Lucca's 99 problems

As an African American, and as a woman I have the ability to observe parallels in the isms sexism and racism, and find concerning hypocrisy and double standards.

Simply ask yourself this question, when has there ever been an African American man who raised concerns about the use of the word nigger in a song, tv show, advertisement etc and someone refuted the claim for racism based on the mans appearance, background, history etc. Every black man can scream and moan about racist comments and NO ONE asks - well is he a good representative of African Americans. No one does that because it is irrelevant. If you murder someone, and I say it is wrong it doesn't become any less or more wrong that you murdered someone if I also have. It only means that possibly we are both murderers, the question is whether or not murder is wrong. When Rodney King was beaten for his race, no one examined whether or not he was an upstanding AfAm man who represented his race well, they simply and correctly identified the wrong - racism and addressed it.

I encourage us to identify the wrong and address it. Equally irrelevant to the question as to whether or not Lucca and Adam were inappropriate in choosing this song is whether anyone said anything to Jay before for it. As I said, if Jayz had murdered someone and no one said anything, and then Lucca murdered someone in the same way we wouldn't say - well Jay didn't hear about it so why criticize Lucca.

So again, the question is simply is it appropriate or inappropriate to spew out the words "If you're having girl problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems but a b*** ain't one".

That is the question. Not whether or not someone else said it first, not whether or not we can handle a woman choosing to be sexually provocative (which is NOT degrading to women - sexuality is NORMAL), now what the person who said something about it was wearing is it or is it not wrong.

The question of wrong and right then becomes more practical. So what is wrong? That is so subjective. I think it is a better question - does it harm anyone? That is even more practical and an even more useful discussion to have. And then, if it does harm anyone, to what extent, who does it harm, why does it do so, and what responsibility did either Adam or Lucca have in choosing to harm.

Since women are so systematically discriminated against, many men and a lot of women are so desensitized to misogyny that they don't recognize it or understand the harm. It has become "normal" . It has become so "normal" to have someone stand on a stage and call women derogatory names that we actually attack the sane person who points out the basic obvious fact = calling women as a group and expletive - is degrading. Look up the definition of degrade and that is the definition.

Now, because it is so hard for us to even recognize being insulted because it is so normal I will use an analogy to this using race instead since in this society we have come to appreciate that in popular culture derogatory racial slurs are still in the public eye frowned upon (despite systematic racism still thriving).

Only when races are insulted to people actually see basic principles that are often ignored when it comes to women.

So if a white artist sang "If you're having darkie problems I feel bad for you white, I got 99 problems but a ****** ain't one"; all of America would have banned the voice. It would have been pulled from the air. No sponsors would endorse it and NO ONE would have said ANYTHING to any black person who made a comment about it besides "right on" "I support you".

Whenever you are faced with these questions - is it ok to sensationalize and popularize derogatory slurs against women, just ask yourself - if this were about race - what would I say. And likely you will see through the bull shit and see the truth.

YES - it matters that you say b**** 1 million times on TV and sing it in songs and use slurs that are derogatory against women. YES - it does harm people. Read. Read the science and literature that tells you what you already know - it impacts the self esteem and self worth of individuals when the group that they belong to is degraded in society.

READ about the way in which all genocides begin with degrading a race of people to subhuman by the use of WORDS and LANGUAGE in order to enact societal wide harm against them.

READ about the struggles that many races have fought for to make sure derogatory racial slurs be removed for popular culture - most mainstream tv shows, movies, and songs. Name me a popular song where racial slurs are used by whites against minorities in truly derogatory ways repeatedly. If minority men are so adamant about making sure that they are not degrading in music by boycotting and shutting down anyone who uses a racial slur in the public eye, why don't those same people see how women would be just as concerned about getting rid of derogatory gender based slurs used in popular culture?

Shout out to Christina for making that statement. And props to her for wearing whatever she wants. You dehumanize someone when you make them one dimensional, women can be sexy, provocative - does NOT mean she is less than a woman, doe NOT mean she is degrading women because she wears sexy clothing. No ONE said anything about Prince and MJ grabbing crotches etc. Sexuality is NORMAL part of human function. How the hell do you think we all got here? You can't put women in a box - only women who dress a certain way have the right to be respected.

Just like a gansta rapper who says nigger all day long, and is a disgrace to his race would be supported if he claimed racism when a news anchor uses the word nigger - NO ONE woman should be accosted by her peers for pointing out basic truth that calling women as a group a derogatory slur in national television is wrong DOES have a negative impact on women and men and IS part of why women have low self esteem, are victims of violence and more human rights offenses across the globe than have been committed by all of the racial atrocities added together. More women die from gender discrimination than ALL of the wars on the planet EVER.

And of course racial slurs and gender based slurs are only as good as they are powerful right? If there is no power dynamic then nigger is just a word, b**** is just a word. But in a society where people were beaten and killed to the sound of white yelling nigger, and in a society where women are gang raped to the sound of men yelling b**** and whore, these words are powerful as words, but also in action. They are part of HOW people enact violence against others. Once you dehumanize a person ANYTHING is possible. Racial slurs and gender based slurs and homophobic slurs are the first step in making it easier to discriminate against, and initiate violence against these groups.

I encourage you to READ. Know your history as a woman. Know the history of sexism, the continued struggle not just here but overseas. You all know that blacks had to fight to overturn Jim Crow laws to vote in the 60s, but did you know that women didn't get the right to vote until after black men did? You all know about racial discrimination in home ownership, but did you know that BY LAW women were not allowed IN THIS COUNTRY to own property? Did you know that marriage used to be a contract providing OWNERSHIP of a woman to a man. Only until recently have women not been PROPERTY! And in many places in the world they are still treated as cattle. 1 in 4 women WILL BE raped in this country. The most common cause of death among young african american women is murder by an african american male. WAKE UP! There is a HUGE struggle. And YES just as blacks felt that the use of derogatory terms was an affront that struggle WOMEN need to wake up and realize the same.

And afford yourself the same right to live in an environment that respects your gender as well as your race. Protect your right to tune into a show that does not spew out racial slurs AND holds the same standard for gender based slurs.

Finally, UNDERSTAND what black men and Hispanic men and gay men have known and have fought for centuries - it DOES impact your group as a whole to have derogatory slurs spat off in songs, social media, tv shows, and movies. They march and stand up and scream and kick about ANY racial slur even the slightest insinuation of a racial slur. But when a woman says - hey and also - I don't want gender based slurs spewed everywhere - the entire society chokes the breath out of her with abuse - criticism and ridiculousness. Appreciate and think about this. The misogyny of women is so entrenched and ingrained in you that you can't see the basic issue with the word b****, no this society embraces the one who says it and chastises the woman who raises up against being called it. THINK. THINK. THINK.

Read Half the Sky as a starter

Beaten Down by Church - Ritualized Female Self Dis-empowerment

The complete exclusion of the feminine identity from the divine in traditional western thought and religion is devastating to the psychological health and self image of men and women and creates an affirmation of male control, domination, and authority in the church that is nearly impossible for women to argue against when faced with these same constructs within secular economic, political, and social spheres, since "God" condones the construct of male domination and even "requires" her to "submit" to it in order to be"obedient" to God and righteously adhere to the traditional Western/Christian faith.



The analogy that many patriarchal Christians use and that is quoted from the bible* is that "the husband is to be to the wife as Jesus was to the church". Well Jesus is Lord, and is the head of the church, so . . . you get the picture.

*Ephesians 5:22, 28-31. "Wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, even as Christ is head of the church; and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so let wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wife as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it . . . So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church . . . For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shal.1 be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh".

So as you seek a place of refuge from the bitter cold discrimination and stifling of your voice in the secular world, at work, politically, and otherwise; you are brought to relieve this in a temple that does not acknowledge or see you or any aspect of you in the divine. You seek refuge in a place where once again, your voice is second, your identity never spoken only "implied", and your command taken from masculinity. Surely this reinforces and validates what the world has shown you all along, so why, how could you mount up rage against what is ordained by God? Finally, you go to your home where you are supposed to find love, and if there is a male there - he often requires that you continue your efforts in subjugation in honor of him, after all you must model what you just worshiped and learned in church, he is the head, you are the follower. Notions of 1 head, in in environment where there are clearly 2 brains still baffles me and the inefficiency and injustice in this concept when both of those brains are human brains registers to me as one of the most diluted plans for successful family life and world that we have yet to invent as humans. And if you are like most, you are raising children to see you as less than your male counterpart - he is the authority figure - he has last say. So in my opinion the stripping of femininity from the divine, the rejection of the feminine from the divine, and the complete masculinization of the divine is perhaps the most dangerous of all constructs of domination and oppression since this is psychologically manipulating to the female psyche, far more damaging than any harm done to the flesh; and if successful will result in her reinforcing and contributing to her OWN unintentional and intentional continual deconstruction of her power in her efforts to achieve spiritual virtue. It makes her spiritual quest, her aspirations to find acceptance in the divine, her aspiration to be righteous dependent upon her acceptance and efforts to achieve her own self dis-empowerment. The destruction of the feminine identity of the divine, the complete exclusion of anything feminine within the definition of the divine, ritualized female self dehumanization. It ritualized the repeated stripping of the divine of femininity, and female self dis-empowerment. It also reinforces domination theory as "divine" and "right" and it gives indisputable validation to male claims to male "inherent" and "divinely given" authority OVER the female. In fact, as they stand, these constructs necessitate female subjugation as an important and essential activity of the "righteous" Christian-Judea male in his aspiration for righteousness. And makes it very difficult to engage people in thoughts to the contrary, because to dispute this is blasphemous! Meanwhile, while you will have significant opposition to this argument among traditional Christians who argue that it is blasphemous not to consider god the "Father", they often were the same ones who challenged white images of Christ arguing that praising and worshiping a white divinity and the exclusion of other races from the image of the divine was damaging to the formation of healthy self-worth of non-whites.

Yes I went there. Check out Corey Golkes on this topic, excerpts and URL for a great article below.

And please TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK!

Below are excerpts and a link to an outstanding analysis of this:
See below Excerpts from "Re-Examinging the Sex of God and "His" Servants" by Corey Golkes
URL: http://www.rootswomen.com/articles/09022011.html
Accessed: 3/26/12




Golkes states:

"...the removal and denial of female deities and divine concepts is inextricably linked to the removal and denial of feminine authority and influence in the economic, political and social spheres.


In our society – which for the most part retains a romantic, anti-intellectual attachment to the bible and things religious – merely asking questions such as why "god" is referred to in gender-specific terms is in many people's minds as heretical as challenging the authenticity of the bible. Whenever the subject is brought up, responses range from outright anger to derision to uncomfortable attempts to change the subject.

"God" is above such carnal concerns as race and sex. But both men and women unconsciously defer to gender-specific (read masculine) definitions of the Divine when they refer to the creator using a variety of titles almost all of which reinforce the idea that the Divine is exclusively male: god, Lord, the Creator, the Father, the Master, the Boss, Papa God, the "Man above" and so on. And they often do so without stopping to ask in any detailed manner why this is so. Such is the extent to which it has been ingrained into our consciousness that gender-specific terms and titles can speak on behalf of all humanity. So much have people come to accept, in spite of the view they themselves express that the Almighty they revere is without form in the physical, carnal sense, that there can be no thinking of expressing that divine being other than in exclusively masculine terms.

However, it is very important for the reader to understand that what we are discussing here, the removal or submerging of divine femininity in Western thought began even before the very existence of what we call Western thought so that by the time the ideas that form the fundamentals of Greek, Roman and Christian worldview came into existence anti-female attitudes had already been firmly embedded in human consciousness in Eurasia.

But again, why? Why should this be so crucial? It can be argued that for hundreds of years women have taken heart and inspiration from that supposedly masculine image of god and used that image to live pure, righteous lives anyway; shining examples to others. This is true, when viewed from a particular angle. But those who argue this forget that words have power, words have influence. Words can convey thoughts, ideas and expectations that can inspire a person to accomplish tremendous things – or very little at all. In much the same way that a people of colour worshipping a white, blonde mythical figure can unconsciously defer authority to actual people who look like that – to their detriment – so too people, regardless of their sex, worshipping a deity with masculine features and masculine traits have been unconsciously conducting themselves in keeping with the cultural ideals of a predominantly masculinist culture. This is one of the main points of my argument: that even in this supposedly enlightened time, the principal barrier preventing women from being even more assertive and self-confident (than they already are) in the political and economic arenas, while at the same time doing so with the qualities and outlook normally identified exclusively with femininity, is largely psychological. In this context, the psychological barrier comes from a deep-seated acceptance of "god" as being exclusively male – with all the behaviours associated therewith. Doing so consciously and unconsciously makes it difficult for one half of humanity – women – to truly see themselves or be seen as "godly" in their natural feminine selves.

Sceptical questions and comments like these should be familiar to some: for instance, anyone who has ever attempted to discuss whether Jesus or Adam and Eve were black people – and treated with the same derision or indifference. Whether any of these characters were real, historical figures is not so much of importance here (they're not, by the way); what is important is their relevance, their psychological impact.

In fact, I have often asked, if the issue is so trivial, then how come the framers of these ideas didn't see it fit to (openly) factor in clearly feminine aspects into their ideas of the Almighty even self is "fuh manners"? It would not have affected anything, right? Setting aside the semi-literate bible-wavers (and Qur'an-wavers too for that matter) who remain firm in their assumptions that all this came through men "inspired by god" and so never give it any thought, we need to see that this was something that had an historical beginning and something that has far reaching implications.

The point is that given the influence the supernatural – Divine/religion/etc – had on the minds of people in ancient societies, "god" was corralled into justifying masculine-oriented customs that served the interests of these ancient patriarchists.

Reconceptualising "god" or the Divine to incorporate aspects associated with femininity will ultimately lead to ideas that women, feminine values and behaviours can also be equated with power and are no less suitable than men to control power. Wrestling with the question of the "sex" of the Almighty and by extension female authority even in the divine sphere may very well be the last hurdle in bringing about a more balanced society."

Inhumanity of women

I spent my younger years concerned about racial inequality. I was passionately opposed to apartheid. I was well versed in the civil rights movement of the 60s in the US. I had no idea who Susan B. Anthony was. I had read Malcolm X's biography, Nelson Madella's, Martin Luther Kings. I had hosted events, talks, programs at my University for the rights of minorities.
I had no idea I was not considered a person by many of the men whose ideas I was trumpeting about.
I had no idea that none of them had been talking about me when they spoke of freedom.
I had no idea that had I been married to many of these "freedom fighters" many of them would not have supported my becoming a physician and a person of power and authority. I thought all of those years that when people spoke of freedom they meant freedom for all. But I now understand, they meant freedom for all men.
What a misuse of energy and investment.
I should have been fighting for freedom for women.
No one told me about Alice Paul in my history classes. No one went on about the 1919 revolutionary advancement in the right to vote for women. No. But I was made to watch movies about the sit ins in the south.
As a black woman, I was taught so much about how I had been discriminated against as an african american, but nothing about how I had been discriminated against as a woman.
Now in the setting of these political debates, my heart sinks.
I literally feel my skin falling to shreads about me.
I feel like I am in another century.
Men arguing about whether or not a woman should be able to choose to carry a child or not. So representative of their sense of entitlement and dominance over women, not as people but as property.
It is so utterly painful and inhumane, I can hardly stomach the thought that it is true.
I knew of the atrosities committed by people overseas, forcing women into invisibility, beating and raping them for sport and "right". But I did not know I would have to fight for basic human rights - the right to autonomy over ones body - here at home.
It simply drains my energy.
I am so appauled.

see this review on black women and feminism:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1395468?seq=1