Jada Pinkett-Smith is aware of the critics that frown up their noses at the way she raises her daughter, Willow. Willow cuts, dyes and styles her hair as she pleases, a fact that bothers many who feel girls shouldn’t have that much control over their appearance at such a young age.
Jada decided to address the criticism in a Facebook post:
“A letter to a friend…This subject is old but I have never answered it in its entirety. And even with this post it will remain incomplete. The question why I would LET Willow cut her hair. First the LET must be challenged. This is a world where women, girls are constantly reminded that they don’t belong to themselves; that their bodies are not their own, nor their power or self determination. I made a promise to endow my little girl with the power to always know that her body, spirit and her mind are HER domain. Willow cut her hair because her beauty, her value, her worth is not measured by the length of her hair. It’s also a statement that claims that even little girls have the RIGHT to own themselves and should not be a slave to even their mother’s deepest insecurities, hopes and desires. Even little girls should not be a slave to the preconceived ideas of what a culture believes a little girl should be.”
I’m pretty sure I’ve reblogged this before but seriously this is something we should be teaching all our children. Their bodies are theirs, not ours as parents. As soon as you tell someone their body doesn’t belong to theirs you take away so much from them.
Faces of school shooters
Look at all the white faces without the label of terrorist under their pictures!
Where are the derogatory slurs that make the crimes a result of their race/culture?
Where are the think pieces that make their “strange/foreign” religion a key factor in their decision?
This reminds me of something I saw recently that really, really bothered me. The Cracked columnists have said some insightful things before, and the two guys who wrote this column about guns are smart dudes. But here’s a line from it, about how we can’t profile school shooters (other than they’re probably male teenagers):
"So here’s the bizarre, horrifying truth: There is no "typical" school shooter profile."
Uh… no. There’s a profile. He’s male, yes, and also white. There have been one or two who were non-white (the Virginia Tech shooter, for instance), but they’re overwhelmingly white. This is an example of how people see male, particularly white and male, as the “default setting” in society. If every school shooter had been a young woman, that would be a commonly accepted profile for all school shooters. If every school shooter had been Middle Eastern or Black or any other non-white male, that would be a profile. But white and male? We just can’t know! There is no profile!
Look at those faces up there. That is the “typical” school shooter: a young, disgruntled white man. The next time someone tells you that they think it’s OK for the NYPD to stop and frisk Black and brown men, or that it’s “just logic” to search Muslim people at the airport, ask them if they think all white boys should have to go through a metal detector before going to school in the morning. Or whether there should be a law against white men owning guns. Fair’s fair, right?