Rock the Vote!

Now more than ever, your vote matters, and we must reclaim our democracy. Voter registration deadlines are fast approaching some states. Here's a list provided by the Rock the Vote Election Center.

A Hot Mess!

• Tonight, I tried to watch the documentary, Taxi to the Dark Side, on HBO, which documents human rights violations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay by exploring the death of a taxi driver in Afghanistan, who was murdered by American soldiers when he was detained as a mistaken Taliban member. But, I couldn't do it. I just couldn't do it. Twenty minutes into the film, I just became increasingly bitter, incensed, and full of hate because this damn "war against terror" is what has gotten us into this economic mess to begin with. Why watch a film that provides further proof that this war was not only unjust but a perpetration of crimes against humanity? Worse, why watch a film that shows evidence that the trillions of dollars spent on it was a complete and utter waste of our hard-earned money? Now that we've humiliated hundreds of war survivors in a particular region, I'm sure we'll be "safe" while the next generation plots their vengeance against us. Terrorism is imminent. Then again, maybe they'll be too busy taking comfort in our economic collapse. Who knows? Maybe millions have been praying to Allah for it.
  
• It looks like Professor Black Woman has a new home and is still on the cutting edge of critique (see her post on the Wall Street Bail Out).
• I'm a little worried with her comment that the Republicans have plotted this economic fallout, in case a Democrat wins the next election. This is a surefire way to ensure that social programs like Affirmative Action, healthcare, education, welfare, programs for marginalized groups, etc. will definitely get cut.
  
• I remember a friend telling me a story about growing up in 1960s Baltimore, when the city - forced to desegregate - chose to let their free amusement park in the downtown area fall apart, simply because black folks were granted the right to use it. If the above plan is true (have the economy tank so bad by the time someone like Obama arrives in the White House), then what else is there to say except that we, as a nation, will let our own house burn to the ground rather than "integrate"?
• I spoke to another friend about the inevitable Great Depression on its way and reminded her that it was during this era that we received a president like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who initiated many of the social programs we're enjoying today (and which are currently under threat). But, my friend chillingly reminded me: "But, FDR cared about the people. Do you see anybody up in Washington who does?" Are they all being paid off by the same corporations that demanded their bailout but couldn't exactly dismiss their constituency since no such bailout plan was provided for the common people - the homeowners, the small business owners, the farmers, the college students, etc.?
  
• We need a President who cares like an FDR. Do we have such a candidate? I mean, really?
• We need a Revolution, plain and simple. But, do you see any community organizing among the people? Are we too busy hating on each other to unite and demand that our government work for the people, by the people? Did we forget that we're a "Democracy" trying to spread our "democracy" elsewhere?
• Two scenarios lie ahead: 1.) McCain becomes president and continues justifying the "war on terror" while the rest of us can go to hell; or 2.) Obama becomes president and gets blamed for every economic woe, to the point that white supremacists rally the white masses to their cause and create such a backlash for the next presidential elections that we might just see a Nazi-like party emerge on the scene to take over. We already saw the nooses. Be on the lookout for the ovens, my people!
  
• An alternative scenario: Or, we can all come to our senses, unite across our differences, and demand that our government work for the people, by the people.
  
• But, who's going to do that? We're not hungry yet. Yet being the operative word.
  

Funny Girl

Because she makes it so easy! :D



Saturday Night Live Skit - Sarah Palin vs. Katie Couric

State of the Union (and Debates): Aren't We Way too Calm for This?

Last Christmas, when I was visiting my mom in the New York City area and tuning into local news reporting with bemusement on the number of Brits and Europeans traveling to Manhattan on expensive transatlantic flights with empty suitcases, just so they could take advantage of our weak dollar and basement bargain prices (compared to their mighty strong pounds and euro currency), I shouted in disbelief to my mom: "They're treating us like Mexico!!"

That, my friends, was the very first real clue that the United States was no longer the world's superpower. That we're going along as if we're still the big boy wielding our big stick around the world, as if the bottom had not fallen out from under us, or worse, think it's cool to leak Sarah Palin's beauty queen photos and not worry that this woman is woefully incompetent to fulfill a world leadership position, clearly demonstrates to me a nation that is quite willing to drive over a cliff - probably because we're too high on happy pills, meth, caffeine, or whatever it is that's keeping us in a fog.

In other words, People, we are in trouble! Why are we being so calm about it?

That sentiment was my basic response at the end of the first Presidential Debate, held at Ole Miss last night. Both candidates were too calm, not stressing the urgency of our national and global situation, and they equivocated for a good two hours. (YAWN!)

The only time I perked up was when they addressed the economy out right (and only because Jim Lehrer forced the issue, and then forced them to address the issue in the bigger picture - and not in the context of their micromanagement skills used when serving on their various congressional house committees). When they finally addressed the economy and how they would resolve the problem, what John McCain said chilled me to my very bones: He basically said he would put a spending freeze on every single program EXCEPT national defense! (So, hell to the no, he ain't getting my vote! It's that kind of spending that has put us in our present economic crisis!) What Obama said wasn't that much more visionary, but at least he criticized McCain for putting a "hatchet" to the problem, rather than a "scalp." (And, this, my friends, is why Obama isn't running away in the polls - apart from the race issue. What layperson, let alone our younger voters, even understood what that even means? Talk straight, dammit! What about simply saying: We have to cut back on our defense spending, since we're wasting money in one area that has been completely mismanaged, while ignoring other important programs, like healthcare, education, and various infrastructures. We have to strike a balance. That's not hard to understand. So, say so in simple terms!)

After that, I basically lost interest since they waxed poetically (or not at all, otherwise I might have paid more attention) about foreign affairs and the "war against terrorism." I don't know about you, my friends, but I don't care about Al Qaeda. I don't care about Iran (who, quite frankly, Ahmadinejad is just flexing his muscles and talking big - doing that masculine "cool pose" nonsense, just to remind us that he's got big bad weapons too.) And, honestly, if either Iran or Korea wants to attack us with a nuclear weapon, then we'll just return a nuclear weapon back at them. And, you know what will happen then? The entire world will be destroyed. Kapoof! We're done! So what? We'll all drive over a cliff, and the Earth will be cleansed from humanity. The end. At least the plants and ants will be happy. (Quick note to those of you who don't know how to read "subtext": I do care about our planetary future, and I care about our humanity; I'm just being sarcastic for the moment.)

See, I want to talk about immediate disasters, like our economy falling apart because we've been spending the past eight years creating scary monsters "out there" that require trillions of dollars of our hard-earned money to "defeat." We all collectively supported Don Quixote in his quest to fight windmills, and the result is that we've gotten weaker infrastructures and weaker education (and woefully unskilled and uneducated masses who are fast losing the Information War in our present Information Age). The only thing we might have had going for ourselves is "brawn" (since we no longer have the "brains") but our diets are so poor, we are fast losing the brawn race too! We are in trouble, I tell you!

But, we didn't hear any of these issues addressed. We were still talking about Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran as if they posed more of a threat to us than our greedy corporations and loan sharks.

I am not impressed. And, Obama, my brother, you really need to try harder. I want to know why you and Biden haven't been launching a campus tour to rile up your youth base (the way Clinton and Gore did when I was a college freshman voting for the first time). Why are you guys not using popular culture to the best of your ability? Why are you letting pop culture be distracted by Sarah Palin? This election should be a landslide, not cutting it close! Come on! And the fact that young white supremacists are hanging Obama effigies in states where he once held high numbers in the polls (see PBW's Report) means he's slacking off on the campaign.

We can do better, people. We can do better, campaign advisers. Get to it.

Classroom Wars: Exploding the Myth of "Safe Space"

TGIF! Yes, it's been that kind of long, long week. So, I've been doing my best this morning catching up on my own blog and others. And I've been pondering this point raised in Rebecca Walker's "The Power of Palin":

To date, feminist think-tanks, powerful feminist icons, and the leadership of major, national women's organizations have done the dirty business of policing feminism.

While I think this point could be further fleshed out and complicated through an engagement with intersectionality politics, it certainly rings true for me, considering the little fires I as a professor had to put out this week in my classroom. All because I was teaching a book that intersected the politics of queer and disability identities.

Scenario#1 - One of my white male students, in an attempt to introduce debate, riled his classmates by pronouncing that, by virtue of being the "mythical norm" that Audre Lorde often deconstructs (white, male, heterosexual, able-bodied, and ...uhm... "superintelligent" - his words, not mine) he was being forced to sublimate his own identity politics to "make room" for others. His statement was greeted with raucous laughter in a mostly female class, he blushed in embarrassment (rule of thumb: boys do not like girls laughing at them!), and when class was over, he still wore a pout on his facial expression. I later contacted this student, both out of concern that one of my students might have been feeling humiliated in my class and also out of concern that - by virtue of his racial, class, and gender status - he could make trouble for me and the reputation of Women's Studies. I asked if he had felt disrespected, and he replied by telling me that, oh! he's so enjoying the class! He's learning soooo much, but he was just having trouble with his classmates since, every time he makes a comment, someone always responded by first saying, "Well, as a white male..."

Scenario#2 - Another of my white male students, who loves to talk (even when it's obvious he hasn't done the reading) made a rather ignorant remark about disability (basically suggesting that they be segregated in their own towns and communities). It was obvious (to me at least) that he didn't say this out of malice but definitely with lack of forethought. After his comment, about half a dozen female hands went up - of course to challenge this argument. However, one of those students took the opportunity to just go off on him, basically stating that, his presence in our Women's Studies classroom, coupled with his ignorant (and sometimes insensitive) remarks, made her "afraid to come to class"; therefore, he was "oppressing" her (she is not visibly marked as "disabled").

Intervention time on my part: I basically told all of my students that dissenting voices are welcome, that as long as we can communicate with respect, it's all good. And that, yes, if someone says something you disagree with, then you should feel free to engage in debate and challenge certain positions and worldviews. Of course, after class, said white male student comes to me to ask if his behavior is out of line and if he should stop talking because he's "not trying to oppress anybody." Sigh.

So, here's the thing. Since when has a Women's Studies classroom become the kind of space where two white guys, who haven't been exposed to feminist thinking (until now, after all, it's only September, but, I'm confident enough in my teaching skills to know that, come December, they will have a new worldview - they are both open to learning, so that's the first step) have become synonymous with being "the oppressor" or being the Big, Bad Racial Other (what the first guy reacted to with constant remarks on how he is the "white male" in class)? Yes, they both are invested in white male privilege (1. expecting that their comments will automatically be respected, just by virtue of their identities and 2. feeling comfortable enough to speak up and speak often, even when they know little on the subject). However, it's one thing to point out how they act with racial and gender privilege. It's another to turn them into villains.

I mean, comments like "You make me afraid to come to class" and "You're oppressing me" are not helpful. They do not suggest to me a female learning to find her voice to speak up and face her oppressor. They suggested someone who was actually trying to silence another student by casting him in his prescribed role as "white male oppressor." Worse, they do suggest the point Walker had made in her essay on "policing feminism," in this case: the policing of a Women's Studies classroom. I also find these comments a bit disingenuous since neither guy has really been obnoxious. Ignorant? Yes, but, you know what? When you're a student taking a Women's Studies course for the first time, that happens. What I was starting to hear in the way my female students were reacting to their male classmates was the policing of ideology, as well as a simplified reduction of issues (whatever issues we discuss, even when gender is not at the forefront, like disability in this case) to males-are-oppressors and females-are-victims.

It's the problem I've always had when Women's Studies and concepts of "Feminist Pedagogy" insist on the classroom as a "safe space." My teaching philosophy has always been: there is nothing "safe" about learning. Learning, in fact, always opens you up to danger zones. Yes, one should not be exposed to disrespect, insult, cruelty, or harm. But, we should not, nor should we ever expect to be "comfortable" in a classroom. What I've observed from my class this week was not the lack of safety, but simply the lack of comfort, which comes when we're exposed to different viewpoints and a diverse class. Since I didn't sign up to teach Women's Studies as if we were our own little sorority (and when I do have such classrooms, the racial diversity is often diminished, and I'm the one who is targeted as the Big, Bad Racial Other in the classroom), I'm having a hard time accepting that our classrooms should not be challenged when boys take our courses. Yes, the obnoxious ones have to be told to "put away their penises" (as a good friend of mine likes to say), but others can be and should be challenged without being accused of being "the oppressor."

Or, am I missing something?

Lurker Thursday: Come Out, Come Out, Wherever You Are!

Dear Readers,

This week has been extremely busy, and I haven't had the time to add a new post. But, I hope to have a new one for the weekend once I get some down time.

In the meantime, as I've been doing every Thursday, I'd like to welcome all lurkers to get your "diva" on and "come out" of hiding.

Rebecca Walker on "The Power of Palin"

Here is an excerpt from Walker's article in The Huffington Post (September 22, 2008):

Sarah Palin became mayor of her town, governor of her state, and has now secured the Vice Presidential nomination for the Republican Party of her country. She accomplished this using the basic doctrine of feminism: female empowerment.

Many feminists are now trying to distance themselves from the result of their own work by launching scathing critiques of Sarah Palin, conservative women, and anyone else with the audacity to point out the connection between Palin's rise and the last forty years of feminist ideology.

This is upsetting for some to realize, but the fact is, this hacking away at unwanted results is nothing new.

Fifteen years ago I wrote To Be Real and have since written and lectured on the necessity of inter-generational power sharing within feminist institutions, the full integration of men into organizations working for gender parity, and the necessity of finding commonality with women who don't hold progressive views.

In response, I've been attacked, undermined, and politically abused by some of the very women I sought to serve.

I'm not the only one. Many have fallen out of the graces of the feminist establishment because of their critique of it. But in Sarah Palin, this habitual distancing of women who don't serve the progressive feminist agenda has reached its apex.

To date, feminist think-tanks, powerful feminist icons, and the leadership of major, national women's organizations have done the dirty business of policing feminism.

Read in Full (especially to see what she says about addressing the National Women's Studies Association in her infamous keynote lecture).

Where is the Love? Christians vs. Christianists

I learned a new word recently, "Christianism," and I'm way excited! Why? Because, finally, for once, those of us who are Christians, and who oppose the right-wing, socially conservative Republican Party worldview, now have a way to distinguish ourselves from that group.

Those of us who believe in the Gospels, who believe that Jesus Christ is "the resurrection" and that the greatest commandments are "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "Love thy neighbor as you love thyself," and not "thou shalt only vote Republican," can now reclaim the word "Christian" from the "Christianists." Yay!

In his essay, My Problem with Christianism, Andrew Sullivan broke it down like this:

"My kingdom is not of this world," Jesus insisted. What part of that do we not understand? So let me suggest that we take back the word Christian while giving the religious right a new adjective: Christianist. Christianity, in this view, is simply a faith. Christianism is an ideology, politics, an ism. The distinction between Christian and Christianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist. Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque. Not all Islamists are violent. Only a tiny few are terrorists. And I should underline that the term Christianist is in no way designed to label people on the religious right as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.

That's what I dissent from, and I dissent from it as a Christian. I dissent from the political pollution of sincere, personal faith. I dissent most strongly from the attempt to argue that one party represents God and that the other doesn't. I dissent from having my faith co-opted and wielded by people whose politics I do not share and whose intolerance I abhor. The word Christian belongs to no political party. It's time the quiet majority of believers took it back.

More than just dissenting to the political spin that Christianity has been given, I mostly dissent to what I see as the absence of love. And, it's what my preacher said in church this morning: "If there is no love present, then God is not present. Where there is no love, there is no God." That more than anything is what has propelled me to distinguish between being a Christian and being a Christianist.

First of all, a Christian doesn't preach love. She simply loves. Period. Whereas, a Christianist preaches "love" and practices hate. (For example, saying judgmental things about gays and lesbians, like "love the sinner, hate the sin." Either you're loving your fellow sister and brother unconditionally, or you're not, okay? Why are you dwelling on their "sins," when you've got your own to contend with?)

A Christian also loves across the board, so that conversations about whether or not a presidential candidate like Obama is "really a Christian" (see my previous post on Nicholas D. Kristof's op-ed) are irrelevant. That Obama once spoke positively about his experience growing up in a Muslim country like Indonesia and describing the Arabic call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on earth at sunset” (which, as someone who once traveled to Egypt, I can attest that this truly is a beautiful sound) and certain "Christianists" can point to such statements as "proof" that he "isn't Christian" or, worse, according to such small-minded individuals, "is Muslim," speaks to the problem inherent in Christianism, which misinterprets the Gospels as doctrines of intolerance and exclusivity.

But then again, I don't have to tell you that Christianism has mobilized hatred and intolerance. Whether we are talking about Ku Klux Klan burning crosses, militia men bombing abortion clinics, or extremists assembling prayer groups in protests against Matthew Shephard's funeral. We now have a word to describe the hate mongers, the racists, the homophobes, the xenophobes, the misogynists, and other hate-filled individuals and communities who do their hateration while calling on the name of Jesus.

So, I ask all of you, who identify as Christians, to distinguish yourselves from the Christianists. How do you do this? Either you are about love, or you're about hate. And, where there is love, there is God.

The Push to "Otherize" Obama

I will talk more about "religiosity" at a later time today. Meanwhile, please check out this Op-Ed piece by Nicholas D. Kristof in The New York Times (Sept. 20, 2008):

Here’s a sad monument to the sleaziness of this presidential campaign: Almost one-third of voters “know” that Barack Obama is a Muslim or believe that he could be.

In short, the political campaign to transform Mr. Obama into a Muslim is succeeding. The real loser as that happens isn’t just Mr. Obama, but our entire political process.

A Pew Research Center survey released a few days ago found that only half of Americans correctly know that Mr. Obama is a Christian. Meanwhile, 13 percent of registered voters say that he is a Muslim, compared with 12 percent in June and 10 percent in March.

More ominously, a rising share — now 16 percent — say they aren’t sure about his religion because they’ve heard “different things” about it.

When I’ve traveled around the country, particularly to my childhood home in rural Oregon, I’ve been struck by the number of people who ask something like: That Obama — is he really a Christian? Isn’t he a Muslim or something? Didn’t he take his oath of office on the Koran?

In conservative Christian circles and on Christian radio stations, there are even widespread theories that Mr. Obama just may be the Antichrist. Seriously.

Read in Full.

Lurker Thursday: Emerge from the Shadows

Photograph: "Emerging from the Shadows" by sherwin.james

What Happened to the Intersections? Complicating White Privilege

I had to take some time to ponder Tim Wise's "This is Your Nation on White Privilege," which many of my readers had already critiqued when they added their comments in response to his commentary. I, like many others, appreciated the succinct way he cut to the chase and highlighted what is so problematic about the way Americans, and specifically the media, have responded to the different campaigns run by McCain-Palin and Obama-Biden. Yet, the definitions of white privilege were much too simplistic and really didn't get at why it would be easy for a number of voters, including feminist-identified ones, to side with a ticket, indeed a woman, who had no interest whatsoever in upholding feminist principles. It's not simply the workings of whiteness, but also the intersections of gender and class.

Let's, for instance, unpack this particular privilege - "White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you're being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you're somehow being mean, or even sexist."

Is this simply about white privilege? The charge leveled against Obama in terms of being "sexist" against Sarah Palin is loaded. It's not just an issue of McCain-Palin being protected by whiteness. It's about white power relying upon the intricate workings of gender to neutralize a black candidate. Consider how white womanhood has been mobilized in the past to perpetrate racial violence. Consider how many black men and children in the past were lynched, indeed whole black towns like Rosewood were wiped out, when a white woman cried "rape." Consider how 14-year-old Emmett Till was brutally mutilated when he whistled at a white woman. Consider the outrage a decade ago when angry white women reacted to the OJ Simpson verdict. This is the history in which race and gender function in this country. So, consider this history and how, in the context of a black man being accused of "sexism" against a white woman, a certain sexual politic is being invoked and utilized to rally certain demographics toward the GOP ticket. This is not merely "white privilege."

And what of class? McCain specifically chose a white woman who is basically the anti-Hillary: unsophisticated, small-townish, ultra-conservative, unintellectual, globally ignorant, and gun-toting. She's considered both "sexy" and "one of the boys." What many found threatening in Hillary Clinton, they find reassuring in Palin. She gives off the air of being "working class" and "regular folk." It's a townsy, folksy vision of whiteness that comforts when one is woefully afraid of intellectual, cosmopolitan, global blackness. So, in some of the examples of "white privilege" Tim Wise offers are actual examples of "class privilege" (Bristol Palin's boyfriend's proud appropriation of the "redneck" identity or the whitewashing of her unwed pregnancy) but because class is erased from the critique, we don't pay attention to how ideas of class are also being mobilized against the Obama-Biden ticket.

Since I'm recalling U.S. lynching history, it's important to note that upper-class whites often relied upon working-class whites to organize lynchings, often targeting upwardly mobile bourgeois African Americans who "didn't know their place." Through the lynch mob, whites transcended class differences to unite around race, around whiteness as they partook in a ritual sacrifice of black flesh.

Because white privilege never operated outside the intersections of race, class, and gender, it is even more imperative in these times of simplified yet unspoken 'isms for white antiracists or feminist men to do the work that needs to be done in unpacking the loaded terms, images, and scenarios that are being used in our current presidential election. The awareness of "white privilege" is all well and good, but when one fails to recognize how whiteness also has a gender and a class, it's that much harder to disavow it.

This is Your Nation on White Privilege

This essay, by Tim Wise, featured in Z-Mag, is worth reprinting here in its entirety. I will, later in the week, expand on the subject since Wise (author of White Like Me), like many other critical race theorists, still needs to hone his skills by incorporating feminist intersectionality in the analysis.

For those who still can't grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.

• White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because "every family has challenges," even as black and Latino families with similar "challenges" are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.
• White privilege is when you can call yourself a "fuckin' redneck," like Bristol Palin's boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll "kick their fuckin' ass," and talk about how you like to "shoot shit" for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.
• White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.
• White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don't all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you're "untested."
• White privilege is being able to say that you support the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me," and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the "under God" part wasn't added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.
• White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you. White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was "Alaska first," and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she's being disrespectful.
• White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you're being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you're somehow being mean, or even sexist.
• White privilege is being able to convince white women who don't even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a "second look."
• White privilege is being able to fire people who didn't support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.
• White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God's punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you're just a good church-going Christian, but if you're black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you're an extremist who probably hates America.
• White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a "trick question," while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O'Reilly means you're dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.
• White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a "light" burden.
• And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren't sure about that whole "change" thing. Ya know, it's just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain.

White privilege is, in short, the problem.

"League of Morons," Nation of Idiots?: My Review of Burn After Reading (Spoilers)

Comedy needs fools with funny faces, but comedy without gentleness is often just sadism.
- Manohla Dargis, Review of Burn After Reading

I would take more seriously movie critics, who can call out creative geniuses like the Coen Brothers on their shtick, but last time I checked, the same critics disapproving of comedic sadism in their latest, Burn After Reading, had hailed them as if they were Hollywood's saving grace, which helped get them a pair of Oscars for their dark, sadistic, violence-has-no-point flick, No Country for Old Men. (See My Review)

I guess, since it's "drama," we have to accept the premise of sadism's existence and the great wisdom that, yes, violence has no point. And we can call it art. But, when it's "comedy," the same premise isn't profound? It's just "sadism?"

I will agree on this point: Burn After Reading is sadistic. It is violent. And, yes, it is contemptuous. We know this movie is condescending and contemptuous of humankind by its first two opening scenes: a god-like view of planet earth (courtesy of Google Earth), and the focus on the Central Intelligence Agency, whose headquarters is revealed in the second scene as the camera pans down on it. From the perspective of these larger-than-life, Big-Brother-is-watching-you phantom figures, the story unveils in the most absurd fashion. But, I don't agree that the Coen Brothers are siding with the sadists. I would even go further to say that the violence-has-no-point-in-this-screwed-up-world philosophy is far better executed here than in No Country for Old Men.

It's a cautionary tale to wake up, to not get lulled into superficiality, like money, plastic surgery, and consumer-based promises of happiness, and to pay attention to what's important. It's a morality tale to stop being "dumb Americans" (an important lesson in this year's presidential elections). That no one does in the end is just, well, what makes the movie cynical. And the Coen Brothers do cynicism oh so skillfully.

It's a fascinating morality play about how, when everyone becomes paranoid from all the silly espionage movies we've been watching (I understand this film is a send up to The Bourne Identity) and the fact that Google is spying on us (*waves*), we do really stupid and contemptible things. The story opens with a privileged, self-denying alcoholic Princeton alum, Osborne Cox (played to such sniveling and snooty perfection by John Malkovich, who does a far better impression of himself than when he was playing himself in Being John Malkovich) being demoted from his position in the CIA. It's not long before he loses his cookies in Malkovichesque fashion and quits (great line here to a fellow co-worker: "You're a Mormon! Next to you, everyone has a drinking problem!"). The challenge now: to break the news to his "cold, stuck-up bitch" of a wife (yes, I'm directly quoting from the movie), Katie (played by Tilda Swinton, who is getting awfully good at such roles, thanks to the typecasting from playing the evil snow queen in Chronicles of Narnia). She, meanwhile is having an affair with the fun-loving, philandering yet so paranoid-he-needs-meds-for-it Harry (played by George Clooney, parodying his Syriana role in ways that remind me that he really should stick to comedy; his dramas are as yawn-inducing as lectures I, as a professor, never delivered), and Harry is married to a children's book author, Sandy (played by Elizabeth Marvel), also a "cold stuck-up bitch." By the time, Osborne announces that he lost his job, Katie soon makes tracks to her divorce lawyer's office to find out what's in it for her since she is not about to get stuck supporting her husband on her salary as a pediatrician (!! the comic-horror presentation of her interacting with a child sent shivers down my spine!), especially when said husband would rather take the time he now has to write his "memoir." (Heh, you all know there are many Washingtonians who recognize themselves in this flick.) She is advised to go through all his financial files, which later get on a burned CD which somehow finds its way on the gym floor of a local fitness center called "Hardbodies."

Enter the only woman in this film who is not a "cold, stuck-up bitch": Linda Litzke (played hilariously by the superior Frances McDormand, wife of Joel Coen), who works at said fitness center and whose main goal in life is to pay for a series of "needed" cosmetic surgeries so that she can look the part for her job (and, of course, to find "Mr. Right," whom she's been seeking via Internet dating). When she learns that her health insurance will not pay for "elective surgeries," she gets a little desperate for money - after her fellow co-worker, dumb-as-dirt-yet-hot-to-look-at Chad (played superbly by Brad Pitt, who hasn't been this much fun on the big screen since Fight Club and 12 Monkeys) finds "so much shit" on said lost CD (they don't understand the data; they just know that it's enough for someone to pay to retrieve it). Together, these simpletons concoct a hair-brained scheme to blackmail Osborne, who is exasperated that he must deal with this "league of morons" to get back whatever it is they think they have on him. Of course, it's worth mentioning that the head of this Hardbodies center (played by Richard Jenkins) tries to dissuade them but to no avail. He's as resigned to not having his employees listen to him, just as he is resigned to not have his love for Linda returned (although, he does let this love get him in trouble, but that's as much as I will reveal).

Let's just say: how the lives of these characters interact (and how they end up getting trailed by Big Brother) is so beyond absurdity and "comedy of errors" style. So, I will spare you the details, except to say that I did have some genuine laugh-out-loud moments (to which me and friends received some stares by other movie goers, who did not get the humor - which in and of itself is scary: either they got that the movie was making fun of their simple-mindedness or they really were too simple to get the jokes). I also had some real shocks (who got killed and how were cold enough and brutal enough to remind me that I'm watching a Coen Brothers film: it's like getting drunk happy, then having somebody throw a bucket of ice water on you to sober you up).

By the time we get to the untidy end in an untidy movie, one of the CIA guys asks, "And what did we learn from all this?" To which he gets the response: "Not to do it again." Heh.

I'm sure many will conclude that the Coen Brothers shouldn't delve into comedy again; however, I got a different message. What did I learn from all this?

1. Stupidity will get you killed, and Big Brother is banking on remaining in control in a nation of idiots.
2. Narcissism will be the destruction of feminism and all humankind. After all, the only people (we are to assume by the end of the movie) who seem to get their way is the woman, who gets her "elective surgeries" paid for by the government, and the other woman, who stands to inherit all the finances she wanted from her husband in the first place. (it would be easy to interpret this as a misogynist, FemiNazis-will-be-the-death-of-us-all flick, but I think that's too easy a conclusion. Besides, my brand of feminism was never about a narcissistic, "it's-all-about-me" vision of our world.)
3. Big Brother (and Google) is watching us. But then, I suspect we already know this.

As to whether or not this proves that such comedy is sadism, it all depends on your perspective. If two brothers use their film to hold up as a mirror, and what you see reflecting back at you is not a vision you find endearing, or maybe even downright painful, then yeah, maybe it's sadistic. Especially because you know the filmmakers are enjoying this infliction of pain.

Packaging Lies: A Video Exposing McCain's Attack Ads

Check this out:

Fall Movie Preview

Went to the movies and caught some fascinating trailers. I'm still processing the movie I just saw, so I'll be posting my review later. In the mean time, check out these forthcoming titles:

Doubt (Catholic Priest scandal meets racism?)



Milk (gay rights history meets Sean Penn?!)



Frost/Nixon (presidential scandals revisited in a year of a presidential election)

Is Sarah Palin Ready for the World Stage?

While there were many distractions around the Bristol Palin pregnancy issue - from focusing on the sexism inherent in still turning a woman's unwed pregnancy into a scandal to the hypocrisy inherent in a political party crying foul, after having gained many strides by focusing on sexual politics, from pro-life to abstinence-only sex education - what was most important about this coverage, to me at least, was Sarah Palin's profound lack of judgment.

She was the one who leaked to the press that her daughter was pregnant in an attempt to cover up a baseless Internet rumor. By doing this, she showed that she was either a.) woefully naive or b.) quite willing to throw her daughter under a bus to prevent the media from focusing on other, possibly more explosive news items connected to her governorship. Whichever theory you go by, Sarah Palin's actions do not bode well for her decision-making skills if she hits the world stage.

Insert Bristol Palin with Our Country, and think what that would mean if - in an attempt to protect us from a perceived attack - she retaliates by throwing us in harm's way. Think too that, as Vice President, she really is a heartbeat away from the presidency, and on her team is a man who is 72 years old and dealing with the threat of cancer.

Think of all these issues as you watch this Sarah Palin interview with Charles Gibson on ABC News:

Lurker Thursday: The September 11 Edition

Good morning, lurkers.
Please say hello, and share your memories for this special 9/11 edition.

Image Credit: Jerry Salamone, taken April 14, 2001.

"She Doesn't Represent Me"! Women Respond to Sarah Palin

"She's that mean girl from high school. You know the type!"

"She's that sorority girl who traumatized you for not being thin enough!"

"My God, she's frightening!"

"She certainly doesn't represent me!"

These have been some of the responses I've heard from other women (white and of color) whenever discussions turn to Sarah Palin. Yet, the media keeps saying how much women (white women in particular) are so inspired by McCain's VP running mate.

In response to mainstream media buzz suggesting that the McCain-Palin ticket has received enormous support from white women, Professor Black Woman has invited White Women to Speak Out on their own behalf - white women, if you have not yet posted to her blog, please do so!

One commenter named Sarah had this to say:

[Sarah Palin] has gotten where she is because of the efforts of radical feminists who have been humiliated, imprisoned and force-fed, all because they wanted to improve the situation of ALL women. now here comes this woman who supports policies that hurt women, including but not exclusive to, her economic policies, her stance on lgbtqi civil rights, her stance on reproductive rights, etc. this combined with her near total ignorance of issues that affect the u.s. AS A NATION (and not just her little white corner of the world) makes her not only infuriating but terrifying.

And, I've been coming across other comments that view Palin in less than an admirable light (despite what mainstream media has to say).

See, for example, the blog Women Against Sarah Palin, which has a sizable number of women's testimonies, and California NOW's Why Sarah Palin is Bad for Women.

So, following PBW's example, I'd like to invite all women - white and of color - to please share your comments. Is Sarah Palin truly an inspiration for you, or is she representative of that "mean girl" you remember from your school days (you know the type)?

Obama, Sweetie, It's Time to Get "South Side" and Fight Back!

When I see You Tube videos like this, it's time to get dirty:



And yet, Mr. Obama thinks this is the time to "take the high road" and to "discuss the issues" (Oh, like the "Economy," as if the average American really cares - because if they did, they wouldn't still be running up their credit card debt or trading in SUVs for a "downsized" new model car that eats less gas, which was happening a lot this summer - you know, "penny wise and pound foolish" and all that). In short, there are many not-so-bright Americans out there, and they can VOTE. And when they do, they don't want to think hard about issues. They want to respond emotionally to stuff, like whether or not Sarah Palin is "hot" or an "inspiration to women." Without thinking too deeply that this so-called "change" she represents lets them off the hook and allows them to think they're not being racist when they vote against Obama.

That's the reality of the political landscape. And yet, here is Obama, taking the "high road," while his opponents spin falsehoods and half-truths and are not afraid to get dirty as they mud-sling. Obama, honey, if you want to win, I think it's time to get mean. Or, if the racial politics has got you squeamish (after all, all Ms. Palin has to do is play the white-woman-as-victim-card and the lynch ropes come a-swinging), that's what Joe Biden is there for, isn't he?

Why is Obama resorting to Kerry-like style intellectual conversations? Why is he channeling Gore when he's going up against simpletons? Doesn't he know many Americans have been hating on the educated and the intelligent? (And when you're black and intelligent, talk about a faux pas!) And, as our education continues to fail (I understand that McCain is interested in dismantling the Department of Education, which is why his latest attack ad has got my blood boiling - and then has the nerve to criticize him on sex education of all things; after Bristol Palin, they actually went there: bold, BOLD, BOLD, I tell you!), this means that more and more Americans are going to be part of the Great Uneducated Masses, brawny and brainless and proud. This will only increase their ire against those who seem "too smart."

So, can we change the strategy here, roll up the sleeves, and get into the mud pit, please? Or, let Biden do it if you don't want to? This is a far more insidious nemesis we're dealing with here, folks. The Clintons are nothing to the force of a McCain-Palin white heteronormative script of Americana.

When Obama easily defeated this version (left image) of white womanhood

it won't be as easy to defeat this version (right image):

Obviously, with all of the racial politics we're afraid to address, we can still display misogyny so brazenly and so disgustingly. Nutcrackers and action dolls?! Really?!

It would be terribly ironic if the sexism that helped Obama capture the Democratic Party candidacy could also cause him to lose the ultimate prize.

And, yes, I'm still bitter that Obama didn't choose a woman as his running mate: this would have neutralized McCain, no one outside of Alaska would have ever heard of Palin, and the election would already be over. My Obama-Kennedy dream is now replaced by the McCain-Palin nightmare.

The Youth Vote

Sorry I'm late with this, but Patrick Everett shared this video link on my previous post and thought I should share.

The Politics of Youth

Two very different incidences today had me responding in pretty much the same way.

Incident #1 - This one is filed under "Oh no, they didn't!"

A colleague emailed me this New York Times article reporting the following:

"Late last month, as a voter-registration drive by supporters of Senator Barack Obama was signing up thousands of students at Virginia Tech, the local registrar of elections issued two releases incorrectly suggesting a range of dire possibilities for students who registered to vote at their college.

The releases warned that such students could no longer be claimed as dependents on their parents’ tax returns, a statement the Internal Revenue Service says is incorrect, and could lose scholarships or coverage under their parents’ car and health insurance."

Uh huh, what a coincidence this occurred in a swing state like Virginia! Be vigilant, my young students! Don't let these voter irregularities disenfranchise you in such an important election this year! Register to vote, and know your rights!

Read article in full.

Incident #2 - This one is filed under "Oh no, she didn't!"

That's right, Miss Jordin Sparks, American Idol winner of season 6, went up on MTV's Video Music Awards last night, in defense of the Jonas Brothers, who were the target of host Russell Brand's jokes about their purity rings (or "promise rings" that some young Christians wear as a vow to wait until marriage to have sex). This is how Miss Sparks, who also wears a purity ring, chose to defend them:

"I just wanna say, it's not bad to wear a promise ring because not everybody, guy or girl, wants to be a slut, OK?"

She got applause from her audience.

I'd be just fine with this statement if she had the nerve to throw this at the Republicans while they praise their various shotgun weddings, but that's encouraging a double standard. I respect young people who make such choices for themselves, but what about respecting other people who choose differently? Or, is it the prevailing wisdom that anyone who isn't wearing a purity ring is a "slut"?

I mean, part of me thinks she was bold to go before the outrageous crowd at MTV's VMA show (a show known for its various sexual spectacles - from Lil' Kim's nipple-pasty dress to the girl-on-girl-action-antics of Madonna, Britney, and Christina Aguilera) and stick up for the virgin posse, but did she have to be so judgmental about it? Why the name-calling?

When I was Jordin's age, I too was practicing a similar sexual ethic, but I certainly didn't wear a ring to broadcast my personal choices, nor was I calling my sexually active friends (both Christians and non-Christians) "sluts." I was navigating my way through my first year of college and learned all about registering to vote for my first presidential election (back then, we were all excited about saxophone-playing, MTV-appearing Bill Clinton). I had negotiated my way through over-the-top Christian fundamentalism and atheistic hedonism to find my own path to both spiritual and sexual knowledge, while also getting my first taste of a political education and, later, a feminist sensibility.

Somehow, these stories remind me of how intertwined they are when it comes to the disenfranchisement and indoctrination of our youth and the easy manipulations that both religion and politics use to keep them in line. All I can say is: Be vigilant, young people! Choose your own path, make up your own mind, and respect all walks of life.

Emergency & Devastation Relief Fund for Haiti

MADRE, an International Women's Human Rights Organization, has set up an emergency relief fund for Haiti, which has suffered widespread devastation and the loss of more than 100 lives from Hurricanes Hanna and Ike.

Please Donate.

Themes of September 11th and the Unveiling of the Exiled Muslim Woman: My Review of "Brick Lane" (Spoilers)

'Tis the season (fall movie season, that is) for movies that dig a bit deeper than our summer fare, and this weekend, I caught a quiet little flick, Brick Lane, the debut film by Sarah Gavron, adapted from the novel by Monica Ali.  

I haven't read the novel, so it's a good thing when a movie certainly whets your appetite to check out the source.  Still, a movie should be able to stand on its own, which this one doesn't quite hold up.  Perhaps this may have to do with the filmmaker, who approaches her subject matter with a respectful distance without understanding cultural and ethnic nuances.  As "universal" as certain "women's stories" are, perhaps the real goal is to strive for a "transnational" worldview of a woman' s life.  All I could think, while watching this film - which chronicles the life of Nazeen (played by Tannishtha Chatterjee), a Bengali "village girl" who is sent away to England on an arranged marriage to a much older man (played by Satish Kaushik), and who must negotiate a life between traditional Islam and London modernity, between the "dreams deferred" of her immigrant husband, who feels his pride diminished daily as a minority "Black" in the UK, and the awkward adjustments of her London-raised daughters, and especially between Nazeen's desire for economic independence as a work-at-home seamstress and her increasing desire for the young radical London-raised Muslim, Karim (played by Christopher Simpson) whom she encounters in the course of her work - is what the accomplished filmmaker, Mira Nair, who intimately understands the life of an exile, would have done with this story. Something amazing no doubt, as this film falls short.

There are wonderful visuals in this film - including a climactic montage when Nazeen, who has been keeping a regular correspondence with the sister she left behind in Bangladesh, learns the truth of her sister's life back home.  There are dramatic confrontations between Nazeen learning to understand her husband's feelings of displacement and the increasing fear that this immigrant community feels in the wake of post-September 11 attacks against Muslims.  Still, we don't really get to delve too deeply in Nazeen's life or in her children's life, or even in her lover Karim's life.  What is the impetus for their organizing of a local Muslim organization? How do feelings of alienation shape their actions?

What is truly effective in this film is the claustrophobic entrapment of the housing project on Brick Lane, where Nazeen lives with her family. We are offered very little of larger London; at the same time, Gavron does a remarkable job in filming the margins of London society, where black and brown communities commingle with what appear to be the white East Enders (not sure if I got the location right, but that's what they look like to me), who are now privy to a postcolonial and multiracial society, which forces the issue of what constitutes ideas of nationality, home, and belonging.

We have already witnessed London (and to a greater extent) the UK's attempts at redefining what it is to be "English," if the London segment in Beijing's closing ceremony of the Olympics is any indication.  Still, Gavron's film felt a bit too touristy in its depiction of Nazeen.  We never really get into the interior of either the main characters or the inhabitants on Brick Lane.  

At the same time, I am pleased that more films of this nature are now emerging, and it certainly feels like a breath of fresh air to the likes of Gurinder Chadha's stereotypical and crowd-pleasing Bend It Like Beckham.  If this film is showing in your area, I certainly recommend it as a worthwhile venture, but if you'd rather wait for the DVD, that's okay too.

Show Some Respect!

Since I was busy chatting on the phone with a friend during McCain's acceptance speech, I can't really comment (I'll check the You Tube video later, I guess). However, I came upon a fun little story this morning - from a most unreliable source (those TMZ folks) - that the GOP convention played Heart's "Barracuda" without permission!

I guess because of Sarah Palin's self description, they thought it "fit," but the music artists, Heart, were apparently not amused and sent them a "cease and desist" letter. Just how many more missteps will this team make before November?

Subtext, Subtext, It's All in the Subtext: This is Why the GOP Can Use Racism (and WIN!)

If I had thought Sarah Palin woefully inappropriate and inadequate to be this nation's vice president before she made her big speech, my feelings have increased tenfold after last night. Now I'm convinced that she's George W. Bush in a skirt, she's the most dangerous weapon of all, and, if she and McCain win the election, we are all in serious trouble.

This is how sexism is going to cost us our country - Big Media and liberals have pathetically underestimated her simply because 1.) she's a woman; 2.) she was a former beauty contestant; and 3.) she seems to have internalized chauvinism to limit her own reproductive control and that of her children. Big mistake!

This is how racism is going to cost us our country - all the Obamaphobes (read: Negrophobes and Xenophobes) now have something to rally behind.

This is how mediocrity is going to cost us our country - if I hear one more American say how "normal" and "everyday" and "she's just like us with normal family dramas" one more time about Sarah Palin, I'm going to scream!

So, how have I determined that the GOP - just like the Clintons during the primary elections - is going to use racism with full force, but - unlike the Clintons - are going to be SUBTLE about it?! The catchphrases, the soundbites: they always, always know how to use subtext with deadly force.

Here's one catchphrase: "community organizer." For more on the racial undertones, see this Daily Kos commentary. Make no mistake: it's loaded with historical, political, and racial references (think Black Panthers - and notice, they don't have to resort to a stupid cartoon like liberal New Yorker cartoonists - think Civil Rights protesters and grassroots activists, think of all the radical workers and how they have struggled to empower the disenfranchised). Think of what it means for the GOP to use that phrase, empty it of its meaning, and then act like it's the most useless, most pathetic thing for someone to be.

For this, Sarah Palin and the GOP have earned my utmost contempt, but unfortunately, I know that Americans - and if my students represent the "educated" among them, I know I'm not far off - don't know how to read subtext; therefore, they will miss the racism inherent in the critique but still react accordingly.

This is what the Clintons and many other Democrats still don't know how to effectively do when creating racial discourse, so, unfortunately, the GOP is ahead of them. It's all in the subtext.

Other catchphrases: "Washington elite." No, this pro-big-business woman didn't just pretend she's "one of the working class" while already siding with corporate interests! Oh, but she did! How? Why, pull out the kiddies...show everyone how you struggle to raise a Down Syndrome infant, how you have to deal with rebellious teenagers who wind up pregnant, how you can still do it all since that dissident daughter will become obedient and marry her baby daddy, and you can still pack an M-16! You go, girl!

And it doesn't matter that what they say is complete and utter crap. What's important are the catchphrases, the soundbites, the veiled racism and the pandering to misogynists, the contemptuous belief that all those flag-waving hard-working Americans are too dull and too illiterate to read through the excrement or recognize that the urine that washes down on them isn't rain!

This is the weapon the GOP has pulled out to beat the Obama-Biden ticket: a contest between white mediocrity and black intelligence, and I think we have an inkling of what the majority will choose.

Lurker Thursday!

Come Out, Come Out, Wherever You Are!

*waves*

Politicizing Women's Bodies: Bristol Palin, Juno, and the Missing Black Teen Mother

What a fascinating holiday weekend I've had: from reuniting with family before getting swamped with the fall semester to worrying about loved ones in the Caribbean and the South this hurricane season to pondering just how deep McCain's contempt for women goes (so deep, in fact, that he would actually gamble the vice presidency - and subsequently his ticket to the White House - on an inexperienced, gun-toting, pro-Creationist, Buchanan-voting, oil-drilling-supporting, pro-life, Alaskan secessionist mother of five, whom he had only interviewed twice). Only a chauvinist would expect Hillary-supporting women to vote for someone so anti-Hillary simply because she has ovaries. (And if there really are such women who could so easily vote for someone like Sarah Palin, because she's the next best thing after Hillary Clinton, then, as far as I'm concerned, they deserve the contempt of men like McCain.)

Having said that, I cannot help but notice the same old sexism that undermined images of Senator Clinton when she was running her presidential campaign, which has come back in full with the latest revelations about Alaskan governor Sarah Palin: from sexist allusions to her run as a former beauty contestant to, of course, the scandalizing of the name of her daughter, Bristol Palin, who is a seventeen-year-old unwed expectant mother (the various cartoons that I've come across are pretty shameful). This particular storyline requires so much critical unpacking from a critical race and feminist perspective since it reveals a whole lot about our so-called "family values", but mostly how we have come to value certain women's bodies over others.

During a labor day BBQ, it was fun to listen to the women folk in my family dish about politics, especially in the policing of high-profile women. Whether it was Michelle Obama wearing what was perceived as "inappropriate attire" - you know, the kind that shows off her prominent behind (which, as black women, we just have to be anxious about such fashion choices since Michelle is going to be on the world stage and, subsequently, her body has to "represent" for the rest of us) or the wisdom of highlighting Sarah Palin's motherhood as a qualification for the vice presidency. One of my aunts put her dissatisfaction this way: "Being a mother of five doesn't make her a good V.P. candidate. It just makes her look dumb! Has she never heard of birth control in this day and age?"

And so the female police gather and monitor and surveille.

But, far more fascinating than what my aunt would say, or what the rest of the media would say about the number of children Palin may have, or how well she is able to mother - since so many of us are quick to judge her based on the actions of her pregnant teenager, is the way that media spin can twist the situation.

We are to understand, according to the Palins and the McCains (who, seriously, I do not believe he knew about the daughter situation - he's not that much of a risk-taker) and other conservative Republicans, the fact of Bristol Palin's pregnancy should be celebrated because she chose not to abort. But, seriously, how hard would it have been for the Palins to arrange for Bristol to marry her baby daddy before she was announced as McCain's V.P.? They had this whole weekend to tie things up actually; that they didn't shows just how naive they are, which begs the question of their readiness to lead a nation since their sophistication still needs some work.

All of a sudden, the same political party that once denounced black pregnant teens not that long ago (those infamous "welfare queens") for being immoral and for perpetuating the pathology of dysfunctional families and single motherhood, is suddenly recognizing the "family values" inherent in an unwed pregnant teen's choice to keep her child.


Are we to now believe that Republicans have a sudden switch in their values and have accepted a "progressive" view of family and women's bodies? Or, as I suspect, is there a different measuring stick that applies to young white women? When one considers, for instance, how popular a movie like Juno was, can any of us imagine a similar movie - a comedy no less! - featuring a young black pregnant teen wise-cracking her way through the dilemmas of her situation?

As Republicans spin yet another tale in which they seem so accepting of such family dilemmas (while Democrats are painted in the process as judgmental and hypocritical), will we begin to discuss some real underlying problems about women's bodies? Including the high rates of STDs and HIV pandemic among our adolescent girls, the lack of a comprehensive sex education for youth, and a complicated overview of what women's reproductive rights entail?


The public rhetoric has certainly failed to shed light on these issues; we would rather spin soap operas and rewrite wholesale the moral codes of certain political parties.

At some point, I would like to think we, as a society, have progressed in a way that we can accept and support all women in their reproductive choices. But, all I see are the same old racial and class divides, in which certain women are entitled to a life of "private matters," while the rest are subject to state surveillance, state control (how long before Roe v. Wade is overturned?), and societal condemnation.

Writing on the same subject, please see Stephane Dunn's All in the Family.