it, that she did not want done. What she wanted was for him to not be pinning her down, so she could run out of the room and never be alone with him again. She accomplished that, after getting out from under him. She got away from the young perp and never had contact with him again.

The boy called this sex. The girl called it sexual assault. I've heard these differing versions of reality many times, and each time the boy or man seems not to have a goddamned clue that he's actually with another human being who might describe what she'd like to do if the male didn't so quickly "go about his business".

Why would he do this, as his first sexual act with a potential girlfriend? Because before that moment all his sex had meant opening a magazine and having it spread out before him, with him able to turn pages as he wished, with no resistance from the magazine or the females in it. He had access upon demand. He did to her what he'd learned to do with pornography.

As for the girls who were sexually abused by their older brothers, or fathers, or step-dads, or doctor, or preacher, or man on a park bench, or man in an elevator, I found that they never really got to know what they wanted. "What I want" was not part of the process of deciding "what happened". Sex, for them, was more like something one endured, rather than something one determined.

Some of those girls grew up, and some of them couldn't deal directly with what was done to them by family members or other older males. So when they later met boys or men who were into pornography, "being pornographic" was acceptable, because it meant acting or dissociating; either way they didn't have to be sexually/emotionally present.

I've studied heterosexual pornography. I've seen some gay pornography, but have never been that interested in it. From the heterosexual pornography, a few things are overwhelmingly clear:

1. Men write the scripts for what women do to men or to other women.
2. All of sex is organised around what pleases men, turns men on, or it expresses what men wish to express about how they feel about women, which is generally anti-sensuous.
3. Women are never allowed to show disgust and mean it.

I recently heard about a film that's been seen by at least a few people--and what it shows, folks, is a rarity: the film was taken by someone who was not the director of the pornography movie being filmed. Got it? This rare film is about what it is like beyond the director's lens, for the woman in a heterosexual pornography scene.

Now, in case you've been away from the Internet for the last umpteen years, let me tell you one of the things men seem most to enjoy doing that women in porn films, according to men, also enjoy. That is men ejaculating on women's faces. Sometimes one man, sometimes more than one man. (Why these guys don't just have sex with each other and leave her out of it is a question only answered by economic laws of supply and demand. Men want to see women degraded sexually, humiliated, made to appear dirty, or as if their sole objective in life is to be a wh*re.

So in this very rare film, after "that scene" with the guy or guys doing what they do on her face (to her person), the director yells "cut" and the woman immediately says "GROSS" and gets something to wipe her face with, disgusted. (That part never seems to make it into "the director's cut" of a pornography film. You have one guess as to why that is.)

I realise there are women who say they like pornography, or who do enjoy looking at it, or who enjoy acting out pornographic scenes almost always (un)originally scripted and directed initially by a man who has economic interests, not intimate ones, for women being sexual in his vicinity.

I realise there are men who say they like pornography, who do enjoy looking at it, or who enjoy acting out pornographic scenes almost always scripted and directed initially by a man who has economic interests, not intimate ones, for women being sexual in his vicinity.

But what I can tell you based on being a gay male who grew up in a violently and obnoxiously heterosexist society, and a virulently misogynist and racist one as well, is that "what I want" has usually not had much to do with "what I and the other person wants". Usually one or both of us don't really know what we want, because for years we've been told what we're supposed to do that is "sex"; we're told we're supposed to "have sex" and we're shown or told what constitutes "sex" and so that's what we do, regardless of what we actually feel like while doing it. Or, we've been forced to do certain things in or beyond childhood, and in order not to feel the pain of that abuse, the terror, the humiliation, the violation, we turn those "scenes of trauma" into "chosen sex acts" so we can feel we're in charge now, we're in control, or, at least, like sexual behavior doesn't have to be traumatically painful and degrading: it can now feel empoweringly painful and degrading. When there are so few choices available socially, welcomed and regarded as "hot" or "fun" by peers and pornographers, we "choose" from the dissociating rubble, the inhumane trash heap, and call that "my chosen sex life".

I did that. I used to think that is sex, which is to say that's all sex can be or should be.

Later in my adulthood I realised I wasn't very present during sex, nor had I ever been. I also figured out (a "duh" moment) that I wasn't even sure I wanted to be doing what I was doing, and that it was very difficult to know, one way or the other what I did, in fact, want. What I did then was unusual. I engaged in an "anti-normal" very socially and politically incorrect practice: I opted out of having sex. I decided that not knowing what I want, and not being able to be present when I was doing what I thought I wanted, and not being able to set boundaries even when I had a clue, meant I would be emotionally better off not having sex at all.

I honestly didn't know I could stop having sex, in the sense of it being socially acceptable to stop. The only group I knew of who vowed to not be sexual were nuns. And believe me, I was no nun. I was a Rocky Horror Picture Show fan. (Which is not to say that all nuns hate the RHPS.) I had begun to put some pieces together in figuring out who, really, was "in charge" of teaching us about sex. And that they were corporate pimping scumbags whose sexual values ought to be regarded as the standard of what not to do sexually or otherwise, if you value intimacy, self-awareness, and an end to economic and sexual exploitation.

I am surprised and not surprised, simultaneously, that I didn't know adults don't have to have sex, especially the kind of sex that is commercially mass-produced, advertised, and sold for consumption to economic elites at the expense of the many in poverty.

I hadn't yet met anyone who was comfortably asexual or intersex. Once I had, I knew everything I was taught about adults and sex was fucked up to the core.

So I've been celibate ever since, but during that time away from behaving compulsively, acting out, dissociating, pretending I'm having a good time, and desperately longing for something that has never actually occurred, I've slowly become aware of what I do want. What I want is something that hasn't been directed or demanded by a pornographer or boyfriend. I don't want sex when it's begged for pleadingly, desired obsessively, requested while in an altered state, or demanded by a person I'm with who doesn't really care much about me or my humanity, or anyone's humanity, including his own.

I know, it's absurd right: not wanting my head bobbed up and down on someone's dick. Not wanting to drive to meet someone, month after month, for sex in a motel room from someone who wouldn't know intimacy if it caressed him on his face. I'm done with men who won't kiss. I'm done with men who think penetration equals sex or that disrespect and non-mutuality equals sex. I'm done with men who value having sex more than getting to know someone on a deeply intimate level, on a variety of levels, BEFORE jumping into bed, onto a rug, in the rows of a cornfield, or whatever.

It took a long time, too long, waaaaay too long, for me to realise the best thing for me was to opt out until I knew, deeply, what had happened to me, and the full effect of what I had done, so far, on myself and anyone I'd be semi-dissociatively or compulsively sexual with. That meant finding out. That meant digging deep into myself, touching old terror, feeling old pain. That meant contacting people with whom I'd been sexual, and having really honest conversations about "what that was for you" (and for me). That meant feeling remorse, regret, and sorrow for the times when my behavior had made someone feel confused, uneasy, ambivalent, or ashamed.

I am thankful I never raped anyone or was raped by anyone. I knew sexual assault in my youth, as the one who felt powerless and was victimised, and for some reason, never acted that out against anyone later in ways traumatic or violating to the other person. I am grateful for that. I am thankful I've never been emotionally physically violent with anyone during sex, and have only been emotionally hurtful and insensitive in non-sexual situations, with friends with whom I am still friends. I am also thankful I have called out males around me who needed to be called out, for harming people without knowing it, or who knew it and didn't care. I plan to continue calling out abusive men on their oppressive behavior.

My biggest mistake, sexually, was in believing what society told me sex was. I had a boyfriend when a teenager (before his step-dad found out and moved him to another high school), then a girlfriend because both of us thought being together is too difficult. I am thankful I told my girlfriend, before we were together as a couple, that "I'm not heterosexual". She ended up fixing me up with a gay male best friend of hers. I didn't like him or respect him and had almost nothing to do with him. I did like and respect her. We are still on good terms; she is currently married to a heterosexual man who, while a bit of a slug, does love her in a way I could not. She's known I'm out-as-gay for about as long as I have declared it.

Making heterosexuality compulsory and normal is dangerous and damaging to many people. Making some forms of sexual engagement compulsory and normal is also dangerous and damaging to many people. Making gender dualism, boy and girl, man and woman, compulsory and normal is dangerous and damaging to many people.

Increasingly, inside and outside of queer and heterosexual communities, I see the following being propped up as "of value": being casually sexual, fucking drunk, having multiple sexual and romantic partners at once without the communication skills and level of self-awareness necessary to make that happen responsibly, and having hormone injections and surgery to be more of who one is. I accept genderism and transgenderism as normal. I reject them as "all there is and all there can be". Most transgendered people I know and many non-transgendered people I know also reject those two options as spiritually, socially, emotionally, and physically sufficient.

I accept we live in a world with limited choices, and that transgenderism or genderism is the best choice for some people, given the fucked up gender-binaried world many of us live in. I have experienced, probably daily, not feeling fully at home in my body. As someone born and identified as "a boy", I get wanting to have surgery or at least facial hair removed, or chest altered, or genitals removed or changed--into what I'm not sure, in order to feel more at home in myself. And I'm so grateful to the Womanism and radical feminism of Audre Lorde, Alice Walker, Nikki Craft, Andrea Dworkin, Catharine MacKinnon, bell hooks, Sheila Jeffreys, Andrea Smith, and Patricia Hill Collins, among other writers and activists, for welcoming human beings to ask the most difficult questions about ourselves and our societies. And for demanding that gender, race, and sexuality be interrogated as oppressively political realities, not just normal social ones.

In conclusion, I have no interest in being normal. When I see old norms or new trends in sexuality, I know to interrogate those norms and trends by reading radical writings, and by discussing social reality with others who are open to digging deep. I consider it a necessity, for my own well-being and the well-being of other people, to ask questions about what the cost is to some human beings, to those of us who are far more marginalised, invisibilised, and silenced than me, to have such norms and trends be presented as asocially natural or willed and enforced by a white male sky-god who has yet to meaningfully intervene and prevent gynocide, genocide, or ecocide. If that kind of supernatural god exists, it is both ignorant and impotent in the face of human oppression and environmental devastation. Or it wants us, not it, to collectively and humanely do something about these problems.

Hello, my name is Julian and I live in an obsessive-compulsive, oppressive sexual environment ruled by dehumanised people who care more about exploiting people and the Earth than ending exploitation in all its atrocious forms.


(1) The real Flynt has little in common with the martyr that he finances people to describe him as. According to his own autobiography Flynt’s first sexual experience was raping a chicken. He killed the chicken to “avoid suspicion”. He has also gone to tremendous degrees in his attempts to silence his daughter from talking about how she was raped by him. He has used his power in the media to attempt to instill intimidation in any who spoke out against pornography. He used his magazine to vilify activist Aura Bogado with hateful, violent and threatening cartoons and articles. In his column called “Asshole of the Month” he has included Barack Obama, Diana Russell, Andrea Dworkin, Dorchen Liedholdt, Gloria Allred, Catharine MacKinnon and hundreds of others. In the 1970s he put out “Wanted Posters” for Gloria Steinem and Susan Brownmiller because they were antipornography. He has offered a bounty on feminists who have been critical against him and done whatever he could to silence whoever would be critical against the racist and misogynistic material in his magazines.

The only free speech Larry Flynt really wants is his own and what he wants said, which makes him as much of a defender of free speech as say for example Stalin or Hitler.

The Right To Be Left Alone? Larry Flynt has never EVER left anyone alone his whole life. --Nikki Craft

[The above note, (1), is from a larger piece from the Manufactured Contempt website, created and written by Nikki Craft and Julian Real in response to the release of a disgustingly flattering and inaccurate documentary portrayal of Larry Flynt titled The Right To Be Left Alone. WARNING: that site contains politically appropriated and altered images (by a feminist) of pornographic violence, sexual and otherwise. Even while altered, the images there may be very triggering for many people.

Friday, December 19, 2008

Political Illiteracy: One White Radical's Perspective on "My people"


Hi, my name is Julian Real and I am a globally illiterate enabler of atrocities. I was raised to be a white man in the United States of America. I am also struggling to understand how my people came to be what we are and do what we do.

What does being a radical mean when I come from such a limited background of experience in the world? I can only answer this question based on that cloistered life. It means knowing I am part of a global minority. It means owning that being a Westerner, white, and a man are, at their core, political realities, not biological or geographic ones. It means knowing what I am as one among my people--particularly as a white person, a Westerner, and a man, which entails knowing where I am located, politically, structurally, and in various social hierarchies that have institutional force behind them and an agenda to subordinate and/or kill anyone who is seen, by any of those groups, as "the other". It means staying current on the political meaning of who I am, and what my people do that is political, organised, and intentional.

My people have constructed, over a few hundred years, various secular, political, and religious institutions that are designed to prop up the forms of power that my people and I have. Among those is the power to name, control, exploit, appropriate, abuse, harm, and neglect; to be oblivious, willfully ignorant, and in denial; to have the economcially coerced assistance of others, sometimes women and children within one's own ethnic group, sometimes the women and children of ethnic groups we oppress; to have slaves; to complain about things most people in the world will never get the opportunity to complain about, to have attention paid to us when we experience even one injustice, while whole populations in many regions of the world don't have one year, one day, or even one day of the privileges our most indignant, complaining ego-centric members have throughout our lives. And if, by chance, due to moving to this country, or this country moving itself into another's, some people do get a taste of some of our "values", our privileges, our entitlements, they do so only as marginalised people.

My people live in the oddest ways. We eat what isn't healthy, we purchase what we do not need, we buy small bottles of water less pure than a lot of our relatively free-flowing tap water; we assume we will always have clean water to drink, even while our millions of empty water bottles pollute the Earth and the water in them never gets to those who do not have much access to clean water--from tap or bottle. We believe that any atrocity is fine as long as the blood, the actual, literal blood, of the murdered, doesn't touch a majority of our hands, and their suffering doesn't reach our souls. Single families live in dwellings that, elsewhere in the world, could house many families, if not the population of a small village. In the case of some mansions, a small village of people could consider some single family mansions "roomy". We idolise and envy the people who own homes like these. We love TV shows about them. We love watching the images of them as they move through their days. We like being distracted and addicted.

We make getting around in a wheelchair, in a brace, or with a walker very difficult; those of us who are not physically disabled in terms of mobility usually drive when we can bicycle or walk. We uphold laws that are unjust. We jail innocent people for long periods of time, and jail rapists, incest perpetrators, child molesters, pornographers, pimps, batterers, traffickers of human beings, government and corporate criminals for short periods of time, if at all; we imprison people primarily based on the hue and shade of their skin and on a determination of their (low) economic standing. Those who are rich and white, who are predominantly and disproportionately my people, will likely never see the inside of a jail cell.

The women and girls among us will be colonised and oppressed by the men and boys among us. We males will rape, batter, pimp, procure, traffic, and enslave our children and women, as well as children and women from around the world. We play lots of video games. We watch lots of dramas, comedies, and sports on our TVs. We steal lots of music and movies from the Internet. We don't consider this stealing. We justify everything we do.

We don't know global geography at all. Many of us don't know whether Africa is a nation, a continent, or both. We barely understand the philosophies of our ancestors, let alone the philosophies of people outside our group. We tend to vehemently believe, or vehemently disbelieve, in one or both of the following: in a white male sky-god, or in Western science. Many of us believe a woman gave birth, without being impregnated by a man, to one son of a white male sky-god. (Somehow, although ethereal, he had a not-so-ethereal penis of some kind with which to impregnate this not-so-ethereal woman. Many of us believe there was a "first" woman who was born from a man's rib, not another woman's womb. I know, it's crazy talk, but we believe this! And if someone believes there is Spirit in rocks and trees, we think they are crazy. If someone believes plants communicate with us and each other, we want to lock them up in a psych ward--the people, not the plants.

We believe (and are taught) that "American English" is "the international language" as if everyone does or should speak it, and as if "it" is one language. What is meant by "American English" is "U.S. white, Hollywood-loving, capitalism-adoring, middle-class, Anglo-centric English". American English in reality, includes Chican@, Quebec, and African American Vernacular English; Yinglish, Appalachian, Cajun, and Ozark English; Hawai'an English or Hawai'i Creole; Mojave, Isletan, Tsimshian, Lumbee, Tohono O'odham, and Inupiaq English. Are all of those "universal"? Do my white U.S. kinfolk, collectively, want them to be? Until today I didn't know most of those languages had specific names. And there are many, many more regional and ethnic variants on what we might call "national newscaster English."

I grew up very provincially, inside the U.S.'s dominant society. Hearing U.S. and European nursery rhymes and children's stories--and later textbooks, watching U.S. and British TV, and listening to popular U.S. and British music ws supposed to sustain me aesthetically, intellectually, and culturally. Spiritually, if not a part of a church or temple (which was and is the case for me), walking in the woods is seen as a spiritually enriching experience if one leaves one's home to do, because "my people" do not tend to inhabit forests or other self-sustaining ecosystems; instead, we destroy them so we can live where they once were. Sometimes we plant and keep a few trees up, for shade or to break up areas of flat lawn in the yard. Some of my people grow herbs on their urban apartment balconies. My people do not know how to find these herbs in their own natural environments, do not know their indigenous (not Latin, not English) names. We are not especially concerned with how and where they exist outside of our grocery stores or supermarkets. My people live in mostly urban and suburban cities, built on stolen land; some of us live rurally on stolen land.

We do not know what it is to live on land that has been part of one's being for thousands of years, carrying the blood and bones of our ancestors. We think three generations of living somewhere is a very long time. We don't think of having "ancestors" unless we are appropriating other people's cultural traditions, including raiding their tombs and robbing their graves. We are prone to arrogantly and exploitively "adopt" the ancestors of the people "my people" systematically murder.

I am from "the genocidal class", a fact which I was not taught in my white-dominated schools. I am from "the rapist class", which also was left out of the textbooks and teachings. Being from these classes does not mean I, personally, commit genocide or rape. I have done neither interpersonally. But it means "my people" do it and there is an expectation that, as one of my people, I will be silent about what we have done and still do. To use one of the languages my people are fond of, I am supposed to "enable" my people's civilisation to continue.

I learned from my people a very strange thing: that we arrogantly, if erroneously believe we know everything and that we are the center of the universe: the dead center. Our language is referred to as "the universal language". Those among my people, from this country, who teach or preach Christianity, English, or capitalism here or abroad are seen as "doing good", which is to say, not committing genocide.

Our dominant cultural and religious practices are exported all over the world, as a form of cultural and "spiritual" colonialism which is to say, genocide. We can call these acts "good" because we have the power to be hypocritical, to lie, to cheat, to steal, and to protect and defend ourselves by any means necessary. We have the power to be right by stifling those who call us wrong. Should anyone else, those who are not my people, including "other" U.S. citizens, or "outsiders" seek to hold us accountable to our crimes, they are hunted down as traitors, heretics, lunatics, and terrorists. We are allowed to kill those we deem our enemies by any means necessary, and we have all the means necessary. Those who call us wrong do not have many means available, and we make sure they never will.

Because we call dissidents these negatively stigmatising terms, we are implying, as we believe, we are none of those things, and one of our other powers is to be stigma-resistant.

The Presidents of the United States, generally, have been savages, traitors, heretics, lunatics, and terrorists, yet that significant truth is not in the U.S. white history books I grew up reading. I have learned instead, from my nation's leader of the last eight years and from the history books he approves of, that American Indians were savage (and still could be) and that the land they have lived on was somehow discovered. Oh yes, we have the power to "discover" too. Our history of conquest is deemed glorious, honorable, and God-willed. The histories of those we have conquered have been deemed heathenistic, hedonistic, and godless.

In this context, with these powers to name, we believe that white Leftists are traitors. We believe that feminists, "homosexuals", and Jews are evil heretics. A great many of us believe that espousers of something called Global Warning or identifying our government as corrupt to the core, and genocidal, and pro-rapist, means we are anti-democratic lunatics. We believe that anyone or any group, from a member of The Weather Underground, to the Black Panther Party, to the followers of Malcolm X, to Indian warriors, to anarchists, to the urban and rural poor, to--the current bugaboo--"Muslims, Afghans, Iranians, Iraqis, Pakistanis, or Arabs" who doesn't demonstrate allegiance to our flag, our Founding Fathers, or our Freedom Fries, is dangerous, suspect, threatening, and untrustworthy. (That those adjectives describe every U.S. president, bar none, is not worth noting; my people hate it when things like that are said, let alone believed.) Regarding the current groups stigmatised as terrorists, we have with little to no awareness of what each of those populations actually is, how they are distinct from one another, where each is and isn't located geographically, and how nationally, politically, spiritually, ethnically, and culturally diverse each of those populations is, let alone how complex (not linear, not static, not monolithic) any national, regional, or ethnic group's history and people are.

I am a member of a people who think we know it all, when we know virtually nothing that can save us from ourselves, while we take everyone else down with us.