My mom and I attended the Sisterhood Showcase this past weekend. As far as I know, neither of us had ever been and it's been an annual Memphis event for 16 years. We didn't sit in on any workshops or demonstrations. We didn't watch the fashion show other than a brief glances. We didn't even stay for Johnny Gill. I know, what the heck did we do? We indulged this commodities fest and perused the numerous aisles filled with vendors. There were colleges hoping to get some new college loan dollars, hydrotherapy massagers, a plethora of costume jewelry, and a host of other wares being peddled. In the midst of this "showcase", there was one special vendor I nearly missed.

At first, I totally dissed Kimmie when she asked if we'd like to talk to her about LcB Nail Lacquer. Well, I just told her "no thanks". My mom, however, stopped and I'm glad she did. LcB Nail Lacquer, according to Kimmie, came from a negative place of a family member being called cruel names as a child. The negativity has been reappropriated into 12 beautiful shades of nail polish sans DBP, toluene, and formaldehyde. Kimmie demonstrated on her hands and ours any and every color we wanted to see. They're all so pretty and compliment both my chocolate brown and my mom's honey vanilla skin tones. We were both so delighted with our final choices and to have patronized a business owned and operated by Black women. LcB Nail Lacquer was our final stop and what a lovely note to end our afternoon of shopping on. 

Last night, I finally got a chance to polish my tootsies in my new favorite color: U Blue U Black, an tranquil, ocean-y blue  . And look forward to trying out my other shade choice of Lil Sista, a cool, vibrant tangerine. Do check out their website and order a bottle...or two.

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.

Are you a mom of color who breastfeeds, homeschools/unschools, natural births, or live in any way a holistic, natural lifestyle? Join us on The Mahogany Way.

my mothering is natural
as a swaddling, he suckled from my breasts.

my mothering is gentle 
i do not use the master's tools for i am emancipated from the old school.

my mothering is nurturing 
his mind to be book smart, street smart, woman smart
i teach him that black is the color of the cosmos and women birth the stars.

my mothering is imperfect
he loves me still.

my mothering is truth
i speak it. nothing is taboo.

my mothering is...

uncompromising

euphoric

heartache

divine

my 
mothering 
is 
fly

First let me note that my horoscope the day my trip to Atlanta began warned me that things would not go as planned and I needed to go ahead and accept that...

A local hair stylist organized a bus trip to attend the World Natural Hair Show in Atlanta and I initially had no intentions to go. At the last minute, I was swayed. I won't go into the details of how the trip went down but I will have to re-think joining such a caravan in the future. Having said that, on to the hair show. I actually only attended the first day of the event and even then I only did a walk through of all the vendors. Well, I missed some great t-shirt vendors as it was so congested and overwhelming. More importantly, I was not pleased with some of the other vendors I did encounter.

There was a disproportionate amount of attention given to dreadlocks as there were products, hair accessories, and styling demos abundant. Meanwhile, there was little available in the way of styling and general maintenance education on "loose" natural hair. This was odd as there were far more attendees without dreads than with. It's very telling on where the styling and hair care industries are in their perception and approach to natural hair. It seems that the trajectory consistently finds its way back to straightening the hair and excessive product use and the only hair considered truly natural is that which is dreadlocked. One attendee and traveling companion witnessed a booth where loose natural hair was being flat ironed. Most of us bemoaned the presence of Asian beauty suppliers hawking products and tools with little to do with natural hair. There were even vendors pushing long, silky hair weaves. Even still, there were numerous product lines like Uncle Funky's Daughter and Miss Jessie's to give the product junkies a major fix. Some of the reps for these product lines were purported to be lacking customer service or just plain rude. But again, what concerns me most is all of the vendors who were not there with good intentions. This can be also be attributed to the organizers being part of the capitalist machine. It was for all intents and purposes a commodities fest. One of which I did patronize. I got an "I (heart) being black" tee from the company of the same name and two hair accessories from my already favorite, Tomoka's Twists who's owner/ creator is just as sweet in person as online.

I even got a chance to chat in the hotel lounge with a gentleman who was involved in the creation of this event and,well, pending the manifestation of some exciting plans he has, I'll be sharing a bit of that conversation at a later time. I know that seems quite cryptic, but trust me on this one.

I and several others have come to the conclusion that many of the natural hair stylists simply lack real training on caring for natural hair. Many of them still use the same products, tools, and methods meant for maintaining straight hair. They aren't necessarily to blame as they've been trained and continue to be by those who learned in hair schools or the like to work predominantly with straight hair and chemical treatments. This just isn't what we're looking for and it just won't work so, many of us choose to forego stylists. This is evident from the high usage of Youtube by those making the tutorials and those watching. This natural hair show reflects that same discrepancy in education because at its helm is a professed natural hair stylist. 

A journey that began for me fifteen years ago and seems to be culminating in a massive movement deserves an event with the purest of intentions. Until that comes, I have no problem operating grassroots--as I have all these years--educating, supporting, and loving natural hair one head at a time.

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.

Update: Congrats Miss Princess Dom! Since you were the only entrant I'm sending you BOTH bracelets. Enjoy!

I'm in a bracelet making mood and decided to share via this impromptu giveaway. I shared pics of one I made for myself yesterday and if you missed it, it's because you haven't become a facebook fan.
The bracelets up for grabs are below.  Just tweet the link to this post then leave me a comment with the link to your tweet. How to do that? Copy the link to that tweet via its time stamp in your twitter feed. Entries are unlimited. Open to U.S. residents only. This will be open today only until 11:59 pm CST and I'll announce the two winners tomorrow morning as an update to this post. I'll email the winners for an address so make sure you include an email in your comments/entries or I'll have to select someone else. Ah yes, be sure to mention your preference but know that I'll make an executive decision if both winners like the same bracelet. Bonne Chance!