I love the Merriam-Webster site, m-w.com, but sometimes, when I'm in a hurry, I use the dictionary that Google pops up, and sometimes Google draws the definitions it displays from the well-respected dictionary company, Oxford Dictionaries at OxfordDictionaries.com. Oxford Dictionaries are quite proper, so an example of a typical way to use the defined word appears immediately after the definition.
According to Oxford's first definition, the word rabid means "having or proceeding from an extreme or fanatical support of or belief in something," and a typical use of the word would be as a modifier for the word feminist: "a rabid feminist." That dictionary doesn't come out and say that this usage is common, but it does present "a rabid feminist" as its only example of usage under the first definition.
"A rabid feminist." Just that one example. Perhaps in England it's common to say "rabid" before feminist. I doubt it, but maybe.
Some feminists are extremely radical out there, but are they so common that "rabid feminist" should be an example in the dictionary? Of all the other possible examples Oxford Dictionaries could have chosen--such as rabid fan which is one of Dictionary.com's examples, or rabid supporter, which is M-W.com's example--what's up with Oxford's choice?
What the Oxford Dictionary has done with its example is a form of naming or labeling. As theorists quoted in the Sourcebook on Rhetoric explain, "the process of naming or labeling is never benign or without consequence."
I think that when an adjective is attached to a noun repeatedly in media or permanently in prominent records, especially when the more powerful in society have already promoted an image of that noun which the adjective reinforces, then eventually that usage cements to the noun the label that the adjective confers. I mean, Christmas is supposed to merry andsupermodels must be thin, right? Both those notions are the result of an adjective being cemented to a noun. Increasingly then (especially since the Oxford's example for rabid gets displayed first and prominently by the number one search engine), the attributes of rabid may increasingly be transferred to the word feminist in human consciousness.
Is this a transference feminism can afford or that it should not bother to combat? Rabid, after all, implies violent and angry, and it's not as though the patriarchy hasn't already been successful at moving the public, even many of today's young women, to view feminist as a dirty word. See "feminazi," see "bra-burning bitch," see "man-hater."
What if under dumb the dictionary's usage example were "a dumb blonde"? Or if under anti-Semitic, "an anti-Semitic German"? Would we say then that the dictionary was showing an unkind bias?
True, some people and institutions strive to be unbiased, especially in use of language, and dictionary publishers are one of those institutions we expect to be neutral. But generally the best any person, group, or company can do is nurture their desire to be unbiased, try to be so, and keep up a facade of neutrality.
Whenever we craft information for consumption, we inject our subjectivity. We inject it through our edits--what we choose to leave in, what we choose to take out, what examples we choose or do not choose to use, and our choices can shape readers' perceptions and opinions of issues, situations, ideologies, and what we mean to each other. Consider that for years people justified calling black people the n-word because in Webster's dictionary, one definition for the n-word was "a Negro." How often have you settled an argument about the correct meaning of a word by whipping out your dictionary?
The editors of dictionaries indeed influence human perception of the world and attitudes toward certain objects or phrases. Through examples, it can even shape the meaning of the word feminist when feminist is not the word the reader looks up.
The image of the "rabid feminist" is one conjured and promoted most often by people who don't like feminists. In the case of the word feminist, the potential for damage through this labeling or subtle propaganda is exacerbated by Google's use of the Oxford Dictionary.
I speak here as a Black woman who knows about the power of the same adjectives used repeatedly to re-shape the image of people, places, and activities. For instance, how did the image of Black people being ape-like or bestial take hold? It happened through the process of labeling. And it was only by objecting and protesting the use of adjectives such as ape-like, savage, and bestial to define Black people that Black people have moved closer to self-determination.
Words create symbols and build hierarchies, establish moral codes and taboos, who may be desirable and undesirable. So, let's think about this: our sons and daughters may google the word rabid. When they do so, the first example for that word will be a frothing-at-the-mouth feminist. Is that what we want for our future? Should we demand that Oxford change its usage example or that Google stop using Oxford Dictionaries or both?
In the video above, MSNBC's Professor Melissa Harris-Perry talks about how female sexual desire has been treated throughout history in our male-dominated culture. Pointing to a New York Times Magazine article "Unexcited" about Lybrido, a new pill awaiting FDA approval that's supposed to "stoke sexual desire in women," Harris-Perry says the article was adapted from Daniel Berger's new book What Do Women Want? Adventures in the Science of Female Desire by Daniel Berger (Browse inside the book at Harper-Collins.).
The drug "would be a milestone in the medicalization of women's sexual desire," according to Harris-Perry and others. She says that in the past, all the way back to ancient Greece, women's sexual desire has been treated as an illness. She reminds viewers that the word hysteria, associated with uncontrollable emotions and madness, was derived from the Greek word for uterus. Here's what Merriam-Webster has to say about that:
New Latin, from English hysteric, adjective, from Latin hystericus, from Greek hysterikos, from hystera womb; from the Greek notion that hysteria was peculiar to women and caused by disturbances of the uterus
First Known Use: 1801
Harris-Perry says "female hysteria" was treated as a mental illness as early as the fourth century A.D. and the Greek philosopher Plato pronounced "a sexually frustrated uterus that wanders throughout the body as nothing less than a threat to female sanity." A lack of sexual desire as well as strong sexual desire were both considered to be symptoms of uterus-driven illness, and male doctors as recently as the 1950s prescribed orgasms as the cure for that, "the orgasm cure."
I've observed that we still have a tendency in this culture to declare that women are sexually frustrated when they appear to be highly focused or high-strung. Just last night, for instance, I heard a male character on the BBC's Orphan Black finale tell a female detective character who questioned him aggressively that she clearly needed to "get laid."
But the shock for me in Harris-Perry's commentary and report was not that doctors told women that orgasms would help them. What floored me was this bit of history: if the doctor prescribed orgasms and the woman's husband was not able to give her one, then her male doctor would fill that script personally. So, you know, I had to look this up, and here is what I found in the book The Story of V: A Natural History of Female Sexuality by Catherine Blackledge:
Over the centuries, the methods prescribed to induce orgasm in so-called hysterical women included advocating being 'strongly encountered by their husbands' if they had one. Alternatively, if a woman was single, widowed, or confined to a nunnery, the recommendation could be horse-riding, pelvic rocking in swings, chairs, or hammocks, or vaginal massage—the latter to be provided by the patient's physician or midwife.
Hmm. This gives a whole new meaning to "call the midwife" that I'll need to get out of my head. Here's a clip from the book.
I already knew about the hystera-hysteria history and how male chauvinism and patriarchy (also racism) have corrupted the scientific study of female health issues, but it never crossed my mind that sexism went so far in manipulating female patients. Talk about abuse of power. Now when I see old movies in which male characters look at women and joke to their male friends about the perks of being a doctor, I'll view the scene in a whole new light.
If you would prefer to read the text of this poem outside the video, click here.
I do not have an easy answer to that question in the title of this post--"What's wrong with writing sentimental poetry and fiction?"--but I have a few thoughts about why writing critics reject poets who write what they call "Hallmark Card verse" or fiction authors who slather on the sentimentality that causes readers to reach for the tissues. The primary critique usually goes along the lines that writing overly-emotional verse and prose is easy, and within that objection is the unspoken bias that the creation of genuine art always entails struggle, a nose-to-the-grindstone crafting of one's work, that anything that produces tears--of joy or of pain--easily can't be any good.
However, I also think that in Euro-American culture since the so-called Age of Reason fell upon its consciousness, a long-standing belief's taken root that intelligent humans are rational creatures, not beings driven or swayed too easily by emotion, and this bias against emotion--against obvious pathos--causes critics to deem emotional writing to be synonymous with the mundane and stupidity. I add that this bias also manifest as a bias against women's writing in many cases. Within the concept of the Enlightenment self--the unified and rational self--a preference for masculine attitudes and masculine behavior dominates. Consequently, anything associated too much with femininity, such as emotional and subjective responses, is deemed inferior. You may also consider how often people of color are associated with emotion: people of African descent are "soulful" and those of Latin descent are "hot-blooded" and "passionate."
I recall now how some critics of Elizabeth Alexander's poem "Praise Song for the Day," delivered at President Obama's inauguration, was blasted by some poetry critics because at the end it speaks of love. However, it could be argued that we don't talk about love enough, especially brotherly love and that the day Obama was inaugurated was a day characterizes by a sense of unity and love with hope for forgiveness, and so the mention of love was appropriate, but that's another post.
Anyway, I suspect my mulling over varying concepts of subjectivity--the unified self of Enlightenment versus the fragmented self of Post-modernism--and why shows of emotion in not only writing but also in life are often disdained was on my mind somewhat when I wrote the poem in the video above, "End Times." And I was also thinking as I wrote it about deflection in general and that sometimes people do not want anything that goes directly for the heartstrings because they don't want to feel anything that may cause them alarm or perhaps to take action for something in which they believe.
Sometimes people want to disconnect from their feelings so they can rationalize the paths and stances they repeatedly choose to take. Some of those paths and corresponding attitudes include ignoring that we're running out of oil, that we're in a global economy that makes American exceptionalism a thing of the past (if it ever really existed at all), that perpetuating political polarization has become the standard, and that proponents of a political ideology that applauds the elimination of public sector jobs and services has gained the upper-hand in this nation. Few people want to contemplate that we're headed toward an age of austerity and that we may have to completely overhaul our current economic system. I don't mention these issues in the poem, but they have been on my mind.
The poem also reflects my contemplation of how obscure language has become associated with brilliance and plain speech or "being real" has become associated with a lack of talent in some schools of thought. It seems sometimes that some people think that the more you use language to obscure meaning, the better, which begs the question what is it we're trying to obscure: is the goal to steer people away from contemplating that injustice, murder and mayhem is still with us and something we must resist? When I think of political language, I observe how often it's used today to keep Americans from seeing the truth that the party's over: we live on a finite planet with finite resources; material growth cannot be a constant. Perhaps spiritual growth can be so, however.
Guess I was in a philosophical mood and moody today. It's like that sometimes. Woke up this morning with blue moon in my eye, but I did not get myself a gun; I got myself a poem. :-)
Per CNN and other news sources, another woman has come forward saying that Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain sexually harassed her. In the video below, Sharon Bialek, an attractive blonde who lives in Chicago, describes an after-dinner encounter with Cain in 1997 in which the candidate, who was head of the National Restaurant Association at the time, groped her:
Cain unexpectedly put his hand on her leg beneath her skirt "toward my genitals." She also said he pushed her head toward his crotch.
Cain stopped when she protested, Bialek told a news conference.
Looking into the television cameras, Bialek said: "I want you, Mr. Cain, to come clean. Just admit what you did."
I don't care for Cain, and so, I tend to believe the accusations. As they say in the cop shows when considering a suspect's probability of committing a specific crime, "I like him for it." But to be fair we must ask the question, "Is Sharon Bialek credible?"
I think Bialek's quite believable in the video above; however, how she says she responded to him when he allegedly tried to push her head to his crotch sounds like dialogue from an old movie. She said something like "What are you doing? You know I have a boyfriend!" What a calmly stilted reaction. Now, if that had been a sister ...
Cain has handled the accusations poorly, and that screams that he's not ready for prime time. First it was the "liberal media" after him, in his words, and then, no, not the liberal media; it was his opponent, Rick Perry.
I would say that it's time to grab the popcorn and watch Herman Cain's supporters scramble, but I don't have time to watch political spectacles this year. Plus, I only took him seriously as a clown, never a real candidate.
CNN is promoting that "Tonight at 9 ET, Piers Morgan talks to Sharon Bialek and her attorney, Gloria Allred, in a live interview about her sexual harassment accusation against ... Cain."
This accusation brings Cain's total number of known female accusers to four. When will the GOP tell him to go back to the kitchen with the rest of their blacks? That last comment refers to conservative blowhard Anne Coulter's idiocy.
If conservatives desert Cain now, I'll chalk the love loss up not to their concern for women but to their evaluation of something else Bialek's story reveals about Cain if the accusations are true, and that is that Cain, allegedly wanting to get in her pants, upgraded her hotel room to a "palatial" suite on his employer's dime. How's that for fiscal responsibility!
Yes, I, too, heard about J.C. Penney's sale of the disturbing T-shirt for little girls with the slogan, "I'm too pretty to do homework, so my brother has to do it for me." At BlogHer.com, Shannon L.C. Cate wrote about the controversy expressing the same concern that women and some men all over the Internet voiced as soon as news of the T-shirt broke.
The department store has since pulled the T-shirt from the shelves, but I decided to post Anderson Cooper's commentary on the matter anyway since in it he shows other sexist T-shirts marketed to youngsters that give stifling messages about gender roles. The CNN anchor added J. C. Penney to his RidicuList last night.
It pleases me to announce that ColorofChange.org launched a campaign aimed at Psychology Today against Satashi Kanazawa and the magazine has dropped the evolutionary psychologist as a contributor. Psychology Today is "taking the necessary steps to prevent an incident like this from ever happening again," says the advocacy group.
According to an e-mail sent to ColorOfChange.org – the nation’s largest African-American online political organization who asked its members to flood the editorial offices of Psychology Today with phone calls, e-mails and Facebook and Twitter comments and demand clarification – Psychology Today is no longer allowing Kanazawa to contribute to the publication. “We are currently implementing measures to ensure more rigorous oversight of blogs prior to publication, including nights and weekends, when this was posted. The blogger in question is no longer contributing to the site,” said Kaja Perina, editor-in-chief of Psychology Today.
I didn't write about Satashi Kanazawa's insulting and scientifically unsound article that ran in Psychology Today back in mid-May because I felt the story was getting enough discussion. I also was in a place where I could not absorb the negativity of spending too much time with Kanazawa's argument, which was essentially his assertion that black women are the ugliest human creatures on the planet because they have more testosterone. And if that were not insulting enough, he also managed to squeeze in that black men (who he claims are the most attractive human specimens) and black women are less intelligent than other humans.
While I didn't want to analyze his article, I'll gladly give attention to Kanazawa's dismissal as a PT contributor, but I guess I'm only hearing about it a week later because nasty news always gets more attention than pleasant news. Nevertheless, I would feel even better if the London School of Economics fired Kanazawa. Jezebel, reporting on the fall-out following the article, quoted an article in The Guardian about LSE students protesting Kanazawa's being on staff at the school. The University of London Senate (a student organization) voted unanimously for his dismissal, condemning his research.
Sherelle Davids, anti-racism officer-elect of the LSE students' union, said: "Kanazawa deliberately manipulates findings that justify racist ideology. As a black woman I feel his conclusions are a direct attack on black women everywhere who are not included in social ideas of beauty."
Amena Amer, incoming LSE students' union education officer, added: "We support free speech and academic freedom, but Kanazawa's research fuels hate against ethnic and religious minorities promoted by neo-Nazi groups. Not only does he use the LSE's credentials to legitimise his 'research' but this jeopardises the academic credibility of the LSE."
Who respects this man's so-called "science"? When I look him up online, I find other scientists who scorn him, including people in his field, but if British academia operates the same way American academia operates, then getting a professor fired for expressing racist, dehumanizing ideas is nearly impossible. I think for years the University of New Orleans had a professor who openly taught that black people were inferior to white people, but he had tenure, and so, the school endured him until he retired. So, we may have to endure Kanazawa's bigotry until he fades away.
This is the photo that sparked the fuss. Critics have stirred the pot, claiming the Wall Street Journal used this old Kagan photo to stoke innuendo. A WSJ spokesperson denies the allegation.
Internet gossip and a photo have ignited debate about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's sexual orientation. In the photo, she's playing baseball: So, is she or isn't she gay?
Last month the White House objected to a CBS News blog written by Ben Domenech, a former Bush administration staffer, who asserts Kagan is a lesbian. The Obama administration said emphatically that Kagan is heterosexual. However, the controversy escalated with Andrew Sullivan's post at The Atlantic's "Daily Dish," demanding proof that Kagan is not gay.
Others, like the women of ABC's The View and Benjamin Sarlin at The Daily Beast, have taken swings at the innuendo with queries, such as "Does Kagan's sexual orientation matter?" and -- given the Obama administration's definitive answer that she is not gay -- "Is the question fair?" and "Is it unethical for a journalist to slant a piece to suggest she is gay with no evidence?" .... Please read more at BlogHer.com.
I've just posted at BlogHer.com an article on Oklahoma's new anti-abortion laws. It may be published live later today, but here's the lead followed by my opinion, which is not in the BlogHer piece:
In what could be considered an excellent example of States Rights versus federal law that protects women's reproductive and civil rights, the Oklahoma legislature voted Tuesday to override Democratic Gov. Brad Henry's veto of two constraining abortion laws. One requires pregnant women to see the fetus in the womb and hear details about its development and appearance so the women will understand that they carry life, babies. The other law protects doctors from lawsuits if they fail to inform women of a fetal defect. (More at BlogHer)
I think the law that protects doctors from lawsuits shows how socially conservative Republicans, who seek to legislate "morality," shoot purely fiscal conservative Republicans, who don't want the government involved in the people's most intimate decisions, in the foot, perhaps more accurately, in their behinds. Simply, if a government passes a law that prevents you from being able to hold a doctor financially accountable for not informing you that your child will have a disability that requires costly care, then that government should be prepared to give you all the financial aid you require to care for that child. The state, having assisted in misinforming you, is as responsible as the physician.
Where is the concern for moral burden here? How can anyone who supports not informing the woman that she will have an additional debt far beyond the expenses of raising a completely healthy child not support the tax increases it will take to provide the care? If the mother/parents are fully informed and choose to have the baby, then they have knowingly chosen to accept the financial baggage. If they were purposefully not informed, then where is the choice there?
And of course, this discussion could take us back to how arguing against universal health care is generally morally repugnant. Parents who choose to have a disabled child should not be barred from receiving government assistance either. Why is it that some conservative pro-life advocates appear to despise the living?
Yesterday, I had to say something on John Mayer, and I did so in the post "John Mayer Reveals His Authentically Racist Self." After seeing how people--in one case even one of the black women he named--extended their hands to say "I don't think John Mayer is racist," I began to ponder what that meant.
However, I don't fault people for not wanting to say anything bad about people they like. That's the way we're raised and we're raised to know that to be racist is a bad thing.
Nevertheless, it occurs to me again that America is moving toward making the word "racist" another forbidden word. Unhappy with the "N" word, and now the Special Olympics "R" word, plus the other "N" word, we're moving on to add yet another "R" word, "racist."
Yes, America, I am concerned, and so, I woke up this morning and wrote the following on Twitter via TwitLonger.
RE John Mayer > Oddly, people debate whether he is racist but agree with little debate that he is sexist as though to identify Mayer as "racist" is as bad as him using the "N" word or labeling his penis David Duke. On sexism we say if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's a duck. But if it walks like a racist duck, then we debate hearts and intent. Do Americans understand what the word "racist" actually means? (Posted at TwitLonger)
I've gotten a definite impression, as I implied in comments on another post, that many Americans in today's popular culture think the word "racist" means a person who comes to your house and burns a cross on your lawn or lynches your husband, and rapes your daughter for fun. We associate the word racist with these extreme acts of terror, but the word "racist" in its purist sense means simply a person who thinks his/her race is superior to other races in the same way the word "sexist" means to think that one's gender is superior.
The word "racist," because of hate groups, has come to mean more the equivalent of the word bigot as in it's associated with extreme hate and intolerance. People think racist is to race as wife-beating misogynist is to woman or Nazi is to Jew. That, however, is incorrect. Racist is to race as sexist is to woman, which is why "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races" is number three on the definition of "racist" not number one.
We've done an exceptional job of making people feel guilty and afraid to be called racist, to get all wound up in a knot if the word is uttered against them, and by extension to fear examining whether what they do or think is racist the same way the devoutly religious are afraid sometimes to acknowledge they've felt lust or anger. Instilling that fear was probably necessary to make some of the strides in Civil Rights that we've made, but now it's time to grow up and understand what the word "racist" means. Only then will we have any chance of stepping into the mythic land of Post-Racial America. (Nordette in comments at BlogHer)
In addition to fear of calling a white person "racist," I'm hearing from some of us that black people need to stop having knee jerk responses to the word "nigger." I agree. We should be intelligent enough to examine context. Who knows, if Mayer had stopped at "nigger" pass, given the point he was trying to make, I would have chalked what he said up to imprudent use of irony. But he didn't. He added to the fire that his penis was white supremacist.
But many times we must look at context before we throw a hissy fit. For instance, if we encourage a banning the word "nigger" mentality no matter what the context, then what will we do with this poem by Harlem Renaissance writer Countee Cullen, "Incident"? How will we learn to evaluate the works of Zora Neale Hurston? Should we toss out Mark Twain? Can we grasp the point in Taalam Acey's "Market for Ni$$as"?
That said, what is going on in the American psyche that it now takes affront at use of the word "racist"? I see people redefining common sense methods of identifying a person as "racist" as "resorting to name calling." So, I say, "While it's true we need to stop having a knee-jerk response to the word "nigger" and consider political or literary context, it's critical that we do not start having knee jerk responses to use of the word 'racist.'"
Reserving the word racist for only the ugliest of white supremacists is an error, absolute nonsense. Can't we use more than one part of speech? There are different levels of racism, even different types: paternal racism, blatant racism, conscious racism, and subconscious or repressed racism. So, try adjectives when you use the word "racist" and establish to what degree a person is racist.
Define your racist! Here are a dozen types of racist just off the top of my head.
"Oh, yes. He's nice. He doesn't know he's offensive, and his lover is black. He's a subconscious racist."
"Yeah, Limbaugh pretends he's never said anything racist. He's a venom-spewing, Wiley Coyote racist."
"She's acknowledging white privilege and its influence on her life. Many white people are recovering racists."
"Girl, please. David is a card-carrying, skin-head-KKK racist. Look at his tattoos!"
"We must give Bill credit. He's very polite. It's hard to see how he feels about black workers because he's a poker-faced racist who doesn't want a lawsuit."
"Mary walks on eggshells around black people. She's afraid she'll say the wrong thing. She's a self-fearing racist. She's scared if she says the "n" word, she won't be able to stop."
"Who, Glenn Beck? That crazy-ass racist!"
"Do you want to get yourself killed? Stay away from Bubba. He's a lynching racist."
"She thinks she's funny, but she's just another insensitive, joker racist, who should not be confused with "ironic/tragically hip racists." They "really think they're down and empathetic, but they wallow in their entitlement and privilege" (H/T to Brownstocking.)."
"No, Sarah Palin doesn't know anything about black people or their history and contributions to America. She can't see 'em from her house. She's a prettyignorant racist."
"Sen. So-and-So will gladly support redlining for campaign contributions, Voter-ID too. He's a political whore of a racist."
"Ah, Joe. He romanticizes his Confederate heritage and wishes he were married to Scarlett O'Hara. He's a rose-colored-glasses racist."
I know. I know. The word "racist" makes some white people go insane with guilt. So, believe me, I get the whole communications tactic and wisdom presented in the following video from Jay Smooth, "How to Tell People They Sound Racist," which advises us that we should concentrate on behavior and not labeling people even when we know the person should be labeled "racist."
I love that video and applaud the advice.
Tip for my white brothers and sisters: Stop defending yourselves on this topic. Even when you feel in your heart that you are not a racist, try these words on for size, "It's possible I have some racial conditioning that I need to wrestle. I'm working on it." What can your critic say to that but, "Okay, but please work faster and more quietly."
With the makeover of the Sun Maid Raisins girl, I'm looking back at some other makeovers of fictitious spokespeople. For years we were bombarded with Aunt Jemima as fat, benevolent black mammy until Quaker got the message the image offended African Americans. (Knowing this history, among other insults, is why I think the blog name Aunt Jemima's Revenge is so funny.) See Slave in a Box by M.M. Manning.
So, Quaker went from this (lower right) to this (top left):
And here's the one we remember most.
We also saw the Mars company's kindly old black cook or house boy, Uncle Ben of Uncle Ben's rice, go from the kitchen to the front office. Some bloggers gave the company of big fat fail on that one. Carmen Van Kerckhove, writing at BlogHer in 2007 said, "This story is really the epitome of packaging and selling and profiting from blackness.
Basically, they used the likeness of some random black man to represent the real Ben, and went on to make millions and millions of dollars from this brand. And something tells me that neither the maitre d' nor the original Ben ever saw a cent of that fortune. [And by the way, the business unit that produces Uncle Ben's rice is called Masterfoods USA. No comment.]
Yes, Mars is also known as Masterfoods. That's too funny.
But these kinds of changes of black logo faces came about by pressure from ethnic groups. I'm not sure what prompted Sun Maid Raisins to update its raisin girl, especially to something as cold and hideous as a busty CGI image. I guess they think breasts and yoga make her look like she may own the grape farm and that she's not possibly a migrant worker, the same way Uncle Ben now owns his rice fields.
Read Devra's post, "Extreme Makeover: The Sun Maid Raising Girl" at BlogHer.com, where she says, "According to the Sun-Maid website, the icon will demonstrate her everywomanliness ..." and then Devra shares a quote about what they think that means, something about yoga and healthy meals.
What if this were your child, champion South African runner Caster Semenya? News reports say she's been put on suicide watch since her gender has been debated in the public, her blood's been drawn and studied in a lab, her genitalia have been examined and photographed in private as part of gender testing, and some people have labeled her with the offensive word "hermaphrodite." Earlier this month she withdrew from a race because of the speculation about her gender. Should we lay blame in how horribly her case was handled? If so, where?
Caster Semenya, the South African runner at the centre of a gender dispute, has been placed on suicide watch, according to a report in the Star newspaper in South Africa.
The report, published last week, said Semenya is being cared for "round the clock" by psychologists after unconfirmed reports that the 18-year-old is a hermaphrodite.
"She is like a raped person. She is afraid of herself and does not want anyone near her," Butana Komphela, chairman of South Africa's sports committee, told the paper.
"If she commits suicide, it will be on all our heads. The best we can do is protect her and look out for her during this trying time."
South African athletics officials said Semenya is receiving trauma counselling at the University of Pretoria. (CBC sports, Canada)
When I first heard about the Caster Semenya story in August, folks questioning her gender and charges that it was racism, I went in search for video of the South African track star. This is what I found on YouTube.
I know my sisters at BlogHer have been debating this, whether it's homophobia, sexism, or racism and also use of the insulting word "hermaphrodite" with questioning gender, and I'm sure these discussions are valuable and valid, but for me, a black woman who considers herself a womanist/feminist, when I took a look at Caster, I thought, "Is this a male or a female?" There's nothing sexist, racist, or homophobic about that question. Humans are classified by gender. Whether we should be is another debate completely.
I concluded privately, without confirming test results, that this is a child who was probably born with testicles on the inside. I figured that she was more like a boy but was raised as a girl because on the outside her genitalia look female. It happens sometimes, and as an ordinary human, I frequently make judgments based on what my eyes alone tell me. If I didn't, I couldn't get through life. Hmm, looks looks like a red light, but is it? Not too wise to stop and question everything you see along the way.
But if I were an official involved with rules of track and field competition based on gender, I'd have to do more than believe my eyes only when it comes to evaluating a runner whose appearance, demeanor, and voice seemed more like a male than a female. I'd require a test. I hope, however, that if I were a sports competition official, that I'd show the athlete involved and her family more compassion than South African sports officials have shown Caster Semenya. News sources say these people hid information from Semenya regarding questions about her gender and their decision to test her, that rather than have the guts to sit down and talk with her and her parents face to face, they let the challenges blow up in the press. (Photo from Daily Mail story)
Scientists say Senenya's condition is the result of a birth defect. You can look this up online. I'm sure there are people with the condition who could reasonably argue that perhaps it's not a birth defect, that it's just one more state of human existence, and in this politically correct world, I'm sure they'd gain support. How can we argue with states of being human?
On matters of race it must be said that Semenya's condition is not something that only happens to Africans or people recently of African descent. In fact, the more well-known cases that have been publicized have involved people of European descent. Is it more common in one group than another? I don't know. That's what scientific researchers are for, telling us what's common and uncommon in certain groups.
Racism, homophobia, and sexism chatter aside, sometimes I think we get out of hand with asking people to disbelieve their own eyes. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, your eyes tell you it's a duck. If you put the duck in a competition with geese and insist what looks like a duck is in fact a goose, I think to be fair to the geese and the ducks, somebody needs to test the competitor that looks like the duck. That's just me with my momentarily simple, overtaxed mind.
Now all the other stuff that's gone on in the Semenya case, the leaked story calling Semenya a "hermaphrodite" (correct word is intersexed), the lying South African official regarding test agreements, and pushing Semeya to pretty up for a magazine shoot were nasty stupid human tricks. But looking at and listening to Caster Semenya and wondering is she male or female--reasonably human question, not racist. What I mean is, I'm pretty sure some of the people who wondered about her gender are racist people who insult black women in general, perhaps Michelle Obama in particular, but that doesn't mean Caster Semenya's appearance--shape of her face, lack of a waistline, narrow hips, non-effeminate mannerisms, and deep voice--don't beg this question: girl or boy?
Her condition is something her parents may not have noticed until she reached puberty, if they noticed at all. Once you've accepted that your child is one gender, it's hard to convince yourself that you and the doctors may have been wrong--that she many be more male than female or, in the case of the intersexed child raised as a boy, vice versa. You, as an ordinary parent, may have never considered that perhaps some people have to choose gender or may choose to present themselves as genderless. Being a parent more likely renders you incapable of absolute objectivity about your own child when it comes to addressing preconceived notions.
Parents dream of having a specific bundle of joy and some can't handle the child who doesn't fit the fantasy image. Think about the parents out there right this moment berating a daughter for being fat. They wanted Halle Berry or Taylor Swift and nobody in their family, they say, has ever been fat. Furthermore, as in the case of obesity sometimes, I imagine in certain kinds of cultures, having a child that does not fit into a neat little box holding societal expectations may knock parents down notches on the social ladder.
When it comes to the intersexed, this isn't necessarily a statement about African cultures. There are towns in America, I'm sure, where having an intersex child would make your life difficult and the child's life a living hell. Remember the two children earlier this year who killed themselves after being bullied with the word "gay" based on appearance and personality. That happened right here in the U.S.A. They seemed different to their peers and their peers persecuted them for it.
I don't know much about Semenya's parents. Early in the story last month, I think her father was quoted insisting that Caster is a girl, his cherished daughter. I hope she remains cherished, that they are the kind of parents who will love her no matter what, and while this public examination of their child must be a difficult period for them, I hope they have the spiritual strength to love Caster more fiercely because of it.
But what about the rest of us? "An intersex organism may have biological characteristics of both the male and female sexes," per Wikipedia. An intersex human in the news causes us to rethink views of gender, reevaluate what does it mean to be male or female. What if it were your child being scrutinized?
I'll leave the deep analysis of what is homophobic, sexist, or racist on this topic to passionate advocates who especially address gender and GLBT community issues, and while the story may have elements of racist ideology worthy of examination, I'll pass this time. Who has the energy to examine every neuron of the racist mind?
My only real comment is that I feel sorry for Caster Semenya, not because she appears to be an intersexed human but because her physical nature--whether she is male or female--was discussed worldwide in the press before she had a chance to explore her own feelings and determine who she is for herself, because she is a young one who's been thrust into an arena of wolves while the ignorant mob gawks in the stands.
I fault South African sports administrators for Semenya being shoved into the burning glare of the public spotlight. They made all the wrong moves at Semenya's expense.
Extras:
See related AP story, "Wrong turns worsened Semenya's ordeal," that examines how officials of the International Association of Athletics Federations and others handled the Semenya case.
Book recommendation: Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides. "The narrator and protagonist, Calliope Stephanides (later called "Cal"), an intersexed person of Greek descent, has 5-alpha-reductase deficiency."
If you missed the news regarding Marriott International, specifically the Stamford Marriott in Connecticut, then you may read my post at BlogHer.com, Raped at the Marriott in Front of Your Toddlers? Too Bad, Slacker!. A woman's sued Marriott after being raped in the Stamford Marriott's parking garage.
The perpetrator stuck a gun in her back, made her undress, and sexually assaulted her, threatening to do the same to one of her two children sitting in her mini-van. When a car pulled into the garage, the woman screamed and the rapist ran off. Days later the police caught him and he confessed, later pleading guilty in court. The Marriott's lawyers have argued, according to The Advocate in Stamford, per court documents, that the woman "was careless, negligent and "failed to exercise due care for her own safety and the safety of her children and proper use of her senses and facilities."
As the story goes on, it only gets worse with legal tactics such as contacting the woman's friends and family. Bloggers of both genders and all colors are outraged.
MomsRising, a nonprofit that seeks social justice for mothers, has taken action. It's started a petition with the following protest text.
As one of more than a million members of MomsRising, I am very concerned about recent news reports that Marriott Hotels is blaming the victim in the Stamford, CT rape case. Claiming a mom raped at gunpoint with two toddlers in her minivan failed to "make proper use of her senses and facilities" is disgusting and wrong. The woman in this case, and the moms of this county who now have deep concern about staying in a Marriott, deserve more.
Before I go any further, I think you should know that it's now reported that the media got it wrong saying the student's question to Hillary in the Congo was mistranslated. He really did ask for Bill Clinton's opinion instead of the opinion of the sitting Secretary of State before him, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Does that make a difference in the Hillary is angry debate?
You may have seen news about a "testy" Hillary Clinton speaking in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Monday, August 10. The African country is known for violence against women:
The unscripted moment happened as Clinton spoke to students at a Congolese university in Kinshasa, the Congo capital.
A male student rose to ask a question about Chinese financial contracts with Congo.
The student asked Clinton what President Obama would think of the deal, but pool reporters in the room said the translator made a mistake, posing the question as what would Bill Clinton think.
Clinton looked surprised when she first heard the translation in the headset, and then sharply replied, "You want me to tell you what my husband thinks? My husband is not the secretary of state, I am. You ask my opinion. I will tell you my opinion; I'm not going to channel my husband." (CNN)
In the MSM and the blogsphere, Clinton's reaction to the question has drawn more attention than why she was in the Congo at all, which was to address violence against women and other conflict in the Congo.
Naturally, Fox News has used the Secretary of State's reaction to suggest she's unqualified for her position. Hmm.
What I noticed is that the media, and not necessarily only right-wing leaning media, as well as ordinary citizens are doing the same thing to Hillary that they do to other minorities. Hillary's not allowed to show anger. That's all I heard Monday night after the story broke, the question, "Why is Hillary so angry?" (Yes, females, while a majority, are treated as second-class citizens, making them like a minority.)
It's the charge against Sonia Sotomayor, who shows little testiness, and so her critics talk about her writing when they call her angry. It was the primary charge against Henry Louis Gates, "Why is he so angry? Look at how successful he is?"
There seems to be this idea that if a group has been oppressed and anything happens to them that reminds them of that oppression, they're expected to sit back, count to 10, and be very nice about the whole thing. They're supposed to give the group that historically oppressed them the benefit of the doubt that what's being done or asked of them now has nothing to do with attitudes of the past even if the past was just yesterday.
Our society is very similar to a bully culture, in my opinion. They beat the hell out of you but you're supposed to let bygones be bygones the first time they let you sit at the cool kids table and not wince when members of the old cool guard raise their hands in ways that look like slapping gestures. You're supposed to forget that it was the principal who made the cool kids let you sit at their table and ignore that they don't think you're cool in any real sense.
While I think James Carville, Democratic political strategist and good friend of the Clintons, appears to grasp at straws when defending Hillary, he made an excellent point Tuesday night on Larry King Live with Wolf Blitzer, one that was getting lost. He told Blitzer that Hillary was speaking to a group in a country that has a long history of brutality against women, including female mutilation and said we should keep that in mind.
Ben Stein, former speech writer to Nixon, also a guest on the show, added that jet lag might make anyone testy and reminded viewers that Henry Gates's encounter with the Cambridge Police happened after he came off a long flight. Penn of Penn and Teller, a Libertarian and another of the evening's pundits, said Hillary was right but "frightening."
While the men concluded she was right in her response as she understood the question, I observed that it was an all-male panel that shrugged, chuckled and perhaps winced, searching for ways to excuse what's been called an "angry outburst." The joke was she should have smiled and asked, "What am I, chopped liver?"
That the question was reportedly mistranslated is beside the point. You can only respond to what you think you've been asked. However, have you read what "The Lede" of the New York Times reported today?
Robert Mackey asserts that the question was not mistranslated, that the student actually did ask Hillary Clinton to tell him Bill Clinton's thoughts.
In the video of the event embedded below, from Britain’s Channel 4 News, Mrs. Clinton can be seen listening and then responding to a simultaneous translation as the student asked: “We’ve all heard about the Chinese contracts in this country — the interferences from the World Bank against this contract. What does Mr. Clinton think, through the mouth of Mrs. Clinton, and what does Mr. Mutumbo think on this situation?” ... (The Lede)
The piece continues to say that reporters who were present at the event confirmed the student asked for former president Bill Clinton's opinion not President Barack Obama's opinion as has been reported in mainstream media here in the states.
I add, as others have, that Bill Clinton's success in North Korea has been prominent in the news lately. In the Congo, a nation that makes the paradigm of male dominance palpable, Hillary may have been reminded of the stinging accusations she faced on the campaign trail as she ran for the presidency. Her critics frequently suggested that she's done nothing with her life but follow Bill, that she's where she is not because of her intellect or hard work but because of her husband. Such commentary is like the statement "You're only here because of Affirmative Action" with a shot of patriarchy as chaser.
Society likes to blame people who have chips on their shoulders as though society exist in a vacuum of imaginary chips.
The nation is poised to hear aspersions cast, all the "dirty laundry" anyone opposed to Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor may find or think they've found during her confirmation hearings, which have begun. As President Obama did at Notre Dame, she's got anti-abortion protesters stalking her.
I haven't weighed in on the idiotic accusations that she is an unqualified racist because there are not enough hours in the day to keep track of right wing BS, much less respond to it. However, I did write about what former Secretary of State Colin Powell said and posted it at the African-American Books Examiner last week.
What we can't continue to have is to have somebody like a Judge Sotomayor who is announced and based on one simple, tricky, but nonetheless, case that the Supreme Court is now deciding have her called a racist, a reverse racist, and (say) she ought to withdraw her nomination because we're mad at her. Fortunately the senators who will sit on this hearing in the judiciary committee after a few days of this kind of nonsense said, 'Let's slow down. Let's examine her qualifications in the way we're supposed to at a confirmation hearing.'" (Powell on Republicans an Race, Sotomayor)
I've never doubted her confirmation, but still read up on her battles. Below is a list of links.
Oops! The cheerleaders sexting post is at this link. The post below is about other issues with naked women.
Suszanne Reisman has quite the hot post going at Blogher with the title "Why are Women's Bodies Public Domain?" If you read the beginning of the post, you might think it's all about women's restrooms and kids, but by the second paragraph, the astute reader knows there's more afoot.
A few years ago, as I waited in line for a stall in a public bathroom, a mother came in with her young son. No big deal; this happens all the time. However, I was beyond dismayed when my turn came and the kid stuck his head under my stall door while I used the toilet.
His mom immeidately [sic] yelled at him to get back over to the sink so she could wash his hands, and a thought process unfurled itself in my head: Perhaps one of the reasons that women's bodies are always on display Western culture while men's are private and guarded fiercely has as much to do with childhood as it does with the patriarchal sexualization of the female figure. (SR)
I'm not going to tell you more than that because I believe you'd benefit from reading her post and associated comments. The discussion's quite lively and provocative. Here's part of one of my comments on the post:
As I read this excellent post, Suzanne, I recalled an article I read back in the 80s in Omni Magazine, don't know if it's still around, that society is so conditioned to viewing women as sex objects that it's not uncommon for young girls to feel aroused not by male bodies but by female bodies because that's the body promoted as sexy and sexual. The female body is the one associated with sex.
... As I write I'm considering your thoughts on the female body being everywhere in various states of undress.
I've noticed that sometimes in movies a woman's body may be completely exposed, but the male body is never seen in that same movie below the waist, and so I've wondered, as you have in this post, is there something that we're supposed to think is traumatizing about seeing male genitalia?
What we see instead is the undercover penis, phallic symbols everywhere, the assertion of male power through subliminal messaging perhaps.
One of BlogHer's male members also joined the discussion and he's holding his own, trying to explain the facts of life to us women about men, the female form, and the quest for equality:
Natural Selection
Women's bodies have to be "promoted as sexy and sexual", because that's how men choose women for dating. I've never heard any guy EVER say that he selected a woman to be his girlfriend SPECIFICALLY because she was so physically unattractive to him. :)
What I'm "enjoying" about this conversation is that the 'facts' behind this phenomenon are so deeply ingrained that I can't find the right words to explain it to y'all. :D It's like trying to explain to you how I breathe. I don't know. I just breathe. I don't TRY to breathe.
If you look at prostitution, there's a booming industry for women to receive money for having sex with men. There's almost ZERO industry for men to receive money for having sex with women. Explain that. :)
You just can't find equality in every single aspect of life.
Yes, well, I know that, sir, how men have trouble getting their minds off the female form even when it's adequately concealed. I once met a man for serious business only to discover he did not pay attention to anything I said because he was preoccupied with cup size beneath my business jacket. Uh, he finally blurted to my dismay, "What are you hiding beneath that jacket?" Unfortunately, his focus on boobs made him unsuitable to the purpose of the meeting.
Still, I think it's possible for men to turn that biology off when they need to, such as for business. Perhaps younger men have more difficulty stopping their sexual thoughts, but stopping is not an impossible feat.
Women commenting on Suzanne's post also talk about the safety of women's restrooms and their children, fear of male "predators" and "weirdos," and how "the female body is designed to be shared."
The last bit about sharing the female body is not what it sounds like; nevertheless, I recalled the only culture I know of where one wife is shared by men. A man having more than one wife, I knew of, but not what goes on in the town of Himachal Pradesh, India.
They practice what is known as fraternal polyandry -- where the brothers of one family marry the same woman. Why? Tradition and economics. (CNN)
The video accompanying the piece on wife-sharing brothers with Sara Sidner reporting is intriguing:
One husband is enough trouble for me, but two might make life interesting.
Finally, in case you're wondering about the picture of the beautiful male body I've placed in this post, I believe in equal opportunity when it comes to showing the human physique. Consequently, I added a photo of Jason Mamoa, the actor and fine male specimen who plays Ronon Dex on Stargate Atlantis. Jason is also a writer and artist, according to his bio, and while he is too young for me, he's always easy on the eyes.
Is it true that Sarah Palin was minding her business like Little Miss Muffet with absolutely no interest in becoming the Republican vice presidential nominee at all until John McCain called her up? I ask this question because last night on Larry King Live, Judge Judy, who did not vote McCain/Palin, said that she didn't like how the Republicans were infighting, back-biting, and blaming Sarah Palin for McCain's loss. The back-biting is not deserved, Judge Judy believes, unless, of course, Palin had gone after the Vice President nomination.
So, for some people the conclusion is Sarah Palin is blameless because she never asked to be the nominee. They might change their minds, however, if they discover she lobbied for the VP slot and attempted to woo Washington before she got the McCain call. There's evidence that she did just that.
Nevertheless, I still say that Republicans should not blame Palin for losing the election and exaggerate her shortcomings now because it suits them. The buck stops with the leader, McCain, for inviting and selecting her to join him on the ticket. And, as I've said before, Republicans need to take responsibility for voting her in at the RNC without first fully vetting her.
Think conservatives didn't see Palin coming? Think again. Here's YouTube video of conservative Bill Kristol columnist back in June, two months before the Palin selection, on Fox News, praising the Alaska governor, making a "prediction" that McCain would choose her, and accusing liberals of being misogynistic when it came to Hillary Clinton. Some in the liberal camp (and the conservative as well) indeed sprayed sexist spittle over Hillary, but Kristol goes further to say Republicans would never be misogynistic because they respect strong women. Hmm, how does he explain Republicans tossing Palin on the figurative funeral pyre?
But wait! There's more. Here is a link to Kristol in October 2008 saying that Palin's pick was a surprise to him and he thought McCain should have chosen Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) as his running mate. Is Kristol delusional? Did he forget what he said about Palin in June? Well, no, he sort of remembers, and he also shows where his head is in that he thought McCain should pick Palin mostly because President-elect Barack Obama did not pick Hillary Clinton. Isn't that what liberals said about the Palin choice, that McCain didn't choose Palin because she was the best candidate but because she was female? Oh, I get it. If you point that out and you're liberal, then you're sexist. If you're a conservative and say it, then you're savvy.
Or, I said a woman, just because I think Obama's failure to pick Hillary Clinton provided an opening. And of the women that I mentioned in the New York Times column that I wrote in the week before McCain's pick, I mentioned Palin, and Meg Whitman, the former CEO of eBay, as the two likely picks. I think I'm one of the few people in Washington who actually spent some time with Governor Palin a year ago, when we had our Weekly Standard cruise in Alaska, and I was impressed by her. I thought she would've been a bold and interesting pick and I think she was a bold and interesting pick. She's obviously been pummeled by the media, and has made some mistakes, and I think it has been mishandled by some of the McCain team. And like I said, since we speak 12 hours before the debate, it's a little hard to come to a conclusion on whether this was a smart, bold pick, or a foolish, bold pick. (Bill Kristol)
I also add this radio clip that I found at a pro-McCain/Palin blog, Draft Sarah Palin for Vice President, of Sarah Palin being interviewed on Fox radio in June 2008 about the energy crisis and drilling for oil.
Really, I did not want to discuss race, divisiveness, and hate speech for a while, but this morning while reading comments at BlogHer on the post "Winter for Conservatism?" my aggravation red alert sirens went off. Someone wrote that Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter don't use hate speech. WTF!
I know that people comment from the heart and personal experience and don't necessarily research information before they share opinions. I also allow that sometimes people commenting don't realize they speak from a lack of knowledge on certain subjects, but the comment section bugged me nonetheless because, for one, a reader cited the vitriol against George W. Bush over the last eight years as though Bush is a victim of oppression or something, and at the least, as though there is no difference between being incensed at the architect of bad public policy and using hate speech against groups of people.
Certainly we anticipate criticism of President-elect Barack Obama, but if he makes avoidable mistakes, and he will make mistakes at some point, we will not be genuine patriots if we stay mum. The vitriol aimed at him, and there will be more vitriol, may be colored by the hue of his skin, but intelligent people should know the difference between racially-tinged lambasting and honest reporting or critique.
As a middle-aged, African-American woman who's not only read the history of racism in this country but also experienced it, as the descendant of slaves who were not allowed to speak their minds for two hundred years and who once free risked being lynched, shot, jailed, or beaten for speaking against people who spoke vitriol against them for more than 100 years after emancipation, I am not weeping over someone calling George W. Bush an idiot or Ann Coulter a hate monger. Maybe I'm not to that place spiritually yet when I see all sins as equal. I hope I am with the rest of Americans, however, at a place to be reasonable enough to work with others.
In responding as I did, I know I've left myself open to some other person misguided about the matter of political correctness to drop by and chastise me for the force of my expression, but I am tired of speaking in dulcet tones to keep folks from feeling guilty about indulging incendiary language and pretending they don't know the difference between satire, a joke in good taste, a warranted objection, and fighting words. That goes for the people who are overly sensitive about racial, sexist, agist, religiously-intolerant offenses as well. Use some common sense sometimes.
Anyway, I read the comments on a bad day, and so, to say I was a little annoyed is understatement. Consequently, I ended up writing an entire essay in response, but here I preface my commentary with the words of Maya Angelou, who seems to be more spiritual than I, that Americans will rise.
Rush Limbaugh? I Know a Rabid Dog When I See One.
I'm a woman of reasonable intelligence, and so, I know a rabid dog when I see one. Not only is Rush Limbaugh an ignoramus of exceptional magnitude, he is a psychopathic liar who uses the airwaves consistently to foment division and lay the foundation for violence. I have no remorse about saying that because I condemn him based on his actions and words, the content of his character, not his ethnicity, gender, or even his waistline. Furthermore, I believe he has the right to free speech just as I do, but I also believe that if we don't speak against Limbaugh's type of rhetoric, we're doomed.
I'm critical of Rush Limbaugh for the same reasons some people are critical of Louis Farrakhan for his anti-Jewish rhetoric. But unlike people that I suspect Sarah Palin identified as living in "real America" who can't see what's wrong with Limbaugh's rhetoric because they believe he speaks for them and wants to protect them from us "other" people in the not real America, I can recognize when Farrakhan's gone astray in his rhetoric despite us both being black people and his belief that he promotes our elevation. I can see and not listen anymore.
You don't believe Rush Limbaugh engages in hate speech? Please listen to Limbaugh's "blacks in a 30 year plot" railing, if you can stand it. I believe that if you don't recognize his railings as hate speech in that instance it's probably because you believe what he's saying.
Ann Coulter is known for making statements similar to Limbaugh's, but she does it smiling and batting her eyes lashes. For instance, she told white people in one of her columns that the reason they can't get a mortgage loan is banks are giving their mortgage loans to minorities, which is not true. Both Rush and Ann types push the us vs. them paradigm for race relations.
Why is there concern about this type of propaganda? We are concerned because we know history and see where racist or xenophobic rhetoric can lead. Please read my comment at this linkon Mata's post about Kristallnacht.
If I had to define hate speech, I would say it's speech that blames one group for the misfortune of another group through the use of misinformation, fact twisting, misdirection, deflection, and blatant lies. This definition does not include the informed and reasonable examination of crimes against a people or oppression of a people based on historical fact and reliable data. For instance, when we condemn Nazi Germany, we are expressing a loathing for the actions of a people who supported Hitler's ideas, but our opinions are based on fact and the Nazi's well-documented inhumane treatment of other humans, including genocide. If from that examination we draw the conclusion that we despise Nazis, then is that damnable hate or is it righteous indignation?
However, to look at the crime rate, for instance, and notice that young black teens are arrested at disproportionate rates and draw the conclusion that getting rid of black babies will reduce crime, and then to broadcast that belief and message is spreading hate speech.
If you notice that standardized test scores went down at a local school after the school population shifted to majority Mexican, and then to extrapolate from that observation that Mexicans must be stupid, not as smart as whites, and so are destroying the school system, and then to broadcast that belief to people to get them to feel the same way and draw the conclusion that the city and citizens should get those Mexicans out of our schools and also not give them jobs or rent apartments to them because they are bad for the community is hate speech.
To throw out such information as "our schools have deteriorated because we've integrated," while stopping short of saying "so move the others out of our schools or move ourselves away from the others" but knowing that's the conclusion people will draw is also hate speech, the most cunning kind. People who frame racist arguments and then watch others take that rhetoric to the next level should stop pretending they don't know what they've said and stop blaming their listeners for acting alone when they take hatred to the streets.
To decide that male pedophiles often molest boys and then to jump to the conclusion that male pedophiles must also be gay and so conclude all gay men are also pedophiles and later to broadcast that information because you're afraid for you children's safety around anyone gay and so want all of society to ostracize gay people, keep them from working in schools, having families of their own, etc., is hate speech.
To see that most Ku Klux Klan members are white people and to suspect that your boss is a Klansman or a Klansmen sympathizer and that's why you never got your promotion and then to conclude all white people are against all black people and to broadcast that all white people, therefore, want to oppress people who are not white and so all nonwhite people need to take action against all white people is hate speech . It's still hate speech even after you find out your boss really does wear a white sheet and hood on Friday nights and nobody at your job will listen to your grievance. Stop saying all white people are racist devils, and take your jackass boss and the do-nothing company to court.
What do these examples have in common? In each example someone is drawing erroneous conclusions based on their narrow perception of the world and faulty logic about the root causes behind specific or general woes and so have developed a bias against a group. In addition, they have moved beyond their private thoughts to infecting others with their bigotry and fears. Rush Limbaugh and people like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin do this frequently and so we ask ourselves what motivates their vilifying of other groups?. They haven't been harmed by the groups they demonize. They can't even make reasonable accusations the groups they oppose are oppressing another group or violating their civil rights. So, what causes them to use language that may incite violence and stir hatred of "the other"?
And if we criticize their rhetoric using historical fact and reliable data are we using hate speech against them?
Defining condemnation of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter's type of rhetoric as simply more hate speech is the failure to parse language accurately and analyze history objectively. Start saying it's the same thing and eventually you will find yourself declaring that people who despise the Ku Klux Klan or Hitler are no different from the Ku Klux Klan and Hitler themselves because both offenders and defenders despise somebody. Huh?
Do we give up our right to say we recognize harmful speech within context of historical records and factual evidence? No, some actions and language are worthy of condemnation. Our intelligence helps us make distinctions.
I said I know a rabid dog when I see one, but we're talking about humans here, and so I must say that I'd never want to see the rabid dog/rabid human analogy moved to action because rabid dogs get put down. I wish Limbaugh and people who think like him long lives in hopes that they will one day have a change of heart and use their influence to promote tolerance and harmony with understanding. However, if he and people who think like him wish to complain about what I've said, I have this response: People who revel in inciting animosity with a pack of lies should not whine when anger turns on them.
Besides, the more Rush Limbaugh paints African-Americans and other people who don't look and think like him as the angriest people on the planet who have no reason to protest, the more we know that he is one of the angriest men in the world, forever foaming at the mouth.
