You are really pathetic. Your marriage to a black man is not enough to mask your overt racism and disdain for black people and probably people of color as whole. The fact that you could even be a Tea Party organizer and attend an event that portrayed blacks as not only subordinate but as enslaved people is truly disgusting especially in light of the fact that your husband and your in-laws are black is appalling. With all that has been said “…give it some thought. And certainly pray about this and hope that one day YOU will help US understand why YOU did what YOU did. O.K., have a good day.”

Bessem Sarah Bate

Men use feminism to their advantage. It’s an excuse for laziness, a lack of ambition, and a lack of accountability and culpability. For example, if a woman expects certain things from a man particularly in a monogamous relationship, such as for the man to be the main breadwinner (although she works too), take care of the finances, take care of the vehicles, mow the lawn etc., any feminist identity that she has is negated. Personally, I think that this is bullshit. Most men want to assume the societal conceived “manly” role in a relationship and there are a host of things that accompany this role. The problem with men these days is that they want to take the parts that give them the power and control of the relationship and leave the rest or yet chalk it up to feminism and female independence. Personally, I like my men to be “men”. I like the alpha male types. However, as a black woman and more specifically a black heterosexual radical feminist woman, I understand that in order to have a healthy, workable, genuine, loving partnership with this type of man, I have to make a place for him in my life. No man of this type will accept taking a backseat or a “feminine” role in the relationship nor is that what I desire. This type of man is take charge and wants to be a dynamic and influential force in his partner’s life.  This is to say that any alpha male has to feel needed not just wanted. As a radical feminist and a black woman, I truly feel as though I don’t need a man to fulfill any of the necessities for survival or other wants for that matter. If I need food, shelter, water, I can work for it. If I need sex, I can walk right into Spencer’s or my local sex toy store and purchase a new bf (and from experience this is necessary sometimes even when you have a male partner – ugh!). I can take a class to learn how to maintain my car, purchase AAA or go to Jiffy Lube for car-related issues. Men are not a necessity in any women’s much less a radical feminist woman’s life. This is not 1950 – I can open my own account. I can’t be denied from any services based on my gender (even though I know this right is violated especially when it comes to reproductive issues). Men only become a necessity when you make them one. But this is a crucial point if you are a radical feminist who desire a partnership with this type of man. Not only do you sometimes have to tone down your radical voice (or rather mask it with terms of endearment and a softer teaching tone) but you have to be ready to surrender some of your own stark perceptions of independence and be vulnerable. Vulnerability is what makes these types of relationships work. Otherwise he can’t get to your heart because there is a feminist anger towards men that is blocking him. But if push comes to shove – you have your own money, education, and know-how to navigate life.

I am in no way advocating for women to not be independent. I am only advising feminist who identify the same way to not let their feminist politics as a whole stand in the way of true love. If he’s outright misogynist – drop him. If he isn’t willing to have discussions and be educated about the errors in his thinking – drop him. No radical feminist can genuinely find true love with an individual who can’t at the very least listen and acknowledge that maybe she has a point. I am also challenging you to find a radical feminist who is in a relationship with the very type of man I’ve described who hasn’t “toned down” to a certain extent. I am in no way advocating this type of vulnerability toward every and any man – he must earn it first! He has to earn your trust and know where you stand politically before you do him the honor of not choking him every time he says something sexist/misogynist. If you tell me you know one then I will tell you that’s a lie. I’m not advocating for you to be fake. I am not advocating for you to be a different person around you partner and another around your feminist friends. Always and forever my political allegiance is to my feminism first. However, I am advocating that you change your approach and have some sensitivity when addressing radical feminist topics or confronting issues from a radical feminist standpoint. Don’t expect to agree. Don’t expect him to get it. Don’t expect him to become a pro-feminist man. But do expect him to support your ventures in feminism. Do expect him to develop sensitivity for women and feminist issues. Do expect him to acknowledge and accept that women are at a disadvantage in society without the follow-up of “but so are men”. Do expect him to gradually become more interested in feminism and women related issues. And lastly, expect him to realize and accept that you will never have sympathy for men or advocate for them and that when you say “I hate men” there is no reason for him to take it personally.

This is all to make the point that as a heterosexual radical feminist woman who is attracted to this type of man, there is the constant critique by others of my feminist affinity. I love my boyfriend. I have other heterosexual radical feminist friends who have equally amazing partners. I have accepted the fact that just as society negatively conditions women – it also conditions men. The only reason for my lack of sympathy for men is that we live in a patriarchy and thus men made the conditions for themselves. Do I have a bit more sympathy for men with other underrepresented identities (i.e. race, class, sexual orientation)? Of course! But they still can’t argue that they are more oppressed or discriminated against than women. As a man – black, white, Muslim, gay – you still get paid more than me! The use of feminism as a way to force a certain independence or independent acts upon women is a gross misuse of the goals of the feminist movement. Should women be treated equitably? Yes. But men have to realize in a world where women only achieved the statutory right to vote almost a 100 years ago – women as a whole are not in the position to go directly head to head with men. Therefore, this false attempt to encourage women’s equity in society, is just that – duplicitous. I cannot adhere to it when it just provides a best of both worlds scenario for men. I don’t want a man to think that he can dictate my actions yet he doesn’t financially support me. If you want to assume this “manly role” research what that entails because I assure you it doesn’t entail what many men these days with these alpha male attitudes think. I will not tolerate men who attempt to make a mockery of my feminism by essentially telling me I am not following through. I think I am fully aware – if I was completely following through I would be a lesbian and not have anything to do with you all!

Marcus Garvey and others first introduced Black Nationalism in the 18^th century. Over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries, Black Nationalists agreed that Black Nationalism should be characterized by black pride and racial separatism (Gordon 32). Thus, Black Nationalism calls for black pride and seeks a unity that is racially based rather than one grounded in a specific African culture or ethnicity (Gordon 33). This basic outlook of Black Nationalism is based on the principals of Pan-Africanism an ideology that was heavily supported by W.E.B DuBois (who ironically rejected Black Nationalism). Historian Sterling Stuckey argued that this Pan-African perspective emerged as an unintended byproduct of the institution of slavery. Slaveholders deliberately mixed together slaves of diverse linguistic and tribal backgrounds in order to minimize their ability to communicate and establish a common cause. In response, African slaves were forced “to bridge ethnic differences and to form themselves into a single people to meet the challenge of a common foe….” (Glaude 35). This attempt to divide the slaves as illustrated by Stuckey, in the end united them.

Black Nationalism is divided into three main justifications – common agenda, culture, and oppression. The common agenda justification emerges from the acknowledgement of a convergence of political goals, objectives, and purposes. Using this justification as their premise for establishment, there are various nationalistic organizations that advocate for the black community around a particular ideology. There is a wide continuum of these Black Nationalist organizations ranging from the Black Nationalist conservatism of the Capital to the bourgeois Black Nationalism of the NAACP to the revolutionary Black Nationalism of the Republic of New Afrika (RNA). The next justification – the commonality of oppression – emerges due to the deeply rooted white supremacy of America.  This shared experience was a reason for the black community – irrespective of class, gender, and cultural affinity – to unite. In fact, ascribing this commonality as a pretext for Black Nationalism is ironic because it sustains the Eurocentric concept of race – the same concept that necessitates Black Nationalism. The last justification, commonality of culture, is a very important aspect of Black Nationalism especially in a 21^st century context. Unlike the commonality of oppression, culture incorporates gender, class, and other identities within its construction. In addition, while commonality of culture does not rely on Eurocentric concepts of race, it does realize that people of a common African culture in America mostly identity as black. This nationalism “suggests that whereas African Americans constitute a distinguishable culture group – a people then that people should have a developed as groups, and presently, African Americans have been subjugated as a group into a caste in the United States” (Bush 51). Considering these three justifications for Black Nationalism – common culture, agenda, and oppression – it should be obvious that Black Nationalism has political, cultural, and economic components.

            The Black Nationalist ideology disseminated during the beginning of the Black Arts Movement. At this time, many African American writers began interpreting and relaying their own experiences and the experience of blacks in general, in the context of Black Nationalism. In this way, the Black Nationalist movement was also a route to liberation for those involved in the Black Arts Movements. For that exact reason, African American writers such as Alice Walker, Gayl Jones, Toni Cade Bambara, Toni Morrison, Ntozake Shange, and Louise Meriweather emphasized through their publications and activism that a sustainable black community could not be established without discussing the relationship between black men and black women and addressing the specific realities of black women’s lives. Because of this, these authors were accused of “portraying gender division in a time when Black Nationalism required literary affirmation of a cohesive racial community”(Hill 76). In addition, these women not only brought issues regarding the victimization of women to the forefront but they challenged the movement’s hesitation to formulate viable alternatives for African American women. In this way, their literature served and continues to serve as a critique of violence against women during the nationalist movement and “the challenges violence poses to women’s attempts to achieve and maintain wholeness in a society where liberation itself is often gendered”(Hill 76).

            Until recently, the very essentialist feminist and womanist critiques of Black Nationalism and its ideologies have not been extensively examined. This is largely due to the conception that nationalism is one dimensional – a movement exclusively concerned with race. This conception disregards the complexities of Black Nationalism, its struggles with gender normativity and expectations that were pointed out by African American women writers. There are a number of literary works that emphasized and introduced the complex interplay between gender, class, and sexual exploitation and oppression as a necessary part of comprehending how women’s bodies are implicated in power structure as well as how their attempts at resistance are marginalized in and through violence. Works such as The Black Woman and Daddy Was a Number Runner depicted these constraints and realities.  

            Published in 1970, Toni Cade Bambara’s anthology The Black Woman skillfully articulated the treatment of women in the Black Nationalist movement. The anthology, which included the works of more than 20 African American women, challenged the role that women were ascribed during the movement. Through these writings it became evident that writing is an essential mechanism in establishing one’s own epistemology of what it mean to be a black woman in America (Bambara 3). The collection was in part a means to incite and contribute a dialect on how liberation for the African American community will affect African American women especially since the movement was to be characterized by a “turning towards each other” (Bambara 6). But with publications such as the Moynihan Report it is difficult to solidify such unity and solidarity. Abbey Lincoln’s essay in The Black Women titled “Who Will Revere the Black Woman” challenges the allegation of the Moynihan Report in which she urges black men to realize the importance of their shared history and the injustices that continue to confront black women. Lincoln’s appeal to black men expresses that the fight for black liberation also means striving for the full emancipation of black women and creating a climate in which their bodies are safe from victimization.

            Daddy was a Number Runner by Louise Meriweather exemplifies the necessity to emancipate black women during the Black Nationalist movement. The novel demonstrates that violence was and continues to be both a threat and a prevalent force introduced to girls at a young age. In addition, such violence informs aspects of female adolescence. More specifically, the novel focuses on the particular challenged violence poses to young girls dealing with their identities, communities and developing bodies when they are placed in violent environments. In these environments, these young girls are exposed to various forms of sexual exploitation and abuse in a cultural context of violence against girls during a pivotal period of Black Nationalism. In the novel, Francie, the 12-year-old protagonist is in the process of growing up and locating a stable sense of self. For Francie, this journey is complimented with increasing awareness that her female body makes her a viable target for victimization. She is incessantly confronted by pimps and prostitutes as she navigates her neighborhood as well as men who want to “cop a feel” in exchange for money or food (Meriweather 24). As a result of these encounters, Francie begins to realize that her freedom is extricable bound to the aforementioned attempts at victimization and therefore her body has no complete safe haven. With this realization the most important concern for one’s self is survival. Initially, Francie behaves in accordance with the behavior of the other female characters in the novel, and of course, the men that prey on her incessantly encourage this behavior. In fact, at times she naively reflects that her body is used in a way to accumulate goods because she believes for example, that Max (the baker) “shoulda given her a bun for the free feel he got last night” despite the deeper significance of this interaction (the historical legacy of the pervasive exploitation of black women’s bodies by white men) (Meriweather 27). Francie’s navigation of the streets of her neighborhood serves as a powerful commentary on the lack of protection for young girls like Francie when violence against women and girls occurs un-addressed. In addition, Meriweather depicts how paralyzing sexuality can be for girls like Francie whose bodies are frequently synchronized by commodification and abuse. In a similar fashion as Meriweather, African American woman writers shifted the usual discourse of the black community. Through their work, they emphasized that silencing an issue because it is difficult or painful to confront renders the issue inaccessible. While this pressure to silence is not unique to the black experience that materialized during the period of Black Nationalism, it came at a pivotal time because the ideals of liberation and revolution were being articulated.

            The experience of black women during the Black Nationalist movement is almost identical to the treatment of women in hip-hop culture. Hip-hop culture has proven itself to be the newest form of Black Nationalism and thus has had and continues to have a profound impact on the African American community. In its creation, hip-hop became a conduit for African American culture even more than its predecessor jazz. Hip Hop music began in the early 1970s. Although the first hip-hop group was the Black Nationalist Last Poets, the face of hip hop in the early days was the DJ. If the DJ was the face of rap then the body of rap was the urban South Bronx. After the Black Power movement, gangs were arguably the lone institution in the Black community providing the cogent message of “join and survive” to black youth. The largest New York Black gang was the Black Spades and its leader transformed the gang into the Zulu Nation and he transformed himself into the hip-hop legend Afrika Bambataa. Under Bambaataa’s influence hip-hop turned to Black Nationalism, positive creativity, vision, and healing. Unfortunately, some of his message did not take hold until the early 80s urban “The Message” was recorded and became the first nationally recognized progressive rap statement on the condition of Black America.

            Hip Hop was initially created as a vehicle for political culture in regards to the black community. Hip Hop had the potential to fill a transitional void of cross-generational cultural transmission within black culture providing new lyrics to an old tune (Hill 55). For example, Public Enemy “Black Steel in the Hour of Chaos” was not only an anthem for incarcerated youth but also a regurgitation of Hyperbolicsyllabicsesquedael-amistic a 1970 Isaac Hayes tune. In this way, the song tied together generations in an aesthetic sense. This is extremely significant because the nexus was established between a relatively apolitical generation of the 70s and 80s with the staunch Black Nationalist African American subculture of the 60s.

            The Zulu Nation was the primary catalyst for the transition of traditional Black Nationalism to hip hop culture. Nationalism in hip-hop does not emanate exclusively from the lyrics of early rap music. In the early days of hip hop in the 1970s, Black Nationalism developed from the ethos of the black community that spawned this new genre – hip-hop. The transformation of crews and gangs in a manner reflected a collective ethos that hip-hop promoted which suggested a linkage around commonality instead of difference. The most obvious commonality was that it was exclusively black. Therefore, the basic concepts of black cultural nationalism were reaffirmed in a framework of a young, gifted, and black core of hip-hop talent (Hill 58). This defined the Zulu Nation.

            Run DMC was one of the primary groups that sustained hip-hop’s nationalist trend while appealing to the general American population. The nationalist themes that were central to the music of Bambataa did not dominate hip-hop in the 70s. It was not until the mid 80s that Run DMC recorded an overtly black nationalist statement in the release of their rap song “I’m Proud to Be Black”. Before the induction of Run DMC to hip hop music there was no national white audience or hard rock samplings in hip hop. Under the management of Russell Simmons, Run DMC milked the B-Boy image of hip-hop into million dollar record sales. “It’s Like That” became an anthem of black youth and epitomizes their nihilistic reflections on the hardships of urban life.

            Unfortunately, hip-hop culture inherited the patriarchal and very misogynist approach to black woman hood of the Black Nationalist movement of the 60s. A part of the learned mainstream American culture is sexism and misogyny that emanates from patriarchy. These attitudes were adopted by the Black Nationalist Movement (particularly men) maybe unconsciously as a way to merge with mainstream society. More than any music of the past, hip-hop also expresses mainstream American ideas that have now been internalized and embedded into the psyches of American people of color over time. In addition, as a society that has entered the popular era of music videos and other visual representations these negative images are more easily disseminated, encouraged, and enforced. Majority of the music and videos specifically transmit, promote, and perpetuate negative images of black women. Although female DJs and MCs have been present from the early days of hip-hop, its main actors were male. By the time of the Sugarhill gang, MCs like Angie B began to emerge on the hip hop scene. Still the primary roles of women in hip-hop were ancillary and they were constrained as MCs to novelty raps (Real Roxanne) or to response raps (Shante). Therefore, women were limited to not only these auxiliary roles if they desired to be artists but also to objectification.

All women, but particularly black women are seen in popular hip-hop culture as sex objects. Almost every hip-hop video that is shown on mainstream TV programs depict dancing women (usually surrounding one or two men) wearing not much more than bikinis, with the cameras focusing on their body parts. These images are shown to reflect the explicit lyrics that commonly contain obscenities to suggest that women are not worth anything more than money, if that. Women are described by rappers who describe themselves as pimps as being strictly worthy of sexual relations. In many popular rap songs, men glorify the life of pimps, refer to women as a pimp would a prostitute, and promote violence against women for ‘disobeying’.

Of course, not all rap songs are misogynistic and all black men do not speak and think this way, but large percentages within hip-hop culture do. These obscenities disrespect, dehumanize, and dishonor women, particularly black women. If a man refers to a woman with these names, he may feel justified in committing physical or psychological violence against her. The obscenities may also be representative of the way these men think and the anger, disdain, and ill feeling they harbor toward women. Joan Morgan, who refers to herself as a hip-hop feminist, reveals, “Yeah, sistas are hurt…But the real crime isn’t the name-calling, it’s their failure to love us—to be our brothers in the way that we commit ourselves to being their sistas” (Morgan 39). This commentary is very similar to the commentary made by black women such as Louise Meriweather in their literature intended to transform Black Nationalism and black culture as a whole.

Misogynistic hip-hop does not only expose black men’s pain, but it also shows the issues that black women need to deal with. Much of the sexual exploitation in hip-hop culture is done with the consent and collaboration of women. A significant amount of misogynistic hip-hop consumers are women, and hundreds of bikini-donned women show up for the music video shoots as unpaid participants (Hutchinson 127). Dance clubs and backstages of concerts are flooded with women who express willingness to do anything sexually with a man to get drinks, money, jewelry, or just to feel privileged and wanted. Women, especially black women, have less access to power, material wealth, and protection and therefore have historically used sex (in prostitution and various other domains) as a bartering tool to gain access. For example, during slavery the black woman was often forced to have sexual relations with any male (slavemasters, overseers, and slaves) that desired her. Black women were sometimes used as breeding instruments to produce more human property, and at other times forced to have sex to pay for food, the safety of her children, or to be treated less harshly on a day to day basis. They were “paying” with their bodies as a survival strategy.

The bartering of body for survival supplemented the stereotype of black women as promiscuous and oversexed, which shaped the perceptions of black women’s sexual morality. Unfortunately, some black women were deeply affected by this entrenched gendered racism and started to look at themselves as society viewed them, accepting that they had no control over their own bodies. In trying to fit into white society after slavery, some black women took on ascribed white gender roles. Some black men wanted black women to have a subordinate role in the home and in accordance some women wanted men to be the sole economic providers. Historically and even contemporarily, black men and black women have largely been unable to meet each other’s expectations, but these same obsessions are demonstrated in hip-hop culture as they were in Black Nationalism. Some women want men to be the economic providers, and in turn use their sexual “power” to receive economic gain from men. Conversely, some men want women to be passive and have learned to manipulate women by offering money and a false sense of power to them. In a study done about black male/female relationships of the hip-hop generation, many black men in the hip-hop culture that were interviewed valued economic resources and used these resources as a way to manipulate and control women (Hutchinson 128). In addition, some women negotiated with their bodies for things that they wanted. In order to gain access to these things and to get the love and attention from men that they sought, some women felt they must cater to the exploitative images that dictate what men want and think women should be.

Fortunately, similar to the women in the Black Nationalist movement, many black women of the hip hop culture defined their own worth on what they can do for and get from a man. Some women were willing to take risks with their bodies, minds and hearts hoping to raise their socio-economic status and gain security for their children’s future, and they have learned to use their sexuality to do this. Vibe Magazine talked to four women in the September 2001 issue who all regularly had one-night stands or on-going sexual relationships with rappers (Morgan 62). One of the women Vibe talked to is Nikki, a 30-year-old woman who had a number of sexual relationships with men in the hop0hop industry. Vibe said, “…her lovers read like a Who’s Who of rap” (Morgan 62). Her reason for partaking in multiple insignificant relationships with rappers was, “I’ve got nothing to offer…No education, no good job, no nothing. So why would a man want me, other than sex? I felt I had to give, so I used myself” (Morgan 63). Many women like Nikki hold themselves solely culpable for being used by men. They assumed and accepted that men would oppress and disrespect them. As another one of the women described, “If you had the right kind of man that wasn’t controlling, and you were like a team, it’d be cool…But there’s no man out there like that” (Morgan 64). The four women described a new low in relationships between men and women within the hip-hop community (Morgan 66). Men thought that women were only worth giving them sexual favors, and women thought men are only worth giving them money.

Education is the first step in changing gender relations in the hip-hop community. As with Black Nationalism, women need to communicate these injustices through various activist means such as literature, art, policy etc. The community first needs to be made aware that women’s rights are being violated. These right are violated verbally in the misogynist lyrics, in physical interactions at hip-hop events, and in the general way that hip-hop youth interact with one another everyday. Knowing the history of this internalized and legitimized sexist and misogynist ideology, the black community can keep history from repeated itself but without knowledge of this history it will be very difficult to act and speak out against the exploitation of women. A change in the hip-hop culture’s collective consciousness can spread to the larger population. Most importantly, it needs to be reinforced in the pillars of the black community that many of these attitudes were simply transferred from the white conceptions of womanhood to Black Nationalism to hip hop. Being aware of this historical internalization is important to breaking the cycle of misogyny, dehumanization, and sexism that is evident in the political and social (which at times are not mutually exclusive) sectors of black society.

In conclusion, the misogynist Black Nationalist attitudes which excluded then negatively included, neglected, and dehumanized black woman is reflected in the attitudes of men in hip hop culture. Hip-hop culture is frequently condemned for its misogynistic exploitation of women, but this misogyny has its roots in the culture in which we currently live and in Black Nationalism. The rifts that these attitudes have caused in both movements are evident and largely at the expense of black women. Hopefully with this insight our current hip-hop culture can change and be just as productive and helpful to black women as it largely is for black men.

Background:

On November 8, 2006, respondent Marilyn Acosta, an inmate of the California Department of Corrections was granted permission for an abortion procedure. On the day she was granted permission she was deemed to be 3 and a half weeks pregnant. The procedure was to take place on November 17^th 2006 however, on November 10, 2006 she was suddenly transferred to a state penitentiary in Texas as part of an extradition agreement between the two states. In her transition, she was informed by the Texas Department of Corrections that her abortion procedure would not be approved due to funding challenges. She put in a complaint to the Texas Board of Criminal Justice which was promptly denied. She then filed a lawsuit in District Court citing the violation of her 13^th and 14^th Amendment rights. This was also denied. She then appealed to the Texas Supreme Court by which time the baby was already born. When the case was finally brought before a Texas state appellate court, it was again denied stating that the case was now moot. Finally, she appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court claiming Article III standing.

Texas Department of Corrections, Texas Board of Criminal Justice, et al.

v.

Marilyn Acosta

Supreme Court of the United States

March 23, 2009

Opinion of the Court:

              Respondent Marilyn Acosta, an inmate of the California Department of Correction was granted permission for an abortion procedure on November 8, 2006. The procedure was scheduled for November 17^th 2006, however, 7 days before this date she was transferred to a Texas State Penitentiary. In this transition, it came to her attention that the abortion procedure would no longer be approved per demand of the Texas Department of Correction. The Texas State Supreme Court sustained this action.

            We find that this case illuminates a host of issues. One of the many issues it illuminates is rights of the incarcerated versus rights of the general population and if these differ. Furthermore, if there is a difference, is it constitutional. Subsequently, we must take up the issue of civil liberties of the incarcerated and if these exist. Similarly, depending on the answers to the aforementioned issues, we must decide if an application of Roe v Wade is appropriate. Another issue we must explore is federalism, if this court truly has the power to take up such a case, and make a decision that would be binding on every state in this Union. From this issue, we must go through the proper procedures for hearing a case including jurisdiction, justiciabilty, and standing. Another issue we must take up is the respondent’s claim that her 13^th and 14^th Amendment rights were violated. In exploring all these issues, we find that it is unconstitutional to outright deprive any inmate of an abortion or create or perpetuate a procedural structure which delays access to an abortion.

When the respondent was first informed of her scheduled abortion she was already three and a half weeks pregnant. Upon her transfer to Texas and learning that she would no longer be granted the abortion procedure, the respondent filed a complaint with the Texas Board of Criminal Justice which oversees the Texas Department of Corrections. The complaint was promptly denied. She then decided to file a lawsuit in District Court against not only the Texas Department of Corrections but the Texas Board of Criminal Justice citing the violation of her 13^th and 14^th Amendment rights and claiming Article III standing. The decision of the Board of Criminal Justice and Department of Corrections was upheld by the District Court. She then decided to appeal to the Texas Supreme Court by which time the baby was already born. When the case was finally brought before the Texas Supreme Court, it was again dismissed stating that the case was now moot. This is how we’ve come to the point where we are now.

There are three essential questions we must ask ourselves in deciding to take a case. Is the case in our jurisdiction? Is the case justiciable? Does the respondent have standing to bring this case to U.S. Supreme Court? We find that all the above are true. This case is indeed in our jurisdiction. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution stipulates that a “case or controversy” may be brought to Supreme Court by original or appellate jurisdiction. This case is brought to the Supreme Court under the Article III, Section 2 stipulation that “the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction”. Furthermore, the case may have also been brought to the Supreme Court under original jurisdiction because the case involves a federal question regarding the 13^th, 14^th, and 8^th Amendment. In regards to justiciability, we find this requirement to be fulfilled because the five tenets for justiciability (adverseness, standing, ripeness, mootness, and political question) are all properly situated. Of these, the tenets that are in question are mootness and standing. In Roe v Wade, we ruled that in cases such as those regarding abortion, the case does not become moot simply because the pregnancy was forcibly (due to time needed for legal proceedings) carried to term. Respondent claims Article III standing and this standing is conferred by Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 which states that “…the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction…” Furthermore, the respondent shows injury to her legal right to an abortion and has exhausted all other means of resolution. Thereby, we find that the respondent has fulfilled the requirements of justiciability and standing.

In trying to rule in this case we looked at the precedent that has been set around this very issue. Looking to the Court itself, we find that there were not a variety of cases applicable to the issues most at contention here. In 1976, Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the court in Estelle v Gamble. It was there that the Court stated

“we therefore conclude that deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain”…this is true whether the indifference is manifested by prison doctors in their response to the prisoner’s needs or by prison guards in intentionally denying or delay access to medical care or intentionally interfering with the treatment once prescribed”.      

This therefore, created a precedent that restricting prisoners from access to medical care is indeed cruel and unusual punishment. The Court further upheld the rights of incarcerated individuals in Turner v Safley. Justice O’Connor writing for the court stipulated that “prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the Constitution”.

            These two cases help us begin to answer a few of the questions that are in contention in this case. Are the rights of the incarcerated different from the rights of the general population? Yes they are. Is this difference constitutional? Justice O’Connor in part answers this question for us. This difference is NOT constitutional if it disallows inmates the protections of the Constitution. If the inmate is allowed the protections of the Constitution, then it is implied, that the act is constitutional.  Furthermore, with this logic we can answer our next question of civil liberties and deduce that any civil liberties that are afforded by the Constitution are still applicable to any incarcerated individual.

Although there are some civil liberties that are protected and afforded by Constitutional amendment that have been restricted to former inmates such as felons, these restriction have been upheld by this Court. For example, in Richardson v Ramirez we upheld the constitutionality of felon disenfranchisement. We looked to Section 2 of the 14^th Amendment which states that representation will be reduced if “…the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President…is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state…and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for the participation in rebellion, or other crimes…” to find that this practice of disenfranchisement does not deny equal protections to disenfranchised voters. We found that this passage allows this Court to affirm these practices and the 14^th Amendment does not prohibit in one section that which is expressly authorized in another section. In addition, we later ruled in Hunter v Underwood that this practice would be a violation of equal protection if it can be demonstrated that the felon disenfranchisement provision, as enacted, had “both [an] impermissible racial motivation and racially discriminatory impact.” It is clear through these two cases that this court is not hasty to restrict rights of the incarcerated.

Thus far, we have answered two essential preliminary questions with the following results: (1) There are differences in treatment/rights of the incarcerated and non-incarcerated population and (2) These differences are constitutional so long as they do not violate any constitutional or federal statutory provisions. With these two findings, it is clear that Roe v Wade is therefore applicable to this case. In fact, not only is it applicable but the precedent set by Roe v Wade should be applied here. In Roe v Wade, this court upheld the fundamental right to abortion as an application of not only the “right to privacy” which the Bill of Rights imply but furthermore as described in the 14th Amendment’s due process clause. As stated by Justice Blackmun in Roe v Wade, the 14^th Amendment’s use of the word “person” in the life and liberty clause “does not include the unborn”. Roe was largely based on the precedent of Griswold v Connecticut. Although the case did not address abortion rights it did address the rights of married couples to seek birth control. It was in this case that this Court affirmed “a right to privacy”. In Roe, Justice Harry Blackmun writing for the majority stated that the privacy right affirmed in Griswold “is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” Due to the precedent of Roe v. Wade this Court finds that Acosta’s claim that her 14^th Amendment rights were violated is valid.

In response to the claim that Acosta’s 13^th Amendment rights were violated, we do not find that this is the case. While we do not affirm the decision of the Texas Department of Corrections, it is probable that if she did have the baby that she could give it up for adoption (or foster care, group home, or to a relative) thereby relieving her of any possible continued involuntary servitude. Therefore, we believe that her 13^th Amendment claim is invalid.

In regards to the Department’s claim that the lack of funding is sufficient grounds for denying an abortion, we look to Article 4, Section 1 of the Constitution – privileges and immunities. Of course this protection is also restated in the 14^th Amendment with exceptions however, in the Slaughterhouse cases of 1873, Justice Miller established that the right to become a citizen of a state by residing in the state “is conferred by the very article under consideration.” The “very article under consideration” here is the Article 4. There is no constitutional exception to this law. There is nothing here to imply that someone who has been accused of a crime could be restricted from this protection. Therefore, Acosta should be granted the same privileges and immunities of the citizens of the state of Texas – which includes a right to abortion as federally protected. As other citizens in the state, Acosta therefore has access to funds made possible through grants disbursed to organizations such as Planned Parenthood. These options were not explored or even considered by the Department before the denial of the abortion request. 

Lastly it important to remind ourselves of the intent of the Framers. In this Court, we have steadily, and thus far successfully, ruled true to the Framers intent. In 1787, during the Constitutional Convention one of the main criticisms of the Articles of Confederation was that they were ineffective because they did not inculcate a strong sense of unity amongst the states. This was one of the reasons for creating a federal constitution -  so that certain governmental actions, in considering the people’s want for limited government, could be federally mandated to disseminate unification among the states. Here, we see that this sense of unity and uniformity should be a strong consideration for the states regarding certain rights of the incarcerated. In a case similar to this one where an inmate is extradited to a state with radically different regulations concerning a certain issue, states may run into the long process of appeals in state courts and eventually federal courts. This could be easily avoided if the rights of the incarcerated were uniform among all the 50 states.

In conclusion, not only is this case justiciable but we find that the Texas District and Supreme Court ruled incorrectly as the Texas Department of Corrections and Texas Board of Criminal Justice clearly violated Marilyn Acosta’s 14^th Amendment rights. However, it is clear to this court that we do not need to decide this case for the state of Texas. With this discrepancy clarified, we remand the case back to the Texas Supreme Court with instructions to not only invalidate their affirmation of the Department but furthermore, to strike down any regulations which allow the Department to deny abortions for incarcerated pregnant women. 

Dissenting opinion:

            While I agree with my esteemed colleagues in the majority, I must dissent in regards to the issue of 13^th Amendment violations. I believe that the respondent’s claim that her 13^th Amendment rights were violated is wholly valid. I believe this for two reasons: (1) prison environment and (2) the likelihood of adoption. It is obvious that a prison environment may not be the most conducive to pregnancy. There is a certain nutritional regiment that many times needs to be followed, classes that would prepare the soon to be mother for childbirth and the possible dangers to the fetus due to the constant threat of violence. There is also the issue of adoption. The likelihood that the child would be adopted and/or that the prison would actually allow her to give the child up for adoption. Both tenets reduce the incarcerated mother who is seeking abortion to “involuntary servitude” as outline in Amendment 13. I believe that the majority has discounted this claim too hastily and needs to re-evaluate Acosta’s claim that her 13^th Amendment rights were violated.

What kind of issues do you think feminists should be focusing on now?

Where do you see the most effective and successfully feminist activism being done?

The SVS measured the following stalking behaviors:
• making unwanted phone calls
• sending unsolicited or unwanted letters or e-mails
• following or spying on the victim
• showing up at places without a legitimate reason
• waiting at places for the victim
• leaving unwanted items, presents, or flowers
• posting information or spreading rumors about the victim
on the internet, in a public place, or by word of mouth.

According to the Stalking Resource Center:

• 1,006,970 women and 370,990 men are stalked annually in the United States.
• 1 in 12 women and 1 in 45 men will be stalked in their lifetime.
• 77% of female and 64% of male victims know their stalker.
• 87% of stalkers are men.
• 59% of female victims and 30% of male victims are stalked by an intimate partner.
• 81% of women stalked by a current or former intimate partner are also physically assaulted by that partner.
• 31% of women stalked by a current or former intimate partner are also sexually assaulted by that partner.
• The average duration of stalking is 1.8 years.
• If stalking involves intimate partners, the average duration of stalking increases to 2.2 years.
• 61% of stalkers made unwanted phone calls; 33% sent or left unwanted letters or items; 29% vandalized property; and 9% killed or threatened to kill a family pet.
• 28% of female victims and 10% of male victims obtained a protective order. 69% of female victims and 81% of male victims had the protection order violated.

In a study done between 1994 and 1998 in ten U.S. cities (Baltimore, Houston, Texas, Kansas City (KS), Kansas City (MO), Los Angeles, New York, Portland, Oregon, Seattle, Washington, St. Petersburg/Tampa, and Wichita:

• 76% of femicide victims had been stalked by the person who killed them.
• 67% had been physically abused by their intimate partner.
• 89% of femicide victims who had been physically abused had also been stalked in the 12 months before the murder.
• 79% of abused femicide victims reported stalking during the same period that they reported abuse.
• 85% of attempted femicide cases involved at least one episode of stalking within 12 months prior to the attempted femicide.
• 54% of femicide victims reported stalking to police before they were killed by their stalkers.

Stalking on College Campuses:

• 13% of the college women had been stalked since the school year began. If the definition of stalking required that the person were actually threatened with harm–as set forth in many state criminal stalking statutes–the extent of stalking dropped to only 1.96%.
• 80.3% of victims knew or had seen their stalker before
• Stalking incidents lasted on average for 2 months (60 days).
• 3 in 10 women reported being injured emotionally or psychologically from being stalked.
• In 15.3% of incidents, the victim reported that the stalker either threatened or attempted to harm them.
• In 10.3% of incidents, the victim reported that the stalker forced or attempted sexual contact.
• Overall, 83.1% of stalking incidents were NOT reported to police or campus law enforcement.
• 93.4% of victims confided in someone, most often a friend, that they were being stalked.

Actions taken by victim

• 43.2% avoided or tried to avoid stalker
• 21.8% actions taken but not specified
• 16.3% confronted stalker
• 8.8% did not acknowledge messages/e-mail
• 5.6% became less trustful/more cynical
• 4.9% got caller ID
• 4.1% improved security system of residence
• 3.9% traveled with a companion
• 3.9% sought restraining order
• 3.3% filed a grievance with university
• 2.9% sought psychological counseling

The survey found that American Indian/Alaska Native women more likely to be stalked than female victims of other racial or ethnic backgrounds. The survey also showed Asian/Pacific Islander women were significantly less likely to be stalked.

Unwanted phone calls and voicemails are simply “silly”? I think not.

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/display.php?id=37514

While there were a great deal of responses admonishing the former mayor of DC there were too many responses such as this:

Ok. I admit. I love Marion Barry! He makes life and politics interesting and I must say, he is what he is! He is a womanizing, old school politician who knows how to get things done in DC. He is a great public servant and an imperfect human being in his personal life. I listened to the recordings and read the text messages. Silly, yes. Stalking – no way!

I am disappointed that a person would take a job, attempt to share a room and take other perks from her relationship with the councilman, former mayor – but scream stalking when he wants more than friendship.

I am confused for multiple reasons…why can’t his continous persuit of the woman be considered stalking again? And why has everyone forgotten that the woman has cancer and apparently no job which most likely mean no healthcare and with Barry throwing huge sums of money at her ($20,000 at one point) why wouldn’t she put up with his stalkerish ways and relent to meeting with him? She trying to save her life people!! Some of these comments amazed me! How can a man who kicked a woman out of a hotel room (because she wouldn’t suck his dick) subjecting her to spend the night in his car be considered a “great public servant” what public service is he doing? How can someone who leaves harrassing messages which turn into stalking be considered a “great public servant”? Marion Barry has a INFALLIBLE RECORD of womanizing amongst other things…why is it so hard to believe that he is a stalker?! Not only has this turned into victim blaming but it also turned into a gay bash:

This is a waste of time. Listened to the tapes and I do not hear anything that would get him fired. I would vote for him again and again becuase he works for the people. I wonder if David Catania is mad at him becuase he was the only one that voted against gay marraige and this is something as a result. I know i heard him call him a bigot becuase he represented the people in his district rather than special interest. These recordings is a strong attempt to get somebody to visit the site and try to sell papers. This aint sh*t…I can not wait to vote for him again! Seems like you can not help anyone anymore. This is a witch hunt and i bet its becuase he was the only one that voted against gay marraige!

Hmm. Now how did this gay marriage issue come up? I thought we were discussing a public servant who was stalking his lover. This is the problem these days. Anti-Gay Proponents will insert their anti-gay rhetoric wherever – despite its relevance in the conversation. I truly appreciate the seemingly intelligent person who answered this post as such:

Forget about stalking for a second! Supporting a man who kicks his girlfriend out off the hotel room and makes her sleep in a car because he couldn’t get a bj? How ethical is that?

Barry has been a gay rights allies for a longtime. David Catania is actually not even liked by gay groups. Especially after David C. cut most of the funds of Elizabeth Taylor clinic. Blaming these tapes on gay marriage show how intelligent Barry’s supporters are!

I couldn’t have said it better.

In Feminist Solidarity,

Bessem Sarah Bate

oob intern

Is this phenomena the new lynching of black men? I must admit, I am not like bell hooks or other feminist who are very keen on focusing on the effects of masculinity/men and especially not keen on being sympathetic and empathetic to the plight of the black man but this is something that is particularly startling and horrifying. It is an obvious fact that in the pre-Civil Rights era, white women were complicit in the system. They did not have access to many human/civil rights (even though they had more than women of color). I argue, although obviously not justify, that because of this lack of power (but yearning for it) that white women saw complicity in racism as an avenue to achieve (white) gender equality. This is proven by the conversations between white feminists/suffragists in the late 1800s/early 1900s and Frederick Douglas (both of which excluded black women). Many of these white women were avid abolitionists and when the slaves were finally emancipated, they looked to blacks (particularly black men) to aid them in their campaign for woman’s rights (at that times mainly the vote). However, many black men, including Frederick Douglas turned their backs on them citing that they were concerned with obtaining voting right for the “negro” (black men). It was at this time that the obvious, perhaps innate racism of reputable feminists such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton were illuminated. Was it correct for Douglass (who was a huge supporter of woman’s suffrage) to support the 15th Amendment although it did not include women citing that it was the “Negro’s Hour”? Was it correct for Elizabeth Cady Stanton to refer to Douglass with disparaging racial remarks because she was angry that he was supporting this Amendment despite its exclusive nature? No. And no. But who was concerned with black women? No one…what’s new? Okay so I am diverting from the topic (I will continue this in a future blog).

The point is that considering the lack of power (white) women had at the time and were actively campaigning for, I can understand (and I say that for lack of a better word, I apologize) why white women may have been complicit in a system of such overt racism to the end of murder. However, what is their excuse now? I am not at all advocating that woman are equal or anything along those lines…but we do have some rights (voting, banks accounts, education). SO what is the excuse for these women to use black men as their scape goats? What have black men (other than ARGUABLY O.J) done to white women that they are so adament about adding to the incarceration rates under false pretenses? I can’t answer fully, I am not a black man, and although overall the rates of black men coupling with white women is not as high as other groups, I see it often enough to feel as though things are all dandy with those two. I would like to see how many men actually do go to prison to this day for such accusations. How many of thse women have had prior relationships with black men (it is just the old, this black man did me wrong so I will take it out on all black men?). Is this the new form of lynching? Further tarnishing the black male name? Further perpetuating myths of the black man as a criminal? As an assailant? As a menace to society? WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT?!

As I am walking down the street a man in a brand new (obviously) Dodge Magnum pulls up beside me. Mind you, I was on the phone – well pretending to be, something I do when I want people to not bother me although many times it doesnt work – and this man, who looked to be about 27 calls out to me. He was pretty attractive – however – he was not the one driving…he was in the passenger seat. Unacceptable. It reminds me of that TLC song ‘No Scrubs’…you know “hanging out the passenger side/in his best friend’s ride/try to holla at me”. No good. So I continue to walk…they continue to inch with me. Now I am looking around for weapons or someone who may be able to help me because I realized I forgot the mase my best friend gave me some months before. The crazy thing is that most people say I look mean when I am walking in public (which results in men continuously telling me to “Smile”) or that I walk extremely fast as though I am on some kind of mission (which I usually am) but somehow that does not deter them.

SO this man gets the bright idea to hop out of the car and come to my side. FUCK! So i get off the phone. He asks me the usual – name, where I’m from, can he get my number blah blah blah…for some reason these men never ask my age (ah another topic to blog about!). Usually, I ask all the questions they ask me back without actually answering it, and I ALWAYS ALWAYS as for real government names. I will not accept J-Money, Killa, Metaphor etc. as your real name. I cannot bring any legal cases against a J-Money, Killa, Metaphor…child support services cannot track down a J-Money, Killa, or Metaphor (well not that they’re any good at tracking people down who they have full information for either…yet another post topic!). SO after about 5 minutes of letting this fool be near me, I tell him “honestly, please leave me alone. I am not interested”. He does not respect my request and keeps babbling on about how he and his friend just came from doing a show at some (dinky I am sure) venue. Not to mention he said some very lewd things to me which I do not even care to repeat. So I say to him…”hunny, this is sexual harassment. I will not repeat myself again…fuck off”. He looks me straight in my eye and repeats “Sexual Harassment? What are you talking about? This is not the workplace.”

Since when does sexual harassment only occur in the workplace? Am I wrong to classify incidents such as these as sexual harassment? In the five minutes or so I was talking to this (poor excuse for a) man (Finesse), I found out he obtained his bachelors degree at Virginia Wesleyan college and works at Modell’s as a manager. He also does A&R stuff for his rapper friend (Wizard). A college educated black man who works in a professional (enough) setting believes that sexual harassment is solely a workplace invention? And even if it was…that gives you permission to all of a sudden abandon everything you are taught at work about respecting women (and men)?

While the federal government does define sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964 and applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments as well as employment agencies, labor organizations, and the federal government, many would not define it so narrowly. At universities and other academic institutions, there are consent clauses which are essentially sexual harassment guidelines which are to be applied to student/teacher or other unequal power pairings. Sexual harassment in my own definition would essentially be in accordance with Title VII sans the narrow scope of the workplace. Sexual Harassment (even by Wikipedia lol) is defined as any unwelcome sexual attention or harassment based on the victim’s gender.

I will end by mentioning the fear men have when you mention words like rape, sexual harrasement, assault, etc. I do not know where this fear comes from yet because I am not convinced that men are fearing the consequences that accompany such acts (because many times there are none). I am also not suggesting that this causes them to have second thoughts and not continue to do such things. I mean I was fully clothed with a guy I was dating (in his bedroom) and he offered me a shot. I said no but he took one. 10 minutes later he wanted me to get in the bed with him which I declined. I am going to mention that he was also about 2 inches shorter than me (but was built because he was a personal trainer) and had a bit…a lot…of a Napoleon complex. Finally, he proceeded to throw me on the bed and get on top of me (still I am fully clothed). I was very scared at this point but I didn’t want to let on that I was, so I say…”What? So you’re going to rape me”? You know how he answered me? “Yes, I’m going to rape you….you would like that right”? and proceeded to try to take my pants off. I am not goin to go into the rest of the story (I was able to escape that situation safely though) but I cite it to prove that the reminder of sexual assault, rape, and harrassement is not always enough to get men to think about their actions and ACTUALLY realize they are committing a crime or just plainly violating another person.

So you might wonder how I got this creep (Finesse) to leave me alone? Well, another thing I had found out in our short lived conversation was that he had a daughter. I don’t like to comment on other people’s situations with their children (especially if I do not know them that well) but for my own safety at that moment it was the only leverage I had. My only weapon that was sure to work. I asked him if he would want his daughter to be accosted in the same way he was me. He was quiet for a not even 30 seconds when he finally mumbled “I’m sorry, have a nice evening” and ran back to his rightful position in the passenger seat of that beautiful Dodge Magnum.