Category Archives: politics

Why Is “Slut” Still A Bad Word?

Posted on by
369

Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock or one of Eddy Curry’s areolas for the past week, you’ve undoubtedly heard about the controversy involving Rush Limbaugh and Georgetown University student Sandra Fluke.

(Abridged version: During an unofficial Congressional hearing about contraception last Thursday, Fluke argued that birth control should be covered by health insurance at religious institutions, testifying that students at Georgetown pay as much as $1,000 a year for contraception. Limbaugh spoke about this on his radio show the next day, and referred to Fluke as a “slut.” Predictably, the hundreds of thousands of different angles you can take on this news story has given everyone associated with media a never-ending hard on since it broke.)

Now, Limbaugh is an disgustingly wealthy man (seriously!!!) who’s amassed his fortune by being very good at being a syphilitic chickenhawk, so him saying nasty things about a young woman is about as “dog bites man”-ey as a story can get.

Yet, in the past couple days, as I read Limbaugh getting publicly pimp-slapped by President Obama and clicked on several different articles written by several very serious people accusing him of “slut shaming,” one question kept popping up in my head: Why is “slut” a bad word?

Now, this question is (obviously) rhetorical. I know exactly why slut is considered to be such a pejorative term. I also don’t mean in any way to suggest that Fluke shouldn’t have been offended, angered, hurt, and saddened by Limbaugh using a word like that to describe her.

Thing is, my question isn’t about Limbaugh or Fluke or the contraceptive controversy. (Please re-read that). It’s not even about the term itself as much as what it’s used to describe: a person (woman or man) who has (or had) many sexual partners.

If, as many progressive, open-minded and liberal people say they believe, having numerous sexual partners isn’t a thing that a person needs to be ashamed of, why is there still such a negative connotation attached to the words commonly used to describe people who fit that definition?

I know that words like slut and ho and skank are used to shame, but if the acts themselves aren’t shameful, how are those words still given that power, and why haven’t we thought of any replacements?

You can argue that the mere act of creating a word to describe a person’s sexual activity is judgmental in itself. That argument breaks down, though, when you realize that not only do we have words to describe all human activity, we have also have considerate (and occasionally condescending) euphemisms for any terms that may have any type of negative connotation. We all know that “seasoned” means “old” and “plus-sized” means “fat,” but we still regularly incorporate the code words because they just sound less derisive.

Promiscuity, though, has no such euphemism. There’s no generally accepted “kind” way of saying “slutty.” Perhaps someone reading this can, but I can’t think of a way a person can reference someone having a much larger than usual amount of sexual partners¹ and it not come across as potentially (and likely) incendiary. I’ve heard people ironically refer to themselves or their friends as “slut” or “ho,” but once you remove the irony and the tongue-in-cheekness, it always stings (or is meant to sting).²

I wonder if this is because, despite what we might publicly say, we — men, women, liberals, conservatives, feminists, womanists, and bigamists alike — all still kind of feel that there is something off with a person who sleeps around. I don’t know. I do know, though, that it looks like I have no answers to that rhetorical question.

Maybe one of you might. if promiscuity isn’t a bad thing, why do you think that every single term used to describe a promiscuous person has such an unquestionably negative connotation? Basically, if being a “slut” isn’t a bad thing, why is “slut” still such a bad word? And, since it’s still a shitty word, why haven’t we thought of a word or even just a euphemism to replace it?

¹”Much larger than usual amount of sexual partners” is definitely relative. 

²There’s an obvious parallel here between “slut/ho” and “nigger.” No further thoughts, just pointing that out

—Damon Young (aka “The Champ”)

I Motherf*cking Hate PETA by Panama Jackson

Posted on by
182

To PETA, dogs and slaves? Same sh*t.

There are few organizations that I detest more than PETA. For the short bus crowd visiting with us today, PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Now, I’m an animal lover through and through. I like cats and dogs. One of my dogs is actually on my credit card. Yes, you read that properly. My dog is on my credit card.

My mother has geese, the most annoying denizens of the bird world. No Amber Rose. Well, yes Amber Rose, but in this context, no Amber Rose. Real birds. Taylor Gang.

Moving on. Despite my love for animals I recognize one very real truth: animals are not people and do not trump the rights of people. That isn’t to say that I think people should be able to treat animals any type of way. Animals are much like children, especially domesticated ones: defenseless and ultimately looking to humans for food and protection. To that end, I make it a point to always treat animals with the highest of respect. Dipset, b*tch…nahmean? But PETA? Them bastards take stuff too far.

Especially when it comes to the ways in which they choose to get their point across. PETA has this stupid f*cking uncanny ability to equate the plight of animals with the plight of slaves. Yes. PETA thinks that animals and slaves are basically the same sh*t. I remember seven years ago (I wrote an article about it back then…egads I’ve been writing for a long time) when PETA created a display where they hung up pictures of cows and animals who were about to be made into bacon and steak next to pictures of lynched Black people as a way of equating the treatment of animals to a system of Jim Crow and intense racism.

Needless to say, Black folks were upset. Everybody except Cam’ron who I’m fairly sure is and/or was PETA’s public enemy number one after his line about his closet looking like a pet cemetery on the song “Down & Out”. Great song by the way. Oh and why wouldn’t Cam’ron care? Because his computers were to busy ‘putin’ for him to notice.

Hmm…not to be all extra tangentially Black here but is that the first time that a word was abbreviated in such a way that it warranted an apostrophe at the beginning AND end of it? Without it being a kids name? From the hood? Seriously, would you be surprised if you met a kid named ‘Putin’…and those weren’t quotes? After meeting a chick named N”D’Biane at my cousin’s graduation a few years back, I realized anything is possible. Zone 4 stand up.

I’ve lost my point.

Ah yes, the latest in the line of PETA f*ckery and nincompoopery was the motherf*cking LAWSUIT that they filed on behalf of FIVE orca whales who they felt were being held as slaves by Sea World.

Please. Read that again. I’ll wait.

*humming “Down and Out” by Cam’ron*

Luckily the lawsuit was tossed out by a judge who obviously has common sense but was forced to ACTUALLY decide on this case. But the fact that PETA was going to try to run a motherf*cking Thirteenth Amendment okeydoke on the American people on behalf of five whales who didn’t ASK for the lawsuit is beyond me. But there goes PETA again, lumping animal rights into the civil rights debate. The Thirteenth Amendment outlawed slavery OF MOTHERF*CKING PEOPLE and these fools are trying to use it to basically free Willy??????

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Miller stopped the case from proceeding two days after he became the first judge in U.S. history to listen to arguments in court over the possibility of granting constitutional rights for members of an animal species.

“As `slavery’ and `involuntary servitude’ are uniquely human activities, as those terms have been historically and contemporaneously applied, there is simply no basis to construe the Thirteenth Amendment as applying to non-humans,” Miller wrote in his ruling.

 

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals filed the lawsuit in October and named five whales as plaintiffs. PETA says the wild-captured orcas are enslaved by SeaWorld because they are held in concrete tanks against their will and forced to perform in shows at its parks in San Diego and Orlando, Fla.

Again, I motherf*cking hate PETA. Who needs the KKK when you have PETA trivializing the entire struggle of African-Americans in this country by equating the rights of ferrets with the rights of people who were killed because of the color of their skin. Which is why I got SO much pleasure out of the skewering the The Daily Show with Jon Stewart did. Wyatt Cenac, I salute you.
Peep the video below. It’s beautiful. And it’s Friday. F*ck PETA.
What do you think about PETA’s campaigns? Do you also hate love like they do? If so, Michael Vick deez.
-VSB P aka THE ARSONIST aka MR. F*CKPETA aka GIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRL HE A 3
Also, don’t forget about the VSB/Urban Cusp discussion on Black Identity & Culture in Mass Media panel coming up on Wednesday, February 22, 2012 from 6-8PM at the Washington Post Buildling. It’s going to be a dope conversation, I promise. Plus you can hang with Panama Jackson and throw things at people. It’s free and food will be provided. Not like half chickens or nothing, but finger foods and whatnot. See you there. Peep the flyer below.

Three Ways To Make Black History Month Better

Posted on by
133

Black History Month: Home to the weirdest and worst collages ever made

Whether it’s feeling a certain way about the fact that it’s the shortest month of the year, becoming annoyed with the underlying message that Black American history isn’t necessarily American and needs to be segregated, or being forced to remember the time in middle school when, since you were the only black kid in your class, your teacher — a well-intentioned 37 year old Irish-Catholic woman who thought it was appropriate to rock dashikis to school each Feburary — asked you to read a few pages from Jet Magazine aloud in front of the class each day for a month, there are few subjects that inspire the type of collective angst among a population that Black History Month does for Black Americans.

It’s the proverbial perpetually drunk uncle at Thanksgiving: You know he’s coming and you can’t not invite him, so you just hope and pray that he doesn’t get wasted and face-plant into the greens during grace like he did last year.

But, like the drunk uncle, we do actually love and appreciate Black History Month, and we’d miss it if it didn’t show up. Our angst comes from us just wanting it to do…better.

Here’s three possible ways we can make that happen.

1. Move it to May

Boom. In one fell swoop, one of the most common complaints about Black History Month — it’s the shortest month of the year — is rectified.

Why May? Well, two reasons:

A) Aside from the NBA playoffs and Memorial Day (which, for all intents and purposes, is a June holiday anyway), nothing that actually matters happens in May. I’d even go as far as to say that no one born in May has ever mattered¹. (There’s a reason you’re never going to see a coffee table book titled “A Look At The World’s Most Famous Tauruses Taureans“) Since this is true, why not just hijack the entire month? No one is going to feel bad about it. And, even if they do, they were born in May so their opinion doesn’t f*cking matter anyway.

B) Pushing it to the end of the school year will act as a drop-out deterrent for the tens of thousands of black kids who drop out of school every year. Many of these drop outs occur during the end of the school year (Why? The warm weather and the fact that, by that point, knowing they’re going to have to repeat the year makes it easier to chuck the deuces to school²), and putting Black History Month in May will allow black teachers to give em the ultimate guilt trips. You just can’t learn about Marcus Garvey and Sojourner Truth on Tuesday and decide to drop out of school Wednesday.

“So, Harriet Tubman ran barefoot and hungry through five states to escape slavery and your black ass can’t even walk three blocks to school???”

2. Add “Honorary Negros” to the Black History books

Look, I don’t want to minimize the contributions of any African-American who made their mark on history, but there are some things and people celebrated during Black History Month that have a way of making you think “Umm. I know he’s black and all, but does the guy who invented red Kool-Aid really need his own postage stamp?”

So, instead of grasping for historical straws, why not just add a few people who technically aren’t black but have a strong connection to the black community? How cool would it be to have days devoted to white men who date nothing but black women (i.e.: Roger Ebert, Robert De Niro, “Hesh” from The Sopranos, etc), people who invented things that black people love…even though they weren’t actually invented with that purpose in mind (i.e.: James Naismith, whoever invented the button that allows you to lean the driver’s seat back, the angel who convinced God to invent the ass, etc), and Shelia E.?

3. Pressure Congress To Enact “National Piece of The Pie Day”

While it’s great to recognize and honor those who’ve set the foundation for us, part of the Black History month angst has to do with the fact that, while things aren’t all peachy for us now, they’re much,much better then they were in the past. And, hearing about all the great things some of our ancestors did in legitimately sh*tty situations can make us feel like we aint sh*t right now (Which may be true — there’s a likelihood that we collectively aint sh*t — but that’s a different topic for a different day). 

So, to combat this feeling, why not have a day during Black History Month where the national script is flipped and it’s legally mandated that we have to be allowed to do certain things (i.e.: get bank loans, hail cabs, get great service at restaurants, point fingers in police officer’s and president’s faces, etc) that seem to be reserved for non-blacks?

And, as a way to appease the millions of non-blacks who definitely will have an issue with “Piece of The Pie” day, your special privileges will get revoked if you get caught doing certain “black” things the week before. Not going into detail on what exactly I mean by “black” things, but let’s just say that you may want to pick another time of the year to take a 75 minute lunch break or give a waitress a $2 tip on a $37 bill.

Anyway, that’s it for me today, but I’m sure I’m forgetting a few. People of VSB, can you think of any other additions/changes to Black History Month that would make it better?

¹I know Malcolm X was born in May, but why let facts get in the way of a perfectly good point?
²This could actually be true, but I’m totally making this up right now.

—Damon Young aka “The Champ”

“Rape Responsibility,” And The Fine Line Between Victim-Blaming and Common Sense

Posted on by
918

Zerlina Maxwell is a friend of mine, and I understand where “Stop Telling Women How to Not Get Raped” — her latest piece at Ebony.com — is coming from.

I definitely agree that “Telling women that they can behave in a certain way to avoid rape creates a false sense of security and it isn’t the most effective way to lower the horrible statistics which show that 1 in 5 women will become victims of a completed or attempted rape in their lifetime.”

I also agree that “We need anti-rape campaigns that target young men and boys.  Campaigns that teach them from a young age how to respect women, and ultimately themselves, and to never ever be rapists. In addition, we should implore our men and boys to call out their friends, relatives, and classmates for inappropriate behavior and create systems of accountability amongst them.”

I even agree that “Our community, much like society-at-large, needs a paradigm shift as it relates to our sexual assault prevention efforts.  For so long all of our energy has been directed at women, teaching them to be more “ladylike” and to not be “promiscuous” to not drink too much or to not wear a skirt. Newsflash: men don’t decide to become rapists because they spot a woman dressed like a video vixen or because a girl has been sexually assertive.”

But — and I’m trying to say this as delicately as possible — as the article continues, and lines such as “Consent can be withdrawn by the words “no “or “stop” and in many states, a woman doesn’t have to say no at all. Consumption of alcohol can prevent a woman from being able to legally offer consent” begin to seep in, the tone seems to shift from “men need to take full responsibility for their actions” to “men need to take full responsibility for their actions…and women have carte blance to act as recklessly and stupidly around men as possible without any trace of accountability.” and I just can’t agree anymore.

I know that rapists are going to rape regardless of how women decide to dress, what (and how much) women decide to drink, where women decide to frequent, and what women decide to do. For rapists, all a woman needs to do to “ask for it” is be born.

But, why can’t both genders be educated on how to act responsibility around each other? What’s stopping us from steadfastly instilling “No always means no!” in the minds of all men and boys and educating women how not to put themselves in certain situations? Of course men shouldn’t attempt to have sex with a woman who’s too drunk to say no, but what’s wrong with reminding women that if you’re 5’1 and 110 pounds, it’s probably not the best idea to take eight shots of Patron while on the first, second, or thirteenth date? Yes, sober women definitely get raped too, but being sober and aware does decrease the likelihood that harm may come your way, and that’s true for each gender.

It seems as if the considerable push back again victim-blaming has pushed all the way past prudence and levelheadedness, making anyone who suggests that “women can actually be taught how to behave too” insensitive or a “rape enabler.” And, while the sentiment in Maxwell’s article suggests that victim-blaming is dangerous, I think it’s even more dangerous to neglect to remind young women that, while it’s never their fault if they happen to get sexually assaulted, they shouldn’t thumb their noses to common sense either.

—Damon Young (aka “The Champ”)

***11:07 edit***

(I left this as a comment below, but I wanted to attach it to the end of the entry as well.)

So, although I realized while writing this that it may be a touchy subject, I admittedly underestimated exactly how potentially explosive it was going to be. I read some of these responses late last night and early this morning, and I’m genuinely shocked at the level of anger and hurt this entry has caused. I really did not expect this to happen. And while I don’t apologize for expressing my viewpoint, but I do apologize about being so flippant and not being more careful to articulate exactly what I meant to convey. Considering the subject matter, leaving lighthearted footnotes and links to my appearance in Essence at the end of the entry was a very bad idea.

Anyway, as far as the actual article and responses, my intent wasn’t to imply that any victim of rape should be held “accountable” for what happened to them. I also realize that the majority of rapes are done by people who know their victims — boyfriends, co-workers, friends, dates, etc — making it almost impossible to defend against, and in no way did I want to spread the message that staying sober and out of shady situations is all a woman has to do to avoid being raped.

All I was trying to do was respond to a theme — men always have to be hyper-vigilant, hyper-careful, and possess the ability to read women’s minds. women, on the other hand, can do whatever the hell they want — I got from Zerlina’s article, the comments attached to it, and the Twitter convo it sparked. And, I still believe that this is a dangerous way to approach things.

I’m aware that all the education and conversation in the world about learning how to protect yourself and stay out of harms way and properly vetting men isn’t going to prevent men from raping women. A woman can do all of that and still get sexually assaulted. I’m also aware that the onus of responsibility falls directly on the shoulders of the rapist, and no where else.

But, my whole point is that young men AND young women need to be taught how to behave around the opposite sex, and I don’t see how saying that suggests that I think women should be held responsible for their own rapes. Perhaps I’m being too obtuse, tone deaf, or insensitive, but I just don’t see the connection between “everyone should be educated and learn how to take responsibility for their actions” and “rape is the woman’s fault”

You know, before logging on and leaving this comment, I called up a friend to ask her to read the post and let me know if people were being way too sensitive or if I was crazy in thinking “what the hell is everyone so upset about?”

Her (paraphrased) reply:

“Yeah, I think you should have left this topic alone. Any time a man writes about rape and even puts women and accountability in the same sentence, you’re going to anger people and come off as either completely tone deaf or dangerously insensitive, even if you don’t actually say or feel that women need to be held accountable for what happens to them. Maybe you could have worded your feelings better, but there’s really nothing you could have said besides “rape is wrong. the end” that would have made much of a difference.”

I think she’s right.

No, I Haven’t Seen Red Tails Yet. Why Not? Good Question.

Posted on by
305

(Today’s post is a response to each of the dozen or so people who’ve already asked me if I’ve seen Red Tails yet, and the dozens who’ll probably continue to ask me after today.)

1. The guilt-based marketing has completely turned me off. 

I’m going to expand on this a bit more later this week at Ebony.com, but nothing makes me not want to do something I was already kind of “eh, maybe.” about than being told I need to do it. And, being beaten over the head for a month with the completely disingenuous and manipulative idea that I must support Red Tails if I ever want to see a black face on a movie screen again has made me go from “eh, maybe” to “f*ck you.”

2. I don’t need to see black faces on screen. 

Do I like to? Yes. Do I think it’s important for young people to see “positive” (more on this in a minute) stories concerning black people to help counterbalance the negative imagery they’re constantly inundated with? Sure.

But, while I do recognize the importance of representation, it’s not something I personally need as a moviegoer. I’m not interested in our stories or my story as much as good and compelling and entertaining stories. If these good and compelling and entertaining stories happen to revolve around black people, great!

This isn’t to say that Red Tails wasn’t good and compelling and entertaining to many of the people who’ve seen it already, and I’m not so much of an asshole that I’d trash a movie I haven’t even seen yet. But, PG-13 CGI laden war movies just aren’t very interesting and entertaining to me, regardless of what color the pilots happen to be.

Also, I realize that certain duties — voting, voting for democrats, voting for black democrats, etc — are required to keep your black american card and the perks that come with it. But, maybe the handbook has changed since the last time I read it, but I don’t remember seeing anything about any obligation to make your leisurely activities dutiful too.

3. I don’t need to see positive stories on screen either. 

While positive movies are great and important and meaningful and sh*t, I don’t particularly need to see them to be “uplifted” or “fulfilled.” That’s what bacon and strippers are for.

4. Ok, I’ll say it. Nothing I’ve heard, read, or seen about it makes me think it’s going to be very interesting. 

Yeah, I know what many of you are probably thinking right now. It’s completely unfair to make a judgement on a movie (or any art for that matter) you haven’t actually seen yourself. And, while I definitely see we’re you’re coming from, that sentiment is a big, fat, steaming pile of bullsh*t.

We make judgments and predictions on sh*t we haven’t actually seen or done yet all the f*cking time, and reading a couple story descriptions and watching a couple trailers and thinking “Eh. This sounds kind of boring.” is no different than riding past a club you’ve never been to before, getting turned off by how the club looks/the people in line/’the fact that you used to bone the bouncer, and deciding to hit another spot.

Sure, maybe you would have had the time of your life at that place, but past experience has told you that you’re not very, um, “compatible” with clubs with those conditions.

For instance, although I (obviously) hadn’t seen the movie yet, I knew I was going to enjoy The Social Network the first time I saw the trailer.

On the other hand, I first saw the trailer to Red Tails while at Blogalicious.

And, while nothing about that footage screamed “bad movie” to me, nothing didn’t scream “I’ll guess I’ll catch it on TNT during Black History Month in 2015″ either.

With all that being said, I’m actually glad Red Tails seems to be exceeding expectations at the box office. I hope they’re able to continue to ride their strong opening weekend, and I hope that its success helps black filmmakers get their projects green lighted.

Still, I just can’t get behind supporting something I’m pretty sure I won’t enjoy, just because that something has something to do with black people. If I want a history lesson about the Tuskegee Airmen, I’ll go visit his office instead.

—Damon Young (aka “The Champ”)