This is What a Radical Muslim Feminist Looks Like

I believe most radical feminists are religious women of color. Given that it appears that the person in the photo is wearing a taqiyah, I'll assume he's male. (The only other major clue to me, as a U.S. whiteboy who is largely ignorant about Muslim cultures and people is that there's a Star Wars thing against the wall--and I can count on half of one hand the number of women I know "into" Star Wars to that extent. I'm sure not "into" Stars Wars and boy-toy video games and such, and I'm a boy.) So going on the assumption that the person above is male, I don't believe most radical feminists are men!!! And I don't believe there are that many pro-radical feminist men, but let's hope I'm wrong about that. At least the man above is pro-radical feminist! The image comes from here: http://photobucket.com/images/radical%20feminist/.

John Perkins releases more truths about the genocidal, ecocidal U.S. corporate world in Hoodwinked

John Perkins Interview from MrXfromPlanetX on Vimeo.


At the link provided below (click on "Economic Meltdown -- A Call for Systemic Change"), you can see more of John Perkins' books, and I recommend reading them all. He and Derrick Jensen are my two favorite U.S. white heterosexual male writers.

Economic Meltdown -- A Call for Systemic Change

Whenever I hold my two-year old grandson, Grant, in my arms I wonder what this world will look like six decades from now, when he is my age. I know that if we "stay the course" it will be ugly. The current economic meltdown is a harbinger.

Panama's chief of government, Omar Torrijos, foresaw this meltdown and understood its implications back in 1978, when I was an economic hit man (EHM). He and I were standing on the deck of a sailing yacht docked at Contadora Island, a safe haven where U.S. politicians and corporate executives enjoyed sex and drugs away from the prying eyes of the international press. Omar told me that he was not about to be corrupted by me. He said that his goal was to set his people free from "Yankee shackles," to make sure his country controlled the canal, and to help Latin America liberate itself from the very thing I represented and he referred to as "predatory capitalism."

"You know," he added, "what I'm suggesting will ultimately benefit your children too." He explained that the system I was promoting where a few exploited the many was doomed. "The same as the old Spanish Empire -- it will implode." He took a drag off his Cuban cigar and exhaled the smoke slowly, like a man blowing a kiss. "Unless you and I and all our friends fight the predatory capitalists," he warned, "the global economy will go into shock." He glanced across the water and then back at me. "No permitas que te engañen," he said ("Don't allow yourself to be hoodwinked.")

Three decades later, Omar is dead, likely assassinated because he refused to succumb to our attempts to bring him around, but his words ring true. For that reason I chose one of them as the title of my latest book, Hoodwinked.

We have been hoodwinked into believing that a mutant form of capitalism espoused by Milton Friedman and promoted by President Reagan and every president since - one that has resulted in a world where less than 5% of us (in the United States) consume more than 25% of the resources and nearly half the rest live in poverty - is acceptable.

In fact, it is an abject failure. The only way China, India, Africa and Latin America can adopt this model is if they find five more planets just like ours, except without people.

Most of us understand what my grandson does not--that his life is threatened by the crises generated during our watch. The question is not about prevention. It is not about retuning to "normal." Nor is it about getting rid of capitalism.

The solution lies in replacing Milton Friedman's mantra that "the goal of business is to maximize profits, regardless of the social and environmental costs" with a more viable one: "Make profits only within the context of creating a sustainable, just, and peaceful world," and to create an economy based on producing things the world truly needs.

There is nothing radical or new about such a goal. For more than a century after the founding of this country, states granted charters only to companies that proved they were serving the public interest and shut down any that reneged. That changed after an1886 Supreme Court decision that bestowed on corporations the rights granted to individuals--without the responsibilities required of individuals.

As an EHM, I participated in many of the events that propelled us into this dangerous territory. As a writer and lecturer, I spent the past few years touring the United States and visiting China, Iceland, Bolivia, India, and many other countries, speaking to political and business leaders, students, teachers, laborers, and all manner of people. I read books about Obama's economic plans, current schemes for reforming Wall Street, and other policies. It struck me that most of the discussions dealt with triage and that while we need to stop the hemorrhaging, we must also ferret out the virus that caused these symptoms.

Hoodwinked presents a plan for a long-term cure. During the days following its November 10, 2009 publication, I spoke about this plan at the United Nations, on radio and TV programs, and at a conference attended by 2400 MBA students at Cornell University.

I come away feeling hopeful that we are finally ready to take Omar's warning to heart and to implement the transformation that will be the salvation for my grandson's generation.

John Perkins is former chief economist at a major international consulting firm. His Confessions of an Economic Hit Man spent 70 weeks the New York Times bestseller list. His website is www.johnperkins.org and his Twitter ID is www.twitter.com/economic_hitman.

Source: The Huffington Post online.

What is "Asking Too Much" in a Heterosexual Marriage?

[image of cover of book by Diana E. H. Russell is from Amazon.com, but I'd rather link to Diana's website, for those unfamiliar with her other important work.]

I open this post with comments delivered to me by a man, a husband, who is into playing games with his wife that begin with her saying "No" to his sexual advances. He considers his sex life to be fine. I consider it to be completely messed up on his part. And I asked him to reply to me here, and, guess what? He's never replied to them!!

Here's what this supposedly loving husband commenter wrote to me:

But - I've read post after post here, and I have to disagree with much of what is written about "rape". I've been with my wife for 22 years now. By your definitions, I've probably raped her dozens of times. Hell, hundreds. "Don't - my back hurts." "Want me to rub your back?" "Yes, but behave yourself" After several minutes, "That's not my back!" "Oh, all right - good night." "OH NO, you're not done!" "Well, if I keep rubbing, I'm gonna rub something else too!" and she says, "Shut up and rub"

Is that rape? Come on - some of these posts get pretty outrageous with the definitions of rape.

Approve my post or not - it makes little difference to me. I don't buy into anyone's agenda or way of thinking unless and until I make sense of it myself. [...]

So far, what I read here only makes sense if I cast both myself and my wife in an evil light. Women use men, men use women - it has always been that way. And, it works out fine for everyone, so long as agreed upon lines aren't crossed.

Violent rape, and coercive rape will always be on the wrong side of the line. The rape of juveniles will always be on the wrong side of that line - whether that rape is part of an arranged child "marriage" or not.

What I wrote back is after the rest of this post. I place his comments at the beginning of this post because I think they tell us a lot about how heterosexual husbands view sex with their wives, understand the concept of respecting her first "no", and their right to ignore that first no and move on to get what THEY want, whether or not it's what the female (so-called) partners want.

Portions of what follows are excerpts from here:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2315570/Just-do-it-sex-call-sparks-womens-fury

A sex book causing a stir overseas is about to land in New Zealand and if the reaction in Australia is anything to go by, it could see Kiwi women saying "yes" more often.

The Sex Diaries: Why Women Go Off Sex and Other Bedroom Battles, by sex researcher Bettina Arndt, has sparked dozens of blog posts and stories in Australian newspapers, magazines, and on television.

The chapter getting couples and critics hot and bothered is called "Just Do It", about the idea that women should say yes to sex even when they don't feel like it.

Cue controversy: bloggers have dubbed Arndt a "rape cheerleader" and called her "yes" message "marital rape". One critic wrote: "Don't worry about why women aren't interested in sex any more, just pressure them into it by threatening the future happiness of their families, and pretty soon their libido will be bouncing right back."

Australian feminist Eva Cox has weighed in against Arndt, saying that by bedtime many women just want to sleep. "After an evening of organising kids, dinner, the shopping, the washing, the homework, etc, maybe [women] are too tired to want sex."

In her first New Zealand interview, Arndt told the Sunday Star-Times she had braced herself for this "huge kerfuffle", and she thinks some of her more strident critics are missing the point.

"I'm not saying `just do it, lie back and suffer, lie there like a log' I'm saying that if you put the canoe in the water and start paddling, the chances are you may well enjoy the experience. Just see, just try paddling and see what happens.

"Men must `just do it' too. And `just do it' doesn't mean having intercourse it can mean just giving someone pleasure. So it's a two-way street it just so happens that it's much more common for women to go off sex than men."

[That wouldn't be because men are so emotionally illiterate and immature, would it? And predatory. And disrespectful and unvalidating of women's emotional lives, including those of their wives, in countless ways? Is it really asking too much to take that dynamic into account when assessing why women "go off sex"? Might the women also be asexual, or lesbian, or no longer attracted to the lout? Or is that not allowed to be discussed, socially and interpersonally? What if a woman marries a man and later decides she's not that interested in sex with him, because, say, he's "let himself go"? But they have children already, and bills to pay and don't want to put their children through a divorce?]

Arndt said many members of the public were far from outraged by her book in fact it had reignited sparks in bedrooms. "The letters coming in are amazing... They are getting more sex! There are some men saying the drought is breaking!"

[Meanwhile, the drought goes on--and on and on and on--for women I know who want men to be interested in them as individual human beings, as "not just for sex", and as people who get to say "No" once and have that be the end of the "advance". What may, in fact, be breaking, is her will to keep saying say no because she knows he won't respect it at all, but instead will interpret it as "foreplay".]

Arndt's book, released here in May, is based on the sex diaries of 98 Australian couples some newly in love, some in stable but sexless marriages. While most women complained about being badgered for sex, Arndt was most taken aback by the men's diaries.

"They [HETEROSEXUAL WHITE MEN] are stunned to find their needs so ignored. It often poured out in a howl of rage and disappointment."

[And who says straight men don't have feelings? They have them. They just don't express them in healthy, respectful ways to women. Meanwhile, heterosexual white women are stunned to find their needs EVER being appropriately respected and attended to at all--such as the need for respect, if and when THAT happens. Their feelings often pours out in silence, because TO ASK for a need to be met is to be "a nag" or "a b*tch". So what do we call husbands who HOWL IN RAGE AND DISAPPOINTMENT that their needs aren't met by "their" wives? Answer: emotional, psychological, physical, sexual, and POLITICAL abusers.]

"Many men, like 48-year-old Clive, had resorted to 'the grope' fondling their partner in a cuddle just to connect with her again."

[Because it just doesn't occur to the heterosexual male supremacist jerk to just ASK for some time to speak about what's going on for him. Because he's usually emotionally illiterate and hasn't figured that learning to be emotionally literate might actually SERVE his marriage and be GOOD for his spouse. His lazy ass just wants to "grope" when he wants something from her physically. To actually be responsible, like an emotionally mature adult, and ASK to discuss issues in their marriage is apparently ASKING TOO MUCH. No, he just by-passes any attempts at being responsible, because he is entitled to have physical access to her body, right? WRONG.]

"Women hated 'the grope' but Clive said it was his way of saying: 'I'm still here. I still adore you. Hello! Where has she gone, this lover I married?'"

[HEY CLIVE: HOW ABOUT SAYING  "I still adore you, and I miss being with you physically. What can I do that would feel caring and loving to you--that may not be physical at all? Given my adoration of you, let's prioritise YOUR needs for the rest of our married life, given that to date everything has been organised around MINE. Why, I'll bet my systematic behavior of not respecting your boundaries has eroded your trust in me to be genuinely respectful of your needs so much that you're having a difficult time believing that what I'm saying right now isn't self-serving." She looks at him and says "Yes, that's true. I don't trust your motives any more. You've been a selfish husband for so long, I can't really believe you might actually put my needs, wants, wishes, or desires before yours--or even on par with yours."]

"The book's central message is that sex is an important part of a relationship and too often, 'it simply hasn't worked to have a couple's sex life hinge on the fragile, feeble female libido.'

[That is so messed up for so many reasons! First, what is "sex"--how is that defined and agreed upon in a marriage? Is it EVER? Second, "sex" (whatever that is for any given man--and Lorde knows it's increasingly pornographic) is not necessarily even remotely healthy in a relationship where the relationship itself is messed up. Third, the heterosexual couple's "sex life" is routinely "marital rape life" according to many women, and documented in the book The Hite Report: A National Study of Female Sexuality. 

Have you lived with a heterosexual husband? Do you know how damned manipulative white heterosexual men can be? Do you know all the tricks they "play", when  not exploiting and raping women outside the home by being "tricks"--procurers, prostitutors, purchasers and renters of teenage girls and women? Do you suppose some married women acquiesce to men's pleadings, demands, proddings, and various methods of "not taking THE FIRST "NO"' to mean "THAT'S MY FINAL ANSWER" because it gets men to stop bothering them? Why is it asking too much for men to actually respect the word "no" when they hear it, regardless of whether or not they think they can, with pouting, with insistence, or with force, "magically" turn that no into a silent yes. I know this is how it works for many women, due to talking to married women who have had husbands who pressure them into having sex. I've also known heterosexual husbands who emotionally, physically, and sexually neglect the women they are partnered to, and then rape them in ways that any reasonable court of law would call rape, if the couple wasn't married, that is. This is to say, inside heteromale supremacist societies, it is, apparently, asking too much of a husband to NOT rape his wife, at least on occasion. A "fragile, feeble female libido" might be translated to mean:

1. The unsure sexual interests of someone who is an incest, child molestation, or sexual assault survivor.
2. The lack of sexual interest in a man who has repeatedly demonstrated "it's all about him".
3. The hesitancy of a woman whose past and present male partners have been emotionally illiterate and physically aggressive.
4. The woman is a lesbian.
5. The woman "just isn't that into you". What part of "not interested" don't you understand, fellas?
6. A term used to take the political, social, and interpersonal focus off of the "fragile, feeble male ego".

"The right to say `no' needs to give way to saying `yes' more often provided both men and women end up enjoying the experience."

[If it takes women saying no to husbands, men not taking no for an answer, men pushing on, husbands breaking down emotional boundaries, and making sure that 'no' becomes a 'yes', for "both men and women" to "end up enjoying the experience", then those couples need to read Andrea Dworkin's book Intercourse ASAP.]

If the just-start-paddling tactic doesn't appeal, Arndt has another gem schedule sex. She talks about one couple in their 30s who have an "every three days" deal. And they're both quietly thrilled that by the time they are 70, sex may be a once-a-week treat.

[I hesitated when I read "the just-start-paddling tactic" knowing damn well men get aroused by physically abusing women. Among the women I know, including in my family, one has said--after thirty years in a marriage noted for his thoughtlessness, inconsiderate behavior, gross lack of understanding and extreme insensitivities to her as an incest survivor, his selfishness and self-centeredness and neglect of her on all levels, that she ought to have just startled "paddling away from him" (to borrow the phrase from above) as soon as she met him. And that if she had to do it over again, she would. She did know how to swim, so she well could have. She taught me how to swim and I've learned to paddle away from men who are jerks.

How many women do you know who want sex to be scheduled like taking their kids to dance lessons or  football/soccer practice? And does "the once-a-week treat mean him giving her pleasure, or him popping a Viagra tablet and assuming she wants to have his dick anywhere near her? Do you know the number of older women who, upon losing their husbands (sometimes at stores) will only be with women after that?]
_____________

As for what I wrote back to the husband of 22 years... what's in italics is his writing. The rest is my own.

But - I've read post after post here, and I have to disagree with much of what is written about "rape".

What you are about to say reveals why.

I've been with my wife for 22 years now. By your definitions, I've probably raped her dozens of times. Hell, hundreds. "Don't - my back hurts." "Want me to rub your back?" "Yes, but behave yourself" After several minutes, "That's not my back!" "Oh, all right - good night." "OH NO, you're not done!" "Well, if I keep rubbing, I'm gonna rub something else too!" and she says, "Shut up and rub"

First, it's for her to name it as rape, not me. Second, the behavior you describe shows self-interest as a motivating factor in how you regard your wife. If she states at the start that she wants a back rub and nothing more, who the fuck are you to go further? What level of respect for her stated wishes does that show?

Is that rape? Come on - some of these posts get pretty outrageous with the definitions of rape.

It's oh so typical heterosexual male behavior that is on a continuum from manipulation to coercion to overtly forced rape. That's what it is.

Why not simply do what your wife asks when she asks for it? Why do you need to "push her boundaries" in order to obtain sex? Is she unable to ask for sex when she wants it? Can you not fucking wait until she does? Please explain that.

Approve my post or not - it makes little difference to me. I don't buy into anyone's agenda or way of thinking unless and until I make sense of it myself.

You clearly have bought into a somewhat convervative liberal agenda, without even knowing it!

If I did, I might be just another gang member....

I'm glad you've steered your life away from that.

So far, what I read here only makes sense if I cast both myself and my wife in an evil light.

If you choose to see the world only in terms of "Evil" and "Good" perhaps. How about seeing the world in terms of behaviors that are more respectful to women, and behaviors that are less respectful to women? And ditch the "good" and "evil" shit, which is designed to make you feel so badly about yourself for doing fucked up shit that you can't even look at it without intense self-condemnation.

Women use men, men use women - it has always been that way.

Yes, and more than that too. It's been far more than "just" women and men using each other. Even you agree that's the case. Because YOU state that what Roman Polanski did is BEYOND that, right?

And, it works out fine for everyone, so long as agreed upon lines aren't crossed.

You really are soaked through in liberalism. I doubt you're going to find your way out of it. You do realise, I hope, that women (and men) who are incest survivors and rape survivors sometimes don't know what boundaries to set, or how to get what they need from another person without submitting to things they don't want, right? Is your wife a survivor of incest, child molestation, sexual assault, repeated sexual harassment, or rape--before she knew you? If so, have you bothered to find out how such atrocities have impacted her? Have you bothered to care how such traumas impact someone's wishes and needs? Or do you just selfishly go along with however she behaves, as if sexual trauma doesn't effect anyone in any way at all? Are you a survivor of incest or child molestation or rape? How have those experiences impacted you and how you behave sexually and emotionally. Do you ever dissociate from your body and not know what you want?

If a woman is dissociated when you want sex from her, and she goes along, what do YOU call that?

If a woman grew up being terrified of saying no to the sexually predatory advances she had to endure, from daddy, or whomever, do you care to know, loving man, how such a past "plays out" in the present?

Violent rape, and coercive rape will always be on the wrong side of the line.

As opposed to, say, the kind of rape that you enjoy? As opposed to what kind of rape? Please be clear here. YOU are distinguishing between violent rape and coerced rape and other kinds of rape, right? I'm not doing that. You did it yourself. So what ARE those other kinds of rape, sir?

The rape of juveniles will always be on the wrong side of that line - whether that rape is part of an arranged child "marriage" or not.

And who defines who is a juvenile? You know it varies from country to country, right? From age eight to eighteen? So what constitutes "a minor" in your view, and if you think a sixteen year old is not a juvenile, and you engage her in sex when you're thirty, what do you call that? (What do YOU call that, sir, when the age of consent in your state is seventeen?)

Your statements unwittingly reveal where you stand. And where you stand is in a self-serving place that is grossly insensitive to many realities women live with. If your wife of 22 years is a survivor of any form of sexual violation and intrusion, including by you, you might care to ask her about that, yes? And you might care to not push her boundaries, right? Or are you too afraid you'd never "get any" if you actually DID respect her first "no"?

Meet The Predators: Men Readily Admit to Raping Women As Long As You Don't Call It Rape, and men STILL won't call MOST forms of rape "RAPE"

With thanks to Cara @ The Curvature for allowing me to post a portion of her writing here. Please go to her post, linked to at the title of her post later on in this one, and also linked to at the end, to read the majority of her analysis and discussion.

As she notes:
Trigger Warning for discussions of sexual violence. What follows is compiled and written by me, until the portion clearly identified as Cara's.
 
This is what a serial rapist WHO DIDN'T USE FORCE looks like. Note the lack of strong build and non-menacing face. He used pretense (overt lies to get women to come to meet him--such as requesting that they try out for a role in a production), and drugs to make young women unconscious while he abused them:

Joseph Brooks holds his Oscar for best original song for "You Light Up My Life" in 1978.

NEW YORK (CBS/AP) The Oscar-winning songwriter and director behind “You Light Up My Life” has been indicted on charges of raping or sexually assaulting 11 women.

Joseph Brooks, 71, was arraigned Tuesday [June 23, 2009, after raping young women, without force, for decades].

Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau says nine of the victims answered an ad on Craigslist seeking women to audition for acting roles. See here for more about this particular rapist, JOSEPH BROOKS.

Thanks to Cara at The Curvature for this post! I totally agree with her concerns about the study's limitations. YES, Cara: according to these ways of assessing sexual assault, I was never sexual assaulted, because being terrified of what someone is doing to you when twelve to the point that you are frozen and trying to dissociate means that the perp doesn't need to use force, and he knows it. Which is how the perp who got me could also get so many other children, female and male. 

I'm sorry, Cara, that you have had to deal, once again, with this kind of gross invalidation and denial about the harm done to you. Yes, you were raped, and anyone who thinks "force" is a needed ingredient to commit rape doesn't understand what dynamics are most needed for rape to occur. Here's a clue: one of them is getting to know your intended victim so well that you can have unnwelcomed and unwanted sexual access without using force.

I remember the number of college heteromale students who, in one study, said they would rape is they could get away with it. It's all quite terrifying, and all quite normal, and very few men seem to be caring about this matter at all as an issue of political terrorism and violation, gross lack of social safety, and the mass cultural subordination of a class of human beings through traumatic sexual-for-the-rapist contact and invasion only some of which needs interpersonal force, because the force is already in place structurally. I feared what would happen to me if I did protest. And I tried anyway. And he ignored me. I was terrified because, I thought, "If he can do this horrific thing and pay no attention at all to what I'm saying about the need to get away, what ELSE can he do? Anyone with structural power who can disregard other people's humanity enough to selfishly use and abuse them ought to be regarded a a social menace, criminally dangerous, and oppressively and systemically (not only psychologically and individually) inhumane.

The predatory sexual violator uses whatever means he needs to use to get what he wants from a person he doesn't regard as an actual person. If he can get by with drugging a drink, so be it. If he can gain knowledge about what will trigger someone into dissociation, he'll do it. If he knows he can patriarchally pester someone to wear down their boundary of having first said "No, not tonight", he'll do it. If he can "only" get the soon-to-be-raped person drunk, he knows where to go from there. If he has structural force encoded into his identity, as "a man", for example, women know what he's capable of and may acquiesce to a situation they know could involve force if they don't. AND THAT'S NOT CONSENT. THAT'S BEING SO AFRAID OF SOMEONE DUE TO WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT HIM AS A MEMBER OF AN OPPRESSOR CLASS THAT YOU WANT TO SURVIVE SEXUAL VIOLATION AND INVASION, DEGRADATION AND HUMILIATION, WITHOUT ALSO BEING BATTERED OR KILLED. Most rape doesn't require force as understood in the questions posed below. So what does THAT do to the rape statistics and how many men will admit to rape if we don't call it rape?

All of what follows is part of Cara's post:
Meet The Predators: But Which Ones?
[...]
But in all those posts, I’ve noticed a concerning silence. Admittedly, it’s entirely possible that I’ve missed the post(s) where someone else said what I’ve been thinking, but I also feel that I’ve read a fairly good sample. And not once have I personally seen anyone explicitly mention that we’re only talking about a certain kind of rapist here.


What kind of rapist is that? Primarily, the kind of rapist that uses physical force. In the first study Thomas quotes, 6% of respondents answered yes to the following questions:

(1) Have you ever been in a situation where you tried, but for various reasons did not succeed, in having sexual intercourse with an adult by using or threatening to use physical force (twisting their arm, holding them down, etc.) if they did not cooperate?
(2) Have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone, even though they did not want to, because they were too intoxicated (on alcohol or drugs) to resist your sexual advances (e.g., removing their clothes)?
(3) Have you ever had sexual intercourse with an adult when they didn’t want to because you used or threatened to use physical force (twisting their arm; holding them down, etc.) if they didn’t cooperate?
(4) Have you ever had oral sex with an adult when they didn’t want to because you used or threatened to use physical force (twisting their arm; holding them down, etc.) if they didn’t cooperate?

In the other study, 13% of respondents admitted to rape or attempted rape, and “61% of the reported attacks were intoxication-based, 23% were overt force alone, and 16% were both.”

And what I notice is that we’re talking about a very limited view of rape. We’re not talking about rape based in coercion. We’re not talking about rape where the victim was unconscious, but not intoxicated. We’re not talking about rape based in power difference, where the victim never had the real choice to say no. We’re not talking about rape where the victim said no — or simply didn’t say yes — and the rapist did whatever the fuck he wanted anyway. [For the rest of Cara's post, please click on this URL: http://thecurvature.com/2009/11/17/meet-the-predators-but-which-ones/.]

If you think African Americans are "uniquely bigoted" politically, think again: SURPRISE--it's white boys

Two U.S. white male supremacist spokespeople. The top image (from here) is of the racist-misogynistic
gay activist Dan Savage. Bottom image (from here) is Rush Limbaugh,a racist, homophobic, misogynistic jerk, and a very powerfully influential one.

[This post was completely revised later on 18 Nov. 2009, ECD from the time it was initially posted.]

The following excepts are all from this webpage located at a white-dominated U.S. queer rights advocacy site the logo of which appears at the top of this post. "Free of an agenda, except that gay one" is their motto. I despise the term "gay" being used as a synonym for lesbian and gay, LGBT, or Queer, SGL, or Two Spirit; don't they mean that white male supremacist, anti-lesbian of color single gay agenda? Read on, and assess for yourself who they like to point at when passing out blame for white queer campaign failures due almost entirely to Christian white anti-"gay" opposition.

Prop 8 took away the M-word from gays and lesbians. Fingers started pointing, and not in very nice places. Race and religion were blamed. So, too, was the "No On 8" campaign, accused of misguided direction and ineffective outreach. [Note: that'd be "No On 1", but we'll forgive the occasion typo... I hope!]

But here's what happened over the past few weeks: Obama remained painfully silent when we needed him the most. Sure, his approval ratings are lower than they once were, but Obama retains an amazing ability to rally people to the polls. Had he maintained his "fierce advocate" status and called on Maine voters to defend our rights, we might not be looking at a four-to-five point losing margin. [...] So unimportant were our rights to the president, he supposedly didn't even watch the returns. We like to think Obama's stamp of approval could have moved the needle just a little bit. But we would've (almost) settled for him giving a damn, at least in private.

Comments (141)
No. 1 · SBK
Full blame goes to Obama. His support could have made up the difference. Gays must no longer stand for Obama, we must no longer support him. He takes us for granted. He loves our votes and even more, our money, but he won't spend a cent of his political capital for us. Not even for DADT which should have been repealed in January for the sake of national security! It's time for us gays to rebel against Obama. He is the coward in chief on gay rights.

As a U.S.-born and raised white gay man, I've taken note over the years how the U.S. white LBGT community hasn't dealt with its glaring racism. With national white heteromale-owned media coverage of the Prop 8 vote in California and the people's repeal of same-sex marriage law in Maine, some observations are in order. As noted by Renee below, white's homophobia is never a factor according to the media. When whites behave in a homophobic manner, it may be attributed to class and religion, not race. Whereas the supposedly rampant homophobia among various people of color--because they are people of color, in the Prop 8 coverage targeted and stigmatised "the African American vote"--without going into issues of religious affiliation and the influence of white heteromale supremacist Christianity on all of us.

Race, when not white, is always pointed to as "the" obstacle to queer liberation in the U.S. Note the lack of brown and black stripes in the symbolically queer rainbow flag. Related to this is the whole question of which queer people are we talking about here? For the media, it is always white ones; it is never queer people of color only or primarily. Assumptions are reinforced in the dominant Amerikkka mind that All the Black and Brown people are heterosexual, and All the Queers are white. The far more diverse concerns and political issues facing queer people of color have never been centralised and prioritised in the white heteromale supremacist U.S., certainly never by white politicians and media who rarely bother to take on Queer issues at all, let alone those of lesbians, gay men, SGL, and trans people of color.

If the dominant white pro-woman mind can only conceive of trans people as whites trying to gain access to majority white women's spaces and social services, the theory falls flat when discussing trans people of color, who are never centralised in the organisation of any white-dominant event, program, or service. I support woman-only spaces and services, but let's stop saying "those trannies" when who is being referred to is ONLY white post-op MtF (or FtM) transgendered people. Let's also not forget that of the institutionally powerful groups in the U.S., of the groups that do get some white media attention, queer and heterosexual people of color do not have clout or status or any ability to trump the views, agendas, and policies of whites, both heterosexual and queer.

Elsewhere on this blog I have posted about how the "gay" marriage agenda is racist. (The use of that term specifically is obviously invisibilising to trans and lesbian people as such.) To that we can add what follows in assessing who, really, has the bulk of the power in the U.S. My answer: heterosexist class-privileged Christian white men. To even imply that Christian African Americans are "the problem population" is spuriously racist and covertly misogynistic as well: Black women go to church more than Black men. Some lesbian Black and Brown women go to church too. So do gay Black and Brown men. So do some white lesbians and gay men. So any charges against "Christian African Americans" is really talking about the values of Black women. Apparently African American women are not only the reason why Black community here is struggling. White men have nothing to do with it, see? (See The Moynihan Report" for more.) Let's cut to the race chase: according to white heteromale media and politicians, the "problem people", the wasters of white taxpayer dollars, the cause of AIDS spreading to white heterosexual men, are always poor women of color, a group with the LEAST institutional power and ability to achieve political self-determination.

We can note in all of this how completely invisible Asian American, Arab American, and American Indian women are in any and all discussions about queer politics by the dominant media; usually Latina and Chicana women are as well. And some of them are Muslim, Jewish, non-affiliated religious people, and people who are keeping alive Indigenous spiritual traditions and religions. It's as if, upon reading this or similar critiques elsewhere, the dominant white media spokespeople might say, with utter shock and disbelief, "Wait! You mean that there are queer people among Native American, Arab American, and Asian American populations!?!'

Within this little world of radical profeminists and radical feminists--of color and white, U.S. or not, we can also note that, yes, there are devout Christians among us. My feminist womentor was Christian. She was a white radical anti-racist, anti-misogyny, civil rights and economic justice activist, and a lesbian. She also worshiped Goddesses and didn't usually go to church, but she was a Christian. With a significant nod to one of my dear friends here, there most certainly are devout Christian radical feminists, and I'm not talking only about people of color OR only about whites. As a new arrival to the community at A.R.P., Soulsis comments elsewhere on this blog another key element in the reason why Black women (lesbian or heterosexual) are continually targeted by just about everyone else with more structural power. Speaking here about white people's misperceptions and delusions of racial political inferiority, she notes that Black women are seen and reacted to by whites (particularly) as if they are politically powerful and privileged men. Reality check to those whites: not in any white-dominant patriarchy I'm aware of! But Soulsis hits the proverbial nail on the head with that call. And from there we'll move on and close this post out with another radical feminist woman's analysis.

What follows was written by Renee (thanks for this, Renee!) at her blog, Womanist Musings:

After same sex marriage got voted down in Maine, I expressed my sympathies and waited to see what the fall out would be. It seems that for many, the consensus is that the Catholic Church is to blame for the terrible outcome. You see, unlike California, Blacks comprise less than 1% of the population, so we could not be blamed on mass, though the community did manage to find one African American to blame.

I do realize that Obama has come down in favour of civil unions and not marriage but he did not cause the vote to restrict the rights of Gays and Lesbians. He is not God, he does not walk on water, nor can he control the minds of U.S. citizens enough to force them to vote in a specific direction on any issue. Keep blaming him though, if it makes you feel better.

What I would really like to know, is that since Maine is mostly a White state, where was the claim that White people are uniquely homophobic? When California revoked gay marriage, all you could hear for weeks is that it was the fault of ignorant homophobic Black people. How could we not recognize oppression, when we had suffered so much as a race? White GLBT members shook their heads at us and heaped scorn upon us as though we were responsible for them losing the ability to marry and in the process they erased same gender loving couples of color within their ranks. When Blacks tried to protest either in solidarity or because they were directly affected, racist vitriol was thrown at them. Well, we had nothing to do with this one. It was all White people and suddenly race is no longer an issue.

OOOh but there is no racism in the GLBT community. This is all about fighting oppression, so certainly their members must recognize racism when they see it right? Where was Dan Savage with a rant about how homophobic White people image are? Where was his statement claiming that he was done pretending that the homophobia of White people didn’t effect him personally in order to be politically correct? Did I miss him on CNN? Please explain to me why White people are not considered uniquely homophobic, when they vote repeatedly en masse against gay marriage? They not only vote against it, they actively organize and fundraise to ensure that a GLBT identity remains highly stigmatized. I guess racial membership has its privileges huh?

I expect to catch shit for this post because the one thing I have learned is that you can speak out in favour of gay marriage, talk about how damaging homophobia is and even encourage people to think about the heterosexist messages they are teaching their children, but if you are critical about a single thing, you are a homophobe. There is always some reason why you cannot ever question the motives, leaders or actions of the White LGBT community. If they did something wrong, it’s always straight people either did it first or straight people do it too.

I don’t think, nor will I ever believe that homophobia is correct but I am not about to support something that is harmful or demeans me as a person so that someone can feel equal. I know what the “just like you” meme means. The failure to discuss race when it is largely White people speaks volumes.

*     *     *

[Over at Racialicious, Renee added this comment to this discussion on the same topic, which can be found here:]

I believe that the “blacks are uniquely homophobic meme”, is largely peddled by white members (yes that means you Dan Savage) of the GLBT movement that refuse to own their undeserved privilege. When we examine the power structure in the US, clearly it is not blacks that are denying gay rights. We do not exist with the social power to do anything of the sort.

I also feel that it is pertinent to point out that many black leaders have spoken out in favor of gay rights and yet this is seldom acknowledged. The point is that these leaders are attempting to play the “just like you card”. They want sympathy from the white power structure by claiming that that GLB’s are being treated poorly because they are being treated like blacks, hence the gay is the new black meme. The unacknowledged racism in the community is disgusting.

With Gratitude to African American Radical Feminists

 

Several of the images in this post are from here, a blogpost titled "Sisters in the Struggle: Why Are Black Feminists Ignored?". The image of Audre Lorde is from here. The image of Harriet Tubman is from here. The image of Sojourner Truth is from here. The image of Duchess Harris is from here. The women whose photos appear here are African U.S. American unless otherwise indicated. Clockwise from top left: Alice Walker, Audre Lorde (Afro-Caribbean), Sojourner Truth, Duchess Harris, bell hooks, Patricia Hill Collins, Dionne Brand (African Canadian), Barbara Smith, and Harriet Tubman.

 

I have been realising over the years, with deeper clarity, what the realities are that various women face, and how from a U.S. white point of view it can appear that "All women suffer at the hands of men" and that "the problem is patriarchy", that patriachy--the patriarchies that exist across the globe--are THE oppressive forces worthy of sustained radical activism, fighting and resistance. Surely it IS oppression worth fighting against. And it must be. Until patriarchy everywhere is only an unfathomable footnote in herstory books.

But connection with U.S. women of color, and in my case especially and particularly with radical feminist African American women, the picture is different and the abuses multiply and point to a more complex set of systemic problems.

There is a multilayered or woven set of analyses and perspectives that have been shared with me by Black women who have grown up entirely in the U.S. Most of these women--without class privileges, mind you--have traveled outside of the U.S. Their discussions and writings about their experiences while traveling has enriched and informed my own profeminism, as I get to hear their varied experiences of other women of color outside the U.S. (mostly in Central and South America), not white perspectives on women of color outside the U.S. Ironically or not, it seems to me that non-whites visit places where women of color live without the assumption that "we are all sisters" because African American radical feminists know too well that there are divisions among women that are not being addressed by those with the most privileges. And the African American women I know also carry consciousness that they are U.S. women, Western women, and that that alone carries a huge form of privilege and entitlement, to name reality as if speaking for all women, rather than sharing their truths and understandings while owning their political locations. This has been critically important to me understanding the oppression of women.

There is also white radical lesbian feminist who I know who has great sensitivities to what it means to be a white woman traveling to other parts of the world that are not white-majority or white-dominated. So I'll thank her as well.

And of course the work of radical feminist women of color who are Black and not U.S.ers, and who are of color and not Black, inform and direct my work. I mention with special appreciation the perspectives and analysis, the resistance and rebellion of Indigenous women globally, who are of all colors.

And none of this is to say that the work of U.S. white radical feminists, lesbian and non-lesbian, has been anything but invaluable and transformative. I don't think there's any radical feminist text, or any radical feminist person, from whom I have not learned a tremendous amount, about what being a woman means in a white heteromale supremacist society. About feminist values and feminist practices that are not patriarchal.

But in this post I want to explicitly thank all the African American women, the writers, the filmmakers, artists, the activists, the bloggers, the rabbis and other religious leaders and thealogians from various other faith traditions, the friends and colleagues, co-workers and womentors. I want to thank you all, because without your knowledge and analysis, my understanding of what it means to be a radical profeminist would be much less informed by women who are part of a global majority, and by women who understand oppression by whiteness as well as oppression due to heterosexual--and gay--male supremacy. This is one of several reasons why this blog will remain WOC-centered. And probably specifically centered around the analyses and activism of U.S. women of color, augmented with the work of white women from the white-majority and white-dominated regions of the world.

I have just added links on my blogroll to more Black feminists, to update you all. And I want to link to an article here, from On The Issues, about Dr. Duchess Harris.

The Patriarch and the Pickle Jar, or how white gentile heterosexual male supremacy operates in the home and in-humanity

[the image above is from here]

So I've taken over a year here to present certain arguments, to argue with certain men, to defend radical feminism and radical feminists of many colors, and to call for radical profeminism to be centered around the experiences, needs, analysis, and activism of radical feminist women of color.

But what about getting on with the matter of radically transforming WHM supremacist societies? What about making gynocide and genocide urgently unsustainable? When do we get about the task of making those who most want those atrocities to continue to step down, to no longer holds positions of influential power? To become as socially invisible in the media as American Indians are now in the U.S.?

Where does oppressive white heterosexual male supremacist power live? Where does it breathe easiest? In what institutions? In which locations and regions?

As with many analyses of Nazi Germany, people often mistake Adolph Hitler as THE SINGLE REASON HaShoah (the Nazi Holocaust) happened. Adolph--a megalomaniac and racist prick, a xenophobe and homophobe, and one insecure and arrogant fuck--would have remained only that had he not lived in a society that was deeply and historically anti-Semitic. He would have been one messed up dude who didn't do well with being an artist. Maybe he'd have become a ranter in the streets, people looking away, embarrassed. But he had access to something that would work to give him enormous political and military power. He lived in a society that tended to follow its leaders, that believed "Father knows best" and who would fall in line easily when ordered to do things. With those elements in place, and an economic system that was shaky, making the masses frustrated and scared, he could, over time, become Germany's leader and appoint others with similar goals in places of power, largely on a platform of fixing the economy, mending the social-spiritual fabric of Germany, allowing Germans to feel PRIDE once again.

And anti-Semitism wasn't only a "German" thing. It was a European thing. It lived in the hearts and minds of many people who did not understand the Jews of that region of the world, and who made gross assumptions about what sorts of powers they had.

Hitler and his propagandists worked to effectively spread the idea that it was the Jews who were to blame for just about everything that was ailing an already cancerous Germany. Germany's cancer, though, was not the Jews, it was anti-Semitism. And after slaughtering millions, various forces organised effectively to stop them in their bloody tracks. Hitlerian Germany was brought down, Jews in camps were liberated, and Germany would have to go on living, knowing what it had become, due to following the leader and practicing bigotry.

To summarise: anti-Semitic Germans, with a charismatic anti-Semitic leader and his cronies, organised, aided and abetted a genocide. These masses either secretly supported them, outwardly supported them, or cowered in fear due to not supporting them. Those who didn't abet their efforts were those in the Resistance. There were also those non-Jews who hid Jews in their buildings, people like Anne Frank. She didn't survive, of course. But she and her family and some friends got to hide together in great fear before being slaughtered. And she pondered many things in those hours tucked away out of sight. She thought about humanity, and inhumanity. She came up with a thought that was needed for her to get by: deep down, people are good, not evil.

This is an idea, that people are "really" good, not evil. I don't measure people's goodness or evilness in terms of what they "must be deep down". I measure it in terms of their actions: are they part of the Resistance or aren't they? Are they the targeted group for bigotry and being systematically harmed and slaughtered or aren't they? Are those not targeted helping those with targets on their chests due to race, ethnicity, gender, or sexuality, to be free, to flee, to find ways to survive while also opposing the oppressive forces?

Jews and non-Jews in Europe spoke out against the Nazis. They also fought the Nazis, using all means available to them--and who can blame them. Before the worst of the atrocity, Jews and non-Jews warned the masses of what Hitlerian Germany, and a Nazi-infested, pro-fascism Europe was designed to become, and was already becoming.

So, where is The Resistance to patriarchal atrocity, to white supremacist atrocity? What ought those of us who are not targeted for discrimination and destruction do. I mean those of us who are not American Indians, women, queer people, and other people of color? Do we speak out? What do we say? How do we alert the masses? What is reasonable to expect from the masses, and what should be done if what they consider "reasonable" is to make fun of you for saying it, or to ask you to prove it, or to simply not give a shit?

This is a very large population of people with privileges I am speaking about. It spans conservative to liberal whites, heterosexuals, and men.

At what point do you stop trying to get them to "see what's going on" let alone FEEL it? At what point do you stop engaging with them altogether on these subjects, and just find the closest Resistance movment in your area and join it?

This is what I am wondering today. And, what to do if there IS NO RESISTANCE movement?

Obviously for me, one answer is to write about it on this blog. But I wish there were very well-organised Resistance movements to white supremacy and male supremacy, to racist white domination and destruction of people of color, and sexist male domination and destruction of women.

I couldn't even MENTION "men's war against women" or "gynocide" to that white heterosexual guy I discuss above, the formerly VERY oppressive husband who is not just a relatively mildly oppressive husband. I think his eyes would, with the air thick with condescension and denial, roll so far back into his head that they might never roll back into place.

He does the dishes, he washes clothes, and her does yard work. His spouse and he both work outside of the home. She also does the laundry (more than he does), washes even more dishes, and has to do things like remind him to screw the lids back on jars that he leaves out. Actually she's sort of given up on him figuring that one out, so she just has to remember that any lidded jar she picks up might not have the lid secured to the jar, which is an annoying thing to have to always be prepared for. Such is life with men, with this one white heterosexual man in particular.

To any women, white and of color, reading this, I welcome you to write in your experiences of dealing with white and male arrogance and denial, condescension and oppressiveness.

If I were her, I too would probably have stopped speaking to him about being sure to securely screw on lids to jars he opens and doesn't put back in the refrigerator. Or I'd just loosen all the lids on anything he assumes would be tightened and let him find out what it's like when you pick up a jar of pickles and the glass jar drops and shatters at your feet. And watch him clean up the mess. And then do it again, and watch him again, until, just maybe, he'd "get it".

We are living in politically cancerous times. And the cancer is not women or any form of feminism; it is socially enacted manhood and male supremacy and the men and institutions that actively maintain and defend the privileges and power of being male; the cancer is not people of color; it is whiteness, white people and institutions that uphold and defend the privileges and power of being white.

Those of us who are oppressed by white men know all the ways they leave the lid loosely on the pickle jar. We know what you do to annoy and aggravate us, to insult and silence us, to maim and kill us. We know. So just watch out the next time you reach for those pickles.