More than "equality under the law"...

I've been doing a lot of reading for my dissertation (revamping my lit review chapter). On today's agenda is an edited volume, The Making and Unmaking of Whiteness. One of the chapters outlines Omi's (2001) study of several antiracist organizations. In the chapter he states, “Their presence, organizational form, and practice suggest that antiracist work has entered a new phase, one that embraces a vision of social justice that extends beyond formal legal guarantees of racial equality and equal opportunity. This vision of social justice argues that ‘equality under the law’ is not enough. What is required is a hard look at how racial meanings and practices are suffused into patterns of both everyday and institutional life and how they indelibly shape individual consciousness, collective identities, corporate actions, and government policies” (p. 289).

The quotation automatically made me think back to Hillary Clinton's encounter with Black Lives Matter activists a little over a month ago (http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/18/politics/hillary-clinton-black-lives-matter-meeting/) and the continuing debacle in Kentucky. 

The meaning behind and necessity of antiracist (and other social justice-oriented) organizations' change in strategy has become increasingly apparent since the July 2013 acquittal of George Zimmerman, the November 2014 and March 2015 exonerations of Darren Wilson, and the June 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision. "Equality under the law" is only as good as the government's ability and integrity when it comes to enforcing said law. If we are to allow our children to be murdered without holding the killers responsible, what good are laws against murder and the use of excessive force in policing? If we are to continue to discriminate against our fellow citizens who are gay and deny same-sex partners marriage licenses, of what use is legalizing same-sex marriage? 

So....

To Hillary, there is more than one way to pursue social justice. Activism can take on a myriad of forms. Try to keep an open mind. Just because Black Lives Matter activists are taking an approach that you don't understand, doesn't mean it's wrong.

To Black Lives Matter activists, keep doing what you're doing! After all, in the words of Albert Einstein, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." Sometimes a different approach is exactly what is needed to push the conversation forward and achieve results.

Omi, M. (2001). (E)racism: Emerging practices of antiracist organizations. In B.B. Rasmussen, E. Klinenberg, I.J. Nexica, & M. Wray (Eds.), The making and unmaking of whiteness (pp. 266-293). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Over-cop-fident

I recently checked out a book (more of a hardcover bound report actually) titled Racial Attitudes in Fifteen American Cities, published in 1968. Of particular interest to me was the chapter on "White Beliefs about Negroes" (their words not mine... remember this was published in the '60s). As I was skimming the chapter for information relevant to a particular research project I'm engaged in, I noticed Table III-c (p. 30) on White beliefs about how "Negroes" are treated by the police and it struck me that we have not come very far as this is still a topic that is widely debated in 2015, 47 years after the publication of this report.

The 1968 survey found that 9% of White survey respondents believed that their Black counterparts were definitely more likely to be treated with unnecessary roughness and disrespect by the police than were White people. Twenty-nine percent indicated that this was probably true, meaning that 38% of White survey respondents agreed to some degree. On the flip side, 30% said that it was probably not so and 26% said that it was definitely not so, meaning that 56% of White survey respondents in 1968 disagreed that police were more inclined to treat Black individuals with unnecessary roughness and disrespect. The remaining 6% responded "don't know."

Fast forward 47 years to the present day, Pew Research surveyed non-Hispanic White and Black individuals about their confidence that local police treat Whites and Blacks equally. Here are the results:

Although the scales and survey questions are not identical, they are similar. The 1968 survey asked, "It is sometimes said that the things we have just been talking about, such as unnecessary roughness and disrespect by the police, happen more to Negroes in (Central City) than to white people. Do you think this is definitely so, probably so, probably not so, or definitely not so?" To compare this to the August 2014 Pew survey responses above, would look something like this:

1968 Survey		2014 Survey
Definitely so	9%	Very little	12%
Probably so	29%	Just some	14%
	38%		26%
Probably not so	30%	Fair amount	36%
Definitely not so	26%	Great deal	35%
	56%		71%

Looking at the bolded numbers, 38% of White respondents in 1968 believed that Black individuals were more often treated with unnecessary roughness and disrespect by police; whereas, in 2014, 26% of White respondents had very little or just some confidence in local police's ability to treat White and Black individuals equally. In 1968, 56% of White respondents did not believe that Black individuals were more likely to be treated unfairly by police, compared to 71% of White respondents in 2014 having a fair amount or a great deal of confidence in local police's ability to treat people of different races equally. 

Realizing I'm comparing apples to oranges, as a group, White people's confidence in the police when it comes to racial justice issues has increased in the past 47 years. This may make sense given the racial progress our nation has supposedly made between 1968 and 2015; however, considering the recent police killings of Black individuals (see http://mappingpoliceviolence.org/unarmed/ for an extensive list), I'm leery of this increase. My lack of confidence is not to say that ALL cops are bad (absolutes of any kind are usually inaccurate). I acknowledge that their job is incredibly difficult and dangerous and appreciate their service in keeping our nation, cities, and community safe. However, as an institution, the criminal justice system is rife with injustice. Police brutality is a serious problem, and it's past time that White people listen to people of color as they tell their side of the story. It's time that we believe them, instead of complaining that police killings of people of color get too much coverage in the media (a complaint that, according to Pew, decreased in prevalence after Michael Brown's unfortunate, untimely death... that said, I still hear it quite often). I'm willing to guess that the majority of Americans (even those who watch.read the news regularly) haven't heard all of the names on the Mapping Police Violence site linked above. This phenomenon is not getting too much coverage, rather it is not getting enough coverage. 

Nobody's expected to know it all (I definitely don't), or to be perfect (I'm definitely not), but educate yourself before you start complaining about media coverage of Black lives being taken by the institution that is meant to protect us all. Educate yourself before you criticize the #BlackLivesMatter movement (e.g., it's not implying that White lives don't matter). Educate yourself before you like, favorite, retweet, share, etc. dehumanizing pictures like this one:

It's not a matter of being politically correct, it's a matter of being human. Black skin shouldn't be a death sentence and someone being shot shouldn't be a joke. Would you be laughing if it was a white person face down, bleeding on the pavement?

Manly men

While I buy the idea that phrases like “be a man” are harmful to men – as suggested by Samantha Cowen who states, “Women and girls aren’t the only victims of a patriarchal society” (http://www.takepart.com/video/2015/07/09/be-man?cmpid=tp-fb) – I think it’s also necessary to consider the negative implications the phrase “be a man” has for women.

When someone tells a male individual to “be a man,” they’re also telling them not to be the opposite of a man (i.e., don’t be a woman). This sets up the inequality women<men (not to mention that it reinforces the myth of a gender binary).

Based on the answers given in the above-linked video, society does not view women as:

• Tough
• Unafraid
• Courageous
• Strong
• Awesome
• Responsible
• Focused
• Understanding of the world around them
• Heroic
• Able to take care of themselves
• Secure
• Standing up for what they believe in
• Hardworking
• Honest
• Taking ownership
• Trusting their instincts
• UP IN YOUR GYMS PUMPING IRON

It’s also apparent from the video that sexism and misogyny are learned behaviors, as the younger children struggled to understand what “be a man” meant. There were some blossoming feminists shown in the video, as well. For instance, the 15-year old who said, “I feel like its sexist when someone just says, ‘Be a man.’ Well, there’s strong women as well.” Or the 29-year old who said, “Bullshit because what does that even mean, it’s such a vague term, ‘be a man.’ You know what… classically, men have beat the shit out of women. That’s what men have done, and so that’s not the man I want to be.”

So how is society perpetuating sexism and misogyny? Well, for one, through the media. Two weeks ago, watching So You Think You Can Dance, I was repulsed by comments made by the judges. Specifically, Paula Abdul telling Moises Parra after his performance in the Broadway round of Vegas Callbacks #1, “You gotta dance like a man […] You have to be able to dance strong.” Later in the episode, as Moises is ‘dancing for his life,’ you can hear Travis Wall saying, “He needs to dance like that when he’s dancing with a girl.” After his solo, Jason Derulo tells Moises, “You look like a badass in the beginning, but as the piece progressed you just got softer and softer.” Paula adds, “The key for you is going to be your face. Maintain the fierceness while you’re dancing.” Finally, Nigel Lythgoe (the show’s executive producer) tells him that he’s in his imaginary top ten, a compliment tempered by him saying, “It’s only you that drop out of it when you dance weakly.”

This example demonstrates society’s construction of what it means to be (and to dance) “manly”. Again, we can discern that if men dance strong and fierce, women must not (FALSE!). Furthermore, the judges telling Moises that his dancing was soft and weak after instructing him to dance like a man, sets up the distinction that to dance soft and weak is to dance like a woman (again, FALSE!). The problem in the judges’ criticisms is not that they want his dancing to be stronger – after all, it is a dancing competition and only the best will make it on to the subsequent rounds. The problem lies in the juxtaposition of “dancing like man” with “dancing strong,” which effectively equates the two and sets up disturbing antonymic associations. If we truly want to live in a society in which women are viewed as equals, we must redefine what it means to be a man in terms of what it means to be human. The roles and characteristics of men and women should not be seen as mutually exclusive. Rather, in the realm of all roles and characteristics possible, everyone, regardless of their gender identity, should be able to exhibit their truest self, “masculine”, “feminine”, and anywhere in between.

More than an acronym

I cringe every time I read something that refers to someone as a MILF. For those of you who are unaware of this pervasive term, MILF stands for “Mother I’d Like to F***.” There are similar acronyms assigned for a variety of other individuals, including dads, babysitters, grandmothers, and grandfathers. According to a 2003 definition of MILF on Urban Dictionary, the term MILF can be assigned to “mothers, whether married, separated or divorced, that a male individual sees as physical attractive enough to want to have sexual intercourse with them.” The definition goes on to explain why these MILFs are viable candidates for sexual activity – “Just cuz their moms doesn't mean that they don't need a spark in their love life. If they've ever breastfed,they have really responsive nipples and a core of erectile tissue in their breasts. The ones in good shape have worked at regaining control over their vaginas (Kegel exercises).MILFs are usually real careful about birth control, they know accidents happen but they take responsible steps. They want to f*** with abandon, with no romantic complications for their under-19 family. A MILF is any mother that is sexually desirable.” Grammatical errors aside, there are glaring implications that this explanation holds for the perpetuation of rape culture in our society (and you’ll notice that I’ve included the DILF and GranDILF acronyms in an acknowledgement that rape culture can also impact males).

The most obvious implication is that these individuals are being sexualized and objectified. Rather than acknowledging pleasing attributes of these individuals (e.g., so-and-so’s mother is attractive, smart, etc.), these acronyms beeline to the sexual, whether it is wanted by the objectified person or not. In the Urban Dictionary definition, breastfeeding is categorized not as a way to nourish one’s child, but as a way to ensure one’s ability to orgasm. Kegel exercises are viewed as a way to tighten one’s vagina for the sexual pleasure of the person doing the objectifying, rather than as a way to treat urinary incontinence and other pelvic floor problems. It is assumed that these women (after all, they’re obviously not virgins… shame on them… they’re asking for it) desire sexual relations without commitment and are basically nymphomaniacs whose libidos are insatiable.

Rape culture is defined as “an environment in which rape is prevalent and in which sexual violence against women is normalized and excused in the media and popular culture.  Rape culture is perpetuated through the use of misogynistic language, the objectification of women’s bodies, and the glamorization of sexual violence, thereby creating a society that disregards women’s rights and safety” (http://www.marshall.edu/wcenter/sexual-assault/rape-culture/). The term MILF has been integrated into our slang vocabulary in the past decade to the point where it doesn’t seem like an overtly sexual term. This seamless integration is proof positive that we are living in a rape culture. It has almost become a compliment, which is a key component to the perpetuation of rape culture in our society. In order for rape culture to continue to exist, women (and those who love them) must be complicit. Disturbingly, the hashtag #MILF (which I would not recommend looking at unless you’re ready for some explicit images) is being used by husbands to describe their wives and by daughters to describe their mothers.

Some may say that no one is, in fact, being raped when this egregious term is used nonchalantly, and therefore, calling someone a MILF does not constitute rape culture. While it is true that referring to a woman as a MILF does not involve the physical violence that constitutes rape as a criminal act, the emotional consequences of letting these seemingly harmless acronyms run rampant in our discourse are unseen, elusive, but real. The blatant disregard for women’s safety, prosperity, and equality has real consequences. Phenomena like the gender pay gap, an overwhelming male government deciding what reproductive rights women should be allowed to have, the underwhelming number of women in positions of power, not to mention the absurdly high number of women who have/will experience sexual violence in their lifetime, prove that we have a long way to go in terms of gender equality. Standing up to objectification and sexualization by way of abolishing these “harmless” terms is one small, albeit important, step towards a better world for mothers, sisters, wives, girlfriends, and yourself if you’re a member of the female sector of the population. Don’t be a bystander! Call people out when they use sexist, misogynistic language! Women should be acknowledged as the intelligent, capable, strong, talented, beautiful PEOPLE they are. Don’t let the women you love be reduced to an acronym.

Out of Context

A one minute, twenty one second clip (http://louderwithcrowder.com/hillary-clinton-called-gay-marriage-hypocrite/) from a 17 minute, 30 second address (http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4542342/hillary-clinton-same-sex-marriage) has been circulating as “proof” that Hillary Clinton is a hypocrite for not supporting marriage equality until the recent Supreme Court decision that made it the law of the land. Here’s the context that’s missing from the shortened clip. The address she was giving was in response to the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, or Marriage Protection Amendment, back in 2004 that would have, if passed, defined marriage as one man, one woman, thereby prohibiting judicial extension of marriage rights to same-sex or other unmarried heterosexual couples. The clip highlights then-Senator Clinton stating that marriage is a “bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman,” which is being taken to mean that Clinton herself defines marriage as a hetero-only institution and was, at the time, anti-marriage equality. Clinton has acknowledged that her views on a variety of issues, including marriage equality, have evolved over time (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/hillary-clintons-gay-marriage-problem/372717/). To paraphrase her, I think we should all be thinking human beings, constantly reevaluating where we stand. What we believe today is not set in stone. 

All of this points to a much more complex picture than what is shown in the shortened clip. If you listen to the rest of her argument, more of the picture is revealed. Clinton is not necessarily avowing her disbelief in same-sex marriage. Instead, she is calling out the hypocrites in Congress who used the sanctity of marriage as a reason why same-sex marriage should have been banned by constitutional amendment, yet did nothing to slow the increasing divorce rate by similar means. Her caution (“to consider altering this document [the Constitution], one of the greatest documents in the history of humanity, is a responsibility no member can or should enter into lightly”) is not meant as a deterrent to pursuing marriage equality, but is instead a yellow light to pursue such conversations through other governmental means, such as the Supreme Court (i.e., the Obergefell v. Hodges decision from this past Friday that ruled that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment).

Two other decisions that hinged on the Fourteenth Amendment include Loving v. Virginia (which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage) and Brown v. Board of Education (which declared that separate public schools for black and white children were unconstitutional). Now bear with me while I try to sort out some constitutional jargon. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The underlined portion is related to the “Privileges and Immunities Clause” (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution), which reads, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” Now what this means to me (a legal layperson) is that citizens (last I checked it wasn’t required that you be heterosexual to be a citizen) cannot have privileges (I would categorize the ability to marry the person you love as such) taken away by a state law. In 1823, Associate Justice Bushrod Washington defined privileges and immunities as "protection by the government, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject, nevertheless, to such restraints as the government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole.” Based on this definition, I would say that obtaining happiness, for some, may entail marrying the person they love. What’s that I hear, my conservative friends? Oh that last part about restraints for the general good of the whole? I could buy that argument IF (and only if) there was some stipulation attached to this SCOTUS decision that somehow delegitimized your heterosexual marriage or your religious beliefs. However, as this lovely summary (http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/a-30-second-guide-to-how-gay-marriage-ruling-affects-you/) points out, the Obergefell decision does not affect you in any way unless you are homosexual, and want to be, or are already, married. Suffice it to say, since this decision does not actually negatively affect anyone, the general good of the whole is still intact! Crisis averted!

P.S. Can we all agree not to use “lesbian” as a (somehow) derogatory way of calling out a strong woman with short hair and a pant suit (i.e., “still no word on whether she’s a lesbian” in the louderwithcrowder.com piece)? A lesbian is a woman who is romantically involved with another woman and last I checked Hillary is married to a man (not to say that she couldn’t fall in love with a woman if that was something she was into… you do you, girl!). But until the woman comes out as such, can we stop speculating on her sexual orientation as a way to detract from her merits and politics? Appreciate it.

"Being LGBT does not make you less human. And that is why gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights." -Hillary Clinton

Can you erase racism?

I’ve been doing a lot of driving the past couple of weeks, which means that I’ve also been listening to a lot of podcasts. This week’s preferred flavor was TEDTalks. As I was driving Wednesday morning, I was following a truck with two “Eracism” bumper stickers, and two of the TEDTalks I listened to on Tuesday struck me as I considered what this bumper sticker means for social justice. The first TEDTalk I thought of was “Erin McKean: Go ahead, make up new words!” “Eracism” is what Erin and other lexicographers call a lexical blend, formed from joining two words, erase and racism, together by retaining a part of each word.

e·rase

/əˈrās/

verb

• rub out or remove (writing or marks)
• remove all traces of (a thought, feeling, or memory)
• remove recorded material from (a magnetic tape or medium); delete (data) from a computer’s memory

rac·ism

/rāˌsizəm/

noun

• the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races
• prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior

By considering these two definitions, we can infer that “eracism” means to remove all traces of prejudicial, discriminatory, or antagonistic thoughts, feelings, or memories directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior. Now, I’m all for racism being abolished; however, this definition is reminiscent of the notion of colorblindness. Which brings me to the second TEDTalk I thought of while following this truck down the highway, “Vernā Myers: How to overcome our biases? Walk boldly toward them.” In in, Vernā discusses implicit biases and how our brain automatically associates positive words with white faces. She goes on to state, “We’ve gone about as far as we can go trying to make a difference trying to not see color. The problem was never that we saw color. It was what we did when we saw the color.” The solutions she offers for combatting our implicit biases are to: (1) stare at awesome black people, (2) walk toward your discomfort by expanding your social and professional circles to include people of color, and (3) have the courage to say something.

So how do these solutions mesh or not mesh with the aforementioned definition of “eracism?” As Vernā discusses, our prejudicial, discriminatory, or antagonistic thoughts and feelings are often unconscious, and I would argue, influenced by larger institutions outside of the self. To imply that abolishing racism is as simple as training our individual selves to stop thinking and feeling racist things is to trivialize the complex phenomenon that is racism. Is there such a thing as individual racism? Of course. However, the more insidious face of race is covertly hidden in our institutions… our schools, our media, our legal system, etc. It is hidden so well that it is rendered invisible by those not directly affected by it. Therefore, even if we can individually get rid of our racist thoughts and feelings, we will still be surrounded by institutions built by those thoughts and feelings. Being better people is not enough. Our institutions need a major overhaul.

In terms of our prejudicial, discriminatory, or antagonistic memories… we’ve already tried erasing these through our history textbooks. We’ve attempted to erase the details of slavery, Japanese internment camps, our treatment of Chinese railroad workers, the genocide of Native Americans by simply not teaching both sides of the story. We’ve sugar-coated our nation’s history and deemed ourselves members of a “post-racial society.” Pretending bad things didn’t happen and aren’t continuing to happen doesn’t make them go away. Turning a blind eye to our nation’s racist past and present leaves it unaddressed and allows it to fester and grow. So, eracism? Maybe not the best slogan for social justice. 

The ABCs of The Bachelor... I is for Interracial Relationships

As a quick follow-up to last week's blog post, did anybody else notice that we didn't hear more than two words from Ashley S. on this week's episode of The Bachelor? I think she said one word when her name was called on the date card, and another when her name was called for a rose at the rose ceremony. Other than that... girl was silent! I don't know what to make of this lack of air time. Did ABC realize that they were treading on some pretty thin ice? Was Ashley I.'s break down enough drama for this episode? I guess the saga continues and we'll have to wait and see what happens next episode.

Now, on to the main topic of this post... The Bachelor(ette) and interracial relationships. If you're a discerning viewer (I consider myself in this camp), you've probably noticed that most seasons of The Bachelor(ette) have few men or women of color*. You've also probably noticed that these individuals, despite generally being attractive, intelligent, and interesting, usually do not make it very far in the competition. Case in point from this season, Amber. As I mentioned, I am in a Bachelor Fantasy League. My cynicism led me to select Amber as my off pick due to the aforementioned pattern. I anticipated that Amber would be shown the door, and I was correct. Some may say it's because she was a bit presumptuous suggesting that she and Chris pretend they're dancing at their wedding, but this suggestion can be shot down as Chris was also pretending to be engaged to Whitney on this week's episode. Some may say she's just not his type, but then why was he playing tonsil hockey with her mere hours before he said au revoir. I'm not exactly sure why Chris (or the producers) decided to give Amber the boot, but I think there's something larger at play here.

Two scenarios:

1 - (this one has evidence to substantiate my claims) We, as a society, are not over our aversion to miscegenation despite the landmark case Loving v. Virginia being 48 years in our collective past. Banks (2007) discusses the sex asymmetry tied to low intermarriage of black women, stating, "The most noteworthy feature of the post-Loving period is not the increased intermarriage of African-American men, but the sustained low intermarriage of black women, especially in light of the demise of antimiscegenation laws and the increased opportunity for interracial contact" (p. 533-4). Given that intermarriage and interracial relationships are still frowned upon by some in our society, Lehmiller and Agnew's (2006) finding that "individuals who perceived greater disapproval of their relationships had significantly lowers levels of commitment, suggesting that perceptions of marginalization was a significant predictor of commitment above and beyond the well-established effects of satisfaction, alternatives, and investments" (p. 48) is particularly relevant to the pattern of men and women of color not making it past the initial rounds on The Bachelor(ette). It is plausible that Chris, a farmer from a rural community, anticipated that others in said community wouldn't approve of his relationship with Amber when he decided to say sayonara.

2 - (this one is my cynical hunch) The show's producers want to demonstrate that they/the network is somehow above society's racist tendencies and so they rig the competition so that the participants of color stay a few episodes until they get the boot, making it look like The Bachelor(ette) simply had stronger feelings for the other participants. A bit of a concession technique to appease any viewers that happen not to be white.

Examples (Given Banks' findings about sex asymmetry, I will focus on examples from the three most recent seasons of The Bachelor):
1) Amber from Chris Soules' season was sent home on episode 3.
2) Chantel from Juan Pablo's season was sent home on episode 3.
3) Victoria from Juan Pablo's season was sent home on episode 2 because she was extremely intoxicated - not a great example.
4) Danielle from Juan Pablo's season was sent home on episode 5 - an interesting contrast to Chantel as Danielle had much lighter skin.
5) Robyn from Sean Lowe's season** was sent home on episode 5.
6) Ashley H from Sean Lowe's season was sent home on episode 1.
7) Brooke from Sean Lowe's season was sent home on episode 2.
8) Leslie H from Sean Lowe's season was sent home on episode 4.

Based on this sample, the average number of women of color on these three seasons of The Bachelor is 2.667 and the average episode of departure is 3.125. I'm not entirely sure what to make of these "statistics," so I'll give you some more... The average number of women on these three seasons is 27.667, making the average percentage of women of color 9.6%. According to Kerby (2012), "women of color comprise 36.3 percent of our nation's female population." Therefore, shouldn't the number of women of color on our television shows, including reality TV like The Bachelor, be representative of the larger population? Food for thought. On the other hand, maybe women of color are just smarter than us white girls... they've figured out that the best way to fall in love is most certainly NOT on public television with 26.667 other women. If so, kudos!

Notes:
*The lack of women of color on the Bachelor may be explained by Childs' (2005) findings. Her interviewees suggested that "interracial relationships are a sign that one is removed from African American communities" (p. 551). Since there is an application process to be on a show like The Bachelor, and these women are participating of their own free will, it is plausible that many women of color do not consider applying due to an intragroup stigma attached to dating a white man (which almost all of the Bachelors are). Childs also suggests that white racism plays a role in Black women not dating white men. One interviewee stated, "If whites still think you're inferior, why would I or any Black person want to be with one?" (p. 551).
**I didn't watch Sean Lowe's season, so I really don't know if there were extenuating circumstances surrounding any of these women's departures. I must say, I am impressed at the above-average diversity present in his season's participants, even the winner/his wife Catherine has Filipino heritage!

References:
Banks, R.R. (2007). The aftermath of Loving v. Virginia: Sex asymmetry in African-American intermarriage. Wisconsin Law Review, 533-542.
Childs, E.C. (2005). Looking behind the stereotypes of the "angry Black woman": An exploration of Black women's responses to interracial relationships. Gender & Society 19(4), 544-561.
Lehmiller, J.J. & Agnew, C.R. (2006). Marginalized relationships: The impact of social disapproval on romantic relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 32(1), 40-51.
Kerby, S. (2012, July 17). The state of women of color in the United States: Although they've made incredible strides, many barriers remain for this growing population. Center for American Progress. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/report/2012/07/17/11923/the-state-of-women-of-color-in-the-united-states/

The ABC's of the Bachelor... A is for Ableism

I have a confession to make. ABC's reality dating show, The Bachelor, and it's female counterpart, The Bachelorette, are a guilty pleasure of mine. I belong to a Bachelor fantasy league (BFL) with some fantastic individuals who share in this guilty pleasure, but are otherwise amazing scholars. I'll speak for myself here, but I'm sure this also applies to many of my BFL colleagues... this television series is riddled with things to be critical of in the name of social justice, and while I savor those Monday night moments watching 30 women fight over one man, I also think it's a useful exercise to consider the implications of how ABC portrays the individuals on the show.

As I said, there are many issues that I could discuss with respect to The Bachelor. To name a couple, the lack of contestants of color (maybe one or two per season, out of a pool of 30), or the overwhelming sexism (for those of you that watched last night's episode, girls being forced to walk down a busy LA street in their bikinis... what was that?!). This isn't to negate any moments of "brilliance" that the show has also demonstrated, namely during Juan Pablo's season when women like Andi and Claire spoke out against Juan Pablo's treatment of women, Claire bringing to light the slut shaming that had occurred at her expense.

These issues aside, last night's episode was shocking to me for more than the bikini-clad street walking... the show's portrayal of Ashley S. If you're familiar with the show, you know that there is always that one woman who every viewer suspects is allowed to stay in order to bring the drama for ratings. From the first two episodes of the season, it appears as though Ashley S. is going to be that woman. However, her "drama" seems different than that of past women who have filled this role on the show (e.g., Michelle Money from season 15). During the season premiere, Ashley S. is shown picking a pomegranate she has confused with an onion during a monologue comparing another girl on the show to an onion that you would cut to see the different layers. During the second episode, paint gun-wielding Ashley S. is shown barely coherent, having a conversation with Chris that even he admits he couldn't follow. This is all done at her expense as the other girls laugh and joke about how Ashley S. shouldn't be trusted with the paint gun.

At this point it's uncertain what is causing Ashley S.'s lack of coherence. It's also uncertain whether this is scripted, put on, or if it is, in fact, real. If it's scripted, ABC needs to learn how to make jokes that don't involve calling someone crazy. If it's a persona that Ashley S. is putting on (in my opinion, the least likely of these three scenarios, but I'll entertain it for a moment nonetheless), ABC, as the network responsible for putting these scenes on television, should know better than to allow it. However, if it's real, ABC ought to be getting her some help rather than making her the butt of the joke on national television. No matter which scenario rings true, The Bachelor is treading on some pretty shaky grounds in terms of engaging in ableism. The fact that guns were involved on the group date adds major insult to injury given the countless instances mental illness overlapping with gun violence in our nation's recent history. As the rest of the season unfolds, we will hopefully get some answers and maybe, just maybe, Ashley S. will get the help she needs. Stay tuned!

So you say you're pro-family and/or pro-life...

So you say you're pro-family... but your definition of family is narrow and you might even support ripping families apart in certain situations (e.g., deporting "illegal" parents of citizen children, sending mothers and fathers to prison for nonviolent crimes). You most likely define family as the traditional, nuclear family that represents only 48.4% of families with children under the age of 18 from 2001-2007 in the United States according to the CDC, which defines nuclear family as "both parents must be biological or adoptive to all children in the family" (2010, p. 4). Now granted this definition may include both heterosexual and homosexual couples in states where it is legal for them to be married and have or adopt children, there are still states (my own included) which have constitutional bans on marriage equality, and others which have state laws, no recognition, or stayed pending appeals. When people say they are pro-family, what they generally mean is that they are pro-family's that have two heterosexual parents. The bone I have to pick with this idea is two-fold:

1) Two parents are better than one? As someone who was raised by a single mother (quite successfully, I might add), I take personal offense to this. My childhood and my upbringing were the epitome of love and support. Between my mother and my amazing grandmother, I was cared for quite arguably more than some individuals who are raised in a home with both of their biological parents. To insist that my life is less than because my family did not match the "pro-family" ideal, is insulting to me, my mother, and my grandmother. To add insult to injury, I am also a single woman who wishes to have children someday, regardless of whether or not I find my "one true love." I hope to adopt, but other people's politics may prevent this from happening if I remain unwed. As someone who is trained in education, truly wishes to raise children, and will be gainfully employed and able to provide stability, shelter, safety, love, and other needs beyond just those basic to human life, I find it ludicrous that I may be unable to fulfill the role of adoptive mother because I don't have a ring on my finger and a piece of paper. Being married does not necessarily mean someone will be a good mother or father. So for those of you who say you're "pro-family," yet oppose single individuals being able to adopt, please start describing yourself as pro-marriage (I won't get any further into the absurdity of our society's narrow definition of marriage than I already have).

2) Homosexuality is bad for kids? This is similar to my single woman wanting to adopt rant. Being gay or lesbian does not mean someone will be a bad father or mother. There are kids who will be forced to grow up in the foster care system (which has been said to be a determinant of future criminal behavior) because our society does not want them to have a gay parent. So for those of you who say you're "pro-family," yet oppose gay parents being able to adopt, please start describing yourself as homophobic.

So you say you're pro-life... but this only applies to unborn babies. Many individuals who say they are pro-life support the death penalty and defend cops who demonstrate police brutality that ends in death. To vehemently oppose abortion and turn around and say that young, black boys and men like Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, and Eric Garner "had it coming" because they were breaking the law is extremely hypocritical. What this hypocrisy sets up is a hierarchy of life worth... only some lives are worth fighting for. So for those of you who say you're "pro-life," yet support the death penalty and/or fatal police brutality, please start describing yourself as pro-fetus.

The point of this rant is simple, people who say they are pro-family and/or pro-life are playing to the public's emotions. After all, who can argue against family and life? The stances "pro-family" and "pro-life" individuals take are often contradictory. They say they value family, but look away as fathers are sent thousands of miles away from their children in the name of immigration policy. They laud the married mother and father whose fighting behind closed doors is impacting their child's mental health and well-being, and in the next breath criticize the single mother for having a child out of wedlock. They post Facebook statuses denouncing rape victims who get abortions, then share an article in support of Darren Wilson. Through it all, they contribute to systems of racism, sexism, and heterosexism. The effects of their confounding opinions oppress people of color, women, and the LGBT community.

Reference:

CDC. (2010). Family structure and children's health in the United States: Findings from the national health interview survey, 2001-2007. Vital and Health Statistics 10(246).

Seat at the table or scapegoat?

So, it's been a while since I've been on here. This is mostly due to the fact that I've been reading and writing a lot for my comprehensive exams, as well as preparing to begin data collection for my dissertation. As such, I've been immersed in the literature about whiteness, a central topic in my work as a teacher educator and educational researcher. So when I saw an article run by the self-appointed "best conservative news source," the Dc Gazette,  about the Huffington Post claiming that Mia Love was "enjoying" white privilege, I was compelled to look into what the Huffington Post actually claimed (see http://dcgazette.com/huffington-post-claims-mia-love-enjoys-white-privilege-wait-what/ and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/darron-t-smith-phd/mia-love_b_6116466.html).

Leonardo (2005) defines white privilege as “the notion that white subjects accrue advantages by virtue of being constructed as whites” (p. 37). The Dc Gazette article claims, "Just when you thought liberals couldn't be any more nonsensical, they come out and attack Mia Love for benefiting from a form of 'White Privilege'." However, reading the Huffington Post article, there is one mention of white privilege, "This is one way white privilege is reproduced at the legislative level of government." This mention of white privilege in no way is attributed to Mia Love herself, but rather to the system within which she was elected. The Dc Gazette writer accuses Darron T. Smith, the author of the Huffington Post article, of being "upset that Mia Love isn't playing the left's identity politics game." However, Smith himself acknowledges that Black voters are not monolithic. To be Black does not necessarily entail being liberal. What Smith carefully points out is that the Republican party to which Mia Love belongs, does not serve Black interests (e.g., with regards to education, economics, and health outcomes). What the Dc Gazette article does is promulgate the myth that white privilege and its counterpart white racism is an individual act. Mia Love, an individual, is said to be enjoying white privilege... a misappropriation of the term. The Huffington Post, on the other hand, acknowledges the systemic nature of white privilege by attributing it to the legislative level of government acting in its own self-interest, which is largely white, wealthy, and male. 

Another phenomenon at play in this debate is white exceptionalism. White exceptionalism is a type of "blame game"  in which white individuals who see themselves as anti-racist set themselves apart from other white individuals and groups which they deem to be racist, essentially seeing themselves as exceptional whites. This describes what the Republican party is doing here. They are setting themselves up as exceptional whites by essentially using Mia Love as their scapegoat. The GOP cannot possibly be a racist entity if they are willing to let a Black, Mormon, woman sit at their table. With Mia Love on their side, they can continue to promote legislation that is in the interest of the white majority with little regard to the implications it has for the rest of the population and point to Utah's Haitian-American representative as "proof" that they are doing no wrong. 

In sum, is Mia Love "enjoying" white privilege? No. She is being used by those who do possess white privilege. Sure, she now has a seat at the table, and I hope she decides to use it for the good of those who are oppressed due to their race, religion, and/or gender, but make no mistake in thinking that her own race, religion, and/or gender have been forgotten. Electing a poster child for the GOP's skin-deep re-branding effort does not make Utah progressive, nor does it mean that the U.S. is "post-racial." 

Leonardo, Z. (2005). The color of supremacy: Beyond the discourse of ‘white privilege.’ In Z. Leonardo (Ed.), Critical Pedagogy and Race (pp. 37-52). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Hey, baby... nice ______ (fill in body part here)!

I'm breaking my silence. I've felt violated and scared one too many times to keep quiet. Last night while walking the one block from the bar to my car after a friend's going away party, I was catcalled. "Hey, girl! Everything about you is looking right in that dress... ooo that ass!" Something to that effect. While the correct response may be for me to feel flattered (I did spend over 5 hours at the gym this week... glad to know it paid off for this "gentleman"), I felt violated. I was scared, counting the steps I had left before I reached my car. I got my cell phone out and made a call... maybe if I'm on the phone with someone they'll leave me alone. Not quite an eye witness, but at least someone would hear me scream if the guy decides to get out of his car and follow me, or worse. Thoughts rushed through my head. "I should have gotten a ride to my car... why am I walking alone at night?... is this dress too revealing?... I should be wearing more sensible shoes." This guy may think he's boosting my ego. He may think he's paying me a compliment, but what he's really doing is making me remember that 1 out of 6 women have been raped in her lifetime (https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims). So far, I've been one of the five, but every time something like this happens I wonder if my luck is running out.

Now I'm not saying I don't appreciate attention, but these guys on the street... they don't know me. When a friend or even an acquaintance tells me, "You look pretty tonight," or "I like your new haircut. Looks good on you," I appreciate the sentiment as what it is... a genuine compliment.

Catcalling, within the broader category of street harassment, is a problem... one that warrants our attention. According to a national survey done by Stop the Street Harassment, 65% of women have experienced some form of street harassment in their lifetimes, 86% of those experiencing it multiple times, if not daily (http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2014-National-SSH-Street-Harassment-Report.pdf). This isn't to say that men are not also harassed on the street. Women are guilty of objectifying men too. I've done it... I mean Mark Wahlberg's Calvin Klein ad, anybody? However, what stands out to me here is that 9 out of 10 rape victims in 2003 were female (https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims). Maybe this data is outdated, maybe I watch too much Law & Order: SVU, but I'm tired of being scared.

Catcalling may be a manifestation of insecurity; however, I'm more inclined to believe that it is, in some instances at least, a manifestation of power. I'm a pretty brazen individual. I usually say how I feel, making my opinions (right or wrong, for better or worse) known, for example, this blog. However, in instances where a guy is yelling obscenities and evaluations of my body at me through his car window, I'm silenced by fear. I feel powerless to defend myself. If I yell back, "leave me alone," or "get a life," will that anger him in some way, encouraging him to retaliate? So I keep my head down and my mouth shut and quicken my pace. How will this ever end if we keep our mouths shut though? Luckily, there are people who are leading the way to get the word out, like http://www.ihollaback.org/. So, the next time you're catcalled or made to feel powerless while walking down the street, tell the world. Raise awareness.

Hot or not?

Came across this list of 7 "hot" actresses who got "ugly" for the big screen today on Facebook (http://celebs.answers.com/beauty/7-hot-actresses-who-got-ugly-for-the-big-screen). The pop culture addict in me was intrigued; however, once I started reading and looking at the hot vs. ugly pictures of these women, the feminist in me was outraged.

First up, Taryn Manning from OITNB, one of my newly favorite shows. The list criticizes her stringy hair and her bad teeth, and while I'm not about to condone using meth (the supposed reason for her OITNB character's bad teeth), what message does this send to people who have dental issues for other, non-drug related reasons? Not only is beauty only skin deep, it's also apparently only enamel deep.

Next, Anne Hathaway with her frizzy hair and untamed eyebrows from The Princess Diaries. So much discussion in magazines and other media goes back and forth on the meaningless issue of what women's eyebrows should look like. One year, the fuller, less tamed look is in... the next, you better be keeping up with your waxing appointments. Couldn't our energy and intelligence as women be put to better use? The list also highlights Hathaway's new(ish) pixie cut, stating that even with her recent lack of hair, she is still attractive. As a woman with short hair, am I supposed to equate beauty with my hair style in inches?

Then there's Charlize Theron in Monster. The website's list makes sure to mention that she had to gain around 30 pounds for the role. What about those of us who have gained similar weight, but not for a role on the silver screen? If we were hot before the weight gain, are we now ugly by Hollywood's standards?

Then, probably the most frustrating to me and the straw that broke the camel's back and made me reach for my neglected blogger account, is Elizabeth Moss and her roles on both Mad Men and Girl, Interrupted. The list indicates that even in her role in Mad Men, the only real reason she gets hit on is basically because she has a vagina that the men might be interested in for their extramarital affairs (I happen to be a big fan of Mad Men, don't get me wrong). However, they highlight that she "got ugly" for the big screen for her role in Girl-Interrupted in which her character has quite a bit of scarring from burns. What does this say about women in "real life" who have burn scars?

Next, the list goes to Rooney Mara from Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Again, the message is that short hair on young women makes them unattractive. This, paired with her character's piercings, is the evidence for her "getting ugly" for the big screen. So ladies, if you'd like to be considered beautiful, please stay away from the needles.

Then there's Emma Thompson from her role in Nanny McPhee, whose "snaggletooth, huge nose, and unibrow" are highlighted as "ugly" features. Again with the teeth and eyebrows... and go ahead and add noses to the list of things women should pay attention to in order to meet the criteria the media has established for beauty. That's what plastic surgeons are for, right?

Last, we have Cameron Diaz from Being John Malkovitch who is chastised for not wearing makeup. I'll remember this next time I begin to leave my apartment without mascara and red lipstick.

All in all, lists like this (as enjoyable as they might be as we're perusing the internet looking for something to distract us from the real work that needs done) are demeaning towards women. Impossible standards have been set for beauty and we spend entirely too much time striving to meet them. Women, we are our own worst enemy in this; after all, this list was authored by none other than a woman. I've said this before and I'll likely say it again... let's stop cutting each other down and start building up ourselves and our fellow females! You are more than your eyebrows, your hair style, your scars, your teeth, your nose, and your body shape. Let your inner beauty, your generosity, your kind heart, your honesty, your integrity shine through... go ahead, girl... let your light shine bright! And hey (this one's for everyone), don't forget to tell the women you love... your mother, your sister, your girlfriend/partner/wife, your friend... or anyone you pass on the street that they are lovely!

She's got legs...

I took ballet, tap, and jazz lessons throughout middle and high school, and even continued dancing in college through my university's fine arts college, taking ballet and modern classes for three years. I am by no means a trained dancer, but I truly appreciate the beauty of the art form and love to bust a move whenever I can (although this doesn't usually include pirouettes and my moves are far from choreographed). 

There is recent hubbub contrasting Free People's dancer ads and those of Under Armour (see http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/trained-dancers-are-completely-appalled-ballet-ad-free-people-clothing-157682 and http://jezebel.com/leg-envy-alert-ballerina-misty-copelands-fierce-new-u-1512457209), and while I can see both sides' perspectives, I wonder what these conversations say about feminism and women's body images. 

The Free People ad shows a woman who says she has been dancing since she was three. She explains that she loves moving and dance has helped her be aware of her body. I would argue that these are both positive messages for girls and women to hear. Implicit in her message is encouragement for females to live active lives and reassurance that you should be attuned to your body. However, there has been backlash arguing that the company should have hired a professional dancer for the spot. I, personally, love that they hired an "every woman." Not every little girl will be a professional ballerina, but I hope that little girls (although not the ad's target audience) might see this ad and be inspired to express themselves through dance. 

The Under Armour ad, on the other hand, depicts a muscular Misty Copeland. I think these images could be construed as both positive and negative for women's body images. On the positive side, I think it's empowering to see a strong female body in the media. Females are far from weak, and this ad shows that we, as females, do not need someone to rescue us. On the flip side, the author of the Jezebel article posted above bemoans her own leg muscle mass stating, "I really need to do more of squats and calf exercises, guys, I'm slipping." While inspiring, these images do not make clear that Misty's career as a ballerina requires quite a bit of work on her body... not many of us can say that as we sit at our computers at work day in and day out. I would need to do leg exercises all day every day for quite a few months to get legs like Misty's. Misty Copeland, therefore, may not be the best target for me to aim for in the way of desired physique. How about some realistic bodies, Under Armour? Why should we sit here and wish we had Misty's legs? Why can we not be told that we should appreciate our bodies for all they allow us to do, instead of wishing they looked differently or were better in some unattainable way?

What I'm saying is that there has to be a happy medium and we need to watch how we talk about other women. Ladies, we are in this fight together. Instead of cutting the woman in the Free People ad down for having weak ankles and a sickled foot, let's commend her for trying and encourage her to continue on her journey to becoming better. Let's inspire future generations of young women by celebrating ALL female bodies, from the every woman to the professional ballerina.

Let them eat tacos!

I consider myself an advocate of social justice for all and wish to fight against inequality and injustice wherever I see it in the world. However, this can be a tricky situation, especially on social media. Classmates, friends, family members, acquaintances, friends of friends all post things that are on their minds. When is it appropriate to confront someone about something they posted? How is it best to do this? I would argue that our goal should always be to educate, never to condemn. I'm passionate about issues related to race, sexual orientation, language, religion, ability, age, and gender. Given that my career aspirations revolve around doing the work of promoting social justice, I may be more sensitive to/conscious of issues involving these subjects. Sometimes it can be hard for me to contain my enthusiasm, therefore I am creating this blog as an outlet. I'm not saying I will be 100% right, 100% of the time. I'm bound to have typos, so don't bother copy-editing my posts, I know I'm not perfect. Also, I'm not saying that my way is the only correct way to think about these issues, and my reasoning may have flaws in it at times, but this is my attempt to promote social justice, one post at a time.

This article from the Western Journalism Center recently came up on my Facebook timeline (http://www.westernjournalism.com/serio)sly-eating-food-now-considered-racist/#6hkJoAza8Cxl2wZU.01). The Western Journalism Center is self-described as "a blogging platform for conservative, libertarian, free market and pro-family writers and broadcasters" (http://www.westernjournalism.com/about/). In the article, one account of what happened surrounding the event Pi Phiesta is given. What appears to be an irrelevant stock image of aisles of food at some kind of convenience store is featured at the top of the article. Throughout the article, the word "some" is used several times. For instance, "some radical leftists," "some thought the trend could not get more bizarre," and "what some considered an offensive gesture." I'm sure we all use the word some in daily conversation. However, do we ever stop to think about what this word does in instances such as the ones highlighted above? Who are these elusive "some?" Are they credible? What stake do they have in this discussion? Exactly how many "some" are there? 

The "outrage" mentioned in the article is described as "manufactured," suggesting that it has been invented or fabricated and that it is not real. The philanthropic event's charitable roots are highlighted, promoting the idea of the event as good and the backlash as bad. It is said that the event raises a "significant amount of money for charity," however the amount and the charity are not mentioned. The fundraiser is said to be "under fire," creating a metaphorical image of a war zone, effectively dramatizing the current situation. We hear from one individual, a writer from The College Fix; however, the voices of those opposed to the event and members of the involved sorority are silenced or at least disregarded. 

The Stanford Daily, the campus newspaper at Stanford University, one of the main sites of this confrontation, posted two articles about the Pi Phiesta debate (http://www.stanforddaily.com/2014/05/06/cincOo-de-mayo-observances-cause-student-protests/ and http://www.stanforddaily.com/2014/05/07/pi-phi-fundraiser-opens-up-culture-minded-dialogue/). These articles featured the voices of those involved in the protest, as well as witnesses of the confrontations that occurred related to the protest, and the Pi Beta Phi president. These articles focused more directly on what occurred on Stanford's campus related to this event and the hopeful resolution that was reached as a result of conversation between the sorority and those concerned about the event's cultural sensitivity. One of these articles (Cinco de Mayo Observances Cause Student Protests) even featured a picture of one of the student protesters with her sign which read, "Our culture is not a costume."

Now I love tacos, margaritas, tamales, enchiladas, tequila, and salsa as much as the next person, and the good news is that you get to keep loving these amazing foods and drinks! I'm going on the record here saying that it is not racist to love Mexican-inspired food. Phew! Thank goodness for that! One of the Stanford Daily articles (Cinco de Mayo Observances Cause Student Protests) offered a definition of cultural appropriation. "Cultural appropriation refers to actions that trivialize aspects of a culture by not respecting a custom's symbolic significance or the history of a style of dress or other artifact." The issue is not with non-Mexican people eating Mexican-inspired food... in fact, most of my friends from other countries LOVE to share their food and customs with others. The problem lies with how we treat others and their beliefs. We wear sombreros, ponchos, and fake mustaches pretending to be a caricature of another person. I know quite a few people from Mexico, and I can honestly say I have never seen them dress this way. We get drunk and act stupid and say we're celebrating Mexico, yet we have very little concern with what actually occurs in our neighboring country and are currently involved in a fight to keep Mexico's people out of our nation. We speak Spanglish, but when our nation's epidemic monolingualism is challenged we maintain that English is the only language that matters and even argue that our patriotic songs should never be sung in any other language. The problem is not tacos. The problem is disrespect and ignorance. So next year on May 5th (or better yet, this year on September 16th, Mexico's actual independence day), have a taco, but please do so with only your real facial hair and your regular clothing... and while you're at it, make a friend from Mexico and learn what it really means to be Mexican.