Mar

17

Bottles, Breasts, and Mothering “Choices”

Filed Under Class Classism and Economic Inequality, Family Issues, Gender and Sexism, Media Praises and Critiques, Original Essays and Analysis, Pregnancy and Childbirth | 5 Comments

A few months after my boys were born I stumbled across a message board for twin moms, I really started to enjoy the tips and the sense of community that I gained from reading and posting on the site.  One of the things I enjoyed most was the forum for breastfeeding mothers, which gave me a strong sense of belonging and encouragement, and at that time, I needed encouragement.  Breastfeeding was and is a struggle for me.  I don’t know how things would be different if I was trying to feed only one baby, but I know breastfeeding two babies is one of the hardest things I have done.  While the Mommy message board is a great source of support for breastfeeding, it’s also a place where many of the most contentious elements of motherhood and womanhood are laid bare.  Sometimes it’s the stereotypical Mommy Wars– women in the paid labor force and women not in the paid labor force– but one of the more contentious debates is the bottle vs. breast debate.

As Hugo points out one subset of the Mommy Wars, is the “boob wars”:

And I’ve become aware of what might, for lack of a better term, be called the “boob war” — a sub-conflict within the larger “Mommy War” that continues to rage, exasperating and frightening and dividing women. And into this fight comes a bombshell article in the new Atlantic Monthly: Hanna Rosin’s The Case Against Breastfeeding. More on the article later. (Cap taps, belatedly and with apologies, to Rod Dreher and to Scott.)

The term “Mommy Wars” generally refers to the public and private debates, common among the middle and upper-middle classes of the developed world, about what makes a “good” mother. For years, the chief front in these wars has been the battle over daycare and work outside the home, though other conflicts rage in areas like nutrition and natural childbirth….

I read the Rosin piece; someone posted it on the twin Mommy board.  I felt a great deal of sympathy for the mother who posted it.  She said it helped her to feel less guilt about not breastfeeding, and from that point a discussion ensued with many formula feeding mother’s talking about how they feel that breastfeeding mothers are looking upon them unfavorably.

I’ll be frank; I don’t like the article, but there is one part of the article that stands out as true to me1 :

In her critique of the awareness campaign, Joan Wolf, a women’s-studies professor at Texas A&M University, chalks up the overzealous ads to a new ethic of “total motherhood.” Mothers these days are expected to “optimize every dimension of children’s lives,” she writes. Choices are often presented as the mother’s selfish desires versus the baby’s needs.

I have a great deal of empathy with mothers today who are striving to mother under a mothering ideology that demands perfection.  What I also find fascinating is how both breastfeeding and formula feeding mothers really have the same underlying feelings; both groups feeling that their decision on infant feeding is not respected.  Anytime these kinds of issues come up the Mommy board mantra is “do what works for you” “don’t judge each other’s parenting.”  The down side is that this places limitations on honest communications between these mothers, and the upside is that mother’s, who are already operating under ideology that demands parenting perfection, feel validated.

Nevertheless, topics like this are hotly contested on Mommy boards, and one thing I find most fascinating is that many Mommies blame each other, not the dominant ideology.  Here’s how I respond to the debate over this article on the Mommy board:

Women’s “choices” are often very heavily scrutinized, I wouldn’t say it’s primarily from women but from the entire society, and the hidden radical feminist in me says it’s because women as a class are not truly free. Every behavior that we engage in is held to a different set of standards than our male counterparts, and as you say we damned if we do and damned if we don’t. The can be extended to the abortion debate, the SAHM (stay at home mom) vs. working mom debate, debates over women and domestic violence, debates over women and plastic surgery, debates over hormone replacement therapy, and the list could go on and on. And I guess what bothers me is that we consistently divide women into dichotomies–e.i. virgins/w*hores, good girls and bad girls, bi*ches and nice girls. Thus, all of our behaviors are viewed in this context. I use the term choices loosely because I think that society convinces us that we have more choices than we really do. So many of our behaviors (or “choices”) occur in a societal context where we are so heavily scrutinized that our freedom is limited. It’s limited by peer pressure, it’s limited by sexism; it’s limited by patriarchal ideology; it’s limited by bottom line capitalism; it’s limited by racism; it’s limited by poverty; and I’m sure I could come up with a host of other factors that tell us “choices” are not just personal decisions.

Unfortunately this is where this crabs in a barrel problem comes in because we all feel heavily scrutinized but rather than blaming the social system that creates this mess we blame each other, and no matter what our so called “choice,” the constraints on our full personhood are still there.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t also say that constraints on mothering are radically different in diverse groups of women.  For example, the breastfeeding vs. formula feeding debate has much different meaning for middle and upper income white women living in the US than it does for poor women of color in developing countries.  The the structures of gender, race, class, sexuality, and nationhood operate simultaneously.

I’m not one who think women all have to tow the line and agree with each other, but what gets lost in translation is how social forces much greater than us shape our “choices” to formula feed, breastfeed, or combo feed our kids.

  1. I have several critiques of the Atlantic Monthly article that I would like to touch on in another post. [back]

Sep

13

Gender and Baby Boys Clothes

Filed Under Baby Blogging, Gender and Sexism, Original Essays and Analysis, Photo Blogging, Uncategorized | 39 Comments

mark-smiling.JPG

eli-watching-tv.JPG

This is baby blogging, but it’s also a post about gender. As most of you know by know, I have two little boys, and one thing I really like to do is dress them in cute little outfits. Over the past few months, as I’ve perused the baby departments at numerous stores, I came to the conclusion that I like the clothes made for boys clothes better than I like the clothes made for girls. It’s not that I don’t like frilly dresses and ruffles. What I like about boys clothes is the bright primary colors that are more common in clothes marketed for infant and toddler boys and the themes used in both boy clothing and gender neutral clothing. My favorite themes are usually animal themed clothes, and above all else I like ducks and frogs–probably because yellow and green are my favorite colors. In my view frogs and ducks are generally androgynous, but many animal themed clothes are marketed for boys. For example, dogs, dinosaurs, lizards, bugs, and turtles are often found in boys clothing. I’ve also noticed two other common sets of themes that I like in baby boys clothing–occupational themes and activity themes. As I was looking through my little guys clothes, I noticed several outfits that had themes related to predominantly male (and mostly working class) occupations. The outfits they are wearing above are firemen themed. In the first picture, Mark’s shirt has a firetruck on it, and in the second picture Eli’s shirt says, “Chief Fire Dog to the Rescue.” I’ve also see baby boy clothes with policemen, construction worker, mechanic, pilot, and soldier themes. Activity themes involve clothes the promote going on safaris, hunting, fishing, eating, playing sports, and one outfit my little guys have promotes making robots (which could also be construed as an engineer’s outfit).

What strikes me about baby boys clothes is how much they promote activity and paid labor force work. Even as infants, we start to socialize baby boys into occupations. You rarely find occupation themed clothes for girls. Little girls clothes often have flowers, frills, and some animals (i.e. butterflies), but they don’t have occupational themes. They also rarely have activity themes outside of shopping or cheerleading. In fact, to me the worst subset of little girls clothes are those that say princess or diva. Diva is oftten used in a derisive way to indicate that the girl is overly demanding, and unlike the fireman or construction worker a princess doesn’t earn her title–she’s born with it or marries into it. Princess themed clothes also seem to play up baby girls looks–looking like a princess means looking pretty. I’ve seen a few shirts that have messages about boys being handsome or cute, but those are much less common.

One of the reasons that baby clothes are so strongly gendered is that babies themselves are often androgynous. If you put them only in a diaper, it’s often hard to tell what sex the baby is, but that androgyny doesn’t fit well into our gender polarized society, so this is where the clothes come in. Those clothes have underlying and blatant messages. Baby boy clothes have subtle and not so subtle messages. They say–be active, be bold, enjoy the outdoors, and get a paid job. It doesn’t seem that baby girls clothing has similar messages.

Sep

12

More Diverse Pundits Although the White Guys Still Run the Shows

Filed Under Black/African American Issues, Gender and Sexism, Media Praises and Critiques, Original Essays and Analysis, Politics, Race and Racism, Sociology, Uncategorized | 2 Comments

When I was reading Racialicious a while back I ran across this New York Times article, which notes that political pundits are more diverse than ever before:

Both MSNBC and CNN this election season have given new prominence to a handful of contributing commentators from varied backgrounds and perspectives: blacks, Hispanics and women. Whether such moves signal real progress in diversifying the punditocracy or merely reflect the needs of a particular news cycle is the question, some media experts say. The most prominent positions on television remain overwhelmingly with those who are white and male, and some critics note how striking that non-inclusion can seem during this election year.

As someone who has watched political shows for years, this is the first election where I have seen many panels with multiple white women, multiple African Americans, or any African American women (besides Donna Brazile). Overall this is a good sign.

There is still room for improvement. First of all, it appears that women of all races and men of color are not getting to be the primary host for political related shows. For example, take MSNBC, which had had a huge surge in viewers and is attempting to have a more liberal bent than the other networks, all but one of their shows has white men as the primary host–Keith Olbermann, David Gregory, Tom Brokaw, and Chris Matthews. The lone exception is Rachel Maddow, who is the new kid on the block. While the people who appear on those shows as commentators have become diverse the hosts still are not. A brief trip around the Sunday morning political shows reveals the same phenomenon. I also rarely see Asian American or Native American pundits, which is an other area where there can be improvements.

One of the more interesting observations I have about the racial make-up of Black and Latino political pundits– is that conservatives are overrepresented. I frequently see conservative Black and Latino pundits. If the pundits matched the political inclinations of these two groups, one would expect conservative Black pundits to be rare (definitely less than 20%) and conservative Latino pundits a little more common, but still less than half.

In spite of the areas for improvement that I identified above, I am very impressed with the dramatic difference over previous presidential elections. I’m not sure what the exact reasons are for this. Maybe it helps that we have had one black man and two white women who are knocking their heads on the glass ceiling that has kept everyone but white men out of our highest political office((Obviously, wealthy white men.)) . Maybe the networks were already trending in this direction–I tend to think they were moving in this direction, but they got a little jolt from the emergence of Obama and Clinton as groundbreaking candidates.

What do you think?

Sep

2

Personally, I Find the Attacks on Sarah Palin’s Teenage Daughter Deplorable

Filed Under Family Issues, Gender and Sexism, Media Praises and Critiques, Sexuality and Heterosexism, Sociology | 5 Comments

I don’t have the time to write something coherent, but personally find the hatchet job over at Daily Kos to be one of the most offensive hit jobs I’ve seen in a long time. If you click on this link you can see some of their handy work. They even have a tag dedicated to Palin’s daughter.

Is it really necessary to go out of our way to attack a child because we don’t like her mother’s politics. We know that abstinence only doesn’t work, but we don’t need to make this young woman the poster child for that political position. Attacking a pregnant 17 year old is way too much.

Here are what some others are thinking:

I personally agree with most of what Lauren at Feministe, says.

And I like Amp’s quote in the comments over at Alas:

I do think that this story will implicitly make it harder for Sarah Palin herself to argue for abstinence only education on the stump, and that’s good. (Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Palin’s kids were given abstinence-only education.)

But I don’t think there’s any need for people to talk about her daughter, for that effect to apply. It’s enough to have it be an unspoken elephant in the room whenever Sarah Palin discusses abstinence-only.

Also, I think the political downside for Democrats trying to make hay of this is obvious.

Mandolin at Alas, has also collected several posts on the subject. Including a very relevant point that Amanda Marcotte makes,

I find it interesting how the McCain/Palin campaign tried to shut down the P.R. disaster that is Bristol Palins pregnancy by calling for privacy, which was, just short of their invocation of choice, about hiding behind feminist values to assault feminism itself, since they wish you and your family have neither privacy nor choice when it comes to management of your life. But what I find especially interesting is that privacy was not actually a feminist value until it had to be in order to get reproductive rights established. Which isnt to say that Im against respecting peoples privacy (and really, this is the last mention of the Palin thing in this post*), but that rooting reproductive rights in the value of privacy instead of autonomy and self-determination has actually created some massive problems for us.

Privacy is a double-edged sword. Outside of its use by feminists to get what we want (reproductive rights) without scaring people by arguing for womens equality, privacy is generally a patriarchal value. It shields rapists and wife-beaters. The sense that women are the private property of men is still more ingrained in our society than the idea that uteruses are the private property of women.

All of these posts and subsequent discussions are quick to point out the relevance of this issue as it relates to public policy, specifically the republican opposition to comprehensive sexual education.

Personally, I feel we can talk about these issues without making this one pregnant 17 year old the center of the discussion.

Aug

30

The Olympics–a few thoughts on Global Inequality, Gender, Patriotism, and Multiculturalism

Filed Under Class Classism and Economic Inequality, Gender and Sexism, International Racism, Media Praises and Critiques, Original Essays and Analysis, Pop Culture, Race and Racism, Sociology, Uncategorized, Xenophobia and Immigration | 10 Comments

When I first started teaching I taught a class called “Prejudice and Discrimination,” in order to get my students to examine race, class, gender, and sexuality issues (later I added disability) I gave them an assignment where they had to watch a TV program, and analyze it from a sociological perspective. Basically, I wanted them to apply a theory from sociology to the program they chose. It was 2000, and one student did his analysis on the Olympics. He decided to use what I’ll call a functionalist multicultural perspective. In sociology, functionalism is a conservative theoretical view that argues that society is made up of interrelated and interdependent parts, which work together to create stability harmony, and order. Functionalists generally want to minimize change, and they tend to see everything having a functional purpose. The competing theory is conflict theory. Conflict theorists see a society that is driven over competition for scarce resources–in particular they see conflict stemming from the competition between society’s haves and have nots. Since conflict theory is inspired by some insights of Marxism, conflict theorists believe that social change is necessary.

In my student’s view, the Olympics were great because they brought all the people of the world together. Furthermore, everybody was competing on an equal playing field. He also felt that the spirit of the Olympic movement wiped out race, class, gender, and sexuality issues. In other words, the Olympics made all of these things moot, and nobody cared about any of these things when watching the Olympics.

Sarcastically, I asked myself–is this student watching the same Olympics as I am. I suppose when we take a functionalist view, the Olympics is a sample of stability and harmony, but I don’t see how we can watch the Olympics without noticing the haves and have nots of the world. While one can see some functionalist elements at the Olympics; you have to be deliberately obtuse to miss how Olympic competition is just as much about the social inequalities between groups.

Let’s start with gender. If you watched careful, there were a few occasions when I saw events for men labeled in a neutral way–i.e. the basketball finals– but events for women were labeled as women’s events–i.e. the women’s basketball finals. Isn’t it interesting that even though women participate in most sports at the Olympics, the men’s events are still central in most of those sports. I’ve also noticed that some countries have significantly fewer successful women athletes, and that is often related to the limited number of opportunities for women to compete in those countries. Think about those Kenyan and Ethiopian runners–it has only been recent that women in those countries have been recruited and trained to run like their male counterparts. I also couldn’t stand looking at yahoo during the Olympics where butt shots of women’s beach volleyball players were consistently in the top 10. Don’t get me wrong these women were talented, but it was obvious that their skimpy uniforms were part of the reason the networks had them in primetime.

What about Patriotism and ethnocentrism? As a very public sociologist noted in the thread last week, the US media listed the medal count as opposed to the gold medal count. China ran away with the gold medal count, but I guess it makes us look better to note that we won more over all medals. You could also see the bias in coverage. For the most part if the US wasn’t doing good in an event, then the coverage of that event was either non-existent or relegated to a sound bite. I’ve always felt that the Olympics is largely about Patriotism; it’s a way for countries to feel good about themselves and their people, a way to show strength (quite literally). In the 1936 Olympics, Hitler wanted to prove how great the “Aryan” race was, but he was upstaged by the great African American athlete Jesse Owens. This was the classic example of the political clashes that often occur at the Olympics. Don’t get me wrong, there are events that symbolize coming together in spite of our differences–this year the Georgian and Russian competitors in the Women’s air pistol certainly would be an example. But overall, the examples of countries trying to upstage each other or athletes coming to be representatives for the social and political causes of their nations are probably more numerous. The Olympics are a competition after all.

The other issue that I’m reminded of is global inequality and it’s connection to immigration. I was struck by how the US and China dominated the competition, but one thing I noticed in particular is how many top athletes representing the US were born in other countries and, in many cases, competed for those countries in the past. I noticed a former Chinese ping pong player, a former Kenyan distance runner, and a Trinidadian sprinter. Under the 1965 immigration Act, these immigrants are given the fast track to citizenship because of their special skills.1 The US obviously benefits, as do many other Western countries. These athletes are able to leave poor countries and head to wealthier ones. When we are talking about science and occupations, this is called the brain drain. Perhaps in sports it should be called the “muscle hustle.” Wealthy countries siphon off the top athletes from poor countries; moreover, many of the athletes from poor countries train, compete, and live in wealthy nations. I don’t know how many people noticed how many of the West Indian (such as Trinidadian, Jamaican, Bahamian) sprinters attend college and train in the US. I’d be curious to know how many of these athletes are able to stay in the US because of their skills.

Now I haven’t even touched on racism in this already long post, so I’ll keep it brief. Sport is often used as a way to reinforce racial stereotypes. Rather than connecting the racial make-up of an Olympic sports team to social opportunities, many try to assert biological distinctions between races, ignoring those who defy racial stereotypes and ignoring economic and social factors that result in racial differences. (Feel free to share your own examples for this one.)

What do you think? How does conflict theory play out at the Olympics? What ways do you think the Olympics represents a functionalist world view?

  1. This is also applied to scientists, artists, and people in some high demand occupational fields. [back]

Jun

7

Serious Question…About Obama, Clinton, Racism, and Gender

Filed Under Black/African American Issues, Gender and Sexism, Media Praises and Critiques, Original Essays and Analysis, Race and Racism, Serious Questions, Sociology | 5 Comments

Let me start by asking a question. Did anyone see Clinton’s, McCain’s, and Obama’s Tuesday night speeches in their entirety?

I watched Clinton and Obama both, but I missed McCain. One thing that struck me about Clinton and Obama is that I didn’t notice either one of them make note of the historic significance of having the first black nominee for President on a major party ticket. In contrast, both of them noted the groundbreaking campaign by Hillary Clinton, arguing that she was blazing a path for women, but I didn’t hear the same for Obama. Isn’t that an interesting distinction between racial politics and gender politics? The colorblind ideology silences almost any public discussion of racism by black candidates, who are vying for white votes. In contrast, we don’t have as much silence on the gender front (from the candidates). That has been a fairly consistent pattern in this Presidential election over the past few months. I’m not saying racism or sexism is a greater barrier to being elected President, but I think it is clear that they operate in different ways.

Furthermore, any complicated analysis that examines the interactions and intersections of race, gender, age, sexuality, and class are almost always missing from pundits and candidates analysis. I remember the point in the election when Hillary Clinton talked about getting pushed around by the boys (apparently it was on the Ellen DeGeneres show). While I can relate to being pushed around by the boys and having that make me stronger, I don’t believe for one minute that Hillary was being pushed around by any black boys. I know I sure wasn’t. I was getting pushed around by the whites boys who I went to school with. They were all white, presumably heterosexual1, and from class backgrounds remarkably similar to my own. I never heard any TV pundits point this out–Clinton wasn’t being pushed around by black boys.

All that said, why do you think there is a difference in a candidate’s ability to talk about his or her groundbreaking accomplishments in relation to race and gender? Do you think the political realm is exceptional in this way? Or do you things may be different in other fields? Why do you think it is so difficult to have a discussion that captures the intersections and complexities of various forms of social inequality?

  1. Some of them may not have been heterosexual, but I definitely could say that the boys that had the most normative gender presentations and were able to create a perceived heterosexual identity were the most likely to be the ones I argued with. [back]

May

21

Move Over: Pregnant Woman Coming Through

Filed Under Family Issues, Gender and Sexism, Original Essays and Analysis, Pregnancy and Childbirth, Sociology, Uncategorized | 5 Comments

(Not yet proofread; please bear with me.)

For me, one of the most striking things about pregnancy has been how pregnancy affects embodiment. In particular, I’m referring to how societal interactions and structures make affect social psychology and social interaction. One of the things I’ve noticed in the last few months of my pregnancy is the tendency for people to move over when I walk by them.

I first noticed this among men, especially younger men. It was almost like they would jump out of my way when they saw me coming. Some were clearly being gracious and definitely trying to be polite and considerate, and others looked almost scared, as if I was going to go into labor on the spot. What was fairly consistent was a lack of verbal interaction or sustained eye contact. Older men (those who seem to be over 50), have had very different reactions. They tend to hold doors, make more eye contact, and even strike up conversations. I’ve notice a little bit of difference in relation to ethnicity. Since I live in a neighborhood with many immigrants and different racial groups, I have day to day interactions with many men from different racial and ethnic backgrounds. In my own experience, both Latino and West African men (not African American, but West Africans) are much more likely to have to smiling, friendly, excited reaction. It seems that American born men (or those who are heavily assimilated), regardless, of race are more likely to jump out of the way and avoid eye contact. It is possible that many Latin American and West African cultures are very pronatalist that men view pregnant women in different ways than American men.1

As for women, it took much longer for women to do the move over thing. I’ve only noticed women moving over in the past few weeks when my stomach has been huge2 My experience has been that women are less likely than men to give this pregnant woman extra physical space. When women do move out of the way, it feels different. It rarely feels like their scared, but I do get a sense of pity from some of the women who move over. For most of the women who have a noticeable reaction to my pregnant body, their physical reaction is not really one of distancing themselves. They tend to try to do helpful things like hold the elevator, and then ask the programmed questions like: “When are you due?” “What are you having, boy or girl3?” Women, especially older women, may offer their own personal stories. Although I’ve also had some elderly and young women, act in a way that I interpreted as rude. For example, I’ve had a few cases of elderly women rushing to get ahead of me in line, which I would generally ignore if I wasn’t pregnant. I think there is an interesting conflict between women who are slowed because they are pregnant and women who are slowed because they are older. In terms, of ethnicity I haven’t noticed many differences. The Latinas in my neighborhood tend to have the most favorable reactions, but I felt that I had more pleasant interactions with Latinas before I was pregnant, so it is hard to know how much pregnancy has changed my interactions. I know I’ve had several cases of women speaking to me in Spanish about the babies, and I speak enough Spanish to communicate a little. I’m not comfortable generalizing about racial or ethnic differences in women in relation to moving over, but I think there are other race/class/gender differences in how women react to pregnant bodies or the idea of pregnancy.

The other factor that seems to influence how men and women react to my pregnant body in public interactions is the whether or not I’m alone, with a woman, or with a man. When I’m with my husband, I don’t get as many move over reactions from anybody, male or female. Moving over seems to happen more when I’m with women or, especially, when I’m by myself. I think when I’m with a man, who appears to be my partner, people think I have someone to “take care of me,” so they don’t feel compelled to respond.

From a social psychological perspective, this has made me very aware of my pregnant body. I rarely forget about being pregnant when I’m out in public. Of course, the smiles and other reactions make a big difference in how I interact, but the one that I really notice most is the move over reaction. That reaction has made me a little more sensitive to people with visible, physical disabilities. I don’t see pregnancy as a disability, but I think there are similarities in how people reaction to disabled bodies and pregnant bodies. Moving over is definitely one thing both groups have in common. I can see how people in each group can have their sense of self altered by these repeated move over interactions.

  1. I know in my partner’s culture–Nigerian, Igbo–there is a special word that means “mother of twins.” I’ve been called that by almost everybody in the family, male or female, and the connotation is very positive. [back]
  2. Remember I’m carrying twins, and right now my belly is bigger than almost any woman I know who has had a baby, so I have wondered if the reactions of other women would be different if my stomach was a more typical size. [back]
  3. The question about gender take on another dimension when the person asking finds out that you are having twins. People get really excited, and the most common question I’ve gotten is, Do twins run in your family? [back]

May

8

Enough with the calls for Hilary Clinton to drop out!

Filed Under Black/African American Issues, Gender and Sexism, Politics | 25 Comments

I spent a good portion of my life under military dictatorships, right around the time I came of voting age, free and fair elections were stolen to be replaced by the Abacha dictatorship. It was the worst thing that could happen to someone just developing a sense of political empowerment and civic participation. That same gut wrenching feeling hit me on November 8, 2000 and settled in for 8 years.

I’ve said all of the above to say this, this is the first year that I and many others ( given the high voter registration) have felt a sense of ownership, a feeling that our voices will be heard and reflected in the political process. That is why those of us following the democratic primaries are eager to see the process play out. Which is why it is angering and disappointing to see people calling for Hilary Clinton to drop out. Such calls (almost all by men) smack of sexism, subverts the democratic process by tainting the nominee’s win and runs a serious risk of alienating voters.

This is why it is vitally important that the process follows its proper course. That despite the vile course the campaign has taken, the disappointment in seeing supporters use foul play in support of their favored candidates and the media harp on sensationalism rather than the issues, it is of the utmost importance that democracy be upheld whatever the cost. That Obama AND Clinton see the primaries through to the very last one. Call me naive but I believe the democratic process is what is most dear, not the candidate.

(Ok, ok I’m getting off the soapbox and heading back to writing the 3 papers and 2 presentations due in the next couple of days)

Mar

4

Support Vivian Stringer’s Book

Filed Under Black/African American Issues, Education and Academia, Gender and Sexism, Pop Culture, Race and Racism | 1 Comment

Vivian Stringer is the head coach of the Rutger’s women’s basketball team,? so? many of you may have heard her name in the wake of Don Imus’s racist and sexist comments.? ? However,? her story and her influence as a pioneering woman extends well beyond the Imus controversy.? ? She has an amazing biography, and she is undoubtably a pioneering African American woman.? Her influence? as a role model extends well beyond her coaching background, as revealed in the press surrounding the book:

? A gifted athlete, she had to fight for a place on an all-white cheerleading squad in the sixties. In 1981, just as her coaching career was taking off, her fourteen-month-old daughter, Nina, was stricken with spinal meningitis. Nina would never walk or talk again. Still grieving, Stringer brought a small, poor, historically black college to the national championshipsa triumph hailed as Hoosiers with an all-female cast. In 1991, her husband, Billher staunchest supporter, the father of her children, and the love of her lifefell dead of a sudden heartattack, but that same year, she led yet another young team to the Final Four. Through these dark times and othersincluding her bout with cancer, shared here for the first timeStringer has carried her burdens with grace. Given her history, it was no surprise that she led her team to respond to Don Imuss slurs with dignity and courage.

Standing Tall is a story of quiet strength in the face of punishing odds. Above all, it is an extraordinary love storylove for the game, for the players she has coached, for her close-knit family, and for the husband she lost far too soon. It will resonate long after the last page.

Stringer releases her autobiography today and I encourage everyone to check it out.? ? It’s often that I? put up stories about the mistreatment of black women in the US,? so it is nice to have an occasion to celebrate some one who helps challenge those images of black women.

Update: Here is an interview I heard with her today.?

Feb

26

One for the Calendars: Today is Oney Judge Day

Filed Under Black/African American Issues, Gender and Sexism, Race and Racism, U.S. History | 8 Comments

*Slight Correction – I started typing on Feb. 25th, which IS Oney Judge Day. I ended up posting after midnight (but no eating, I swear), so the post date is off.*

Oney what, you say?

From 1790 to 1796, Oney Judge worked, enslaved, for President Washington as one of the slaves in the first Presidential Home, in Philadelphia. She was able to escape to New Hampshire with the help of free blacks in Philadelphia, and despite efforts from Washington’s family to “recover” her, she remained in New Hampshire living relatively free, although she never had her legal freedom. She married, and had children (she was known in New Hampshire as Ona Judge Steines), always under the threat of being captured and sent back. More of her story is here. Information on the work being done at the archaeological site and future memorial for all the slaves brought to Philadelphia by the Washington household is here and here.?

? Usually days of remembrance for individuals center on their birthdays. But since that remains unknown (like so many others), Mayor Nutter declared today, the anniversary of her death, Oney Judge Day. But it’s not just for her. It’s one of those days that stands in for every enslaved American who knew their own humanity, and who resisted and fought the brutality and greed of chattal slavery however they could, in ways great and small. It’s a day for everyone, white, black, and otherwise, free or enslaved, who spoke out, or provided? material support, often at great personal risk. It’s even a day for those who maybe just turned a blind eye at the right place, at the right time.

This past Independence Day weekend, I went to the? temporary visitors pavilion? set up at the Presidents House dig. They were closing the dig to prevent further contamination and decay of the stone foundations and artifacts recovered, and I wanted in situ pictures. Besides, those photos? might boost my kid’s? very cool middle school project from a “B” to an “A” in a few years. The displays at the pavilion told the histories, as much as has been uncovered, of both the building and those who worked inside. And still, there were parents whose kids were old enough to hear at least the bare bones of the truth, herding their kids away from the display. When one little girl quite clearly wanted to know why there were pictures of people on the display, her mother replied, “Oh, they’re just digging up a house. I don’t know who is in those pictures.” She then turned to her friend?sister? and said, “There’s nothing here.”

Oh, there’s a lot of something, people, just beneath the surface. You just have to open your eyes and ears.? An open mind doesn’t hurt, either… much.?

Next Page →