i lost my religion

on sunday evening, i took a long drive with my mother, who is an avid back seat driver and a compulsive talker. it was nearly three hours of her going over what she plans to do with all of her flowers and trees this fall, complaining that people charge too much for watermelon in the stores, bragging about some pants that she had found on sale, begging me to pull the car over so that she could take pictures of the moon, and criticizing my driving technique. all the while, i listened, only responding with simple yeses, nos, and okays, and humming along with my new Sam Smith, Adele, and John Legend mix in between (possibly the greatest idea that i have ever had. genius, really). this is all pretty standard stuff with my mother and i. she does most of the talking. i do most of the listening. we don't really have conversations, but, in a bizarre twist of events, we actually had a conversation this sunday evening when she began interrogating me about my religious (dis)beliefs.

it all started when she commented on how great the service was that morning when she attended my sister's church. i said, "okay", and she went on and on about the pastors' wedding anniversary and the celebration that the congregation had thrown, but then she asked me why i didn't go to church with my sister on sunday mornings. i replied simply, "because i don't want to. church makes me uncomfortable." my mother, as she often does, heard something completely different from what i had actually said. she gasped and exclaimed, "the word of God makes you uncomfortable?!", clearly offended by what she thought she had heard. i promptly explained that this is not what i had said. church makes me uncomfortable.

i am an INTJ personality. i am introverted and i am shy, though no one ever believes me when i say this. well, it doesn't matter whether or not other people believe it. the fact still remains that i am a quiet and reserved person who prefers to be alone and will always, always, always choose isolation to social interaction. being around other people actually physically, mentally, emotionally, and even spiritually drains me. i absolutely need time with myself in order to recharge in between the socializing that is necessary for my life: work, school, friends, and family. i need time with myself for my mental health, spiritual peace, and emotional balance. i need time with myself to develop and maintain a positive relationship with my body. i need time with myself to feed my intellectual drive to absorb all of the knowledge that is available to me. this does not mean that i do not love and enjoy the people that are in my life. i need time with them, too. i need my coworkers, classmates, and professors. we laugh together and we learn together. my family and friends give me support and i support them as well. we all keep each other motivated and i appreciate it so much, because i know that my life would not be nearly as fun or interesting without them.

the thing about church is, it feels especially taxing to me. it feels like a chore. growing up, my mother made us go to church, often several times a week, and it became something that i had to do, rather than something that i wanted to do. even when i grew into a woman and went off to college, i continued to go. not because i wanted to do, but because i felt like i had to. i felt obligated, like someone was taking attendance. and the sad fact was that some people actually were taking attendance. if i missed a service or two because i was traveling, or if i skipped an evening bible study because i had to prepare for a test or write a paper, i got the side eye from some and the inquisition from others. people asked me if i was "backsliding" and if i needed to pray about it. when i didn't budge from my seat during the alter call (every. single. sunday), some people would stare at me as if i was out of place. like they just knew that my soul had been set ablaze. i met some of the same people 5+ times and they could never seem to remember my name or the fact that we had already been introduced on several occasions, despite the fact that i knew their name and we were connected on social media. and throughout all of this, i had to fake smile and hug strangers. and when i say that i "had" to do it, i mean that if i didn't fake smile and hug strangers, then people would constantly ask me what was wrong with me and offer to pray over my resting b*tch face. i would leave a place of worship that was supposed to bring me joy feeling anxiety-ridden, and i would have to trek back to my unairconditioned dorm room to spend hours decompressing in order to mentally prepare for my school/work week, and then i would return the next sunday for another unhealthy dose of anxiety and discomfort. i endured this for almost three years before i decided that i just couldn't take it anymore, and once i stopped going, i felt free.

in case you don't know anything about introverted and shy individuals, let me tell you, everything that i describe in the above paragraph is complete and utter torture for me. especially fake smiling and hugging strangers. i shouldn't have to change my facial expression for you, and i dislike it when people invade my personal space. i simply don't like being touched and i honestly don't like being looked at sometimes. all of this is what makes the introverted me uncomfortable, but what makes the feminist me uncomfortable is the hypocrisy, immorality, sexism/misogyny, homophobia, and general intolerance that seems to be present in Christianity and churches. in anticipation of the "not all Christians" and "not all churches" arguments, i will go ahead and say, yes, i know. not all Christians and churches fit this description (and, yes, i tried several churches). i don't doubt that they exist. in fact, i sincerely hope that they exist.

see, the feminist me can't abide those who interpret the bible in strategic ways in order to cater to their personal beliefs and desires. i can't abide Christians insisting that Jesus of Nazareth was a white American or European man, denying his true racial identity to reinforce the value of whiteness. i can't support an institution that actively teaches that infringing upon the basic rights of others is a moral duty. i'm fed up with those who call up "prayer warriors" to combat homosexuality because they think that what other people do with their bodies in their private lives is icky, but stay silent on the atrocities and violences that plague our world, leaving millions of people starving, abused, homeless, imprisoned, enslaved, institutionalized, exploited and/or dead. you picket at funerals and abortion clinics, but are speaking out against police brutality, domestic abuse, rape being used as a tool of control, systemic oppressions, chronic poverty, child marriages/slavery, or human trafficking? 

i can't sit through services where the church leaders scream hateful, judgmental "sermons" at their congregation. i won't embrace a religion that tells me that i am not as important as a male bodied person. i won't give my money to mega churches with pastors who insist that if the working church members simply give more tithes and offering then they can be rich, too, despite the fact that their bible says that it is highly unlikely that a rich man will ever enter the gates of heaven (Mark 10:25, Matthew 19:24). if you ask for more and more money every sunday, but you drive a Mercedes and half of your congregation can barely afford gas and groceries, that's a problem. if you cite Leviticus as the basis for your homophobic argument against marriage equality, but you ignore the verses that condemn some of the things that you do on a regular basis - trimming your beard (19:27), eating shellfish (11:10), and mistreating foreigners/immigrants (19:33-34), etc. - that's a problem. if you tell the women in your church that they can't have leadership positions or speak publicly or wear pants simply because they are women, that's a problem. stop teaching girls and women that displaying power, control, and agency is only for men and boys. stop teaching them that their value as a person is directly tied to their sexual purity. stop telling me that my hunger for knowledge outside of Christianity is sinful. above all, stop demonizing other religions just because you don't believe in them or recognize their value. especially if you've never actually read any of their texts or even bothered to learn about what they truly believe in.

my mother asked me several questions: am i an Atheist, do i believe in Jesus or God, do i read the bible? i told her that i don't read the bible as a literal story, but rather as a cultural and historical text from which we can learn moral lessons. i acknowledge that the bible was written over the course of 1500 years and has over 40 authors, and that our standard bible also does not include all of its original material. i recognize that it has inconsistencies, because most of it is based on eye witness accounts and were written several years after the events are said to have happened. example: there are, in fact, two sets of Ten Commandments. i keep all of these things in mind when reading the bible, especially because there are many different interpretations of the bible and everyone thinks that their interpretation is the right one. also, i explained to her that Atheism is not the antithesis of Christianity, because there are many religions and they do not exist in binaries, but what confused her the most, and perhaps even caused a little cognitive dissonance, were my answers about Jesus and God.

here's the thing: i love Jesus. i'm a huge fan. i wish that there were more people like him. some people tend to forget (or overlook) that he was political, provocative, progressive, and a homeless nomad. the man was an activist. he promoted love above all things, especially loving those who were cast out by society; the poor, the sick, the marginalized. all of these things are hallmarks of feminism, and as a self-identified feminist, i find that i am able to identify with Jesus more and more through feminism and feminist activism.  his legacy is one that should be upheld, especially among those of us who take up the painstaking work of advocating for social justice. Jesus’ message, calling us to use love as the weapon to combat insidious forces and violence in the world, is the most significant part of the bible to me, and i think that it is a message which often gets overlooked and misinterpreted to serve certain interests, political and otherwise. he aspired to a new world, using activism that went beyond words by actively seeking out and embracing the marginalized (as well as the oppressors), showing them unconditional love. in his time, he was unconventional; a man of revolutionary ideas and hungry for change. he led a rebellion to overturn the old order and give visibility and agency to the poor citizens. i find that there have been countless moments in my life when others have attempted to silence me for my ideas and beliefs which some might consider radical, the most fundamental of which is that all bodies and identities have the right to exist free from oppression, abuse, and exploitation. love was Jesus’ only weapon (except for that one time he went freaking berserk and flipped over all the tables in that temple, Matthew 21:12), and it is also mine. Jesus didn't teach Christianity. Jesus taught love.

as for God? well, as i reiterated to my mother several times, i am not saying that God does not exist. i have no authority to say that. however, as a critical thinker, my thought process about God differs from the way that i was taught to think about God in church. maybe our human concept of God is wrong. maybe God doesn't resemble the image that we have created in our imaginations. maybe God is a genderless being, or maybe not a being at all. maybe God is an entity or force which manifests itself in the beauty that we see all around us and the beauty inside of us. maybe God is a presence so immense and unfathomable; an idea so intricate that we cannot even begin to comprehend it's enormity or significance. maybe God and the universe are one in the same, and we are indeed made in its image. we see ourselves in the way that our brain cells resemble the cosmic web, and in the way that the death of a star resembles the birth of a cell, and in the way that some nebulae (star nurseries) amazingly resemble the human eye. 

for me, God is in the stars. we are made up of star dust, after all. we even share DNA with many other species on our pale blue dot. we are all literally connected in this wonderful way. pondering on this simple, but poignant truth ignites in me a deeper and more moving spiritual experience than i have ever had inside of a church. it's an experience which drives me to activism and social justice. it strengthens my commitment to feminism and feminist work. and it is an experience which i will not abandon in order to appease the people around me, even those whom i deeply love.

my mother, and many others, take issue with the fact that i won't claim Christianity. people are actually hurt and offended by this; by the fact that i won't embrace the label. the truth is that there are aspects about Christianity which i embrace. there are also tenets from Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and others with which i identify. all of these teach lessons in compassion, integrity, generosity, understanding, peace, simplicity, connectivity, and many other positive doctrines by which i live my happy life. 

my position is that i shouldn't have to choose just one. i shouldn't have to put a label on my spirituality in order to make people around me feel better. if you are uncomfortable with my spiritual ambiguity, then i invite you to examine why that is. why are you so invested in the titles that i may or may not place on myself? what it comes down to is this: our society is obsessed with categorization, and when you don't know which category to place me in, it bothers you. maybe it even scares you. regardless, it is an issue that you have to work out with yourself, not an issue that i have to resolve for you.

A Response to "Maleficent Unpacked: A Black Feminist Review"

earlier this week, Judith Jones at Crunk Feminist Collective published a review of Disney's Maleficent (2014) in which she analyzes the film through a Black Feminist lens. in it, Jones dictates several concerns that she has with the film, chief of those concerns being that, in her opinion, it "contributes to rape culture".

i'm sure you know the story of Sleeping Beauty (1959). a king and queen have a baby girl named Aurora, and an evil fairy named Maleficent curses her: "before the sun sets on her sixteenth birthday, she will prick her finger on the spindle of a spinning wheel and fall into a sleep like death" and she can only be awakened by "true love's kiss." the prophesy comes to pass, Maleficent is killed by Prince Phillip, and Aurora is awakened by his kiss.

note: if you have not seen the Maleficent and have plans to do so, i suggest that you delay reading this post until after viewing the film. there are spoilers beyond this point.

this film tells Maleficent's side of the story: her curse on Aurora serves as revenge against King Stefan. in an interview with BBC Radio's Women's Hour, Angelina Jolie confirmed that the scene in which Maleficent's wings are stolen is a "metaphor for rape" after much speculation from fans. in the aforementioned scene, Maleficent shares a drink with Stefan, whom she trusts and has been in a romantic relationship with since their teenage years. after drinking from the bottle which he has given her, she quickly falls into a deep sleep, resting her head on his shoulder. Stefan contemplates killing her, but finds himself unable to perform the act of murder. instead, he slices off her wings (off screen). when Maleficent awakens, she discovers that her body has been violated and releases a long, deafening cry as she mourns the loss of her wings.

afterwards, she suffers in silence and isolation. she shuts others out and does not speak of the attack to anyone, sinking into a depression that is reflected in the world around her. she becomes critical and cautious of relationships, romantic and otherwise, which is a logical reaction to being betrayed by someone whom you trusted and loved. her sadness soon becomes fury. she does not take the assault lightly and she does not accept the status of a shameful victim. the film acknowledges that Maleficent was wronged and that she is rightfully angry. Stefan becomes king after presenting her wings to his predecessor as proof of his worth, but the film does not let Stefan prosper on his ill-gotten throne. he spends sixteen years obsessed with Maleficent after she curses Aurora, struggling with paranoia and madness in isolation, and talking to Maleficent's amputated wings which he has kept as trophies. he is the true villain of the story and ultimately meets his well-deserved end when he is dropped from the air by Maleficent and falls to his death.

this is not a perpetuation or glorification of rape culture. rape culture apologizes for rapists, blames victims, and promotes the idea that rape is just a part of our existence as living, sexual beings (because of evolution, or a gift from god, or whatever) and should be accepted and ignored. this film does none of those things.

what the film does seem to do is indict rapists and the evils of patriarchy. it is Stefan's greed and desire for power, as well as ownership of the princess, that drives him to steal Maleficent's wings (the dying kings says, "i would choose a successor to take the throne and care for my daughter. who among you is worthy? kill the winged creature. avenge me, and, upon my death, you will take the crown."). the film is critical of that fact, rather than reinforcing a patriarchal structure like most Disney films.

in her piece, Jones writes: "Disney used the imagery of a broken, mutilated female body, in which her greatest strength was taken from her out of fear and greed in order to break her. Unfortunately, this image of the mutilated female form is often exploited throughout film as a humanizer and way of depicting vulnerability."

here, she seems to equate Maleficent's wings with her power. with its connections to rape which have already been established, she is also making the assumption that rape inherently strips women of whatever powerful virtues they may possess. i think that this is an incorrect assumption, as it suggests that power and strength is merely physical. Maleficent's power comes from her resilience which is evident throughout the film, before and after her wings are stolen. it is clear that her wings are not her only source of strength, for she continues to maintain her emotional, spiritual, and mental fortitude even without them. she continues to be the most powerful of all the creatures in her land and she protects them from the tyranny of King Stefan. also, we see the mutilated scars on her back only twice in the film, and they are not overtly displayed. i would not say that they are "often exploited" at all. nor do they "humanize" her. technically, she is a fairy, not a human at all, but Maleficent shows her compassion and her capacity for identifying with all forms of life at an early age. this is evidenced by the fact that she befriends Stefan when they are children, even after he tries to steal a precious jewel from her magical land.

Jones also questions whether the films can actually be considered feminist, whether female characters must be victimized in order to find redemption, and what Aurora's ultimate role is in the film: "My counter to the feminist argument would be, do women have to be broken (in film) in order to be reborn and viewed as good?  Her wings were a source of power and strength and they are taken early on in the movie. And as a result she is left alone and to an extent othered by her community. Her “dirty” body is then paired with darkness and she is perceived as evil and witchy. This often happens to women of color in films. She is then positioned next to a blonde, blue eyed, pure “pretty” girl making Maleficent’s ways more apparent. The image of darkness juxtaposed with light has always had light as the saving grace, as if the image of darkness (in this case, Maleficent) could not save itself. In a variety of movies and shows a white character is the savior to the women of color and the voice of reason, while the person of color adds excitement and spice to the white character persons content life. This white “savior complex” reinforces racist ideals of women of color lacking ability to run their own life and as a result need the guidance of a white woman. Sleeping Beauty is Maleficent’s white savior. She is only redeemed by loving this innocent blonde girl."

A) this assumes binaries of good and evil, and broken and whole, and draws natural connections between them. Maleficent is not broken and she is not evil. she retaliates against patriarchal violence and she succeeds in the end. B) Aurora is initially used as a tool in her scheme, but Maleficent eventually understands that she has been "lost in hatred and revenge" after she grows to love the girl. in addition, Maleficent watches Aurora closely as she grows from an infant into a young woman, and in fact provides for her and protects her anonymously until they finally meet in the forest. Aurora is not her "white savior", as Jones argues, nor is she her "voice of reason". Maleficent is her own voice of reason. this is because Maleficent is a complex character with morals, a conscience, and an appreciation for all living things, virtues which she displays from the very beginning of the film. the "white savior complex" does exist, of course, when people of color are saved by a white character who is unexpectedly introduced into the culture and takes pity upon them and their struggle with poverty, invisibility, or other forms of racialized oppression in a white dominated society. see: The Help (2011), Freedom Writers (2007), Hardball (2001), and Avatar (2009) - which is essentially Dances With Wolves (1990) with blue Native Americans and set in the future with amazingly beautiful CGI (we see you, James Cameron). none of this is the case in this movie. most obviously because Maleficent is also a white woman. C) in Jones' argument, Maleficent is equated with a woman of color because she wears dark colors. again, i think that this assumption is wrong and problematic. in fact, i would argue that the film challenges the cultural association with darkness and evil because Maleficent wears dark colors throughout the entirety of the film (as does Batman, by the way) and she is an ultimately good character. 

Jones does write that the film is "feministy" because it passes the Bechdel Test: two (named) female characters speak to each other about something other than men. this is true, but the film goes beyond that and is a huge improvement upon the original Sleeping Beauty, in which Aurora is a completely passive character and Maleficent has no legitimate motivation for casting a spell on a baby. this is actually one of the best Disney films in terms of female character development (aside from Aurora's mother, who is conveniently removed from the plot by a mysterious illness. she exists only as a prize for Stefan and a womb to bring forth Aurora. she literally only has three lines and 30 seconds of screen time near the beginning before she disappears for the rest of the film). while Maleficent's trauma is used as a plot point, it does not define her. she experiences a trauma which is a logical catalyst for her becoming an antihero, she is not defeated or saved by a male character, and she develops a meaningful friendship with another female character. Aurora is initially constructed as the perfect female subject, as the pixies bestow upon her the gifts of beauty, grace, and perpetual happiness when she is an infant, but she is also an adventurous girl with a healthy imagination and curiosity. when she learns of her true royal heritage from her pixie guardians, she journeys to the castle on her own to meet her father. when she succumbs to the curse and falls into a "sleep like death", it is the kiss of Maleficent which revives her, rather than the kiss of a young man whom she had only met once before (Disney has also used this premise of friendship between women as "true love" in Brave (2012) and Frozen (2013). finally!). furthermore, when Maleficent is captured by the king, even though her male servant is present and in the form of a fire-breathing dragon, it is Aurora who saves her by freeing her wings from their encasement so that they may return to their rightful place. the film ends with Aurora being crowned as the queen by Maleficent, uniting their two kingdoms. thus, it is the "true love" of friendship which ultimately saves them both. all things considered, Maleficent seems down right feminist to me, and certainly does not perpetuate rape culture. 

and, besides, Angelina Jolie is perfect.

"not all men"

last week, a lonely guy named Elliot Rodger decided that he would set out to “slaughter every single spoiled, stuck-up, blonde slut” because his life as a 22 year-old virgin was an unbearable existence. following his shooting rampage in which several people lost their lives, journalists and bloggers have used this event to voice their concerns about the culture of violence in the U.S (especially among mass murderers who are almost exclusively young, white males), contributing to already ongoing dialog about mental illness, gun violence, and white privilege, among other things.  

just in case you haven’t read it, here are few disturbing quotes from Rodger’s lengthy manifesto:

“Women should not have the right to choose who to mate and breed with. That decision should be made for them by rational men of intelligence. If women continue to have rights, they will only hinder the advancement of the human race by breeding with degenerate men and creating stupid, degenerate offspring.”

“There is no creature more evil and depraved than the human female. Women are like a plague. They don’t deserve to have any rights. Their wickedness must be contained in order prevent future generations from falling to degeneracy. Women are vicious, evil, barbaric animals, and they need to be treated as such. … All women must be quarantined like the plague they are, so that they can be used in a manner that actually benefits a civilized society.”

“The first strike against women will be to quarantine all of them in concentration camps. At these camps, the vast majority of the female population will be deliberately starved to death. That would be an efficient and fitting way to kill them all off. I would take great pleasure and satisfaction in condemning every single woman on earth to starve to death.”

and yet, people are questioning what fueled Elliot Rodger’s actions after he blatantly displayed his hatred of women and desire to murder us all (though he only seemed to be interested in blonde women). let’s just call it what it is: MISOGYNY. some people seem hesitant to admit that misogyny is evident in Rodger’s actions, or that misogyny is evident EVERY DAY, or that it compromises women’s safety. 

we seem to be far more comfortable with discussions of white privilege, mental illness, and gun violence than we are with identifying the ways in which misogyny hurts women. in fact, we're far more adept at derailing the conversation about women's safety than we are at actually having a conversation about women's safety. this isn't to say that all of those other issues aren't important and legitimate issues that should be discussed, but they should not be used to drown out the discussion about women's safety, misogyny, and male entitlement.

Elliot Rodger is just another face in the crowd of men who feel entitled to women's bodies and use violence to retaliate when they are rejected. unfortunately, these things happen on smaller scales every day. predictably so, in response to women openly discussing misogyny and their every day experiences with it, “not all men” has been the argument from apologists and deniers, as well as those who consider themselves to be allies. dudes, we already know. we know that “not all men” are violent or sexist or misogynist. we know that “not all men” would rape and murder us. we know that “not all men” are bad, but that’s not the point. the fact that your sensibilities might get a little twinge when we talk about misogyny and sexualized/gendered violence is not the point. the point is that SOME MEN are misogynists and SOME MEN perpetuate sexualized/gendered violence against women. and until you have experienced what it is like to be on the receiving end, then you do not get to tell us whether or not our fears and concerns are legitimate. 

until you've been a woman and had lewd comments screamed at you while walking down the street, or you’ve been groped in public without your consent, or aggressively approached and cornered in a parking lot, or harassed online, both in and out of internet dating spaces, or received an unsolicited dick pic from a man you barely know. until you've been threatened, antagonized, and insulted by a man because you exercised your right to reject his sexual advances, or been ostracized and guilt tripped because you didn’t return a man’s romantic interests and resigned him to the imaginary “friend zone”. until you've been sexually assaulted by strangers and told to take it as a compliment. until you've been hassled at a club or  bar and the only thing that gets him to leave you alone is to lie about your imaginary boyfriend. until you’ve experienced all of these things (and more) which make you afraid, uncomfortable, and mortified, YOU DON'T KNOW. you don't know what it's like to be afraid of what might happen if you say "no." and because YOU DON'T KNOW, you do not get to tell us that our fears are not legitimate. you do not get derail the conversation and make it about you, even if it is simply to reassure us that “not all men” do those things. we already know that. just like we already know that white privilege, mental illness, and gun violence are also valid concerns. all of these conversations are important, but granting attention to them should not divert attention from discussions about women’s safety in this world. 

confession: i was sexually assaulted

sexual assault: sexual contact with another person without their consent. forcible, coercive, or otherwise.

i was sexually assaulted repeatedly throughout my middle school and high school years, but it wasn't until adulthood that i was able to identify and accept it as sexual assault. against my will and without my consent, various male students grabbed and slapped my butt, groped my breasts, pulled my bra strap, aggressively commented on my body, inquired about my sexual practices, and blatantly called me a liar when i answered that i was a virgin. i was harassed, objectified, slut shamed, bullied, and ultimately dehumanized. i thought it was normal and i thought that it was my fault. i thought that the body in which i existed warranted that kind of treatment from boys. i was told to take it as a compliment because it meant that they liked me and, you know, boys will be boys.

the first of these incidents is still vivid in my mind. it was during recess in the fourth grade and i was playing on the jungle gym. it was one of my favorite things to do on the playground as i was an avid climber as a child. i loved viewing the world from atop trees and jungle gyms where i felt closer to the stars. on that afternoon, i mounted the jungle gym with the usual excitement in pursuit of that familiar rush. as i pulled myself upward, i felt a hand on my butt, squeezing tightly. in shock and confusion, i lost my footing then tumbled off and onto the ground. when i rose to my feet, i was seething with anger. i felt violated and i demanded to know who had done it. the bystanders pointed to the culprit who seemed unmoved by the scene unfolding before him. without waiting for his confession of guilt (i tended to shoot first and ask questions later as a girl), i lunged at him with the full force of my rage-filled body, kicking and punching. he fought back, slapping me on the side of my face until my ear was burning and i began to feel light headed. after the fight, i gave the teacher an accurate account of why the altercation began, but the boy denied it. i argued my case vehemently, but ultimately, there was no punishment given. we missed out on the rest of recess that day, but he was not appropriately disciplined for his actions. apparently, a boy grabbing a girl's butt on the playground was not an offense that warranted attention because it was just something that boys did to girls. this was all a part of my (mis)education. in that moment, i learned that sexual violence was something that boys do to girls. sexual violence became normalized. boys do it to girls, and by extent, men do it to women. 

as girls, we learn that our bodies do not belong to us, and it is a lesson that we continue to learn as we grow into women. the wide acceptance and normalization of this kind sexual assault contributes to the pervasiveness of rape culture. it took me years to unlearn all of those lessons and i am still unlearning some of them. my body does belong to me and no one has the right to touch, grab, squeeze, caress, or embrace my body without my consent. women's bodies do not exist for the pleasure of men and deserve the ability to move throughout this world free from violation. women's bodies deserve the same respect and autonomy that is afforded to men's bodies. women's bodies are not things to be hidden or ashamed of. women's bodies are not public spaces. women's bodies are wonderful. our bodies belong to us. this is not an indictment of all boys and men. this is an indictment of the misogynistic ideals by which some boys and men (and women) justify their sexualized violence against girls and women, and this is a position which i will continue to defend vehemently, unyieldingly, and unapologetically for as long as i continue draw breath. 

feministing while black

one of my favorite social media friends came to me with a question recently. he wanted to know how i felt about those who consider themselves to be pro-black who say that black women shouldn't be or can't be feminist. i thanked him for his question and attempted to answer it in three points.

1) it is my opinion that being pro-black should not equal being anti-white. being antagonistic against any race, whether or not that race is the "dominant" one, is still racism. i don't condone it in any form. i consider myself to be pro-black, in that i support those who identify as black, and i will forever battle against those who think that blackness is something to be ashamed of. being pro-black shouldn't just be about defying "the white man', it should be about celebrating the (shared, but not monolithic) life and experience of existing in a black body in this world.

2) i've been asked the question about black women and feminism, or versions of this question, a few times before. what i often find is that the people who are usually asking that question have a negative view of feminism and lack comprehension of what feminism is. these people are usually thinking about the beginnings of the feminist movement, which was racist in its inception. the short version is that it was led by white middle class women who only considered the social issues facing white middle class women, while ignoring the fact that oppressions of women of color were very different from their own. modern feminism is different than the first or second waves of the movement, though it has it's pitfalls. its more inclusive and constantly strives to become more and more so. feminism isn't just about women's liberation. we take up systems of power and investigate systemic oppressions that affect all identities defined by race, gender, sexuality, physical ability, species, etc. 

3) now, consider the history of black women and the policing of black women's bodies, sexualities, reproduction, etc., in the U.S. and abroad. and consider that we live in society which values whiteness and maleness above all else. i would say that black women have a relationship to systemic oppression in a way that is different from black men, as we are constantly battling the joined forces of racism and sexism. this is not to say that the marginalization and criminalization of black men is not legitimate; it is simply different. feminism is the only movement (that i know of) which seeks to combat the racism and sexism experienced by women of color without delegitimizing the racism that men of color also experience, and simultaneously fights for others who experience oppression because of their sexuality, weight, gender identity or performance, physical or mental disability, etc. feminism is all about celebrating difference, promoting unconditional self-love, and dismantling oppressions.

i gave this incredibly long explanation to say this: when someone asks me how a black woman can be a feminist, i define feminism for them in the same way that i've just defined it here, and then counter with my own question.

how can a black woman NOT be a feminist?