Oh the Internet

Alright, I wasn’t going to have a real post today, but then a dude on the internet gave me permission to disagree with him, and I’m an irrational woman so here it is.

A friend of mine (patriot and hero, @Patriot_Media) trolls conservatives on Twitter. It is terrible and amazing all at the same time. Anyway one dude in particular is Roger Simon (novelist, @rogerlsimon) dislikes Islam and decided to use women as a means to justify his lack of understanding/hate of the Muslim world. Specifically, he was posting things about the sexual violence in Egypt. Don’t get me wrong this is a huge issue, and I am reading everything I can get on the subject. However, sexual violence as a tactic to silence women and prevent them from public life is hardly new. We see it in war zones, refugee camps, everywhere really. The threat of sexual violence is used to limit women’s access to and movement in space.  Morsi of course, has been using this as an excuse to crack down on the protestors, “save the women.” Also, both sides of protestors, pro- and anti- Morsi claim the other side is to blame for the sexual assaults. The reports aren’t clear yet, but I’ll leave it to those who study such things professionally.

I’d like to instead focus on a few areas: 1. Giving women permission to speak and the parallels to providing or limiting women’s space, 2. The West’s interest in “protecting” women in countries where we have a vested interest or the “saving brown women from brown men” phenomena, and 3. The Oppression Olympics.

Full disclosure, I did lose my temper a bit when this man called me naïve, which as far as I’m concerned is a way to make someone feel unknowledgeable and an attempt to silence them. Of course, this dude didn’t have my Feminist Theory and Gender and Violence professor…I almost feel bad for him. I would say I never got angry, but I was definitely frustrated with the spreading of misinformation (as many of you know). And to our discussion…

First, allowing women to speak is condescending (even more so than calling me naïve for my lack of Islamaphobia), and a common tactic employed by men who don’t think women should have a voice or place to speak. It has been my anecdotal experience that you can tell how a conversation is going to go immediately if this happens (not well). This also is seen in other areas such as race and class. Those with power/privilege will allow those without it to speak, on those in power’s  terms, retaining their power and “showing/presenting” as open and accommodating. Which of course it isn’t, those without power can only speak as long as those with it allow them to. Sometimes this results in the bell hooks argument that you can’t dismantle the master’s house with the master’s tools from those in the oppressed position. The argument being that as long as the oppressor gives and takes the right to speak away they can always control the voice of the oppressed. Of course, a clear and recent example of a woman calling out men in power about permission to speak can be found below. Yes, that is Texas Sen. Leticia Van de Putte calling out her male colleagues about ignoring her motion to serve their own purpose. You may speak, until we tell you, you can’t anymore. The Davis filibuster is an excellent example of this.The GOP silenced Sen. Wendy Davis every chance they got, only to have the other Dems in the Senate stand with her and keep talking (many of whom were men).

Secondly, a common criticism of Western feminism was that women of color and of non-Western origin didn’t have a place at the table or their place was “given” to them by feminists in the West. See the discussion above on “giving people permission to speak” same concept. This was a huge criticism of second wave feminism, and it continues today. However, there is a far larger discussion to be had when we look back at how the West, particularly the US, interferes and behaves in international conflicts. For example, after weapons of mass destruction weren’t found in Iraq, President G.W. Bush claimed it was a moral imperative to liberate the Iraqi women. Did I personally find the restrictions on women in Iraq oppressive? Yes, but to liberate Iraqi women without input from them is offensive and paternalistic. Those being liberated must always be included in the conversation, or is it liberation at all? The argument that Muslim men are oppressive and violent toward Muslim women (women et al) is offensive and paternalistic as well. What happens here is the perpetuation that men of color (other than white) are violent, oppressive, and can’t be trusted with women. All assertions are of course unfounded. Additionally, the notion that Islam is more oppressive than other religions is false as well just look at the conservative right in the US, and their attempts to restrict and regulate women’s bodies.

Bringing us to number three, the Oppression Olympics.  I first heard this phrase when my Feminist Thought professor said it and silenced everyone. I can’t remember what the class was discussing, but we were young and probably saying something ignorant…actually I think it was about the Michigan Women’s Music Festival and their restricting access to women born women. Does one group or person’s oppression make everyone else’s invalid because it could conceivably be worse? Is there some kind of point scale to determine where the bar is set? Or do we acknowledge and address the oppression everyone feels? For example, a white gay man gains a point for his whiteness, but loses one for being gay. Does that mean he doesn’t understand bigotry? Does that mean he has never benefited from privilege? Of course not to both. Acknowledge the oppression of others even if it isn’t uniform or constant because most people also benefit from privilege at some point. The assertion that women in Egypt have it worse than women stateside is preposterous because the situations are different. Don’t get me wrong it all sucks. Women universally are conditioned to fear sexual assault, and sexual assaults are used to control women. This is how we coalition build, we find a shared experience, and we don’t play top this. Someone truly concerned with sexual violence against women would be aware that it exists everywhere, and they work to combat it wherever they can, not just place blame. After all, anyone who has worked with survivors would tell you blame doesn’t bring closure and acceptance.

So this was kind of a brief discussion on these topics, which deserve much more time, but the open road is calling my name.

Poverty, blackness, and the Zimmerman Trial

I’ve been avoiding the Zimmerman trial. I can’t bring myself to watch it. This man is a murderer who thinks a perfectly good defense is “my victim was a black man.” I have a sense of dread for how this is going to play out…the intersection of poverty, race, gender, and violence on the national stage.

Melissa Harris Perry’s segment below touches on how poverty comes into play here, specifically during Rachel Jeantel’s testimony. Perry and her guests discuss how Jeantel has been criticized for being a detriment to middle class blackness (the black lady archetype) and her speech patterns/poverty make her an unreliable witness. Poverty, it will be used to silence you know matter what. I want to mention again that I’m no authority on race…I am constantly learning more, which is as far as I’m concerned what everyone should be doing especially those classified as white by society at large.

Jeantel was criticized for her behavior (not calling the police when she was on the phone with Martin) and her language (slang, raced diction, which is often perceived as ignorance and a lack of intelligence). While, we’re going to discuss blackness, violence, and masculinity, let’s table that for a moment and discuss poverty, blackness, and femininity. Some of the more straight-up racist descriptions of Jeantel include emphasizing her weight, dark skin tone, and language. The “black lady” and respectable black womanhood are stereotyped as church going, polite, often matriarchs, etc. This is an impossible standard and the least threatening to whiteness (except the Mammy figure, which some argue has morphed into the black lady). Jeantel however, is classed by her poverty much in the same way she is raced by her blackness. Jeantel is immediately not a good representation of middle class blackness, and thus is less credible. Now, whether this is because the black community says so or because people in power (white people) prefer only to deal with the forms of blackness we deem non-threatening, I do not know. Jeantel was also called a liar, for lying about why she didn’t attend Martin’s funeral…She did lie, but she didn’t want to see her friend dead. That seems perfectly reasonable to me, but of course is being used to demonstrate that Jeantel can’t be trusted. Question, did she ever have a chance to be trusted?

In addition to Perry, Mychal Denzel Smith wrote a piece for The Nation on Trayvon Martin and black manhood, which is insightful and wonderful as always (Smith’s work is excellent on blackness and masculinity). Smith points out what the trial is coming down to is Zimmerman’s right to self-defense (stand your ground) vs. Martin’s right to walk alone and defend himself. Zimmerman ignored the 911 operator who told him not to follow Martin. We know Martin hit Zimmerman, though not to the degree that Zimmerman claims, most likely in self-defense. We also know that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. Zimmerman claims Martin was the aggressor, while Jeantel’s testimony directly contradicts this. So it is up the jury to determine who they believe in that moment.

Smith points out that Perry and her guests, specifically Amy Goodman explain why this case is of national importance, Perry said, “It does seem like part of what hinges here is whether or not Trayvon Martin hit George Zimmerman and whether or not he did so first…but why is it that if this person hit someone who was prepared to use lethal force against him…why wouldn’t he have a right to stand his ground? Is that not radicalized?” Preach.

The question is, do black men have the right to stand their ground? And the obvious answer is no, not in this post-racial American. That was a little tongue and cheek given SCOTUS’ gutting of the VRA. The lead investigator asked Zimmerman if he thought Martin was scared of him, but Zimmerman had trouble answering the question because our society says, no, black men are never afraid. Instead they are always the cause of fear. They are dangerous so what could possibly scare them? Zimmerman, and many other people, believes black men are inherently violent. Because of this mistaken belief, black men will always be targets for “preemptive violence.” Martin was perceived to be a criminal and violent because he was a black man, while Zimmerman is cast as the victim. This is what the trial is about, whether six people believe Martin was a criminal or not. It isn’t difficult to imagine that six people can see a young black man as a criminal regardless. 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

C U Next Tuesday, I mean see you next Tuesday

I know it is a bad joke and a Sex and City reference. The Texas Senate is in recess until Tuesday July 9^th because women. What can I say? Women are the worst demanding their rights and showing up in mass with our allies when people come after them. So the Texas GOP punts today, but get ready I imagine they will be doing some homework over break. Lt. Governor David Dewhurst already said they won’t need a two-thirds majority vote to pass it. They will look for loop holes to shut up team blue. Gov. Rick Perry had this to say on the whole thing:

The best response to this I saw was from a woman who said her rapist said almost the exact same thing to her. While I hate people who call things rape that aren't even close or who threaten to rape as a joke, this time it seems fitting.

In a moment of awesomeness Sen. Royce West (this Twitter) had the Texas Senate spend five minutes figuring out how to tell time. It was pretty great and a testament to the shit show the Texas Senate has become. I caught some of the Stand with Texas Women rally. It was amazing. Stephanie March said “If we were here to pass a bill about what men can do with their penises, they’d lose their mind.”

Preach. Yep, pretty awesome. But now, we wait again. I think they are having committee meetings  on the bill and in the House, probably trying to figure out how to get it to pass without having a riot. But I could be wrong, there was a lot of information coming all at once.

I also caught part of the Texas House Stream, which was talking about redistricting, but they went to recess, too. Remember Texas rushed to get a voter ID bill through after the VRA decision so clutch some pearls Texas is going to disenfranchise a lot of people especially given the opposition they are facing from women. I expect large democratic districts (clustering them like Ohio did to give the Dems fewer seats) and the disenfranchisement of thousands so the GOP can keep their seats.

A final thought, this is the time for solidarity. We can clearly see the connections between VRA and women’s issues. All these things are connected as the GOP (old white men) make a final grab for power.

Below are some photos from the rally in Texas from The  Frisky. 

 The people showed up.

In masses.

 Bad Ass Senator Wendy Davis, sporting orange

 Some constituents

 Senator Leticia Van de Putte and Actress/Reproductive Choice Advocate Lisa Edelstein

 Cecile Richards of the Planned Parenthood and daughter of former Texas Governor

Texas Senate House Rules

 People

Ohio fails again.

Late last night, Gov. John Kasich signed perhaps the most damning legislation for women yet without any thought of the consequences for women. Way to go pro-lifers, women are going to die because of this law. Kasich signed the two-year $62 billion budget, which means we can’t fight back via ballot measure.

This guts the Planned Parenthood by taking $1.4 million in federal family dollars away from Planned Parenthood by reprioritizing who can receive the funds. This bill also includes provisions requiring all abortion clinics have a transfer agreement with a hospital, requires doctors perform an external ultrasound prior to an abortion to search for a heartbeat and tell the woman, the doctor has to tell the woman the chances of the fetus to surviving to full term, and redefines a fetus as “developing from the moment of conception,” rather than when a fertilized egg has been implanted in the uterus.

Ohio, redefining medicine without the input of any physicians. How could this possibly go wrong? I don’t know how a state can redefine a word…wait it can’t. Idiots, but I for one think we should get a Dan Savage like thing going so when you Google Kasich’s name something about murdering women comes up.

Many hospitals in Ohio are private and have a religious affiliation so you know they will be unwilling to work with clinics. The ultrasounds are unnecessary and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists opposes them.

The bill includes the funding of the pregnancy crisis centers, which straight up lie to women, they also mislead them and prevent them from actual medical care. Ohio’s House Bill 200, which was introduced by 35 House republicans on June 13^th extended waiting periods for access to safe and legal abortions, ultrasounds the woman pays for, and requires doctors to lie to their patients.

Kasich did veto the language on the Medicaid expansion, which according to Kasich allows him to be flexible moving forward. The budget ignores Kasich’s call to expand Medicaid to cover an additional 275,000 low-income Ohioans and brings $13 billion in federal funding over the next seven years. The budget is effective today.

Kasich vetoed 22 items in the budget, but left the anti-choice crap in there. Fortunately, Ohio State University’s STAR House (a homeless shelter for youth) kept its $665,000 a year funding. The budget includes a $2.7 billion tax cut over three-years through an income-tax cut that starts at 8.5% this year and phases into 10% in 2015, plus 50% tax deduction for business owners with income up to $250,000. It increases the sales tax by a quarter percentage point, eliminates new levies on the 12.5% paid by the state on property taxes, and eliminates for seniors earning more the $30,000 who have not reached age 65 by the end of the year.

Kasich and his elk think tax cuts are the way to fix the economy, they’d be wrong. Austerity kills, but hey that seems to be the end game. Get rid of the poor, women, people of color, and you’ll be living in a place Kasich feels comfortable.

Mike Gonidakis, president of Ohio Right to Life said, “It took great compassion and courage for our governor and pro-life legislature to stand up to the abortion industry and blatantly pressure them.”

If there was a for real abortion industry, I’d be employed by them. Just saying. 

Reminder, Texas is set up for round two this afternoon. 

This photo blew up on the Interwebs today. Kasich surrounded by men as he signs the GOP's anti-women budget.