In a New York Post article, Rich Lowry claims that the national conversation we’re having about race in the wake of Michael Brown’s death at the hands of former officer Darren Wilson is “based on lies”:
The “national conversation” about race and policing we’ve been having ever since Michael Brown was shot by Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Mo., last summer has been based on lies.
The lie that Officer Wilson shot Brown while he had his hands up and was pleading “Don’t shoot.”
The lie that New York City policemen targeted Eric Garner for a violent arrest because he was black.
The lie, peddled especially by the progressive prince of New York City, Mayor de Blasio, that the police are racist.
These are the lies that fuel hatred for the police, because if the police routinely execute black men in cold blood and serve a thoroughly racist system, they deserve to be hated.
That “national conversation” that has been occurring since Ferguson?
It is not based on lies. Yes, there are facts that may be disputed in the specific case of Michael Brown’s EXTRAJUDICIAL death and denial of his rights as a human being and a U.S. citizen at the hands of former officer Darren Wilson. But the Black Lives Matter movement is about addressing the racial disparities in the criminal justice system. The movement is based on the very real experiences of black Americans. It’s based on the fact that black men are 21 times more likely to be shot and killed by police officers than white men. It’s based on the disproportionate presence of Black Americans in prison. It’s based on racist policies like Stop & Frisk. It’s based on the fact that law enforcement officers are just as prone to possessing implicit racial biases as anyone else which leads to them making snap judgments about People of Color that are often based on stereotypes:
The first step in understanding how implicitracial bias works is to understand the general concept of implicit bias, which can shape the way we think about lots of different qualities: age, gender, nationality, even height.
Two of the leading scholars in the field, Mahzarin Banaji and Anthony G. Greenwald, capture it well in the title of a book they wrote about the concept. It’s called “Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People“
What do these “blind spots” look like, and how do they shape behavior? Well, if you have a stereotype about Asian people that labels them as “foreign,” implicit bias means you might have trouble associating even Asian-American people with speaking fluent English or being American citizens. If you’ve picked up on cultural cues that women are homemakers, it means you might have a harder time connecting women to powerful roles in business despite your conscious belief in gender equality.
Implicit racial bias also means that many people think of African-Americans as prone to violence. Or less educated than Anglo-Americans. Or that African-Americans are mostly criminals. Or the thinking that leads to officers thinking that a Black suspect has a gun when they don’t have any reason to think so.
These biases are present in cops. In lawyers. In judges. In jurists. No matter their intentions, they are still human beings. No matter our desire to be fair and impartial, we humans have prejudices and the criminal justice system doesn’t currently have a means of weeding out or minimizing those biases so that all citizens are treated equally on the streets by police officers and given a chance at a fair hearing in the courtroom. These prejudices are one more thing that people are protesting against. They are one more example of the racial disparities in the U.S. criminal justice system that leads to People of Color being treated differently than white people.
And these disparities? They did not spring into existence when Darren Wilson decided he had no recourse but to shoot and kill a black man he deemed demonic (no denial of Brown’s basic humanity there). Those disparities were long in existence and the death of Brown brought them to light once more. National attention is shining on the ugliness of those disparities, which is necessary if we are to ever fix this fucked up system.
Lowry goes on to say:
His rote praise of the police notwithstanding, especially now that he is under so much political pressure after the murders of Officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu, Mayor de Blasio is deeply invested in this smear.
It is why he has made career anti-police agitator Al Sharpton practically deputy police commissioner.
Smear? It’s a smear to recognize that Black Americans are not treated fairly on the streets or in the courtroom?
Also, Al Sharpton is anti-police? Got a citation for that? Not a twisting of his words, but actual quotes where he demonstrates that he is anti-police. Not quotes that call for a reform of law enforcement, but actual quotes where he demonstrates that he is anti-police. I wonder if they’ll be forthcoming.
It is why he considers the police a clear and present danger to his biracial son, Dante.
If it wasn’t already clear, Lowry demonstrates in this one sentence that he doesn’t understand the Black Lives Matter movement AT ALL. The reasons why Mayor de Blasio has talked to his son about police brutality are all over the country. We’re in the middle of having a national conversation about those reasons, remember? Is Lowry’s memory that poor? I doubt it. What is more likely is that he doesn’t believe the claims of African-Americans across the country. Or perhaps he simply doesn’t care about the experiences of Black people, which is entirely possible, scary though that may be. Either way, the end result is an article that attempts to undermine the entire Black Lives Matter Movement while not understanding the very reasons the movement exists.
Lowry also takes it as truth that people are lying about aspects of the Brown case. Given that many facts in the case are disputable, he has no reason to be as certain as he is that people are lying. How does he know that? How do we know these “lies” aren’t actual truths? I hope he’s not using Witness #40 as reason to believe people are lying, since she wasn’t even there to witness Wilson’s heartless murder of Brown. As I said above, there are facts that are disputable. Did Brown have his hands up was Wilson shot him? I don’t know. Was he pleading “don’t shoot”?I don’t know. I don’t know how the writer of this article knows either. But whether he was or not doesn’t change what the movement is about. By claiming that the entire Black Lives Matter movement is based on lies, the writer of this New York Post article dismisses the real experiences of countless people across the country. He also demonstrates that he doesn’t understand the complaints of African-Americans across the country as he sets up a massive strawman and sets about burning it to the ground.
So said pop artist Madonna following leaked demos of her new album.
After tracks purportedly from an unreleased thirteenth studio album leaked to the internet, Madonna took to Instagram to decry her treatment as “artistic rape.”
“These are early leaked demo’s half of which wont even make it on my album the other half have changed and evolved [sic]. This is a form of terrorism,” the “Like a Prayer” singer wrote in a caption on Instagram. (Update: On Wednesday afternoon, the singer deleted the post.) In another caption, Madonna wrote “Thank you for not listening! Thank you for your loyalty!”
Diminishing the severity of rape by comparing it to the theft and online leaking of an artists album? That’s Rape Culture. Rape is one thing: non-consensual sex.
Needless to say, many of the responses demonstrated the necessity of feminism.
As computer science PhD students, we were interested in fielding questions about programming, academia, MIT CSAIL, and how we got interested in the subject in the first place. As three of the few women in our department and as supporters of women pursuing STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics], we also wanted to let people know that we were interested in answering questions about what it is like to be women in a male-dominated field. We decided to actively highlight the fact that we were three female computer scientists doing an AMA, to serve as role models in a field that’s less than 20 percent female.
As it turned out, people were extremely interested in our AMA, though some not for the reasons we expected. Within an hour, the thread had rocketed to the Reddit front page, with hundreds of thousands of pageviews and more than 4,700 comments. But to our surprise, the most common questions were about why our gender was relevant at all. Some people wondered why we did not simply present ourselves as “computer scientists.” Others questioned if calling attention to gender perpetuated sexism. Yet others felt that we were taking advantage of the fact that we were women to get more attention for our AMA.
The interactions in the AMA itself showed that gender does still matter. Many of the comments and questions illustrated how women are often treated in male-dominated STEM fields. Commenters interacted with us in a way they would not have interacted with men, asking us about our bra sizes, how often we “copy male classmates’ answers,” and even demanding we show our contributions “or GTFO [Get The **** Out]”. One redditor helpfully called out the double standard, saying, “Don’t worry guys – when the male dog groomer did his AMA (where he specifically identified as male), there were also dozens of comments asking why his sex mattered. Oh no, wait, there weren’t.”
As for the question of whether we brought this treatment upon ourselves by mentioning our two X chromosomes, it is well known people give women on the internet a hard time whether they call attention to their gender or not. And as one redditor says, “Gender neutrality and a push for equal rights is prevalent precisely because men and women have fought for it to become a topic of discussion.”
“You know what? I just want to make sure some girls play some ball,” President Obama said as he knocked out the idea of gendered toys at the annual Toys for Tots volunteer event in early December.
In her opening speech, Michelle Obama welcomed her husband and promised to “break him in slowly” on his first visit. The president got right to work as he sorted toys into separate bins for boys and girls at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling in Washington, D.C. A basketball, tool kit and tee ball game went straight into the girl bins as families looked on.
“I’m just trying to break down these gender stereotypes,” he said.
Ooh, palpable hit. With the power and privilege the President has, he ought to help shatter gender stereotypes more often. Here’s the video:
Posted earlier this week on the Facebook page My Stealthy Freedom, the grainy video shows a young Iranian woman dancing like Taylor Swift at an awards show to a song by the British pop group Little Mix in the middle of a subway car.
In any other context, this energetic display would be of little note. But this dancing is political: It’s an act of protest against Iran’s strict laws prohibiting dancing in public. Not only does she dance in public, but she continues to do so even after her hijab slips from her head. The woman therefore ends up breaking two Iranian laws, one against dancing in public and the other against appearing in public without her head covering.
My Stealthy Freedom is run by Iranian journalist Masih Alinejad, who spoke to the Independent about the video as well as the growing cultural war in Iran. “Every day in Iran there is a cultural war between the Iranian government and young people. … If you live as a free person in Iran you are living as a criminal every day.”
“Facebook and social media is showing a hidden face of Iran that is never seen in the media,” Alinejad, who lives in the United States, continued. “It allows Iranian people who have never had a voice or a chance to speak to form their own media.”
Alinejad — a well-known activist — said she was initially reluctant to post the video in light of the recent punishment of the six Iranian youths who made a video dancing to Pharrell’s “Happy” this past spring. In September they were each sentenced to six months in jail and 91 lashes. Alinejad told the Independentshe published the video on Facebook because the young woman’s face was blurred, making her unrecognizable in a court of law.
A competition in Sweden has renewed debate over what is still one of the most stigmatized subjects of modern sexuality: female masturbation.
The competition is centered on declaring a new name for female masturbation, and the winner will be selected from over 1,000 entries in June 2015. While the competition represents a step in the right direction toward legitimizing this healthy sexual act that remains taboo for women, its mere existence underscores a universal insecurity surrounding the issue.
Research backs this up: Some people believe it’s actually impossible for women to masturbate, while others think it happens too infrequently to warrant any discussion. Meanwhile, a survey of 20,000 people conducted by the Australian Study of Health and Relationships shows that most women refrain from masturbating, arguably largely due to embarrassment and discomfort caused by the stigma around it.
“Less than half of all women aged between 16 and 69 said they had masturbated in the past year, and for girls aged between 16 and 19 the figure falls to 30%,” the Brisbane Times reported. “By contrast, a resounding … 76% men engaged in self-pleasuring.”
Here’s the point:Women need to get over ourselves when it comes to getting off.
Which is why the Swedish competition is such good news — naming the act gives it credibility. “When it comes to masturbation,” Kristina Ljungros, spokeswoman for Swedish Association for Sexuality Education, said, “People mostly think about just men doing it, and we don’t think of it as common for women. If we don’t have a word in the language, how can we even talk about it?”
Some would argue the existing stigma can be traced back men’s desire to control women’s sexuality. Masturbation inherently removes men from women’s lives, making women independent in a way that still makes society uncomfortable. Even A-list women celebrities are castigated for too outwardly displaying sexuality — as recently as last year, Miley Cyrus and Beyoncé were criticized for the odes to female masturbation they conveyed in “Adore You” and “Rocket,” respectively.
But while female sexuality is threatening to men because it is seen as aggressive, female masturbation is doubly threatening because masturbation is seen as an act only men do. Furthermore, masturbation is evidence that women do not need men for sexual pleasure — not surprising when statistics prove that women only climax 64% of the time during heterosexual, vaginal sex.
“Stigma around female masturbation is part of a longer legacy of stigma against displays of autonomous female sexuality,” Amber Jamilla Musser, assistant professor of Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Washington University in St. Louis, told Mic.
Culture has long declared women should only exhibit passive, responsive desires when it comes to sex. Early psychiatrists turned this into a medical truth by labeling female sexuality, and masturbation in particular, as a psychological disease most clearly with “female hysteria.” These psychiatrists, Musser said, “hinted at independence from men and the potential participation in a sexual underworld of lesbianism, masturbation and miscegenation.”
Reading the above and knowing there are pissants who don’t accept that Patriarchy is a thing…argh!
Discussions about the protests surrounding the racial bias in the criminal justice system (from the police to the courts) often mention Michael Brown, the unarmed teen gunned down in August by former Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson (the death of Brown was the beginning of the protests). You’ll also hear of Eric Garner, the 43-year old father of six who was killed by NYPD officers while being placed under arrest. You may also hear the name Tamir Rice, the 12-year old shot to death by a police officer literally seconds after the officer exited his vehicle. Other names that you might here are Dontre Hamilton, Antonio Martin, Darrien Hunt, Kimani Grey, and Kendrec McDade.
Often overlooked in the discussions of African-American victims of police brutality are black women. I have been guilty of this myself. Thanks to an article by Evette Dionne at Bustle, I can work on ending that ignorance:
Protestors in New York flooded the streets last week, toting signs that blazed with images and phrases about cruel injustice. Just a week after similar events in Ferguson, a grand jury ruled that Daniel Pantaleo — the NYPD officer who put Eric Garner, a 44-year-old, black, Staten Island man, in a chokehold that led to Garner’s death — should not be brought to trial for his actions. A failure to indict the police officer responsible for Garner’s unjustifiable, illegal, and unnecessary death signifies why there’s been a breach of trust between communities of color and those tasked with enforcing the laws. In black American communities, we are holding our breath, waiting for whoever’s next. There is no guarantee that the next victim will be a black male, but there appears to be a guarantee that the victim will be marginalized or forgotten by the mainstream media if she is a girl or woman of color.
Discussions about the protests surrounding the racial bias in the criminal justice system (from the police to the courts) often mention Michael Brown, the unarmed teen gunned down in August by former Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson (the death of Brown was the beginning of the protests). You’ll also hear of Eric Garner, the 43-year old father of six who was killed by NYPD officers while being placed under arrest. You may also hear the name Tamir Rice, the 12-year old shot to death by a police officer literally seconds after the officer exited his vehicle. Other names that you might here are Dontre Hamilton, Antonio Martin, Darrien Hunt, Kimani Grey, and Kendrec McDade.
Often overlooked in the discussions of African-American victims of police brutality are black women. I have been guilty of this myself. Thanks to an article by Evette Dionne at Bustle, I can work on ending that ignorance:
Protestors in New York flooded the streets last week, toting signs that blazed with images and phrases about cruel injustice. Just a week after similar events in Ferguson, a grand jury ruled that Daniel Pantaleo — the NYPD officer who put Eric Garner, a 44-year-old, black, Staten Island man, in a chokehold that led to Garner’s death — should not be brought to trial for his actions. A failure to indict the police officer responsible for Garner’s unjustifiable, illegal, and unnecessary death signifies why there’s been a breach of trust between communities of color and those tasked with enforcing the laws. In black American communities, we are holding our breath, waiting for whoever’s next. There is no guarantee that the next victim will be a black male, but there appears to be a guarantee that the victim will be marginalized or forgotten by the mainstream media if she is a girl or woman of color.
On August 9, 2014, ex-Ferguson Police Department officer Darren Wilson unleashed a hail of bullets on an 18-year-old black man named Michael Brown. Supposedly, he’d done something wrong. Whatever mistake he did or did not make, whatever law he did or did not break, one thing is certain: his penalty should not have been death. The penalty for jaywalking isn’t (nor should it be) death. Even if Brown robbed a convenience store (which is still in question since the owner of the store did not call the police), the penalty for that is not death. Like all other citizens of the United States, Michael Brown ostensibly had the same rights as every other person. The right to a speedy and fair trial with adequate representation. He was robbed of his rights and his very life by ex-police officer Darren Wilson.
And with that, a movement was born. A movement by black people and for black people. Especially the young people. Using social media, they organized. On the streets of Ferguson they came together. To protest the execution-without a trial-of a black man. To criticize those police officers across the U.S. who choose to use extreme, and sometimes lethal force against black people, rather than less lethal means (or even talking to them to defuse a situation). The movement has vocally, loudly, and peacefullycriticized the problems in law enforcement that led to the death of Michael Brown.
Almost from the beginning, attempts were made by the defenders of the status quo to turn public sentiment against the protesters. The same day that Darren Wilson was identified as the Michael Brown’s killer (which took almost a week), the Ferguson PD released surveillance video from the Ferguson Market which purportedly showed Brown stealing cigarillo’s from the store. Many people saw this as an attempt to poison the well. To show that the protesters were defending a “bad guy”…that he wasn’t innocent (because if he wasn’t an innocent person, then that totes means he deserved to be shot and killed, amirite?). To show that their protesting was, at best, misplaced. It was a thinly veiled attempt at character assassination by poisoning the well. Narrative disruption achieved.
The LRAD can produce up to 149 decibels, which is higher than the 130-decibel threshold for potential hearing loss. It may be non-lethal, but this isn’t something that should be deployed against a civilian population. But I guess cops have to make use of all that military grade weaponry somehow. Why not use it on those uppity black people demanding recognition of their humanity?
In December, a judge ruled that police could not use tear gas against protesters.
Despite advances in technology, rubber bullets CAN kill. They also apparently hurt like the dickens.
Then the cops arrived on the streets of Ferguson, ostensibly to help “maintain the peace”. To better aid their peacekeeping goals, the police brought some weapons along with them. Among their arsenal was a long-range acoustic device, otherwise known as LRAD, tear gas, rubber bullets, and even attack dogs. This was a deliberate show of force. The intent was clear: intimidation. The message was clear: “Stop protesting. Stop complaining. Sit down and shut up. We want the status quo to continue. You black people need to be happy with how things are.”
Why do I say that’s the message? When you look at the weaponry deployed against the protesters–peaceful protesters, remember–it looks like the police are preparing for war. They’re supposed to be there to serve and protect, not intimidate the populace. Not to scare them into submission. Not to remind them of their place. None of the intimidation tactics worked, of course, but it did serve to remind some people of the history of state sanctioned violence against African-Americans, which only provided fuel for the complaints of protesters. Given the support law enforcement has in the United States, there are many people who would look at images of law enforcement using an LRAD or tear gas against protesters as a sign that they {the protesters} did something wrong and deserved that treatment. Because the police couldn’t be wrong. They couldn’t have fucked up. They are good and righteous and wouldn’t brutalize the very civilians they’re supposed to protect. The seeds were planted in the early days. Seeds intended to turn public sentiment against the protesters and change the narrative surrounding the protests.
Thanks to the police showing up with their intimidation gear, their intimidation tactics, and their intimidation weapons, the protests took a turn for the worse. Some opportunistic people began looting Ferguson stores (described in some circles as rioting; a term I refuse to use in reference to the protests). Despite the fact that there were precious few looters, the media focused on them, as if they defined what the movement was about. As if they were the face of the protests against law enforcement abuse of power and police brutality.
Frustration is now boiling over after decades of discriminatory policing, near-zero accountability, and lack of will from lawmakers to reel in the spiraling police state. In fact, as we have documented in depth, the militarization of the police is rising despite the increased outcry from concerned citizens against it. The overbearing presence of riot police in Ferguson deployed to contain peaceful protesters may have been the very spark which ignited the rioting in the first place.
To be clear, rioting did not start on August 24th until police began mass-deploying tear gas and other crowd dispersal tactics and an overwhelming majority of protesters remained peaceful.
In the predictable manner in which the corporate media operates, the news cycle has been shifted away from the tragedy of the killing of 18 year old Michael Brown, and switched to the few who lost their cool and began looting and rioting. While the riots are newsworthy, the main focus of the news coverage should be on the death of this unarmed young man, and the overall rise of documented police brutality that is permeating in all corners of America. More Americans have been killed in the last decade by the police than the total number of US soldiers killed in the entire Iraq war, but they won’t talk about that on TV.
No, we don’t see or hear that. That wouldn’t play into the narrative the media wants people to buy. From the beginning, organizers called for peaceful protests. They’ve condemned violence. They’ve helped clean up their own streets. They’ve helped protect stores from looting. They’ve policed their own community. But rarely is this shown by the mainstream media. I can’t speak to the why of it, but one of the results is clear. For some people, the looters came to embody the movement. The people who condemned the looters and rushed to characterize the protesters as being looters displayed more concern for stores being robbed than the extrajudicial killing of a black man. Priorities people. Priorities. You can buy more goods to sell. Michael Brown will never be alive again, and his family and friends will suffer that loss for the rest of their lives. But the damage was once more done. Some people in the public condemned the looting, the civil unrest, and the protest movement itself. Once more, the media sought to change the narrative around the protest movement, in what looks like a deliberate attempt to discredit the protesters.
There were other attempts made to shift public opinion on the protests. We saw people complain that protesters shouldn’t say “Black lives matter”. No, these people felt protesters weren’t being fair, and should more properly say “All lives matter”. Of course, doing so ignores the ugly racism at the heart of the criminal justice system. It ignores the fact that every 28 hours, a black person is shot and killed by a member of law enforcement. It ignores the fact that a USA Today study of the FBI’s justified homicide database found that in 96% of cases involving a black person dying at the hands of a white police officer, the officer was rarely indicted (what about a trial you say? Pish-posh. That hardly happens). It ignores the fact that young black men are 21 times more likely than young white men to be shot dead by police. Saying “all lives matter” would distract from the very point of the protests: that people of color are unfairly, unconstitutionally, and unethically deprived of their rights and their humanity on an ongoing basis by our criminal justice system. Or as Julia Craven said:
There is seemingly no justice for Black life in America. An unarmed Black body can be gunned down without sufficient reasoning and left in the middle of the street on display for hours — just like victims of lynching.
Strange fruit still hangs from our nations poplar trees. Lynching underwent a technological revolution. It evolved from nooses to guns and broken necks to bullet wounds.
Police brutality is a BLACK issue. This is not an ill afflicting all Americans, but that does not mean you cannot stand in solidarity with us. But standing with us does not mean telling us how we should feel about our community’s marginalization. Standing with us means being with us in solidarity without being upset that this is for OUR PEOPLE — and wanting recognition for yours in this very specific context.
Telling us that all lives matter is redundant. We know that already. But, just know, police violence and brutality disproportionately affects my people. Justice is not applied equally, laws are not applied equally and neither is our outrage.
You can breathe because you’re white, dumbass.
In December, a New York grand jury declined to return an indictment against NYPD Officer Daniel Pantaleo. Pantaleo is the NYPD officer whose chokehold move resulted in the death of Eric Garner. This followed on the heels of the non-indictment of Darren Wilson and served to further anger and frustrate protesters. Protesters around the country began wearing shirts emblazoned with the words “I can’t breathe”, the final words of Eric Garner, who suffered from asthma. The shirt expresses the idea that black people across the United States feel that the oppression, discrimination, and racism they feel from the criminal justice system is preventing them from living…from breathing. To protesters, any of them could be Eric Garner. Any of them could have been held down, been prevented from breathing, or killed by law enforcement. All for being black. One of the responses to the “I can’t breathe” T-shirts came from supporters of law enforcement. You can see the slogan “I can breathe” in the image above. It’s worn by people who are not experiencing systematic discrimination and racism. Of course they can breathe. They aren’t the victims of racism. They aren’t the ones dealing with racism in law enforcement or in the courts. They are the ones with the privilege of being white. Wearing that shirt sends a message whether they like it or not. That message is “I don’t have a problem with police violence and abuse of power from law enforcement”. As a response to one of the core problems the protest movement has been decrying, whoever came up with the T-shirts is an unequivocal asshole. Making such a shirt was a knee-jerk, unthinking response to legitimate protests. At best, wearing that shirt is privilege-laden, tone-deaf, and fails to acknowledge the very real problems that people have with law enforcement and the court system. At worst, wearing that shirt has been a way for people to justify the death of Eric Garner.
I asked one man wearing a “I Can Breathe” t-shirt what the phrase meant. “If he hadn’t resisted arrest,” the man said with a shrug, “he could still breathe.”
Watching the video [of Garner’s death], I’d be hard pressed to view Garner’s actions as resisting arrest. In any case, even if he had been resisting arrest, that should not be sufficient grounds to kill him! Once again, one of the key narratives surrounding the movement has been challenged by those who don’t want progress.
Those defenders of the status quo emerged once again this past weekend, following the murder of two NYPD police officers at the hands of a mentally ill man. This seemingly provided an opportunity to criticize the protest movement and attempt to demonize protesters, as if they (rather than killer Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley) were responsible for the tragic deaths of those officers. First up is former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani:
“We’ve had four months of propaganda, starting with the president, that everybody should hate the police,” said Giuliani during an appearance on “Fox News Sunday.” “I don’t care how you want to describe it — that’s what those protests are all about.”
Giuliani cited the nationwide protests against institutional racism and police brutality that followed the deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and Eric Garner in New York, and that flared up anew after the respective grand jury decisions not to indict the officers responsible in either case. Giuliani said those demonstrations, and the ongoing criticism of police tactics and the criminal justice system, were part of what led to the shooting of two NYPD officers in Brooklyn on Saturday afternoon. Police say the alleged shooter, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, traveled to New York from Baltimore with the intention of killing police officers.
“The protest are being embraced, the protests are being encouraged. The protests, even the ones that don’t lead to violence — a lot of them lead to violence — all of them lead to a conclusion: The police are bad, the police are racist,” said Giuliani. “That is completely wrong. Actually, the people who do the most for the black community in America are the police.”
The former mayor accused black commentators of creating “an atmosphere of severe, strong anti-police hatred in certain communities.”
Giuliani also accused New York Mayor Bill de Blasio of “allowing protests to get out of control.” But he said it was not the time to call for de Blasio’s resignation, as “a lot of other police officers were killed under a lot of other mayors.”
What Giuliani describes in not remotely an accurate representation of the protests in the US. The vast majority of protesters have been peaceful. They have called for non-violent protests. They have not said “all police are bad” or that “all police are racist”. Nor has there been “4 months of propaganda”. This is a blatant attempt by Giuliani to whitewash the ongoing protest movement. Instead of treating protesters as having legitimate concerns…of acknowledging the very real problems People of Color face from law enforcement, Giuliani has attempted to change the narrative around the protests. In doing so, he dismisses the concerns of a great many U.S. citizens. Given the wealth of evidence that sits contrary to his views, it looks like Giuliani is attempting to rewrite history.
He’s not the only one though. The head of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, Patrick Lynch, had this to say recently:
“There’s blood on many hands tonight,” Lynch said. “Those that incited violence on the street under the guise of protest, that tried to tear down what New York City police officers did every day. We tried to warn it must not go on. It cannot be tolerated. That blood on the hands starts on the steps of City Hall in the office of the mayor.”
Who are the people he’s talking about?
Who are these people who have incited violence under the guise of protesting? By not naming anyone, and generalizing about the protests, Lynch has subtly attempted to undermine protesters. Again, the protest movement is overwhelmingly peaceful and non-violent. To attempt to characterize it otherwise is an attempt to…change the narrative.
Look, I am firmly opposed to violence as a means of conflict resolution and I condemn any such actions. I am also saddened about the deaths of Officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos. While their deaths were tragic, a mentally ill lone gunman does not represent the entire protest movement. I also condemn anyone who looted, committed arson, or engaged in violent activities under cover of the protests. But those people do not represent the protest movement either. The protests center around a desire for reform in police departments across the country, as well as reforming the criminal justice system. Referring to the protests as anything other than that does nothing more than dismiss the very real problems in our criminal justice system. Problems that disproportionately affect African-Americans and other communities of color in the United States. Though they may try, I don’t think the defenders of the status quo will succeed in retconning the narrative surrounding the current protest movement in the United States. They may have done some damage though, and that’s why I think these people need to be called out and criticized for what they say. Because black lives matter.
I knew that many activities are gendered, but I didn’t know that being into horses was a “girl thing”. For those that don’t understand, what that means is our culture–U.S. culture–deems certain activities to be for girls and certain things for guys. These aren’t official rules. You won’t necessarily find them being taught in school or at a university. They exist nonetheless as unofficial, socially reinforced rules that define the boundaries of acceptable activities for boys and girls…based on nothing more than their gender. As the woman in the comic points out, it ain’t hard to appeal to girls. Women (and girls) are not mysterious, unknowable entities that no man (or corporation) can understand. Their motivations, emotions, desires, and interests are not unfathomable. In actuality, they are quite knowable. You just need to talk less, listen more, and [try to] leave your biases at the door.
I knew that many activities are gendered, but I didn’t know that being into horses was a “girl thing”. For those that don’t understand, what that means is our culture–U.S. culture–deems certain activities to be for girls and certain things for guys. These aren’t official rules. You won’t necessarily find them being taught in school or at a university. They exist nonetheless as unofficial, socially reinforced rules that define the boundaries of acceptable activities for boys and girls…based on nothing more than their gender. As the woman in the comic points out, it ain’t hard to appeal to girls. Women (and girls) are not mysterious, unknowable entities that no man (or corporation) can understand. Their motivations, emotions, desires, and interests are not unfathomable. In actuality, they are quite knowable. You just need to talk less, listen more, and [try to] leave your biases at the door.
So I’m just sitting here on my day off, catching up on news, checking out social media…that kinda thing (yes, I’m fully prepared to be depressed about the state of humanity). In the background, I have Pandora set to alternative radio (for a short time I had the radio blaring away Xmas music, but damn, I’m sick of religious-themed Christmas music…there are a lot of us non-theists and many of us sure would like to have some non-theistic holiday music to listen to…hmmm, maybe I’ll go looking for some). Next thing I know, I’m jamming to a song I’ve not heard of before. ‘Flaws‘, it’s called. By an English band called Bastille. It’s pretty darned cool.
When all of your flaws and all of my flaws
Are laid out one by one
A wonderful part of the mess that we made
We pick ourselves undone
All of your flaws and all of my flaws
They lie there hand in hand
Ones we’ve inherited, ones that we learned
They pass from man to man
There’s a hole in my soul
I can’t fill it I can’t fill it
There’s a hole in my soul
Can you fill it? Can you fill it?
You have always worn your flaws upon your sleeve
And I have always buried them deep beneath the ground
Dig them up; let’s finish what we’ve started
Dig them up, so nothing’s left unturned
All of your flaws and all of my flaws,
When they have been exhumed
We’ll see that we need them to be who we are
Without them we’d be doomed
There’s a hole in my soul
I can’t fill it I can’t fill it
There’s a hole in my soul
Can you fill it? Can you fill it?
You have always worn your flaws upon your sleeve
And I have always buried them deep beneath the ground
Dig them up; let’s finish what we’ve started
Dig them up, so nothing’s left unturned
Oooooh
Oooooh
When all of your flaws
And all of my flaws are counted
When all of your flaws
And all of my flaws are counted
You have always worn your flaws upon your sleeve
And I have always buried them deep beneath the ground
Dig them up. Let’s finish what we’ve started
Dig them up. So nothing’s left unturned
Oooooh
Oooooh
All of your flaws and all of my flaws
Are laid out one by one
Look at the wonderful mess that we made
We pick ourselves undone
(and of course I just found out that this is the same band that performs ‘Pompeii’, which I like as well)
Viola Davis has been all-but cast as Amanda Waller in the upcoming big-screen adaptation of DC Comics’ Suicide Squad. Along with Oprah Winfrey and Octavia Spencer, the star of How To Get Away With Murder was on the short list of actresses up for the role of Waller.
According to sources, the lovely Viola Davis (How To Get Away With Murder) has bagged the role of major DC Comics villain and Prison Warden Amanda Waller in David Ayer’s upcoming Suicide Squad. In the comics, Amanda Waller is a former congressional aide and government agent often placed in charge of the Suicide Squad, a semi-secret government-run group of former supervillains working in return for amnesty.
Now, the key here is that the role is hers provided that the filmmakers can work out her TV schedule, which will be no small feat considering how big of a hit How To Get Away With Murder is. If it works out she will be joining Jared Leto as the Joker, Will Smith as Deadshot, Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn, Tom Hardy as Rick Flag, Jai Courtney as Boomerang (or Captain Boomerang), and Cara Delevingne as Enchantress.
I wrote previously that I really wanted a plus-sized black woman cast in the role bc Waller’s size is an important part of her character (I just had a nightmare flash of the role going to a white woman…shudder). At least it was prior to the 2011 reboot when DC decided to make the Wall slimmer and sexier (which was at odds with the intent of her creator, John Ostrander). Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy that a black woman has been cast in such an important role (remember, Waller is one of the most badass characters in the DC Universe), especially since Hollywood is nowhere near as diverse as it ought to be. But still…
* * * *
USA Today has revealed that after 37 years, Jessica Drew will finally receive a costume overhaul (she’s tweaked her costume a little over the years, but nothing significant). Debuting today in the playable mobile game ‘Spider-Man Unlimited’, the new Kris Anka-designed costume will debut in Spider-Woman’s ongoing book in March.
“As much as I’m a fan of spandex and it has its time and place, I felt Jess as a character could move away from that for a good long while,” says Spider-Woman editor Nick Lowe.
And series writer Dennis Hopeless hopes both changes cement her as one of Marvel’s A-list personalities. “You’ve seen her as a superspy and Avenger and soldier. Now let’s see this person as an old-school hero.”
Spider-Woman, Spider-Man and other various Spider-centric characters are currently embroiled in dimension-hopping battles in Marvel’s Spider-Verse crossover, and in a bit of synergy between the publishing and game sides, the expansive story is a part of Spider-Man Unlimited, an “endless runner” game published by Gameloft for iOS, Android and Windows platforms with more than 30 million downloads since its September launch.
Spider-Woman’s appearance also arrives with an in-game event that features her new wardrobe in action for the first time.
Instead of head-to-toe spandex, Jessica Drew’s do-gooder couture now includes a lot more leather, black pants, two-toned gloves and a jacket that goes from streetwear to spider-bedecked superhero gear in just a few snaps.
“As a woman myself who loves games and comics, I love to see that functional, cool stylish look. It’s like a jacket I would want to wear daily,” says Tatiana Nahai, product manager for Gameloft.
“She’s sexy but not in a spandex way — in a modern, unique way.”
There are a few throwbacks to the old costume she first wore in 1977 — the familiar triangles are there as well as large spider-eyes, though now they’re yellow-lens glasses that become a facemask when one click. Spider-Woman also has the same type of web gliders that spread out under her arms — to slow a fall or swoop in on a bad guy — though the new ones are engaged from the back of her jacket.
Since Lowe took over the Spider-Man titles as group editor in February, he says he had been planning a new Spider-Woman solo series — her first was in 1978 and ran 50 issues — and also a more contemporary outfit since “frankly I don’t love the classic one.” (The new design was already well underway when Marvel came under fire in August for a variant Spider-Woman cover by artist Milo Manarathat was deemed too hyper-sexualized by many in the comic community.)
Working with Hopeless and Anka, Lowe wanted a costume that walked the line between superhero-ready and something a woman would wear in the real world. “But for the most part,” he says, “they’re clothes to kick ass in.”
They also make sense for Hopeless’ plans for Jessica Drew in the comic, according to the writer.
In recent years, she’s led a notably insane life, even for a Marvel superhero — Secret Invasion revealed that she’d been replaced for years by a shape-shifting alien Skrull, she’s gone through a number of crazy superspy missions, Infinity threw her and the rest of the Avengers into an intergalactic battle to save Earth, and in Spider-Verse, the character’s been tasked with keeping various newbies safe in the middle of a conflict involving several parallel universes.
However, Hopeless says, “she’s just fed up with it: ‘I have nothing normal and I’m risking my life all the time to do stuff that’s so crazy I can’t even explain it to people.’ “
I’m quickly warming to the new costume (which will see an in-story reason for its debut). Here is Anka’s redesigned Spider-Woman costume:
I like that creators are making an attempt to create unique, functional costumes for comic book characters (as seen in the new designs for DC’s Batgirl and Marvel’s Captain Marvel). I grew up on superheroes. I’ve loved the spandex set all my life, but I have no problem with the idea of redesigning superhero costumes. The idea seems to be to retain the superhero elements while creating a costume that’s practical for a person to wear. Oh, and boy oh boy is this new Spider-Woman costume perfect for cosplaying (for men and women-this isn’t a gendered costume)! Fan art featuring Jessica Drew’s new costume is sure to be forthcoming, and in fact, has already begun:
In the comic book world, sexual objectification and sexualization of women is common. It’s a rare day when fictional male characters are sexualized, so it’s noteworthy that DC Comics has produced an alternate Justice League cover featuring the (all-white) guys in a Magic Mike inspired image (apparently DC is releasing a swath of movie inspired cover variants on their March shipping titles).
When progressives talk about how women are sexualized in comics, this is what they’re talking about. On a regular basis, readers are invited to view female characters in a sexual light (the cisgender, heterosexual male gaze), but so rarely are male characters presented in a similar manner. This is a welcome sight bc it is clearly marketed to women and gay men. An added plus is that the image presents the heroes in a sexualized manner that makes sense (i.e. the JLAers are stand-ins for the Magic Mike strippers-they’re supposed to be sexualized).
Super Heroes Book of Opposites is a kids book aimed at teaching kids about opposites such as right/left, up/down, and over/under. Important concepts for kids to learn of course. There’s another lesson the book imparts and it ain’t pretty.
Notice anything?
The male characters are portrayed heroically while feminist icon Wonder Woman is presented in a maternal role…a role that is gender essentialist as all get out. Because obviously there were no other images they could use to show Wonder Woman pushing something. Hell, they could have flipped Superman and Wonder Woman. This is one of the insidious ways that socially approved gender roles are reinforced on children. On his Facebook page, writer Micah Ian Wright expresses his displeasure:
Wonder Woman doing that heroic stuff that the Patriarchy allows female heroes to do. Ever wonder why we’ve never seen a Wonder Woman film? You’re looking at what this company thinks of their own character.
If I’m not mistaken, the art is by José Luis García-López. The characters look like images DC used back in the 70s and 80s for licensing purposes. There’s nothing wrong with repurposing those images, but it looks like DC didn’t stop to think about what message this sends to kids.
In a deal with Marvel Comics, Netflix is bringing the Defenders to the small screen in a few years. Before that however, they will produce four series highlighting the members of this upcoming team. With production on the Daredevil series having begun, the hunt was on to find an actor to portray Luke Cage. Lo and behold, they’ve found one:
Mike Colter will be Luke Cage in Netflix’s upcoming miniseries.
