Saturday, July 9, 2011, was the first of presumably regular annual gatherings to discuss the state of the Black arts community in Memphis. Hosted by Ekundayo Bandele (founder and artistic directer of Hattiloo Theater), the day long event was free and open to the public. First, I have to note how well organized it was. Bandele was well prepared with alternate speakers for those suddenly unable to participate and everything moved along without incident. 

The crux of the conversation is that there is no Black arts community present in Memphis. There are a number of organizations including theater repertories like Bluff City Tri-Art, dance companies like Bridging Souls Productions, and so on that are a disjointed presence in the city. I will be the first to admit that several of the organizations I was not familiar with and I'm a native of the city. Yet, that was part of my reason for attending. I want to be a better patron of the arts and this was a great way for to learn more about what's out there and how to be involved.

Now I'll share some take aways from the symposium...

• Bennie West, founding executive director of Memphis Black Arts Alliance, advocates an African American museum and cultural center and I strongly cosign this. It seemed the entire audience concurred considering there is a huge black population in this city...we are this city.
• Dr. Keith D. Lee noted two important things: (1) Those receiving funding for music arts and theater arts are not "talking to each other." Again pointing to the lack of community among the various black art forms. (2) Literary arts are pretty much ignored. So, this means our poets, spoken word artists, writers and such are marginalized when it comes to funding.
• Lawrence Blackwell, Asst. Professor of theater at University of Memphis and self-described "DuBoisian follower", believes that Black theater "must be political".
• During the last few hours, the question of whether or not artists need to know how to be both an artist and business person became an ongoing debate. 
• I even picked up a bit of history from Chicano artist, Richard Lou. He shared how his father and other Chinese immigrants found themselves part of the Delta community. Labor brokers brought them to Mississippi and Louisiana to work the cotton and rice fields, respectively, in an attempt to drive down wages. 

This, again, was a promising gathering of lively artists and patrons. There definitely needs to be more bridging of the disciplines. As was brought up several times, the various black arts organizations might even find more power collectively when it comes to securing funding. In the meantime, I'll keep doing what I do which is patronizing and sharing all the glorious creativity radiating from Memphis' Black artists.

If you're in the Memphis metro area, be sure to check out these organizations:

The Memphis Black Arts Alliance
Collage Dance Collective

Cultural Arts For Everyone
Watoto De Afrika
Hattiloo Theatre
Bridging Souls Productions
Bluff City Tri-Art Theatre

Yesterday, Wendi C. Thomas posted an article on Memphis's Commercial Appeal website that is decidedly against homeschool kids being able to participate in public school athletics. Let me first say that I do not uphold Thomas's views on homeschoolers in general. However, I do agree that homeschool students should not participate in public school sports. Let the backlash from my fellow homeschoolers commence. That's right, if you didn't already know, I'm currently a homeschooling parent of three years. 

The pro argument seems to rest solely on some mythical taxpayers' rights. Paying taxes does not grant any inherent rights and, furthermore, they do not solely fund education. Those bating that they should be compensated for not using public resources like schools, might want to do some research on just how much of their tax dollars do go to education. 

Those in opposition seem to share some of my own sentiments. For example, there are some serious ethical issues when it comes to reporting grades and conduct of athletes. Can it be trusted that every homeschool family would be forthcoming in reporting their child's grades/ GPA which make them eligible to play sports in public schools? Would conduct issues that seem minor as they are typically only exposed to loved ones and in contained environments be disclosed or left to be disruptive in PS sports program? 

There's the looming notion of athletics being valued over academics. Period.

Then there's just the fact that this is ridiculous. To think we won't send our kids to a public school but will use their athletic program is incomprehensible. As I explained to my husband while in a heated debate about this, schools are microcosms of society. Students are contributing citizens in more than just what sport they might play if they play at all. It's unfair to those who invest any time or effort into that society for an outsider to come in and use resources without contributing or even caring about that society. It really comes off as trying to have your cake and eat it too.

If you want your kid to play ball or whatever for a public school, they should attend that school. If you're going to homeschool, commit to it on every level including the sucky athletics. I've opted out of the public school system(s) in Memphis...ALL the way out.

*drops mic and walks away*

I was so pleased that Oprah's finale was a sober, intimate occasion. It was the show coming full circle with her imparting some wisdom and wrapping up the last 25 years in a neat little bow. The way she recanted some memorable moments with scenes interspersed was perfect. In her own words, it was "a love letter" to us, her audience. In true Oprah form, she shared wisdom on being one's best self. She told us that "[we] will receive in direct proportion however you give." Oprah also reminded us that "everybody has a calling...[and] not everybody gets paid for it, but everyone has a calling."

I am one of those people who can I say I really did "grow up" with Oprah. Her show first aired when I was a mere 8 years old. I didn't become an Oprah viewer, however, until my thirteenth year as I spent the summer caring for my mother after a major health crisis. I always thought it was fitting that Oprah was a central part of my transition into young womanhood. My mother and I bonded over the many food baskets filled with cheeses and summer sausage and who, or what, was going to be on Oprah every day the summer of 1991. And, while, my viewership was inconsistent over the next 20 years, what that woman had to share with the world always had a place in my life. 

Even though many have not agreed with her evolving point of view on many things, I can't imagine a single person who cannot at least respect a woman who has exuded so much humanity. She knows, as she's discussed numerous times, the detriment of low self-esteem and a lack of validation. I know their sting as well and I think that is the crux of her service to others. As she so poignantly stated, "worthiness is [our] birthright." 

Oprah, I speak your name.

In light of my last post on the badass female character type, I decided to share my response to a recent assignment for my Contemporary Women's Issues course...

With a resounding yes, I say that pop culture influences violence against women. Gruesome images of murdered female bodies may desensitize viewers to the violent acts that lead to those deaths. Often female victims are portrayed as immoral characters which further compounds the desensitization of the violence committed against them. Then, I think about the number of times I've seen a strong female character on screen raped. It's a sick reminder/warning that she needed to be put in her place and the only way to do so is to put her in a situation where she is physically without control. Brawn over brains it is. As our readings explains, abuse results from “internalized sexism and the right to dominate women” (Lee & Shaw, p. 569). This reminds me of one of my favorite shows and a recent story arc involving the rape of a female doctor. My initial reaction to Charlotte's rape was sorrow then joy as she triumphed in her recovery. Later, I realized that Private Practice had fallen into the formulaic routine of sensationalizing the immoral and the need to break down its strongest female character to show her humanity. Why does victimization equal humanity? Charlotte is hard edged woman and it seems now that this was a way to show that she's not just a cold, emasculating woman. Why is violence against a women used to portray the injection of a soul into her being?

A franchise that's thrived predominantly on its depictions of violence against women is Law & Order. It's even devoted one of its many spin offs to the real life special victims unit which specifically handles sex crimes. These we know that women are historically far more frequently the victim of than men. Again, when people can turn this series on daily as it's in syndication, it slowly but surely takes away the acrid sting of this form of violence and basically makes it seem not so bad. 

My husband and I got into a heated discussion several months ago when he was explaining to me the popularity of the rape/revenge film genre in the 70s. My one question was: "Who were these sick, twisted films created for?" Who do those movies' filmmakers consider their target audience? Surely not women. I refuse to believe that women were/are viewing those films and feeling empowered. Men? I can't imagine what men think. I did a quick web search and sure enough the story is that these films have been made to empower women. What's problematic about this is twofold. First, the rape itself is not condemned in this type of film. It's lazy filmmaking because the rape has to be played out for shock value. More importantly, what would empower women is initiatives that prevent from ever occurring not how to get revenge on the attacker. Second, that one act of violence is met with another only perpetuates a cycle of violence thus the system of patriarchy which for intents and purposes a system of domination. Dominating another person does not give one control. It's simply wasted energy and doesn't solve the problem systemically.

As I was doing a bit of web research on this question, I came across a great article by Natasha Walker for The Guardian. She wrote about the high amount of violence against women in movies noting her recent pre-screening of a film titled The Killer Inside Me. The film depicts at least two graphic murders of women. Walker states that in the Q & A with the film's director, Michael Winterbottom, she asked why was the violence so graphically depicted. His response was: “It's more moral to make it unwatchable” (Walker, 2010). I don't think viewers are more disgusted by violence against women. They're shocked for that moment but I think empirical evidence would probably show that this type of depiction has no lasting affect regarding activism or prevention or driving down the number of violent acts. It makes it more fabled if anything. 

Sources: 
Shaw, S. M., & Lee, J. (2009). Women's voices, feminist visions (4th ed.). Boston: Mcgraw-Hill Higher Education.

Walker, N. (2010, June 3). Why is there so much movie violence against women? | Natasha Walter | Film | The Guardian . Latest news, comment and reviews from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk . Retrieved April 17, 2011, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/jun/03/women-violence-killer-inside-me-feminism

Now, I'm aware that I didn't address music and literature in this as it was to simply be a two page reflection. These were what came to mind immediately. I would like to hear some other clear examples, namely in literature, on this topic. One that I did intend to mention but forgot is Twilight. It's been noted that Bella's almost endeared reaction to the bruises unintentionally left on her body by her beloved Edward romanticizes domestic partner abuse. Yes, Edward is a vampire with superhuman strength and the slightest touch from him could leave a mark, however, it could warp the thinking of young girls who could find themselves in a truly abusive relationship. So, please do share your thoughts.

The Mr. and I just watched Salt starring Angelina Jolie as a CIA agent/ Russian spy. About halfway through the film, he asked me if I felt this type of character was a positive role model for girls/women. Well of course it is! First, I have to note that after watching the extras, it appears Jolie handled many of the stunts herself and shortly after giving birth to twins. That's just badass in and of itself. Now, Evelyn Salt was not just a trained sleeper agent in the way men typically are which is basically as trained assassins. Salt used far more cunning than we usually see from either gender in action films.  For her, a gun was a last resort if she couldn't take you down with a good old fashioned beat down and, even then she only used it to wound her opposition. Flat out murder was saved for those absolutely deserving of it. I know, who deserves to die might be totally subjective, but watch the film to catch my drift. 

It's stated in the extras by the director, Phillip Noyce, that Jolie was offered the female lead in a Bond movie but instead proposed she have a Bond-like role created for her. So "Salt" was born. For a predominantly male run production, save the one female producer Sunil Perkash, this speaks volumes. Salt's badassness was never undermined or overshadowed by gratuitous nudity or even suggestive garb. Jolie's beauty (I know, again, subjective) was neither overplayed or underplayed.  Was this an award snubbed film? No. But it's such a big step in the right direction of the film industry when it comes to portrayals of women. Now we just need a woman of color given a shot at the same type of role sans a sexually suggestive name and nature.