what…the…F**k

Dealing with rape culture is an everyday contact. Women (of all ages and walks of life) have to deal with the utter nonsense that is spewed from the mouths of both women and men (however, we must acknowledge power systems and that men have the power in dominant societies and that what they say has more power because of the structures of society).

This is a shirt you can buy at Amazon.com8f5a1e7682f3252b7996067f658b7a9b_400x400

THIS IS OK TO SELL IN OUR SOCIETY – A profitable commodity.

These sentiments from Twitter are also highly liked sentiments:

tumblr_nhpuee5TFB1qhd9too3_1280-1

tumblr_mvju3lGEP51qzcfgco1_540what-she-says-e1417459866870

resize

CF3KblcWYAAG2hm

 

These are actually some of the most benign tweets I could find. These are really sentiments by ‘educated’ citizens of our society. How we stop them? We prevent rapes by stopping rapists, not by interrogating rape victims. The “he was such a nice guy” argument is far too used and one that I’ve experienced first hand here on campus. With a recent, highly publicized sexual assault case, here on campus, the “he was such a nice guy” argument was used just as much as the “why would he rape HER…Maybe she’s lying” argument.

Focusing on the .3% of rape accusations that turn out to be false over the 90% of rape cases that go unreported is rape culture (@Sazza_jay). Thinking that she is lying is not only inflammatory, it is, statistically, virtually not an existent argument.

There’s also the STUPID argument that only “women who respect themselves deserve respect”…Only respecting modest women means not respecting any woman.

I (and most women) really don’t understand what is SOOOO hard to understand about this statement. It’s not rocket science! Get your Sh*t together, society.

How cultural capital determines whose artwork gets shown to the toddler

This was the first time that I ever got to play with clay in this manner. However, the white/ Asian participants seemed to have a better grasp of the material and how to use it. Perhaps a function of socioeconomic status/ exposure to dominant culture values, these students were able to successful sculpt what they wanted to form out of the clay. While my friend and I alike (among other black/Hispanic individuals that I noticed) were having a harder time a) determining what they wanted to make and b) molding the clay into something “neat and perfect”.

There was a family there – a mother, a father, and a young boy that the father and mother took turns going around and showing the boy examples of the different sculptures that everyone was making. The parents praised the sculptures that were being done by other white/ Asian participants because, to be honest, they were a lot neater and more pronounced – they also exhibited things that dominant culture(s) value, such as head sculptures and bowls.

I’m not saying that all art pieces should be praised, but given perspective, ‘we’ didn’t have the cultural capital – the art classes from elementary/secondary schools, from private tutors, from museums, from our parents – to create something worthy of the gaze of the young.

Blackness/ Colorism

Colorism is a type of discrimination that affects ALL people despite racial categorization. Many believe that this term is exclusive to the black community and the dark-skin/light-skin ‘debate’ that is found in many communities. However, as displayed in the film and as examined in cultures that range from Asian to ethnic whites, displaying darker pigments (of any amount) automatically puts you in a socially inferior pool.

The film, Aferim!, is about Romanian – Gypsy racial conflicts; who is a slave and who isn’t (or who is perceived not to be) is based on a conversation surrounding blackness. The Gypsy’s were often referred to as darker, while the Romanians were whiter. The way that Costandin (the law enforcer of the town) was able to ‘bully’ people/ find the slave was based on how dark the people around him were, regardless of actual identity – If the person was darker, they were violently questioned.

Aferim is a term that connotes a job well done – a literal ‘Bravo!’…This term is exclusively held for the white men from the white men. These legacies of slavery are seen in all cultures and affect the whole world in ways that are beyond the time frame of the movie.

Dukhtar

The film was pleasant to watch (I enjoyed the full Indian cast and the fact that there were no white saviors in the film). The problem with child brides is one that I am not well versed in and would like to learn more about. I suspect that Dukhtar (the film) was an oversimplification (one that appeals to the American public and that doesn’t show all the harsh realities that come with actual child marriages) of the actual problem. As someone who didn’t grow up in a culture with this is the norm, I wonder how actual people in India (and other places where child marriages are common) feel about the topic – of course there will be a diversity of arguments because it wouldn’t be controversial otherwise. I wonder when we will hear from the actual children that are subjected to these practices/ tasks that are given to them by adults. I have heard how adults feel about it, but I wonder what affects (psychological, physiological, developmental, etc) are likely to occur. There are many aspects of child marriages that are not discussed, primarily because the topics are taboo in America. How can we solve a 21st century issue if we are not willing to look at it as multidimensional instead of simply two-toned?

What happens to art

What happens to art when the government regulates it? What happens when the ways people express themselves and the way that the public has access to these expressions are limited to approval? Many people believe that there is a difference between the way that Cuba regulates art and the way that (for say) America regulates art. However, the only difference is that money regulates art in America (which is basically like the government regulating it). Those in government have the most money/ influence, they (many times) get a say in what kind of art is the best and most sophisticated or the most ‘adequate’ to be publicized. Art in many ways, is limited to the rich, famous, or influential. Rarely is the artwork of the poor and underprivileged showcased and held as historical artifacts of that social contexts (time, history, etc). When we limit art, we limit the entirety of our histories as humans. We limit humanity.

Stoves

The problem I see, superficially looking at this dilemma, is that there is a cultural incongruence between the researchers on this project and the people that are being prescribed these stoves. There is culture and history behind the ways that they cook their food, perhaps if the team incorporated a design that looks like and functions like the cultural tools that the families use. Of course it is not that easy, there are engineering designs that work and some that don’t. I guess that’s part of solving the problem.

I also think that just bringing in the stoves are not going to be enough to change the culture of the community. There needs to be other efforts; education, legislation, resources.

My Vagina’s monologue

I have sex…let that settle. I have sex and I love it. However, indulging in my vagina’s needs (especially through the current hook up culture scene) means often defending my morals and values. I don’t respect myself any less if I have sex. Why is that such a difficult concept?

Millions of women can scream I love sex, and white, middle-class, male psychologists will come up with a million reasons why our childhood was broken and how we are fundamentally, mentally wrong….ummm no, I am 100% capable of higher order thinking and (quite frankly) understanding where my actions are coming from. My need for sex comes from human basic need. Accept it.

One of the most offensive things a guy I hooked up with asked me was “Where’s your self esteem?”…ummm apparently where yours is as well. My self-esteem doesn’t revolve around what my vagina is subjected to. My self-esteem revolves around just that – the self, me. And if you associate my self-esteem to my vagina, through logic of deductive reasoning, congratulations you just reduced me to a fleshy hole.

You know what?! You can suck my dick  vagina.

Screen Shot 2016-02-26 at 4.52.52 PM

Screen Shot 2016-02-26 at 4.53.15 PM

Screen Shot 2016-02-26 at 4.53.42 PMSlut, just not your slut.

Screen Shot 2016-02-26 at 4.54.11 PM

Screen Shot 2016-02-26 at 4.56.10 PMEverytime.

Screen Shot 2016-02-26 at 4.56.28 PMCheck your hands, not my morals.

https://www.instagram.com/latinarebels/

Why there already is environmental humor

Western view of ‘what the environment is’ is quite limited to a white, christian, middle-class, and male view of what the environment looks like. America believes the environment is limited to the Amazonia Rainforest, the vacation spots they shared a few summers with their families, and the gated parks that usually cost money to go around. American environmentalists don’t look at environment as a heavily social issue.

Professor Sachs shared sentiments about how African-Americans, women, and other identity groups are able to make fun of themselves and their social identities through stand-up comedy, cartoons, and other humorous skits, why is there a lack of environmentalist voices?, he asks. And that’s probably because of his (and many others definition of the environment).

Coming from a culture that considers oneself heavily embedded in their natural surround, I never really understood the dichotomy between civilization and nature. The two are deeply embedded in each other. The problem too with comparing oppressed groups using humor and environmentalist using humor is just that – oppression. One way many people who deal with oppression cope with their social dynamics is through humor. Environmental humor rarely exists because it is typically (or as media portrays) a group of privileged people trying to make the rest of the world (very unfairly) compromise their own living conditions because of what environmentalist think is right. White American environmental activists also lack the personal investment in the fight. African-Americans make jokes to appeal to a black audience. People who are not black and watch black comedy run the risk of trivializing the experiences that the black comedians are portraying. Because privileged white men (in particular) can indulge in comedy without society infrastructures working to diminish their humanity, they have always found comedians of other social groups hilarious, simply because the comedy usually appeals to the stereotypes that surround said social groups. For environmentalist to poke fun at themselves means a painful process of realizing privilege and (I say this quite frankly) stupidity. Real environmentalists (people fighting for clean water and saving their communities from over population and deforestation) rarely have the privilege of media and if they did they’ll do what black and women comedians have been doing this entire time – talk about their environments. Women poke fun at the fact that legislation for reproductive rights is often delegated to white men – this is an environmental issue that can revolutionize the population of the world. African-Americans often talk about the inequities that follow their communities because of a lack of resources (food, clean water, safe housing, etc). These are also environmental issues.

So environmentalist have been making fun of themselves, we just didn’t consider them environmentalist because we have this idea that if you are a person of color, a woman, or poor, you somehow don’t fit into the stereotypes of what an environmentalist looks like.

Love

What an over used word, right? It’s almost as if it lost it’s meaning – because it has. This generation knows how to love, we really do. We understand actions that mean love – we understand that we kiss our partners, we run our fingers through their hair to comfort them, we understand that we should listen to them, we understand that we should be there for them (whatever that entails). However, very few of us (especially novel lovers) understand the processes and WHY certain actions mean love.

We, as women, are taught at an early age that love is like the movies. We must say no walk away and the man is supposed to chase after us, twirl us around, hold on to us, and kiss us until we give in (because THAT’S what we really want when we say no). Movies have taught us that if he’s angry and yelling, he is more than likely just trying to get to know us (so we, and our partners, can’t differentiate between actual ‘get away from me’ anger and ‘I’m trying to get to understand you’ anger).

Love is communication. It’s as simple as that. It’s being able to openly receive messages and analyze those messages, and respond in a way that is healthy for you and the other being. Conceptually, love is an easy concept. In reality, it is an extremely difficult task to do. We are bombarded with messages that tell us that there is THE ONE out there for us, when in reality we have the potential to fall head over heels with absolutely every individual we come in contact with. Empathy, active listening, and suspension of judgment are the basal foundations of love and all of it’s elemental magic. We don’t have one soulmate, and we don’t have to block anyone and everyone until we find “the one” because we lose the ability to understand that everyone has the potential to bond with us.

Chi-raq : A conversation about race, but the oversimplification of women’s role in Civil Rights

Chi-raq was an interesting and fun film to watch, if you understand critical theories on race (and the fabric of African American and black history in America) and gender (and the matrix in which women exist and are seen as). If not, you run the risk of interpreting jokes and superficially described issues and solutions as fact for the black community. As a woman of color, a woman with black ancestry, and a woman who grew up around violence that plagued these specific communities I thought it was a different way of viewing the problems. It took a contemporary approach to the long drawn out issues that people of color have been fighting, in multi-dimensional ways, to alleviate.

The role that woman played in the film, was to say the least, offensive for me. I enjoyed watching the film, if I voided my mind of the other social contexts and their implications for the “No Peace, No Pussy” movement. Due to the fact that Spike Lee is a man, and perhaps can be blinded by his privilege as a man, there were several poignant points that lead to the simplification woman and their potential role in the alleviation of crime.

According to the film, all women (particularly women of color) can do to alleviate crime and bring peace to a community is to stop having sex. It also placed a lot of the blame on the community and it’s problems on conception and sex. Black bodies are allowed sex and all its pleasure without being tied to poverty and policies that have placed blacks and other minority groups in the very ecology that cause crimes. Women, particularly black women, have been historically at the forefront of giant civil rights issues. Much of the valid and valuable work that black women do has nothing (and should have nothing) to do with them abstaining from sex.

Sex, or the lack thereof, has nothing to do with the problems that plague many black communities, particularly the one portrayed in Chi-raq – policies, inequities, racism, lack of opportunity, and other structural issues are the problem. Not women. Women deserve sex just as much as the men (or women) they sleep with. Women are more than sexual objects and can offer communities more than just sex and wombs to hold children in. Women are complex beings that suffer complex issues within the ecology of underprivileged neighborhoods. They are not excluded from the violence that is experienced in these neighborhoods, nor is the only burden they hold their lost children.

The over simplification of women, disability, death, and complex social, political, and economic issues was simply distasteful – a film that can only be enjoyed by forgetting about social contexts and the fabric they are embedded in. The film must be viewed in a vacuum to be enjoyable, otherwise, it lacks the dimensionality to properly portray a people and the issues that have been ignored for centuries.