An Image Makers Contradictions

She is out of control, and somehow, through that freedom, she remains in equilibrium with reality.

Thoughts dance. 

She is the first realization of reflection in a stream. Her constructs are a lit echo of ever flowing distorted estimations.  She is a pulpit, a microphone, and an orator simultaneously. She is a novel with no ending or beginning. She cries without tears. She is a scholar, a teacher, a radical, and a criminal. She spits rhetoric abrasively. She is seeped in justice for the unseen, the unheard, and the abandoned. She is empathy, and her arms are long enough to reach across continents. She embraces the dirt of the earth as she caresses it between her fingers. She is a dissident holding a puppet, with eyes that sting of teargas. She is a martyr who bleeds human blood, the blood of us all. She is her own language, a language composed of a vast, worldly vocabulary of imagery. She is a feeling, sometimes wasted.

She is raunchy and stark. She seduces anyone who would dare to look into her. She fiends for perceptual pleasure. She seeks the suspended orgasm of thought and idea.  And that is high. She runs in all directions at the same time. She has the skin of a chameleon, the teeth of a sabre, and the feet of a dusty footed philosopher. She is dumb and pure like an infants first breath into sunlight. She is a priest, an imam, a rabbi, and a shaman. She has no home, for her only residence is within her own soul. She is light.

She has not been created vicariously, in any particular image and likeness; rather, she is constantly shifting into the image and likeness of independent thought. She stands alone on the stage. Her layers peel away, entrancing her voyeurs. She is conceptual by nature, and that is what makes her such a dangerous creature. She is wonder. She is anything her creator has internalized as valuable. She is never static, for new eyes change her existence.

I see her standing there, at the crossroads of immaturity and enlightenment. I am her creator; her voice is my voice. I am her origin. I lift up the glossy photograph and stare at it blankly. Is it just a piece of paper without my omniscient presence? And I begin to weep over the probability of her awesome meaninglessness. 

Deface Everything

Flying through back alleys,
Constructing characters from 
Shadows falling on rotten city streets.
Wheat pastes that stare back,
Make me circle the block just for a second look,
at your beauty and poise.
Never grime.

MTA erasers,
The veil that is grey paint
on Williamsburg pylons.
Covering signatures,
Covering expressions.

I wish you could see what I see.
The cultural necessity that is deviance.
The joy that is scrubbing hands of spray paint.
The freedom that is art on walls,
and doors, 
and poles, 
and streets.

Makes me want to circle the block just for a second look,
at your anger, 
your politic, 
your resistance,
Never grime.

In Any War

'Didactic' is how you describe me.

Well, Your patriarchy deserves patronizing.

Your racism deserves patronizing.

Your ethnocentricity deserves patronizing.

Rip your poster off the subway wall,

Screaming

"No, you don't get to speak." 

Compartmentalization

Ism after ism

When all I wish to be

Is human.

Frustrations To Be

All you fucking artists think you're so

                                   Con cep tual,

The only concept I see is reality.

The only approval I need is My Own.

My vagina is not up for discussion,

                                 Or for show,

                     Or for your pleasure.

I am woman 

      And I am stronger than you.

I am power

      And my inner liberation

                                    Is priority.

                                    Is transcendent of your oppression.

I will simmer

I will allow your comments to permeate.

Until I boil

       And exorcise

       Your hateful spewing



To Always Be Whole.

Philosophy as Conversion, and Stoic Wisdom during Tumult

Practicing philosophy is a conversion of the soul. Once knowledge has seeped into the brain, it is quite difficult to get it out, despite its sometimes, unpleasant nature and the subsequent effect on the emotions we have. The cognition of ideas is an inherent prerequisite to understanding those ideas. It does, however, lack the dimension of analysis. It is knowledge, but without contextualization. In turn, being able to understand ourselves, our reactions, and how to have control in such an uncontrollable and violent world is difficult, but attainable. Plato spoke of virtuous education with young children and why early in life is an important time for education. In times of crisis, the Greek Stoics, like Epictetus and Seneca, who were in some ways inspired by the writings of Plato, have remarkably helpful exercises for the spirit. They had a significant amount to share as to how we can maintain that life is still worth living, despite its vast uncertainty.

            Plato takes children very seriously, realizing that this conversion of the soul to virtue and knowledge must begin at the youngest age, when the child is learning how to exist in their world and within their society.  “You know, don’t you, that the beginning of any process is most important, especially for anything young and tender? It’s at that time that it is most malleable and takes on any pattern one wishes to impress on it.” (Rep. Book 2, 377A) Plato realized the importance of the teacher and the content that is explored with children. As a philosopher, he believes that “We must first of all, it seems, supervise the storytellers. We’ll select their stories whenever they are fine or beautiful and reject them when they aren’t… they will shape their children’s souls with stories.” (Rep. Book 2, 277B-C) He is making it clear that the soul is impressionable at the youngest stages of life and therefore positive understanding must be exposed to them in order to shape them into good adults functioning in a complex society.

            If the virtuous teachings should begin young, and begin as a kind of exploration, one must ask what are the ways in which we can do so, and what topics will they concern? The Stoics were rooted in principle, that is, our “inward opinions,” (Discourses, Chap XI) as Epictetus said. It seems that as Plato recognized the child to have the capacity to learn the truth, the Stoics recognized that the only way to be true as an adult is to be true to oneself, not an idealized form, and to be able to maintain that fortitude even in times of situational unrest and disadvantage. These theories are complementary in that the good that is instilled as a child will make it easier to understanding oneself and therefore to be good as an adult.

The Stoic Seneca said, “As long as you live, keep learning how to live” (Letters to Lucilius, Letter LXXVI, 10 ). Philosophy is not a single conversion, like a conversion learned in childhood and obeyed in adulthood. It is not a conversion that happens in one moment’s time. It is a series of revolutions, of constant conversions, of adaptations, of enlightenment through new knowledge. There is no end goal with philosophy, only more questions. Through this, a web of learning and therefore analysis can be acquired. Seneca also said “If one does not know to which port one is sailing, no wind is favorable” (Letters to Lucilius, Letter LXXI, 3) 

 The Stoics understood the nature and importance of context. The spiritual life is the life of that particular individual and one must assess the present situation to make decisions on how one will respond to that situation or act upon new knowledge.  The more knowledge is present, the better the judgment or use of that knowledge can be. This can be used most effectively to create inner pleasure or peace and avoid inner strife or pain, although the reality may not appear widely or objectively pleasurable. 

The Stoics related the spiritual life to that of how an individual responds to good fortune. As much as they preached happiness in the moment of crisis, they also knew that wealth is a destructive force in the spiritual life. Seneca stated, “It is not the man who has too little but the man who craves more, that is poor” (Letters to Lucilius, Letter II, 6). This alludes to the hunger for more material items in order to feed happiness. The spiritual life includes a detachment from the constant seeking of the materials of pleasure. The Stoics are actually making a distinction between what is pleasurable and what constitutes happiness. Instead of falling in love with our wealth and status, the strength of our mind is what should be valued. Wealth is an empty dream of comfort and indulgence, and the feeling that one could always acquire more. Such wealth will in fact not bring an end to strain and stress but will actually facilitate more of it. This is why wealth should not be valued as important in the spiritual life and why wealth will corrode the mind of the spiritual person, changing ones value systems and undoubtedly ones actions. 

Another core principle of the spiritual life for the Stoic is realizing that we cannot control everything around us. We can only control our mind, our actions, our judgments and ourselves. This takes a significant amount of practice, as it is quite natural to be affected by the happenings of the outside world. Particularly, the Stoics thoughts on death can be helpful to understand the ultimate lack of control, that is, the moment of imminent death. Epictetus stated, “In a word, neither death, nor exile, nor pain, nor anything of this kind is the real cause of our doing or not doing any action, but our inward opinions and principles” (Discourses, Chap XI). With this as the model, we must move within the uncertain world with only certainty in ourselves and our commitment to what we believe. We must practice our principles in action by exercising them as often as life permits. Epictetus said, “Every habit and faculty is preserved and increased by correspondent actions, - as the habit of walking, by walking; of running, by running” (Discourses, XVIII). As much as we can speak about our principles, it is of the most utter importance that we practice them when the time comes that our principles are challenged, and we must be unwavering in our commitment to them. “Shall I show you the muscular training of a philosopher? … A will undisappointed; evils avoided; powers daily exercised; careful resolutions; unerring decisions” (Wherein consists the Essence of Good, VIII) said Epictetus. Doing these mind work outs will help us to strengthen our intellect so that in the face of adversity, we can weather the mental storm well and live in a healthy state of mind.

Philosophy does awaken the mind to an understanding of itself. The mind must participate in training to carry out the principles it ponders and thinks about. Particularly, our harness on our mind can help us deal with unpleasant situations, especially those situations that are well out of our control. We must at times understand our powerlessness to change the situation around us and instead convert our mind space into a place to harbor positive thoughts and hopeful will.

Look Deep Into Yourself: A Vote For Obama is Fraudulent Support for Women’s Liberation

            Lately I’ve been hearing a lot of American women eagerly throw their support behind the Obama administration, especially in recent weeks with multiple blatant assaults by the GOP on women’s rights. But if my president supports that women in other nation states live in situations of violence, oppression, and hate, and even furthers these situations, it is all but impossible to deduce that this individual cares about women’s rights at all. Where is our global solidarity? Women after all, exist all across the globe. Our social class transcends party politics. All of these thoughts drove me to ask myself whether American women support Obama out of self-interest, instead of women’s rights, as it is so often referred.

            The illusion of a functioning democracy that existed in American minds has withered considerably in recent years. This has not stopped bigoted pushes by conservatives to assert their domination and oppression over women. Representative (which he is clearly not) Todd Akin was quoted as saying “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” Which is clearly not a scientific fact and is, of course, extremely ignorant. This was followed soon after by Paul Ryan’s statement in an interview that rape is just another “method of conception.” In April, Governor Jan Brewer, of everyone’s favorite state for women and immigrants, Arizona, signed into law the “Women’s Health and Safety Act.” The law states that women are pregnant two weeks before the actual conception of the child. This act directly targets women who must wait to get tested after their 20^th week of pregnancy for health problems with the fetus, making it illegal after 22 weeks to get an abortion.

            Deep seeded cultural sexism has been surfacing in American society too. Everyone remembers Tosh.O’s disturbingly persistent shots fired at a female member of the audience who was brave enough to vocalize that “rape jokes are never funny.” He responded with the following: 'Wouldn’t it be funny if that girl got raped by like, 5 guys right now? Like right now? What if a bunch of guys just raped her…’ Or the Thomas Pink men’s clothing company’s fall campaign that I walked by in Midtown yesterday, which depicts 50’s styled women who appear excited about the new non-iron shirts that will cut down their ironing time for their husband’s clothes.

            This openness without fear of consequence to participate in such language and action constitutes such an utter disrespect for women as autonomous political, cultural, and most importantly, whole beings. Yet, there has not been an overwhelming organization or backlash by women to confront such occurrences. The GOP has an agenda that is dangerous and serious for every American woman. If they win, not only in the executive, but the legislative, and the judicial (3 Supreme Court justices will turn 80 over the next presidential term), there is a considerable chance of losing progressive ground. This scenario may cause a reaction from women, but ultimately that reaction will be channeled into support for the only other choice.

            While this conservative momentum builds, the Democrats are playing up their strength in what they perceive as the other’s weakness. The two party binary serves for conservative viewpoints to be resisted by the other party, in this case: the Democratic Party. This limited scope, among vast and ever infinitely expanding knowledge, is designed intentionally as the framework within which to discuss our complex rights to be women and fully human in our womanliness. Notice one of Obama’s campaign slogans is “Women FOR Obama.” Why is this not “Obama FOR Women”? How did our power to choose a representative that is in the best interest for our demographic become a brainwashed cheerleading practice? The Democrats love their illusionary role as the GOP’s perfect opposite. This is logical from their perspective because this will ultimately bring them more electoral votes. American politics is constructed like a competition, must I remind you.

            American women are being led to believe the Democrats are the “lesser of two evils” in this political structure that is always presented as a concrete fixture. But how can we overlook the obvious fact that these are men making decisions for women? That fact is hugely disregarded. Such an act is present in BOTH American political parties, an act that reaffirms that we are not capable of making decisions for ourselves, or to write our own manifestas and history, to firmly state our rights and freedoms.

            If I am an authentic believer in asserting my right as a woman to be fully human, that notion must include all women. Women exist globally. Therefore my analysis must be one that extends worldwide across race, ethnicity, class, and many combinations of these factors working in synergy.

            To support the Obama administration (especially through a vote) is to support an administration that knowingly and willingly kills and injures women through both military regime and economic enslavement, and supports the oppression of women as workers, mothers, and autonomous beings with autonomous bodies.

            In December 2009, Obama ordered a US air strike in Yemen, which killed “scores of civilians, including women and children.” The US backs the dictatorship in Yemen, and coordinated the strike with the president Ali Abdallah Saleh. This is among many drone strikes that have killed or injured civilians. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reports that at least 551 civilians have been killed in drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia by the Obama administration.

Obama presented Free Trade Agreements in Colombia and Panama for congressional approval after President Bush had signed the agreements in 2006 and 2007. The Colombian FTA established no conditions for reducing killings of trade unionists (including 34 in the past two years). In 2010 the Obama administration provided political and financial support to Haiti’s 2010 elections, and then following the elections first round, threatened to suspend aid, thereby affecting many families, to modify the results of the election.

Obama openly supports administrations in Brazil, Chile, and El Salvador. All three of these state governments have documented women’s rights abuses, including the criminalization of abortion, and illegal divorce in Chile until the year 2004.

In April, Obama hosted members of the Muslim Brotherhood at the White House, whose ideology rests on the enforcement of Sharia Law, discriminating against women in both law and religion. These are a few examples, among countless others, that can describe that Obama is indeed not FOR women. To be for women is to be for women everywhere, and his actions illustrate otherwise.

Solidarity can only be possible through an understanding of intersectionality, a global analysis. A fight for our rights could only exist in a dialogue that is concerned with the rights of women everywhere. The Combahee River collective wrote in 1977, “The inclusiveness of our politics makes us concerned with any situation that impinges upon the lives of women, Third World and working people. We are of course particularly committed to working on those struggles in which race, sex, and class are simultaneous factors in oppression.”

As American women, and as women of the global North, our privilege is apparent. We must ask ourselves why we are angry with the GOP for their direct oppression and disrespect of women, but not angry with the Democrats, who equally participate in oppression of women as a social class? This fact is largely unrecognized and downplayed in the mainstream media. Are we quick to support the Obama administration because it is in our best interest, and not necessarily because we care about the rights of women’s liberation?  Look deeper into yourself. Yes, it is better for our concrete situation. Does it justify the violence our sisters live through because of choices made by both administrations? It simply cannot.

I say this with the firm assertion that we should act in our best interests. Women have too many oppressors not to afford themselves self worth. This piece is not to say that there are no differences. The differences are clear, and are even constructed to appear as stark contrasts to one another. We should work strategically. As Chomsky said this year “A sensible revolutionary will try to push reform to the limits, for two good reasons. First, because the reforms can be valuable in themselves…Secondly, on strategic grounds, you have to show that here are limits to reform.“  Chepe Martin furthers this point in stating, “With the election of Democrats, we gradually move against the system, while with Republicans we move only against their political party, offering the Democrats as a plausible solution.”

            The Combahee River Collective statement also includes that “Our politics evolve from a healthy love of ourselves, our sisters, and our community which allows us to continue our struggle and work.” I also refuse to be satisfied, to sing the praises of a man because a situation is more advantageous to me. Such a situation begets extreme violence, strife, and oppression of women globally. To turn our backs on these women and claim victory while others are in chains is fraudulent. Those women do not have the same privileges, yet they have historically fought vehemently for their rights, many times against the United States among their own state apparatuses.

            The radical analysis is an intersectional one involving class, the state, and race, among many other complex dialectical factors. The political puppet show, the illusion of democracy playing out on our 20^th century televisions, does not leave room for such discussion. In fact, it’s not even mentioned as a global or national concern. Therefore, the analysis is largely lacking in ways that are representative of women’s empirical understanding of themselves and the assertion of their rights. That is oppressive. We need not wait any longer for structures, administrations, and agendas to continue to speak for us. We must no longer adapt, but choose. We must no longer have the illusion of acting through the action of a politician. We must demand an end to the debate over our lives and bodies without our consent. We must spread the words and actions of feminists from across the world. We must feed off of each others hope in the struggle. In the spirit of Emma Goldman, we must wake up, we must become daring enough to demand our rights collectively. Only in our global solidarity through the praxis can we engage in the fight for our liberation and begin to heal our societies from the broken patriarchal forms that plague our concrete world and contribute to our alienation.