As controversy surrounding the now infamous Mountain Dew ad created by Odd Future front-man, Tyler, The Creator, gained in intensity, in large part due to my friend and colleague, Dr. Boyce Watkins, labeling it “the most racist ad in history,” the many varied and nuanced responses to it began to form their own separate story.

Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, the fact that a woman appeared to have been violently raped has warranted little more than a dismissive mention in this post-deconstruction phase, pushed to the back in favor of debating the accuracy — of lack thereof — of distilling racism from a commercial featuring a talking goat.

After Mountain Dew pulled the ad, offering a flippant mea culpa on par with Lil Wayne‘s and Rick Ross‘ last-ditch efforts to appease their corporate masters sponsors, a Facebook friend of mine asked me how I felt about the ad and I gave him the abbreviated version:

Mountain Dew, a PepsCo company, may have taken away Tyler’s piggy bank and dapped it out with Black men offended by the police line-up trigger — because they “perceived” it to be racist — but there has still been little to no mention of the fact that a mockery was made of a woman being assaulted and raped to increase the product’s attractiveness to young men.

“You shoulda gave me some more, I’m nasty,” said Felicia, the Goat in a raspy voice. “”Keep ya mouth shut, I’m going to get out of here and Dew you up!”

I acknowledge that one-dimensional concern about the safety and well-being of women –regardless of ethnicity or race — may be beyond the scope of concern for some men, especially those who justifiably see clear manifestations of white supremacist capitalist patriarchy embedded in a police line-up. But the obvious intersectionality of race and rape culture in this one ad is just too glaring to miss.

First, we have a goat, who is clearly a conduit for cultural onomatopoeia. Spouting “gangsta” Hip-Hop catch phrases, from “you better not snitch on a playa” to ” snitches get stitches,” he is clearly intended to embody the stereotypical, hardcore, sinister, animalistic, barbaric, aggressive, Black man who forces innocent white women to clutch their pearls and move to the edge of a sidewalk wide enough to fit 20 people.

That’s the obvious racism, but there’s much more — less visible to the myopic eye, but embedded in the very fabric of this nation and the literature that we teach our children.

• Tom Robinson, a Black man in Harper Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird, was tried in the court of public opinion and faced being executed for allegedly raping a white woman.

• Bigger Thomas, a Black man in Richard Wright’s Native Son, was so afraid that people would think that he raped a white woman that he accidentally murdered her instead.

• In a tragic twist of irony, Emmett Till, the Chicago teen who was brutally murdered in 1955 for allegedly whistling at a white woman, and who was at the center of Lil Wayne’s own Mountain Dew controversy, is the ultimate example of why a malignant joke about a Black man — albeit one in muppet form — raping a white woman is the height of offensiveness and cultural insensitivity.

But to even peel back that layer, one must grant the sole woman in the ad a grain of importance. One must feel that her victimization matters before one can even begin to dissect the bloated racial symbolism.

But she didn’t. We don’t. Not to corporate America and not in a patriarchal society where it doesn’t matter if a woman has been raped as long as the police line-up has some diversity.

I spoke with Dr. Boyce — who deserves credit for taking note that the woman appeared to have been sexually assaulted –  to get his take on the lack of concern as it pertained to the misogyny in the ad. I wanted to know why, as a man, and as a black man in particular, the racially charged gender dynamic did not resonate with him as much as the police line-up and his response was extremely interesting:

The post Almost Doesn’t Count: Why Mountain Dew Owes Women An Apology appeared first on Clutch Magazine.

“The most disrespected person in America is the Black woman, the most unprotected person in America is the Black woman, the most neglected person in America is the Black woman.” – Malcolm X

When the laser sharp backlash finally grew too intense to ignore, Reebok severed ties with spokesperson Rick Ross for his failure to sincerely apologize for glorifying rape in the song “U.O.E.N.O.”

That’s the good news.

The bad news is that the fraternal twins of misogyny and violence are as necessary to corporate Hip-Hop’s survival as Black men are to the Prison Industrial Complex – and it didn’t take long for Chicago rapper Chief Keef to grab the baton from Ross to ensure that it lived to see another day.

Conveniently leaking the lyrics to his latest song, “You,” at the height of the Ross controversy – no doubt to prove that he’s “hard” and not intimidated by feminist wrath – Chief Keef, born Keith Cozart, spit the following bars:

My first instinct was to address the lyrics themselves – and the shattered community structure and subsequent lack of character from which they derived. But I swiftly came to the conclusion that deconstructing the words of a 17-year-old boy whose pathetic perception of manhood is so inextricably linked to his penis as to be a tired cliché would be an exercise in futility.

Why?

Because Chief Keef is nothing but corporate Hip-Hop’s latest poster boy, a generic figure interchangeable with many young Black men on the streets with mediocre talent, incessant bravado and dreams of stardom with no viable options in sight. He is a pawn about as pivotal to the eradication of entrenched rape culture in Hip-Hop as a minimum wage drive-thru worker at McDonald’s is to reducing pink slime in their cheeseburgers.

He is merely another Pinocchio – Look, Ma! I’m a real man! — manufactured and sold as an MC to a frustrated, young urban populace looking for a hood hero. So to be effective on any level, any dialogue or course of action must focus on Geppetto – in this case, Interscope Records. While I abhor censorship, there is nothing free about speech when rappers are bought and paid for and young Mr. Cozart is a caricature of Black masculinity repurposed by Interscope to line their own pockets.

He isn’t an artist, he’s a calculated risk.

Just as his cohort, Def Jam rapper Little Reese, was lightly chastised by Russell Simmons for beating a woman like she was one of Michael Vick’s dogs and still allowed to keep his recording contract, as long as Chief Keef makes money, Interscope couldn’t care less about how many women he raps about murdering and raping.

Even though certain conscious rappers may disagree, it is not authentic Hip-Hop culture – semantics be damned – when Black men are paid to prey on Black women. There is absolutely zero cultural value in replicating a global rape epidemic within the narrow confines of Hip-Hop vernacular. Corporate Hip-Hop has revealed itself to be a diamond-encrusted plantation where Black men are nothing but hedonistic slaves bound by whips and chains. It’s a place where rape culture is embraced, cultivated and financed, and women are drugged, told to “suck d*ck” or die. To paraphrase my words from an essay penned for TheGrio:

Violent words — hit, bang, beat, cut, smash – have been re-appropriated to refer to pleasurable, consensual sexual activity. It is not surprising, then, that sixty percent of Black girls have experienced sexual abuse before the age of eighteen. The Beat Bang Theory (double entendre intended) dictates that masculinity be defined by the authority — indeed, the right — to objectify, dehumanize, violate and destroy women, all while rocking a microphone.

Chief Keef and other young men like him are aggressive symptoms of a cultural cancer that has metastasized throughout our communities. And like any illness that is allowed to recklessly proliferate, the money is in the medicine, not the cure. This beat-laden pathology being pedaled as music is a complex pyramid scheme based on cultural theft and exploitation that can no longer be protected and preserved by those who profit from the facade.

It is nothing short of dangerous hypocrisy that Black Entertainment Television can have Rick Ross “Rip The Runway” rapping about “riding clean and fucking hoes,” turn around and introduce a Lil Wayne song on “106 & Park” with lyrics such as “killing them bitches I hope all dogs go to heaven,” then with a straight face swear on a stack of bibles that “Black Girls Rock.” And as long as rape culture generates revenue, sincere macro-level efforts to empower women will never exist.

The undeniable fact is that these pimps masquerading as corporations — and the Black-faces of patriarchy who love them — are proud stakeholders in the degradation and endangerment of women and they must be held accountable. This is not love. This is war for the security of our daughters and the souls of our sons. That must, in no uncertain terms, be the non-negotiable line in the sand.

Whose side are you on?

Follow Kirsten West Savali on Twitter at @KWestSavali.

The post The Beat Bang Theory: How Corporate Hip-Hop Profits From Rape Culture appeared first on Clutch Magazine.

When I read the Wall Street Journal op-ed written by graduating high school senior Suzy Lee Weiss, I was immediately floored by her intelligence, fearlessness and sheer commitment to exposing the discriminatory inequities inherent in the college admission process.

Many students rejected by their dream universities — in her case, Princeton, Yale, Vanderbilt and the University of Pennsylvania — would have accepted that they may not have met the needed admissions requirements; they may have even acknowledged that someone, somewhere may have been more qualified.

But not “sassy” Suzy, oh no.

My sassy 17-year-old sister, @sweiss_onthemic in the WSJ about her various college rejections: online.wsj.com/article/SB1000…

— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) March 31, 2013

Suzy did what any self-respecting privileged, young, white woman would do — she used her familial connections with the WSJ to pave the way for her brilliant op-ed, which otherwise may have languished in darkness, never to be seen by human eyes. This literary phenomenon, which places the blame squarely on the shoulders of those pesky black and brown people who don’t deserve to go to college because, well, they’re black and brown, has exposed the world’s best-kept secret: “If it ain’t white, it ain’t right.”

Read one of her most riveting passages below:

For starters, had I known two years ago what I know now, I would have gladly worn a headdress to school. Show me to any closet, and I would’ve happily come out of it. “Diversity!” I offer about as much diversity as a saltine *******. If it were up to me, I would’ve been any of the diversities: Navajo, Pacific Islander, anything. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, I salute you and your 1/32 Cherokee heritage.

It is past time that someone said this…again. Affirmative action advocates may whine about her cavalier dismissal of Muslim students who are discriminated against and harassed in institutions of learning across the nation, particularly if they are wearing traditional Muslim attire, but I applaud her laser-sharp focus on what really matters. Middle-class, white students are not being shown the respect they deserve and universities are black-balling them out of their God-given birthrights –an Ivy League education.

One would think that because President Obama has a white mother he would be more invested in the cause; but we all know how much of a militant he is — all black power, all the time. If not for tenacious, white students like Suzy, people might actually focus on the fact that black and Latino students in major cities are disproportionately receiving sub-par educations in comparison to their white counterparts. If we’re not careful, instead of Suzy being invited to the ‘Today’ show to discuss how hard it is out here for educated, middle-class white girls to get into Ivy League schools, what with the Muslims and minorities and all, black students might be invited on to discuss how they are closing 54 Chicago Public Schools in a city already riddled with gun violence.

And don’t we talk about the inner-city enough?

The National Journal reports:

In the fall of 2011, the undergraduate enrollment at Princeton was 6.5 percent Latino, 5.1 percent black, 11.8 percent Asian, and 36.4 percent white (the remaining 40 percent count as multiracial, Native American, foreign students, or unknown).

The Ivy schools generally fall short in mirroring the national minority population, which 16.7 percent Latino, 13.1 percent black, 5.6 percent Asian, and 1.7 percent Native American, according to government data.

What else do these system-suckers want — a gold-medal in suffering?

Speaking with Savannah Guthrie, Weiss confidently explained that the WSJ op-ed was “satire.”

“It’s a satire. That’s the point. Just like ’30 Rock’ is a satire, which pokes fun at things that are politically correct. That’s what I was trying to do,” she said.

Now, I’m no academic; after all, I only graduated from an HBCU. But it’s my understanding that a satire by definition sheds light on problematic elements in society with a subtle, sophisticated sarcasm that allows the perpetrators to take note of their short-comings without taking offense.

Since discrimination, starvation in Africa and Islamophobia are actual things that need to be addressed, not discounted in favor of a whiny tirade about privilege and entitlement, I examined Weiss’ appearance closely in hopes that this brilliant satire would be revealed to me — and I finally got it.

Weiss, in her budding wisdom, exposed the mantle of white privilege for what it should be: Proud, unapologetic and unconcerned with anyone not blessed to posses it. She offered herself up as the scape-goat to be ridiculed. Though she did receive job and internship offers for her take-down of reverse racial discrimination, that was never the point.

The point was to reveal the face of the forthcoming post-racial state of America. A place where white students are rewarded for mocking the tenuous foundation of equality on which this country is built and education remains a coveted club to which only middle-class white students are entitled.

Well done, Suzy. Well done.

Follow Kirsten West Savali on Twitter at @KWestSavali.

The post For Middle-Class White Girls When Being Privileged Isn’t Enough appeared first on Clutch Magazine.

Marc Lamont Hill‘s HuffPost Live conversations, known among other things for their analytical critiques on issues that matter to the Hip-Hop community and urban culture at large, are often fiery give and takes with thought leaders of the day.  And yesterday’s conversation with Ebony Magazine’s News & Life Editor Jamilah Lemieux, Washington Post columnist Rahiel Tesfamariam, activist and 2008 Green Party vice-presidential candidate Rosa Clemente, and Hip-Hop icon Talib Kweli, did not disappoint.

Jumping right into it with Lil Wayne‘s wildly controversial — and obviously sizzurp/purp/lean induced — lyrics that arguably desecrated the legacy of slain teen, Emmett Till, Hill segued into the Rick Ross controversy that will not go away 1.) Because it shouldn’t; and 2.) Because he offered one of the most ridiculously stupid responses known to (wo)mankind as an excuse.

You see, women are precious to the Hip-Hop community and the streets (You hear that “video hoes,” “bitches” and “tip drills”? You’re precious). And Ross would never use the word rape in a song and all the obviously overwrought women folk simply “misunderstood” him.

Oh.

The ideas shared by the panel were engaging, no surprise there, but things took an interesting turn when Clemente said that she didn’t consider Rick Ross to be a part of Hip-Hop culture.

And Kweli blacked out.

More than at any other point in the conversation, Kweli loudly spoke over Clemente, ignored Hill’s attempts to rein in the run away monologue in defense of Ross’ place in Hip-Hop culture and went completely in mansplaining to Clemente why we need to treat Ross with “love” and not dismissiveness. According to Kweli, we should recognize his contributions to Hip-Hop and that if we begin a conversation with condescension then the battle is already lost.

I agree with Kweli on that point. One of the most memorable pieces of advice I’ve received that I strive to use in my everyday life is: “People might forget what you said, but they never forget how you made them feel.”

But here’s the thing:

Rick Ross is a joke. The only reason he gets any kind of love is because the powers that be decided to make him and his grunts the hot, new minstrel show. If he weren’t getting spins he would have no friends. He stole a man’s name to get rich on his street cred. He pays homage to notorious dope dealers like they’re upstanding pillars of the community. Most importantly, he raps about drugging women to have sex with them when he isn’t squeezing his hefty a*s into a car or shirt that no one wants to see him in.

To quote Lemieux: F*ck Rick Ross.

Yes, it may be strategic to approach him as Jesus would do — all meek, mild and understanding; but I’m not Christian, so I don’t get the appeal. Though Kweli — who is one of my favorite artists of all time in any genre; “Just To Get By” got me through some things — has publicly and loudly denounced Ross, his false equivalency when boldly suggesting that Clemente was just as much a part of the rape culture dynamic as Ross is highly problematic. To be honest, as was Hill’s tentative suggestion that women should be as outraged over Beyoncé screeching “bitch” like she’s at a Houston Bar-be-Que doing the Southside circa 1998 as we are over Rick Ross sputtering about date rape.

Should we also treat racist cops with “love” when they murder our sons?

Should we treat educators with “love” when they cheat our children?

Should we treat imperialistic governments with “love” when they murder and maim in the name of patriotism?

Should we treat politicians with “love” when they wage war on people living in poverty while protecting corporate interests?

Hell no.

Then why should we approach Rick Ross with love when he has shown nothing but utter contempt and disdain for women since he waddled into the game?

There is clearly a “Blue Line” in Hip-Hop; I get it. But it is not up to the women who feel disrespected to validate his right to exist in the music industry before addressing misogynistic lyrics that have the potential to greatly influence young men. Yes, he is a huge factor in Hip-Hop culture, whether we like it or not, but he is not now, nor will he — in his current state — be deserving of women’s “love.”

And to suggest that the method by which women approach the issue of misogyny in Hip-Hop is a cause of its continuation, sounds a little bit too much like victim-blaming for me to feel comfortable with.

***

Follow Kirsten West Savali on Twitter at @KWestSavali.

The post Should We Treat Rappers Who Glorify Rape With ‘Love’? appeared first on Clutch Magazine.

The Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality of same-sex marriage and the ripple effect will inevitably shape policy and society for generations to come. And as a cisgender, heterosexual Black woman, I could not be more thrilled. The federal Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8 are malignant tumors choking society’s evolution and it is past time that we pull them out at the root.

In a society where “no homo” and “pause” are considered homophobic-lite, and, in the words of Dr. Michael Eric Dyson, “sexual rednecks” attempt to restrict the LGBTQ to permanent underclass status, the hijacking of the law to legislate morality has paved the way for reductive and disingenuous dialogue. Biased rhetoric framed around Christianity — and the arrogant assumption that this country’s moral compass should be guided by subjective religious scriptures — have clouded the concrete facts.

This is not about who one prays to in the morning or sleeps with at night, it’s about the simple fact that as tax-paying citizens of this country, the LGBTQ community has the unalienable right to marry.

Period.

And they have the right to call it marriage.

Period.

And the Christian church does not, or rather should not, dictate national policy.

Period.

No disability, ethnicity, gender, creed or sexual orientation should create a barrier between tax-paying citizens of this country and equality. If the LGBTQ community is “allowed” to die oversees for this country, then they damn sure have the right to be married in it.

In response to Attorney Charles Cooper arguing against marriage equality in the state of California, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked a simple question that encapsulates the core of debate:

Outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits? Or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other decision-making that the government could make — denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?

Cooper, clearly struggling with whether or not to continue his erroneous argument or admit that he actually did understand the law, crumbled beneath the question.

“Your Honor, I cannot,” Cooper said. “I, I do not have, uh, uh, any, uh, anything to offer you in that regard.”

“If they’re a class that makes any other discrimination improper, irrational, then why aren’t we treating them as a class for this one benefit?” Sotomayor then asked.

Why, indeed. The answer is subjective morality of the religious class and that has no place in an individual’s rights and freedom.

See exchange below:

The place is here and the time is now for the end of sanctimonious, self-righteous, condescending bullsh*t masquerading as morality. Discrimination in any form must no longer be protected by bigoted, legal (mis) interpretations. Just as miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional, just as Black people had to legally be declared completely human and not 3/5ths, this country is experiencing history in the making. It might not be your fight, but it is a legitimate, necessary fight that is one step closer to being won.

In the words of the revolutionary Huey P. Newton:

“Whatever your personal opinions and your insecurities about homosexuality and the various liberation movements among homosexuals and women (and I speak of the homosexuals and women as oppressed groups), we should try to unite with them in a revolutionary fashion.

We must gain security in ourselves and therefore have respect and feelings for all oppressed people. We must not use the racist attitude that the White racists use against our people because they are Black and poor.

Homosexuals are not enemies of the people.

No, they are not enemies of the people; they are the people. We. The. People. And justice for any of us, is justice for all of us.

It is time.

***

Follow Kirsten West Savali on Twitter at @KWestSavali.

The post Right Side Of History: The End Of DOMA, Prop 8 appeared first on Clutch Magazine.

When New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg unleashed his recent elitist, race-tinged, poverty-shaming ad campaigns on the unsuspecting citizens of NYC, allegedly intended to illustrate the pitfalls of teen pregnancy, he sparked a fiery outcry that rages still — and rightfully so.

Toddlers with anxious tear-stained faces are captioned with statistics meant to alarm and shame teens out of having children. One ad even goes so far as to have a little Black girl mock and shame her future mother:

“Honestly mom, chances are he won’t stay with you. What happens to me?

As expected, Planned Parenthood, spoke out against the ads. Haydee Morales, vice president for education and training at Planned Parenthood of NYC, said that the organization was “shocked and taken aback” by the strident tone of the bold campaign, reiterating that “hurting and shaming communities is not what’s going to bring teen pregnancy rates down.”

In a culture where women, particularly women of color — especially women of color living in poverty — are ridiculed and lambasted on a daily basis in the media, stripped of dignity in the face of one-dimensional statistics manipulated to further the already entrenched narrative that poor Black women giving birth is what’s wrong with America, one would think that denouncing this campaign as ineffective and cruel would be a no-brainer, right?

I could not have been more wrong.

In an op-ed for The Root, titled “Why Liberals Are Wrong On Teen Pregnancy,” political correspondent and author, Keli Goff, wrote that the criticism surrounding the campaign was “ridiculous,” “lunacy,” “well-intentioned but misguided.” According to Goff, Planned Parenthood’s position as one of the “nation’s leading sexual-health organizations” should preclude them from being in opposition to the campaign, even in the face of the organization’s “diversity” issues and “privileged” vantage point. Goff further states that PP is “celebrating and encouraging teen pregnancy,” which, in light of their mission, is so baffling to her that she asks her readers: “Did I miss something?”

Obviously I did, because I have not seen one response from Planned Parenthood that even suggests they are in favor of more teen pregnancies. In fact, because that is such a far-fetched accusation to fling, I felt compelled to check — and nothing. Not. One.

To Goff’s credit, she acknowledges that her position is not a popular one among her liberal friends and colleagues and that she fully expected them to tell her as much. And while we are not friends — we’ve never met but I’m sure we’d get along famously — I do admire her career and have rooted for her achievements. When Pat Buchannan told her to shut up on national television in 2008, I even got all sista-girl and said I know he didn’t. The fact that I even clicked on the link to read her article is a testament to the respect that I have for her opinion, but in this case, I found her position to be extremely problematic.

One of the primary criticisms the campaign has received is that it misses its mark. Instead of speaking to potential parents, it casts judgement on those teenagers who already have children, further stigmatizing them and their offspring in front of their peers and society. I emphatically agree. When I see these ads, I envision a resentful, dismissive voice hissing to a young girl staring forlornly at the poster as she waits on the bus to arrive: “Oh we’re not talking to you, your life is already screwed up; we’re trying to save your friend and their unborn children so we don’t have to take care of the little poverty-ridden bastards.”

Extreme? Maybe, maybe not. But the psychological implications of this campaign on teens who are already parents can not, or rather should not — be dismissed as a casualty.

Goff states that she is unconcerned with that stigma; rather she cares more about the stigma that awaits the children of single, teen parents yet to be born “because their parents weren’t ready to realize their full potential as parents while raising them.”

Here’s where I disagree: In the eyes of the law and most households, teenagers are still children.

There is no magical age, say around 11-years-old, that children learn to scream “Expecto Patronum!” in order to shield themselves from the cruelties of a bleak reality. Most teen parents come from broken homes – and by that I don’t mean one-parent households. I’m referring to those that replace love with negligence, discipline with abuse, positive reinforcement with shame. The focus should be on their adult parents, and to a larger degree, the socio-economic and political factors that lead to unstable households, not shaming and victim-blaming little girls at bus-stops.

Unlike Goff, I do not believe that “shame is an effective motivator.”  In fact, I think shame is so counter-productive and cruel that I’m embarrassed that adult politicians and marketing professionals — who care less about communities and more about the bottom line — came up with the idea in the first place.

If we want to talk about ways to reduce teen pregnancies, let’s address the fact that it has dropped by 27 percent in New York City over a period of a decade, according to the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

 How, you ask?

The Health Department has a multi-pronged approach to reducing unintended teen pregnancy. It includes the distribution of a pocket-sized guide to clinics where teenagers can get medical care and low-cost or free contraception. The department also partners with clinics in the neighborhoods with the highest teen pregnancy rates, working to improve the quality of health care for teens. In public schools, the Health Department supports the Department of Education’s school-based classes, which provide accurate science-based information and use role-playing to help teenagers learn how to negotiate relationships and practice the skills necessary to make important decisions around reproductive health. In addition, all public high schools distribute condoms in the health resource rooms in each school. Through a combination of increasing education, skills-based learning, and access to quality health care, the Health Department continues to work toward lowering teen pregnancy rates.

No shaming in sight.

But I’ll tell you what has gone up: poverty. Yes, while Bloomberg is using poor, (potential) teen mothers as a red herring to deflect from racial and economic disparities that actually create conditions conducive to teen pregnancies, poverty has gone up — particularly for Black Americans who are faced with a 15.3 percent unemployment rate, while the nation stands at 8.2 percent.

Or how about education. According to “A Rotting Apple: Education Redlining in New York City” published by the Schott Foundation for Public Education:

It might behoove Bloomberg & Company to focus there instead of attempting to scare children already in a fight against society to keep their legs closed.

In a phone interview I conducted with Dr. Melissa Harris-Perry last year prior to the Democratic National Convention, among the many things we discussed was the stigma attached to being a parent living in poverty in America:

 ”I am truly a reproductive rights advocate,” said Dr. Harris-Perry. “I’m not just pro legal abortion…I also believe in highly accessible, insurance covered, hormonal birth controls. I’m also in favor of condoms being distributed in public bathrooms. I’m also in favor of the ability of poor women being able to have children, without being judged and stigmatized because they’re poor women. Just because you’re poor, doesn’t mean you’re not an adequate parent.”

That is what Bloomberg’s campaign is vilifying, poverty. It is not concerned with empowering teenagers not to have children, it is focused on reducing the city’s responsibility for healthcare costs associated with those who do. The bottom line: It is nothing more than capitalism masked as concern.

That is pathetic and it is dishonest. And in denouncing this campaign, liberals got it exactly right.

Follow Kirsten West Savali on Twitter at @KWestSavali.

The post Teen Pregnancy: Why Liberals Got It Right appeared first on Clutch Magazine.

If there were ever any doubts that white feminists are disengaged from and apathetic to the concurrent racism that Black feminists must navigate in an increasingly hipster and kyriarchal society, look no further than their deafening silence when satirical website, The Onion, called 9-year-old Quvenzhané Wallis a “cunt” on Twitter.

The arc of white feminist dialogue on social media in the wake of the barbaric, misogynistic tweet emerged as tepid awareness – maybe, possibly, there’s racism – before curving towards the indefensible position of their white, male counterparts – it’s just brilliant satire – before ultimately coming to rest at dismissal. The lack of concern that white feminists displayed for this little, brown girl could not have been more obvious even if they donned a head scarf and said a raspy, “Ain’t nobody got time for that!” before scurrying off to chide Oscar host Seth MacFarlane for his song about boobs or the Academy for only awarding 9 out of 30 awards to women.

Because that’s all that’s important, right?

We’re in post-racial America, so we shouldn’t be so touchy about MacFarlane and Lincoln star Daniel Day-Lewis sharing a guffaw about Don Cheadle being mistaken for a slave while he’s in character. We shouldn’t care about Iron Man star Robert Downey, Jr. defiantly clapping as MacFarlane joked about the brutalization of a then 21-year-old Rihanna, because she went back to her abuser, so to hell with objectifying her for shits and giggles.

And we most certainly shouldn’t care about a 9-year-old Black girl-child being called a “cunt” on the biggest night of her life because there are more important white feminist things to be concerned about.

The silence — or in the case of XOJane writer, Mandy Stadtmiller, and Jezebel writer, Katie J.M. Baker, the defense — in the face of The Onion hiding behind a foggy, humor lens to perpetuate misogyny and racism has been disappointing, but, unfortunately not surprising.

Why?

Because for many white feminists — not all — the realization that they do not stand to benefit from acknowledging the intersection of race and feminism renders them mute. The conversation surrounding the lack of inclusiveness and diversity within the feminist movement is one that never progresses because many white feminists feign ignorance of their privilege. They are comfortable allowing their Black counterparts to march in their Slutwalks while protesters carry “Woman Is The Nigger Of The World’ posters because racism is not their battle. It’s ours.

They encourage us to shrug off our Blackness for the greater feminist good; the end result being a contemporary plantation tableau defined by Ole Miss and Mammie slaying the patriarchal dragon while the issues of racism and classism are hidden behind the veil of  “progress.”  And while this scenario is about as feel-good as The Help, expanding white privilege — feminist or otherwise — is not equality.

When Quvenzhané Wallis was called that horrible word and Black feminists rushed to fill the vast social media space with righteous indignation and even a love letter letting her know that she is cherished, valued, and worthy of protection, we fought that battle alone. Even Baratunde  R. Thurston, comedian and author of  How To Be Black, defended his former employers. While he made it clear that he would stay out of the fray, he peeped his head in juuuuuust long enough to let us know that though he felt bad for Quvenzhané and her family, The Onion deleting the tweet was kind of a huge deal.

Oh, well, that’s just swell! We’ll just grab our tampons, Afro picks and anger, and be on our way.

^See what I did there? That’s satire.

As the layers of this incident continue to unfold, Black feminists have been accused by misogynists of irrationalism in the face of microaggression and ignorance in the face of satire apparently so sophisticated that it floats just beyond our comprehension.  And during this condescending exercise in privilege, white feminists have largely remained silent. That is the travesty here. We can all take the outcry over Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a “slut” all the way to the White House, but a 9-year-old Black girl can’t even get the support of white feminists in 140 characters or less.

@sandrafluke @moniselseward @only4rm @drgoddess Apology was 1st I saw of it. Thought my reaction obvious, but should have shown solidarity.

— Sandra Fluke (@SandraFluke) February 28, 2013

Though I’m sure I will be called divisive for examining the very large cat that has apparently grabbed the tongues of  self-proclaimed feminist organizations and torch-bearers who would have essentially stormed the Bastille if any young, white girl had “playfully” been called a “cunt” in front of millions of people, I’m perfectly fine with that. In fact, I embrace it. Feminism is the flawed solution to a very complex equation, and to get to the root of any complex equation, one must divide. Unfortunately, it’s becoming increasingly evident that some people don’t want us to divide because then we’ll realize something isn’t quite adding up.

 Shirley Chisholm once said that ”the emotional, sexual, and psychological stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says, “It’s a girl.”

For Black women, go ahead and add racial objectification to the list. And if the case of a 9-year-old Black girl has taught us anything, it’s that when it comes to combating intersecting cases of racism and sexism, don’t be surprised if we’re all we got.

Follow Kirsten West Savali on Twitter at @KWestSavali.

The post Where Were White Feminists Speaking Out For Quvenzhané Wallis? appeared first on Clutch Magazine.

It’s award season – which means those of us into fashion and beauty get to see our favorite stars pull out all of the stops. The accessories, the dresses and last, but certainly not least, the hair, takes center stage. In the midst of always tackling race, culture and politics, this is my time to unwind and just enjoy Fashion Police.

But things like race and culture always find a way of coming out of nowhere and biting you in the ass, don’t they?

With the exception of Solange Knowles, Teyonah Parris and Viola Davis, I couldn’t help but notice that in the midst of the Natural Hair (R)evolution, Black women on the red carpet are still clinging to relaxers, wigs and weaves when it’s time to “dress-up.” Not that there is anything wrong with rocking the hair extension or chemicals of your choice, but it kind of becomes problematic when you choose to do so to conform to the beauty standards of an industry that has historically and consistently marginalized Black women and tramples over any semblance of our natural beauty.

It’s almost as if we put on our “good hair” for special company.

It’s long been the norm in many circles that straight hair is synonymous with better, and one of those circles just happens to be Hollywood, a space that more and more Black woman are inhabiting – as long as they play by Eurocentric beauty rules. Perhaps we only have to look at the 9-year-old star of Beasts Of The Southern Wild, Quvenzhane Wallis, to realize how deep the rabbit hole goes. For a film that takes place in an impoverished Bayou community, an Afro is enough, but under the big lights of fame, only a press-n-curl will do.

If natural ‘fros are taboo in Hollywood, then dreads must be considered the Kiss of Death.

When it comes to natural hair in the white dominated entertainment world, dreads are the undeniable manifestation of  “otherness,” manipulated to define blackness as a whole, instead of an organic extension of self that flows from patience, diligence and strength. Perhaps it is that they are too powerful. Could it be that a woman with dreads is a story in motion, unable to be constrained by a simple plot or fictional character? Or is it something as simple as dreadlocks are not derived from whiteness, so their beauty is not understood and therefore not valued? And does that lack of awareness lead to natural black actresses avoiding even the idea of rocking a natural look that can not be tamed with a hot comb?

This is not to cast judgment on any of these women for their hair choices or the choices they make for their daughters, but here’s the thing:  natural hair should be a choice. It shouldn’t cease to be an option in an industry that leads the trend on what’s considered beautiful in America. Straight hair should be a choice, not forced assimilation into a dominant culture that can’t effectively replicate our uniqueness, so, instead, they create an environment in which we feel vulnerable and awkward for embracing it.

In an interview with Afrobella, the always stunning Sanaa Lathan discusses the lack of hair diversity in Hollywood, saying that while she is natural (and by natural, she means chemical-free), she straightens her hair for roles. Even though Lathan applauds the natural movement and the beauty of the Afro, she, along with countless other Black actresses, wait and hope Hollywood catches up to the trend, thus making it acceptable. Now, I would never insist that any woman go natural to make a socio-political statement, that’s not my place or my business, but if she feels that way, then why let fear of not fitting in, or being “off-trend” stop her from expressing herself?

The words that I strive to live by come from Albert Camus: “The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”

Maybe those are words that out natural-loving sisters should embrace in an industry that values conformity over authenticity.

Be free — and the rest will fall into place.

The post Black Women and Hollywood: Afraid To Go Natural? appeared first on Clutch Magazine.

When the women cheated, it was always for a “reason.” She was neglected, ignored, misunderstood.  Or the crowd favorite — it was for revenge. Her infidelity was never considered to be a reflection of her character or something to be taken at face value, because there was a “reason.” But when the discussion turned to men found guilty of cheating, the old axiom, “Women need a reason to cheat; men just need an opportunity,” ruled the debate.

He was automatically considered to be a dog, a liar, a “slut puppy,” someone so unworthy of forgiveness, that his behavior could be considered just cause for an addendum to President Obama’s controversial NDAA:

Any man even suspected of cheating can be apprehended by the United States military and detained indefinitely for subverting the peace of the nation and crimes against humanity.

Some argue that warm-blooded animals — including humans — are not meant to be monogamous, thus an inability to stay faithful in a monogamous relationship should not be considered a moral failure. I can dig that, but let’s tuck that discussion away for rainy day and ask the question:

Can a man ever be forgiven for cheating?

I’m not talking about that one eye on you and the other on any woman you so much as bat an eyelash at type of forgiveness. I’m talking about whole-hearted you made a mistake and I understand forgiveness.

I say yes, possibly.

Of course this doesn’t pertain to habitual cheaters who are so in love with the sight of their own penis they want everyone to have the pleasure. But for those men who cheat one time and are sincerely contrite,  a woman (from a heteronormative perspective)  should not be made to feel like the village idiot for staying in the relationship. Yes, there may be a need for couple’s therapy. Yes, the magnitude of his actions should be made clear to him. Yes, he must take full responsibility for being selfish, dishonest and immature. Yes, he should understand that the probability he will eeeeeever, eva, eva, eva be forgiven again falls somewhere between Tiger Woods dating a black woman and a Fugees reunion. But does he deserve at least a chance at redemption?

Absolutely — but only if the person that he’s hurt wants to give it to him.

In this patriarchal society, the mistakes that young men make primarily center around them stumbling towards manhood — what it is and how to get there. They are taught that women are trophies to be won. Often times they aren’t taught anything, instead figuring it out by watching BET and this mutated, commercialized Hip-Hop that will have some women thinking that being a stripper with an ass full of silicon is something that we all should strive towards in the quest for superficial male approval.

And those are our mistakes. As women, sometimes we change ourselves, deny our truths, dumb down and turn up in a bid to be that trophy. That’s what society does to many of us as we try to define womanhood, and does that make us unworthy and incapable of being smarter, better people as we grow and evolve?

All this to say, that people make mistakes, especially in relationships — romantic and otherwise — with other people. Simple as that. And some men make their mistakes while un-learning how to treat women.

In some cases, that doesn’t make them evil. It just makes them human.

What do you think, ladies:  Have you ever forgiven a man for cheating? Why did you do it? And did he do it again?

Let’s talk about it.

The post Should Men Be Forgiven For Cheating? appeared first on Clutch Magazine.

In many ways,  Black History Month has become one long month for beneficiaries of white supremacy to assuage their guilt over slavery, or feign solidarity, and I was this close to saying ‘damn it all to hell,’ we should get rid of it.

It wasn’t because I didn’t like the shiny commercials, and “all black everything” for 28-days strong. I had just become sick and tired of the publicity stunts. You know, those corporations that only trot out a black rep during BHM, and it’s generally with some symbolic gesture to prove that they really and truly do like black people, so black people really and truly should buy their product or patronize their business for 12 months out of the year, not just one.

Very similar to how the Democratic Party made voter suppression the key issue for black America, invoking the spirit of the Selma boycott and throwing in a picture of the first Black president sitting in Rosa Parks’ seat on the bus. By the time they had finished the old Beltway Shuffle, some black people were linking arms, marching to the polls, and singing “We Have Overcome.” And some of these same people are only just now realizing that push-back against voter suppression only benefits the party in power if that party doesn’t address our specific concerns as a community once they’re in office.

Yeah, kinda like that.

When McDonald’s (strategically placed in low-income, minority neighborhoods) and Wal-Mart (one of the most unethical corporations in the country), are carrying the torch for Black History Month, then something is seriously wrong.

We’re being sold our own history.

The same white-washed stories we’re taught in schools, are being fed to us as “Black History” nuggets of wisdom about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and now President Barack Obama. And as garnish, we get to bask in our many achievements while white people debate the alleged hypocritical racism of doing so.

Today, many of us don’t use the opportunity to discuss Toni Morrison, and her brilliant deconstructions of race and colorism, or Zora Neale Hurston and her insistence that prayer is for people not at peace with the universe, who attempt through coercion to change the will of God — if there is one. We don’t pay homage to the Black Panther Party and their tireless work to bring the Free Lunch Program for Children into fruition.

Most of us don’t teach our children about Dr. King’s opposition to the Vietnam War or support of unions. We certainly don’t discuss how United States government agencies were found guilty for conspiring to assassinate him in 1999. Instead, we’ve become satisfied to let his legacy rest in “I Have a Dream.” Many of us certainly don’t discuss Harry Belafonte, Sidney Poitier and Paul Robeson. What if our children knew that the most revered artists of a generation didn’t focus on ” money, cars and hoes,” they instead used their influence to speak out again injustice, regardless of who perpetuated it, and would have been caught dead before being found guilty of what Mr. Belafonte so eloquently described as “patriotic treason”?

We most certainly don’t discuss how El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz  (Malcolm X) embraced diversity in religion, but never stopped speaking out against the virulent racism in this country, which just this week allowed the FBI to apprehend his grandson, Malcolm Shabazz, and release no information on his whereabouts.

There are many more examples, but they all lead to the fact that many of us have allowed ourselves to become content with postage stamps and Lifetime specials. We’ve become lazy, allowing this country to repackage our history, wrap it in a shiny bow and wait for us to say thank you.

Black History is so much more than a feel good 28-day PR blitz during which accolades are valued over accountability, and if Dr. Carter G. Woodson were alive today, he would be appalled at the level of mis-education that has taken place. When he created “Black History Week” it wasn’t so that others could control with advertising dollars what sliver of our story would be recognized, but so that our history would never be forgotten — especially by us.

And it’s past time that we remembered that.

The post How Black America Is Neglecting Black History Month appeared first on Clutch Magazine.