The Grand Jury decision to not indict Officer Wilson for shooting Michael Brown 12 times, including even when he was injured and had his hands up, has brought to surface facts about the criminal (in)”justice” system in America that should have been clear a long time ago. One of these facts that have come to light is that prosecutors, especially white prosecutors, who are assigned to present a case against cops who shoot and kill unarmed citizens, especially if they’re white and the victim black, often do the opposite and act as the officer’s defense attorney, with the complete silence, complicity and even cooperation of the presiding judge. That’s what the Assistant District Attorney did in the case of Grand Jury investigation of Officer Wilson’s shooting and killing of Michael Brown. She basically told the jury that, according to an old Missouri law, which has long been reversed and deemed unconstitutional, a police officer had the right to shoot a suspect, if he runs or won’t comply with the officer’s orders or is belligerent. The US Supreme Court ruled in 1985 against that practice, which used to result in cops executing people on the streets for minor violations or just the suspicion of a violation, on a regular basis, making that practice illegal. She clearly must have known that when she was citing that old defunct law to the jury. In fact, after telling the jury that blatant lie, she vaguely added that the Supreme Court had issued a different opinion about “part” of that law, which was another lie, even while trying to not be too obvious about what she was trying to do in that courtroom. The Supreme Court deemed the entire law unconstitutional, not just a part which she didn’t even elaborate What part she was talking about. And, when a juror asked if the Federal law overrides the Missouri law, instead of telling the truth, which was an obvious and unambiguous “yes”, she said: “don’t worry about that”! One could have expected such immoral falsification of the truth from a defense attorney, who wants to win at all costs, even if it takes lies and trickery, but not from the prosecutor. On the contrary, the prosecutor’s job is to prevent such duplicitous defense, when the defense team resorts to it.
Let’s say it as it is: this was not negligence or incompetence or a “mistake”, as Lawrence O’Donnell, who, to his credit, discussed it on his show on MSNBC, called it, but rather, a conspiracy to mislead the jury and was an obstruction of justice meant to shield the officer from facing Justice and therefore is a crime. But, we’d be naive to think that this was an isolated case. In George Zimmerman’s trial for shooting to death Treyvon Martin, both prosecutors and the judge deliberately made the erroneous point that the case had nothing to do with race or racism, when it clearly had everything to do with it. In fact, it was the motivating factor.
What also should be clear to us all is that it took protests to even arrest George Zimmerman and took even more protests to form a grand jury to investigate Officer Wilson. Meanwhile, while we protest the injustice in Ferguson, none of the New York police officers who killed Eric Garner, a black father of six, with an illegal chokehold, have been indicted. And, just yesterday the police in Cleveland, Ohio shot and killed a 12 year old boy who was playing with a toy gun. They shouted at the child to show his hands (what child would immediately understood such a command and comply in less than 2 seconds?) It took a mere 2 seconds for the officers to open fire on the 12 year old!
After the Rodney King beating in Los Angeles, in 1992, it took massive riots to make even some limited and superficial “reforms” in the LAPD. During those riots that continued for weeks, the entire Los Angeles police force went into hiding and not a single one dared to stay in the streets. But, while “a riot is the language of the unheard”, as Dr. Martin Luther King pointed out, it isn’t enough. What’s needed is a nationwide and protracted movement with nonstop and militant protests like the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s that will combine the demand for social justice with the struggle for economic justice that will also include the demand to put an end to US crimes, acts of terror, wars and massacres overseas, against the poor of the world, for the enrichment of the .1%, at the expense of the vast majority of the population of the world and our environment.
A post on a friend’s FB wall displayed a quote from Pete Dominick saying: “If you’re more outraged at poor black folks in Missouri looting stores than you are at rich whites on Wall Street looting your future, you’ve been duped.” I’d add that if you’re a “news reporter” on MSNBC or CNN or other pro-Wall Street corporate networks, more concerned about riots taking place across the country in reaction to the Grand Jury decision not to indict the killer cop Darren Wilson than you are about Justice or about cops shooting and killing unarmed black teenagers and going free, then you’re an unprincipled corporate hired hand selling yourself to your corporate bosses who use your mouth in return for the high pay you receive. So, please, cut the BS about you being a “journalist”. You know what you are.
In 1992, in reaction to the acquittal of the police officers who kept beating Rodney King, while he was lying down motionless, Los Angeles exploded in a riot the likes of which had not been seen in decades. During those riots, too, poor black folks looted stores, some taking home baby diapers and other household items they had a hard time buying. Those who could afford not to worry about baby diapers, did a more effective thing: they burned down over 3,000 buildings and destroyed or damaged hundreds of businesses.
It was that riot and the fear it put in corporate bosses that brought about the so called “reforms” in the LAPD. Conclusion: no riots, no change. But, obviously, the “reforms” were grossly inadequate and ended up to be like the “change” Obama promised to people. Yesterday in Chicago, Obama criticized and admonished the protesters for their “violent” protests and instead advocated voting to bring about change. Of course, When it comes to selling oneself to corporate bosses, Obama sets the standard. But, such comments and statements, especially by a black servant of the corporate Empire and imperialism, are not uttered at random. They’re the calculated words of large capital, trying to channel people’s outrage and energy towards a sham that does nothing for people. It never has and never will: not for abolishing slavery, not for women’s right to vote, not for voting rights for blacks, not for ending the war in Vietnam or any other change that has been implemented. They all took riots and large protracted protests on the streets to achieve.
So let’s be clear: the reason the LAPD “reforms” were superficial and inadequate after the 1992 riots was that only 3,000 buildings were burnt to the ground.
Paraphrasing the quote above, if you’re more concerned about riots than police shootings, you’ve been duped.
After the Senate and gubernatorial elections, in which Democrats lost the control of the Senate and several state governorship to Republicans, some are asking what it all really means. How significant is it that the Senate goes from the control of the Democrats to Republicans? How will it change or affect people’s lives? If you listen to the victory speeches of those who get more votes than their opponents – sometimes by a mere one or two percentage points – you’d think a brand new era is about to begin in the country and that Washington is about to be changed, completely and forever. It’s like a basketball team winning a game by scoring a shot in the last second and then proudly proclaiming this was a historic and significant win that changes everything! Interestingly enough, they all admit that “Washington isn’t working”, and everyone who gets on the podium, after his or her victory, promises to change it, claiming that a new era has just dawned, just because he or she managed to get some more votes than his or her rival. Media personalities, like Chris Mathews of MSNBC, keep telling us about “the sanctity of the vote” and how it’s what “democracy” is all about. The losing candidates graciously give a concession speech and tell us that this is democracy, which we must respect, accept and embrace with all its consequences.
Democracy is usually defined as the rule of the majority. It sounds simple enough, but often, simple sounding concepts are not so simple, within the realities and complexities of human societies. The rule by the majority, in theory, often changes, in practice, to the rule by a minority – a very small minority at that – who can convince the majority to vote for them and thus becomes “democracy” in name, only. Convincing the majority, through lies, false promises and misrepresentations, to vote for a representative, who does not represent them, is not real democracy. At the very least, that’s not the intent or purpose of democracy. The fact that a government, which is wholly owned and controlled by a class of rich and powerful individuals, organizes elections isn’t necessarily democracy and doesn’t necessarily mean rule of the majority. The (class) nature of those in power has much more to do with the outcome – as to whether it is fair and it can be called democracy or not – than organizing and counting votes. The voice of the majority matters only if it benefits the majority. If the voice of the majority only benefits the minority, then there is something terribly wrong with the process. Ends may not necessarily justify the means, but are usually a good indication for their fairness or rightness. At the end of the day, what matter are people themselves – their lives, their needs, their problems and issues and their future – not just the process or some abstract principle we are told we must accept as the right way. The fairness of the process should be judged by the fairness of its outcome. A drug company can’t claim its drug should be consumed because they followed kosher methods in developing it, even if it kills those who use it. A democracy that leaves a tiny minority in charge of making laws that benefit them only is not democracy.
Elections in capitalist societies are one of two varieties: they are either fake and fraudulent, as is the case in underdeveloped societies ruled by a dictator, who uses fake elections to legitimize his kingdom or permanent “presidency”, or it’s made into some kind of game, a competition, like a sporting event, where candidates compete with one another, based on their appearance, their personalities, their connections, and, most importantly, their financial prowess. People’s lives and future, and in fact, the future of the planet and issues of war and peace, are thus made to depend on the result of a superficial competition, affected and determined by a number of superficial factors that neither have anything to do with people’s or society’s needs, nor with truth and justice. People go and vote and then wonder: what happened? Why does nothing change? Eventually, that question needs to evolve into: “why our votes don’t change anything?” Maybe then, the process itself, which is sold to people as “democracy” will be put under the microscope, as it should.
Elections can and often are manipulated, candidates can and often do misrepresent themselves and often make promises they cannot or never intend to deliver. Even the act of counting the votes is subject to so-called “irregularities” and “fraud”. People’s lives should not depend on how well a candidate runs and manages his or her campaign, how many people in high places he or she knows, how many campaign workers he or she can afford and whom he or she can hire to lead the campaign. People’s lives and future should not be up for sale. Democracy, as defined as the rule of the majority, only has meaning with an informed and aware population.
Even the very act of governance and law making in a capitalist society, after the votes have been counted and candidates have taken their offices, is defective and fraudulent, subject to manipulation by “special interest” groups and their lobbyists and through the sheer power of money, and therefore have nothing to do with people’s real issues and problems. The vast majority of candidates, who “win” and take office, know and care nothing about the people they pretend to represent. Not only often, but regularly, those representatives are handed the written laws already written for them by corporate bosses and lobbyists and without any change or even as much as understanding the issue or its consequences, they bring it to the legislative body and push it through, making it law.
A judge of a political system is how well the lower classes and the disenfranchised are represented. This is where the system really shows its crude and unjust nature. Instead of empowering the powerless and giving voice to the voiceless, those at the bottom of the society are ignored and left powerless and voiceless, despite their large numbers and despite the fact that they ARE the majority. It’s not a surprise that rich white males are vastly over-represented and dominate the political scene, with women and minorities and especially the poor grossly underrepresented. The political and governing process, as well as, the economic results, speaks volumes of the power, influence and dominance of the privileged sectors of the society. This can’t be democracy, no matter how you massage it and present it.
The corollary to the unrepresentative bodies of the Congress, whose main job is to give the rule of the minority the look and feel of a majority rule is the corporate media, which is tasked with convincing working people that their vote makes a difference, that whatever policies are enacted are really theirs because they have the “power of the vote”. They’re even told that if things don’t go their way, it’s their fault, if they didn’t vote! And those who did vote are told fair is fair. Their side lost fair and square! Speaking of the media, the only sensible thing that was uttered last night was by Jon Stewart of The Daily Show, who said: “People ask me: ‘so what’s going to happen now’, as if the Senate was a functioning body”. Actually, the Senate does have a function, just not for the ordinary people. The Empire State building lit up last night with red lights, instead of blue, to indicate a Republican win. So, it wasn’t totally meaningless.
But, as meaningless as the Senate changing hands might end up being for people, nothing beats the TV networks’ panels of political pundits and talking heads, in spewing out nonsense, which start a day before the elections and continue, for days after. The media of a society says much about the political process it operates in. Shallow and meaningless media coverage of elections, complete with statistics and odds and forecasters, as if it’s a horse race, is a good fit for superficial elections it covers. But, it doesn’t just “cover” meaningless elections; it also covers the truth about a system that makes such fraudulent and shallow media possible, in the first place, which in turn makes the continuation of the system itself possible, through lies and deception. A media this corrupt can only exist and thrive in an equally corrupt economic system, which produces and uses such media. In this dialectic, they both need and reflect each other, perfectly well.
A system that’s designed to keep the corporate Empire and their owners in power, with all the wars, devastation and injustices it causes overseas and the poverty it leaves people in at home, is not real democracy. The only way real democracy can rule is by the presence and participation of an informed and politically aware population, who don’t just passively vote after watching politicians’ ads on TV, but have an organic relationship with their leaders, who rise through and with the help of the people, by tirelessly fighting for and along with them and gaining their trust, through struggle, and who, with the help of the people, fight side by side with them to wrest power from the small minority of super wealthy and powerful, who hold the state power and govern for their own interests. That would be real democracy.
New Provocation in East Jerusalem Reveals Frustration and a New Sense of Urgency by the Zionist State to Finish the Job
Everyday brings news of new atrocities in occupied Palestine! For two months, we witnessed a most barbaric and brutal massacre of a besieged and defenseless people, who had nowhere to run and no way to defend themselves, resulting in the execution of over 1200 people, including over 500 children. Then, as soon as the truce, signed in Cairo, Egypt, put a temporary pause on the massacre, came news that Israel is building thousands of new settlements, in West Bank. Then, came the provocation in East Jerusalem by closing the Al-Aqsa mosque to Palestinians, clearly meant to provoke a reaction in order to pass more draconian laws, limiting the movements of Palestinians, to put more of them in jail, to demolish more of their homes and to create new Jewish settlements for the ultimate goal of cleansing the land of all Palestinians. Prime Minister Netanyahu said as much, recently, making his plans clear. Not only Netanyahu, but many others in government have made their intention for ethnic cleansing clear and their actions speak for themselves.
RT reported yesterday that in response to the recent unrest in East Jerusalem, a new law just passed increases the penalty for throwing rocks at soldiers or police, including at police cars, tenfold, to 20 years in prison. Haaretz reported that as a result of intense pressure from settlers, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon issued a “directive that bans Palestinian workers from traveling on Israeli-run public transportation in the West Bank”. Palestinian workers are already required to carry bio-metric ID cards ready to show to authorities when asked for, but now, they have to return to the West Bank, through various crossings, which will take them much longer to get home.
None of this is really new, at least not the intent and strategy. The whole purpose of establishing Israel, as a Jewish-only and settler state, has been to cleanse the land of Palestinians and settle Jews on the cleansed land. Israeli officials, from the very beginning to today, have always made their intentions clear. Neither are the massacres anything new, which are committed every few years, for a variety of excuses, which are easy to find from an occupied people since one way or another, the occupied will resist.
Incidentally, no amount of unevenness and disparity between the Israeli army and those who resist it makes US officials stop the narrative that Israel is fighting for its survival and that it “has the right to defend itself”. Apparently, the occupiers have the right to defend their illegal occupation, but the occupied don’t have the right to defend themselves against the occupation, against ethnic cleansing, against massacres, incarcerations, torture, including of children, and against genocide. It’s like saying: the rapist has the right to defend himself against the one being raped by severely beating her, if she ever throws any punch or kick. The US policy is not just one sided or gravely biased towards Israel. It’s completely upside down. Israel is not in a struggle for its survival. Palestinians are. Israel is not the one being threatened with annihilation. The Palestinians are. Palestinians don’t have the ability, the means or military power to threaten Israel. Israel has both the ability and the intention to wipe out Palestinians and is actually doing everything to make that reality. Palestinians aren’t the ones occupying Israel Or Israelis. It’s Israel that’s occupying Palestine and its people.
Israel is not surrounded by hostile states. It has some of the most loyal and strongest allies as neighbors. Egypt has closed its border with Gaza to help enforce the siege of Gaza and has created a buffer zone. Jordan is another strong and loyal ally of US and Israel and so is Saudi Arabia. After ruining Iraq and making it ungovernable, the only neighbor that’s left that’s not an ally is Syria, which is now being devastated by Islamist terrorists, including ISIS and loyalists to Al Qaeda and Salafi and other Islamist fundamentalists, who have been armed and funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, US, Britain and Israel to overthrow the Syrian government. Already, more than 200,000 Syrians have been killed, many in the hands of ISIS terrorists and over 2 million have been displaced. So, it’s not Israel that needs “to defend itself”. No one is threatening it and no one could. Israel is the only state in Middle East with nuclear weapons, while all the attention is on Iran, which is probably next in line to be devastated.
A colonial settler and apartheid state is built on occupied land and engages in an outright ethnic cleansing of the occupied people and when the latter resists, it goes on a massive attack with heavy weapons, fighter jets, attack helicopters, navy warships and tanks, as if it’s fighting a strong and heavily armed military. It carpet bombs residential neighborhoods, apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, ambulances and even UN shelters meant to provide shelter to children and all we hear from our President and his cabinet is: “Israel has the right to defend itself”, and the Senate approves and the President signs $225 million more in direct military aid to Israel. Isn’t that saying to Israelis: we support what you’re doing? And TV networks recite Israelis’ statements that THEY are in an existential fight!
But, the US complicity and aiding and abetting with the genocide isn’t new, either. What is new and different from years past and the main point I want to raise here is the sense of urgency Israeli officials are feeling to “finish the job” and achieve their goal of an Israel, without Palestinians. The process of ethnic cleansing has already reached a point that, much to the chagrin of “liberal” Zionists, has already made the “two state solution”, advocated by them, impossible. The hawkish and extreme actions of the Israeli government have already made that “solution” untenable, through aggressive land grabs, displacements and settlement building that have all but removed that as a viable option. That boat has long gone and just as well, since it was the wrong boat, to begin with.
It’s important to understand that the idea of the “two state solution” was advanced not for Palestinians, to end their suffering or to free them from brutal occupation, discrimination and apartheid, but for Israel: to make the apartheid state more feasible, more attainable and more legitimate in the eyes of the world, while at the same time, delegitimizing any continued Palestinian resistance. The two state “solution” would maintain the state of Israel as a Jewish-only state, keeping Palestinians out, would accelerate and legitimize driving as many of them out of the Jewish-only territories as possible, not even allowing them to visit relatives, should any of them be left behind, would deny Palestinian refugees their right to return to their homes, would keep the wall of segregation between the two peoples, would give total control over all borders, waters, airspace, the trade, the foreign policy, etc. to Israel and grant to Palestinians some disjointed pieces of land, all surrounded, interspersed and controlled by Israeli military check points, as their new “state”. That’s what “liberal” Zionists hope will save Israel, as a Jewish state, in the long run.
Needless to say that would solve nothing. The reason should be obvious: because it would not attain a just solution snd as long as there is no justice, there won’t be a lasting peace. The only just solution that is also feasible and sustainable in the long run, is a solution which is not based on racism, segregation, apartheid, ethnic cleansing or displacing people based on their religion, race or ethnicity, and that is to dismantle the apartheid state of Israel and establish a secular and democratic state in all of Palestine-Israel, with equal rights for all, regardless of their race or religion or ethnicity, where foreigners with the “right religion” are not paid to come and settle in homes, built on stolen land and cleansed of those with the “wrong religion”.
That should be obvious and would be obvious, had it not been for intense and decades long US propaganda, keeping the American people in the dark as to what really is the problem. It’s impossible to be for a just and lasting solution, without understanding the problem, which is the occupation and ethnic cleansing. To make sure people don’t understand it, they’re told these people can’t get along, or it’s complicated, that there is no easy solution or that this has been going on for ages, which is not true. It started in 1947-1948, with the European Jews going to Palestine to create a “Jewish state”, after they would drive out the Palestinians.
So, how do the Israeli policy makers see the future of Israel? Are they sanguine about its prospects? Do they see the Zionist dream coming true or falling apart? The reason it’s important to know how they view the prospects and future of the state is that it better reveals their mindset and explain and possibly even anticipate their actions. I believe what their recent increased aggressiveness and shameless barbarism reveals is a sense of urgency, which usually shows frustration and nervousness about failure. I believe that the reason for this nervousness is that they sense that the world opinion is finally shifting and turning against the Zionist project. A potent indication of this trend is the successes of the BDS movement (Boycott, Divest, Sanction). Although Israel had undertaken massacres many times before, two interrelated things made the recent one different: it was, by all accounts, a more desperate attack – which are always more ferocious – and it was the most visible, thanks mainly to social media, which illicit the most indignation and condemnation worldwide, which was more than in the past, not just because it was more ferocious, but because it was more visible, whereas the ones in the past were committed largely without people the world over finding out about them. But, as I said, ferocity shows desperation. The ferociousness and barbarism that originated from and showed frustration and desperation, in turn made the Zionist dream even harder to achieve, which then increased the level of frustration and desperation, even more. This is a two sided coin because on the one hand, it points to the failure, in the long run, of the inhuman, racist and genocidal Zionist project, and on the other, it promises more savagery, more brutal massacres, more provocations, more curtailing of Palestinians’ rights, more incarceration, more draconian laws and accelerated home demolitions, settlement building and displacement. We have already seen these put in high gear, as mentioned at the beginning of this piece.
What needs to happen as a counterweight to this heightened aggression is an heightened awareness by the public and increase in direct action, including the demand to cut all aid to Israel, as well as active participation in the BDS movement. Indeed one reason for their nervousness is that the movement is winning victories. What makes our liberating work hard is that the superpower’s corporate Empire and its strong allies in Europe, such as Britain, France, Germany, as well as Canada, are behind the ongoing genocide. The work is hard, but, for inspiration, we have the Palestinian people and their resistance against incredible odds, making the “David vs. Goliath” an understatement. We must understand that this fight isn’t just for the Palestinians, but also for ourselves. It not only is for justice, democracy, progress and lasting peace, but also for ourselves to have the money that’s spent on wars and massacres, used instead on people and meeting their needs.
Normally, I wouldn’t comment on a subject having to do with games or gaming since I’m not a gamer and never have been and know nothing about it. What made me decide to write this piece is not any newfound interest in playing video games, but a recent controversy (or “scandal”), within gaming cybersphere, that broke out into the open and into the society at large and revealed some ugly and disturbing, though not at all surprising, reality, within its culture.
I don’t want to bore the reader with the details of what happened – news networks have done that, already. Suffice it to say that the ex boyfriend of a female gaming developer, Ms. Zoe Quinn, accused her of having a relationship with a gaming journalist, who writes reviews for a gaming site called Kotaku, for the purpose of getting a good review for the game she developed, “Depression Quest”. It turned out there was no such review, but, he went on, nevertheless, to post details of his own prior relationship with her to discredit her. Somehow, this accusation caused some men within the gaming cyberspace to begin a campaign of attack, under the hashtag campaign called #GamerGate against her and all women within the gaming sphere, with some men going as far as making threats of physical violence against her, which led her to leave her house out of fear of getting hurt or killed. The participants of the #GamerGate campaign claim that their “cause” is about journalistic integrity with some distancing themselves from the threats of the more extreme members, though most of their comments are sexist attacks against women.
The Entertainment Software Association, a trade group for US developers, released a statement (reported by BBC), saying: “Threats of violence and harassment are wrong.” Oh really? Nice to know! I wonder how much time and effort the Association had to put into formulating and composing this courageous and controversial statement, which they felt compelled to undertake, at the risk of potentially damaging their bottom line. But, hey, you have to do the right thing even if it hurts you, right?! Sarcasm, aside, I think Ms. Quinn was being too kind calling their statement “milquetoast”.
My point from relaying this isn’t just to report it, which anyway has already been done. Reports of events that take place in the world are useless and pointless, if all we get from them is that such and such thing happened, as disjointed and isolated events, without understanding their historical, social and political context or meaning and without connecting them to larger trends and realities around us. We have no use for such pieces of information, if all we find out is the information itself, devoid of any context and learn nothing from it. That’s usually how we’re fed information about events taking place. Hardly ever is there an analysis beyond the 10 second sound bites and tidbits of isolated information, stripped of any social and historical meaning. And when there is any report at length and within a larger framework, it’s generally when the status quo and their media wants us to form a particular opinion about something or someone because their interests call for it, such as preparing us for war against another “brutal dictator”, who must be stopped. Nor would I claim, as news reporters often do, to be unbiased. There is no such thing or such a person as unbiased. We all are biased. It just depends where or rather on which side our biases are.
Now, to my main point, which as Anita Sarkeesian, a feminist media critic who writes for Feminist Frequency blog says, the gaming industry is rife with sexism and misogyny, full of stereotyping and objectifying of women, reducing them to sex objects to use for men’s pleasure, calling them “whore” and treating them like trash. What a surprise, heh! So, what was your position again, dear Entertainment Software Association? You’re against violence? Is that why you let developers create games that encourage violence and misogyny?
But, as important as it is to know that that’s what’s happening in that so called industry, it’s not enough. We must also search for solutions. To do that, we must go to the source and see what causes such prejudice and hate towards half the human population. You see, when a socioeconomic system is driven by what’s profitable rather than what’s right, what’s just or what’s needed, it will latch onto any established and prevalent mindset to exploit it for profit, no matter how reactionary, how unjust, how destructive or harmful it is. Take the environment, for example. It matters not, what the environmental consequences of an enterprise are. What matters is the bottom line. Same with the food industry, which literally, though slowly, is killing people, while siphoning off huge amount of money and channeling them into the coffers of drug industry and insurance companies to deal with the consequences. A profit based system won’t try to discourage bad behavior or prejudices or culture, but will, instead use it for profit and will thus encourage and perpetuate it, instead of helping to eliminate it. It doesn’t bother our friends at the Association, who say they’re against violence, that their so called entertainment software promotes violence against and harassment of women. What matters is the profit margin. That’s hardly a good yardstick to measure civility and culture or the the means for advancing understanding, equality, progress and social justice.
After I posted a video on my Facebook page showing a woman walking down the streets of New York and being harassed by men, a white dude, who had somehow ended up in my friends list (not anymore, I should add), made this comment:
“women love to be harassed like that as long as the guy is in their financially and socially targeted market.. now let’s take a not so attractive girl from lower class neighborhood to a nice and wealthy one and have some good looking guys trying to flirt with her and watch her reaction”.
Naturally and understandably, two female friends, who were also commenting on the video, felt insulted by his comment, which incidentally, got one “like” and that was by another white man. The reason why I mention the fact that they were white is that a certain chauvinistic and egotistical mentally exists among many white men, which is not present in that same way among men of other races and that mainly has to do with the overall chauvinistic and aggrandized mentality these white men have, which cuts through both race and gender, giving them a sense of “my type of people (male and white) is the best and knows the best”. The way this mentality exhibits itself in the gender arena is not quite the same, as say, with African American or Hispanic men. The racist/sexist package these white men carry around with them, besides the foul smell it spreads around wherever they go, has a unique quality to it that you can’t find among other races. Many of these men, not surprisingly, end up going into the military or join the police force or both.
Besides the type I just described, there is also a group of these male chauvinistic men, who consider themselves progressives and even leftist! The guy, who made that comment above, justified his position – supposedly trying to sound leftist and analytical – like this:
“is it [the problem] ‘Men’ or maybe deeper underlying issues that come with poverty whether culturally, socially or financially”.
What we must understand is that using the issue of class and class conflict or class oppression or the issue of poverty or capitalism to sweep sexism and male chauvinism under the rug or to put it on the back burner or to make light of it because there are “more pressing class issues”, is neither leftist, nor Marxist, nor even progressive.
This is not a moral issue. Nor is it the fact – from pragmatic point of view – that without women no fundamental change is possible, but rather, it’s the essence of being progressive or being on the side of social justice and progress and equality. It is the prerequisite for creating a better and more just society. How would it sound if someone were to advocate socialism in the 1800’s in the South, while at the same time advocating keeping blacks as slaves? That’s how absurd the proposition that women can continue to be harassed or that they “love to be harassed”, while we try to uproot the unjust system of capitalism is. Indeed, the issue of sexism is analogous to racism: one historically privileged group enjoying superior power and benefits, but most importantly, possessing a mentality of being in fact “superior”, which makes them look down on and discriminate against another group, who is not of the same type – having the same skin color, gender, etc. This is separate from class and deserves its own struggle, no less. A social movement cannot move forward and galvanize people for social justice and progress, if its proponents have such reactionary and prejudiced mentality.