Chris Brown & Our Responses To Violence

cross posted from my Media Justice column

It would be an injustice to let this week go by without addressing the various forms of media that come into play surrounding Chris Brown. I’m not one who wants to write about him, and this is because there are so many layers to violence, abuse, healing, representations, narratives, and community responses that are at play with him that they can easily get ignored and others may read that as erasure.

For those of you who are not aware of what current event I’m referencing, visit the ABC website, watch the interview, and read what happened after Brown’s performance this week.

I’ve learned that sometimes the questions are more important than the answers. That is not to say that answers are not important, but asking questions and thinking them over and creating a response centered in healing that results in action is important and critical. Plus, we do a lot, A LOT, of hard work quietly. That’s what thinking and building may look like for some of us. Often answers stem from questions that are posed. So instead of trying to find answers, I’d like to ask some questions and have us think about a few things that are still at play surrounding Chris Brown.

Here are the main areas I’d like for us to question:

1. What timeline or deadline do folks have for healing? Is it different for celebrities or the wealthy (read folks who have access to care in specific ways)?
2. What does it say about our community(ies) when violence is so public?
3. Where are the voices, opinions, questions, and answers of young people?
4. What spaces and communities of healing and support do we create and are a part of establishing?
5. What type of power is connected to violence? How does that power shift?

For many folks, especially those of us who are healing, I think the first question is that there is no deadline or timeline to our healing. We may put it off for decades, yet that does not make the healing any less valid or significant. So I wonder why we think that healing is different for celebrities or the wealthy? I understand how the idea may be connected to class status and access. Yes, it may be easier for someone with more money and access to go to a Caribbean treatment facility versus doing work in their bathroom that is shared by more than two people, or to a basement of a building of worship. Sure, that trip and location sounds a lot more relaxing. However, the work that it takes to heal is no less different based on space and location.

Do we have stereotypes of celebrities and the wealthy that they can heal more quickly than those of us who do not have that status? Why is that? How may these stereotypes be connected to our own healing we do? Perhaps we need these stereotypes to help us heal and cope with our situation and experiences. Yet, what does it do to us when we allow for such us vs. them binaries to exist? How does it isolate us? See our healing as different from theirs?

When violence is public and represented in a particular way, what does that say about our communities? Are we normalizing certain types of violence? Is there complacency that some may become frustrated with? I’d argue that, from experience, sometimes that complacency is a part of the healing process. Sometimes it hurts too much to care. And in these situations it is important to find and have people/places to go to find comfort and to be reminded that our action, even lack of action, does have consequences and specific outcomes we must be aware of. This is when it is important to acknowledge there are various forms of healing and not to prioritize one over the other, as each of us is different.

Trying to find the voices, ideas, and answers of young people in such conversations on violence and media representations is not as much a challenge as it used to be. There are several youth who are creating their own media and posting videos on YouTube or using social media to share their perspectives. I also recognize that in me writing this article, I am also taking up space that could be occupied by youth perspectives. How does my work limit such inclusivity that I argue to want to create? There are times when I tell myself that writing one column a week versus monopolizing an entire virtual space is one thing. That providing an opportunity for folks to share their ideas in comments is part of this space that connect to a larger discussion.

Many of the pieces on Chris Brown in the past 24 hours have not been by youth. Why not?

I’m personally discovering that there are many folks who I have in my network who are defending Chris Brown. I didn’t think this would irritate me as much as it has. I mainly find irritation in their defending of Chris Brown because they identify as heterosexual women of Color, are physically and sexually attracted to Brown, and are raising children. I do realize this is specific to my community. There may be several similarities among many folks who find themselves in support of Brown as well, perhaps they are not teenage girls, perhaps they are adult men.

I’d like to be clear that a major part of my discomfort with the folks in my community sharing their support for him is how they are responsible for other people: their children. I’m also concerned because, like me, we are women of Color and a part of the same community of practice and healing. I realize that part of this discomfort and frustration is in my understanding and expectation of parents. There remain questions for me about how a parent can support a violent act of any sort upon another person’s child. Just as I do not want someone dictating if I should/not have a child I do not think I can dictate to a parent how to raise their child. I can provide my opinion if asked, support, resources, and tips to approaching such conversations. Yet, I realize that I am not going to misuse any power I have to tell that parent what they are doing wrong/right per my standards.

So then, how do some people, especially women of Color who may find themselves attracted to Brown, use their attraction and adoration to ignore and erase his history? Mind you, these are people who may not ever meet or speak with Brown. Yet they are still very much on #TeamBreezy. How may some folks be allowing their imagined physical/sexual connection with a celebrity to guide their stance on issues that affect our community every day? How may this impact the work we can do collectively? Are some folks choosing to remain in a position of oppression and violence?

As a result, I ask questions: What does it mean that we have parents who are supporting violence, abuse, assault, rape, and harming of others, of our communities? Can we really allow ourselves to be surprised to know that parents will support their children, even if theyallegedly raped a 11 year old girl and it was caught on video? Are we as educators prepared to work with the children and parents who share these ideas? How could we begin to prepare?

Also, can we please stop talking about “anger management” as the only solution? As my homegirl Sofia Quintero has said over and over again: anger management is not what is at issue among folks who are abusers. Such folks know how to manage their anger, they don’t act out at work often, nor in public, many times they wait until they are home or with someone in their family or who they have an intimate relationship/friendship with. So, Brown knows how to manage his anger, he did not act out on stage or with Robin Roberts who interviewed him. He waited until he was in a particular place to act out violently. He made a choice.

How are our choices in violence connected to power? I remember teaching an upper level women’s studies course and listening to a reggeaton song by Ivy Queen. The song was “La Abusadora.” One of the students shared how she believes, that for many marginalized and historically oppressed women, claiming some level of violence was one of the few forms of power they had. This has stuck with me for almost ten years. It struck me because I thought about the ways I have claimed violence as a form of power. How I have power in other ways now and have not had to claim violence as a form of power. What does it mean that power may be connected to violence because it may be the only form of power someone may have? Do we forget that the power we do have is not always guaranteed based on where we live and who we are?

Which leads me to ask what spaces of healing and support are we working to create? This past weekend was International Anti-Street Harassment Day. I became familiar with several different outlets and community events occurring all over the world. One such event featured media maker Nuala Cabral who I interviewed last year. Her media focuses on anti-street harassment and useses various forms of media to begin such conversations. She collaborated with several other folks to provide a live performance of her film “Walking Home” as well as participated in community rallies and demonstrations. You can see her documentation of these events at her blog.

Often folks believe that the only “real” way to heal is by seeing and working with folks trained in Western ways of healing and counseling. I know this may work for some folks and I know it may not work for others. As a result I’ve found myself in support of non-traditional and complimentary forms of healing and care. This may be found in circles of support, art therapy, walking, traveling, and doing spiritual work and meditation. All this to say that there is not only one way to heal. There is not one right way to heal. Let’s limit essentializing healing for ourselves, others, and even for celebrities. As I’ve shared before, I believe there is room for all of us to heal in the best and most nurturing and comfortable ways.

Lots of questions, not many answers. But asking the questions and talking about them, thinking about solutions and approaches, are important work too.

(VIDEO) NYC School Chancellor Jokes About Birth Control

cross posted from my RH Reality Check blog

If you live in NYC, or catch some NYC news feeds, the controversy of NYC schools chancellor, Cathie Black, is old news. For those of you who are not aware, the appointment of Black by Mayor Bloomberg (who may I add is in his third term which the people did NOT vote for) has been a zone of contention for many parents, teachers, and activists. Much of the concern around her appointment stems from her lack of experience in the field and hiring procedures. Now, her “jokes” around birth control in NYC schools can be added to that list of concerns.l

I’m a bit late to this story as I’m still trying to enjoy my last few days of vacation before the semester begins and I’m back to teaching on a regular basis. After reading some commentary on a few social networking sites by colleagues working in school based health centers in the city, I had to look up the story and read what exactly happened.

Perhaps there is too much irony in the fact that many of the sources that came up in an Internet search for this story were of a conservative space. Even the articles that referenced their original source came from those conservative news outlets. The one space I found online that offered a video of the conversation was at Clutch Magazine in an article written by Liane Membis. Watch the video below of the exchange:

Here are some of the concerns I have regarding her statement:

I have no problem with humor in the workplace, especially at tense meetings. What I have learned is that using humor takes skill and accountability for what may be the outcome. After all, it is not the intent, but the outcome that is often what folks remember and need to apologize for. What my concern about this joke is the connection to the history of eugenics, forced sterilization, racism, classism, and ableism that is not unique to the US, but that has a very specific history in NYC. For more information about specific experiences in NYC I suggest two texts: Women of Color and the Reproductive Rights Movement by Jennifer Nelson, and Killing The Black Body by Dorothy Roberts.

The comment made “could we just have some birth control for a while? It would really help us out” was made while a man was speaking of overcrowding in schools. He was speaking about what the current overcrowding situation is when she made that comment. Her comment regarding birth control is not appropriate because she made it regarding a situation where children are already here. Thus, it can be/is interpreted as questioning why birth control was not used by parents. I’m of the opinion that it is extremely tasteless to question why parents chose to continue a pregnancy and parent versus other options, especially years after their child is born.

To follow this Black then states: “I don’t mean this in any flip way. It is many Sophie’s choices.” New York Daily News reporter Michael Daly hit the nail on the head when he wrote:

“But the parents at that downtown Manhattan meeting were overwhelmingly white and well-off, which may have been why she felt she could make the joke in the first place. She knows that those folks are not going to think she is really telling them to stop breeding.

The rich white lady from Manhattan might have received a very different reaction had she attempted that humor in a poor neighborhood where hope lives in the children and the realization of that hope resides in education.

The poor have historically been told by people of Black's station to stop breeding and being such a burden”

Black, as a racially White woman with a large amount of power in how NYC schools are managed, must recognize how her power can be misused, even in conversations. Ignoring, forgetting, or being ignorant in how youth in NYC and their families have been treated regarding birth control and family size is not going to help convince her team or parents that she is a strong leader. Historical memory is real and there are many parents and intergenerational families that remember vividly what has happened regarding forced sterilization and over access to some forms of contraception in their community.

I’ve shared before how much of a challenge working in a school based health center was for me, especially in east Harlem where the student population was 100% youth of Color. One of the many challenges was questioning at one point why all of these contraceptive options were offered exclusively and so easily to the youth of Color I worked with versus the working class racially White youth, or youth with various social locations different from the students I worked with. It made me think more about what it means to have access and what it means when some underrepresented communities have more access than others.

I know I’m not alone in my discomfort or concern. Yet, I do not think this is a complete failure or mistake on Black’s part (or on Bloomberg’s in appointing her).

What I do appreciate about Black’s comments is that she is comfortable discussing contraception. I remember how much activism we did on lobby day to Albany, the grants applied for just to offer the services to the students we work with on a regular basis so they can make the best decisions for themselves. Discussing these topics in NYC schools is not as present as it could be and Black may open up such dialogue. She is clearly pro-contraception, yet that does not mean she is pro-choice. We’ll have to see what legacy she may leave, if any, while in her new position. I admit, although I think her comment was tasteless and dangerous, I am hopeful for the potential in conversation.

Communal Responses To Violence: The Puerto Rican Day Parade Controversy

Cross posted from my RH Reality Check blog

I’ve been tweeting stories about the Puerto Rican Day Parade here in NYC for a few weeks now. The Parade is one of the largest events centered on Puerto Rican nationality and ethnic identity and pride in the city. People plan for the event all year, and some even travel across the country to attend. Although I have only intentionally attended one time, as I’ve become claustrophobic as I’ve aged, I can say that many community members find the event important to the transmission of our cultural practices and is considered a rite of passage for many.

The most recent story that has been at the center of discussing the Parade this year is the chosen “godfather,” actor, singer and model Osvaldo Rios. Huge controversy surrounds his presence at the Parade because of his history of violence against women. This controversy began back in May of this year when the announcement was made. In 2004 Rios spent 3 months in a Puerto Rican prison for abusing his partner at the time. Part of the controversy that has begun was when council member in Spanish Harlem Melissa Mark-Viverito stated:

"It's not a positive role model for my people, for my community and for our children. I personally will not march in the parade and I will ask other elected officials to consider doing the same thing.” Not everyone agreed with Mark-Viverito and believed that people “deserve second chances.”

Following Mark-Viverito’s statements, the Marshal for the Parade, Chicago Rep. Luis Gutierrez quit and Verizon pulled its sponsorship earlier this week, the first full week of June. This has resulted in Rios making a decision about his presence and participation at the Parade. Rios recently announced he has chosen to not attend the Parade. He is quoted in the NY Daily News as saying:

"After discussing this issue with my wife, my children and Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, to whom I'm grateful for her wise words, my family and I have decided ... not to attend the parade and promote the unity and the consensus between the Puerto Rican people at such a great event."

I have to admit that I am one of the people who believe this is a good decision to not have Rios be the “godfather” at the Parade, this year or any year for that matter. I’m proud to have read that several representatives and sponsors recognize that women’s bodies, Latina bodies, Puerto Rican women’s bodies, Caribbean women’s bodies, LatiNegra bodies are important. That the abuses our bodies endure are not ones that can be easily rectified. That our bodies have endured so much already, physically, emotionally, mentally, spiritually and that our lives matter too. I hope this will be an opportunity for community members to consider a communal response to ending violence within our communities. I know I will be using this story and other forms of media in my classroom this summer and next semester as I discuss rape, sexual assault, and violence.

UPDATE: It has recently been announced that singer Marc Anthony is the new "godfather" of the parade.

Unlock the Condoms!

Condoms save lives. Quote me on that. It also helps you plan when you want to create a life you are for. So condoms are good for everyone (yes even those of you who identify as female and love other females, they can cover sex toys and make for easy clean up!)

Join me in signing the CHAMP (Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project) letter to CVS CEO Tom Ryan who has locked condoms up, especially in working class communities and communities of Color. Visit the website to send the form letter. Below I have cut and pasted what the CHAMP letter says in case you want to cut and paste into a formal letter.

Mr. Tom Ryan

C.E.O., CVS Caremark Corporation
One CVS Drive
Woonsocket, RI 02895

Dear Mr. Ryan,

Our organization is part of a national coalition of community organizations, health care educators and advocates. We believe CVS Caremark Corporation’s practice of locking up condoms, especially in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color, is both short-sighted and dangerous.

Health and consumer advocates coast to coast are demonstrating against CVS’s practices that stigmatize condoms and condom users and calling on CVS to unlock condoms in all communities. Coverage of our actions in the New York Daily News, Los Angeles Times, Philadelphia Daily News, Boston Globe, Miami Herald and other newspapers as well as from National Public Radio and dozens of television news broadcasts has elevated awareness of CVS’s disrespect for communities of color and fueled a growing demand for corporate reform.

We are encouraged that your corporation has taken a positive first step by unlocking condoms in its Philadelphia and Boston stores, after community demonstrations in those cities. However, it is crucial that this same access be provided to consumers in all cities and in all communities.

We urge CVS to put the health of our communities first and adopt a written policy that ensures all condoms are permanently unlocked in all communities across the country, regardless of race.

Please consider the following staggering statistics, evidence of the public health crisis our communities face:

* Nationwide, HIV/AIDS is the No. 1 killer of black American women between 25 and 34. And rates (of infection) for Hispanic women nationally are four times those of white women, while rates for black women are 15 times those of white women.
* Over the past decade, gay men and other men who have sex with men face rising rates of HIV infection, with the highest rates in young black gay and bisexual men. Nearly half - 46% - of black gay and bisexual men are believed to already be infected.
* A sexually active teenager who doesn't use contraceptives has a 90% chance of becoming pregnant within one year, and approximately 750,000 teens become pregnant each year.
* Every year 3 million teens acquire an STD.

Clearly we cannot afford to stigmatize or limit access to condoms, creating unnecessary barriers to safe-sex practices. Your closest competitor, Walgreens, has a policy against locking up condoms in any of its stores. We hope that you will follow Walgreens’ lead in promoting better health practices in all communities.

We stand with communities across the country in saying “Cure CVS Now!” We will continue to keep a watchful eye on CVS and its role in providing care to our communities.

Q & A: Bi, why do you hate the film Juno?

When the film Juno came out, people assumed that as a sexologist who works with youth and youth of color, that I would love the film. I didn’t. I still don’t. There were several issues that came up for me while watching the film, not only as a sexologist, but also as someone committed to social justice which includes access to quality care for ALL, media justice, and fair and accurate representations of communities of Color.

Here are my issues with the film:
1. no discussion or examination of class privilege
2. only 4 characters of Color (2 with speaking roles)
3. cultural appropriation (not sure that’s the best term, but I’ll use it for now)

Now, the film is about a young White girl who gets pregnant while still in high school She chooses to maintain her pregnancy and have the child adopted. Ok, fine. Now, I got into a few discussions with folks about what the class status was of Juno and her family. It is clear the adoptive parent(s) she chooses have a different class status than her own. What is not clear is what Juno’s class status is. I argue she is not from a working class family (and I say that knowing the importance of including more people as working class is important to have us acknowledged and fuck with how class is constructed in the capitalist society we live in). I think Juno is from a middle-class family and here’s why (keep in mind I’m viewing this from my particular lens as a working-class person):

1. Her step mother owns her own business (we know that White privilege can play a lot in how folks get loans to open businesses and such)

2. Her father is a skilled laborer, I think a plumber (and this is where a lot of the fuzzy convos about class come up)

3. She has a car she drives to school (it’s a minivan as I recall)

4. Look at all that she has in her bedroom. There are televisions in just about every room she is shown as being in her home.

5. She has money to purchase several home pregnancy tests without having a job (if you don’t know they can each cost up to $10)

6. She has access to wealthy people in her community

7. She's filled with self-entitlement (Yes, I know some working-class and working-poor can have the same sense of entitlement, but the script to me came off as not a witty and clever young teenage girl, but as a self-righteous entitled one!)

When it comes to characters of Color there was a VERY weak attempt to sprinkle us in this film. Look, if this is a film filled with White people and none of us (I mean it already is!), it’s what I expected anyway. But when I saw how they tried to include us in the film, I was instantly turned off and quite disgusted. As a reminder, here are the 4 characters of Color:

1. Valerie Tian plays Su-Chin Qah, a high school student with a very stereotypical accent. We first see her standing in front of the abortion clinic Juno goes to trying to get information and terminate her pregnancy. Tian’s character is shouting in broken English how abortion is murder, she will go to hell, and other religious right anti-choice rhetoric.

2. Once Juno arrives in the clinic, she looks around and sees a young Black woman who is very visibly pregnant (possibly in her second trimester) and has one child at her side who is clearly under 5 years old. She is filling out a form. We are lead to believe that the young mother wants to terminate her current 2nd trimester pregnancy. I read this as 1. Racist (the actress is not even mentioned in the list of characters, we are given the impression she is irresponsible, can’t find childcare for her current child, and just about any other stereotype we know all too well is attached to Black women and our sexuality), 2. Anti-choice (especially against women who choose second trimester procedures). All that and the young women didn’t even speak! She was only on the screen for less than 60 seconds and this is the impression we are left with! When I mention her, some viewers can’t even remember her. How ironic, when I’m the only one of my crew of mostly White sexuality educators who remembers her. PS you can’t take kids to an abortion clinic on the day they are performing terminations (perhaps if it is a medical clinic too providing other care) but usually abortion clinics ask you not to bring children with you.

3. Kaaren de Zilva plays the Ultrasound Technician. She has no speaking part, but plays a role in allowing Juno, her stepmother, friend and adoptive mother to have a first image of the child. A woman of Color played a huge role in the life of this young woman and her chosen adoptive parent(s) for her child and she barely speaks!

4. Aman Johal plays Vijay, the friend to Paulie (aka Juno’s male partner and biological father to their child) and on the track team with him. Vijay has the most speaking lines in the film, unfortunately, the are less than exception. His lines consist of talking about how he wants to grow facial hair to demonstrate his virility, and announce he’s going to “stop wearing underpants” to “raise his sperm count.” Is he not happy that he has not impregnated a young woman like Paulie has, even if it was unplanned? Are we left to think that Vijay wants to be a young father? Is sexually active? Is not using condoms with his partner(s)? Fuck!

I don’t know about ya’ll but I could have done without these 4 characters even being included. They distracted me and definitely gave me a different understanding and view of the film. I didn't read the film initially, or think it would be, anti-choice, but some of these representations lead me to believe that this film did want a level of anti-choice discourse/imagery, unfortunately, all of them where people of Color! What a stereotype!

Finally, the cultural appropriation, again, I don’t know if this is the appropriate term. Perhaps I should say “the performance of Blackness/otherness.” That seems to be a bit more on point for what I had trouble consuming as a viewer. It all began at the market where Juno takes her pregnancy test. The White sales clerk says to Juno something to the effect of “home skillet.” Anyway, Juno’s discussion with her girlfriend about her pregnancy leads into a discussion using a Snoop Dogg use of terminology such as “fo’ shizzle.” I can’t explain why it made me uncomfortable to watch this performance or why it rubbed me the wrong way, but it did. There was an attempt to use language in a way that was fully accessible when we know as a fact that language is not accessible to everyone. Maybe it’s too painful for me to get into and my subconscious is trying to protect me from a breakdown? Maybe I just don’t have the energy. Maybe I just don’t want to fight this battle anymore.

And that is why I'm not a fan of the film Juno.

Busted!

I've been teaching for over 10 years and it was not until about three years ago that I found the film Busted: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters created by the organization Flex Your Rights. I've used the film in my classes and students have ALWAYS thanked me afterwards for sharing with them the video and the important information. Well, Flex Your Rights has posted the video in full on youtube and I bring it to you here.

I'd also like to point out another feature on the Flex Your Rights site, and that is how to refuse searches on DC Metro, when do I have to show ID, and other frequently asked questions about police encounters.

Two important highlights:

1. Calmly and clearly say: "Officer, I do NOT consent to a search."

2. DO NOT RUN! (seriously, don't do it!)

Please spread the word and the video!