I'm furious. I have felt like throwing my beautiful macpro against a wall all day, and this thing is my baby. My first stop of the day is always checking up with the girls over at Feministing to see whats been going on. Since the 18th, I have been bombarded by information on the most recent Supreme Court abortion decision. To tell you the truth, I was really reluctant and nervous to read about it for fear of becoming an angry woman on a mission to be annoyingly persistent.
I have allowed myself to read the information. I must admit that although the news was shocking and infuriating, Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote a kick ass dissent. You can find the entire case here as well as argument for the case here.
The opinion of the court, offered by Chief Justice Roberts is quite extensive, and should only be attempted by devoted and serious readers. Cuncurring, we have Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia saying that
the Court's abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade...has no basis in the Constitution.
They are right in one respect, that there is no mention of women let alone women's health issues in the constitution. I'm sure that their point was not to reaffirm the need for an ERA, but I see the need for one, so that maybe, we WILL be included in the constitution. I think it is far past due to become legally and constitutionally equal.
I will not discuss this topic further because it only makes me more angry. Although, from the arguments, we have Clement beginning the procedure with:
Congress held six hearings over four different Congreses and heard from dozens of witnesses in determining that partial-birth abortions are never medically necessary, pose health risks, and should be banned.
I am surprised and fairly upset at the usage of 'never'. I do not believe that such a statement is accurate, or furthermore, necessary. Although, I did say I was done talking about this.
What kills me, is that this is a COMPLETE turnaround from all decisions since Roe v. Wade. I can guarantee you, however, that we need a democratic president so that we can get more humanitarians in there!
According to The Independent, there is a very amazing potential breakthrough in science! No dicks necessary! According to recent research, male bone marrow can be used to create artificial sperm. Some scientists believe that the creation of sperm through female bone marrow is just as possible. Although an OK is needed from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Ethics Board, how amazing is this?! It is believed that this kind of technology can be used to allow lesbian couples to have children that are biologically their own. However, the sperm produced by women will not allow for the reproduction of males; only female children could potentially be born, which I don't see as a bad thing, but I do believe that the men of this world will panic thinking that lesbians will take over the world and the male half of the species will disappear! hehe :) Check it out:
But the results also raise the prospect of being able to take bone-marrow tissue from women and coaxing the stem cells within the female tissue to develop into sperm cells, said Professor Karim Nayernia of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
Creating sperm from women would mean they would only be able to produce daughters because the Y chromosome of male sperm would still be needed to produce sons. The latest research brings the prospect of female-only conception a step closer.
"Theoretically is it possible," Professor Nayernia said. "The problem is whether the sperm cells are functional or not. I don't think there is an ethical barrier, so long as it's safe. We are in the process of applying for ethical approval. We are preparing now to apply to use the existing bone marrow stem cell bank here in Newcastle. We need permission from the patient who supplied the bone marrow, the ethics committee and the hospital itself."
There are times that I have more anger in me than I know what to do with. Man, I need to start a blog one of these days. It's either that or starting a violent revolution.
Just kidding about latter point.
However, in all seriousness. The last two weeks or so, with the Imus incident and all, got me thinking and thinking really hard. First of all, I was angry that his comments turned more so into a race issue than a sexist AND racist issue. Because you see, a whole lot of women felt that this was not their fight, that it had nothing to do with them, after all, they weren’t nappy headed. They aren’t Black. Damn, I am too fuckin' pissed to even cover that point.
Anyway, I too decided to pick on the “nappy” issue, because it branches out...to uglier places.
You see, I am nappy headed. It got me thinking, and thinking really hard about beauty and race and where I fall in the hierarchy. Thanks to Imus, I suppose I am barely hanging onto the lowest level. This society, perhaps more so than any other and I am open to correction, has a very twisted view of what is beautiful. The more euro centric, the better, is the beauty measuring stick.
Why was hair even a part of this insult? Can you imagine him speaking of a team that is dominantly white and saying “straight/wavy/curly headed hoes?” wait…what? See this is what gets me.
Nappy equals ugliness. And since the team is mostly black, “nappy” has to be a defining point of this insult, black “man like” ugliness in these women and trust me this was more than just the women being athletes and thus having the “stereotypical” male physique…this is about black women’s lack of feminine qualities as they don’t measure up to white women. Unless they looked like the Beyonces and Halle Barrys and the selected other few who are dark but not too dark, but if they are that kind of dark then they must make up for it by fitting other euro centric traits.
But this is about hair.
Beautiful hair is long and flowing and preferably blonde. If you must, make it curly, but not so curly that it’s “nappy” but wavy is preferable. I chuckled to myself when I realized all the girls on the team, from what I could see, had bone straight chemically processed hair. However, underneath it all those girls were still nappy headed. They are wannabes. They have fried, over processed and straightened out their naps and they are still nappy headed. Still ugly. Fail.
This might come as a shock, but to most African American women (though there is now a movement towards accepting ones natural hair), hair is more than just hair, though some will try to tell you otherwise. But if you question them enough, hitting all the right buttons, they’ll break down and tell you it’s not. Hair is almost tied into self worth. Why would anyone burn his or her scalps raw? Risk permanent hair loss every 6-8 weeks to make their hair do something it’s not meant to do? If it’s just a “hair” style, why is seeing a woman with a natural head of hair almost as rare as pigs flying?
I have used the word “nappy” numerous times now and I have flinched every time. You see, I have not “taken” the word back yet. It’s not a “beautiful” word that describes my beautiful self yet. Because when it comes from people like Imus it still feels like pouring salt on wounds. In fact, it doesn’t even have to be Imus, it can be a group of my closest friends. A while back a few friends and I were heading somewhere, they are all of Asian descent. Somehow the conversation turned into hair and how one of the girl’s hair felt nappy and not as soft as her sister (ok, the girl had what I saw as Barbie doll hair). Simple right? Nothing offensive, yet I felt hurt. Deeply hurt. That word was used in negative context, the girl’s hair is 500 times softer than mine and here they were using this word negatively on hers, what do they think of mine? How do they feel about mine? Quite simply, I am an example of what not to be. Fail.
It suddenly occurred to me, for the millionth time mind you; that almost every single adjective ever that serves to describe someone who is of African descent has a negative connotation to them. “Dark skinned,” “Big/wide nose,” “large lips”… “Nappy hair.” It strikes me as odd how any of those words can be used as “fight words” Never just words to describe someone else, in a beautifying context. I can recall many incidents where these words were meant to demean and never and very rare occasions as them complimentary. It makes me ill. It makes me just want to curl up and hurl. More so when I hear those words being used negatively by African/African Americans, because then it shows how broken spirited we have become, the self hatred was sewn in us and now we nurture it by demeaning each other. Sometimes even more than others.
Whenever I see girls running around with over processed hair, so much that the back of their heads are virtually hairless with dangerously receding hair lines with bad weave jobs I want to…I don’t know what. Sometimes I want to tell them that they need to stop the self-hatred and learn to love themselves. You can never try to please everyone and the more you try the more you lose your self. And someone like Imus will always remind you of what you are trying to run from. If you embrace yourself, fully, you’ll have nothing to be ashamed of.
Beauty is a social construct, whatever standards we have will be maintained and continue to flourish if we choose to keep them without fighting back. If every Black woman in American one day chooses to stop perming/straightening their hair and embrace their God given beauty and uniqueness, such negative connotation, believes of what is beautiful and the self hatred and pain connected to being black will die.
And because I use every chance I have to post this documentary, I'll leave you with Kiri Davis' a "Girl Like Me." I cry every time I watch it. I like to spread misery around...what can I say? haha
The Minnesota Daily has gone and done it now. Actually, the article is not too bad: only slightly infuriating. Their article, Sex at First Sight, the author, Heather L. Mueller, argues that more and more college students are having "meaningless" sex. However, if this statistic is acurate, she does not account for those students who choose to have casual sex without alcohol or some form of drug. Supporting more stereotypes, the article states:
Women comply or engage in casual sex to please their partner or to increase the likelihood of a relationship, according to survey results of "No Strings Attached: The Nature of Casual Sex in College Students," published in 2006 in the Journal of Sex Research. Males comply with casual sex relationships to increase their sexual experience level, peer status or popularity.
Why is it then that just moments earlier, "guys want relationships just as much as girls"? Although, he does debunk some double standards. Persons are quoted agreeing that the old-fashioned view of women and sex are outdated and completely innacurate.
Moving past things that have been 'ok' with the article, back to the issues at hand. My major problem with the article was its lack of information on people who choose to have casual sex and do so completely sober. Also, within the question/answer section with Dr. Drew Pinsky, addictionologist and relationship expert, this particular section bothered me:
Q: Is hooking up emotionally or physically damaging?
A: You could put yourself in harm's way physically if you're not wearing a condom when you (have sex). Emotionally, if it becomes a compulsion … yeah. You miss the opportunity that college should also be used for spending time with your peers and really having true intimate contact - face to face, share-a-meal-together intimate dialect. That's a really important emotional developmental process.
Perhaps I am the only one, but I believe that if one makes "hooking up" a part of their sexual life or history, that is their life and can be just as healthy as any other sexual relationship. I believe that if a person "hooks up" and has safe sex, there really isn't an issue as long as their partners are alright with that lifestyle. I move to state that just because a person perpetually "hooks up," does not mean that they do not have regular conversation with their peers! Sex is not their entire life! Conversation and "normal" interactions with peers still occur. We are talking about college students, they also attend classes.
If you want slightly more outrage, continue reading the article with the Q&A section. Here are a few of my favorites:
Q: Is it true that when women have sexual intercourse they biologically make a connection with their partner?
A: Oh, yeah. And that's what they're trying to medicate away when they drink. … Men do not, because testosterone flushes that all out.
Q: Is dating dead?
A: It's dead and it's coming back. It's resurrecting. It's been coming back particularly in the Southeast (United States). Where you see dating, you see less hookups. You see people happier about their social lives. … Ladies, figure out what you want and ask for that. Men want to please.
I am not about to comment on these sections...too infuriating. Thoughts?
I love this video for multiple reasons, and yes I am risking my giving Alanis Morissette too much credit, but hell, I'm a fan.
This video could just be a parody, a simple "haha." However, I say there's more to it. Alanis's removal of "fancy" beat and making the song into a simple ballad brings home the ridiculousness of the song. In addition, Alanis's haunting vocals gives the song a whole new meaning, because the song almost exhumes a sad and heart breaking tone.
It stops being just a parody and I am forced to take a closer look at what songs like "My Humps" can do to a woman's view of herself, her dignity, her worth. Fergie sing flirtatiously and delightfully about using her body to get what she wants. She flaunts about saying you can look but you can't touch while using seduction for materialistic gains. This is supposed to be a "fun song" to dance to. Yet it's degrading on multiple levels. I can't get past the words and say this is just fun, this is just good fun dance song.
What is fun or even remotely fine with a man saying to a woman:
"What u gon' do with all that ass?
All that ass inside them jeans?"
or
"What you gon' do wit all that breast?
All that breast inside that shirt?"
The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.
