You're So Lame Award of Shame - Kate Gosselin

What is with these women who CHOOSE to get pregnant, conduct expensive experiments with their fertility, have multiple births and beg for public attention and financial recompense? There is no "motherhood gene"!!! It's all a choice and if you chose it don't make a career complaining about it!! Nadya Suleman has only now just taken a small backseat while the original Octo-Mom, Kate Gosselin tries to keep her family's gravy train from running out. In case you don't watch tv or have cable or care, there's a reality tv show called Jon & Kate Plus 8 about a couple with 2 sets of kids who were multi-births. 

They claim to have no outside help and to be completely financially self-sufficient. Now their network signed another family with 12 kids. So between all the press shared by Suleman and these other people, their new season was in jeopardy of being DOA. So what do you do when you think you might become irrelevant? You create controversy! As if that's something that should be rewarded. 

An article from US magazine as featured on the OMG! site paints a slightly different picture: 

The Gosselins make up to $75,000 per episode on their TLC hit, Jon & Kate Plus 8, for a 20-episode season -- and that's not even counting all their freebies! For the Gosselin clan, it's not just their show -- but their lifestyle -- that hang in the balance. Kate, who grew up in a trailer park and didn't go on her first airplane ride until her honeymoon to Disney World, now flies only first class for speaking engagements (mostly paid for by churches), sells signed photos of her kids for $20 a pop at appearances, and received a free tummy tuck after giving birth (Jon received a free hair transplant). Jon, now a stay-at-home dad, was fired from his job at Style Craft Corp in 2004 after "spending much more time" on a "quest" for freebies than working, the company's owner, David Rothermel, tells Us.

Having children is expensive, time-consuming and difficult - which is why I don't have any. Being a parent should be held in high regard and carefully considered. Often it is not. The Gosselins have been on a media blitz amid allegations they're both having extra-marital relations and hawking Kate's new book. This is being given the same amount and more coverage than the President's negotiations for health care in certain media circles. This further proves corporate media is a joke. 

I was deciding whether to give out an Award of Shame this week at all. It was going to go the Republicans for obfuscating the torture they allowed but that will be an ongoing saga. I think parents who exploit their race and class privileges for further financial reward and attention deserve to be smacked down. 

I was going to add the husband to this, but I have a funny feeling this is being led at the discretion of the wife. He deserves some blame of course but again, I think she's calling the shots. If your husband was cheating on you would you deny it while using it for media coverage? To me this is just more of the usual display and reinforcement of white woman privilege. There's even discussion about whether feminists and moms can be one in the same. For if this had been about a woman who wasn't young, thin, white and blond she would've been completely eviscerated or laughed at - not celebrated in gossip weeklies and given blanket legitimacy. 

That Old Objectification Song

I was on Twitter last night minding my own business when one of the musicians I follow suggested another person to follow. I was curious who the person was so I checked his profile. I use TweetDeck which is a 3rd party application that separates messages and opens a larger window that the official Twitter webpage for your account. So the first thing I noticed was his profile picture that showed him wearing a t-shirt with a large rear end encased in a thong. Had the photo not been so large I probably wouldn't have noticed from a quick glance. Then I looked at the last few messages he'd sent and they were peppered with "nigga" and "no homo". To say I was offended would be an understatement. I sent the musician a reply saying I wouldn't want to follow someone when I have to dig through all of that. I guess the guy is supposed to be a really good rapper. Yeah....whatever!

So this musician is in a famous hip-hop band and they don't usually embrace any such foolishness in their music - but he is a man and I can see where another man would be dismissive of such things. Which is why the constant degradation that passes for music nowadays is especially troubling. He usually sends messages related to projects he's working on or who he hangs out with and I consider it a fun distraction. He doesn't often respond to non-celebs or people he doesn't know so I was very surprised when I got this response - that he tried to get me to follow his friend but that I "didn't like being objectified as a woman or black person." 

I admit I felt a slight thrill that this famous musician replied to me directly but of course the larger issue was that he understood exactly where I was coming from. Then I started getting a flood of alerts that I had nearly two dozen new followers and Twitter went down for a few minutes. I got caught up in a flurry of messages and hadn't seen the response from the guy I didn't want to follow for at least an hour later.

"So you gon let a few niggas and a picture of some ass keep you from me, booboo? *le sigh*"

I was surprised he even cared quite frankly but thought this could be one of those teachable moments. Why is it that a Black man thinks it's appropriate to speak to a Black woman this way? Here's some excerpts from our conversation:

Me: You opened a good dialog. Why don't u consider moving beyond those things instead of expecting others to tolerate them?

Him: Moving "beyond" what exactly? Using the word "nigga" and wearin a big ass on my t-shirt?

Me: YES & don't forget using No Homo. LGBT advocates consider it offensive/homophobic. Is that all who u are cuz it's what u show! 

Him: If u really think you can gather a man's whole existence from a fuckin 140 character RSS feed, then thats a personal issue. 

Me: 1st impressions speak volumes! U chose to put that out there u can't selectively say ignore 1 thing for the rest. As a female I can't police u or any male. I stated what offended me, you talked to me and we'll agree to disagree. 

Him: If that's all YOU see from Black people, then maybe YOU need to look elsewhere. Hugh Madson? 

Me: Finally it's not about "me" it's about accepting mediocrity as a standard. I'm not emotionally invested, thought it was good to clear the air. Thanks. 

Him: If your first impression of me is that I'm a heterosexual nigga who loves big asses, I'd say that's pretty accurate. Peace.

Now somebody explain to me why I'd choose to engage this person at all! 

Why do (some) black people make excuses for degradation? Not that other groups don't but these situations manifest themselves different by group/gender/class. You know, the usual. This almost wants to make me break out the "f" word -  feminist. I think Black womanhood and virtue are at stake here. It's so much bigger than this one exchange. If I had to base my evaluation of all black men on this one guy I'd never want to have anything to do with ya'll again, lol!! I can't police people and I can't hold a litmus test and collect the innermost thoughts of people either. We have to work with racist/sexist people who are ageist and appearance based or whatever but there's a difference when people decide to not temper their behavior for a universal audience. Twitter is a public forum unless you use a protected account or send a direct message anyone can read your message stream. 

That may not be all there is to that person but it's a strong enough indication to me that our standards don't mesh. There's a difference between the use of Negro, Nigga and Nigger. So this guy's outside talents reveal a rather blatant lack of respect that is certainly not unique to him, but it's the general acceptance of it by an ever-increasing majority that concerns me.  I can't imagine wanting to have that type of influence that follows such train of thought in my life. There's a missing spiritual component. I see the worldliness that drags down the souls of the other person (me) not elevating the later (him). There's the patriarchal arrogance of assumption that I should lower my standards to meet him at his level. That's when (and why) he began to get billigerant with me. 

So many of us are one step from the ledge and we don't even see it. Now I'm no expert on race relations, gender issues or men. I loathe to try to introduce specific religious dogma into these conversations but I'm finding it difficult to see the existence of a set of values. Others are able to navigate their way through life much better than I. The Def Con Level One scenario are those people who wallow in their ignorance and those that seek to exploit others. In the year 2009 I can't believe I have to explain to a grown man why seeing his profile photo of him wearing a t-shirt with a woman's naked butt in a thong is offensive to me. People aren't stupid, they're willfully obstinate in objectification and lacking decorum. 

I also had a simultaneous exchange with one other man who'd said he'd never heard the term LGBT. He's a minister living in a major city and looked to be under 50. How do I begin to process the ramifications of such isolation from news of a major social/political movement? Yet another male protectionist tried to school me on what the term "no homo" really means. If the use of a non-sequitur like that is meaningless then common sense should tell you there's something wrong with saying emphatically that you aren't something and why denying it so profusely indicates a break from the norm. 

These situations just reminds me how we must always be on the lookout and guarding our values and sensibilities lest they be chipped away to nothing by those who don't have (m)any.

Tori Amos Debuts New Material at SXSW

This was the one year I really wish I had gone to SXSW and could've paid cash for it. I know you can volunteer but already heard from some locals the experience isn't pleasant. So I guess I didn't want to go that much. There were some great panels including Blacks in Tech, and participants including Racialicious, Rob Fields and others. Now SXSW has expanded into Film and Interactive sessions, but it's still the music that brings all the people in the yard. 

This year drew some big names to the festival including one Tori Amos. Usually established artists at her level don't go back to play these events but she was never one to follow convention anyway. Plus, picking up some new fans never hurts. She performed three songs from her 10th studio release "Abnormally Attracted to Sin", which will be out May 19th - hey that's my mom's birthday!  Do you think mom would be mad if I bought her the CD and burned a copy for myself?! Ha! 

Now before some of you get either excited or riled-up by the title alone you should read her autobiography, Piece By Piece where she goes into detail about her religious upbringing (her dad's a minister) and some of her views. Amos isn't adverse to controversy - after all she posed with a piglet clutched to her chest so that it appeared she was suckling it! She even took on Enimen back in the day (see where his career went) for his misogyny, stating people would dance to songs where there was "blood on their sneakers" and not even notice. 

I am unabashed fan, even if I sometimes feel she's slipped us a pill on the way down the musical rabbit hole. She has a child and husband to attend to and doesn't tour as much as she used to but certain cities she's known to play multiple gigs and she usually does a completely different set. This does all but guarantee the need to see her more than once. Now the last time she came to San Francisco area she played 3 nights at Oakland's Paramount Theatre where the seats are spacious and cushy and the acoustics are excellent. 

I didn't have a blog then for I most likely would have written a scathing review about how pissed I was that there was a camera crew shooting her DVD and the dolly went back and forth every 30 seconds obstructing our view. It's not like there was any advanced warning about it and the shows were sold out. Now that was an otherwise glaring blip on usually excellent shows.

I met Tori in London in 2003. Live and in person in her very warm dressing room and she referred to me as a "beautiful mocha presence". Honestly only Tori could get away with saying something like that. There's a story involved in how I met somebody milling about the venue entrance before the show who knew somebody who worked for Tori and offered to let us backstage past her (intimidating) bodyguard to meet her. She was absolutely lovely and gracious and it was totally unexpected. I don't have the pictures because the other person was a jealous lizard who kept them all!! It wasn't my camera used as it was unexpected. I have the memories though as well as the encouraging words of a woman who's fought to maintain a career in a less and less forgiving industry where they want fluff over substance. I also know to bring a camera with me at all times now - or use the cell phone!

Salon's 1-2 Hit Job on Michelle Obama

The mis-education about the Negro continues.  Now that Michelle is slated to be our next First Lady she's being set up to represent all Black women and our fortunes may rise or fall with her. We can argue against it (we are individuals) or deny it (she's working class and not a socialite) but I'd rather tackle this head on. Of course we're responsible for our own lives and having Michelle as FLOTUS isn't going to wave a magic wand and turn us all into Cinderella at the ball. This should be just the beginning of many First Ladies of Color. This should be the realization for Black women that we can remove all barriers for any who doubted. This should be the established precedent for those that would think less of us. That time is over. She has been positioned well and isn't a creation of the entertainment industry. She will be an icon! 

Now comes the maintenance. We can try to ignore the media coverage at our own peril. There's discussion about whether the Obamas sending their daughters to private school is a good thing. As if putting them in substandard schools is an option. Now Salon is taking it's cues from Fox News. 

Last week Salon writer Rebecca Traister poo-poo'd that poor Michelle has to give up her career to be a 'mere' mother and wife in the "Momification of Michelle Obama":

"In all the worrying about how Sasha and Malia will adjust to having their lives turned upside down, in all the fretting about how Obama will move his Chicago-style shop to Washington, why is there so little curiosity about how Michelle will adjust to the loss of her own private, very successful, very high-profile and very independent identity? How will Michelle Obama feel as she becomes what she has long resisted -- an extension of her husband?"

What loss of identity? The Obamas are in a very unique position. As for the rest of us, it's my understanding a lot of women would love to stay at home and raise their children but can't for financial reasons. Other women want to pursue a challenging career path. It's not about the 'right' choice it's about being able to make the 'best' choice as you see fit, not society. This is one of the arguments for those that oppose feminism in theory as being a cause for the destruction of the family structure. Individual pursuit at the expense of everything and everyone else. That in no way fits Michelle Obama.

Besides the majority of Black women have not had these options historically. We were feminists before the term was coined, not from a need to be 'liberated' from oppressive men and not to follow our bliss. It was for survival and it was not fun. Also can I add that raising children is not easy.  The writer is thinking from a prism of white female privilege and a particular class structure to lament another woman's choices as if she were the rightful authority on how Michelle (and other women) should live.

Michelle is not interested in using her husband's political currency to cash in on her own. She will not try to insert herself into his administration. Barack has shown solid moral leadership so far and has not embarrassed his family with public indiscretions. Though they may share a political party, the Obamas are not the Kennedys and they're certainly not the Clintons. As anyone with two eyes can see Barack and Michelle adore each other. I don't think she's suffering, lol!

To add insult to injury, now it's all about her boo-tay. In an article by Erin Aubry Kaplan titled, "First Lady Got Back" (no - seriously) she writes:

"But what really thrills me, what really feels liberating in a very personal way, is the official new prominence of Michelle Obama. Barack's better half not only has stature but is statuesque. She has corruscating intelligence, beauty, style and -- drumroll, please -- a butt. (Yes, you read that right: I'm going to talk about the first lady's butt.)"

Somehow because she's a Black woman we're supposed to give her a pass for writing this drivel?! I don't think so. Imagine if a man had written this, a white man. Would all of you who think this is nothing still be okay with the article as is? You're not gonna convince me. Why? I have two words in response: Hottentot Venus. It will never be okay to reduce a woman to her body parts - and definitely not the First Lady - but if you're a Black woman any such deference goes out the window of course. This is the epitome of raciallized sexism. I can recall Salon contributor Joan Walsh made it a point to decry sexism during the primary season and state it was the most virulent form of oppression out there. 

So we can see the newest tactic to be deployed in racial arson will be not just come from whites but will also include other Blacks (pseudo-intellegentsia, haters, contrarians, slave catchers and lawn jockeys). We will use social media to bring light to and counterbalance any attacks. Why? It's for our own good. We need to join together and not just protect what's going on with the First Family but pool our resources to determine our futures collectively so they are the best they can be.

In case you disagree and think this is harmless here's the response from Joan Walsh.

"I have loved Erin Aubry Kaplan’s writing since before I joined Salon, and I’m proud of this piece. If having a black president and first lady is going to narrow what we talk about, wow, that would be sad. But I promise it won’t — at least not on Salon." 

So there you have it. Joan Walsh already wrote a piece earlier this year where she called Barack "uppity". It's open season on the First Family. If we ignore it we can expect further denigration of Michelle and by extension other Black women. Up yours Joan Walsh and Salon. I'm not going to stand by and let the most prominent woman in the country be reduced to a someone's idea of a misguided cowed woman or a body part.

Oprah Just Honored Gloria Steinem: Why Am I So Mad?

So I was watching Thursday's Oprah episode where she featured Maria Shriver. Maria has an annual conference for women and this year Billie Jean King and Gloria Steinem are amongst the honorees. Now Steinem might be an ally of Oprah but is she an ally of mine? What about Laquisha from the hood? Or Monique from a small town? So many people are ignored not only by corporate media but by us when they don't easily fit into our vision of what an ally is or we dismiss others without giving them an opportunity to prove themselves from the get-go.

Blogger Host Lisa at Black Women Blow the Trumpet posted a discussion about how Black women needed to vet their potential allies back in June. When I go through the criteria I find key elements lacking for matters that are important to me. How did I come to such a conclusion?

Well I looked back at Ms. Steinem's behavior during the Democratic primary. Per her Op-Ed article in the New York Times back in January: her charge was that sexism is worse than racism. I was outraged by that assessment and to me it signaled the same white male supremacist power structure Black people have been fighting against since we helped found this country with our blood, sweat and tears. I also looked at the historical interactions from previous generations of white feminists, black feminists and civil rights activists.

If there's any one authority of the ravages of sexism it is Black women. We were uniquely affected by it as well as racism when our female ancestors were forced to breed and lived with being raped on a daily basis. Our bodies were never our own. Being enslaved required 18-20 hours day of skull-crushing, back breaking labor while white people fought for 'freedom' and built their wealth. Now to be certain, there was the slave owner but there was also the slave owner's wife who benefitted from this practice and had an equally vested interest in keeping the status quo. 

That violation of Black women continued after slavery, through Jim Crow and still resides today. Do you think the brouhaha over Janet Jackson being exposed had to do with indecency or a reaction to the historical image distortion of Black women as being wanton and having no morals? 

White women = the definition of "woman" in this country. White. Blonde. Thin. Young. Pure. Wife material. Innocent. Worthy of protection. American.

Ms. Steinem made a point of mentioning she ran as a delegate for Shirley Chisholm and praised her contribution to feminism. Nice, but that was 1972. Then there's the fact that she was also supporting George McGovern's run (in states where Chisholm wasn't running). Now color me stupid but I'm thinking of two words right now. Divided loyalty. Hedging bets. Not Sincere? 

What has she done for Black women since then?

Watch the documentary Unbought & Unbossed. Note that Mrs. Chisholm didn't get a whole lot of support from the Black (male) politicians of the day but she was definitely abandoned by the so-called leaders of the (white) feminist movement at a crucial moment when they could have gone for broke and supported her candidacy.  For a white male candidate no less. So I am rightfully incensed with Steinem and a host of other white women (Geraldine Ferraro, Joan Walsh, et al) who were given media access and were carping about how 'unfair' it all was that they were victims of a vast Black (male) conspiracy (and not getting their way)! Their sense of entitlement was palpable. Otherwise why title your Op-Ed piece, "Women Are Never Front-Runners" when you had the chance to support a female candidate more than 30 years prior and decided to choose white?

Furthermore, where were the BLACK WOMEN in this equation? Yeah Hillary Clinton had Sheila Jackson-Lee and Stephanie Tubbs-Jones in her corner but was that from a position of power? Or was this standard water-carrier activity? How was the average Black woman benefitting from this discourse? Then....and now? If you have no idea what I'm talking about now's the time to do a little historical research, compare it to the coverage last Spring and connect the dots as to why I've drawn this conclusion. You don't have to agree of course.

Then there's the very telling debate between Steinem and Melissa Harris-Lacewell on Democracy Now a week after the Op-Ed was published. Steinem had this paternalistic attitude of how 'grateful' Black women should be. This is the ongoing indicator of how some people are not our allies, including other Black women and Black men. Watch and judge for yourself.

Oprah referring to Steinem as the "Mother of Feminism" is really giving her far more credit than she deserves. A key contributor - sure -  because a path was created for her to do so. This is when I see why some people are critical of Oprah for seeming to fawn over some white people too much. I can't quite agree with the charge of the 'selling out' of Blacks by Oprah but I do see the distinction of money, access and celebrity. Besides, those part of the elite classes and those with access to them are not interested in opening their doors to the masses. 

First of all Steinem is in her 70's and part of the 2nd wave of feminism. We're in the 3rd wave now and believe me there's a reason why so many young girls don't know anything about feminism other than having a vague sense of the word. Most women under 35 don't consider themselves feminists at all.  At times it is an exercise in privilege because there is so much 'choice' involved. When there are systematic barriers in place that prevent some women from being able to make certain choices or have equal opportunities then there is no choice! It is just white woman privilege under the construct of white male supremacy.

There can be no truthful acknowledgment of Steinem's contributions without discussing her privilege as a white woman, her class status and appearance. She was single with no children, educated and is still attractive and articulate. She was not a poor woman from Appalachia with a GED. Sorry Glo, I am still not convinced. There is a blogger whose interests lie in deconstructing and dismantling this privilege.

Now as a member of the (in)famous X generation perhaps I am missing something. This could a generational difference. Just like the Civil Rights Industrial Complex the old guard wants to keep their status and accolades. Where is the grooming and nurturing of future leaders? More women would make a concerted effort to align themselves with the Feminist Industrial Complex IF they felt it spoke to them and addressed their needs.  There are women who are anti-racist activists trying to form valuable alliances with each other. We need to have more than one declared leader of the FIC anyway. Women, like Blacks are not a monolith. So many are quick to object to blind support for Obama and not make him into a Messiah. Well we don't need a "Mother" either. We need to be on equal footing with a seat at the table.

For too many there is a huge socio-economic barrier at play. If you have to address more immediate needs such as affordable housing or even personal safety as a result of racist/sexist policies negatively impacting your sphere of the world being ignored by these pillars of the movement won't encourage your participation. Another example of this is the current fight against Proposition 8. The Gay Rights groups seeking support for its opposition approach communities color during an election year but ignore them otherwise. 

Steinem now claims to have been in support of Obama all along - she just wanted Hillary Clinton in the White House first.  Remember those calls for Obama to "wait his turn"? As if he had to make it easier for the white women (and those that support their agendas) to deal with playing on a level field. Isn't that what equality means? See where white privilege demands deference? Obama has already capitulated to white people to make them feel at ease enough!! Look how close we are to election day and you can read numerous reports of how whites are calling Obama a terrorist or dressing up monkey stuffed animals and all the ways they are making their displeasure known. 

The convenient fall back position is to claim they didn't know they were being offensive, or because they have a Black friend/lover/neighbor/co-worker they can't be racist. Not correctly labeling their actions means there can be no progress. Without respect there can be no real relationship. Standing by and doing nothing to hold people accountable will never resolve these conflicts. Until white people like Steinem take up the charge of first acknowledging then letting go of white privilege and all its benefits she can NEVER truly be an ally in my opinion. It must always about RECIPROCITY.

You can also go the Democracy Now! site for a stream and transcript.