When it comes to defining and discussing the idea that is feminist movement, I think that one set definition is both impossible and impractical. Although it would appear at first glance to unify feminists and push us all towards a common (and written) goal, but I would argue that not only is such a unification impossible but detrimental to feminism. Universal 'sisterhood' isn't possible and would alienate many feminists across the globe. Rather than advocating for a universal definition, why not use the resources one has and one's personal manifesto/a, or 'feminism', to create the change? For myself, I favor a certain definition because it fits within my personal and academic views on feminism. For example, I don't like to use the terms 'woman' or 'man' in any definition of feminism because I feel it merely supports the gender binary that many feminists are trying to deconstruct.

What then do we have left? Am I to impose my own definition onto others? Would it not be better for everyone to have their own personal views and act accordingly?

I must admit, however, that I do utilize my definition of feminism when writing papers because it explains the basis from which I write and the reasons behind my arguments. If I did not offer a definition, my papers and theses would be lost in a labyrinth of confusion or misinterpretation. For coalition work, a definition, or rather a manifesto/a, is almost necessary. Not because one cannot have a coalition or create change without one, but that it guides the group towards a goal and offers a vision. Does feminism as a movement constitute a coalition or is it past that point?

The question that continues to infiltrate and jumble my thoughts is: Does the problematizing of the many aspects of feminism (like the terms 'woman' and 'man') negatively affect the movement and if so, how does one reconcile this dilemma?

*My ambitions lie in radical feminist theory that challenges social constructions and hierarchies that are firmly embedded in everyday life. I firmly believe that radical theory is essential to feminist movement to continue to propel it towards a more favorable version of society, culture, institutions, and life.*

In what ways should the feminist blogosphere address the sexism directed towards Hillary Clinton’s campaign for presidency? Not many have truly endeavored to answer that question. In my essay, I will offer a comprehensive definition of feminism, the significance of the feminist blogosphere on feminist movement, and begin to address the above question. I chose to include only three feminist blogs in this analysis, but this is not a negative aspect. I intend to illustrate the difficulty of battling sexism for a woman candidate, especially for the highest political office in the United States.

The first step to understanding the feminist blogosphere’s reaction and action regarding the sexism directed towards Hillary Clinton’s campaign, is to define feminism. Bell hooks, a feminist theorist and activist, wrote Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center in 1984. Although in the ‘80s she was quite revolutionary, many feminists today view her perspectives as slightly outdated. Regardless of this critique, I appreciate her definition of feminism. Her theories are certainly more inclusive and educated than what Jennifer Baumgartner and Amy Richards suggest feminism is in their book, Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism, and the Future. They write as third wave feminists who are trying to rally younger women back into the feminist movement. They suggest that feminism is “the movement for social, political, and economic equality of men and women” (Baumgartner & Richards 56). Although I agree that feminism is a movement, I take issue with their suggestion that feminism is solely about equality between men and women. First of all, they work solely within the gender binary, which many feminists are trying desperately to undo, and secondly, they do not acknowledge any other aspects of oppression than sexism and the inequality between men and women. I adore bell hooks’ argument that gaining equality with men is merely a “bourgeois white woman” definition of feminism. She argues, “women in lower-class and poor groups, particularly those who are non-white, would not have defined women’s liberation as women gaining social equality with men, since they are continually reminded in their everyday lives that all women do not share a common social status” (hooks 19). The “bourgeois white woman’s” definition ignores class and race factors and identities that play a major role in feminist discourse as well as daily oppression and exploitation. In an effort to be all-inclusive and more accurate, I adopt bell hooks’ definition of feminism as “a movement to end sexist oppression” (hooks 33). Even though hooks’ definition also only discusses sexist oppression, she offers that, “sexist oppression is of primary importance not because it is the basis of all other oppression, but because it is the practice of domination most people experience, whether their role be that of discriminator or discriminated against, exploiter or exploited” (hooks 36). For this reason, I support bell hooks’ definition and will be the guiding force behind my arguments.

The debate regarding the ‘proper’ feminist standpoint regarding the military has been going on for quite some time. Reformist feminists and revolutionary feminists have been the major forerunners of this monumental question: Should the military be reformed or dismantled? Perhaps this question is not appropriately presented or does not capture the true essence of the issue of the military, however, regardless of its imperfections, I utilize this particular form of question as its broad nature allows for multiple opinions and interpretations. One such view is captured by bell hooks in her book, Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center, where she debates reformist versus revolutionary feminist politics. I suggest that her definition of feminism as a movement to end sexist oppression be the guiding framework for the discussion of feminist politics as it encompasses the topic at hand as well as incorporates many forms of feminist endeavors. Throughout the discussion of reformist versus revolutionary feminist politics regarding the existence of the military, I will argue that although reformist politics have worked in the past to ‘get the ball rolling’ in terms of feminist movement, however, revolutionary stances on masculinized institutions such as the military are necessary to truly create social change.

In a most basic and rudimentary effort to distinguish reformist and revolutionary politics, I offer these definitions. Reformist feminists wish to diminish sexist oppression in the military by reforming its policies and institutional norms to incorporate women as equal entities in the structure. In the United States and other cultures, women have become more involved in the military as soldiers, ranking officials, and as supporters. Reformist feminists attempt to entrench themselves in high administrative positions in order to affect the policy decisions made and, over time, change the institution itself. Revolutionary feminists believe quite the opposite. Rather than attempting to reform a highly masculinized institution that is inherently and irrevocably patriarchal, they advocate for a complete dismantling of the system. Revolutionary feminists do not support women joining the military and becoming a part of the institution and in essence, perpetuating the sexist oppression. Why become a part of the system and perpetuate its violence and oppression rather than overturn it and truly instigate social change?

Although bell hooks’ book was first published in 1984, her theories and ideas are still very relevant to today’s recurrent feminist questions and dilemmas. She argues that “[a]lthough liberal perspectives on feminism include reforms that would have radical implications for society, these are the reforms that will be resisted precisely because they would set the stage for revolutionary transformation were they implemented” (hooks 23). According to hooks, reformist politics will not be effective enough to gain policy in order to affect society at large. “It is evident that society is more responsive to those “feminist” demands that are not threatening, that may even help maintain the status quo” (hooks 23) and that feminist, “reforms have not corresponded with decreased sexist exploitation and/or oppression. Prevailing sexist values and assumptions remain intact, and it has been easy for politically conservative anti-feminists to undermine feminist reforms” (hooks 159). Assuming these statements are true, there is no feasible way for reformist feminists to change the status quo. Staying in the safety of non-threatening demands and policies are not appropriate means to effectively restructuring the military.

Cynthia Enloe addresses these same issues in her book, Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women’s Lives. She suggests that there are many means that military recruiters utilize in gaining volunteers and that one of these methods is to deliberately enlist women into the ranks. These recruiters “believe that they need to recruit and deploy women in only those ways that will not subvert the fundamentally masculinized culture of the military. To surrender its masculinized culture might result in few young men joining the ranks at all. Somehow…the military that enlists women must remain…a military that is appealing to men” (Enloe 237-8). Reformist feminists advocate for women to be joining the ranks and bridging the gap within the military to try and reach gender/sex equality. Although this is a valiant goal, the military recruiters are working within their means to get women to join the military and yet making sure that “not too many women should achieve high rank” and that women “should not deprive men of the chance to serve in those posts held most precious to the masculinity-seeking men” (Enloe 238). Instead of finding a way to infiltrate the military to gain equality, women are merely filling the ranks and making up for the loss of male volunteers. Women are at the bottom of the pool getting very few promotions and gaining no equality with men in this endeavor. Young men who join in the military are awarded with ‘first-class citizenship’ whereas women who join are deprived of that privilege. The attempt at reform is thwarted.

Back to the original question at hand, should the military be dismantled? Reformist feminists who argue against total disintegration of the military, suggest that by joining the military and gaining rank allows women to gain ‘first-class citizenship’ and therefore, status and power in society. “Nira Yuval-Davis has been among those feminist theorists who have shed light on the political and cultural processes that define citizenship in such a way that a manly man can slip most comfortably into the cloak of ‘citizen’ and that a man who has served in the state’s military wears that privileging cloak most comfortably of all” (Enloe 245). Are women included in this? Do women gain the status of the ‘highest citizen’ after serving in the military? Enloe argues, “seeing military service as the path to full citizenship status…leaves unexamined the militarization of ‘first-class citizenship’ itself” (Enloe 245). If in fact women were able to gain this ‘first-class citizenship’ after serving in the military, would they truly have combated sexist oppression in the military? Or is this merely playing the patriarchy’s game in order to appear more powerful or important? Audre Lorde in her book, Sister Outsider, would argue that these military women are simply playing the game. She states, “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house” (Lorde 123). Women are going to need to do more than ‘play the game’ – they will need to revolutionize the military and the way society envisions citizenship.

In examining the way feminists view citizenship, Feminists Theorize the Political, edited by Judith Butler and Joan W. Scott, is a necessary compilation to study. Within Chantal Mouffe’s article, Feminism, Citizenship and Radical Democratic Politics, she addresses the issue of citizenship and the ways in which she believes feminists should be examining the topic. Mouffe argues that “[l]iberal feminists have been fighting for a wide range of new rights for women to make them equal citizens, but without challenging the dominant liberal models of citizenship and politics” (Butler & Scott 373). Much like Lorde’s assertion that “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house,” Mouffe suggests that feminists should be revolutionizing their thought process rather than attempting to gain equality in patriarchal arenas. She demonstrates this view in her analysis of Carole Pateman’s views on liberal citizenship.

Citizenship is, according to Pateman, a patriarchal category: who a “citizen” is, what a citizen does and the arena within which he acts have been constructed in the masculine image. Although women in liberal democracies are now citizens, formal citizenship has been won within a structure of patriarchal power in which women’s qualities are still devalued. Moreover, the call for women’s distinctive capacities to be integrated fully into the public world of citizenship faces what she calls the “Wollstonecraft dilemma”: to demand equality is to accept the patriarchal conception of citizenship which implies that women must become like men while to insist that women’s distinctive attributes, capacities, and activities be given expression and valued as contributing to citizenship is to demand the impossible because such difference is precisely what patriarchal citizenship excludes (Butler & Scott 375).

It is clear that reformist politics are not appropriate for the current times in regards to citizenship and especially the military. Enloe states that, “publicly challenging militarism has not been a successful strategy for getting generals, cabinet ministers, and powerful legislators to pay attention to the concerns of women” and that, “the presence of women as soldiers is not a reliable indicator of declining state masculinization” (Enloe 287). Revolutionary feminism is needed in order to keep feminist movement from becoming a part of the status quo and to radically change society so as to incorporate all of its members. As already stated, bell hooks defines feminism is a movement to end sexist oppression. “Therefore, it is necessarily a struggle to eradicate the ideology of domination that permeates Western culture on various levels, as well as a commitment to reorganizing society so that the self-development of people can take precedence over imperialism, economic expansion, and material desires” (hooks 26). This feminist politic of revolutionizing ideologies of domination is exactly what is needed in order to dismantle the military and institute an inclusive form of citizenship. It won’t be easy; in fact, feminist movement “actively engages participants in revolutionary struggle. Struggle is rarely safe or pleasurable” (hooks 30). What is most important in order to achieve revolutionary feminist movement against the military, is unlearning the sexism that is perpetuated by institutions as well as oppressors and the victims of oppression. (hooks 43). It is vital to feminist movement that all participants critically analyze their behavior and realize how their lives have been militarized. Through that realization, it is possible to change one’s frame of mind and think through a revolutionary feminist perspective and not the socialized oppressive norms.

So, what next? What’s the next step for feminists? Hooks argues that in order “[t]o build a mass-based feminist movement, we need to have a liberatory ideology that can be shared with everyone. That revolutionary ideology can be created only if the experiences of people on the margin who suffer sexist oppression and other forms of group oppression are understood, addressed, and incorporated” (hooks 163). One of the ways that feminist movement has improved itself is in its attempt to include and understand the marginalized persons that hooks alludes to. As a movement, feminists have taken one step forward, however, there is still so much to accomplish. “Leaders are also needed, and should be individuals who acknowledge their relationship to the group and who are accountable to it” (hooks 163). In order to create a revolutionary movement large enough and powerful enough to tackle huge institutionalized structures, feminists must rethink and reshape the movement’s direction. As difficult as it is and as impossible as it may seem, a form of sisterhood or group unity is necessary. “In the United States, women and men committed to feminist struggle know that we are far outpowered by our opponents, that they not only have access to every type of weaponry known to humankind, but they have both the learned consciousness to do and accept violence as well as the skill to perpetuate it” (hooks 165). This form of overthrow or revolution cannot be the basis for feminist revolution. Being as outnumbered as we are, there is no way to defeat such opponents. “Our emphasis must be on cultural transformation: destroying dualism, eradicating systems of domination” (hooks 165). In a way, revolution is going to take time and effort to work at dismantling not only society’s normative views on women and the military, but also will require the dismantling of a physical, and powerful, institution.

Throughout this discussion of reformist versus revolutionary feminist politics regarding the existence of the military, it is evident that a revolutionary feminist movement is necessary to effectively alter or change the military system. In addressing the question of whether the military should be reformed or dismantled, bell hooks’ definition of feminism as well as her feminist theory guides us successfully to conclude that revolutionary politics are the only feasible means of dismantling the military. She also offers the movement a means to move forward towards feminist revolution and eventual equality and understanding. As Audre Lorde asserts in Sister Outsider, “it is the responsibility of the oppressed to teach the oppressors their mistakes” (Lorde 114). Utilizing hooks’ theories and suggestions to rebuild feminist revolution and recreate an inclusive conception of citizenship, it is possible to not only abandon the military, but also all forms of dominance.

Download file

The Shape of Water
By Kum-Kum Bhavnani

I Was A Teenage Feminist: A Documentary About Redefining the F-word
By Therese Schechter

The Ghosts of Abu Ghraib
By Rory Kennedy

The Grace Lee Project
Grace Lee

“While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained,” Justice Kennedy wrote, alluding to the brief. “Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow.”

Given those stakes, the justice argued, “The state has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is well informed.”

Why not give appropriate and accurate information to women before having an abortion? And while you're at that, make some pamphlets about safe sex too because abstinence only education is obviously not working.

Via Feministe

What if it was “a woman’s world”? What if women made ALL the decisions? If men were their obedient subjects?
These questions and more will be explored when a group of strong, educated, independent women, tired of living in a man’s world and each with a personal axe to grind, rule over a group of unsuspecting men used to calling the shots on WHEN WOMEN RULE THE WORLD.

The unscripted series will reveal how women and men react in a world where women are in charge and men are subservient, and each gender’s ability to adapt to a new social order will be put to the test.

The participants will be brought to a remote, primitive location where the women will have the opportunity to “rule” as they build a newly formed society – one where there is no glass ceiling and no dressing to impress. For the men, their worlds of power and prestige are turned inside-out and upside-down. And for these women, turnabout is fair play!

In order to win, the men must accede to the women’s every demand, 24/7. Here, women command and men obey. Over the series’ duration, the men will be eliminated by the women until one last man is standing.

How will the men react? How will the women treat the men? Can women effectively rule society? Will the men learn what life is like for some women in today’s world? Will this new society be a Utopia or a hell on earth? And in the end, who will be man enough to succeed in the new social order?

Feel free to ask for elaboration, add your own opinions and even disagree, feedback is welcome.

Now that the disclaimer is over, here we go, yes?

The issue of sexual harassment, sexual assault/abuse and rape are matters that sits very close to my heart when it comes to my relationship with feminism. Sexual crimes are a grave form of social control and oppression through physical intimidation, humiliation, fear and finally sealed with victim blaming. Victim blaming serves to dis-empower and avert attention away from placing responsibility where it's due and effectively removing this form of oppression..

When it comes to victim-blaming men are usually more likely to be the perpetrators of this act. Non-rapist men feel the need to take the responsibility, intentionally or not, away from rapists and place it on women as to not incriminate their gender (the almost desperate need to believe that the majority of men are not capable of rape, this majority would include themselves), also because quite simply, they are never taught that it could possibly be their fault, their responsibility. It's the woman's responsibility to shelter herself from men, because women are these alluring, seductresses that cause men to lose sense of their actions, right?

Thus, their avoidance of responsibility comes in the form of blaming female victims instead of the actual rapists.

This is alarming because, the act of victim blaming in terms of sexual violence is one of the most effective ways to remove responsibility from sexual predators/rapists (less than half of reported rapes end in conviction). It creates the false belief that sexual violence such as sexual assault/abuse and rape can truly be avoided if the victim takes certain actions. For example dressing a certain way, only going to certain places in large groups or with male companions, leaving the streets and safely staying home at certain hours, etc. If the victim fails to follow through, in consequence, whatever ill might befall her is a product of her own negligence or could lead to the suggestion that she was "looking for it" or "wanted it."

Consequently, victims tend to be the first to internalizes such beliefs and hold themselves accountable for their assault/abuse/rape, therefore also aiding in removing responsibility from their attacker. However, for the victim, the blaming casting is a product of a want or need to feel less of a victim, though plagued with shame and guilt, and the assurance that they could have prevented the attackt and will be able to prevent future occurrences by acting or dressing differently.

I have found that women are also guilty of playing the “victim blaming game.” Their actions are a product of their own fears of rape; by placing blame on other women’s “negligence” to be safe they lead themselves to believe that they are more in control, making the possibility of them being attacked less of a likelihood. For example a woman might say, “I know better than to wear short skirts”, “I never go anywhere by myself”, “I’m am just not that kind of girl.” There’s a creation of a false persona of what “kind” of girl is more prone to rape and this persona becomes connected with skewed ideas of morality (i.e. only whorish girls get raped, careless girls get raped etc). All of these false notions create "other" categories that does not include them. This is daunting because the fact of the matter is, there is only one category and it constitutes of being a woman.

A woman can cover from head to toe, always leave her home with a male figure, never step out after dark and still be a victim.

Other facts that escape most men and woman is that most reported sexual crimes are inflicted by acquaintances, friends, relatives, intimate partners (boyfriend/husband), with a smaller percentage leaning towards complete strangers. I mention this just to bring to light how nonsensical it is for a woman to have single responsibility of protecting herself at all times and why victim blaming is highly uncalled for because in reality, there is NO "right" way to be safe if we are going to play the victim blaming game. The only right way is to place blame where blame is due.

On the perpetrator.

And this is where I start losing my cool composure, so bear with me…It's almost 4 am....

By placing responsibility on women, we can never reduce sexual crimes. Rapists need to be forced to take responsibility for their own vile actions. Stop putting victims on trail and treating them like they deserved it. When it comes to rape trails, rape victims tend to be discriminated against more-so than victims of other crimes in intolerable ways.

As for non rapist (and non violent) males need to take an active part in speaking and acting out against sexual violence against women. Speaking against rape does NOT incriminate you or all of your gender. I often feel great irritation for males who feel the need to get all banged up on my speaking out against the actions of other males that bears no connection to them. It’s fuckin’ ridiculous.

I find it absolutely infuriating that women are told to dress a certain way, act a certain way, go to certain places amongst other hundreds of do’s and don’ts because it’s HER fuckin’ responsibility to keep herself tucked away from helplessly and sexually frustrated, out of control horny Billy. All the while there’s a great negligence in teaching males that a woman is never theirs to have no matter how drunk she is at that bar, how scantly she’s dressed or how alone she is on her way home. She is NEVER yours to have and you have no right, no fuckin’ right in hell to touch her. Ever. PERIOD.

It is never, EVER her fault.

I cannot believe I just wrote that last sentence.

http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20021002-000009.html

Check out this link to Joss Whedon's blog (Joss Whedon, demi-god/ writer of Buffy). He is not happy, and I think he has a good point. Read and get back to me.

-Hala

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.

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.

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."

Via Feministing.

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

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.

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.

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.