Friday, October 8, 2010

"Domestic Violence Awareness Month" ought to be renamed "Heterosexual Husbands and Boyfriends Beating The Shit Out of Women and Their Children Awareness Millennium"

image is from here

It is Domestic Violence Awareness Month in the U.S. and here is a website devoted to publicising that.

1. Domestic Violence is, it seems to me, the violence done by the U.S. government and corporations and individual oppressors to the oppressed who live within the U.S. and its "territories". Or to it's "territories" and the land and the air and the water. Poverty, for example, is a form of Domestic Violence. So is institutionalised racism, heterosexism, and misogyny.

2. Domestic violence is distinguished from Off-shore Violence. And in looking at the latter what we may note is how warfare is part of each: warfare against women by men who seek patriarchal/male supremacist control of women and girls, and also to regulate and restrict the behavior of boys so that they grow up to be "good patriarchs", meaning mass murders, serial rapists, and batterers of anyone in punching range.

3. Domestic Violence was the name chosen when discussions about the many ways men dominate women through intimate violence because too specific for contemplation, let alone resistance work and activism to stop men's violence against women. It is the generic term for something that isn't at all generic or ungendered. Yes, we need to acknowledge that there is such a thing as battery in lesbian and gay relationships. And of course there are many ways adults in families do violence to children. But the most common form of gendered-sexual violence in families is fathers and father figures incesting/raping/molesting their own daughters or girls they are supposed to be parenting, not preying on.

4. Why doesn't the Anti-Woman Revengelical Fundamentalist Christian White Right [Wrong) acknowledge that their unwritten and unspoken moral code is this: "The Family That Preys Against Female Family Members, Stays Together Due to Stockholm Syndrome and other effects of Dominance and Control"? And realise that feminism is only anti-family if your idea of family includes men dominating women, heterosexism, and violence against women and children, including sexual violence?

5. Why doesn't the Anti-Woman Libertarian Liberal "Left" acknowledge that their unwritten and unspoken code is this: men should have as much freedom of access and rights to violate girls and women as men desire to have, to do whatever it is men wish to do to girls and women that men learn from predatory men and pornographers and pimps. What is are the liberals and libertarians doing to stop incest and rape? Not a whole helluva lot. Why is that? Because rape and incest aren't worth stopping? Or because liberal men believe that in a liberal society incest and rape are part of the price paid for "freedom"? Too fucking high a price, I say.

6. Why isn't homophobic and anti-girl bullying and battery understood as part of Domestic Violence? How many girls and boys have to take their own lives before conservatives and liberals wake up to the fact that children hurting, degrading, humiliating, and terrorising other children isn't socially good or socially necessary. Clearly anti-bullying and anti-battery policies and education programs could be in place in every school system. Sure, there'd have to be less military massacres going on non-domestically, to liberate funds to pay school systems to implement such policies and programs. But the problem with that would be what? Less profit in Dick Cheney's, Donald Rumsfeld's, and David Petraeus's pockets? Those "poor" men will just have to get along with the millions they already have acquired through mass rape and mass murder of "foreign" people of color.

7. Why isn't the violence boys do to girls in school systems and outside school systems discussed? I sporadically hear about is anti-gay bullying, usually by boys against boys, or anti-girl bullying, usually by girls against girls. I'm not suggesting each isn't a serious social problem--both are, as is anti-lesbian violence against girls, which I hear little to nothing at all about. But we also need to focus on the problem of boys sexually harassing, stalking, physically and sexually violating girls, throughout grade school and on into adulthood. And anti-lesbian violence among children too.

8. There's a simple way to end married het men battering women in their home. It is to remove forever from the home any man who is found to have beaten up a woman in the home. And to prevent him from ever having contact with his female spouse or his children, as beating up a child's mother is or ought to be grounds for losing all rights to ever see your child or your spouse again. Sound harsh? To the men who think that's too harsh: Try not beating up women and avoid the harsh consequence. Any man that terrorises or systematically dominates and controls a woman in their home has no right to raise their children, to have custody of them, or to visit them. Sound harsh? To them men who think that's too harsh: systematically demonstrate regard and respecting for women and children; don't terrorising or ridicule anyone; don't dominate and bully anyone; and don't demean and controlling anyone systematically. Try being non-abusive, compassionate, and caring, not vengeful and vindictive and then, guess what? You get to raise your own children! See how easy that can be? It's all, quite literally, in your hands, fellas.

9. As for the men who declare the "equal" problem of women beating men, show me the thousands of x-rays of those men's broken bones, please. Show me the thousands of photos of their badly battered faces. Show me the shelters. Because it's not that class-privileged men aren't economically posititioned to purchase and set up "safe homes" for men abused by women. No. Straight men can do that if need be, what with all those allegedly advanced construction skills (to compliment all the destruction skills). The reality is that there is no need. Meanwhile, men down-play the violence men do to women and up-play the violence women do to men. (Yes, women can and do hurt men (and women) in a variety of ways. I've seen women who have been abused and neglected by men lash out in frustration and pain and say hurtful things to men, sometimes even to their faces. What I haven't ever seen or heard about is this: a woman abuse a man who was never been abused by a man. Not once. I accept that it is often the case that men who batter women witnessed men beating up women somewhere earlier in their lives. But not that they witnessed women beating up men earlier in their lives. So no matter how you look at it, the source problem here is men's violence against women, not women's against men.

10. Funny (not ha-ha funny, and not ta-ta funny) how the major media might mention something about Breast Cancer Awareness Month--never enough, while generally ignoring Heterosexual Husbands and Boyfriends Beating The Shit Out of Women and Their Children Awareness Month. I know queer battery happens too; I'm gay. But I'm all for naming what the endemic problem is that's part of an overall systemic reality of men subordinating women, which is men battering (and raping) women, intimately. And anyone beaten, even in lesbian and gay relationships, is called misogynistic names, which tells you a whole lot about the gendered foundations of domestic violence. The problem is not, as too many abusive het men proclaim the problem to be: "spouses hitting each other". I raised the issue in a recent post: why it is that anti-abortionists don't seem to give a shit that men beat up pregnant women causing untold miscarriages? I mean even if they only care about unborn female foetuses and don't give a damn about out-of-the-womb girls and women, you'd think they'd be overtly anti-battery and anti-rape (including anti-incest): two reasons for unwanted pregnancy and unwanted loss of pregnancy. Two main methods of terrorising and dominating women through force and violation. How about Pernicious and Predatory Patriarchal Privileges Awareness Month? Let's see the morning shows and evening news deal with that issue honestly in town hall meetings.

Pirates of Color and Blond Thin White Heterosexual Women: Part 93 (now in 3D), aka "Gunfire at Falcon Lake"

this image is being used here for media analysis purposes only, as an expression of political speech, and is from here
I've written out my analysis of what the hell is going on with this case in my comment below. It has been modified a bit from the one I submitted to The Feminist Texican. With thanks to Melissa for posting what follows. Please click on the title below to link back to her blog. What is next is a video and commentary and analysis from Melissa. Then a very few comments (two) from readers of her blog. Then there's mine, which as usual is last and longest. While I get into it below, I'll state from the outset that I don't know what happened in this particular case. I've only got mass media as my source of information and if there's one thing they're known for not doing, it's telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They aren't under any oath, and their investors want money, not social change. Exploitation and entertainment is the name of the capitalist media game. The stories all start and stop there.

To all who have been harmed by poverty, drug trade gun-fire, rape, and other forms of atrocity, my heart goes out to the loved ones of those who did not survive. Most of those victimised are of color. Many are women of color. And the U.S. media won't tell you a damn thing about any one of them--we won't ever learn their names, hear about their personal histories, watch their family members and other loved ones grieve, or understand how it came to be that they were in a violent place where guns manufactured in the U.S. were sent with the express purpose of firing bullets in order to kill people of color.

On the alleged Mexican pirate attack at Falcon Lake

6 October, 2010

Trigger warning. 

Today has a transcript of the interview portion here.

This is all just too bizarre.

I live in south Texas (I was actually going to go out to Falcon Dam with a friend a while back to check out the flooding) and hear stories of cartel/gang violence on a daily basis. Something about this woman’s story seems off when you compare it to all the stories you hear about cartel violence. For one, how would she have time to turn her jet ski around, see her husband was shot, try to pull him up onto her jet ski, and still be able to get away…all while being shot at from three boats? I could absolutely be wrong here, and perhaps she really did “luck” out and was able to barely make her escape, but it doesn’t sound right. Second, mutilated bodies turn up all the time. I really can’t see the cartels giving a shit if Hartley’s body is found, so I can’t picture them going back just so they could hide his body. (No, I’m not alleging anything here other than my opinion that her story sounds bizarre. I can’t imagine what the family is going through.)

As an aside: I just love how a young white woman is widowed in an attack by Mexicans, and it gets national news coverage. Yes, I’m gonna go there. Because innocent people are getting murdered on a daily basis. Women are being raped at gunpoint while their boyfriends/husbands/family members/friends are forced to watch. I went to dinner last month with my old high school friends and was stunned to learn that two of them had relatives who’d been kidnapped and held for ransom in Reynosa. Do you have any idea how surreal it is to sit at Olive Garden, have one friend disclose the fact that her uncle had been kidnapped, and then hear another friend at the other side of the table say, “Mine was too?” (Both of their relatives are safe now.)

Fucked up shit is happening. Daily. Less than 15 miles south of where I live. But because it’s happening to brown people–Mexicans, no less–the media doesn’t give a shit.

1. noemi | 6 October, 2010 at 10:46 am

I totally agree with you that its not being reported. The shit my dad tells me when he comes back from Nuevo Leon. My cousin right now is kidnapped, for weeks now. And there was no coverage at all when they hung men from trees near Cerralvo.

2. Darth Paul | 6 October, 2010 at 3:57 pm

I turned him over and he was shot in the head. And that’s when one of the boats came up to me. [I] had a gun pointed at me. [They] were trying to decide what to do with me, and then they left.”

Me digo el mudo…

I’m just gonna be coarse and suggest she had him offed and is trying to pin it on vague Mexican bogeymen. As indicated, violence is happening all the time on the frontera…what better place to have an ‘incident’ with your spouse of one year?

3. Julian | 8 October, 2010 at 12:54 am

I’ve heard her story. Apparently there are plenty of media opportunities to do so. For what it’s worth, I’m going to say I believe her account of what happened. And my condolences to her and his loved ones.

And I’m also going to say that when I first heard this story my first reaction was that this was yet another fu**ed up racist white male supremacist media story that was going to clog the airwaves–or whatever they are now–for weeks to come.

Why did I think that? Because this is not just A story. It is THE story that repeats in dominant U.S. media and in the dominant U.S. mind: something negative happens to an English-speaking woman, usually young–sometimes a girl–always “pretty” by corporate/advertising/pornographic standards, which means–necessarily and with very few exceptions–she’s white, blond, and thin. I already mentioned young, didn’t I? And white? And thin? And blond? Just checking. And not ever, ever a lesbian. And not ever, ever a butch woman of any sexual orientation. Oh, and always, always class-privileged. Always. Never poor. Not even once.

So here’s the deal: the media wants us all to look at these women, some women, a select few, over and over and over again, to prop up this one ideal of beauty while exploiting someone’s suffering, and to associate this beauty with suffering and with victimisation and various ideas that “she needs help”.

The perennial “she” has been kidnapped, raped, or something else that’s grim and terrible, always–ALWAYS–by “a foreigner”. If the foreigner isn’t an English-speaking, GREAT. And if the foreigner is male and of color, EVEN BETTER. Corporate media isn’t about to discuss any serious issues, like, say, white male supremacy and how it impacts what media covers and doesn’t cover. You’d think that all the dominant media would occasionally slip up and make the mistake of focusing on that, but no. We won’t hear about the fact that one in three American Indian women are raped in this country [in her lifetime] and that over 80% of the rapists are white het men. That’s not “news”. Truth is, it’s not “new”, but it ought to be news.

What we’ll get is yet another story that amps up U.S. white xenophobic racism, anti-Mexican/Mexico (or anti-Black, or anti-Muslim, or anti-Arab) sentiments, and plays to the heterosexist and racist pornographic imagination wherein bad things happen to good white (“good” and “white” being interchangeable) women, by bad, bad men (read: men who don’t speak English as a first language and who are darker than pale white people). “Dark” means bad.

The media IS HUNGRY for stories that will reinforce our racist government’s efforts to stigmatise people of color in order to reinforce white supremacy and uses of the U.S. military and police forces–as if white supremacy was in any danger of being harmed any time soon. (As if it wasn’t the U.S. government and corporations that are harming the hell out of non-rich white folks, and people of color of all classes. Hush my mouth!)

It’s Snow White and Sleeping Beauty all over again. All we need now are some white het male heroes on Aryan-white horses to save the day.

The reason the perennial “she” must be young is U.S. corporate advertisers have tons of non-recyclable shit to sell us all. So we’ve got to be trained on her face. We’ve got to note what “youth” looks like: it looks like a white woman, preferably blond; it doesn’t look fat; it looks more beautiful if very young. Because there’s another major enemy out there of white women (and women of color too)–AGE. Yes. Cue the “Jaws” theme music. AGE will get her. One day it will. If she and her white loved ones aren’t off’ed by some man of color in the mean time.

The O.J. Simpson story was so huge, so very, very, very huge, not only because he was famous. But because it so usefully reinforced in the dominant white imagination this idea that really, when you’re not looking, that dark man is gonna gitcha! And the “you” he’s gonna git is “pretty, white, blond, thin, female, heterosexual, and class-privileged”.

Now I’ll add that I believe O.J. Simpson horrifically battered and murdered Jessica Brown Simpson, and that he also callously and selfishly murdered Ron Goldman. The issue isn’t so much guilt or innocence. The issue is what to focus on so that we don’t have to pay attention to the deeper issues: the racist-misogynistic violence and terrorism that is U.S. foreign and domestic policy–the active maintenance of poverty, for one thing, which disproportionately wears the face of someone who is female and of color.

We’ve also got to not really notice–in so many words–the fact that we’re at it again in Asia–sixty-five-plus years and counting of terrorism, just because we can keep on murdering and raping, raping and murdering Asian people and pretend, against overwhelming evidence, it’s to protect white Amerikkka. And we have awards–medals of honor–to give some of our soldiers, if they live and if they don’t. (The U.S. military cares not one bit about its soldiers; it trains them to kill and to be killed, and if they complain about it they are called misogynistic names.)

And I say all of this while believing that this particular young woman is telling the truth. And, I could be wrong. I thought about the fact that maybe her husband was an abuser. That’s not because media portrays, stigmatises, and stereotypes hulky white het guys as perps of anything, mind you. It’s because I know lots of women and gay men of all colors who’ve been victimised by white het men.

In this latest story, I’ve wondered if maybe he, the white husband, was involved, himself, in drug runs. Perhaps not. We’ll see what we find out. Lorde knows the media won’t leave this alone. And they won’t PRECISELY for the reasons Melissa says: because the dominant U.S. media must not cover the deaths of women of color. They must not cover the deaths of men of color either. They will usually only cover the terrifying incidents of white women being systematically harmed (by white men) if the perp isn’t a white man.

And so we won’t get news about Iraqi citizens who’ve been raped and murdered by U.S. troops–unless, maybe, if the soldier is a Black or Brown man. And we won’t hear about what the West is really doing in Afghanistan, to women, to men, to children, to the land. And we won’t hear about how U.S. and European weapons are funneled to and furiously fuel every conflict around the world: from Central America to sub-Saharan Africa to cities and towns across the good ol’ U.S. of A.

We won’t be called to grieve the loss of any people of color. Not ever. Not in the white white West. If no one white was harmed, there was no crime, as far as dominant media is concerned. If only whites were harmed, and only people of color were the perpetrators, you’ll be hearing about it for weeks if not months, if not years, if not for centuries.

The U.S. media doesn’t have time to tell us anything that’s fundamentally and systematically wrong with the U.S. We’re too busy being enthralled with what happened in this latest case. And with the latest products to make our skin look years younger. Oh, and Lindsay Lohan and Lady GaGa.

Thursday, October 7, 2010

"Undesired" shows us that Gynocide is indeed Global. And if a foetus will become a girl, there are ways to prevent her from ever seeing the light of day

image is from here
Anti-abortion activists would do well to end misogyny (including battery, rape, and incest--by men against girls and women) and stop trying to legislate control of girls' and women's bodies. If they care about all of humanity and not about protecting patriarchal power, that is.

Abortion is a subject of controversy in the U.S. and elsewhere because men want control of women's and girls' bodies any way they can get it, including through battery, rape, and incest, and including through legislating what women and girls can lawfully do if they get pregnant by being raped--by their fathers, boyfriends, husbands, or (less often) unknown rapists. That women ought to determine the course of their own sexual lives (which is also to say their political lives) is a conceptually new idea in the minds of patriarchs, and it is not one that makes patriarchs especially happy. Patriarchs are not easily made happy because their happiness depends on the subjugation of human beings who are not them and subjugated people, often enough, won't settle for subjugation. Subordination and oppression are not life-sustaining practices; they necessarily result in untold deaths. To hear anti-abortionists shout about it, you'd think only foetuses are being destroyed. But the death and destruction of post-birth girls and women occurs through various means.

Those who survive sexual and racial oppression do resist that oppression. Oppressors don't like this rather annoying tendency of subordinated people. Male oppressors--the social dominants in every gender hierarchy on Earth--have the institutional force, available to be acted out interpersonally when deemed appropriate, to make sure women and girls remain below men and boys in every conceivable way. The deaths that add up are those of women and girls.

One conceivable way to keep women and girls down is for men to forcefully impregnate them and make abortion illegal. Another way is for men to beat the hell out of them when they are pregnant, sometimes resulting in miscarriage and the death of the woman. A women I just found out about is facing the challenge of leaving her husband because she is, once again, pregnant. She wants to have a child and she'd like to carry this foetus to term. He apparently has other ideas, as he's beaten her so brutally in the past, during and between pregnancies, that she's miscarried every time she's been pregnant by him thus far. This is not a story about a woman in what is termed "the East". It is a story about a Western woman; a woman born and raised in the U.S. This raises a question: if anti-abortion activists cared about human life so much, why aren't they anti-battery? Why aren't they anti-rape? Why aren't they opposed to men ruling women in law and in custom?

It can appear to those who wish to be in denial, that in the West that girls are valued. But girls are valued primarily (if not only) for what they can do for patriarchally, misogynistically abusive men. No girl is allowed to live her life as if men don't control her in some way at some point. Heterosexist relationships are, after all, compulsory. Parents can want freedom from heteropatriarchal constraints for their daughters, but daughters encounter heteropatriarchal imperatives and mandates daily, regardless of what parents want for their girl children. This is the way of most, if not all, of the world.

Robin Morgan and many other feminists have deeply wanted it to be so, but it was not and is not so: sisterhood is not global except among some networks of women fighting men's misogynistic violence. Sisterhood isn't globalised for many reasons and among those reasons is anti-lesbian heterosexism, white racism, anti-Indigenism, Western imperialism, and the oppression of the Global South by the Global North. A reason too often overlooked by scholars of feminism is this one: brutal patriarchal terrorism and control of human beings. What is global is patriarchal brotherhood, not feminist sisterhood. What is global is gynocide.

Men rule women and globally men rule with a cast iron fist. Sometimes they use other methods.

Historically and currently in the U.S. and in other regions of the West, white men rule women through battery and rape, through discrimination at work and exploitation on the street, and through forcibly sterilising women of color. Men of color rule women too: most often they rule women of color. And white men rule men of color too. Add to this the reality of virulent heterosexism and it becomes rather obvious that heterosexual white men, collectively if not always interpersonally, rule all other groups of people through systems of violence and exploitation that are no longer regionally contained. Yet another method is the racist and heteropatriarchal regulation of women's pregnancies, through enforced misogynist laws and intimate violence, each of which determines which foetuses will be welcomed to come to term and which will not.

With this in mind, I direct your attention to a problem in India. And if you wish to believe it is a problem unique to India, or Asia, or "the East", you may do so, but you'd be mistaken.

What follows is from RadioAustralia.net.au. Please click on the title to link back.

New film highlights India's 'missing' daughters

Updated October 6, 2010 21:39:14

They've become known as India's disappearing daughters, or simply 'the missing' - since 1980, an estimated 40 million girls have been killed through abortion, neglect or murder. Many are killed because of their gender. In Indian society, sons are still seen as a guarantee of status and income. But a new multimedia project called 'Undesired' is fighting to bring the issue into the open.

Presenter: Helene Hofman
Speakers: Walter Astrada, photojournalist; Ruchira Gupta, president and founder, Apne Aap Worldwide; Shreeya Sinha, associate producer and videographer, 'Undesired'
ASTRADA: I was taking pictures of one girl who was giving birth. Some doctors were saying if she's not having a boy it will be a big problem. The family-in-law is waiting outside. They pass the baby to the sister of the husband. The first reaction was to check the sex of the baby. And it was a girl. Everybody was completely silent. You don't need a language to understand.

HOFMAN: Photojournalist Walter Astrada has covered violence against women in Guatemala and Congo, but he found the situation in India particularly distressing.

ASTRADA: In India, you have the sex based abortion. You have the violence against girls. You have rape. You have burns. You have acid attacks. You have trafficking of women. You have selling of women. Basically you have a lot of violence where usually only one of these [things] happens in every country. Or maybe two. There it's altogether.

Today - and every day - 7,000 foetuses will be aborted in India simply because they are female.

Across the country, from the foothills of the Himalayas to the slums of New Delhi, female child mortality is suspiciously high. In the more affluent communities of Punjab state the rate is 81 per cent higher than it should be. In neighbouring Haryana, it's 135 per cent.

And even for the girls that live, millions are be mistreated by their own families, neglected and less well fed or educated than their brothers.

'Undesired' tells the stories of these mothers and daughters through Walter Astrada's photographs and through interviews with victims and activists like Ruchira Gupta, president and founder of Apne Aap Worldwide, an Indian anti-sex trafficking organisation.

GUPTA: Every image was horrifying but every image rang true, from the little girl, who was sort of curled up like a foetus, to the mother kissing her daughter happy that she was alive, to the woman who was a burn victim from dowry expectations. Every image was chilling and I just wish I didn't have to see those images. Violence against women is very common and it's so normalised. The other reason it's not talked about is because there are these super achieving women in India who are prime ministers and doctors and lawyers and so people tend to see that image of India, not knowing that while there might be a few hundred thousand women achievers there are a few million who are being subjugated and trampled upon who are also girls and women.

HOFMAN: For a Hindu family in India, a son is a status symbol, who will eventually be able to provide for the family.

A daughter, on the other hand, brings pressure to one day provide a dowry.

Dowries were declared illegal back in 1961, but there are frequent reports of women being burned or killed by grooms and their families when the dowry fails to meet their expectations.

Also illegal is gender based abortion.

Shreeya Sinha, the associate producer and videographer for 'Undesired', says she quickly realised both practices are widespread.

SINHA: Since I am in fact Indian I knew that these atrocities were happening, but it was only after I went to India that I realised that the situation was a hundred times worse. I was shocked. It's not at all uncommon to see headlines saying 'dowry deaths', 'honour killings', 'sex selective abortions'. You find female foetuses dumped in backyards and in gutters. What I do hope is that 'Undesired' will start a conversation because it really starts with a mindset and if we can get people talking, hopefully they'll start to question what's going on in India and hopefully Indians themselves because there is a big sense of denial about what's happening to women there.

HOFMAN:
'Undesired' was funded by a grant from the Alexia Foundation, which supports photographers promoting social justice and cultural understanding.

It has been posted on the website of the US based media production company, Media Storm, allowing it to be shared by email and through social networking sites.

The idea is to get the message to as many people as possible.

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Give a Damn! Fight Heterosexist Bullying any way you can. If in need, reach out to The Trevor Project.



My condolences to the loved ones of Raymond Chase and Cody J. Barker. May these two young men rest in peace along with all the other queer youth who have taken their own lives to escape the humiliation, degradation, and pain of being tormented in a heteropatriarchal and racist society for being gay, including Billy Lucas, Seth Walsh, Tyler Clementi, and Asher Brown. Condolences to their loved ones as well.

The violence of normalising and statusing heterosexuality and stigmatising homosexuality is one and the same. All of it is tied to misogyny. Here's another LGBTQ Nation article about two other teenage gay males whose lives are lost due to anti-queer/pro-straight violence. Please click on the title to link back and see related links at the end of the article.

Two more gay teen suicide victims — Raymond Chase, Cody Barker mark 6 deaths in September

LGBTQ Nation • Friday, October 1, 2010 • 

We are saddened to learn today of two more gay teens who have turned to suicide. This brings the total to 6 known suicides in September by openly gay, or perceived gay, teenagers.


Raymond Chase


Raymond Chase, a 19-year-old openly gay sophomore studying culinary arts at Johnson & Wales University in Rhode Island, committed suicide on Wednesday by hanging himself in his dorm room.

Details of the incident are scarce and unlike previous reports, it is not known at this time what the circumstances were leading up to Chase’s death.

Johnson and Wales Vice President Ronald Martel emailed students with the news on Thursday:
Today I contact you with the deeply sad news of the passing of Raymond Chase, sophomore, 19, culinary arts major. The campus community is mourning the loss of this vibrant young man who leaves many JWU friends and teachers, and a loving family of Monticello, New York.
We have also learned of another gay teen whose death was sadly, but unintentionally, overlooked.


Cody Barker

In Shiocton, Wisconsin, Cody J. Barker, a 17-year-old openly gay teen, took his life on September 13.

Cody attended Shiocton High School, where he was active in choir. He recently attended a seminar aimed at helping him establish a gay/straight alliance at his school. Cody also enjoyed bicycling and gardening, and was a Lady Gaga fan.

Maria Peeples, Barker’s peer mentor through GSA for Safe Schools, said he was a passionate activist for all students, especially those, “targeted or ostracized for their sexual orientation or their gender identity and expression. … He really cared about making schools a safe place for students. That wasn’t always his own experience with school.” [Wisconsin Gazette]

Raymond and Cody mark the fifth and sixth known teen suicides in the month of September among openly gay, and perceived gay, teens in what has become an epidemic of gay suicides:

On September 9, Billy (William) Lucas, of Greensburg, IN, was was found dead in a barn at his grandmother’s home — he had hanged himself. While Billy never self-identified as gay, friends report he was tormented for years because other kids thought he was gay. Billy was 15 years old.

On September 19, Seth Walsh of of Tehachapi, CA, was found unconscious and not breathing after attempting to hang himself. Seth, age 13, spent the better part of 10 days on life support — he died on September 28. Seth was openly gay and suffered years of relentless bullying.

On September 22, Rutgers University student Tyler Clementi, 18, of Ridgewood, NJ, jumped to his death off the George Washington Bridge, just days after his college roommate broadcast live images on the internet of him having a sexual encounter with another man.

On September 23, Asher Brown, age 13, came home from school and shot himself in the head after enduring what his mother and stepfather say was constant harassment from four other students at his middle school in Houston, TX. Asher told his parents he was gay that morning.

On Thursday, the Human Rights Campaign issued a nationwide action alert asking Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to speak out immediately and to push every school in the nation to implement anti-bullying policies inclusive of sexual orientation and gender identity.

“Our schools and our nation cannot sit back and wait for the next tragedy,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “Tools and resources are available to protect our children and it is adults who must act to put strong laws, policies and procedures in place.”

Monday, October 4, 2010

The True Terrorists are not who you think "they" are

"the war is terrorism" image is from here
This includes men's war on women; straight people's war on queer people; non-Indigenous people's war on Indigenous people; whites' war on people of color; the rich's war on everyone else; the Global North's war on the Global South; the West's war on the East, and against All Life on the Earth.

I've been noticing the dominant media putting out these vague notions of "possible attacks" in any number of places--seemingly everywhere except by U.S. and NATO military forces who are terrorising many places around the world. We don't hear about those actions as "actual terrorists attacks" but rather as "us protecting ourselves". We will never hear the dominant media give other nations the benefit of THAT doubt, will we? Because anything or anyone that threatens the U.S. is "terroristic" but if the U.S. terrorises, including U.S. men terrorising U.S. women, the media won't determine that to be terror at all. Now why would that be, do ya think?

What follows is from The Guardian (UK). Please click on the title to link back.

Be very afraid – we are being fleeced by purveyors of fear

Home Office threat levels are absurd abstractions of no help to anyone except the security lobby raising cash through fear
In case you missed it, since Monday an "Irish-related" attack on Britain has been "a strong possibility". At the same time, an al-Qaida attack is "highly likely" and "only a matter of time". This presumably means one will occur – though, since August 2006, when this alarmist language was first to put us on continuous alert, terrorism has been like mad flu disease, afflicting Whitehall but strangely absent from the nation at large.

I hesitate to tempt fate, but this dog's dinner of nouns and qualifiers cannot mean anything to the general public. Rather than describing a menace to the British state, the words are more a comment on English teaching in schools. They are verbal garbage, reflecting a habit of bureaucratic mind and relieving public services – airport security, railway guards, traffic police – of the need for courtesy. They just want to keep the public scared and paying taxes.

Travelling on a First Great Western train nowadays is like entering Guantánamo – a cacophony of repetitive announcements telling passengers to protect their belongings at all times and inform the police if they see anything suspicious. Likewise the fatuous frisking of old ladies at airports, the half-hearted searching of bags in shops, the reams of safety literature pouring from the nation's printers. It is the white noise of state fear.

Nothing is as absurd as Home Office "threat levels". They purport to grade the risk of something called an "attack". This is not defined, but graces a crime with the glamour of a soldierly act. It grants terrorism political status and thus dusts the security industry with the glory of defending the realm.

Above all the threat must be kept alive, sorted into classes of low, moderate, substantial, severe and critical. We are currently at severe. What regius professor of English chose these words? I would put severe below substantial, the word being a strengthener of very, while substantial has substance. But I assume Whitehall has done focus groups and sweat tests. Substantial was perhaps greeted with a shrug, while severe brought on the shakes. As for critical – mujahideen "expected imminently" to hurl bombs down Oxford Street – it is surely the most devalued word in the OED.

There is no way a member of the public can sensibly use the information that an al-Qaida threat has altered from substantial to severe. These are abstractions. Are we supposed to calibrate our dread with Theresa May each morning, treating all dark skin as suspicious and every beard as hiding a foe?

The former home secretary, Alan Johnson, raised the al-Qaida threat level in January from substantial to severe, yet added that it would be "pretty daft" to say why. Under his predecessor the security service boasted that it had tabs on 2,000 individual terrorists, 200 networks and 30 active plots. The impression was the more the merrier.

The public pays the police and security services to protect them from these bombs going off, while accepting that occasionally one will get through. But it also pays not constantly to be reminded that there are bad people in the world. It pays to be relieved of fear. May claims to be "alerting not alarming" the public by "raising its awareness". She treats terrorism as, like gay rights and climate change, in need of an Arts Council grant.

In the mid-1970s, the Provisional IRA staged some 50 explosions in London, subjecting the city to far greater mayhem than today. Somehow we survived without the gargantuan counter-terror apparatus in place today. The bombing campaign came nowhere near toppling the British government or infringing the liberty of the state. The chief threat to that freedom today comes not from terrorists but from the government's response to them. Speaking in July on the fifth anniversary of the 7/7 tube attacks, the former head of the Met's Muslim Contact Unit, Robert Lambert, commented that the then Labour government, by taking its lead from a "flawed neocon" analysis of Islam, had "not reduced but increased the chances of terrorist attacks". The government had proclaimed that an evil ideology had entitled it "to derogate from human rights considerations" and "go to war not against terrorism but against ideas, the belief that al-Qaida was a violent end of a subversive movement".

To see what is happening we probably need to return to the old journalistic maxim, follow the money. There is now an extensive police and industrial lobby in Britain dependent for its resources on maintaining a high level of public fear. The lobby thrives on its own failures. The incidents in America on 9/11 (2001) and in London on 7/7 (2005) saw the greatest ever peacetime growth in spending on security. Unlike most forms of public spending, this one could by its nature demand cash with menaces and with no account of value for money.

The fear must be sustained if the resources are to flow. The west has been starkly free of terrorist "attacks" over the past decade. The lobby may plead this proves the money was well spent, but the staggering cost of anti-terrorism since 9/11, including two foreign wars, must have surpassed all actuarial calculation of western lives saved thereby.

Hardly a month goes by without someone in authority reminding us to expect another attack imminently. I have lost count of statements from MI5, the police and other experts that an attack is a matter of "not if, but when". The attacks never occur, or are brilliantly thwarted, like the one reportedly prevented this week, apparently by dropping bombs from drones on Pakistani villages. What is noticeable is that the tempo of such threats increases immediately before Christmas and when the security lobby is involved in a fight over money, as now.

This week the Police Federation chief, Paul McKeever, warned that policing the Olympics would be a "great burden" because of budget cuts. His union has constantly upped the "threat to the Olympics" to win £800m for just two weeks of cover – more even than Beijing. Now it wants more. Meanwhile the Met's John Yates, head of specialist operations, has declared that any cuts to his budget would be exploited by al-Qaida and "leave Britain vulnerable to terrorist attack". This is from a force with so much money that it can spend £48m on a "human resources computer" that is still not ready, and deploy a helicopter and 59 gunmen to kill one Chelsea barrister.

Britain's security/industrial complex has been allowed to run berserk under the long shadow of 9/11 and 7/7. It has been allowed to undermine civil liberty and tax the exchequer of a fortune. Now it has the effrontery to tell Britons that they are not safer but less safe as a result. After 10 years of soaring expenditure, the threat has actually risen.

I do not believe that this apparent failure to deliver value for money is real, or that some catastrophic explosion is imminent. I think this is just another lobby seeking money. As it plays with its words, the rest of us may shrug and go about our business. But I sometimes wonder who is the real terrorist.

Dominant Western Media: Who Controls It? Bottom line: it controls you more than you know.

image of "the monopoly guy" is from here

What follows is cross posted from The Economic Collapse blog. Please click on the title to link back.

Who Owns The Media? The 6 Monolithic Corporations That Control Almost Everything We Watch, Hear And Read

Back in 1983, approximately 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the United States. Today, ownership of the news media has been concentrated in the hands of just six incredibly powerful media corporations. These corporate behemoths control most of what we watch, hear and read every single day. They own television networks, cable channels, movie studios, newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, music labels and even many of our favorite websites. Sadly, most Americans don't even stop to think about who is feeding them the endless hours of news and entertainment that they constantly ingest. Most Americans don't really seem to care about who owns the media. But they should. The truth is that each of us is deeply influenced by the messages that are constantly being pounded into our heads by the mainstream media. The average American watches 153 hours of television a month. In fact, most Americans begin to feel physically uncomfortable if they go too long without watching or listening to something. Sadly, most Americans have become absolutely addicted to news and entertainment and the ownership of all that news and entertainment that we crave is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands each year.

The six corporations that collectively control U.S. media today are Time Warner, Walt Disney, Viacom, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., CBS Corporation and NBC Universal. Together, the "big six" absolutely dominate news and entertainment in the United States. But even those areas of the media that the "big six" do not completely control are becoming increasingly concentrated. For example, Clear Channel now owns over 1000 radio stations across the United States. Companies like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft are increasingly dominating the Internet.

But it is the "big six" that are the biggest concerns. When you control what Americans watch, hear and read you gain a great deal of control over what they think. They don't call it "programming" for nothing.

Back in 1983 it was bad enough that about 50 corporations dominated U.S. media. But since that time, power over the media has rapidly become concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people....

In 1983, fifty corporations dominated most of every mass medium and the biggest media merger in history was a $340 million deal. … [I]n 1987, the fifty companies had shrunk to twenty-nine. … [I]n 1990, the twenty-nine had shrunk to twenty three. … [I]n 1997, the biggest firms numbered ten and involved the $19 billion Disney-ABC deal, at the time the biggest media merger ever. … [In 2000] AOL Time Warner’s $350 billion merged corporation [was] more than 1,000 times larger [than the biggest deal of 1983].

--Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, Sixth Edition, (Beacon Press, 2000), pp. xx—xxi

Today, six colossal media giants tower over all the rest. Much of the information in the chart below comes from mediaowners.com. The chart below reveals only a small fraction of the media outlets that these six behemoths actually own....

Time Warner

Home Box Office (HBO)
Time Inc.
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
CW Network (partial ownership)
TMZ
New Line Cinema
Time Warner Cable
Cinemax
Cartoon Network
TBS
TNT
America Online
MapQuest
Moviefone
Castle Rock
Sports Illustrated
Fortune
Marie Claire
People Magazine

Walt Disney

ABC Television Network
Disney Publishing
ESPN Inc.
Disney Channel
SOAPnet
A&E
Lifetime
Buena Vista Home Entertainment
Buena Vista Theatrical Productions
Buena Vista Records
Disney Records
Hollywood Records
Miramax Films
Touchstone Pictures
Walt Disney Pictures
Pixar Animation Studios
Buena Vista Games
Hyperion Books

Viacom

Paramount Pictures
Paramount Home Entertainment
Black Entertainment Television (BET)
Comedy Central
Country Music Television (CMT)
Logo
MTV
MTV Canada
MTV2
Nick Magazine
Nick at Nite
Nick Jr.
Nickelodeon
Noggin
Spike TV
The Movie Channel
TV Land
VH1

News Corporation

Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Fox Television Stations
The New York Post
Fox Searchlight Pictures
Beliefnet
Fox Business Network
Fox Kids Europe
Fox News Channel
Fox Sports Net
Fox Television Network
FX
My Network TV
MySpace
News Limited News
Phoenix InfoNews Channel
Phoenix Movies Channel
Sky PerfecTV
Speed Channel
STAR TV India
STAR TV Taiwan
STAR World
Times Higher Education Supplement Magazine
Times Literary Supplement Magazine
Times of London
20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
20th Century Fox International
20th Century Fox Studios
20th Century Fox Television
BSkyB
DIRECTV
The Wall Street Journal
Fox Broadcasting Company
Fox Interactive Media
FOXTEL
HarperCollins Publishers
The National Geographic Channel
National Rugby League
News Interactive
News Outdoor
Radio Veronica
ReganBooks
Sky Italia
Sky Radio Denmark
Sky Radio Germany
Sky Radio Netherlands
STAR
Zondervan

CBS Corporation

CBS News
CBS Sports
CBS Television Network
CNET
Showtime
TV.com
CBS Radio Inc. (130 stations)
CBS Consumer Products
CBS Outdoor
CW Network (50% ownership)
Infinity Broadcasting
Simon & Schuster (Pocket Books, Scribner)
Westwood One Radio Network

NBC Universal

Bravo
CNBC
NBC News
MSNBC
NBC Sports
NBC Television Network
Oxygen
SciFi Magazine
Syfy (Sci Fi Channel)
Telemundo
USA Network
Weather Channel
Focus Features
NBC Universal Television Distribution
NBC Universal Television Studio
Paxson Communications (partial ownership)
Trio
Universal Parks & Resorts
Universal Pictures
Universal Studio Home Video

These gigantic media corporations do not exist to objectively tell the truth to the American people. Rather, the primary purpose of their existence is to make money.

These gigantic media corporations are not going to do anything to threaten their relationships with their biggest advertisers (such as the largest pharmaceutical companies that literally spend billions on advertising), and one way or another these gigantic media corporations are always going to express the ideological viewpoints of their owners.

Fortunately, an increasing number of Americans are starting to wake up and are realizing that the mainstream media should not be trusted. According to a new poll just released by Gallup, the number of Americans that have little to no trust in the mainstream media (57%) is at an all-time high.

That is one reason why we have seen the alternative media experience such rapid growth over the past few years. The mainstream media has been losing credibility at a staggering rate, and Americans are starting to look elsewhere for the truth about what is really going on.

Do you think that anyone in the mainstream news would actually tell you that the Federal Reserve is bad for America or that we are facing a horrific derivatives bubble that could destroy the entire world financial system? Do you think that anyone in the mainstream media would actually tell you the truth about the deindustrialization of America or the truth about the voracious greed of Goldman Sachs?

Sure there are a few courageous reporters in the mainstream media that manage to slip a few stories past their corporate bosses from time to time, but in general there is a very clear understanding that there are simply certain things that you just do not say in the mainstream news.

But Americans are becoming increasingly hungry for the truth, and they are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the dumbed down pablum that is passing as "hard hitting news" these days.

So what do you think about the state of the mainstream media? Please feel free to leave a comment with your opinion below....

A Vision for Revolution: Imagine This

image is from here

How will it come to pass that the Earth is no longer polluted and ravaged by corporate greed and military weapons? How will animals cease becoming extinct? How will people live in economic systems which are spiritually, psychologically healthy? How do we collectively get to the place and the time on Earth when rape is no more? When misogyny is no more? When white supremacy and racism is no more? When trafficking and enslaving humans is no more?

I envision such a world--of peace, of justice, of humane humanity living harmoniously with, not on, the Earth. But by what means do we arrive there? I carry into that question the dreams and battles of many across the globe, fighting for human rights, for land rights, for rights to unpolluted and unowned water. I know there are many others around the world, particularly and most especially the most oppressed, the lease privileged, the most silenced, the most marginalised, and the most threatened with violence and violation, who long for a world without systemic exploitation and systematic violence.

I have always imagined this:

One day something miraculous will occur. What will happen is that anyone who causes others harm will experience the harm they cause. If they have been cruel, their cruelty will be visited upon and within them, and it will remain unrelenting until their souls are transformed by the experience, into compassionate, empathic human beings who, from that moment on, will be incapable of callousness and cruelty.

I imagine that the rapists, sex traffickers and slavers, incest perpatrators, and child molesters will feel all of the painful emotions and self-injurious thoughts experienced by those raped, trafficked, enslaved, incested, and molested. And through that awareness they will be radically transformed into people incapable of such acts of horror, and violation of bodies, of beings, and of trust.

I imagine that the Earth will let the wealthiest perpetrators of pollution--not the factory workers but the factory owners, not those struggling to pay their rent or their mortgage monthly, not anyone who is homeless or without income, but those wealthy enough to never have to worry about being homeless, without health care, without resources. The Earth, its skies, seas, and land, will work together to transform the minds and spirits of those who think of the Earth as a thing to be exploited, not a Being to be honored and respected.

I imagine a time when all creatures, great and small, will not have to fear humans at all. Because humans will stop destroying their environments, and will stop slaughtering animals they don't need to eat. And I mean that the people killing the animals do not need to eat to survive. Specifically that. In this time there will be no "commmercial" industries of food production. There will be local and regional food production, and it won't involved cruelty to animals.

I imagine that the terror experienced by any and all creatures who are threatened by humans who seek to make money off of those deaths, will be visited in their minds and bones by that terror, and it will not cease until those humans who profit from mass slaughter of animals, or gross, unnecessary corporate-led destruction of environments and ecosystems, will be radically transformed by the experience of that terror, such that when it eases they would never think again of practicing ecocide, of participating in economic systems that require mass slaughter to thrive or endure.

In such a world, people live with other animals and with the Earth and they live inside ecosystems that the Earth approves of, that the plants approve of, that animals approve of. There is no society that is not approved of by the Earth and its many creatures and other Life. Humans no longer rule.

In this world, men no longer rule women, in any way. No humans rule others, in any way. There is, instead, great empathy, great compassion, and a sense in each living person that only a few possess currently: the ability to determine one's own actions based on what is best for the whole of Life, not just what is best for oneself. Greed, degradation, and abuse, disappear as human phenomena.

In this world, Indigenous people have their land and their pre-colonial cultures; they live as they once lived before being invaded, conquered, and before any European men committed genocide on Earth. Non-indigenous people have their pre-colonial cultures also. But they will not have mindsets, paradigms, values, and practices that lead them to mistakenly think they ought to rule or dominate people around the world. Whiteness and manhood will not be identities of domination.

In this world, non-heterosexual people will have exactly the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexuals. Gender will cease to be played out as a war against women, as an oppositional, hierarchical dualism in which those ways of being that are seen as "feminine" are valued and respected less than anything considered "masculine".

In this world, people will not need to be afraid of losing their homes, unless due to natural occurrences that have no cause in human abuse of the Earth. People need not be afraid of each other, because the capacities of every human to feel empathy and compassion for everyone else will be equally shared and will forge the structures of our collective survival.

If you thought this post would contain battle plans, you don't understand what I mean by "revolution". What I  am imagining is a revolution of spirit, and an expansive growth of Love that replaces anxiety with serenity, cruelty with care, depression with joy, and war with peace.

Let us bring this world into being. Together.