January 28, 2012

Why Jan Brewer Should Keep Her Fingers To Herself

http://crunkfeministcollective.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/white-womens-rage-5-thoughts-on-why-jan-brewer-should-keep-her-fingers-to-herself/

A friend of mine from high school posted this on Facebook today. Yesterday he sparked a wicked discussion on Facebook regarding Jan Brewers behavior. He made a good point - yeah it wasn't appropriate - but it also wasn't "lady like" and that perhaps he has a liberal feminist man married to a liberal feminist woman needed to re-evaluate his perception of gender appropriate behavior.

His wife then found this post on a feminist blog that explored how race and gender don't exist in separate vacuums. A bit of background on this man - his mom and my mom ran in the same circles in our home city. Moorehouse undergrad, Harvard Law, member of bachelors and Benedict, was a student of Malcolm X when we were in high school and is now attending Seminary school. He's questioning the concept of female rage being a stereotype of the "angry black woman". IE did Jan Brewer spark something that we were not aware exists? And he and his wife amongst others are exploring - and I'm sure you'll like this . . . Why feminist women don't behave this way - regardless of our skin tone.

I.E. Who is really angry - and is their anger justified. No answers from me - just a well written and thought provoking piece. Enjoy!

January 11, 2012

Love Languages, Feminists in Romantic Relationships & Prostitution

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002152959
So it's been brought up that in Illinois a woman can bill her husband for sex. . . And they snort snort chuckle chuckle.

Ahem - so has anyone here read the Five Love Languages? Or any books on Master Conflicts in romantic relationships?

In my case - a loving relationship - my fiance has two primary love languages. Acts of Service and Gifts. My primary love relationship is 'discussion/talking/listening'. He shows his love for EVERYONE via gifts and acts of service.

Example - I do the majority of the cooking for us - and dare I say - I'm excellent! I'm also kind of anal retentive about how things are cleaned (say the bathrooms) so I'd prefer to do that so it's at my standard.

He in return is known for going out and replacing my shasta daisies that died with petunias (read flowers). He also replanted them. He does things like this often. And it's his 'thing' to purchase me a bouquet of flowers once a week.

Earlier that morning (petunias) - we had Morning Sex.

Did I prostitute myself because the husband/fiance/so in question gives gifts and brings his gift (generousity) to the table?

In our personal relationships - since we are having our personal marriages/long term relationships used to compare us to prostitutes . . . are we supposed to demand that a man NEVER purchase us anything? Lest we be perceived as giving him sex in return for that Twix bar from the convenience store?

Should I as a feminist demand that my lover, confidante, friend, and partner in crime SUPPRESS who he is at the very core in order to prevent the perception that he's behaving like a common seedy john?

I'm trying to get to the heart of the matter.

Are men who are NOT generous (basically selfish and miserly) the RIGHT men for feminists? Is that what I'm supposed to learn from the Wives/Girlfriends/Significant Others are Prostitutes Too memo?

Is that the IDEAL man in general. One who would rather anally rend and torture himself than having to 'pay his wife for sex' by purchasing a pint of half and half for her to place in her coffee in the morning . . . when he never touches coffee himself?

Reverse it - if the woman is the bread winner? Is her husband the guy in hung? Or is it ONLY when a woman accepts a gift in a loving relationship (even if that gift is a basic need - food, shelter, clothing) can one be a prostitute?

January 3, 2012

Is this 'too bold' of a statement to make about Ron Paul?

In an online convo at another site (has a politics board but not politically oriented) - I brought up Ron Paul's many statements in regards to black Americans over the years early last week.

Yesterday I posted the following in response to some of his vociferous defenders trying to explain away his writing and verbal manure over the years:

If it walks like a duck
Talks like a duck
Writes like a duck

It's a duck. It's very easy for a white woman to not be afraid. He doesn't intend to make such repressive laws that would force a white woman to be one of those step and fetchers in the help.

Your liberty - the whip at my back. Sorry but it's a duck to me.

And this precisely why some states can't be given the privilege of states rights. They had a hundred years to stand up straight and fly right and they couldn't be decent Americans and do the right thing. The things that Ron Paul hates? They had to be legislated because of people like him.

I can almost hear him saying: I don't dislike The Black Folk I just wouldn't want to have to treat one in my practice.


Someone said that was a pretty bold statement to make . . . she was all 'I've got the vapors' over it.

So - was it bold? I countered with:


So what if it's a bold statement. Ron Paul has made a lot of the years . . .

Turn about is fair play.

What? If he reads that he's going to cry like a little girl?

Why am I not allowed to point out that he's too wet to step on and too low to kick? The fact is - he is.

I'm a black woman. I was the target of the class of 1994. I hear dog whistles when I hear them. This man is one big dog whistle. And - I don't think I'm the only minority - let alone minority woman in America who thinks about Ron Paul just as I've written. When I read his words . . . when I see his video . . . when I see who he 'pals around with' and 'rubs shoulders with' - isn't it my statement obvious?