Some people may wonder what the terms panethnic or panethnicity mean. My first exposure comes from this book by Yen Le Espiritu. Here is the description of the book:

With different histories, cultures, languages, and identities, most Americans of Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Korean, and Vietnamese origin are lumped together and viewed by other Americans simply as Asian Americans. Since the mid 1960s, however, these different Asian American groups have come together to promote and protect both their individual and their united interests. The first book to examine this particular subject, Asian American Panethnicity is a highly detailed case study of how, and with what success, diverse national-origin groups can come together as a new, enlarged panethnic group.
Yen Le Espiritu explores the construction of large-scale affiliations, in which previously unrelated groups submerge their differences and assume a common identity. Making use of extensive interviews and statistical data, she examines how Asian panethnicity protects the rights and interests of all Asian American groups, including those, like the Vietnamese and Cambodians, which are less powerful and prominent than the Chinese and Japanese. By citing specific examples…educational discrimination, legal redress, anti-Asian violence, the development of Asian American Studies programs, social services, and affirmative action…the author demonstrates how Asian Americans came to understand that only by cooperating with each other would they succeed in fighting the racism they all faced.

So a panethnic category takes many diverse groups of people and groups them together as one group. Terms like European American, African American, Latino/a, American Indian, and Asian American are all panethnic labels that take diverse groups of people and lump them into larger categories.

I have mixed feeling about panethnic labels. Espiritu argues the advantage of such labels is that they can consolidate diverse groups with diverse histories to help them organize for social change. The power of the groups and their ability to create change is much greater because the panethnic label leads to greater numbers, which clearly has political implications in a democratic society.
While the terms Asian American was created as an organizing tool in the 1960s, the panethnic labels for African Americans, and European Americans were created at a much earlier. Let me start by saying I don’t think the term European Americans is a very popular term; most people just use the term Whites. What is fascinating about the category of Whiteness is that it started out fairly narrow…British and a few northern European groups were included. Later the Irish were included into the Whiteness category, and Italians and eastern Europeans were the last to be included into this category (I’m sure others are to come.). The creation of a White panracial category was designed to integrate European immigrants, while simultaneously keeping these immigrants from forming alliances between the indigenous people and enslaved Africans. See the various European groups did not see them selves as aligned with each other, but the creation of the White race (or a panracial identity) allied these groups and allowed them to squash their differences.

Enslaved Africans were forced to develop a panracial identity, because they were not allowed to engage in the customs associated with their ethnic groups. This was forbidden by slave owners; moreover, these Africans came from very diverse ethnic groups, which made communication very difficult. African American panethnic identity formed in part because it was forced upon Africans by Whites and in part as a means of survival under conditions of slavery.

American Indians also come from very diverse origins. In some cases early settlers allied with various American Indian ethnic groups against other ethnic groups. It wasn’t until somewhat later through Census enumeration and the legal system that the notion of a panethnic American Indian group was established and to a large extent forced upon indigenous people. However, some American Indians later saw panethnic alliances (for example the Lakota and the Cheyenne at Little Big Horn).as a means of fending off Whites.

Panethnic labels can and do unite diverse groups of people, but I think the greater question is to what end. If people are united to oppress (as is the case with the Irish becoming White), or if people are united to fight for the survival of their ethnic group and their way of life as in the case of Little Big Horn, then the more important issue is not whether or not diverse groups are united under one umbrella, but why they are united and what can be done about it.

One down side of Panethnic labels is that tend to become racial terms. While ethnic labels group people based on culture, racial labels tend to group people based on perceived physical characteristics, thus, many people come to the conclusion that these groups are groups of people who are similar “physically, genetically, and culturally.” While race is not about genes our culture constructs it in this way, and thus, very diverse groups such as east Indians and Japanese or Somalians and Nigerians are groups together. Ironically, people in these groups don’t typically look alike they have been geographically and culturally isolated from each other, but they all get lumped together under a label and people tend to group them as a race..

When panethnic labels become popular there is a tendency for people to forget the diversity and variety that goes into the groups that make up the panethnic categories. For example, people frequently talk about “Asian culture” or “African Culture” which is problematic because there are many cultures in Asian or Africa and they are often in conflict with each other. The same could be said for Native Americans, Latino/as, Europeans, and so on. At times panethnic labels become short cuts that allow us to be very lazy in thinking about the complexity and diversity of various groups. For example, Puerto Ricans and Chicanos (Mexican Americans) are situated very differently on the issue of immigration simply because Puerto Rico is a US territory. In fact, in my own community, my sense is that the local Black/West Indian population and the local Mexican American/Chicano population have much more in common with each other, but that often gets lost in the media and the larger culture since one group is put under the label Black/African American and the other is put under the label Latino/Hispanic.

Some people lament panethnic categories because they believe that it leads to the loss of cultures, languages, and customs. Once groups are combined together whether by force or by choice people worry that some traditions will necessarily disappear as a new panethnic culture and identity emerges. This attitude comes up frequently in discussions about intermarriage. Many people who oppose interethnic and interracial marriage do so out of a concern that the hybridization of cultures will lead to the loss of traditions and language. I have mixed feelings about this because my sense is that global capitalism and the modern communication and transportation technology will inevitably lead to a mishmash of cultures (what Kwame Anthony Appiah calls the new Cosmopolitanism) In fact, one of the ideas that comes up frequently is the notion that a “mixed” ethnic identity inherently involves the loss of some traits from either side. Personally, I am skeptical of that argument because I think a much larger force is at work–global capitalism and the one world culture that it encourages. Given the trend toward a global culture dominated by capitalist superpowers like the US, the creation of panethnic categories can in fact be a way to retain aspects of cultures that are being over run by western countries (put more simply for those who might be losing me…if local ethnic groups can unite they stand a greater chance of keeping their traditions in the face of corporations like McDonalds. Corporations are some powerful that small ethnic and regional groups can’t do much to keep them out, but by uniting diverse groups, they stand a chance.). Here, there seems to be a tension between humanism and identity based politics. Humanism emphasizes universal human rights, while coalitions along panethnic lines represent one of the last bastion of unique, traditional cultural identities. (Here is an interesting essay on this subject I should forewarn everybody that it is written in the typical post modern academic language, so it is really hard to follow if you are unfamiliar with the jargon.) The irony here is that both the new cosmopolitanism and panethnic identities lead to a flattening of culture. The unique traits of groups are going to be lost under both ideas. The question is just a matter of how much local culture will be lost and how fast it will be lost.

The potential for organizing groups around panethnic identities has upsides and downsides. On the upside, it can consolidate political power and help underrepresented groups gain a voice. On the down side, it has a tendency to encourage some people to forget the diversity and variety subsumed under the panethnic label. I think the increasing popularity of panethnic labels is both a reaction to and a product of the larger trend toward becoming a global culture. Humanism and global capitalism seek to squash difference…humanist would say we’re all people, and capitalists would say we’re all profit maximizers. On the contrary, panethnic organizers would say we are people competing over scarce resources. The only way for oppressed groups to fight back is under by uniting various groups (many would go beyond ethnicity, to class, sexuality, gender, and so on). The alliances that this leads to are very unusually and do not fit neatly into political lines…both conservatives and liberals ideologies are promoted by panethnic politics, and both conservative and liberal ideologies are part of the humanist/capitalist perspectives on identity. Panethnic categories seem to be a bridge between modern ideas of identity and post modern ideas of identity.

(PS…I know this is a very jargony piece for those who are accustomed to reading most of my posts. Sorry in advance if people have no idea what the hell I’m talking about. LOL!! I promise to get back to some more simplistic stuff later in the week.)

This post can also be found over at my Rachel’s Tavern.

As usual, feel free to post your own links in the comments, and to discuss whatever comes to mind. Meanwhile, here’s some of what I’ve been reading lately….

Diary of a Goldfish: May First is Blog Against Disablism Day

Reappropriate: May First is Blog About Asian American Heritage and History Day

Blac(k)ademic: Call for Submissions for the 4th Radical Women of Color carnival

Call For Submissions: Speak Out Against Domestic Violence
“If you have been a victim of domestic violence (as defined, for the purposes of this project, above), or have been directly involved in another person’s experience of DV, and wish to speak out about your experiences…” then you should consider contributing to this project.

Capitalism Bad, Tree Pretty: Constructing Rape, a report on a lecture by Joanna Bourke

Another example she gave was a phrase that was used in a lot in legal cases at the end of the 19th century “you can’t sheathe your sword in a vibrating scabbard.” This was really explicitly tied to class as legal texts argued that while delicately bred women might freeze when a man tried to have sex with them, lower-class women, were used to rough and tumble, and could stop rape by cross their knees.

The Perorations of Lady Bracknell: One in Seven
“Being a few words written by Lady Bracknell’s editor with the intention of crystallising in her readers’ minds the real significance of Blogging Against Disablism Day.” So many great quotes that I couldn’t pick out just one, so please go read the whole thing.

Alfred Alschuler: How To Hide Gang Rapes

The facts of this case are in public records, published documents and are available from people who participated,… my sources. The story, however, is not primarily about facts. It’s about reactions to the facts, the absence of reactions, competing priorities, and ultimately about the courage to lead. These reactions matter, perhaps more than the facts, in determining what is done. (Curtsy: Abyss2Hope).

Black Looks: Kenya’s women MPs Walk Out Of Parliament
They walked out to object to this statement, said by a male MP arguing against a new sexual assault bill: “If the bill is adopted the way it is, it will prevent men from courting women and this will be a serious impediment to the young who would want to marry. In our culture, when women say ‘No’, they mean ‘Yes’ unless it’s a prostitute.”

Although it’s an inexact fit, I’m reminded of Rebecca West’s famous 1913 quote: “I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat, or a prostitute.”

Where The Revolution’s Gonna Begin: Blogging Against Sexual Violence #3

The thing is, the dichotomy of “victimhood” and being a “survivor” is absolutely false. Many, many people who have been victims of sexual violence go their whole lives with one foot in both worlds, stuck in between and never fully fitting into either category.

Pomegranate Queen: Awesome Photographs From Iran, Focusing (mostly) on Women

My Amusement Park: In Defense of Wal-Mart

An independent study led by an M.I.T. economist that found big-box stores like Wal-Mart make consumers better off “by the equivalent of 25 percent of annual food spending.” Moreover, because low-income Americans spend proportionally more of their money on food, they benefit most of all. “Lower prices are the equivalent of higher wages,” Mr. Furman told The Observer. “So, for the 150 million Americans who shop at Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart’s being there is the equivalent of giving them a pay raise.”

My Amusement Park: On Jealousy and On Tokenism in the Feminist Blogosphere
Two excellent posts combined into one (and I don’t say that just because she says something nice about “Alas”).

Truth and Reconciliation Commission Failed To Meet Victims’ Needs

Tutu said “South Africans are tremendous people” and the successes of the TRC had set an international benchmark in dealing with post-conflict situations, yet it failed to meet the needs of victims or reveal the full truth in many cases. (Curtsy: Black Looks).

Abyss2Hope: Demonstration of a False Dichotomy

My only response to Ms. Coulter’s attack on murder victims is to say she is either stupid or mean.

Definition: Eyeliner, Razors, High Heels, and Bras Are Feminist Issues

Official Shrub.com: A Declaration of Ambiguity
Ariel definitively defines her sexual orientation, and/or the ambiguity of it. I really relate to what’s she saying.

The Wage Project: What Has The Wage Gap Cost You?
Bean sent me this link - you can find out how your wages compare to the average wages of white, non-Hispanic men who have age, region, job, and educational characteristics similar to your own. It’s got some flaws - for instance, it assumes that everyone using the calculator works full-time - but if the calculations behind it are solid, then it’s a damn useful tool.

Creative Destruction: Fat-Bashing Britney Spears
Because she’s so fat. Oy.

Long Story Short Pier: She Who Will Not Be Named

Every time you say her name, you feed the dead light in her eyes, and Baby Jesus is forced to strangle another frolicking kitten. (Also, the man-hands jokes, and the bits about the Adam’s apple? Not getting funnier every time you tell them.)

Making Light: Fanfic doesn’t exist. There is only fiction.

Fanfic is a legal category created by the modern system of trademarks and copyrights. Putting that label on a work of fiction says nothing about its quality, its creativity, or the intent of the writer who created it.

The Pulitzer Prize for Fiction this year went to March, a novel by Geraldine Brooks, published by Viking. It’s a re-imagining of the life of the father of the four March girls in Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women. Can you see a particle of difference between that and a work of declared fanfiction?

Abyss2Hope: Detecting Subtle Differences Between Yes and No Before You’re Accused Of Rape
A guide for the confused. Although I agree with Marcella, I’d also add the phrase “enthusiastic participation” somewhere; men need to learn to require enthusiastic participation from anyone they have sex with, rather than just apparent compliance.

Reappropriate: Objecting to the Fortune Cookie-ing of my Heritage

What is it with young White Americans who can’t seem to get enough of the culture of the East? What is the appeal of the ninja, the anime, the manga, the geisha, the karate, the tae kwon do, the teas, the ceremonies, the lion dance, the yakuza, the curry and the chopsticks?

Reappropriate: The Racist Loophole in “No Child Left Behind”

Jewschool: How a Handful Of Super-Wealthy Families Are Financing The War On The Estate Tax

Counterpunch: How Congressional Police Treat White Congressmen Who Flout The Law

One wonders what would have been the fate of McKinney or any member of the Congressional Black Caucus had they run over the foot of a white child, congressional plates and all.

Debunkingwhite: Video of Speech By Cynthia McKinney

Pharyngula: Rat experiment: Autonomy is as real an aphrodisiac as any substance known to science.
Curtsy: Pandagon.

Stephen Cobert Lampoons Bush To His Face; Bush Unamused
Apparently you’re not supposed to be that cutting at a correspondents’ dinner. Curtsy: Shakespeare’s Sister.

As I’m sure folks already know, this post by Blac(k)ademic led to something of a flame war on “Alas.” Several feminist of color bloggers have responded:

Feministing: Intersectionality and the politics of white feminism
Good post, but the discussion was marred by a racist jerk who called Nubian a “token.”

Having Read The Fine Print: Vein Above Her Eyes Begin To Bulge
The above-mentioned jerk infuriates Black Amazon enough to bring her out of her blogging hiatus for one righteously angry post.

Women of Color Blog: In Solidarity

well, i’m here to speak the truth. these white feminists might have positioned nubian as the sole speaker of color to their minuscule and unimportant movement, but in all reality, nubian is part of a community. she is part of a community of radical women of color who see the BULLSHIT put forth by white women, the whining, the crying, the defensiveness, the attacking, and we KNOW THE TRUTH.

Doing Justice: Blac(k)ademic on Race and Gender

Blac(k)ademic: Gender Does NOT Trump Race
You may have read this same post on “Alas,” but you haven’t read the same comments, so go check it out.

Nappy as I Want To Be: Reach down, and write from your crying place

How do white women propose we join up with them if they still do not respect us or our movements? If you do not respect the agency that we have had and do have to make our own decisions. We are not brainwashed, but we see the line, and we see you draw the line every time you expect us to choose sides. There is no wedge, we are not women and then coloreds, we are women of color and colored women. There is no separating that.

And the final word on the matter…

Blac(k)ademic: I Won’t Stop

I’m not going to say much, except that I’m sorry as hell that Nubian had such a terrible experience as a guest-poster on “Alas.” I’m a fan of her blogging, and the idea that she was a “token” is ridiculous - and racist. I didn’t intend to enable Nubian getting hurt, but I did anyway: For that, I publicly apologize to her. I’m sorry.

I’m not opening comments for this post, because I don’t want to encourage quick or knee-jerk reactions. Rather than commenting right now, I think it would behoove many white feminists - myself included - to make a conscious effort to put white defensiveness aside and read the above posts and their comments.

It has recently come out that ten years ago, Mary Doe (the student who reported being raped by three Duke lacrosse players) reported being raped by three acquaintances (one of who may have been a boyfriend or an ex-boyfriend) to police. Although the report was made when Mary Doe was 18, she said the rape took place when she was 14 years old. From the New York Times:

The Creedmoor police chief, Ted Pollard, said the woman filed the report when she was 18, in August 1996, but said the assault had happened in June 1993, when she was 14.

Chief Pollard said the initial report did not explain why there had been a delay of more than three years between the alleged assault and when she reported it. He said Thursday that his office had only paper records from that time period and had not yet determined whether there had been a follow-up investigation.

“It says she was beaten, assaulted and sexually assaulted by three African-American males,” Chief Pollard said. “And she identified the three males.”

And from Essence:

The mother also told ESSENCE that when her daughter was 17 or 18, she was raped by several men, one of whom was someone she knew. The attack took place in the town of Creedmoor, about 15 miles northeast of Durham, and was a “set up,” according to the accuser’s mother. Although other family members confirmed that the alleged victim reported the incident to police in that jurisdiction, the young woman declined to pursue the case, relatives say out of fear for her safety.

It appears that Mary Doe and her mother kept the details of this from Mary Doe’s father for all these years.

Although a lot will be made of this from the “she’s lying” crowd, I don’t think a past rape report is evidence of anything. To say that this shows a pattern of false reporting, there’d have to be some proof that the earlier report was false, and no such evidence seems to exist. And being gang-raped twice in ten years is, from what I’m able to tell, a bit like being in a major car accident twice in ten years - unlucky, but not impossibly so.

Nor do the cases seem all that similar. In 1996, the rapists were three Black men whose names were known to Mary Doe. In 1996, the report was filed years after the fact. In 1996, Doe decided not to follow through on the charges. The “pattern” some folks see seems pretty slight.

How much will this matter, if this case gets to trial? It depends. The prosecutor has said that the jury will never hear about it, because of North Carolina’s rape shield laws.

A North Carolina district attorney says a jury in a rape case involving Duke University students “may or may not hear” about a previous rape claim by the alleged victim. [...]

D.A. Mike Nifong says the state’s rape shield law includes “narrowly defined categories” under which the accuser’s past sexual history is allowed as evidence. He says the court has to determine if the evidence fits the criteria.

What are rape shield laws? Many people mistakenly believe that rape shield laws forbid the press from revealing the name of an alleged rape victim. That’s not true; in the U.S., the press is legally free to report rape victims’ names, but most press outlets choose not to.

The exact details vary from state to state, but in general rape shield laws forbid the defense from bringing up the alleged rape victim’s past sexual history in court. In other words, rape shield laws are supposed to prevent defense attorney from putting rape victims on trial for being a slut. But of course, defense attorneys try to find loopholes, and some judges are lenient in allowing loopholes to be used.

Here’s the portion of North Carolina’s rape shield law, which deals with exceptions to the rape shield law:

(a) As used in this rule, the term “sexual behavior” means sexual activity of the complainant other than the sexual act which is at issue in the indictment on trial.

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the sexual behavior of the complainant is irrelevant to any issue in the prosecution unless such behavior:

(1) Was between the complainant and the defendant; or

(2) Is evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior offered for the purpose of showing that the act or acts charged were not committed by the defendant; or

(3) Is evidence of a pattern of sexual behavior so distinctive and so closely resembling the defendant’s version of the alleged encounter with the complainant as to tend to prove that such complainant consented to the act or acts charged or behaved in such a manner as to lead the defendant reasonably to believe that the complainant consented; or

(4) Is evidence of sexual behavior offered as the basis of expert psychological or psychiatric opinion that the complainant fantasized or invented the act or acts charged.

I don’t see anything in there that would help the defense attorneys get Mary Doe’s past rape complaint into the trial record. Exceptions one, two and three simply don’t apply. I suppose a defense lawyer could attempt to find a psychologist to make some sort of allegedly relevant diagnosis of Mary Doe’s mental condition, but that seems like a stretch.

There is another route that defense lawyers could use, however. If they can convince a judge that the 1996 charges were false, then they might be allowed to bring up the 1996 charges. (Much of the following information comes from George Washington University law professor and relentless self-publicizer John Banzhaf).

In State v Baron (1982), the Court of Appeals of North Carolina ruled:

Defense counsel sought only to introduce evidence of the prior allegedly false statements for impeachment purposes and advised the court of their intent. We believe that the Legislature intended to exclude the actual sexual history of the complainant, not prior accusations of the complainant.

So even though it’s not an exception specifically outlined in North Carolina’s rape shield law, evidence of past false allegations are admissable.

But here’s the rub: Is there any evidence at all that Mary Doe’s 1996 rape report was false? Not that I can see. Banzhof argues that Doe’s 1996 report may be admitted, but he doesn’t address the lack of evidence of a false report. And (in theory, at least) defense attorneys would have to be able to show that the 1996 report was a lie in order to bring it before a jury. In a later case, the Court of Appeals of North Carolina ruled:

Rather, the present case is more analogous to State v. Anthony where this Court affirmed the trial court’s exclusion of evidence of the victim’s previous accusations of sexual abuse against her father and stepfather. Although the charges were dismissed in that case, this Court reasoned that the dismissal of the charges did not show that the victim’s allegations were false. Just as there was no evidence of false allegations in Anthony, here, there is no evidence that the victim’s allegations were false. Therefore, the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of the victim’s prior allegation of sexual abuse.

Of course, it all depends on the judge - if a judge is a misogynist, then defense lawyers in a rape case can get virtually anything in. But at this point, it seems to me that Mary Doe’s 1996 rape report is probably inadmissible.

* * * *PLEASE NOTE* * * *
Comments on this post are open only to feminist and pro-feminist posters. If you’re not a feminist, please use the altenate thread on Creative Destruction to comment.

It’s been years - almost two decades - since the last time I wore makeup or a dress. Why? I like dresses.

I recently noticed that - although I’ve never given the matter any conscious thought - that I always tie my hair back in a low ponytail. Even though a high ponytail would often be more comfortable (for instance, in airplanes, cars, and other situations with high-backed chairs). But a high ponytail is seen as “feminine” in our society, and I unconsciously chose to avoid that.

I spend a lot of time thinking about feminism and sexism and the need to fight our society’s coercive gender role structure. Yet when I shop for clothing, I do so in a way that implicitly condones those very roles. I dress like a man. I tie my hair in a culturally masculine style. I’m helping to entrench the system I oppose.

Yawning Lion at Fem-muh-nist writes:

I have heard the argument that transitioning from one sex to the other challenges the idea of gender as binary. I don’t understand how. If one moves from male to female or vice versa, there are still only two genders at work, aren’t there? It may become harder to distinguish who is who, or who was born what, but the binary gender system remains intact, and women remain at the bottom. If this is truly a challenge to the system and to patriarchy, I would like to understand precisely how that happens. What I see is that it further entrenches the system, while at the same time challenging the legitimacy of complaints against the system - after all, could being a woman be so bad if some people choose to become women?

1) Nothing about transitioning necessarily challenges the idea of gender as a binary. Nor does not transitioning challenge the idea of gender as a binary. Challenging gender as a binary is something we do with advocacy, not by being transgendered or not.

2) However, it should be noted that “male to female or vice versa” with “only two genders at work,” while perfectly valid, is not a complete list of how people are transgendered. Some people have explicitly fluid gender identities, or in some other way refuse to identify as simply “male” or simply “female.” Insofar as their “fluid” gender identities are made public, these folks implicitly challenge the idea of gender as a simple binary.

3) Furthermore, as Piny points out in YL’s comments, transitioning from one sex to the other implicitly “challenges the gender divider that this society seems most invested in: sex assigned at birth defines your gender position, full stop.”

4) In a sense, transsexuals who move from one sex to the other “entrench the system” of gender as a binary, because they are willing to dress and be identified in society as one gender and not the other. But that’s true of the vast majority of us, transsexual or not.

All of us make compromises with the patriarchal society around us, whether it’s getting married to someone of the opposite sex, or shaving (for women), or shopping only in the “men’s” section of the clothing store (for men), or wearing a low ponytail (for me). There are a thousand ways to compromise with patriarchy - no, ten thousand - and I doubt anyone fights against them all. And all of these decisions and actions could be said to help entrench the gender-binary system.

We all do what we have to do - to survive, to express ourselves, and to feel comfortable with what we see in the mirror. It’s illogical to single out transsexuals for criticism on this score - and yet, transsexuals are constantly singled out for this criticism. I call that discrimination.

5) Regarding “after all, could being a woman be so bad if some people choose to become women?” You might as well say that being gay isn’t so bad if some are out of the closet, or that transphobia isn’t so bad if some people choose to be openly transgendered, or that racism isn’t so bad if some POC who could “pass” for white choose not to. (Piny made this argument, as well).

Bottom line: Patriarchy is a huge edifice. We should welcome a lot of different approaches to challenging it. And virtually everyone has to compromise with patriarchy sometimes.

Finally, in my opinion, feminism has never been at its best or strongest when saying “keep out” to oppressed minorities.

NOTE: I actively limit who can post comments on my threads on “Alas.” If your comments aren’t getting approved for publication here, please consider posting your comments on the exact same post at Creative Destruction.

I’m late with this, but the three Wisconsin police officers accused of attacking Frank Jude Jr. and Lovell Harris were found not guilty on April 14. The three were accused of being among a dozen off-duty cops, all white, who dragged Jude (who is biracial) and Harris out of a truck. Harris successfully fled after being cut with a knife, but Jude was pulled to the ground and beaten to a pulp.

I’ve never heard of the Jude case before today. Am I ridiculously out of it, or has the media severely underreported this story?

Here are some details. For a much fuller account, read the newspaper story reprinted at Thefreeslave.

Jude, a part-time stripper, attended the party at the invitation of two women who saw him perform at a different party earlier that night. The women testified that Jude was dragged out of the truck and beaten. But other off-duty cops at the party claimed that Jude began the fight after being accused of stealing a badge, and that the force used against him were reasonable.

The police report indicates that Jude fought the off-duty officers and later the uniformed officers, refusing to put his hands behind his back. Antonissen and Brown said that’s not true.

“They had his arms behind his back the whole time,” Brown said. “There was nothing he could do.”

None of the cops defending themselves against Jude were injured at all. Jude, however, “suffered a concussion, a broken nose and fractured sinus cavity, cuts in both ears, cuts and swelling to his left eye, neck, head, face, legs and back, and a severely sprained left hand, his attorney said. His left eye was swollen shut and continued to bleed for 10 days… Jude said he will need surgery to breathe through his nose again, may have permanent disability in one hand and suffers diminished vision.” Also, Jude was left naked from the waist down by the cops.

From the transcript of the 911 call:

At one point on the tape of the 911 call, Antonissen tells the operator one of the officers is trying to get her off the phone.

“He’s stealing the phone from me,” Antonissen says. “They’re twisting my arm.”

A man says, “Hang up the phone.”

“Hello?” the operator says.

Then the line goes dead.

* * *

So how did they get a jury to let them off?

Well, it sure as hell helped that they were white, and cops, and that their victim was neither. And the defense lawyers managed to purge the jury pool of all black members (the last two taken off were accused of not being attentive enough).

It also helped that most white cops, when it comes to racist criminals in their won ranks, are happy to cover up crime. From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

[Prosecutor] McCann hammered on a “police code of silence” during the 13-day trial, noting that a half-dozen non-police witnesses saw kicking and beating, while none of the eight police witnesses for the defense said they saw that.

On the state’s side was the graphic post-beating photo of Jude blown up to poster size, and two key witnesses: the first on-duty officers on the scene. Those officers identified the three defendants. They also told of retaliation because of their cooperation in the case. One has taken a stress-related retirement.

The defense railed against those officers and accused one of them, Joseph Schabel, of being the one who kicked Jude, an accusation that didn’t surface until the trial. They pointed to a 911 tape in which a witness said on-duty officers were kicking Jude, too.

Interestingly, the three defendants had three different lawyers who chose to tell three different stories.

Each defense attorney argued a different case: Bartlett was trying to make a legal arrest and Jude was fighting; Spengler restrained Jude but was blamed for beating him because it was his party; and Masarik was inside the house looking for his police logbook when the beating occurred and was confused with someone else.

The three defendants were charged in each count as being “a party to the crime,” an important distinction. It doesn’t require proof that the person committed the crime. The person also can be convicted if he or she is “aiding and abetting” the person who did it or was a member of a conspiracy to commit the crime.

Under that definition, even if it was proven that a defendant stood around Jude and was “ready and willing to assist,” but didn’t do anything, he could be convicted, according to the jury instruction.

Of the three defenses, only one of them - the cop who claimed that he wasn’t in the area and didn’t know the beating was going on - strikes me as even marginally plausible. The other two officers essentially claimed that nothing untoward happened and that reasonable force was used. Given the huge extent of injuries suffered by Frank Jude, the eyewitness reports, and the 911 call, the idea that the cops did nothing wrong here isn’t credible.

* * *

I’ve seen a couple of right-wingers point out that Jude himself is apparently a woman-beating asshole. But that in no way excuses this verdict, nor does it mitigate the obvious racism and brutality of the cops who beat Jude.

There’s a lot in common between what happened to Jude and when the Klan burns a cross on a black family’s lawn. This is a horrible crime against individuals, but it’s also a hate crime against the entire black community. The effect of a crime like this - and the subsequent not guilty verdict - is to remind all blacks that a substantial number of whites consider blacks to be a good deal less than human.

Frank Jude said: “If I committed this crime, I would be in jail. They should not be on the street. I am scared. I don’t need that, and my kids don’t need that.”

How big is the white privilege that comes with not having to fear that cops will beat me within an inch of my life for no reason? How big is the white privilege of never having the cops send my community a message of hate like that? Frankly, I don’t have a measuring stick big enough.

(Cross-posted at Creative Destruction. If you’re a right-winger who is having trouble getting your comment through here, you might try posting it over there.)

Today is Holocaust Remembrance Day (thanks to Bob Hayes for reminding me).

Here’s my suggestion for what you can do today, or in the next couple of days, that I think is appropriate: Go check out the Genocide Intervention Network’s list of ten things you can do right now, and do at least one or two.

Here’s my letter to President Bush:

Dear President Bush,

During your first year in the White House, you wrote in the margins of a report on the Rwandan genocide, “Not on my watch.”

I urge you to live up to those words by using the power of your office to support a stronger multi-national force to protect the civilians of Darfur.

As I type this email, it is Holocaust Remembrance Day. Like most Jews of my generation, I was taught that the single most important way to honor the victims of the Holocaust is with the simple vow “never again.” Never again, will we allow genocide to happen while the world stands by and watches.

But it has happened again, and again. It is happening again, right now, as I write. As many as 400,000 have died so far, and many more will die if the Western World doesn’t find a way to say - firmly, unmistakably, and with a real commitment of troops and resources -

Not now. Not in Darfur. Not anywhere.

Never again.

Sincerely,

Go to A Million Voices for Darfur to send a message of your own. It seems to me that if bloggers decided to push this in the next few days, for Holocaust Remembrance, that might generate a lot of signatures. I’d like to encourage Alas readers to go there right now and send a message - it really will take less than a minute.

I also donated $30 (here’s the donation page - they take credit card and paypal), and filled in the “in memory of…” field to indicate that the donation was in honor of Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Vegankid has posted a call for submissions for the third Big Fat Carnival.

I know, i know. Fat people aren’t suppose to talk about sex unless its within the context of feederism. But fuck that. We are sexual creatures regardless of our size! So i’d like for folks to write about some super-sized sex.

Oh, and if you’d be interested in hosting a future edition of the BFC on your blog, please drop me a line.

gender trumps race

Why does this statement bother me so?

Because it is ridiculous to lay claim to the idea that all women are oppressed on equal terms, simply because they are women. Obviously, oppression is more complicated than that and I personally think that gender does not trump anything. Instead, there are interlocking systems of oppression that women face based on gender, race, class, sexuality, religious background, nationality, citizenship status and so forth. It is very naive and very, very 2nd wave-ish to say, “well, gender trumps race.” I can’t even understand how one can come to such a conclusion.

In the case of the current Duke scandal, some folks feel that we must pay attention to the issue of gender before race since, she is a WOMAN and was allegedly attacked by MEN. However, I don’t see how we can only pay attention to her as a woman, or as just a black woman, or even as a economically disenfrachised black woman, for that matter–all of her identities must be taken into account. Her race is already determining who believes her and who doesn’t, how bad of a parent she is (the myth of the bad black mother), and it’s determining how she is misrepresented in the media. Additionally, we must not forget that we exist in a media saturated world that continuously reproduces negative images that deem black womens bodies as disposable sex objects. It is all too impossible to deny that those images do not play a strong part in concluding how she was/is/will be treated by men of all races. Furthermore, if one believes that gender trumps race in this specific situtation, then they deny the harm of the racial slurs that were hurled at the dancers, which I personally see as a form of violence towards these women–no matter what.

I also can’t possibly see how gender would trump race, since gender roles are constructed alongside race and class lines. I grew up learning not only how to be a female, but how to be a black female–and I think for other women of color in this country, it is impossible not to formulate a race conscisouness of being “less than whites,” alongside a gender consciousness of being “less than men.” Therefore, our racial identity and racism play a major role in our negotiations of how we experience gender. On the other hand, white women grow up to learn how to be white and female–which basically boils down to a white race consciousness that is formulated on the basis of having power within a system of white supremacy. So then, of course to some white feminists, gender would trump race, since they are not impacted by racial oppression.

Moreover, the argument that “gender trumps race,” also ignores the fact that women of color see men of color as necessary allies in the struggle against “the patriarchy.” Men of color do have a complicit relationship with fostering the oppression of women based on gender differences, but, we cannot ignore the fact that these same men face similar oppressions due to the color of their skin aside from their gender. In the case of the Duke scandal, if it were men of color who allegedly attacked a woman of color, issues of race would still be in play and I still wouldn’t see how gender would situate itself in a hierarchical position above race, or vice-versa. Rather, we would have to take into account how race functions within the specific racial group to understand fully the scope of the attack, what should and can be done about it, ways to prevent future attacks on women, etc.

Finally, if gender trumped race, there would be no need for black feminism, for third world feminism, for chicana feminism or for women of color feminism. Generalizations about “the patriarchy” and the oppression of women in a heirarchy based on gender, only ignores the multiplicity of the number of oppressions all women face that are not soley based on gender. However, to some white feminists who face gender oppression in exchange for racial privilege, gender does trump race.

This is also posted on my blog.

The second week in a row I’m doing a baby blogging based on an insipid Hallmark holiday version of a Christian holiday, and the second week in a row the baby blogging is a day late. Coincidence? Or petty revenge from a furious spurned Jesus? We report, you decide.

Anyhow, this week’s photos - all of Maddox - have nothing to do with Easter except that’s when they happened to be taken. Even Sydney, who is older, doesn’t yet understand that Easter is the anniversary of when the Great Bunny returned from the dead and rolled aside the giant colored egg blocking the entrance to Her burial cave; at Maddox’s age, there’s no chance she’ll grok these complex theological matters. But she seemed to have a good time nonetheless.
Read the rest of this entry »

Many discussions on Alas have boiled down to the idea that much would be solved if people would just begin to trust women. Trust in their intentions, trust in their motivations and trust in their decisions. The simple phrase ‘trust women’ has been introduced in conversations about rape and abortion consistently here, and even highlighted in one of Maia’s stories as she reminisced about a banner that was in her high-school that really spoke to her. It’s this phrase that resonated with me when I came across a story via my parenting group that launched the blog of Chris Musser, who has dubbed herself the ‘reluctant lactivist’.

So yeah, I’m going to launch into another one of my rants about the importance of supporting mothers in their decisions to breastfeed their children. Here goes.

Reluctant was out a few weeks ago at Gateway Freddie’s (Fred Meyers) shopping, when much to her inconvenience, her wee one of three months decided he was hungry. They do that to you, and they don’t do it on your preferred schedule, but their own ““ fancy that. Having to maneuver herself, her three month old and her three year old daughter, she looked around for a safe and contained place to nurse her son so she could get on with her shopping. She chose a bench near the check-out. And guess what happened then ““ you’d be right if you said rude people happened, but it wasn’t enough that customers wanted to be asshats, management decided to get a piece of the action too.

On April 4th I sat down on a bench at the Gateway Fred Meyer to nurse my two-month-old son. It was about five o’clock on a busy Tuesday afternoon. The last place I wanted to be nursing was in that spot as it was noisy and distracting, but at the time, I couldn’t think of better place to attend to my baby’s needs. I also had my rather flighty three-year-old daughter with me, so wandering around the store to find a quieter spot would’ve left me instead chasing a toddler while carrying a bawling baby. [...]

After nursing for five minutes or so, my son seemed comfortable enough for us to start shopping. As I reached into my bag to get my sling, Troy Hardig, Gateway Store Director, approached me. He had a weird look on his face and as I was trying to figure out why he was approaching me when he opens with, “Oh, good. You’re getting a blanket.” He told me there had been complaints about my nursing, not that he minded, but that some people were offended. I was so stunned I couldn’t think of what to say, except to remind him that Oregon law protects a mother’s right to nurse in public. I felt absolutely humiliated. His comments left me feeling like I’d been doing something lewd.

Reluctant spent a few days feeling mortified before letting her very righteous anger replace the hurt, and she contacted one of the regional operations managers, and here’s what he had to say:

Unbelievably, when I spoke with Todd Heinle, Fred Meyers East Portland/SW Wash Operations Supervisor, a couple days later about the incident, he supported the store manager’s claim that I should have been more “discreet” and that three people had complained.

Now, my heart went out to Reluctant, but I also became severely pissed off when I read this. While it isn’t the closest or primary shopping place for our family, it is right smack dab in front of our doctor’s office so we do in fact go there. Well, did go there prior to this anyways (though I admit, Maddox has an appointment on Wednesday afternoon, and I’m ever so tempted to drop in and nurse her on that damn bench as an act of solidarity and support for Reluctant).

The story got the attention of KATU news, which did a good job of supporting nursing women by interviewing Reluctant while she nursed her son. And while Fred Meyer has at least offered a lame ‘oops, that shouldn’t have happened’, they get no cookie from this breastfeeding mother until they decisively make it clear to the public and to their employees that nursing mothers are not only welcome, but to be treated with respect and dignity. Reluctant has made a blog entry for people who want to offer support to her and other breastfeeding women by speaking out to Fred Meyer.

Following the links around, my favorite comments were from a woman named Marrit Ingram, who offered this:

American people want their lives to be totally antiseptic. We want to float around all day long in our individual bubbles of privacy and personal comfort. The world is our living room, and we want everyone on their company manners. If you don’t like mothers and babies, then by all means they should be expected to hide from you and not offend. It’s their problem, not yours. What’s a three-month-old doing in a store anyway? Aren’t you supposed to be on house arrest? Don’t you know that children annoy all the Real People who have a right to assembly? You might inconvenience someone.

These are strange times. Women are losing our reproductive rights, but we’re expected to raise children entirely in private without burdening anyone.

This got longer than I intended, but I’ll close with a customization of the rant I opened with, even though I know I’m mostly preaching to the converted:

Trust women that breastfeed to know when their child needs to be fed. Trust women to not be breastfeeding their child out of a malicious need to cause others discomfort, but rather solely for the nourishment and well-being of her child. Trust women when they decide the best place for the child to be fed when needing to nurse them in a public area. Trust women.

And beyond that, give ‘em a fucking break already.

The Journal of Marriage and Family has released a study by sociologist Noelle Chesney that indicates that cell phones are detrimental to family relationships. I am becoming increasingly anti-cell phone for this reason. The need to have to be constantly available is incredibly stressful after a while. I think it may be a good idea for families to turn off their phones at certain times of the day as a method of dealing with the invasiveness of this technology.

I haven’t read the article in full just the summaries of it, but I wonder if the author connects this with what Arlie Hochschild calls the reversal of family and work cultures. In her book the Time Bind, Hochschild argues that the division between home and work has changed and many people are finding work to be more relaxing than home. I personally felt this way over the last year or so. When I am teaching, my job is great and very relaxing–I’m able to forget the stressful things like paying bills, but as soon as I leave it is a different story.

The cell phone enters this picture because it becomes impossible to tune work or family out. Having your family call you at anytime on your cell phone can create conflicts. For example, I have had meetings at unexpected times, and if anyone calls my cell phone, they are not going to get me. The person calling is expecting me to be free and suddenly when I’m not available the person gets worried calling every line. This is completely unecessary stress. For some reason we are not able to treat cell phones like home phones.

I also suspect that this problem is much greater for women than it is for men. I can’t speak for other women, but I feel it really makes finding a space of our own, where we don’t have to organize, manage, and care for others, very difficult. I wonder about this with computers too (E.g.–suddenly we have to send photos of little Joe, Joe to Grandma everyweek.). I know this would be an even greater problem if I had kids; in fact, I get a little agitated when I see preteens checking in with parents on their cell phones. In this sense, the cell phone becomes a kind of surviellance tool, so we can keep up with each other. Then there is the whole language of protection and safety–cell phones make us safer, blah, blah, blah.

I know the work/family issues have been played out over and over again in feminist literature, but I think the role of modern communication technologies has been undertheorized, and the more I think about this the more I feel like these technologies are just one more way to exercise social control over women (children and employees too). In a way this is more of a rant, but I do frequently feel this way about my cell phone and some of the other communication technologies. Am I too much of a conspiracy theorist? Do you think this is true?

As usual, use the comments to discuss whatever you’d like.

Just so y’all know, I’m going to be returning to Oregon today (Sunday), and will probably not have steady internet access again until sometime on Monday.

I See Invisible People: Carnival of Feminists XIII

Blogging Against Heteronormativity Day
Yes, it’s already been linked here. There’s no rule saying I can’t link it again. ;-) I’m very sorry that I didn’t contribute to this or to Awareness about Sexual Violence, but my circumstances while traveling have made it hard to concentrate enough to write anything substantive. IOW, Virginia Wolf was right.

Femivist: Blog To Raise Awareness About Sexual Violence
A really amazing collection of links - Femivist did a wonderful job, and I hope it had good effects.

Feministe: Questioning Questioning Transgender

Feminist Law Profs: U.S. Is No Help To Iraqi Women

Blackfeminism.org: Four Incidents of Rape
Tiffany describes four real-life incidents she knows of, and asks readers to debate if the incidents are rape or not.

BlackProf: Racism and Civility

Y Files: Feminism, Mysogyny, and Husband Management

A number of posters in Dr. Helen’s comments thread (which quickly turns to woman-bashing, or at least American-woman-bashing) blame this supposedly pervasive “husband management” on “feminists,” “gender feminists,” “misandrist attitudes and behavior,” and the like. (All of which goes unquestioned by Dr. Helen.) But in fact, it is anti-feminist traditionalists, not feminists, who embrace female manipulation of men as a positive value — a way women can wield power and achieve what they want without “becoming like men.”

Black Looks: A Human Rights Victory
“Nine Cameroonian men have been acquitted of all charges after been incarcerated for 12 months on charges of homosexuality, in the most horrendous conditions.” But meanwhile, 15 women are still be persecuted by police and by campus authorities for lesbianism.

Real Men Are Not: Army Suicides Hit Highest Level Since ‘92
Another example of how patriarchy hurts men, too.

Daily Dose of Queer: Cowboy Hat Protest Helps Change Homophobe’s Heart?
Well, not totally. But it’s certainly a step in a good direction.

Democracy Arsenal: Beyond Baby Steps for Darfur

Capitalism Bad, Tree Pretty: Why Do Men Have Sex With Women Who Don’t Want To Have Sex With Them?

TRAC: Immigration Report
Interesting, statistics-based report on illegal immigration, hiring more border agents and “closing the border.” Nutshell: Those who think doubling the number of INS border agents will make a difference may wind up being disappointed.

Big Fat Blog: TV Turn Off Week Doesn’t Turn Off Fat Phobia

The Margins: “Godbags”: Contempt, Gendered

So, I wonder what the chances are of talking feminists, pro-feminists and allies to feminists, in particular, out of using the word “godbag,” a word I’m currently seeing all over the internet?

Lawyers Guns and Money: Why It’s Worse For The US To Sanction Torture Than For Iran To Do The Same

Full Court Press: Right-Wing Court Refuses To Let Sexual Harassment Complaint Go Forward.

It’s particularly interesting that, though they discounted the severity of the intrusive sexual profanities Melissa Jennings was forced to deal with, Judges Dever and Williams chose to use asterisks when quoting Coach Dorrance’s language. Too harsh to be read, but not harsh enough to have a serious real world impact?

Gender Travel Questionnaire
“If you’re over eighteen years of age and identify as gender variant, Az Aizura would like you to take the Gender Travel Questionnaire.” (Quoted from: Daily Dose of Queer)

(Cross posted on Creative Destruction).

My thoughts on this case haven’t changed much. I still believe that Mary Doe was raped, still admit I can’t know for sure. Contrary to what many critics have claimed, I don’t call for anyone to be convicted without a trial. (I haven’t seen a single feminist blogger disagree with the previous sentence, yet we are constantly accused of wanting a conviction without a trial. Strawfeminists, anyone?)

As always, check out Justice 4 Two Sisters, a blog dedicated solely to this case. Many of the following links are via J4TS.

Wahneema Lubiano: Perfect Victims and Perfect Villains

I’m suggesting that some of the discussion, the rhetoric, being circulated in the aftermath of the incident and coming either from those defending the alleged offenders or those defending the alleged victim, is rhetoric driven, haunted, by a fight over whether or not we have offenders who can be seen as “perfect” in their villainy and a victim whose victimage can be seen as necessarily complete and thus “perfect.”

Mark Anthony Neal: (White) Male Privilege, Black Respectability, and Black Women’s Bodies

Ruth Sheehan: If Lying, Take Her To Task

Justice 4 Two Sisters: Tawana Brawley Revisited

Sports Illustrated: The Six Most Important Factors For A Rape Conviction
The author seems less interested in actual guilt or innocence than he is in what elements lead to a “guilty” verdict. But it’s certainly an educational read.

Abyss2Hope: How Solid Are the Reported Alibis?

The Happy Feminist: The Security Guard’s Report May Corroborate Mary Doe’s Story
This is particularly notable because Happy Feminist is a former prosecutor. The discussion in comments has some interesting bits, as well.

Pandagon: The More Helpless the Victim, the More Defensible The Violence

If I Ran The Zoo: The Duke Car Theft Case
This is pretty similar to an earlier post of mine (“Rape is not the only crime that pits one person’s word against another’s”), but she uses a better example and also criticizes some of the feminist-bashing that’s going on.

Thoughts From Too Far North: Life Is Not Like CSI

Pinko Feminist Hellcat: Race, Entitlement, and Rape

Of course, there have also been a number of excellent posts by the kick-ass guest posters on “Alas”; please visit the archive of posts about the Duke rape case to read those posts.

****Important note for comment-writers****
Comments on this post are for “feminist and pro-feminist posters” only. However, everyone is welcome to post comments on the same post at Creative Destruction. So if you’re not clearly a feminist, and you want your comment to be seen, I strongly advise you to post it over there, rather than on “Alas.”

Today is the day. Check out the participants at my blog.

I know a lot of lefties hate Joe Klein, but I’ve never paid him much attention. On first reading, I thought this op-ed by Klein in Time was all right:

In early 2003, I had dinner with several of the consultants who advised Al Gore in the 2000 presidential campaign. I asked them why Gore, a passionate environmentalist, had spent so little time and energy talking about the environment during the campaign. Because we told him not to, the consultants said. Why? I asked. Because it wasn’t going to help him win….

Gore… lost an election he should have won, and he lost it on intangibles. He lost it because he seemed stiff, phony and uncomfortable in public. The stiffness was, in effect, a campaign strategy: just about every last word he uttered…even the things he said in the debates with George W. Bush…had been market-tested in advance. I asked Devine if he’d ever considered the possibility that Gore might have been a warmer, more credible and inspiring candidate if he’d talked about the things he really wanted to talk about, like the environment. “That’s an interesting thought,” Devine said.

But apparently not as interesting as all that: Devine, Bob Shrum and Mike Donilon fitted Senator John Kerry for a similar straitjacket in the 2004 campaign.

I think Klein has a good point. The “stand for nothing” approach used by both Gore and Kerry has been given more than an adequate chance - and, for Democrats, has been a dismal failure. In particular, the decision of most Senate Democrats to become unprincipled “yes” men to President Bush in the decision to invade Iraq has crippled the ability of the Democratic party to credibly provide a principled opposition to the invasion and occupation.

Klein’s best point, I think, is his critique of Kerry’s decision to not once mention Abu Ghraib, not even in the debates with Bush. By bowing to the pollsters, Kerry abrogated the chance to provide moral leadership to Americans. If he hadn’t chickened out, who knows - maybe that could have changed the polls. Is it any wonder that so few Americans see Abu Ghraib as a morally important issue, when even the Democratic candidate for president isn’t willing to articulate a case against what happened at Abu Ghraib?

The problem with Klein’s op-ed is that Klein seems to halt critical thinking at his own front door. Although his criticism of the Gore and Kerry campaigns rings true, Klein doesn’t seem to appreciate how much fault lies with the media (and not only TV). It’s hard to blame politicians for constructing simplistic, poll-driven campaigns rather than talking substantively about issues, when the media is unwilling to report policy issues in any depth. The overwhelming focus of the media, in elections, is on simplistic storylines and horserace analysis. It is that environment which has created the market for the pollsters and consultants Klein decries.

Klien is a mugger complaining that purse snatchers and carjackers have ruined the neighborhood.

For further (and considerably harsher) criticism of Klein, check out this post on Lawyers Guns and Money.

(This post has been cross-posted to Creative Destruction.)

Why is it, that on every website/blog I see about the Duke alleged rape case, people keep bringing up Tawana Brawley? As if she set the standard for all black women who can claim rape. It is very unsettling that because of Tawana’s story, which took place over 20 years ago, this black woman in North Carolina has been reduced to an immoral stripper, who is obviously charging these young men with rape for her own benefit. Although, I am not quite sure how she would benefit from these accusations.

When the media and other folks continue to compare her story to Tawana’s, they yet again, reinforce the idea that if a black woman claims rape, she must be lying. That black women cannot be trusted. That black women who tell their story of sexual assault, have a secret agenda. That black women are out to get white men. Bull. These two cases are exceedingly different on many, many levels.

It’s also interesting to note that, no one rushes to evoke the numerous stories of lynched black men who were accussed of raping white women. When white women lie about being raped by black men, no one resurrects photographs of black bodies hanging from trees, or the mangled and bloated body of young Emmitt Till who, supposedly, only whistled at a white woman.

If anything, the only connection I see between the two cases is the media hype and racial “taking sides” we have all fallen suspect too. How dare anyone to compare these two cases, when the facts and evidence are strinkingly different. People do lie. But that is no justification for criminalizing other rape victims.

I urge you all to see Aishah Shahidah Simmons NO! the rape documentary. I can’t stress enough how important this film is in challenging media hype about black female rape victims and idiots who continue to compare this case with Tawana Brawley. Black women are indeed victims of rape, just as much as other women–we must understand that.

Also posted on my blog

A few days ago, Jeralyn at TalkLeft wrote:

Tomorrow we will learn the names of the Duke lacrosse players accused of criminal activity in the alleged rape case.

Question: When their names are released, shouldn’t the accuser’s be as well? Charges are merely allegations, they are not proof. Why should the accused’s name be public but not the accuser’s?

I can imagine criminal cases in which there’s a genuine public interest in knowing the name of the accused before the trial is over (for instance, if the accused criminal is a politician). But in general, I don’t think the names or faces of the accuser or of the accused should be made public in criminal cases.

I believe that “Mary Doe” (the accuser in the Duke rape case) is telling the truth about being raped. But I might be mistaken about that; and even if I’m right, it’s still possible that these particular two men are innocent.

Now, obviously, some suffering is an inevitable result of being arrested. But having your names and images broadcast on network news is not inevitable; it’s a result of an irresponsible decision make by the networks. If they are found guilty, then the harm done by deferring broadcasting their names and faces until the trial is over is not very great; but if they are innocent, then the harm done to them by the media is both avoidable and significant. So the media should hold off until the trial is over.

As for Jeralyn’s argument in favor of reporting the accuser’s name, it’s nonsense from top to bottom. I suspect that Jeralyn’s argument here is flavored by her not-very-hidden belief that Mary Doe is a liar and a false accuser. But just as it’s wrong to use the media to punish these two men before they’ve actually been found guilty, it would be wrong to use the media to punish Mary Doe for false accusations when she hasn’t been tried and found guilty for that crime.

Furthermore, broadcasting Mary Doe’s face and real name on network news would not mitigate any unjust suffering caused to the two accused rapists, even if they are innocent. This is not a case where two wrongs make a right.

Jeralyn also writes:

If we want people to recognize that rape is a crime of violence, it is not about sex, and are serious about trying to remove the shame and stigma associated with rape, shouldn’t we treat potential rape victims the same as stabbing and shooting victims — whose names are routinely publicized?

First of all, I don’t agree that “rape is a crime of violence, it is not about sex,” especially not in this context. Rape trials should be about accused rapists, not about rape victims. And although I think there’s a lot of truth to saying “rape is about violence and control, not sex” from the victim’s perspective, very often rape is about sex from the rapist’s perspective. Sometimes rape is about violence, control, male-bonding, or some combination; but some rapists rape because they want the sex and don’t give a damn what women want.

Secondly, using rape victims’ names and faces against their will as a means of achieving social change is using rape victims as tools for an end. I’m not convinced that this is a case where ends justify means; surely rape victims have been victimized enough, and had their autonomy ignored enough, already.

Even in a feminist utopia, where the shame and stigma of rape has been removed, I think it’s possible that some rape victims would prefer to avoid publicity (some people don’t like publicity under any circumstances, for instance). That decision should be left up to them.

Finally, being a victim of rape isn’t the same as being stabbed or shot. Defense attorneys in shooting and stabbing cases don’t typically slander and harass the victims in the media; but sometimes they still drag the victims through the mud (the OC rape case is an extreme but illustrative example of this). As bad as this already is, how much more would victims suffer if defense attorneys could use CNN and Foxnews to put victims’ names and images on the air?

Furthermore, at least one major survey of rape victims has found that a major reason most rape victims don’t report their rapes, is that they fear having their rape become public knowledge. That being the case, it seems likely that if networks start broadcasting rape victims’ names and faces, rape victims will become even less likely to report their rapes, and rapists will in turn be less likely to be convicted and punished.

(Some folks will respond “but what about if the ‘victim’ is actually a false accuser”? Well, in that case, publish her name and image after she’s been proved guilty in a courtroom, not before. Claiming that a general policy of harming actual rape victims is justified by the chance to do harm to the occasional false rape accuser, is monstrous).

However, even though rape is different, in general I don’t think the media should report names or faces of either accused or accusers in criminal trials, unless the parties themselves come forward and give permission for their names to be used. The media’s need for lurid reporting isn’t a good enough justification for the obvious harms that reporting names and faces can cause.

****Important note for comment-writers****
Comments on this post are for “feminist and feminist-friendly posters” only. If you are a poster who is unknown to me, and you leave a comment that is not clearly coming from a feminist point of view, I probably won’t let the comment through. However, everyone is welcome to post comments on the same post at Creative Destruction. So if you’re not clearly a feminist, and you want your comment to be seen, I strongly advise you to post it over there, rather than on “Alas.”

This is out of the Rachel’s Tavern archive. It is one of the Snippets from my Dissertation. Keep in mind all of these posts are snippets of a much larger piece of work, so feel free to add to things, ask questions or give critiques. I’d love to hear feedback from people. In my dissertation, I focused on family approval of Black/White interracial relationships. The data is based on 39 interviews with people in interracial relationships (conducted individually) and 5 interviews with the relatives of some of these couples, so this is where most of the focus will be.

My research is most concerned with how contemporary racism…also called colorblind racism or laissez faire racism…affects family approval of interracial relationships. However, we cannot understand how contemporary racism works without acknowledging the extent to which racism is interconnected with other forms of oppression. Multiracial feminist theorist Patricia Hill Collins refers to these complex connections as the matrix of domination. After interviewing couples it is evident that opposition to interracial marriage is not just about racism. The issues of gender and controlling Black women’s, White women’s, and Black men’s sexuality is ever present in the discourses that families use to oppose interracial relationships. One of the most obvious ways gender and race work together to affect interracial relationships is in the likelihood of intermarrying. Currently about 70% of Black/White marriages are between Black men and White women, which contrasts with the early half of the 1900s when most Black White marriages were between Black women and White men. Below I have highlighted a few of the primary issues facing Black women and White women in interracial relationships.

5 Dilemmas Facing Black Women in IRs
1) Of particular relevance in my interviews are controlling images of Black women’s beauty and sexuality. Many Black women married to White men worried that the stereotypes of Black women as sexually promiscuous would affect how their White partners’ families viewed them, and in some cases it very clearly had a negative impact on a White family’s willingness to accept interracial relationships. Black women also worried that the greater value attached to White women’s fair skin and straight hair put them at a disadvantage in the marriage market with both Black men and White men. There was often an underlying worry that even though they were partnered their choices to date or marry Black men and White men were much more limited.

2&3) The other two controlling images that shaped the experiences of the Black women I interviewed were the belief that Black women are domineering “bitches” and “gold diggers.” Many Black women in interracial relationships felt pressure to carefully monitor their behavior, so they didn’t come off as “the typical Black bitch who doesn’t know her place.” The idea that Black women who marry White men do it for money was also mentioned as a common concern. This affected both how they dealt with their family members and those of their spouses.

4) Family approval of interracial relationships is most likely lower for Black women than it is for Black men. Black women’s families had more objections to interracial relationships than their Black male counterparts. Many relatives of Black women (especially male relatives) tried to “protect their daughters/sisters/cousins from White men” who they felt would sexually exploit Black women. Given the history of White male sexual violence against Black women this is not surprising. However, family opposition also has the affect of denying Black women’s agency because their judgment is held up to much more scrutiny than Black men in interracial relationships.

5) Black women who entered interracial relationships also worried about being alone, a phenomnon facing many Black women today. Since the gender ratio of African Americans is imabalanced, many Black women saw White men as a “whole new world of men” who they could date and marry. Considering White men was a way for some Black women to keep from being alone.

5 Dilemmas Facing White Women in IRs

1)When it comes to Black/White interracial relationships my research indicates, that White women face the most family opposition of all of the race/gender groups. The tactics used to show opposition in White women’s families are often more extreme. They appear to be the group most likely to be disowned or disinvited when they enter interracial relationships.

2) Many White women indicate that their relatives feel Black men were sexually aggressive, threatening, and irresponsible. When White families opposed White women’s interracial relationships, they often felt that they were protecting White women from Black men and from White women’s own naivety or passivity.

3) Unlike Black women who are stereotyped as “bitchy” and “aggressive,” White women are stereotyped as naïve, passive, and weak. This controlling image of White women affects how White women’s relatives and their Black male partners’ relatives view their relationships. Many White women’s relatives felt the need to intervene because they think White women are too naïve to know what they are getting themselves into and too weak to defend themselves. Their Black partners’ relatives worry that White women will be too weak to defend their partners or their biracial children against racism, and they worry that Black men have chosen these White women because they are looking for a women who will tolerate a subservient position, something many Black families think Black women will not do.

4) White women’s families not only question Black men’s sexuality, but they also question the sexuality of White women who enter interracial relationships. Even though White women overall may be held up as the epitome of beauty and sexual attractiveness, White women who had relationships with Black men were not viewed in this way. The most common notion is that White women who have relationships with Black men are sexually loose or tainted.

5) Some White women’s families worry that an interracial relationship would make them less attractive to White men after they were “left all alone” by Black men. Implicit in this belief is that White women’s interracial relationships won’t last, and when they do end, White women won’t be able to find anyone to date or marry.

I have much more I can add. I guess it will be out in a book someday, but I think this can be a jumping off point…. What do you think are some of the dilemmas women in interracial relationships face?

I’m headed to Hell Florida to visit the folks. Since I don’t have a laptop, my internet access will be intermittent until next week; this not only means that posting by me will slow down, but also that comments waiting in moderation will probably wait longer than they usually do.

Thanks in advance for what I imagine will be your patience. :-)