I’ve seen a lot of posts talking about OWS, police brutality, race, gender, & intersectionality. Many of those posts include links to the famous stories of police brutality. And those stories are important & should be told. But, by only talking about those stories I worry that we’re giving the impression that police brutality is relatively rare in communities of color. I’ve posted in the past about the cop who called me a nigger when I was 12 & the time my (then) 13 year old husband was beaten up by a cop. But, those weren’t our only run ins with abusive police officers. Experience has taught me to worry about the cops. I think of them as a risk to navigate more than I think of them as people who are here to protect me or my family. My husband & I have already had the talks with our oldest son about how to act when he’s stopped by the cops. Notice I said when he’s stopped.

That’s because I have been stopped while doing everything from taking a walk to grocery shopping to helping someone move. My father in law runs a Medicar service that primarily caters to the elderly who need help getting from their homes to doctor’s appointments. My husband used to ride along to help him out, since it’s a family business. One day they were stopped by the police because some cop decided a white van leaving a hospital on the West Side of Chicago fit the description of a tan truck that had been involved in a robbery in the Loop. They forced them out of the vehicle at gunpoint while a bunch of elderly people watched & worried. When it became clear that they didn’t fit the description? The cops told them they were free to go and left. That’s it. No apology, no consideration for all the people in the vehicle, but then everyone involved was a POC.

Matter of fact, let me tell you about Kourtney Wilson. I’ve known her since she was a teenager. She’s a nice young lady who unfortunately has lupus. Two years ago she had a seizure, her roommate dialed 911 & when the paramedics came (despite being told about her health status), they manhandled her & had the police arrest her.  As if that wasn’t bad enough they took her all over the place (two different precinct houses & two different hospitals) so that she was denied medical treatment for 9 hours. Think about that for a second. NINE HOURS after she had the seizure she finally got the help she needed. And that’s a case that only made the local news & the blogosphere before vanishing into the Wayback machine to be dug up by people like me with a reason to know her name. Imagine being afraid to call an ambulance when someone you love needs one because they could be arrested for being sick. Imagine being killed in your own home like Kathryn Johnston or Aiyana Jones. Imagine being harassed or having a gun pulled on you just because you’re going about your day while being of color.

We don’t have to be at a protest, or actually fit the description of a suspect to have a negative interaction with the police. Officers like John Burge have tortured POC into confessing to crimes they didn’t commit & gotten away with it for decades. We know the police cannot be trusted. So, to see the police using pepper spray on protestors, or going out dressed in riot gear to evict them from encampments? Not at all a shock. I know some will say “Well now we know, & we’re trying to fix it for everyone” but you’ll pardon me if I don’t buy that the changes OWS is fighting for will extend to POC. Not when every time someone brings up race and OWS there is invariably a “It’s not about race, it’s about class. Why are you being divisive?” response from multiple people. POC of every class have to be concerned with the possibility of police brutality, & until OWS addresses that reality, how can it represent the entire 99%?

On Police Brutality, Living While Of Color, & Why Brutality At OWS isn’t Shocking -- Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

If you can  spare a few bucks (every dollar helps) please consider kickstarting this great film project!

Help Increase Nuanced Racial Representation in The Media -- Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

I meant to post this yesterday, but work things got in the way. Then the ever-wonderful Cleolinda posted the long, long post I was going to write and said everything I was going to say. So I’ll keep mine short. I suggest you click over to Cleolinda’s blog for the full story. Seriously.

A few days ago Rachel Manija Brown and Sherwood Smith wrote a guest post for the Genreville blog over at Publisher’s Weekly about their experience with an unnamed agent who asked them to make changes to their YA manuscript to erase the fact that a main POV character was gay. At least for the first book in the series. The pair went on to say that they’d heard that this thing with erasing gay characters in YA was something other authors experienced and thus they felt the need to write about it and bring the overall issue to light.

They did not name the agent or agency. They moved on from their specific example to the broader issue. They pointed out that this seemed to come from a concern over market forces rather than labeling anyone Homophobic or Gay Hating. If you don’t believe me, go read the original.

The post sparked a big conversation about the issue and I saw in the comments and on blogs and social networks that several other authors, published and not, talk their stories of having agents and/or editors tell them to remove gay characters from their YA.

Then Joanna Stampfel-Volpe, an agent with Nancy Coffey Literary & Media Representation, posted on Colleen Lindsay’s blog, The Swivet, outing her agency as the one in question (though claims she is not the specific agent in question) and essentially called Rachel and Sherwood liars. Under the guest post part, Colleen added this:

FACT: Both these writers already have their own agents. At least one of those agents reps YA books. So what does it say when the respective agents for both these well-established writers advise them to find a different agent for the book in question because neither of them wanted to rep it themselves?

It tells me that homophobia was most likely not the reason that this book has thus far not found representation.

And that made me see red because that just looks like a personal attack and an attempt to dismiss what Rachel and Sherwood said by saying that their book is no good. Further, on my Facebook page, Colleen claimed that she knew other agents who turned the book down because it had structural issues.

I like and respect Colleen a lot, but I’m calling bullshit on this. Though she says she didn’t mean for the above words to be an attack, that’s what it looks like. And, even if other agents passed on the book for structural reasons, that does not mean that the conversation as represented by Rachel and Sherwood didn’t happen. One does not preclude the other.

Putting that aside, at this point we’ve reached He Said/She Said, and it comes down to which side you believe. Stampfel-Volpe said that at no time did they say they wanted to eliminate the character because of the gayness. Rachel and Sherwood maintain that this is indeed what was said.

For my part, I believe Rachel and Sherwood. My main criteria being that my interactions with Rachel online and the interactions and friendships she has with people I know and trust do not lead me to believe she would lie in this way. I don’t know Sherwood well, but nothing I have ever heard from her good friends leads me to believe she would perpetuate a hoax for publicity or lie for profit.

Rose Fox of Genreville apparently felt the same way. Colleen mentions something about how the piece wasn’t fact checked, but how was that supposed to happen? The agency wasn’t named. And even though there are claims that the gossip identified the agency, the majority of us wouldn’t know without their self-outing. These are not the kind of “facts” that can be easily checked because the other party can say “That didn’t happen” and they could be lying just as easily as the authors. Rose used her judgment based on what she knows about the two women and, so far, I haven’t seen any reason for her to have doubted that.

Additionally, Stampfel-Volpe’s post is filled with the kind of red flags I see every day as an anti-prejudice activist. The tone is too defensive¹ and unconvincing. Plus, what exactly do you expect the agency to say? “Yes, we did that”? No. Hell no.

Think about it. If they did request the changes Rachel and Sherwood claim and did so because of market forces and such, they wouldn’t admit to it especially if they aren’t homophobic themselves. It’s just like the whole cover controversy with Justine Larbalestier’s Liar. I’m sure that her publishers are not racist people, but they put a non-black person on the cover of her book at first because they assumed that systemic racist attitudes would hurt sales. That is not something you want to admit in public, because it’s gross. It happens, though. We all know it happens. And thanks to #YesGayYA we know that the erasure of gay characters in YA happens, too. And it’s still gross.

No one wants to admit when they give in to prejudiced bullshit.

The other reason I just don’t believe Stampfel-Volpe is that she made this whole thing personal:

One of our agents is being used as a springboard for these authors to gain attention for their project. She is being exploited. But even worse, by basing their entire article on untruths, these authors have exploited the topic.

Someone explain to me how the agent in question is being exploited when he/she wasn’t named. Also, bringing a topic to light is not exploitative. The kind of people I see using language like that are the folks who try to tell me that by bringing up racism or “inventing” it when it’s not there, I am the one being racist. This is a classic defense. It may even be on the BINGO card. When I see people using this kind of language, I immediately distrust what they have to say. I’ve been on the receiving end of this too often to not recognize it.

I suggest you read the original Genreville post and the other excellent links at Cleolinda’s blog before you come down on one side or the other, especially if you don’t know any of the people involved. The readiness of some people to immediate jump to HOAX! based on absolutely nothing but one person’s word would astonish me if I didn’t already have plenty of experience watching people readily dismiss real prejudice that exists right in front of them as not-prejudice. It’s so much more comforting to think that someone is just a lying liar than that there’s a serious problem to tackle.

Tackling problems requires thought, effort, and often sacrifice. Who wants to deal with that?

My Thoughts On The Latest #YesGayYA Developments -- Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

Footnotes

1. Especially the parts added by Colleen, who emphatically claims that the agent is a good friend and not homophobic, even though Rachel and Sherwood didn’t say he/she was. A person might not be personally homophobic, but still perpetuate the idea that mainstream readers are too homophobic to deal with gay charcaters. It’s a systemic problem, and one need not be personally prejudiced in order to bow to the system.

TRIGGER WARNING for descriptions of abuse of people with disabilities. Hell, the whole darn book is a trigger warning for abuse, rape and other triggering stuff.

Description: Photo shows the cover of a book. Two people of color are drawn, holding hands and looking at each other on a balcony. The person on the right has short curly hair and brown skin and is wearing a green t-shirt and jeans. The person on the left has long curly hair caught up in a hair tie at the back of the head and also has brown skin. The person is wearing a light purple t-shirt and yellow belt and brown pants. Both people are wearing bracelets. In the distance are electricity poles and houses. The background colour is a warm orangey red. The text says: “The Revolution Starts At Home: Confronting Intimate Partner Violence within Activist Communities. Edited by Ching-In Chen, Jai Dulani and Leah Lakshmi Piepzna- Smarasinha. Preface by Andrea Smith.”

Attempts to deal with intimate partner violence for able-bodied folk are pretty woefully inadequate. However, as Peggy Munson testifies during this searing chapter in The Revolution Starts at Home: Confronting Intimate Partner Violence Within Activist Communities, attempts to deal with disabled persons who are surviving intimate partner violence are in many ways non-existent and at best are sadly lacking in many areas.

Description: Photo shows two pages of a book. On the left hand side is the chapter’s name: Seeking Asylum (in capital letters and black font): On Intimate Partner Violence and Disability. (in what resembles italics and black font.) The Author’s name is Peggy Munson. There is a large grey-coloured, stylized capital ‘S’ that goes almost from the top to the bottom of the page, passing through the word ‘seeking’. On the right hand side of the book, the essay begins on the lower third of the page.

Ms. Munson’s essay weaves her arguments into her personal narrative of her experience with abusers and the broken systems that kept her tied to them. She then buttresses her line of reasoning with copious examples, all testament to the fact that the social justice community is woefully unable to offer much help in terms of providing care to survivors, enabling them to report and escape abuse or holding abusers accountable. Some of the points that she makes include:

1. Societal ableism, which too many social justice seekers have not properly interrogated; makes abuse of people with disabilities much worse because abusers are often the only people who make the effort to provide proper life-sustaining care to people with disabilities, in order to exploit and abuse them:

To understand how disability functions in Intimate Partner Violence, one has to shelve denial about how deeply inaccessible US culture can be to people with some disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act … polarizes disabilities into the “reasonable” and “unreasonable” by using the term “reasonable accommodation” to denote just how far requisite allowances must go. … Some disabilities cross a line by becoming — by cultural standards– too unwieldly to accomodate, resulting in a warped and deadly triage of the “reasonably” disabled who get some human rights, and the “unreasonably disabled” who don’t.

…

People from social service agencies frequently tell me that my disability would place unreasonable demands on everyone else.

…

In a culture that shuns and penalizes human vulnerability and provides at best an inadequate and spotty caregiving net, people with disabilities often rely on their abusers for food, bathing, toileting, transportation and other survival needs. Many caregivers–not just partners–have intimate access to the lives of people with disabilities. But leaving an abusive relationship can be imminently life threatening because victims might lose sustaining care, and replacing this can be next to impossible unless their are non-abusive family members or friends willing to provide it. If IPV organizations don’t understand this pressing need for transitional (or long-term) hands on care, a disabled person will often not be able to leave.

In short, we have managed to set up a society in which the more you need help, the less human rights you are entitled to. The closer to able-bodied you are, the easier it is to navigate the world of the ablebodied in order to get care, to avoid abuse and report abuse. As you become more vulnerable however, you become less able to access proper care, negotiate abuse-reporting channels that are exhausting for able-bodied people, nevermind people with disabilities; and have to contend with ableist assumptions about what abuse is and how you should be able to deal with it; thus leaving you at the mercy of abusers.

And this cultural indifference and callousness plays out in situations like the general inaccessibility of the legal system; here represented by Ms. Munson’s experience of trying to file a restraining order against one of her many abusers, only to find herself unable to because the courthouse required that she be there in person to go through the process, even though she cannot leave her house because of extreme chemical sensitivity. In addition, society is generally reluctant to incorporate universal design when we build our buildings; with the result that domestic violence shelters are unable to properly accommodate people with disabilities, who are among the most vulnerable of abuse victims:

Many IPV organizations are in fact performing oppressive acts of neglect and exclusion that mimic those of abusers, by denying access (not providing materials in braille, not installing wheelchair ramps, not enforcing strict fragrance free polices) … using a tired social justice argument that its too hard, too expensive, or too embarrassing to ask others for accommodation requirements, so that they avoid accountability for their marginalization of people with disabilities.

Then there is the lack of accessible communication methods with IPV specialists depending on the disability, IPV organizations not knowing the laws that would protect their clients, (like the fact that the state requires that abuse of people with disabilities be reported to the relevant authorities), and appointed advocates who have not been educated as to the different ways in which abuse can manifest among people with disabilities, nor about the different methods of communication that need to be put in place to accommodate them.

By and large, it is not Stockholm syndrome that holds a disabled person to an abusive caregiver, but material and often elaborate acts of acts deprivation and torture. When some has a disability, these acts are easy to inflict (and obscure from the point of view of others): they may just be a matter of hiding someone’s painkillers, or sabotaging his TTY (text telephone), or — most insidously — becoming and indispensable aid so that he cannot function without the provided care. Disabled individuals cannot just get up and go… Whereas a safety plan for an ablebodied person may involve words like run, walk, call or drive, these action verbs may not be possible for a quadriplegic, a heart failure patient, someone with a brain stem injury, or someone with a cognitive impairment. It is naive to assume that a disabled person can be ushered into a world of safety simply be leaving her abuser, when the world at large is full of physical, emotional, economic and cultural barriers.”

(As a related aside, a commenter on a Racialicious article named Empower and Educate has similar remarks re:deaf persons and domestic violence here)

2. The idea that taking care of people with disabilities is not a communal priority in a society that equally values all of inhabitants, but a rare and heroic action, worthy of extreme pats on the back by an ableist society and gratefulness on the part of the people with disabilities who are lucky enough to receive this help. Society expects that any caregiving should be primarily the family’s responsibility. Ms. Munson’s family refuse to step up to the plate, so Ms. Munson was forced to rely on partners willing to embark on a romantic relationship with her in order to get sustained care, because caregivers who were paid to take care of her were hard to keep, did not learn about her illness in detail and did not have enough hours. Too many times, the tradeoff was that those partners were abusive. The fact that society thinks that an able-bodied intimate partner willing “put up” with a disabled partner is worthy of near sainthood means that people with disabilities are already on the wrong foot when abuse rears its horrific head. Abusers can use the perception of their work as uncommon generosity to help them delegitimize the survivor’s voice. Also, more sympathy goes to the caregiver than the the person with disabilities, who is seen as a burden. Our old friend victim-blaming makes a devastating appearance here as:

…disabled people are more likely to be blamed for their abuse, because they are perceived as difficult to be around or care for, and ‘caregiver stress’ is considered a legitimate excuse for bad behaviour.

It really should go without saying that this is not at all acceptable, but apparently it needs to be said, because people actually believe this, and act accordingly. Even those in the social justice community, who should know better!

Ms. Munson continues on to point out that nothing less than a fullscale reorganization of how we view people with disabilities is going to lead to change. When we start actually viewing people with disabilities as full members of society worthy of care and respect, then we will be able to listen to and act with them to address their concerns. She then closes by offering a number of suggestions for IPV organizations to make the drastic improvements needed to tackle the absolutely horrendous scale of the problem, and offers suggestions for intersectionality work between organizations that deal with race, poverty, sex orientation, prison abolition and organizations that work on the welfare of people with disabilities.

This wasn’t the first essay that I read this week, but it was the most wrenching, informative, lay-it-on-the-line and kick-you-in-the-pants one so far. I did get a slightly “rambling” vibe from the piece when I first read it, but after re-reading it several times, I think that its simply very comprehensive. The language is not academic; in fact, I don’t think that any of the language in the book is academic and the average reader should be able to grasp the points being made quite easily. I’d say that if like me you were fairly uniformed about the topic, this essay should serve as a good starting place for you to get your information.

I did have several thoughts about Ms. Munson’s lack of ability to acquire sufficient caregiving, but I think I will make that a separate post for next time.

Previously in this series: An Idiosyncratic Review of The Revolution Starts at Home: Confronting Intimate Violence in Activist Communities Part One

The Revolution Starts at Home Review Part 2: Peggy Munson’s “Seeking Asylum: On Intimate Partner Violence and Disability.” -- Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

So I have come to grips with the fact that I am not going to read this book all the way through in one sitting, as is my wont. In fact, starting from the front and reading it story by poem by article by interview to the end is not going to work, either. So I decided to stop fighting my brain’s agenda and read and review it, one article at a time; any article that my brain finds interesting this day, this week, this month. Hopefully this will work out so that writers and readers block will be avoided, and I will be able to comment at will on all the small things that strike me as I read the book, as well as the big things.

Let me first comment that this book is beautiful. When I impatiently ripped open the envelope in which it arrived, I was struck with awe and appreciation for the gorgeous frontal illustration.

Description: Photo shows the cover of a book. Two people of color are drawn, holding hands and looking at each other on a balcony. The person on the right has short curly hair and brown skin and is wearing a green t-shirt and jeans. The person on the left has long curly hair caught up in a hair tie at the back of the head and also has brown skin. The person is wearing a light purple t-shirt and yellow belt and brown pants. Both people are wearing bracelets. In the distance are electricity poles and houses. The background colour is a warm orangey red. The text says: “The Revolution Starts At Home: Confronting Intimate Partner Violence within Activist Communities. Edited by Ching-In Chen, Jai Dulani and Leah Lakshmi Piepzna- Smarasinha. Preface by Andrea Smith.”

Curly-haired people of color in simple tshirts and pants, hand in hand, in front of houses that weren’t ridiculous mansions! I admired the handwriting-emulating font that proclaimed the title, and I soaked in the colors and the details of the artwork. And then I opened the book and promptly swooned at the title page design.

Description: Photo shows two pages of a book. On the left page is a gray coloured-heart. The heart is designed to look like its been drawn with a paintbrush, the heart is somewhat faint in places. The right hand side of the book showcases the title page. In somewhat loopy, thin cursive the words “the revolution starts at home” are written in lower case letters. The words “Confronting Intimate Violence Within Activist Communities” are written in all capital letters in smaller, somewhat wide script below that. Below that and to the right, the words “Edited by” are in tiny capital letters, and the words Ching-In Chen, Jail Dulani, and Leah Lakshim Piepzna-Smarasinha” follow, one name after another, in the usual manner of name-writing. (First letter of name capitalised, the rest of letters in lower case.) There is a large space, the further down the page, the words “Preface by Andrea Smith”, follow the same format. Finally the name of the publisher, “South End Press” starts on the left hand side of the page, using the same lower case loopy cursive that was used for the book title. Below this in small capitals are the physical locations of South End Press and its motto: “Brooklyn, NY:: Boston MA:: Read. Write. Revolt.”

I couldn’t help it, I’d just read the paperback versions of Miss Rythmn: The Autobiography on Ruth Brown, which has a positively HIDEOUS cover design. I cannot EVEN with that arrangement of colours, much less the choice of typeset! The disservice to the story is a bloody crime, frankly, and the contrast between that disaster and the graceful, thoughtful and all around aesthetically pleasing setup of The Revolution Starts at Home was very. VERY sharp. I mean, I had design-gasms over the content page arrangement:

…nevermind the moment of supreme happiness I experienced when I laid eyes on the chapter page announcing the preface and its author!

blockquote>Description: Photo shows two pages of a book. On the left hand side is the chapter’s name: Preface (in capital letters and black font). The Author’s name is Andrea Smith. There is a large grey-coloured, stylized capital ‘P’ that goes almost from the top to the bottom of the page, moving from the middle of the page to end up at the far left. On the right hand side of the book, the essay begins on the lower third of the page.

This book is aesthetically pleasing to read, is what I am saying, and its splendid look added immeasurably to my reading experience.

Of course, if the book were just aesthetically pleasing, I wouldn’t be reccing it. And dear readers? Even though I haven’t finished it yet, I unreservedly rec this book to all and sundry. For me, this is the higher level of analysis and documenting of alternative strategies-that-work that is helping me not sink into despair when I read ten news stories a day of our piece of shit excuse for a justice system failing poor people, transpeople, lgb people, women, men, migrants, sex workers and other vulnerable people at various intersections in our society.

For the last few months I have been becoming more and more depressed and frustrated with current affairs and many people’s insistent refusal to “love their neighbours as themselves.” Or at the very least to refrain from gleefully crushing everyone who is not as privileged as them under their heels while smiling viciously; some of them going so far as to say that they are doing this in the name of their assorted gods while they are at it! And the most hurtful part of all this is to watch so-called progressives, who are supposed to be on my side, perpetuating the same fucking thing that they gleefully call out conservative assholes for doing. The rape apologism of Naomi Wolf in defense of Master Julian Assange, for instance, has been making my head explode in rage for the past several months. The DSK case and the vilification of his accuser is impossible for me to begin to comment on, because of the utter rage-blackout I have as I watch the people in his party (Socialists!!!) and his high profile friends and so many other people in normal society come to his aid, with racist and misogynistic tactics that still find so much resonance not only in the overall culture, but in supposedly we-want-to-make-the-world-a-better-place circles; that sometimes dear god I wonder just how far we have actually come? When there is little provision made for the accommodation of disabled survivors of violence in domestic violence shelters, how far have we come? Do we even know what disabled survivors need in order to function? Have we thought about it? When the almost apocalyptic rape crisis that faces Indigenous women in Canada and the United States remains rarely mentioned in our mainstream news; and floats in and out of the progressive news outlets, how far have we come? When time and time again a progressive who is awesome on fighting some axis of oppression proceeds to beat/rape/otherwise assault their significant other, yet so many other progressives promptly ignore/back the abuser/have no idea what to do and thus allows the situation to continue; how far have we come?

Our system clearly does not work. And the answer of building new prisons, and inserting the police ever more directly into communities that they are already causing devastating damage; of handing people over to a “justice system” that insists on being blind, not to perserve fairness as that old myth goes, but to the humanity of anyone who isn’t a rich white heterosexual man; is the equivalent of pouring tons of nitroglycerin into a raging street wide fire. And yet, we all, defenders and challengers of the status quo alike; have grown up in this system of courts and police and privileged male newspaper writers who think that kids are responsible for their own rape, and damaged communities who perpetuate even more devastation on the next generation, and assortedly priviledged progressive activists who claim that they just CAN’T understand why they have SO MUCH TROUBLE recruiting minorities of all sorts in their fights against “the man”! Of course, they thoroughly ignore the fact that perpetuating gender violence and racism and classism and ableism and other isms on fellow activists and potential recruits is replicating the sytems of oppression that they were supposedly seeking allies to fight to subdue in the first place, making them..um, not much better than “the man”!!!

Which is why when I read Andrea Smith’s Preface to the work, I practically got up and cheered at these sentences:

As the editors of this volume remind us, the revolution does indeed start at home. This phrase should not be interpreted as a depoliticsed call to focus on self-development instead of building movements to to dismantle white supremacy, capitalism and imperalism. Rather, this phrase reminds us that for our movemnst to be successful, they must preconfigure the societies we wish to build.

Let me tell you, this sentence made me rejoice. This sentence made me dance and sing and shout (in my mind, since I was walking to work at the time!) This was like water to a parched soul, because ever since I had written Why Didn’t You Call The Police, the views of a commenter who basically stated that the justice system that we had was the only alternative kept reverberating in my mind. And although I was aware of several places that were working on ways to overturn this masquerade of a justice system, I had not yet encountered the clarifying philosophy that could motivate me to make another linkspam that pulled all these disparate internet locations together. You see, I too was stuck in the box of the status quo.

I grew up a middle class young woman who knew that my class signifiers including my speech and ability to interact with authority was likely to protect me from the worse excesses of the police, and who was taught that the poor people who we saw on the news protesting yet another shooting/beating/rape by said enforcers of law and order had it coming, the criminals. I have been working rather diligently since then to get rid of that mindset, but I had trouble visualizing what the alternative/s were. I knew that there was a lot that I was missing, but I didn’t know where to look. And that sentence right there was precisely what I have been needing to animate my imagination and hope for a future free of these shenanigans. But wait! Ms. Andrea Smith wrote even MORE awesome:

…movements must disperse with the idea that we can worry about gender violence “after the revolution” because gender violence is a primary strategy for white supremacy, colonialism and capitalism. Heteropatriarchy is the logic by which all other forms of socila hierarchy become naturalized. The same logic underlying the belief that men should dominate women on the basis of biology (a logic that presupposes a gender binary system) underlies the belief that the elites of society naturally dominate everyone else. Those who have an interest in dismantling settler colonialism, white supremacy, and capitalism must by necessity have a stake in dismantling heteropatriarchy.

Hear Hear! Interestingly enough, I had been coming to that conclusion all on my lonesome, but seeing it more elegantly put in black and white solidified my amorphous thoughts, and ignited my interest and hope once again. So if you were aware that we can do much better than this, but weren’t quite sure how or where or who to begin with…join me, and read. this. book.

Subsequently in this series: The Revolution Starts at Home Review Part 2: ‘Seeking Asylum: On Intimate Partner Violence and Disability.’

An Idiosyncratic Review of The Revolution Starts at Home: Confronting Intimate Violence in Activist Communities Part One -- Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

In the wake of the Fuck You Jim Butcher post a lot of the “It’s fantasy, don’t get offended” rhetoric is circulating again. Nothing new, but I’m a little perplexed by the argument that using real racial slurs (like Injun or Tar Baby) for fictional characters means that those real slurs are somehow neutered. That using real cities as backdrops and rewriting them to erase millions of people of color doesn’t mean anything…because it’s fiction. That including real sexist tropes & real rape culture is somehow a-okay because…it’s fiction. Fiction that is built on real racism, real sexism, & real classism is likely to be real offensive.

No one is saying that authors must write books that please everyone. That’s impossible. Fiction is supposed to be an escape for readers, (that is especially true of genre fiction) and when you use real social issues in your work you need to be aware of that fact. After all when your idea of an escape is a world where those social issues are present and often unaddressed or poorly handled? That says something about you. Don’t like what people think it says or that they’re angry when they discuss it? Might be time to examine your work and yourself a little more closely. Among other things, ask why your fiction needs to be rooted in real ‘isms. And just what are you & your readers trying to escape?

Fantasy, Reality, & ‘Ism’s -- Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

Newer readers of this blog may not be aware that, in addition to being angry and black and female, I also write fiction. Science fiction and fantasy, in particular. Several years ago I attended a 6-week intensive writing workshop called Clarion West, which is an organization that brings together promising new writers with amazing and talented established writers so that the former can learn from the latter. It was a wonderful experience and I learned a lot. In fact, my experience at CW planted the seed that would eventually grow into this blog, though in a very circuitous way.

The workshop is a non-profit effort, and though students do pay tuition, it doesn’t cover all expenses. So every year they host a write-a-thon to raise money.

For those of you who don’t know, a write-a-thon is a lot like a marathon. Instead of sponsoring a person per mile, you sponsor them per week. If the sponsored reaches their writing goal for the week, you pledge to send a certain amount of money. There are six weeks of write-a-thoning to mirror the six weeks of workshopping at Clarion West, so it’s also a bit of a nostalgia trip for those of us who went in years past.

Why am I raising money for CW (besides the fact that I went)? Three big reasons.

1. As I said, my time at the workshop was wonderful and I want to do my part in supporting an organization that has supported me. The opportunity afforded to students who attend a Clarion-style workshop goes beyond just having 6 stories critiqued. It’s also about meeting people in the genre community who are generous with their support, friendship, and talent. Just as with any other profession, networking is important for writers who aspire to become working professionals.
2. The board and administrators of the workshop are dedicated to increasing diversity in the genre by attempting to make sure writers from all backgrounds are aware of Clarion West and aware that there is financial aid for those who need it. Entrance into the workshop is by merit, but CW understands that if you throw the net wide and do your best to get applicants beyond the white, male, and upper class majority, then the cream of the crop will naturally end up being more diverse.
3. Clarion West tuition is high. An anonymous donor paid my way the year I went. I do what I can to repay the generosity of that person by paying it forward and supporting the workshop and its students.

Now for the part when I ask you for stuff. I’m in the process of gathering sponsors right now. This year I’m focusing on getting a lot of micro sponsors — people who can’t afford to donate a lot of money but care spare something small. Do you have $5 or $15 you can give? Can you pledge $2/week? $10/week? Every bit helps. If you’d like to sponsor me, please click here to let me know and read all the details.

If you’re a writer (in any genre, including non-fiction), you can also participate in the Write-a-thon. If you do sign up and you get three sponsors or raise $100/week, you’ll be entered into a drawing for an eReader. Details about all that here.

The write-a-thon begins on June 19th. Stick around the blog and I’ll let you in on exactly what I intend to write….

Clarion West Write-a-thon 2011 -- Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

We have a lot of conversations around masculinity now since kid #1 is pubescent. At not quite 12 he’s starting to feel his way through what kind of man he wants to be and having parents that he feels he can talk to is helpful, but occasionally traumatic for all concerned. We’ve talked about sex, drugs, booze, and money at various points over the last few years. All those conversations were tough but the “Don’t be a rapist” convo was possibly the most awkward of my life.

When the story first broke about the 11 year old girl being assaulted in Texas he asked me about it. Why? Well he’s 11 and he has a ton of 11 year old female friends. Since we’ve been pretty open about the mechanics of sex he was upset & confused at the idea of a girl like one of his friends being forced to “do it” with anyone, much less with a group of strangers.

After the initial conversation about why rape happens, and a discussion of the harm it can do, I left the door open for him to bring any other questions to me or his father. Over the last few months we’ve talked about kinds of rape as he’s seen them mentioned on the news (date, stranger, corrective, etc.) and why people blame the victims. Lately, the conversation has turned to stuff like Slut Walks & how telling women to live a certain way in order to avoid being raped doesn’t do anything to stop rape.

He’s having conversations with his Dad of the “No means no”, “Alcohol, emotional upset, drugs, etc. can impair judgment”, & “Don’t hang out with guys that think a girl has to be convinced to have sex” variety. At one point during the course of these conversations I got a little worried about whether the topics were too heavy for him. Then I had a chat with the mother of his best female friend who reminded me that this is the age where girls start talking about it, because this is when the warnings about how to behave to avoid trouble really start pouring in as their bodies start changing. So, I guess if the topic isn’t too heavy for his female friends it isn’t too heavy for him either. Is it okay if it feels too heavy for me right now?

Don’t Be A Rapist: Of Survivor Parenting & Young Males -- Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

xposted

From: Vegans of Color

Sister Vegan needs help finishing her Phd

Sistah Vegan Needs Help to Finish Her PhD from Sistah Vegan on Vimeo.
xposted

Has anyone bought her book? Would you to write a review? Drop me a comment please?

In this video I am asking for your help. I would like to finish my PhD and need some help.

Paypal email donation: breezeharper (at) gmail (dot) com.

UPDATE: As of May 31, 2011:

Donated: $880

Needed for completion of goal: $9,120

Deadline: September 2011 (so I Can register for 2011-2012 academic year)

Other creative ways to help would be to buy a personalized signed copy of Sistah Vegan book directly from me if you don’t already have a copy or want to give it as a gift.

Other ways to help at this link and at  her blog

Sistah Vegan talks about her dissertation:

Sistah Vegan: On Italy, Whiteness Research, and Being a Vegan Tourist Part II from Sistah Vegan on Vimeo.

Here’s More from Sister Vegan:

“Animals belong in cages”: Normalizing domination in Children’s toys, books and cartoons

“Animals belong in cages”: Normalizing domination in Children’s toys, books and cartoons from Sistah Vegan on Vimeo.

Conserving Land&Water, Unethical Food Choices? Yosemite’s Contradiction

Conserving Land&Water, Unethical Food Choices? Yosemite’s Contradiction from Sistah Vegan on Vimeo.

I spent the last 8 days camping at Yosemite National Park in California with my family. Here is a 10 minute long video about my observations on who Yosemite pays to bring food into the park. I reflect on how the highly processed and packaged “foods” I found in stores and restaurants were completely contradictory to the supposed “conserve water, land, and respect wildlife animals” that the park professes. I have to say that I was really broken-hearted by how the choices that Yosemite makes to support the products of corporate capitalist companies and agri-businesses that are notorious for polluting land, wasting water, disrespecting animals, and causing ill health to the humans in environment ‘outside of clean and pristine Yosemite.’

It was pretty windy when I recorded this so I highly recommend that you listen to this on high WITH EARPHONES. Sorry about that.

Sistah Vegan Needs Revolutionary Black Female Vegan Activists

Sistah Vegan Needs Revolutionary Black Female Vegan Activists from Sistah Vegan on Vimeo.

In this video, I speak of my my call for help to incorporate black female vegans who merge a black feminist/critical race/ vegan consciousness into their social justice activism. If you think you fit the criteria, please send me an email at breezeharper (at) gmail (dot) com . I am looking for critical reflections from black female vegans activists who offer open minded critiques of racism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, classism, normative whiteness and speak of how opposition against these ‘isms’ are incorporated into their vegan consciousness and activism.

Intersections: Black female slave vivisection, non-human animal experimentation, and the foundation of Western gynecology

Intersections: Black female slave vivisection, non-human animal experimentation, and the foundation of Western gynecology from Sistah Vegan on Vimeo.

In this video, I speak of how Black female slaves were forced to undergo ‘vivisection’ by Dr. Marion Sims, the ‘father’ of Western gynecology. I also speak of how this fits into colonizing both ‘the other’ (Non-white peoples and nature) and how vivisection on non-human animals today is connected to the interlocking system of oppression and suffering that allowed Dr. Sims to repeatedly cut into black female slave’s vaginas (without anesthesia, remorse, or regret). You can email me at breezeharper (at) gmail (dot) com as well as leave comments on my blog where you can also find this video at wp.me/?pzDsy-gk

Veganism Beyond the white mid-class grammar: Language of the hip hop generation and Supanova Slom

Veganism Beyond the white mid-class grammar: Language of the hip hop generation and Supanova Slom from Sistah Vegan on Vimeo.

In this video I explore the work of African American vegan, anti-corporate kitchen, hip hop conscious, holistic health activist Supa Nova Slom. He is focused on addressing hip hop generation of black and brown folk. I think that his work is great for this demographic, but I also feel strongly that it is necessary for the plethora of white middle class able-bodied ‘post-racial’ vegans who send me messages or come up to me after I give a lecture, claiming that black and brown people aren’t interested in veganism, animal liberation, or holistic health activism.
TO COMMENT ON THIS VIDEO, PLEAE GO TO MY BLOG HERE, WHERE THE VIDEO IS ALSO POSTED. YOU CAN FIND THE BOOKS AND MUSIC LISTED THAT I SPEAK ABOUT”: wp.me/?pzDsy-gM

And more at her Sistah Vegan Blog, Mobile Me
Has anyone bought her book? Would you to write a review? Please contact me in the comments.

Can we help the kickass Sistah Vegan out? -- Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

here

Via: Racialicious which says

I can’t recommend Silence Choices highly enough, especially in light of how others are trying to dictate how Black women should feel about exercising our reproductive rights and are trying their damnedest to make sure we don’t have access to reproductive options. But just don’t take my word for it. This is what Professor Dorothy Roberts, author of Killing the Black Body, has to say about the documentary: “Silent Choices explores not only black women’s personal and political struggles around reproductive freedom, but also the complexities of abortion too often ignored by the mainstream media. Silent Choices is essential viewing for students, scholars, and activists interested in reproductive justice for all women.”
For more information about Faith, her work, and more on Silent Choices, click here.MORE

PSA: Faith Pennick’s Silent Choices (about Black women and abortion) screens free today only -- Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman