This is why we can’t have nice things

I’m so mad right now. I was mad when the Cavs posted the video below. I was mad when I read the apology for making a joke out of intimate partner violence, and I’m mad that I got up this morning to a facebook timeline with “Cavs player” and “domestic violence” in the headlines.

Last week over drinks with a friend, I argues that sports while having violent aspects should be viewed in a larger context. Specifically, football players are on the receiving end of so much trauma should be looked at more closely to see what the impacts are over time. However, when you put this video made by PR people in this context that argument gets kind of blow to hell. Violence against women is just part of the culture of masculinity, and sports culture is also part of it.

There are a lot of problems with professional sports beginning with it is kind of a minstrel show. But because this is one of the few ways low-income Black men can escape poverty, I am usually good for a pass. Until we have another option, this is all we have. I have a friend who argues that these young men should focus on school instead of sports, which is all fine and good if all education was equal. It isn’t so even if these boys were straight A students who worked hard they education would still be valued less than a kid from a middle-class or upper class white neighborhood. Them’s the breaks.

By the same token violence and sports is more complicated than just people who play sports buy into a system and culture of violence and exceptionalism. We can dissect the relationship between violence and economic insecurity, or how and why poverty impacts children including making them more prone to and less reactive to violence. Or we can talk about how none of this is happening in a vacuum.

By that I mean, rape culture, sports, violence, capitalism, racism, etc. all feed off of and reinforce each other. At first I wrote this out, but I think it might be easier with pictures:

The arrows are misleading because it can work in reverse and there should/could be more text boxes. But for the purpose of this discussion. All of these concepts act on one other, changing them, and reinforcing them.

Look, Perkins isn’t getting charged because no one is making a complaint. He was picked up based on a call the police received, but that is as far as it is going to go. But let me be clear, “When you play Cleveland you play the whole city” can act to silence. I’m “all in” for Cleveland. I bought the “nothing is given” language. But we’re cutting from the same cloth here, if nothing is given then passes on IPV insensitivity aren’t given either. This is going to suck man, if we break the curse only to do it in the shadow of a club poking fun at intimate partner violence and allegations being made against players.

My problems with the Duggars, children, and lifestyle decisions

So here’s the thing, I support your right to live however you want. I mean I don’t care as long as what you’re doing doesn’t harm anyone else. See and there is the rub. I have friends who are deeply concerned that I’m judging them, particularly friends with babies. This is always news to me, because while I like playing with your babies, I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about them. I mean occasionally, I’ll think, “Jesus, if I had a girl and had to bring her up in this rape culture like C does” or “L’s baby boy is going to have to navigate these unreasonable gender standards and perform to them.” I don’t care if you want to stay home, if you can afford it more power to you. Hell, if I could I would do nothing but read, craft, and bitch about politics FOREVER. So you want to spend time with your shiny baby, that’s cool.

But back to that rub, I take issue with people who harm others, and that includes the advocating of bigoted legislation. I can’t tell you you’re lifestyle is ok if it advocates for limiting the rights of others so like reproductive choice, medical access, welfare, housing, SNAP, marriage equality, employment equality, and on and on and on.

I say all of this because the Duggars. I can’t with these people. For real. I almost made it through one whole episode! My sister M loves the show. I don’t know how or why. But outside of that one episode where the family got whacky and the boys and girls did each others' chores because what could be zanier than girls doing boy work and boys in the kitchen. *head desk* The show seemed harmless, well it pushed some seriously conservative propaganda, but I wouldn’t want my nephew to have the Kardashians or the Duggars as role models. The Kardashians are uber-capitalists (which reinforces racism, classism, and sexism), and the Duggars are misogynists and zealots. Let’s call it a draw. My real exposure to this family like most celebrities is through politics. See the Duggars stump for anti-choice, antigay, anti-the American way candidates, just kidding on that last one. What else do I know? I know the women in this family spend more time talking to tabloids about their sex lives than the Kardashians. I know they are part of a conservative Christian movement that teaches women have no right to refuse sex to their husbands, and their goal is to out populate liberals and atheists (and probably all other groups that aren’t them).

So let me be clear, almost if not everything this family stands for I am against:

• Antigay, no thanks
• Anti-choice, you can have my rights when you pry them from my cold dead hands
• A woman’s worth is purity, *laughing/gasping for air* Um, no
• Women should be submissive, only if they want to be and preferably with a working contract, and tell me what to do, see what happens
• Men have to perform to rigid masculinity standards, nope, nope, nope.
• Waiting for marriage, not my thing, but I have poor impulse control, whatever works for you and your partner, but see there has to be some kind of discussion with your partner so no one is doing anything they are uncomfortable with and expectations are laid out
• Women should be constantly pregnant to populate God’s Army, I’m an atheist, but when I believed in God it was the turn the other cheek and love your neighbor one, God doesn’t need an Army he had all the superpowers
• I won’t even go near the exclusionary practices of these sorts of Christian cults, I can’t imagine there are many men of color being vetted to marry (all boyfriends/potential husbands are vetted by dad) a Duggars’ girl and absolutely no one outside their own faith.

These are values I would want children I care about far away from. I wouldn’t let them watch this show; I’d read them Harry Potter, which is scientifically proven to increase empathy among readers. I would talk about boundaries and how they don’t have to do anything they are uncomfortable with regardless of what adults may think. And from a young age I would try to explain what social constructs are and how they only have meaning because we give them meaning just like scary monsters. The Duggars are so dangerous because they seem harmless, right? They look like a large happy family with values about faith and love, as long as you conform to the molds they believe are worthy. It is the subtext; those things not actually said, but implied that are dangerous. I’m kind of against anything that teaches children there is an us and a them.

Rape detecting nail polish because telling women it is their responsibility to prevent rape is how we roll

First, rape is most often committed by someone you know. Second, the used of substances is low when controlling for alcohol. So maybe rape detecting nail polish like the already invented straws, cups, etc. is going to be less effective at preventing rape than TELLING MEN NOT TO RAPE?!? Someone write in the comments “not all men” I dare you. See as a white person I’m constantly telling other white people to stop doing racist things, so why isn’t the responsibility of men to tell other men who are or would be rapists not to rape, and god help the person who says you don’t know who is capable of rape. You know! I knew! We choose to ignore the signs. Especially because most rapes are committed by a small portion of the population. But these people are serial predators, which is one more reason nail polish might not help so much.

Look I’m not picking on the guys who came up with this. But insisting women change their behavior, outfits, or look to prevent rape give rapists a pass. Add to this, the assumption this nail polish will be for sale. Capitalism’s solution to rape: pay for this thing that protects you from a hypothetical small number of rapes. Rape solved.

I won’t be using this nail polish. I’ve been told my whole life protecting myself from rape is my own responsibility so pass. But I have to wonder if boys get the same. Real question gents, did your mom ever sit you down and tell you not to rape? Because my dad was gentle about it, but left us with the impression you have to be in charge and responsible for you and your own safety. The man did his best with three daughters who all share the same charming attributes.

Once again, we’re making women take responsibility for rape. I saw a picture on Twitter that said, “If you’re promoting changes to women’s behavior to ‘prevent’ rape, you’re really saying, ‘make sure he rapes the other girl’” attributed to @itsmotherswork. This becomes even more difficult to digest when you consider the profitability of this nail polish. Then the other girl becomes a woman with limited means, because you know they are already disproportionately affected by rape and violence. I do get the kneejerk reaction to this nail polish, the “yeah, we’re doing something about rape,” but we’re reacting to a problem that is small in comparison to the real epidemic of rape—committed by someone you trust. I read this on Thought Catalog, and I hate them too, but just read it. It outlines how rape can happen, and how difficult every aspect can be.

So about bell, Bey, Jen, and Jill

I didn’t think I was going to write about the bell hooks critique of Beyonce. Specifically, because I didn’t completely agree with hooks. Calling Bey a terrorist is a bit much to me, but I hear hooks’ criticism. That said, the patriarchy reinforces sexism, racism, and classism. It does so by a full and complete embrace of capitalism. *drops mic*

I was willing to look the other way, kind of the way I do when everyone is all Obama does nothing wrong even when he’s using drones to kill children and deporting more people than any other president ever. I get it, sometimes we want to defend our own. I feel that way when someone I identify with when criticized. However, I take a minute and remember that we should be held accountable for our actions and if J law is going to make a rape joke then I’m not ok with it. That doesn’t mean I can’t like Jennifer Lawrence after all next to M she might be the only person in this world who appreciates French fries the way I do.

But you know what Jennifer Lawrence, Jill Abramson, and Beyonce have in common? The patriarchy and capitalism. Now, we all live in the patriarchy and thus we’re all influenced by it, and it has one hell of an influence. For example, I run, and during the summer I run about 15 to 20 to 25 miles a week. I do it because I like running, but I would be a liar if I didn’t acknowledge the pathological desire to be thin. I could write about the psychological reasons for this, but it isn’t important because even when you enjoy something you have to acknowledge the origin and influence of outside forces.

I bring up Jill Abramson because of a sentiment that kept coming up online: she isn’t one of us, and she benefits from racism which prioritizes white people over all others; she benefits from capitalism. She totally does. But she still should be paid fairly for her labor. One blogger I follow was so un-empathetic to Abramson while only weeks ago was willing to take on bell hooks over Beyonce. I don’t agree with everything hooks says, but she is an inspirational thinker who has pushed feminism forward despite some resistance.

My friend asked me last week if I thought Beyonce is a feminist. I think Beyonce thinks she is a feminist. I also think Beyonce falls short of my definition of feminism, but I don’t live up to my definition of feminism all the time. I mean, children probably made the jeans I’m wearing. I hope not, but maybe. See my feminism is political, and it is not in favor of capitalism and the inherit exploitation of vulnerable people involved in capitalism. Beyonce doesn’t have the problem with capitalism I do, in fact neither do Jennifer Lawrence or Jill Abramson. It doesn’t make them bad people (well it can), but it also means they don’t get a pass.

There are some things all feminists have to agree on: we’re all working toward equity between all genders and non-gender conforming people; equity between all races; control over your own health care (including choice); and a commitment to overturning and deconstructing the patriarchy and all the systems that hold it up including capitalism and racism. Not everyone is going to agree with this list, but I’d be skeptical of anyone who doesn’t.

Bell hooks is right that if Beyonce has complete creative control over her person and career than she has bought into the patriarchy because she is actively participating in the exploitation of herself and others. This was in response to Janet Mock saying that Beyonce isn’t being exploited by anyone because Bey is in control of herself. Then by hooks’ reasoning: Beyonce is a tool of the patriarchy. I still like “Pretty Hurts” and “Irreplaceable”.

Additionally, I think it is time we had a metaphorical come to Jesus moment: we have more of an obligation to critique those who we identify with instead of the arbitrary defense of all things we like. Beyonce doesn’t get a pass because she calls herself a feminist and happens to be one of the most powerful black women in the world, and Abramson doesn’t get a pass for being white—though who is even more interested if Abramson was fired for hiring too many women? Me. You know who also doesn’t get a pass, Michael Kimmel or my friends. But to criticize someone doesn’t mean we devalue everything about them; just in this one area they might need a little work.

This Pope amiright?

I have a great love for the Jesuits. I love them. They get shit done, and I like them a lot more since they put down the sword for god and all that.

John Nichols wrote about Pope Francis, inequity, and capitalism, which is awesome. Pope Francis gets real specific as to the causes of inequity saying the “new tyranny” of capitalism and the “idolatry of money” and “as long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequity, no solution will be found for the world’s problems or, for that matter, to any problems.” Drops mic.

Is it wrong to hope this is some kind of declaration of war on capitalism from the Catholic Church? I know it isn’t going to happen, but damn. Pope Francis warns about a throwaway culture that discards those who are no longer useful to the market at the expense of a culture of inclusion. He warns about a culture of exclusion being fatal.

Pope Francis’s statement demonstrates the growing international dialogue around the economy and inequity. His rejection of economic models and theories that have failed over and over, but are still being pushed such as austerity. Pope Francis also invokes facts in his argument against capitalism, which is bananas given the massive scale resistance to all things factual.

Pope Francis’ opinion might not change much, but he has a hell of a range and when he speaks people listen. And they are listening to a change in the arguments being made against capitalism. It should be noted that Catholicism has been wildly popular among the impoverished forever. Something about it resonates with the powerless, particularly the economically powerless. Personally, I think it has something to do with the New Testament teachings centering on love and embracing the weakest among us, but also liberation theology. I don’t know any Catholic who hasn’t learned about liberation theology.

If everyone was bell hooks that world would be a better place

I think if everyone would start their day with “What would bell hooks do?” things would be great, rainbows, hypoallergenic kittens, etc. hooks wrote a piece, “Dig Deep: Beyond Lean In” for feministwire. First, let’s take a minute to talk about how fucking awesome bell hooks is. If you haven’t read everything she has ever written, stop reading this blog, and go read all the things. Her thoughts are far more valuable than mine. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

Same page? Gladness. hooks is not impressed by the Sheryl Sandberg phenomenon. Most of you are familiar with the whole, Lean In thing. I have my skepticism about the whole thing because Sandberg favors working with the while male CEOs, which is counter to my understanding of feminism as being anti-oppressive. Specifically, this sort of alliance comes at the expense of our peers in the class struggle and people of color. Feminism means to engage in the struggle for equity for all people and to seek to end oppression. But as I said before, why engage with me when we can engage with hooks.

hooks begins by point out Sandberg did what a lot of women do, which is to distance themselves from feminism while believing that feminism is kind of over because, we won. After all, we can vote and go to school. However, hooks has this to say:

“Although Sandberg revised her perspective on feminism, she did not turn to towards primary sources (the work of feminist theorists) to broaden her understanding. In her book, she offers a simplistic description of the feminist movement based on women gaining equal rights with men. This construction of simple categories (women and men) was long ago challenged by visionary feminist thinkers, particularly individual black women/women of color. These thinkers insisted that everyone acknowledge and understand the myriad ways race, class, sexuality, and many other aspects of identity and difference made explicit that there was never and is no simple homogeneous gendered identity that we could call ‘women’ struggling to be equal with men. In fact, the reality was and is that privileged white woman often experience a greater sense of solidarity with men of their same class then with poor white women or women of color.

“Sandberg’s definition of feminism begins and ends with the notion that it’s all about gender equality within the existing social system. From this perspective, the structures of imperialists white supremacist capitalist patriarchy need not be challenged. And she makes it seems that privilege white men will eagerly choose to extend the benefits of corporate capitalism to white women who have the courage to ‘lean in.’ It almost seems as if Sandberg sees women’s lack of perseverance as more the problem that systemic inequality. Sandberg effectively use her race and class power and privilege to promote a narrow definition of feminism that obscures and undermines visionary feminist concerns.”

Amazing. This is the problem with so much. Sandberg isn’t aiming to end oppression or distance women from the patriarchy, but instead, Sandberg’s goal is to engage with the patriarchy and work within it. Naturally, Sandberg is a big hit with white men in power, shocking I know. We can’t dismantle the patriarchy while we work within it…masters’ tools people, masters’ tools. Now, I am a fan of working within some structures such as the political system because if we don't the state systematically strips us of our rights in a very Atwood way if left unchecked. And dismantling the patriarchy, which is an oppressive structure for everyone, is a goal of feminism. hooks  rightly points out Sandberg never actually addresses who leans in, woman’s race and class is never identified, though it can be deferred. We’re clearly looking at white women of middle and upper class. If in fact Sandberg’s women are a small group of women like her than can we apply her message to all women? Should we want to? I would agree no. Sandberg’s message won’t be applicable to domestic workers for example. After Sandberg’s book came out a lot of people asked: lean into what? After all Sandberg at no point encourages her patriarchal while male peers to change their system or the structures that encourages disparities.

hooks stressed that Sandberg brings no new ideas to the table, but Sandberg also doesn’t create a situation where solidarity between women can develop:

“It is these true-life stories that expose the convenient lies underlying of her assertions that as more women are at the top, all women will benefit. She explains: ‘Conditions for all women will improve when there are more women in leadership roles giving strong and powerful voice to their needs and concerns.’ This unsubstantiated truism is brought to us by a corporate executive who does not recognize the needs of pregnant women until it’s happening to her. Is this a case of narcissism as a potential foundation for female solidarity? No behavior in the real world of women relating to women proves this to be true. In truth, Sandberg offers no strategies for building of feminists solidarity between women.”

I find myself asking this question a lot: how does solidarity develop within groups or between groups where there are a lot of factors playing out? Anyone have a solution? No worries, me either except my standard: solidarity doesn’t necessarily mean that the issue at hand has to impact you, instead solidarity means standing with others even when you might not directly benefit. But how do we develop and build solidarity? But I digress.

hooks discusses Sandberg’s perpetuation of the myth that we can all be anything we want to be if we choose it without any acknowledgement of institutions and social constructs that may disproportionately impact specific groups:

“Mass media (along with Sandberg) is telling us that by sheer strength of will and staying power, any woman so inclined can work hard and climb the corporate ladder all the way to the top. Shrewdly, Sandberg acknowledges that not all women desire to rise to the top, asserting that she is not judging women who make different choices. However, the real truth is that she is making judgments about the nature of women and work—that is what the book is fundamentally about. Her failure to confront the issue of women acquiring wealth allows her to ignore concrete systemic obstacles most women face inside the workforce. And by not confronting the issue of women and wealth, she need not confront the issue of women and poverty. She need not address the ways extreme class differences make it difficult for there to be common sisterhood based on shared struggle and solidarity.”

So what is Sandberg leaving out: living wage, equal pay, healthcare, paid sick leave, etc. But is it her fault, yes, but can we hold her accountable to care about things that don’t impact her? I think so, but I also think this is where we can clearly see that Sandberg’s feminism isn’t feminism because it intentionally or unintentionally excluded women of color and women in poverty. Insert, comment underlining the importance of intersectionality. However, how is Sandberg’s assertion that women at the top can make it better for women at the bottom?

“It should surprise no one that women and men who advocate feminist politics were stunned to hear Sandberg promoting her trickle-down theory: the assumption that having more women at the top of corporate hierarchies would make the work world better for all women, including women on the bottom. Taken at face value, this seem a naïve hope given that the imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchal corporate world Sandberg wants women to lean into encourages competition over cooperation.”

hooks brilliance intimidates me. That said, this quote is spot on, you can’t assume the betterment of conditions for all people when you push capitalist ideology especially within the patriarchy. The patriarchy thrives in capitalism and thus the corporate world, so we really shouldn’t be striving to be successful in the corporate world, but instead work to improve the conditions for those laboring for the success of capitalism at the expense of people.

Finally, I want to touch on hooks’ assertion that individually Sandberg isn’t a threat to feminism. However, because conservative white men have decided to embrace Sandberg’s feminism, because it is wholly unthreatening, un-revolutionary, and not feminist, and they aim to re-frame feminism in this image. hooks said:

“Had conservative white male dominated world of mass media and advertising not chosen to hype her image, this influential woman would not be known to most folks. It is this patriarchal male dominated re-framing of feminism, which uses the body and personal success of Sheryl Sandberg, that is most disturbing and yes threatening to the future of visionary feminist movement. The model Sandberg represents is all about how women can participate and ‘run the world.’ But of course the kind of world we would be running is never defined. It sounds at time like benevolent patriarchal imperialism. This is the reason it seemed essential for feminist thinkers to respond critically, not just to Sandberg and her work, but to the conservative white male patriarchy that is using her to let the world know what kind of woman partner is acceptable among elites, both in the home and in the workplace.”

Sandberg is using feminist language as a tool to cover her commitment and dedication of western cultural imperialism, which is to say dedication to the patriarch, white supremacy, and capitalism all of which are interlocked. Damn right. See I don’t dislike Sandberg, I’ve fairly indifferent to her. Sure she might be saying some positive things, but mostly she is arguing for a promotion of ideals that do resonate with me. But then she was embraced and suddenly everywhere, at which we start to see the problems.