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!