Sunday, August 24, 2008

No, THIS is some infuriating shit...

Where the bloody devil does a woman that was not raped get the gaul to write a book. Yes you read that correctly. Crystal Magnum has seen it fit to pen a memoir of her because apparently:

" Were it not for the Duke Lacrosse Case, she likely would be described as a bright, young woman from Durham, North Carolina, who has had a difficult life."

More like were it not for the Duke Lacrosse Case, she would likely have not had an opportunity to make some money.

Her life was peaching keen until she DECIDED to falsely accuse three guys of raping her right? She may very well be a bright young woman but above quote is worded as if none of that Lacrosse Case nonsense was her fault. SHE is the one that made the accusations. SHE is the one that let Nifong run with a bad case. SHE is the one that made her own life a living hell. Therefore she is NOT the victim in this case.

You know who the victims are? Those three kids who lives she ruined by dragging their names and reputations through the mud. The Duke Lacrosse team members that lost a year of eligibility. Sure the players that didn't graduate were granted an extra year but what about the ones that had the last year of eligibility taken from them and will never get it back because they graduated? And not to mention that other members of the team were accused of withholding information in an effort to protect their teammates. Or maybe Mike Pressler. Who is that you ask? He was the coach of the Lacrosse team at the time of the "rape" that was pressured into resigning after spending years the getting the team top condition. How about the resources that were wasted on her that could have gone to, oh I don't know, REAL victims?

But after its all said and done its all okay because she plans to donate $1 from each sold copy to help battered women. I'm sure actual victims of a crime (and thats not even touching the assumption that only women are battered) will feel just fine having their hurt, pain, and suffering used as a selling point for a book by someone who was not even a victim.

A shout to LorMarie and Glenn Sacks for talking about something that will probably get little to no mention in the feminist blogshpere (you know the ones that were ready to send three innocent guys to the chopping block but then went silent or blamed Nifong when her admission came out).

And after all of this I still fail to understand why this woman is not facing charges for what she did. And if there is any justice in this world she would be facing a real punishment as well, none of that $50 fine and 2 days in jail garbage.

Friday, August 22, 2008

This is some enfuriating shit...

Can someone please tell me why in the ten shades of hell a pair of parents are being court ordered to pay child support to the woman who got pregnant by raping their underage son? Okay well this may have something to do with it.

When a male teacher is rapes/abuses/molests a student he is demonized. He is a horrible person that should never have been around children to start with. He needs to be buried under the jail and never see the light of day again. And rest assured he would go away for a long haul just as he should.

The problem is when a female teacher rapes/abuses/molests a student she is studied and examined. She must have some sort of history of abuse in her own past. She is a poor misguided woman that really would never hurt anyone. The boy must have raped her and because she is an adult she is getting blamed right? And who dare put such an innocent woman away in prison for so long? I'm sure giving her probation or a suspended sentence will do.


Friday, August 15, 2008

Its been a while since my last post...

I've been a bit busy this week so I haven't had much time to post. So here are a few things I've come across this week:

This is just sad.
You are reading that right. A man is dying of cancer and instead of getting the chance to see his dear daughter one last time he is being "allowed" by the family court to leave behind a DVD and a letter to her that has to be approved by the the daughter's lawyer.

Renee ponders why Madonna seems to be going on a adoption spree of foreign children. Personally I think its just a part of the Cycle of Reinvention that she seems to be locked in. Don't act like you haven't noticed how Madonna comes up with a different image about every ten years or so, releases about 2-3 albums, disappears for a few years, rinse and repeat.

Check out the bi-monthly Carnivaal Against Sexual Violence.

Seeing eye to eye. About three weeks ago a Guiness ad was released on the internet. Now before I explain the ad first know that this is NOT an official Guiness ad. So don't go throwing all your Guiness out (and besides that stuff ain't cheap). Get your minds right for this.

The ad shows a beer (Guiness of course) on a woman's back and said beer is rocking. A few seconds later from behind the woman a guy's hand grabs the beer and takes a swig...and then a second guy from in front of the woman grabs for a swig...and finally a third guy reaches from underneath and takes a swig. The "moral" is supposed to be, "Share one with a friend...or two." Yes that exact text appears on the ad.

Plain and simple the ad is offensive. It basically states that women are to be shared like beer. I don't know about you folks but I am pretty damn sure it rude, crude, and disrespectful to compare a woman to a beer.

But the funniest thing I noticed is that there are MRAs, feminists, and everyone in between (thats where I fall) that all agree that this add is offensive. Don't believe me? Check those two links. They are links to Shakesville and Glen Sacks. Yea there is a bit of nonsense to go through but look at the overall reaction and you'll see that a good number of people on both sites agree that this ad is offensive.

Okay so I haven't done that much reading this week. I did say I was busy...

Tuesday, August 12, 2008


Recently I've been thinking about privileges and rights. My interpretation of privilege is that privilege is an advantage that no one should have such as getting hired for a job over someone else just because you are ______ and they are not.

After looking back at some old posts at the Feminism 101 blog I am reminded that some people tie privilege to power. Specifically meaning that in order for one to have privilege they must have power rigged in their favor.

When people start altering the definition of words things start to get weird. Just like anyone else when I come across someone whose interpretation of a term is different than my own I apply their way to the same situation that I apply my interpretation to. As anyone that has read my thoughts knows one of my favorite tests of privilege is in hiring practices.

Base assumption: I'm sure that anyone reading this will agree that getting hired just because they are ______ or not getting hired just because they are _____ is wrong.

One application of my interpretation of privilege would be a person getting hired over another just because they are _____. Adding power to the equation changes things up a bit. Historically men have had power over women as most people agree. Based on that interpretation hiring a man over a woman just because he is a man is a display of said male's privilege. At the same time though, hiring a woman over a man because she is a woman would not be a display of privilege. Here is where things get murky for me. How does historical advantage mitigate away a person's privilege of falling within an emplyers -ist practices?

If I'm hired just because I am black historical power or lack of historical power has nothing to do with. It means that I fall within the parameters of the employer's racist hiring practices. If I'm not hired because I'm a black historical power has nothing to do with it. It means that do not fall within the parameters of the employer's racist hiring practices.

What I don't see is how having or not having an historical advantage changes whether or not something is a display of privilege. Historical advantage will most certainly affect the odds of which displays of privilege (in this case -ist hiring practices) one will encounter (meaning that it is likely there are more hiring practices that are sexist against women than there are against men) in their career but I don't agree that historical advantage magically alters what is a display of privilege.

Monday, August 11, 2008

What do you do and why do you do it?

In recent months I've been getting my feet wet in the waters of various human rights groups/sides/movements or whatever they call themselves. I've seen men's rights advocates that want to see equality between the sexes. I've seen feminists that want equality between the sexes. I've GLBT (that's Gay Lesbian BiSexual Transexual) activists telling their stories and rasing awareness of their issues. I've seen people of color expressing their desires for a world free of racism. So many causes, so few resources.

So many in fact that my head spins over the fact that so many things are wrong with this world. How can anyone choose one specific cause while knowing that others exist? Yes ultimately they may intersect (since most of these movements about equality) but how does one manage to hone in on one cause and devote their resources to it.

So my question is: What is your activism and why do you do it?

Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Are you sure YOU aren't the one doing it wrong?

I suppose I have Daran of the Feminist Critics Blog for my recent efforts to get my thoughts straight or as he puts it, sharpen my saw.

Today's thought (of many I assure you) is about a post by Renee at Womanist Musings. In said post she talks about political correctness and the sensitivity training that companies go through. At first I was going to just make a comment but then I realized how long it was and decided to bring it here.

The part of her post that triggered this post:
Telling someone to be silent without engaging with them on the history of why the isms as they stand are harmful produces no lasting results. Instead, people further entrench themselves in their individual privileges as a form of armour against being spoken to, instead of with.

Which is why I've never liked the "Shut up. You're privileged." type of "activism" that some people use. If the person you claim to be enlightening is locked down and not allowed to interact then how can they learn? Of course they can't dominate the conversation but you can't snap at them when they try to speak either.

I'm sure alot of people are smuggly thinking, "That's why they need to shup up and listen." That's not always going to work. Its fact that for a lot of people they have to actually try something to get a feel for it and to understand it. (I've been done this myself in feminist discussions in an effort to understand where they are coming from.)

And this is just the reason why I despise all those blasted "troll lists" and "bingo cards" and other crap. Those are nothing more than clever (and I mean that VERY lossely) attempts at predicting what someone is going to say and to silence dissenting voices.

It would do well for "enlightened people" like that to come down off their high horses and actually talk to the people they are trying to enlighten instead of talking down at them and when they speak up claim that they are are the one(s) trying to speak from the high horse position.