Most commonly recognized as the quintessential crossover darling and purveyor of catchy pop-music and dance routines, this year Beyoncé decided to extol the wonders of her Blackness by releasing a song and video, and performing a SB50 set, that’s undeniably Black without the burden of respectability, Single Lady-friendly hand gestures, or Flawless soundbites preferred by the mainstream; the better for them to thrust and sing to, or co-opt as part of their YouTube reenactments or cabaret acts. I mean, this go-round, Beyonce went balls to the wall, and described herself as a Texas bama who loves to hoard hot sauce in her handbag, and white folks are like, ‘Quoi? What does any of this even mean?’

I don’t want to make this solely about Formation—(more than enough essays have been cranked through the pipeline already)—as much as I mean for this to be about the push-back against Black self-love and representation, but the video and song are decidedly political (for Beyoncé); and much of the Melina Matsoukas-directed offering seems to be a love letter of sorts to New Orleans and the Black southern aesthetic often derided by the mainstream (when they aren’t pilfering style and music trends from it), featuring clips of New Orleans bounce culture; Beyoncé and her dancers (all Black women) strolling; the pop star singing about the love she has for her baby’s afro and Negro noses with ‘Jackson 5 nostrils’; voice-overs by New Orleans-born comic and rap artist Messy Mya (who was shot and killed in 2010) and ‘Queen of Bounce’ Big Freedia; Beyoncé draped atop a New Orleans police car submerging herself underwater over voice clips about Hurricane Katrina; graffiti that reads “Stop Shooting Us”; and a Black little boy in a hoodie, dancing in front of a white police squad while they stand with their hands up.

Couple the video’s anti-police violence stance with Beyoncé and her dancers coming out during the SB50 Halftime show dressed in Black, at attention in an X formation, in homage to Michael Jackson, the Black Panthers, and Malcolm X, and a deluge of White tears flowed forth like a torrential downpour. Beyoncé, who said her latest effort is meant to make people feel proud of and have love for themselves, was suddenly evading the White Gaze instead of performing for it. And now white people are pissed, don’t know what to do with this latest incarnation of Beyoncé, and so have called for her head on a platter.

The post Getting In Formation: Beyonce, Race & White Tears appeared first on Madness & Reality.

As women continue to defy gender biases, attention has increasingly focused on how women are handling the success associated with hard-won positions of leadership. In some cases, women in positions of power have been characterized negatively. “Bitch,” “queen bee,” “bully in a pant suit,” and “ball buster” are just a few of the derogatory names often associated with women who use their power and position to oppress others. As often as not, other women are on the receiving end of this dominating behavior.

Often called same-sex gender bias, this behavior toward female colleagues by women in positions of power has fostered criticism at the same time that similar actions by male leaders are applauded and even honored. Men who are hyper-competitive, even to the point of employing cut-throat, back stabbing tactics, may often be perceived as “bold,” “assertive,” and “gutsy,” while women who do the same things frequently receive the more negative labels referenced earlier.

In her 2013 article, The Tyranny of the Queen Bee, organizational psychologist Peggy Drexler describes the queen bee in much the same terms as high school “mean girls” who engage in psychological terror. “Far from nurturing the growth of younger female talent, they push aside possible competitors by chipping away at their self-confidence or undermining their professional standing. It is a trend thick with irony: The very women who have complained for decades about unequal treatment now perpetuate many of the same problems by turning on their own…” (Drexler 2013). Are queen bees, in fact, same-sex bullies?

Some have suggested that even though women are shattering glass ceilings, they are doing so in a man’s world. As a result, they are forced to behave like men. Is it naïve to assert that the whole purpose of women shattering glass ceilings is to show that women can be effective in any setting while simultaneously being 100 percent woman? In the classic musical My Fair Lady, Professor Higgins sings about his frustration that women can’t be more like men. But why should any woman have to behave like a man?

During my career, I have personally felt the sting of such a queen bee, causing me to reflect on the many stories I’ve heard in the context of my own personal experience. All too often, when the queen bee is not actively undermining her employees or putting them down publicly, she’s having fits of rage—shouting and dictating rather than collaborating.

I clearly remember one planning meeting when our team, led by a queen bee executive, met with a potential vendor during a business lunch outside of the office. We were discussing a planned transition when it dawned on me that the vendor was not properly vetted. This caused several people on our team to probe further. Out of nowhere, the leader screamed out my name and told me to be quiet. The screech was so loud that the waiter who was refilling our glasses at the table paused, and sudden silence filled the room—you could have heard a pin drop. The leader then asserted that this transition had to happen; it was “her neck and her license”—and at the end of the day, her decision.

I was totally shocked at such behavior in a public place, especially in front of potential vendors and colleagues. Even as I write this, I can feel my blood boiling all over again. I have never been so embarrassed in public by anyone—male or female.

After the meeting, the queen bee executive summoned me to her office and asked why I could not talk to her about my concerns. She characterized this as “managing up” and reminded me that I often told employees to practice the art of managing up as a way to help resolve issues with their superiors. I replied that it appeared to me that there was no managing her, since she rarely listened to anything of value presented by her subordinates. She then proceeded to tell me that I needed to take male enhancement drugs in order to gain better control of my emotions, since I had showed emotion at the lunch meeting. I wondered how much of her comment involved projection of her outburst onto me. I decided that if this “queen bee” were taking the male enhancement drugs she recommended, apparently they were not effective.

While my experience may represent an isolated incident, according to the Workplace Bullying Institute, “Many women are afraid to confront their bullying bosses and suffer in silence. They should not have to risk clinical depression or debilitating anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder as experienced by 30 percent of women. You shouldn’t have a war wound in the workplace…” (Namie 2009).

This issue raises several related questions: Are “queen bees” receiving the support they need, such as mentoring and coaching to help them successfully navigate the challenges presented by their positions? Are there enough women mentors in leadership positions to support emerging female leaders and perhaps prevent them from becoming queen bee types? Are women in leadership somehow conditioned to believe that they must “behave like men” by being hyper-competitive, insensitive, aggressive, or even by taking male enhancement drugs to make them less feminine? What about Hollywood’s role in glamorizing “queen bees”? In 2006, The Devil Wears Pradagenerated discussion and even sparked some controversy about the way the character Miranda Priestly, played by actress Meryl Streep, was portrayed. Whether it was a case of life imitating art or vice versa, many felt the movie glamorized female bullies while downplaying some of the real issues faced by women in positions of influence: balancing and integrating work and family, and how working outside the home can strain both work relationships as well as relationships with loved ones.

As I witness incidents and hear others relate situations like the one described above, I am disappointed to know that some women, especially those in positions of power, are not effectively using their platforms to help advance, reach, teach, and mentor other women. Women still face numerous challenges while climbing the corporate ladder in their quest to shatter glass ceilings in corporate America: equal pay, childcare, work-life balance, and lack of mentoring opportunities to name a few. Sexism and other -isms persist as barriers to women in corporate America. Women, especially those in leadership positions, should be using their platforms to help other women in their quest to overcome and tear down the obstacles and barriers still barring women from equal opportunities in business and industry. Intimidation and oppression of women should be stamped out—and it certainly should not occur at the hands of other women.

– Dawn Nicole Martin

The post Workplace Politics: Why Do Queen Bee Executives Sting? appeared first on Madness & Reality.

This separation in opinion often stems from the realities of life being markedly different from one another. Depending on who your talking to, these variations stem from the race, gender, or cultural background from where each person bases his or her life experience. This isn’t unique to online dialogue, nor is it a new occurrence in social problem solving, however, the fact remains that well meaning people find it difficult to move forward as a collective when the desired solution only satisfy a portion of the interested parties.

Social media has changed the ways in which we approach political problems. I took a course in undergrad called “Cyber Politics” and since this was early in the days of the internet, the book left us all wondering what the impact of free, simple mass communication would be on politics and government. This would be well before president Obama used social media to win his first election in 2009. Since that time, the internet has become a tool with unlimited potential to change the ways we do nearly everything in our lives.

When it comes to privilege, it’s a well known fact that women have struggled and continue to struggle with creating an existence that is equal to the potential and capacity of that afforded to males. Women have been speaking on their own behalf for as long as they’ve been allowed to do so. It took the voice and power of many women, and men to achieve the gender strides that we have at this day and age. However, in the midst of the pursuit of gender equality comes a new set of challenges.

When noise is made, the solutions formulated to improve gender inequality, only the seek to improve life for the counterpart of male patriarchy, namely, White women.

Upon further inspection one realizes that Black women are not on par with the subset of society best positioned to take advantage of good intentioned ‘progress’ since solutions, and those who identify and formulate what is and is not important to women do not necessarily take into consideration those women unlike themselves.

Luckily, there are plenty of brilliant Black and women of color bloggers, social scientists and other educated, aware and dedicated bloggers willing to tackle the issues that affect our demographic. Unless you’ve been under a huge rock on another planet, you should be familiar with the hashtag #solidarityisforwhitewomen, and if you aren’t, please feel free to familiarize yourself with the online conversation.

The originator of this hashtag (and subsequent conversation) is blogger, Mikki Kendall, who is the creator of the blog The Angry Black Woman. Kendall’s writing is well known and quite needed, allowing a more realistic view of the subject matter involving race, gender, equality and other civil-isms. Because of her work, and other women bloggers who push the cause, we now have the opportunity to create our own opportunity.

Mainstream media is slowly beginning to turn their heads towards our version of what’s wrong in America, and for that I’m very glad.

I have a love/hate relationship with political discussion since politics are one of those ‘things’ where people take everything personal and get angry instead of getting active.

I have also been criticized for writing my political pieces in the mode of grammar best understood by those who need the message most. I’ve no interest in discussion of pressing issues with academics, or scholars. We study and know what the problems are and most of the causes to what harms us as a demographic. Having an simplified, and sometimes more genuine conversation with the very people whose lives are impacted by elite decision may do more good for them than using their circumstance as textbook fodder.

With that being said, I’m greatly anticipating the point in time where Black women, like other capable and concerned women, will take their own cause seriously and continue to take the opportunity to bring one home for our team.

The world is listening, solutions have been created to accomplish similar goals and there is a need for change. If feminists of color feel that Whites people miss the mark when it comes to issues involving us specifically then I’m in the hopes that Black women will step to the mic now.

Its our turn to speak up on behalf of ourselves and the least among us, that is, if we can only just settle down the noise enough to hear each other speak.

The post Hood Feminism: For Those Who Fight The Power From the Lowest Rung of Privilege appeared first on Madness & Reality.

Eve Ensler is a feminist, activist playwright, performer and award-winning author of The Vagina Monologues. She the founder of V-Day a worldwide movement to end violence against girls and women, and also the founder of One Billion Rising, a campaign to encourage survivors of interpersonal violence to report rapes and assaults to the authorities. The latter movement is – according to the website – a call for survivors to “break the silence and release their stories – politically, spiritually, outrageously – through art, dance, marches, ritual, song, spoken word, testimonies and whatever way feels right.”

Did I mention she’s a white female feminist? Yea. That’s important in this topic.

It would make sense from an artist’s point of view to express his or her pain through artistic mediums like painting, sculpting  or writing. And being active would likely call for people – other creative types – to express their struggles in a aesthetic way through inspiration.

However, Eve Ensler’s One Billion Rising campaign was inspired in a way that would reopen conversations about cultural appropriation, the white savior industrial complex and overall insensitivity to the plight of women of color to appear center stage in an attempt to speak on their “behalf” without full knowledge of the issue she’s focused on. It is illustrated in full view in her gross undermining of Congolese women in her article entitled The Congo Stigmata. I must warn you that what you will read is stomach turning.

But instead of seeing their struggle with an open and advanced lens, Ensler’s only solution to the women in that area is to dance their way to freedom!

Natalie Gyte at the Huffington Post explains:

I recently listened to a Congolese woman talk in a speak-easy setting of radical grassroots feminists. She was radiantly and beautifully powerful in her unfiltered anger towards the One Billion Rising movement, as she used the words “insulting” and “neo-colonial”. She used the analogy of past crimes against humanity, asking us if we could imagine people turning up at the scenes of atrocities and taking pictures or filming for the purposes of “telling their story to the rest of the world”. Take it one step further and try to imagine a white, middle class, educated, American women turning up on the scene to tell survivors to ‘rise’ above the violence they have seen and experienced by…wait for it…dancing. “Imagine someone doing that to holocaust survivors”, she said.

Prison Culture takes it a step further taking some info from bell hooks’ analysis of mainstream culture’s lust to “eat” or commodify the other, something that is very common here in the West. It deviates from the reality that indigenous women have been vocal and rebelled against gender violence without the means of white saviors:

She is also not unique in centering herself within other people’s struggles…Ensler’s language basically masks a Western Liberal project of “giving voice” to the oppressed. But as Arundhati Roy has said, “We know of course there’s really no such thing as the ‘voiceless’. There are only the deliberately silenced, or the preferably unheard.” Millions of women across the Globe are and have been organizing for their own liberation. They’ve used their voices for that. Even if the formulation of ‘giving voice’ wasn’t problematic on its face, we should be troubled that Ensler et al. seek to ‘give voice’ to incarcerated women, for example, without offering a substantive critique of the prison itself as violence.

And gender violence is way more complicated than just promoting prisons as both the problem and inevitability as Prison Culture continues:

Even within a supposed critique of prisons as sites of sexual and physical violence, the prison is still positioned by Ensler as inevitable and immutable. There is no acknowledgement that prisons are violence in and of themselves. There’s no mention in the campaign recently promoted that women who use violence against their perpetrators often find themselves trapped within these same prisons. It’s as if they are invisible in the campaign…

When I read this, I think about one woman in particular who’s in this predicament, Marissa Alexander. I wonder if the campaign knows who she is. I wonder if they know her situation, that she’s serving 20 years in prison for firing a gun in the ceiling as a warning shot to protect herself against her abusive husband. She’s currently released on bond while her case is pending, Still, she has a tough road ahead along will countless other women, including women of color, who are in the same boat.

The core of the issue of Eve Ensler’s campaign is her desire to “save” women of color by overlooking their humanity in the process due to Western standards to not consider women of color as “real” women. Women of color face gender violence worldwide. But mainstream feminism doesn’t seem to fully recognize the problem. That is, unless a white woman tells it.

The post One Billion Rising: Eve Ensler’s White Feminist Low Blow appeared first on Madness & Reality.

Candid and with a few welcome straight no chaser moments, Dr. Harris-Perry deviated a bit from her MSNBC persona, and offered up some worthwhile fodder of her own, for folks to chew on.

There were so many profound sound bites and ‘Yaass!’ moments, I’ll just highlight those that stood out the most to me and I’ve noted…

bell hooks on the ‘Angry Black Woman’ stigma black women are saddled with (even when we aren’t), and the lack of power black women have over our own representations: “I’m one of these black women that, if I’m angry, you’re gonna know that I’m angry and I’m gonna own my anger. (…) I don’t think that I’m difficult; I think that I’m exacting and precise.” 

hooks on the need for people to recognize the humanity of black children and people and to not laugh at black trauma and pain in films like ‘Beasts of the Southern Wild‘: “I just can’t take the image of another abused, black child being represented as entertainment. … I’m hurting because we can’t get past the construction of black children as little mini adults, whose innocence we don’t have to protect; who we can consider ‘cute’ if they’re being slapped around by an alcoholic father.”

hooks also shared film critic, Armond White’s disdain for Steve McQueen’s 12 Years a Slave, which she considers to be ‘sentimental claptrap’: “I felt that it actually negated the black female voice; that [Patsey]was given a voice only insomuch as she gave expression to black male emotional feeling. … I’m tired of the naked, raped, beaten black woman’s body. I want to see an image of ‘black femaleness’ that alters our universe in some way.” 

bell hooks and Perry dismantling and making some really essential points about patriarchy. hooks added: “We are still in the construction of a world where people don’t want to accept that it is patriarchy that is killing black men. That it is an imperialistic patriarchy that threatens the life of black men of all ages.” [Emphasis mine]

hooks vocalizing her displeasure with Sheryl Sandberg’s brand of neoliberal feminism: “I am not interested in ‘Lean In’. OK?” 

hooks affirming the need for black women to protect their personhood and emotional well-being: “What does it mean to have optimal, emotional well-being? Because when you have optimal, emotional well-being, you can be whole; you can be the diversities of who ‘yourself’ is.”

Most poignant: food justice activist Tanya Fields bravely standing up during the Q&A portion of the forum and talking about the mental impact and pain of being shamed by other black people. Melissa Harris-Perry was moved to leave her seat on-stage and, in a genuine show of solidarity, embraced Fields before discussing how intra-racial respectability politics and shaming (of poor, black single mothers especially) impedes community building and organizing: “The thing you’re supposed to be ashamed of is being poor. That shaming is a defense mechanism to keep people from having to do the hard work of organizing. And it is the most dangerous thing in marginalized communities.”

Former Hartford, CT and now NYC-based middle-school teacher Ebony Murphy-Root, asking about the exclusion of black female voices in education reform and the habit of black teachers being scapegoated for a culture of behavior they didn’t create. To which MH-Perry suggested that the black female voice is the ‘thing’ the system is “seeking to destroy”, which is why they’re excluded from the table.

And, hooks challenging overuse of the word ‘ally’: I’ve actually been questioning this use of the word ‘ally’, because I think that if someone is standing on their own beliefs, and their own beliefs are anti-patriarchal, anti-sexist, they are not required to be anybody’s ally. They are on their front-line in the same way that I’m on my front-line.” 

Indeed, the folks who got to see the conversation unfold in-person were lucky to experience it. However, and thankfully, it was live-streamed; so do yourselves a favor, click here, and watch the discussion in full, from beginning to end.

The post Black Female Voices: Melissa Harris-Perry, bell hooks, & The New School appeared first on Madness & Reality.

According to the Rutgers Institute for Women’s Leadership, as of 2009 women made up 15.5 percent of officers, averaged across the four military branches. And currently, some 80 percent of generals in the Army have combat experience. Spending time on the front lines is, even if unofficially, a critical stepping stone for those looking to advance their career. One need look no further than the recent attention given to Chuck Hagel’s time as a “grunt” in the Vietnam War to see how such experience stands out when it comes to nominations to higher posts.

The value given to combat experience is understandable. The more leaders can identify with the actual jobs of the people they lead, the better they can consider the front-line point of view when making decisions, budgeting resources and implementing strategy. If you’ve actually worn the shoes of the people in your organization’s most dangerous job, you’re better equipped to lead them. As a result, one hopes that allowing more women to take on combat roles will clear the way for more women in the military’s top brass. (source)

Thankfully, because of the Pentagon’s decision this week, for many, the glass ceiling has been broken. The move is being touted as being one that will strengthen the country. And according to outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta it is “the responsibility of every citizen to protect the nation.” Panetta also added that “If they can meet the qualifications for the job,then they should have the right to serve.” And to that, I say Amen. But of course, not everyone agrees with this assertion. Case in point, take what columnist David Frumm had to say on CNN’s OutFront program on Thursday night as he argued against the idea of women in combat.

The people we are likely to meet on the next battlefield are people who use rape and sexual abuse as real tools of politics. In Iranian prisons, rape is a frequent practice. Women are raped before they are executed. In Iran, in Pakistan, in Afghanistan rape is a conscious tool of subjugation and it is something women will be exposed to. In the name of equal opportunity they will face unequal risk.

I don’t know how you may feel about women in combat, but I’d like to think that if you’re not, you at least believe that women should be protected from rape as expressed by Frumm. Which is quite peculiar, because the risk of a woman in the military being raped by enlisted male personnel is higher than that for civilians. That said, isn’t it ironic that Frumm’s point of view comes at a time when Republicans are blocking attempts to renew the Violence Against Women Act? I mean, if Frumm is truly interested in protecting women, at least he’d be consistent when it comes to the re-authorization of the aforementioned law languishing in Congress as we speak, no? And why? Because Republican lawmakers are opposed to Democrats’ support of the law being used to cover Native American women, and female undocumented immigrants.

But hey, per the following from the leading conservative editorial board National Review, at least our conservative brothers and sisters are consistent. After all, it would be quite hypocritical of them to support any legislation intended to protect women from domestic violence and rape, all the while supporting a new “feminist friendly” policy to benefit women in the military, right? To do differently would call into question the DNA if the GOP. Which is silly because as bad as they polled with women recently, one would think they;d “get it.”

The Obama administration has doubled down on its social-transformation agenda, unilaterally deciding to overturn longstanding policy and integrate women into combat roles in the military. Give the administration this much: Unlike the question of gay marriage, the issue of women in combat was never something that Barack Obama felt obliged to pretend to be against until it was politically safe to evolve on the matter. As a candidate in 2008, he signaled his intention to change the rules if elected president.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta draped his announcement in the all-too-familiar language of “diversity,” but the U.S. military is neither a social-justice project nor a laboratory for feminist innovation: Its job is to secure the national-security interests of the United States, and neither Secretary Panetta nor the president nor any member of the administration has offered a single serious argument that this measure will increase our armed forces’ ability to do their job with maximum effectiveness. On the contrary, there are many reasons to believe it will accomplish the opposite.

The administration has promised that there will be no reduction of physical standards to accommodate women in combat roles, but that promise almost certainly is false — and Senator McCain, who has endorsed the move, should know better than to pretend otherwise. The political mandate to integrate women into the military had disastrous consequences for standards at West Point, as Walter Williams documented the last time we had this debate. The use of “gender-specific” physical standards meant that female candidates were given passing marks on tests when underperforming their male counterparts on such common benchmarks as push-ups, sit-ups, and running 1.5 miles.

This repeats the experience of similar civilian agencies, such as police and fire departments, in which standards have been lowered under the guise of revising them for professional relevance. One particularly comical feature of these developments has been the authorities’ insistence that they are acting independently of political pressure while simultaneously acknowledging that they are motivated by the fear of litigation brought by feminist groups. The ideological absurdity at play here is hard to exaggerate: When members of the Los Angeles city council demanded hiring quotas for the LAPD and a consequent relaxation of standards, they argued that concerns about physical difference could be overcome by implementing a “feminist approach to policing.” We pray that we may be spared a feminist approach to national security.

[…] There are immutable differences between men and women, and they are on display every day from the classroom to the corporate office. In most environments, the accommodation of these differences is benign or even salubrious. But the theater of combat is a very different sort of environment. It is true that we have had women in dangerous front-line roles for a decade now, thanks to an act of poor judgment by the Bush administration. But door-to-door combat is a very different thing from flying a helicopter. To believe that soldiers, officers, and policymakers will react identically to female casualties — or to videos of female troops being tortured by al-Qaeda — is to deny human nature. But denying human nature is of course at the center of the feminist agenda.

I imagine that much of this sexist rhetoric is very similar to racist views expressed by those opposed to the racial desegregation of the U.S. military. That said, it’s not by accident that today’s Republican party recently held a meeting to discuss minority outreach at their winter retreat, at a onetime plantation — yes, they’re consistent. Uh huh. apparently it’s perfectly okay for women to be victims of violence and rape by Americans, but on the off-chance that they fall into the hands of the enemy? Well, for that, they shouldn’t be allowed on the front lines.

The post To Some Republicans Violence Against Women Good, Women In Combat Bad appeared first on Madness & Reality.

According to author and FoxNews.com contributor Suzanne Venker, the war on women’s rights is a thing of insignificance, because a subculture of men she’s come across have apparently been pissing and moaning about the evils of the Feminist movement, and how it’s prompting them to harbor feelings of inadequacy and resentment.  Venker’s piece does little else than invoke nostalgia for the antiquated social mores that kept women in line and propagate patriarchy in contemporary society… In fact, it reads like a pro-MRM manifesto that places blame for men’s insecurities, perceived shortcomings, and unwillingness to evolve on women who’ve dared to make a decent quality of life for themselves …

“Women aren’t women anymore. To say gender relations have changed dramatically is an understatement. Ever since the sexual revolution, there has been a profound overhaul in the way men and women interact. Men haven’t changed much – they had no revolution that demanded it – but women have changed dramatically. In a nutshell, women are angry. They’re also defensive, though often unknowingly.” She writes.

What Venker refuses to grasp amidst all of her “research” is that the anger and defensiveness she chastises women for, is frustration and wariness at having to constantly be on alert to ward off the bellicose barrage of attacks on our civil rights and person. Lest she, and that subculture of men whose chauvinism she insists on affirming forget, this election year was filled with Welfare Queen Tropes about American women of color, pro-rape rhetoric, anti-reproductive rights agendas, and an attempt to footnote us in a narrow binder of foolery; not to mention that this current cult of personality seems to relish upholding abuse culture and aggression towards women and young girls. Then there’re those of us who’re derided and made to feel less than, because we’ve opted not to choose motherhood and/or marriage as a path towards [our] fulfillment.

The politics of respectability that Venker defers to dictates; women need to know their place and if we would just step in line, stop being successful, “act like ladies” and be the docile lambs we’ve been designated to be and allow men to have agency over our beings, they won’t be so angry at us or resort to psychopathic irresponsible behavior as she further writes …

“Contrary to what feminists like Hanna Rosin, author of The End of Men, say, the so-called rise of women has not threatened men. It has pissed them off. It has also undermined their ability to become self-sufficient in the hopes of someday supporting a family. Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families – it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them. It’s all so unfortunate – for women, not men.“

“[…]So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation. Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.”

I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that Suzanne Venker wrote this piece from the lens of a White woman with  privilege, so not only does she try to reinforce the illusory big, bad, man-destroying feminazi, she also doesn’t take ‘intersectionality’ within women’s rights into account, since she also opined – “[…] women pushed men off their pedestal (women had their own pedestal, but feminists convinced them otherwise) and climbed up to take what they were taught to believe was rightfully theirs.”

As a single Black woman on a tireless quest for respect and recognition of my humanity, I don’t recall ever being at the head of the line to be placed on the proverbial pedestal.

For all of Suzanne Venker’s coddling of those men who undoubtedly could care less about my place on the social hierarchy, yet expect me to permit them the right to continue marginalizing me, I’ll show up at a quarter past never for that whine and cheese party and stay righteously indignant towards attempts to silence my voice and will continue to take advantage of opportunities that a mostly patriarchal and racist system would rather I not have. Playing the mule in an age where I don’t have to has never been an aspiration of mine.

The post Sorry, Suzanne Venker: Feminism Didn’t Kill Marriage – War on Men? appeared first on Madness & Reality.

It’s the women who lose. Not only are they saddled with the consequences of sex, by dismissing male nature they’re forever seeking a balanced life. The fact is, women need men’s linear career goals – they need men to pick up the slack at the office – in order to live the balanced life they seek. So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation.”– Suzanne Venker

Another quote taken from an essay written by one of these Stockholm Syndrome bitches over at FOX News. Blaming the victim for the actions of the oppressor. Last time I looked we still live in a patriarchal society. One built by the very “slackers” who are “retreating” from marriage en mass as a reaction to virulent “feminism.”

Read this tripe:

As the author of three books on the American family and its intersection with pop culture, I’ve spent thirteen years examining social agendas as they pertain to sex, parenting, and gender roles. During this time, I’ve spoken with hundreds, if not thousands, of men and women. And in doing so, I’ve accidentally stumbled upon a subculture of men who’ve told me, in no uncertain terms, that they’re never getting married. When I ask them why, the answer is always the same.

Women aren’t women anymore.

To say gender relations have changed dramatically is an understatement. Ever since the sexual revolution, there has been a profound overhaul in the way men and women interact. Men haven’t changed much – they had no revolution that demanded it – but women have changed dramatically.

In a nutshell, women are angry. They’re also defensive, though often unknowingly. That’s because they’ve been raised to think of men as the enemy. Armed with this new attitude, women pushed men off their pedestal (women had their own pedestal, but feminists convinced them otherwise) and climbed up to take what they were taught to believe was rightfully theirs.

Women have always been victimized by the consequences of sex. Well before feminism took shape, men had sex when they wanted it. They married it and demanded it or raped their girlfriends or other women, when they chose. Women were always kicked to the curb when men decided they wanted a new and or younger model. Feminism didn’t create that. Men did. Now they’re crying because women, tired of being treated no better than a retreaded tire, have taken control of their own lives?

Men are crying about sex and marriage just like old white men are crying about darkies not knowing their place in society these days. The world is changing around them, and they, meaning men, are not “transforming” to deal with modern-day relationships and situations. Some males are acting like spoiled children who no longer are being given their way and have decided to hold their breath and turn blue to demonstrate their displeasure.

Or they sit back and watch the girl on girl action while women such as Venker write books, work in the real world, be the bread-winner in their households, and take every advantage that feminism grants them, bashing all other women who strive, without calling themselves feminists. It’s like wiggers or gay republicans, making a life co-opting other minority cultures but running for the safety of whiteness when shit hits the fan. Venker and her stepford wife sisters hide behind their trophy husbands ignoring the fact that almost all traditional marriages are not the stuff of fairytale and legend. They’ve just found out a way to make it work. But isn’t that what feminism teaches all women about life in general?

As women change and gain success in the business world and world in general, they are not willing to settle for mates who are little more than bigger versions of their children, rather than partners in life. Some men, are refusing to step up to the plate and to grow.

What feminism means is that women no longer will settle when there is a better life visible on the horizon. Some would prefer to share that life with men, others are willing to seek it out without them, having sex and raising children on their own terms, primarily because feminism has taught them they can afford it emotionally and financially and they deserve it. Period.

The post FOX News: War on Men? Well Excuse the Fuck Outta Me, Suzanne Venker! appeared first on Madness & Reality.

Since the 1980s feminism has grown conflicted about the importance of pornography as an issue, about strategies and tactics to deal with the issue and even about the meaning of pornographies — or pornographies, for there are many different forms.

My belief is that this conflict is important. I am also concerned that ill-informed political alliances have been formed based on simplistic and gut reactions to what are complex issues. While I believe that anti-pornography feminists have made important contributions to the cause, they have also had the unintended consequence of allying themselves on the side of censorship and a neo-Puritanism that is, in my estimation, in opposition to core feminist principles as I have understood and embraced them.

In the late 1970s various grassroots feminist groups resisting violence against women emerged, and began building on the growth of earlier antirape work. These groups included Women Against Pornography (WAP), Women Against Violence Against Women, Feminists Fighting Against Pornography, and the Women’s Alliance Against Pornography. They led large, “Take Back the Night” marches, which were (and I still think still are) held annually across the country to protest rape and promote women’s safety. They also provided an opportunity for consciousness-raising, arousing condemnation, and enlisting feminists who were willing to leaflet, picket, show slide shows, and commit acts of civil disobedience.

Beginning in the 1980s, however, the focus of the marches shifted from being against sexual violence (rape, sexual abuse of children, and incest) to first including protests against pornography and prostitution, and then to being almost exclusively against pornography. Spurred in large part by the rhetoric of author Andrea Dworkin, a longtime feminist activist, the antiviolence campaign made an unfortunate turn into an antipornography campaign. Dworkin asserted in her first book, Woman Hating, that was needed was a global “movement [committed] to ending male dominance as the fundamental, psychological, political, and cultural reality of earth-lived life.” The book contained a section on pornography that suggested, as in advertising and fairy tales, pornography teaches women to be submissive and defined by others. As an aside, it’s illustrative that Dworkin didn’t find anything wrong with the European porn mag, Suck. She pointed out that “the emphasis on sucking cunt serves to demystify cunt in a spectacular way — cunt is not dirty, not terrifying, not smelly and foul. It is a source of pleasure, a beautiful part of the female physiology to be seen, touched tasted.”

In her later writings even this distinction was abandoned. Dworkin eventually saw porn in stark terms: “Male power is the raison d’être of porn; the degradation of the female is the means of achieving this power.” By the early 1980s she was saying that “One cannot be a feminist and support pornography… [Any defense of it is] anti-feminist contempt for women.”

In combination with another other leading figure in this phase, Catherine MacKinnon, the feminist movement’s central issue was defined by sexuality. Not the sexuality discussed during the 1960s and 1970s, where the positive focus on getting equal pleasure in bed and equal rights in society was a central issue for feminism, but a new, critical focus locating women’s oppression in the reality and ideology of sexuality. Mackinnon turned the 1970s formulation, Rape is violence, not sex,” to “Rape is sex, not violence.”

It’s was only a logical consequence that both authors would get together and begin a different tact: that of legal activism and they began drafting anti-pornography legislation in novel ways. They combined already existing human rights ordinances with anti-pornography legislation. Essentially, Dworkin and Mackinnon started what would become a censorship campaign adopted (and repealed) by many cities across the nation. Their legal efforts were eventually defeated at the Supreme Court level, where it was struck down as unconstitutional without hearing any arguments.

In my estimation, there is an essential contradiction at the core of antipornography feminism, one that’s extremely hard to justify. In fact there are many contradictions, the first one being that anti-sex crusades have for centuries been at the heart of violence and oppression against women. In my estimation, the fear of women’s sexuality is the basis for much of the sexism in society.

Secondly, not all pornography is violent and degrading, and it is difficult to even agree on what measures up to those terms. Most pornography, as any review will show, consists of sexual activities between consenting adults, emphasizing intercourse, oral sex, and lots of genital close-ups. Sadomasochistic (S&M) materials, which appear violent to those shocked or disgusted by the images, are actually a form of elaborate ritual to the participants rather than being literally violent or the cause of actual harm. In addition, S&M materials are not as common as some puritanical feminists would have us believe.

If the target of the feminist campaign is violence against women, the question that most comes to my mind is whether pornography is really the best place to start to make headway against such violence. Mainstream movies and TV are notorious for their violent imagery, and the claim that sexuality is the central location for violence against women ignores these genres entirely.

As a feminists (yes, I consider myself a feminist, and yes I am aware that I say this as a male living in a sexist society) we might ask why sexuality and pornography need to be included at all. If what we are interested in is in eliminating the subordination of women, why does it have to be sexually explicit material that we target? Servility, injury, enjoying pain — why do they get banned only if they involve sex?

The honest political answer is that no one is about to ban violent images in this country — they are too mainstream. Only explicitly sexual images are sufficiently offensive to large diverse groups, and targeting seemingly violent sexual images would be the only way for feminists to get widespread public support. But the consequence of the persecution of sexual images is that sexuality itself becomes the target. The unintended consequence is a major setback for those within the feminist movement whose goal is to de-repress or liberate women’s sexuality.

Dworkin’s and Mackinnon’s claim that sexuality is the prime and fundamental location for male power and female oppression is unproven. There are stronger associations, as other feminists have uncovered, with female oppression situated mostly around family structure and kinship systems, government and the rule of law, the division of labor, private property, and organized religion. The assertion that pornography is the cause rather than the symptom is a dangerous intellectual dishonesty that takes away attention from other possibly more important causes.

It is at best simple-minded to assume that one can know the meaning conveyed by an image merely from looking at it. How can we say that such images are degrading or humiliating? There can be (and are) many woman-made and pro-woman images like this. Do all such images serve to boost men’s self image by subjugating women? It seems to me to be dangerously culturally biased to ascribe universal meanings of empowerment or subjugation from images. The relationship between personal, subjective fantasy and imagery is subtle and idiosyncratic. In addition, one has to take into consideration the relationship between photographer, the person photographed, and the voyeur. As we know from our own lives, from art, and from psychology, there relationships are fluid and based on personal experiences and social contexts. What each of us makes of those images is hardly generalizable.

Finally, women who are photographed or filmed in the making of pornography do not report that their work is ultimately or inevitably harmful. Sex workers and their advocates have repeatedly called for the decriminalization of sex work in order so that working conditions and safety can be increased. They categorically reject any approach that stigmatizes them further.

And herein lies the irony: that the work of some prominent radical feminists has resulted in anti-sex campaigns that resemble Salem witch hunts and that have conservatives, with their tendency toward sexual repression and authoritarian (read patriarchal) salivating at the mouth. What I have seen is that anti-sex and anti-pornography campaigns are in actuality campaigns targeting sexual freedom and empowerment cannot exist without freedom.

My name is Eddie and I’m in recovery from civilization…

The post The Saturday Sex Blog: Feminism, Pornographies, & Censorship appeared first on Madness & Reality.

I got to the march late and missed the actual march. I was under the mistaken impression that there would be speakers and entertainment followed by the march, but it was the other way around.

The event was well-attended with my eyeball figure putting it at around 2-3,000 people. Men, women, transgender, straight, gay — everybody was in attendance. It was great to see the solidarity, the togetherness, and most of all, it was inspiring to see so many women, and those that love show up and be silent no more. Lots of survivors here and the event was both somber and entertaining and very humorous.

One speaker, a Latina, addressed the controversy surrounding the use of the word “slut” and she did a great job. The power to define words (and human beings), and the importance of challenging that power is what’s essential. What does it mean to be called a slut? Who gets to decide to label someone a slut? What happens to people who are marginalized as sluts? And as a Latina, she often gets labeled a slut simply because of her ethnicity and the color of her skin because, as we all know, Latinas are ‘hot blooded,” right? SMDH

Until we live in a society in which being called a slut is no longer a tool for oppression, we will not be free.

* * *

Occupy Wall St.: Day 15 (Saturday, October 1, 2011)

After enjoying a brunch with my friend, Puma, I decided since it was still early (and raining), I would take in a movie and then head downtown to the Occupy Wall St. protest (OWS). There wasn’t anything worthwhile at the Regal Union Square, and the times for the Black Panther documentary I’ve been dying to catch, The Black Power Mixtape 1967-1975, was too late, so I went instead to The Strand Bookstore, and over to the St. Marks Bookshop, to purchase a book there, since they’re in financial trouble and in need of support (I purchased Black Frankenstein).

After spending some time finding a dry spot and reading for an hour or so, I headed over to OWS and quickly found out there was a march scheduled for the Brooklyn Bridge. My usual shtick is to get into OWS and striking up a conversation with anybody. I’ve met some really interesting people this way and yesterday, it was a young lady named Charlotte (not her real name), a recent college graduate who quit her job at a Wal-Mart to join the OWS protest. I immediately liked her: she was young, intelligent, and believed passionately that she had to make a difference, and had been sleeping at OWS for the past three days. I tried to buy her dinner and offered her money, but she told me that she was being fed well and that her clothes were dry. Geeeez…

We joined the rest of the marchers and headed over to the Brooklyn Bridge en masse. Now, you probably haven’t heard about this because the police haven’t maced nor beat anyone lately, but one of the things that disturbs me the most about the OWS protest is the discrepancy between what’s actually happening here and how what little is being reported is in actuality disinformation. More on this later.

As we neared the entrance to the Bridge, I saw that the police seemed to be encouraging and even allowing marchers to cross over to the road section of the bridge. Being a veteran activist and having marched across the Brooklyn Bridge countless times, I found this odd. I have never been part of an action in which the police allowed marchers to cross over from the pedestrian section to the vehicular traffic section. In fact, when I reached the bridge, I almost followed Charlotte onto the road section and then something told me this looked like a set-up at best. So I grabbed Charlotte by the hand and pulled her to the pedestrian side, where we then watched the crowd on the road section from above.

Here’s the funny thing: after allowing, and seeming to direct the marchers onto the road, the police then rolled out the mesh, corralled the marchers and then proceeded to make 700 arrests. Here’s a short clip of what looks like the police leading the marchers onto the road (forbidden) section of the bridge:

From my perspective, it certainly looked as if the police were allowing, if not encouraging the protestors to veer off onto the road section of the bridge.

Later, a phalanx of police officers created a wall and then proceeded to make arrests, often targeting people of color who happened to be at the front of that part of the march:

What you can’t see on the second clip is that towards the back, the police had already started rolling out the mesh and corralling (“kettling”) the protestors on the road section of the bridge, so that those who had realized they would be arrested couldn’t retreat and comply by moving over to the pedestrian section of the bridge.

If you heard about this at all you probably only heard that there 700 hundred arrests. Period. No context. Or, alternatively, if you did read about this you might come upon a redacted version. For example, the Daily Kos points out that the New York Times first reported the arrests in this way:

“After allowing them onto the bridge, police cut off and arrested dozens of Occupy Wall Street protesters.”

Later it was changed to say:

“In a tense showdown over the East River, police arrested hundreds of Occupy Wall Street demonstrators after they marched onto the bridge’s Brooklyn-bound roadway.”

It must be difficult for the New York Times to suck and swallow at the same time… (click here for the full Daily Kos expose.)

Finally, this is what pissed me off the most. Here’s a clip of the police arresting a young lady who can’t be more than 12-13 years-old:

What the fuck?!! Whatever your political tendencies, we should be encouraging our youth to question, to think critically, to be civically engaged, not arresting them for having the fuckin’ huevos to speak out. This is what we’ve come to and I know some of you dumb-fuck neocon-twat motherfuckers will justify this nonsense in some way. Our youth should be ashamed of the adult population.

In other news, we continue to get more support from the unions and there is an informal commitment by Marines to come down to the protests to protect the OWS activists (click here). This Tuesday and Wednesday there will be mass protests. I expect there will be thousands and I expect that the media will continue to ignore us. Today will most likely be a day of rest for OWS.

The weather will soon be turning cold and we need sweat suits or warm clothing. If you can send sweat pants and hoods in size large (that way anyone can wear them), it would be very helpful. We have a postal box and can accept packages of any size:

The UPS Store

Re: Occupy Wall Street

118A Fulton St. #205

New York, NY 10038

Money orders only please, cannot cash checks yet. Non-perishable goods only. We can accept packages of any size. We’re currently low on food.

My name is Eddie and I’m in recovery from civilization…

Resources

Occupy Wall St.: For the latest news and information (click here)

Occupy Together: For information on Occupations happening near you (click here)

For Facebookers click here

The post The Spirit of Disobedience: Slut Walk & Occupy Wall St. (Day 15]) appeared first on Madness & Reality.