"Take The Test, Take Control" HIV does not discriminate!

National HIV Get Tested Day Sunday June 27, 2010
The HIV epidemic is still going strong in the United States today and this fact has been masked by the struggles of everyday life such as hard economic times, job loss, oils spills and unpredictable weather patterns. Yet every nine and a half minutes someone is infected with HIV in the United States. The Human Immunodeficiency Virus is still very relevant!

It is still fully encouraged that people go out and get tested particularly this weekend! Sunday June 27, 2010 is the National HIV Testing Day. The National HIV get tested day was founded on June 27, 1995 and is organized by the National Association of People with AIDS (NAPWA) in partnership with the Center for Disease Control(CDC). The initiative beckons for people everywhere to get tested and know their status. The NAPWA advocates for everyone to know their status but they mainly targets at risk groups like African Americans mainly African American women, Latinas, and gay men. HIV/AIDS is the leading cause of death for African American women in the United States today. African Americans only make up 13% of the U.S population, but they make up 49% of people who get HIV/AIDS. More than one million people are living with HIV in the U.S and approximately one in five of those are unaware of their infection. That breaks down to about 250,000 people who are living with the infection and do not know it. For some people who are HIV positive and do not know, they may not show any symptoms and even if one may feel healthy the HIV is still effecting their body. Early detection in many of cases can be all the difference between life and death, this is why NAPWA encourages everyone to get tested.

Barriers in HIV prevention:
One of the biggest barriers in HIV prevention comes from abstinence only education. Abstinence only until marriage education is taught to the youth all over the country, yet it does not properly equip young people with a comprehensive sex education. Most importantly it does not tell these youth the most important part which is to use a condom. But this is not only a youth issue, Crisis Pregnancy Centers do the same thing with adults. Misleading people by telling them condoms do not work and won’t protect you against HIV.

HIV is just as much a social issues as it is a medical issues, and issues of race and class are overwhelming in who gets infected and how long they survive. So whatever you decide to do this weekend please make time to go get tested, and bring a friend. Afraid of needles? No problem, there are many different forms of HIV testing which include a quick and painless swab of the mouth!

Racism, Front and Center

The last month and a half of US politics has been uglier than usual. Across the country, we have seen riotous constituents (and a few others) screaming at Members of Congress, carrying fire arms, and spewing hate-filled language at every meida outlet available.

In just the last week, we've witnessed both a member of the House of Representatives shouting at the President of the United States during a major speech before Congress and a "march on Washington" with some of the most blantat, vitriolic messaging I've ever seen.

WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON?

Georgetown University Sociology Professor Michael Eric Dyson has an idea. Maureen Dowd has an idea. Former President Jimmy Carter has an idea. And they're all calling it the same thing: racism.

Georgetown University Sociology Professor Michael Eric Dyson responded to the claims of "angry ideological differences" v. "racism" with a succinct social, political, and historical context of race/racism in the US:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

In her 9/13 NYTimes Op-Ed, Maureen Dowd outlines what she calls "the lunacy of the summer," concluding that all the name-calling of the president (from 'socialist' to 'granny killer') comes back to an attempt to discredit the President as "other."

And in an interview with NBC, former President Jimmy Carter has this to say:

At what point do we ignore the party lines and focus on human decency (or a severe lack thereof)? As feminists; as Republicans/Democrats/Libertarians/Greens/Women's Party/Independets...whatever(!) we mustto deal with this. This is not a post-racial society, and this is not a bi-racial society. We are a multi-racial society that MUST address our multi-racial problems.

What are your thoughts? Is this the tipping point? Where do we go from here?

The Supreme Court Rules!*

Today the Supreme Court ruled in a case that seems completely mundane and specific, like almost every Supreme Court case, but actually has huge implications. A small municipality in Texas wanted to change its voting location from a private garage to an elementary school. Under section five of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (extended for 25 years in 2006 by Congress) they had to apply with the federal government to make that change to their election procedures.

Section 5 applies to districts from Massachusetts to Alaska, but is disproportionally applied to Southern states. When the Act was written in 1965, registration of whites in the South was up to 50% higher than registration of African-Americans. Literacy tests were given asking questions about obscure state constitutional law and the number of bubbles in a bar of soap.

Southern states did disproportionally discriminate against minorities, and Section 5 sought to rectify that. It states that the districts chosen had to clear any change in their voting law with the federal government, in order to prevent discrimination against minorities. The Court ruled 8-1 that the municipality in this case could apply for a blanket exemption from Section 5, instead of filing separate requests for every change.

This ruling is important because the case was trying to question the constitutionality of Section 5. The Court compromised with the exemption option they offered. The Justices in the majority questioned Section 5 in the actual proceedings, noting that it is unfair to assume that Southern states are inherently more racist than Northern states, but they ended up leaving Section 5 intact.

The Court kind of copped out on the constitutional question presented about Section 5, but in the long run this compromise is much better for fully enfranchised voting than almost any other outcome. This decision is basically the Court's admission that we still need to work to ensure fair voting practices. Clarence Thomas, however, disagrees.

My opinion of Clarence Thomas is heavily influenced by my Supremes experience. Last fall I was lucky enough to sit in on a Court case and I witnessed Thomas' judicial style. He leaned back in his chair, whispered snarkily (or so I assumed) to Breyer, and looking generally like he didn't give a (bleep) about the proceedings. He also happens to be the one dissenting opinion in this case, and I take him a lot less seriously now that I know how he operates. His argument as the lone dissenter in this case was basically that while Section 5 was an extremely effective law in its time, there is no need for it now because there is no systematic campaign of violence against minorities.

The Court's decision to ignore the constitutionality question and create a loophole in Section 5 is, in a roundabout way, support for voter enfranchisement. And Clarence Thomas's dissent is a completely unsurprising sign of his irrelevance.

Check out this great overview of the ruling at Daily Kos.

*Get it? GET IT? I love terrible puns.

West Coast Interns Visit UCLA for Global Affirmative Action Seminar

Last Friday, FMF and Ms. interns traveled to UCLA for the 2009 Global Affirmative Action Praxis Project (GAAPP) Transnational Seminar: Critical Race Theory and the Struggle for Equality in Brazil, India and the United States. The seminar ran June 7 - 16. While we were only there for a day, we were overwhelmed with new information!

The seminar, which focuses on racial and caste inequalities and their social, political, and economic consequences in Brazil, India and the US, is structured around workshops and panel discussions enabling conversations and the exchange of ideas. Bringing together Afro-Brazilians, prominent human rights activists, and critical race theorists, the hope of this semiar is to create new ideas and actions for anti-discrimination and inclusion guidelines.

So why were FMf and Ms. magazine interns afforded this amazing opportunity? Because visionary Kimberle Crenshaw, moderator of the entire seminar, is a strong FMF ally and frequently publishes in Ms.! She invited us to participate in the open 2-day portion of the seminar designed for public participation.

The day began with Professor Crenshaw introducing the concept of intersectionality. The basis of intersectionality is prism of various social factors (race, class, gender, sexual identity, etc.), which must be addressed as one, instead of looking at each factor exclusively.

As an African American woman, Crenshaw has experienced various encounters with intersectionality. During her time at Harvard Law School, Crenshaw and a black male classmate were invited to a finals club party, a prestigious all-male social club. They agreed before they entered the party that they would not "take any mess".

As soon as they knocked on the door, a friend quickly opened the door and closed it behind him. Crenshaw and her friend were ready to stand strong against any opposing forces. The man quickly explained that Crenshaw had to enter through the backdoor because of her gender!

Crenshaw waited to hear her friend speak up on her behalf, instead all she heard was silence. Crenshaw realized that her male counterpart would exclusively defend her when it came to race, but gender was another story....

After the introduction, Manjula Pradeep, Jurema Werneck and Russell Robinson gave examples of intersectionality from the US, Brazil and India. Each provided a fascinating account of how intersectionality is played out within their country.

Manjula Pradeep explained the Indian caste system and its effects on Dalit women. The caste system divides society into four principle castes. The Dalits are not even a part of the system and are the most ostracized group in society. Within the Dalit society, women are often of the lowest rank. They are sexually abused by higher caste members and must perform large amounts of manual labor.

Women are so devalued that they will do anything to not have a daughter. One woman, who already had seven girls, really wanted a son. She went to an astrologer who told her to fast three days a week, while pregnant, in order to gain a son. To no avail, her baby daughter was born without bones, and sadly, died three weeks later. Women are forced to undergo these extreme lifestyles because they live outside of the caste.

Jurema Werneck explains that Brazil is still "a racist society". Afro-Brazilians are still seen as inferior and face lower social conditions. While affirmative action began in 2001, there is still enormous struggle to include non-while Brazilians in the top universities. Afro-Brazilian women face additional barriers in this patriarchal society. PBS provides its easy to read report of race and affirmative action in Brazil.

Within the US, Robinson focused on the stereotypes of commonly ostracized groups reinforced by media images. Robinson explained that media images of black women are divided into two typical categories: sassy sidekicks or overweight, older mammies. Whenever someone turns on the TV they are bombarded with these typical messages. Black female actors often cannot create new images for themselves; rather, they are forced to give in to the stereotypes.

These three themes were carried out through the day, each providing a foundation of how intersectionality affects us. We learned so much and would like to thank the GAAPP, UCLA and Vassar for providing us with this informative event!

UCLA is the only school in the country that has a Critical Race Studies within its Law School. Professor Kimberle Crenshaw is one of the founding members of this incredible program.

-Jessica Little and Anita Lederer, FMF Choices Campus Leadership Program Interns

The Word for Today: Can We Say PRIVILEGE???

Ok, so I said to myself that I wouldn't give some of these conservative pundits and intolerable commentators sipping on their haterade the time of day. But dammit, I just can't resist. What's up with this week's media frenzy around, dare I say it, the supposedly vulnerable political and social power of white men (gasp)! PLEASE! Give me a break.

First, we have a roundup of conservative hoopla taking Supreme Court Justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor's statements about her identity impacting her role as a judge out of context and slandering her as a "reverse racist":



Oh, let's not forget Gordon Liddy & Rush Limbaugh's attacks. Those are pretty classic:





Then we have a debut of yet another boys club, this time at University of Chicago, "Men in Power":



I mean, really, what is the deal with all this sappy "woe is me, I'm a white male minority" nonsense. If you ever needed a reason as to why feminist and racial dialogue is imperative to the overall change in our society, well now you've got ONE!

Because issues of race and gender have been so conveniently appropriated lately, individuals who continue to gain further strides due to historical political, economic and social privilege tend to challenge anyone or any ideology that conflicts with that history of privilege. More than ever before, we have women, lesbians and gays, and people of color taking on influential positions in our society and this power shift seems to be a threat to the status quo. I feel that it's very cowardice and absurd that many of these conservatives would make racial and sexual indictments against masses of people when the nation as a whole is seeing for the first time true diversity being exemplified.

If Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) can dismiss such arguments, then surely people, we must do better.