Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Pimp and Ho Drag Shows: No, it's not a "gay" thing


[image is from here]

When I hear "drag show" I tend to think of a gay male supremacist community event, often a fundraiser. The funds are never being raised to help women in systems of prostitution, mind you, because the reality of women in prostitution is far from the consciousness of the participants. The last gay white male supremacist drag show I went to was held at a college. It was blatantly misogynistic, racist, classist, and pro-child sexual abuse and prostitution. And a college's money funded it. Compare this post with the last one and you might understand why racism, heterosexism, and misogyny are not just interpersonal issues. They are institutional ones.

Above is a photo of two couples, two men with two women between them. They are all dolled up as their understanding of what pimps and hos look like. And a fun time was had by all, except, of course, by women trapped by PIMPs and abused by WIMPs (see glossary to the right). Then it's not just fun and games.

Society as well as school systems endorse and promote racist misogyny and male supremacy. This event is one that happens all over the country with alarming regularity, all in the name of having an innocent good time. When "a good time" means mocking and parodying sexual trafficking and the abuse and control of women and girls, usually by men, what does it tell us that people are willing and able to unproblematically dress up and go out and pretend this really is harmless entertainment?

I'll tell you what I think it means. I think it means that privileged people don't know a damn thing about what people are enduring globally. And I think it also means they don't want to know and that when presented with the facts, they will find liberal-ass ways to make excuses for them going out and having this kind of "fun".

Please protest the next "pimp and ho" "fun' event in your town or city. Making atrocity seem like a good time is one form of evil.

When 'good white school officials' don't do a damn thing except ignore, deny, and protect racism, it is destined to continue


[image is from here]

With thanks, once again, to LaReyna's Journal

Yvette Williams is a woman with a conscience and a will to speak out against white supremacy. She has two daughters at Kettering Fairmont High School, in Dayton, Ohio. I see her actions as feminist, as she speaks out for her own humanity and that of her two daughters. She writes, in part:
This is not the first racial incident at Kettering Fairmont High School either.I have been battling perceptions and attitudes since my daughters' kindergarten and first grade years at Orchard Park Elementary School. I was not afraid to speak out on injustice and wrongdoing back then, nor am I now.
Incidents such as the Fairmont vs. Dunbar occurrence make  me concerned for the education, safety and well-being of my children. We have lived here for 12 years, supported levies and volunteered for city functions. To have these high ranking officials ignore blatant racism at a high school game on home turf disppoints me and covertly empowers those who embrace this ethnocentric lifestyle.
Ethnocentric here meaning white supremacist. For the rest of her letter to the editor, please see the pdf document here. (It is a concise, clear statement against institutionalised racism.)

I have made the contention for some time at this blog that the reason things like misogyny and white supremacy continue is very, very simple: because men and whites don't stop it, don't interrupt it, and don't challenge it. men and whites don't refuse to apologise for it, make excuses for it, defend it, support it, and practice it. Institutions are human-run. They have structures in place that make certain kinds of individual and social change very difficult, but, as has been stated a million times by women and by people of color: if the oppressors collectively decided to end white male supremacy, they could. They don't because they benefit from it and don't really want equality because men's and white's identities and egos are bound to notions of their own superiority, privileges, entitlements, and relative structural power over those they oppress. And so life as we know it in white male supremacist societies--heterosexist and classist ones, ableist and ageist ones, and unsustainable anti-Indigenist and ecocidal ones, goes on and on, speeding us all toward complete destruction. 

The most oppressed and most vulnerable will suffer more, make no mistake about it. Especially in the mean time. What follows is a short video discussion about one city's response to racism, and leave it to a woman to have to speak out against it and get people to address it further. Women of color do most of the world's work, including work to end systems of oppression and atrocity. Here's the discussion between two white men about the racism in their town, and note their observation about what happens when the good people do nothing. (And we call white supremacist officials and by-standers 'good people' why?) What follows is from here.


Dayton Grassroots Daily Show v.17 : Race relations in Dayton
by David Esrati on December 10, 2009 4:01 pm
Interesting letter to the editor in the Dayton City Paper about the Dunbar/Fairmont basketball game and some racist little suburban kids. Well written, from a Kettering parent of a Fairmont cheerleader. Thank you Yvette Williams for speaking out.

I’ve got a PDF of it for you to read, since the DCP doesn’t have a proper web site:DCP letter 120909.pg18
I’ve tried to have a discussion about race and our community- with the post about “The White City” but it devolved into a discussion about gay rights in the comments.

Here, Greg and I talk about the race issue- and what YOU can do about it in this community, starting today:



More institutional, leadership power to women like Yvette Williams. Their daughters must be very proud of her as I'm sure she is of them.

Monday, January 11, 2010

UNREPENTANT: The DISTURBING. DISGUSTING, and DISGRACEFUL TRUTH about CANADA, WHITE CHRISTIANITY, and GENOCIDE

13 January 2010 ECD
Kevin Annett Assaulted
Annett, who exposed the murder of Indian children in church-operated residential schools in Canada, was beaten in Vancouver
UPDATE January 11, 2010 Vancouver
Today, after being beaten, Annett released a new article on the role of Vancouver police in sex crimes
“Ten of the last dozen women to be taken to the killing site at Piggy’s Palace were accompanied by Mounties or regular cops. You think it was just Willie Picton who was killing them?”  
[For more, see here.]  12 January 2010 ECD update:This documentary, like the blockbuster film Avatar,* must rely on the story of the good white man. (And the good white man is always heterosexual, and we are always made to know it.) It is always presumed, in a white male supremacist region, that audiences (presumed white) will not be able to relate to a story if there isn't a white male hero. We are also always socialised to believe if a white man says it, it must be true. Be that as it may, this is a terribly important and terribly horrifying story of politically denied truth, spoken by First Nations people. (*Click on the word Avatar, above, for an Indigenist review of that film.)  **WINNER: BEST INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTARY - 2006 LOS ANGELES INDEPENDENT FILM FESTIVAL. **WINNER: BEST DIRECTOR for an INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTARY - 2006 NEW YORK INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL. (excerpt) "...This documentary reveals Canada's darkest secret - the deliberate extermination of indigenous (Native American) peoples and the theft of their land under the guise of religion. This never before told history as seen through the eyes of this former minister (Kevin Annett) who blew the whistle on his own church, after he learned of thousands of murders in its Indian Residential Schools..."What follows can be linked back to from the blog where I was introduced to this film. Click on the title below to get there. The video also is at Google Video here. THANK YOU Rowland @ bermudaradical blog.

UNREPENTANT: Kevin Annett and Canada’s Genocide

UNREPENTANT: KEVIN ANNETT AND CANADA'S GENOCIDE (documentary)
1:48:56
20,000+ VIEWS ON GOOGLE VIDEO


Saturday, January 9, 2010

Citizens of the Empire of Make Believe: Three Books by Three White Men--you may want to read one of them, or more



With a great deal of care, intellectual time, and soulful energy as well as impeccable research, Derrick Jensen produced a very compelling heart-rending book titled The Culture of Make Believe, primarily but not only about white supremacist racism in the United Rapes of Amerikkka. His familially unrelated and only slightly older politically allied brother, Robert Jensen, came out with a related manuscript, perhaps more intellectual than visceral in its effect. It is also a valuable book titled Citizens of The Empire, and is largely about the ethical responsibilities that come with being a gender- and race-privileged U.S. American. Last year a far more rushed, and far less thoughtful book, Empire of Illusion, by Chris Hedges came out with a similar title. If you only read one, read Jensen's. If I wrote a book, it'd probably be a lot more like Hedges, because I'd want to write it fast. But politically, it would be far more like what the Jensens have produced in their bodies of work. I'm glad those Jensen guys are writing so that I can rest knowing a lot of what I'd say has already been said by white men. Thank you Robert and Derrick: many years of health and well-being to you both.

When the sexually, economically, racially, and gender-privileged classes are in moral distress, imagine what the least privileged are experiencing! An alarm is sounding that Indigenous people and many, many women of color, and some white feminists, have been sounding for decades, often as their last uttered words. Some might argue, cynically, when white men are calling us to pay attention to some of the same matters, we must REALLY be up shit creek without a paddle. But it's more like the Western World is up CRAP Creek without a soul or a will to know and act responsibly and sustainably.

Will we listen when white men speak? I hope we listen to someone. Preferably those who know the most due to where they are located structurally in the world. I prefer to know what's going on as directly as possible, not in books mediated by white men. And I live in a country that will, one way or another, even if through the politics of a language called English, translate what is known. These three men are very privileged: Derrick much less so than the other two, Robert less so than Chris. If you pick from this list, pick the one that speaks most to you. But don't forget--and Derrick will be most likely to remind you--this warning has been sounding for some time. It's only because white male supremacist Amerikkka doesn't really care what womanists, feminists, and women of color generally have to say that these white men must write the books they write. And I believe they do so earnestly. And I'm glad they are writing.

Of these three white men, my political allegiances are far more with the Jensens than with Hedges. But different books appeal to different people, and the more U.S. conservative approach you'll find in the Hedges book will likely outsell the other two because it isn't exactly radical--it doesn't challenge heteromale or white supremacy as their roots. Of the three, only Derrick's is radically pro-Indigenist. But Robert's whole body of work, relative to Derrick's--and certainly compared to Chris's--is more overtly pro-feminist (pro-woman). Given this, I hope the other two books continue to be read a lot. I also hope that you'll search the bibliographies of the two Jensen books and note the women authors whose work is referenced, and read them as well.

What follows is from Amazon.com's reviewers of the Hedges book only.
Chris Hedges' newest book may be a screed, but it's an uncomfortably accurate one, delving into the addictive, corrupting hold of comforting & distracting illusion over too many [U.S.] Americans. From the even vaster wasteland of TV, brought to us by endless channels, to the drug of sensation at its lowest common denominator from the porn industry, to the "think happy thoughts" snake oil of both New Age & fundamentalist belief systems --

But you have to stop & catch your breath, or else be swept away by the torrent of mediocrity & cheerfully willful ignorance that passes for contemporary culture & thought. Once you're aware of how thoroughly blanderized & infantilized our culture has become, it's all too easy to succumb to despair or cynicism. And with good cause!

Hedges wisely selects just a few specific examples as indicators of something far more pervasive & widespread. Particularly disturbing is the chapter on the so-called "adult" entertainment industry, which is anything but adult. The graphic description of the ways in which women are used & discarded as commodities is sickening, yet we're clearly just getting the tip of a very slimy iceberg.

And Hedges connects this aspect of dehumanization to the horrors of Abu Ghraib, showing how sexuality & torture intertwine. Most disturbing of all is how accepted & mainstream this sort of "entertainment" has become -- we're not talking about erotica or old-fashioned porn, which at least portrayed sex as mutually enjoyable for men & women; what we see now is humiliation, suffering, pain, almost all of it inflicted on women for the pleasure of emotionally stunted men.

More than that, though, Hedges explores the ways in which reason & literacy -- the humanities -- are shunted to the margins in favor of a utilitarian mindset, one that boils down to, "What's in it for me, right now, and how can I get the most of it as quickly as possible?" And that "most" is wealth, status, power, and the illusion of importance -- a humanity measured in things, rather than in being.

From that point, we're shown how these personal illusions contribute to & help sustain a national, even global, illusion of power, self-righteousness, corruption & control. It's bread & circuses for the masses, with digital soma mainlined at every waking moment. Meanwhile, the real elites, the corporate masters of our world, do whatever their insatiable appetites demand. This invariably requires bloodshed & suffering inflicted upon those least able to resist it.

Is Hedges overwrought? Is he exaggerating the crisis at hand? If so, it's not by very much. As a war correspondent of some 20 years, he's seen the brutal results of illusionary thinking first-hand. This book is born of bitter experience, as Hedges bears witness to the ongoing destruction of the human soul, which is lost in a world of glittering superficiality which can't conceal its innate cruelty, ugliness & emptiness.

Not a reassuring book by any means, but certainly an eye-opening one -- most highly recommended! --William Timothy Lukeman
Chris Hedges, the Pulitzer-Prize winning author of "War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning" and "I Don't Believe in Atheists", is back with another diatribe about our morally-bankrupt society. Whether you agree with all of his assertions or not, "Empire of Illusion" is a necessary, thought-provoking work on the role of entertainment in American culture.

Particularly fascinating is Hedges's take on professional wrestling. Whenever an academic brings up wrestling, it is usually as an example of low-brow culture. Hedges doesn't snub his nose, however: He merely observes and reports.

His thesis that wrestling storylines have "evolved to fit the new era...by focusing on the family dysfunction that comes with social breakdown" is on the money: Gone are the simple bouts of good vs. evil. "Morality is irrelevant," he writes. "Wrestlers can be good one week and evil the next. All that matters is their own advancement." The "illusion" here isn't that wrestling is fake. The "illusion" is that the wrestlers are idealized versions of what we want to become. He asserts that this mirrors a fundamental change in society.

Hedges traces this change through other American institutions (reality television, celebrity culture, the adult industry ["the adult industry"? Talk about politically neutralising an industry requiring sexual slavery and rape by giving it a meaningless name! -- JR], universities, psychologists), arguing that we are "unable to distinguish between illusion and reality". We forgo morals for an elusive and unattainable happiness. He states that we "will either wake from our state of induced childishness...or continue our headlong retreat into fantasy".  -- Andrew Shaffer, Davenport, Iowa
Chapter 2 is about porn. Porn actresses are portrayed by porn mediums as nothing more than wild beasts whose only desire is to satisfy the sadistic fantasies of men. Most porn actresses are heavy drinkers and drug addicts as a result of the mental pain and serious physical damage to their private areas, front and back, caused by their line of work. Most of them appear to work in escort services on the side. Hedges give an account of one porn movie featuring an actress who engages in the very unhealthy activity of engaging in sex acts with 65 different men over the six hour shoot of the film. Porn is one of the biggest industries in this nation; a great many of our male citizens appear to take pleasure in the degrading and brutal version of sex found in modern porn. [...]

While the annual compensation packages of CEOs soar well into the tens of millions of dollars, the median American family income has declined in inflation adjusted terms since the early 70's. We call ourselves a free market economy but a leading pillar of our economy is the taxpayer funded military-industrial complex, powering companies like Lockheed Martin. Hedges notes the example of the US government's annual provision of 3 billion dollars of taxpayer funds to the dictatorship in Egypt, 1.3 billion dollars of which (taxpayer dollars) is required to be used for purchasing weapons from private American defense companies. The US uses half of its annual discretionary spending on the military and spends more on its military than all the other countries in the world combined. [...]

Hedges gives a great deal of space to quoting various scholars and philosophers in order to back up his sociological observations. Other topics he discusses positive psychology, the destruction of higher education and the willingness of corporate media hacks to take at face value the words of the powerful.

Hedges suggests possible future scenarios where most Americans are virtual corporate slaves [as opposed to the non-virtual, actual slaves of which there are more now on Earth than ever, many being serially raped while enslaved -- JR], controlled and monitored by the ever expanding power of law enforcement. He fears that the biggest contrast in this country will be between a marginalized literate minority on the one hand and on the other a barely functionally literate or functionally illiterate majority enchanted by corporate entertainment and the vacuous PR spectacles and slogans of politicians. He fears that as social conditions worsen, right wing demagogues will make great headway. He is very worried about future environmental catastrophes. However he ends his book with the hope that decent human values can be utilized to confront our growing corporate tyranny.-- By Chris (Washington state, USA)

Friday, January 8, 2010

Can Fox's Brit Tame the Tiger? Brit Hume's anti-Buddhist/pro-Christian proselytising is enough to turn anyone atheist!

Brit Hume 
(the "good" White Christian)

vs. 
Tiger Woods 
(the "bad" Black Buddhist)


[image of Brit Hume is from here; RACIST-AS-HELL image of Tiger "The Photoshopped Thug" Woods, by the increasingly disappointing white photographer Annie Liebovitz, which is appearing on Vanity Fair magazine's cover at a newsstand near you, is from here]

Shame on Vanity Fair and on Brit Hume and on Tiger Woods.

Tiger Woods, the darker, bronzier version of Amerikkka's Usually Pale, Blue-eyed, Blonder Golden Boy is a man. A rich man. A VERY rich man, with all the entitlements and privileges given, in the U.S. to rich, rich men. One of those entitlements is to be able to fuck around A LOT on your wife, your partner for life, your beloved spouse who, in the U.S. is one half of a holy union, holier than any union between any lesbians or gay men who don't fuck around on each other. And it's indeed a financial privilege to be able to buy the silence of almost everyone. Tiger, like all those mostly white guys before him, has paid off the women, paid off the staff arranging the affairs, and basically purchased his star-statused way out of any form of accountability. But he has put yet another face on The Rich and Famous Straight Men Doing Women Wrong Wall of Shame. Add to this list, for example, the anti-Semitic misogynist Mel Gibson. Oh, and the sleazeball David Letterman. Oh, and the scumbag John Edwards. Oh, and the procuring anti-prostitution ring leader, Eliot Spitzer. Oh, and....

Well, you get the idea. The list is as long as days of a jail term for a girl who kills her pimp-rapist. And the money spent on both procuring and betraying women could have been used to support women who want to get out of prostitution and systems of sexual trafficking, so they don't have to kill the damn pimp. In the racist U.S. dominant imagination, Black men are two things, among a few others: "sexually" they are "rapist" and "pimp". Tiger is neither. U.S. white straight men have made quite a social-political-economic career out of being both.

Tiger achieved greatness in a white supremacist sport that didn't allow white Jews and Black Buddhists on their pristine Christian golf courses unless they were hired to mow the lawns and otherwise attend to the spuriously genteel and decidedly gentile white folks. (Whoopi Goldberg chose her career wisely.) Tiger Woods came along and changed the sport, upping prize money by making golf something it had never quite been before: interesting. He gave the sport both intrigue and amazing athleticism. He did for golf what Althea Gibson, Arthur Ashe, and more recently the Williams sisters have done for tennis: they've put Black faces to names of greatness in social clubs where greatness has always only ever meant more or less pale male. Before them "the greats" in golf and tennis were almost always white. They have all changed the political and social complexion of their respective sports. And now there are people from all populated continents playing these sports. South Americans and Asians are as likely to be in the top ten as Europeans and North Americans.

Tiger Woods was perceived to be very white, politically. This means he was seen as not dangerously sexual or terribly criminal, and that he'd be expected to marry a very white woman. The third fact is true.

I don't tend to think of patriarchally philandering men as "very sexual" so much as I think of them as very heterosexually male supremacist. I mean more time is spent arranging for these trysts to happen and speaking with the women being emotionally used than time is spent... well, you know. This whole husbandly endeavor of "making time to fuck over your wife by fucking the women you procure or pay off" is, politically, a regimented exercise of one's economic and celebrity entitlements. Oh those wealthy heterosexual guys! They give heterosexuality such a bad name. And yet, the stigma of naughtiness and evil is still on us queers.

I don't usually report on such dominant media events, especially "news" out of the wily Fox News Corporation, but this is WHM Christian arrogance at its finest most obnoxious. (Well, probably not MOST obnoxious. I gotta leave room here for more obnoxious white Christian occurrences than this one!)

Before moving us right along to the fiasco, I have two four letter words for Brit Hume, and they are not his name. (There's also one three letter word and one two letter word.) SHUT THE FUCK UP! <3 Julian

What follows is all from here. And the title of the piece that follow is simply stupid.

Brit Hume Offends, Misses the Tiger Woods Sex Boat
By Gary Laderman
January 5, 2010
  • Print
Was Fox News commentator Brit Hume merely demonstrating Christian chauvinism when he recommended that Tiger Woods convert to Christianity? Or are there deeper levels of ignorance to be plumbed here?



What’s religion got to do with the Tiger Woods scandal?

One of the mainstream media’s journalistic luminaries, Brit Hume, put religion smack dab in the middle of this unfortunate story recently, counseling Tiger to consider converting to Christianity in the wake of his current predicament. Marital infidelity, betrayal of public trust, and secret meetings and texting with hot young cocktail waitresses—what better religion than Christianity to steer a powerful male through the thicket of public lambasting and condemnations, and lead him back to family, fame, and fortune?


Hume’s clumsy and ignorant attempt to turn Tiger away from the darkness of Buddhism and toward the righteous Christian path of forgiveness and redemption is at once both completely predictable and utterly offensive. The real story here is not what Brit said, or how his remarks reflect a dominant and desperate Christian narrative of human behavior that is selectively employed by the overprivileged to forgive and forget and profit; no, the real story is Brit’s chutzpah in making this kind of public judgment on national television.
Even William Kristol followed up on these remarks with a remarkably humble-sounding (!) refusal to comment on the state of the Tiger’s soul—along with a prediction that he'd come back and win the Masters.

Perhaps this kind of religious moralizing should not be a surprise, coming as it did from a Fox news program. Perhaps this shocking display of religious arrogance is simply another instance in a long line of examples throughout American history of Christians dissing other religions while claiming the superiority of their own. Perhaps more important than any of these possibilities is another element in the religious story of Tiger; an element that has nothing to do with the sacred powers of Christianity or Buddhism or his soul, but everything to do with the sacred powers of sex and sports.

Let’s face it, Tiger is a God—to some. Before the scandal broke, we could easily assert that Tiger’s wealth, skills, success, and celebrity had led to his deification in public culture, a sports figure adored by millions. Whether he identified as a Buddhist or a Jew or a Hindu had nothing to do with the religious culture that engulfed him or the responses of his fans/fanatics over the last decade. Even without knowing whether or how this affected his self-image, or his inner sense of godliness, or his everyday powers of persuasion, we do know that followers flocked to him, wanted to be close to him, and modeled their own lives on his.

As if that weren't enough to contend with, we can assume that Tiger had strong sexual appetites and longings that could be easily fulfilled by some of his stature and which led him outside of the realm of monogamy and into those realms where many mortals dwell: bars and strip clubs. The allure of sexual intimacy and excitement isn’t always sacred, nor is it necessarily a religious matter for everyone, but it can be and has been for many Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists and “nones.” When Tiger comes clean with the nation’s foremost religious confessor, Oprah, I would encourage the Sage One to ask about the power of sex in his life and if it became, like it does for some of us, a pursuit that supplanted those other sacred pursuits Americans are so proud of, like family, wealth, or spiritual liberation.

Brit, oh Brit, you’ve only scratched the surface of this story. If only you were a reporter who was informed, thoughtful, knowledgeable about the power, pervasiveness, and, for some, the perversity of religion in our lives, you might shed light rather than impose darkness on this subject. A good comparative religion class might do the trick, helping to broaden, deepen, and diversify your understanding of this powerful force in our lives.
Tags: brit hume, christianity, fox news, religion, sex, tiger woods

22 Sex Offences and What Do You Get: 21 Months in Jail?! (Can someone tell me: Where does justice and the protection of children from sex offenders like Graeme Murray Purvis exist?)

 
Above is an image of justice linked to the U.S. Whereas the story that follows takes place in New Zealand. But is it me, or are others also pleased with what it is Lady Liberty seems to have just cut off?
[image is from here]


All that follows is from here:

Jailed for 22 sex offences

Click photo to enlarge
Graeme Murray Purvis
Graeme Murray Purvis
A convicted child abuser who had pictures of local children on his computer has refused rehabilitation treatment and is likely to return to Dunedin after his sentence.
Graeme Murray Purvis [there is such a thing as bitter irony] (45), of Dunedin, appeared in the Dunedin District Court yesterday on 22 charges brought by Dunedin police and the Department of Internal Affairs involving the possession, making and distribution of child sexual abuse images, and the attempted sexual grooming of a 15-year-old girl.
Purvis was sentenced to 3 years' prison, of which he must serve at least 21 months. [A whole 21 months? Poor misopedic/misogynist dear. I'll go out on a limb and say that chances are in 21 months, and in 3 years, his victims will still be carrying the impact of the assaults. And this would be justice for whom, exactly?!]

The officer in charge of the case, Constable Julian Real, of North Dunedin, told the Otago Daily Times police were alerted to the images on Purvis' computer by an "associate".

A search uncovered a computer containing thousands of objectionable images. 

Some photos were obtained from social networking sites, such as Bebo and Facebook and were filed on his computer and on his cellphone, with the person's name, age and location. 

Const Real confirmed Purvis had images and personal details of girls from the Dunedin area.

Police had spoken to parents, who were "quite devastated". 

None of the children had any contact from Purvis, he said.

The photos did not have to be sexually explicit, but could feature innocent activities such as children in a pool, and could be shared internationally. 

"I would be very wary of posting images online," he said. 

Internal Affairs deputy secretary Keith Manch, of Wellington, said the sentence was a reminder that those trading images of child abuse or grooming children for sexual offences "should understand that enforcement agencies around the world are co-operating to find them and stop them".


Mr Manch said it was disappointing Purvis refused treatment through the Kia Marama programme, which helps aid the rehabilitation of offenders.

Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesman Garth McVicar, of Napier, said Purvis' sentence made him "sick", particularly as he refused to enrol in programmes designed to rehabilitate child abuse offenders.

"He should be getting preventive detention if he does not want to enrol in a programme.

"It would encourage him to address his offending or stay in jail."

The officer in charge of the Dunedin Child Abuse Team, Detective Sergeant Malcolm Inglis, said the sentence would be a deterrent for other child abusers.
 
Asked if he agreed with Mr McVicar that offenders refusing rehabilitation programmes should be given preventive detention, Detective Sergeant Inglis said "I don't want to get into that debate . . . 

"There is no easy answer." [Unless to imprison him for life. Which, to me, is a reasonable and not terribly complex answer.]

However Detective Sergeant Inglis said it was preferable if offenders took part in some form of rehabilitation programme, such as Kia Marama, while in prison as studies showed the "rate of reoffending is quite low".
Police worked closely with the Ministry of Justice to monitor offenders on their release back to the community, he said.

The sentencing served as a reminder to the community that this kind of offending was "happening in New Zealand and it is happening in Dunedin".

There was a strong link between people who viewed child sexual abuse images and those who offended against children, and society needed to be vigilant, Detective Sergeant Inglis said.
 

Thursday, January 7, 2010

Ought men call ourselves Feminist or Profeminist? A question worth asking, without an easy answer


[image of this photographically handless, headless, and lowerbodyless man in t-shirt is from here]

Far easier to answer is whether men should be one or the other. The answer to that question is, imo, "Yes".

This has been an on-going conversation, in some ways, but for me it is one that I've settled--for now. The consensus among radical feminist women I know is that men have a habit--a deeply male supremacist one, among others--of appropriating women's language, energies, politics, agendas, and actions and then claiming them as our own.  Or we call ourselves feminist and have no intention of truly being accountable to feminist women and women generally. Or--obnoxiously to be sure--men delusionally claim we can "do" feminism better than women. So those men who respect this position held by many radical feminists I know tend to call ourselves profeminist although I think that term needs some caveats or addenda. Hence, in my case, I'd call myself a radical profeminist who is supportive of radically pro-woman activism and who actively engages men, confronting them on their/our sexism and misogyny, as well as on their misogynistic racism, heterosexism, lesbophobia, and more.

The compelling argument made by other feminists, is that men shy away from really committing to anything that has to do with women's political struggles, and will find linguistic ways of manifesting that distancing, hence men saying they are "profeminist" not "feminist". Sort of like being pro-running but not a runner oneself. I think this is true.

My own radical lesbian feminist mentor was all for men calling themselves feminist, so as not to duck out of taking on the struggle as determinedly as any woman would. How I arrived at my own moniker is that the women who currently are in my life (my mentor passed away many years ago), prefer men use the term "profeminist". So that's what I do. I'm not wedded to the term. I'm committed to the politics. The name, in some sense, means very little. I've known plenty of "feminist" and "profeminist" men who do or have done despicably misogynistic things without being at all responsible for having done them. First, the most responsibly and "feminist" thing would be to not do them in the first place--something worth considering! Second, men ought to fully owning up to what we do that betrays one woman or many women in any way, and not making excuses for committing the harmful/oppressive/destructive act(s). And we ought not be defensive or argumentative when women's anger is expressed to us for what we did that was outrageous, abusive, oppressive, or a betrayal. We should listen, reflect, and grow as humane beings.

So, for now, men being profeminist is my own preference although it does bother me if any man chooses that term in order to distance himself from any significant commitment to "the struggle". But it bothers me more when men call themselves feminist and then enact all manner of sexism on the women in their lives.

Being profeminist means a great deal to me in terms of how I live my life. First and foremost, it means not abusing women. Period. If men would only do that, things would change radically. Second, it means being honest, transparent, and accountable to women. It means not being a liar, a cheat, or, well a prick or P.R.I.C.K. Third, it means knowing as much as one can about women's experiences of male supremacist violence and socialisation without draining women's energy in the process. Women are not on Earth to teach men how to be human, but you'd never know that from patriarchy. And women often enough are the primary raisers of children, only to see their sons betray them when the boys become men, by doing to women things that are atrocious and normally misogynistic.

Being profeminist means knowing as much as possible about how male supremacist dynamics play out interpersonally and institutionally. That may require a fair bit of reading, or many conversations with other profeminist men, or a whole lot of listening when being called out by women for what we do that is sexist.

My life is organised around supporting women in a variety of ways, and is intentionally not organised around supporting men. I only have two men actively in my non-cyber life. It's better that way. My energies are clearly better suited to validating women's experience, caring about how women are doing, and caring for those women who need extra levels of assistance in times of crisis or due to aging. I love women in a way I do not love men. And that doesn't mean I hate men. (Duh.) Were I a lesbian woman, there's little doubt I'd be a separatist, assuming I had similar life experiences due to that love of women and that commitment to putting my energies towards women and movements designed to bring women more freedom from patriarchal atrocities, exploitations, and annoyance.

Those dimensions of my profeminism that might not manifest for other profeminist men. I think there are men whose best work is done assisting other men in "getting it" that we, the boys, are responsible for patriarchal atrocities--we, not only the rapists--assuming we are not among that population, are responsible for ending rape. I tend to have little patience for men's sexism and misogyny, unless it is being directed at a woman I know and she requests me to clear up some stuff for him about how he's treating her. I'm not always able to do this effectively. My tone of engagement with him is based on what would be most helpful to her. "Effectively" hear means she feels human, seen, and heard, not him. If he gets it, he gets it. Men, in my experience, are extremely practiced in the art of willful ignorance when it comes to noting (and changing) how our behavior negatively impacts women and their fight for liberation from patriarchies that benefit men so much.

I am probably an atypcial gay profeminist in the sense that I don't much like men as a class of people. (I feel very similarly about whites.) How I feel about men individually varies across the spectrum from great respect and affection to disdain and revulsion. While attracted to some men, that attraction usually will fade, wither, and die much like an orchid dropped into a pot of boiling water. This fading of warm feelings tends to happen within a few conversations, as men tend to demonstrate to me the ways they don't respect women within that short a span of time. Sometimes it only takes one conversation. If a man calls a woman (in conversation to me or otherwise) a b*tch or a sl*t or any number of other misogynistic terms, he's out of my heart. Purged. Men's sexism angers me I think because it ought to; it ought to anger everyone who witnesses it. And rage is not an aphrodesiac for me--thank goodness. Much of what men do in order to be "men" or to establish dominance and control over one woman or many, pisses me off a lot.

So that's where I stand on this whole issue of what to call oneself. Make sure you actions, private and public, are in line with your professed values, and own and be transparent and honest when they are not. And after doing that for a while, ask the women around you what they consider you to be: profeminist or feminist, or neither.