bee boop

[kzhang]

“Not qualified”

Most men will live their entire lives without any insight into how hard women work to actively unlearn our own social conditioning. Literally from the moment we display any sex characteristics on a sonogram, society starts imposing gendered rules and regulations on how we're supposed to think, how we're supposed to look, how we're supposed to behave, how we're supposed to live. It takes years, often decades for women to realize society has pummeled us with manipulative misinformation on our own abilities, accomplishments, and potential. The conscious unlearning of these messages is a lifelong assignment. And not all women care to or are willing to unlearn—your Phyllis Schlaflys, your Ann Coulters, your run-of-the-mill Beckys. Those of us who choose to spend our time and energy fighting internalized sexism are exhausted. We're exhausted enough combating the misogyny within ourselves. It's even more taxing to confront misogyny every day out in the world—especially when delivered by so-called progressive men (and women) who don't "mean" to be sexist.

Bernie Sanders saying that Hillary Clinton is "not qualified" to be President is sexist. Full stop. It doesn't matter if he was using that phrase rhetorically to make the same point he's made thousands of times in his stump speech without those words. He still suggested that a woman can be one of the most accomplished, intelligent, and qualified people to EVER run for President, but not be suitable for the office because of some standards of qualification set by a man. It doesn't matter whether he did or did not know he was using loaded language. Either he knew and didn't care, or he didn't know and is therefore way less attuned to feminist issues than he purports to be.

There are countless studies showing how social conditioning affects women and girls in our professional, academic, and personal lives. Women are less likely than men to negotiate compensation. Women are less likely than men to speak up in meetings. Girls who show the same level of interest as boys do in STEM fields at a young age are discouraged from pursuing it by middle school. Girls are less likely than boys to participate in sports and more likely to drop out. Women tend to understate our accomplishments and undersell ourselves. Women are more susceptible to the imposter syndrome than men are. Women are less likely than men to consider running for office. Etc. Etc. Etc.

These discrepancies don't exist because of some moral failing of women. These discrepancies exist because society teaches us that this is how to be a woman. Employers are more likely to view women negatively [pdf] for attempting to negotiate while there is no such penalty for men. Workplace culture punishes women who are deemed "assertive" or "aggressive". Men consistently perceive women as speaking more than men do when men actually speak more. Men view a room that is 1/3 women as there being more women than men. Parents and schools discourage girls from pursuing STEM fields by lowering expectations and diminishing their achievement. Male students significantly overrate other male students' performance while underrating female students' performance. Parents underestimate their own daughters' physical ability in infancy [pdf] despite baby girls and baby boys being equally physically capable. Society constantly teaches women to downplay our own confidence and abilities. Women face an absurd amount of sexism on the campaign trail as well as when we're in office. Etc. Etc. Etc.

With all of the obstacles women face in building any success in our lives, it's a feat that women like Hillary Clinton have brushed it off and kept going. It's honestly really fucking inspiring.

When women hear someone say that Hillary Clinton is "not qualified" to be President, or that she's too "ambitious", we hear all of the ways those words and that dismissive attitude has set us back in our own lives. We remember the boys who called us "bossy". We remember that teacher who casually dismissed our work. We remember the HR reps who pushed back on our negotiation. We remember the male students or coworkers who talked over us or passed our ideas off as their own. We remember that promotion we didn't get or got 6 months too late. We remember all of the microaggressions and outright aggressions we faced from people questioning our own abilities, accomplishments, and potential.

When women hear someone using this type of language to criticize a powerful woman, we get to see all of that insidious social conditioning play out public. Honestly, if Hillary fucking Clinton is "not qualified" for the job she's seeking, where does that leave the rest of us?

[kzhang]

FYI caucuses are inherently undemocratic because they suppress voter turnout.

If your campaign strategy is reliant on caucus victories, own up to the fact that your candidacy is primarily fueled by voters who have the money, the time, and the energy to actually participate in a voting format that’s significantly less equitable than primaries.

ETA: 2012 voting data is from Wikipedia. 2016 voting data is from NYTimes, except for caucus states where only delegate equivalents were reported. IA caucus voter turnout from Huffington Post. NV caucus voter turnout approximation from CBS. ME caucus voter turnout from Portland Press Herald. AK caucus voter turnout from Buslte. WA caucus voter turnout approximation from OPB.

[kzhang]

1,400 characters isn’t enough space to say everything I want to say about the Peter Liang verdict and the unjust killing of Akai Gurley. The more important point is that Peter Liang killed Akai Gurley and then failed to attend to Gurley as he was dying in the stairwell. Liang was convicted of second-degree manslaughter and official misconduct. This is the correct call. 

Protests from the Chinese-American community calling for more lenient sentencing may claim that the protesters are seeking justice, but their actions and rhetoric reveal a strong current of anti-Black racism embedded within many Asian-American communities. Jason Fong explores this disconnect:

Peter Liang was not treated unjustly. Peter Liang was just not treated like he was white. Being treated like a white person is not the same as being treated justly. Whiteness is not justice. It seems, however, that some of the protestors are conflating being treated justly with being treated as if one were white. They are protesting that a broken system was not broken enough to extend racial protection and unearned absolution to a Chinese kid from Bensonhurst. They are complaining that the structural injustice that lets off white cops should have also been extended to Liang. The unfairness here, according to the protestors, is that Liang wasn’t able to escape punishment—like others. This aspiration to be treated like white people is their version of “justice”—rather than a vision of justice that provides accountability for all police.

Whiteness is not justice. We should not aspire to be treated as if we were White. Whiteness is violence. Whiteness is oppression. Whiteness is destruction. Whiteness is inequality. Whiteness is racism. Whiteness is injustice. 

Asian-Americans do not need Whiteness. We need liberation. We will never succeed in our true fight for justice if we do not eradicate the anti-Black racism that informs our political “activism”. 

Yellow Peril supports Black Power. In 1968. And in 2016.

[kzhang]

I make no excuses for supporting Hillary Clinton.

There is a common behavior among many socially-conscious supporters of Hillary Clinton of starting our declarations of support with caveats:

“There are a lot of issues that I don’t agree with her on but I’m voting for her.”

“I don’t really like Hillary but I want to elect a Democrat.”

“I want to vote for Elizabeth Warren but I’ll settle for Hillary instead.”

For progressives, it’s not cool to support Hillary Clinton. She’s too "establishment” or “corporate” or “moderate” for a truly socially-aware person to support. We’re expected to hedge any support for her in an explanation that she’s the person best poised to beat the Republican circus of candidates and that while our hearts would truly love to support a socialist, we support Hillary purely for pragmatic purposes. We’re afraid that if we voice our support for her in any other way, that our Progressive Card will be revoked.

I’m tired of that angle. I’m tired of young progressives making excuses for their support for Hillary. I’m tired of women making excuses for supporting her. Because let’s be honest, it’s usually women who are expected to make excuses for their political beliefs like that. Maybe I’m missing all of the swaths of young men vocalizing their support for Hillary Clinton, but from what I’ve seen on social media, it’s typically women writing about why they’re voting for Hillary. Unfortunately those posts are more often than not littered with excuses and apologies. 

I don’t apologize for supporting Hillary Clinton.

This is the point where self-anointed Champions of Liberty tend to whip out so many lazy and uninspired tactics to convince me I'm wrong. "Wall Street!” they’ll yell. “Benghazi! Emails! Iraq! The ’90s!” They usually bring up these points to suggest that I somehow haven’t thought it through. They don’t know that I’ve been actively involved with politics for 12 years. They don’t know that I studied politics in college and was heavily involved with campaigns and voter turnout. They don’t know that my support for Hillary Clinton is borne out of 10 years of following her career and her contributions. They don’t know that I have thought. this. through. All they see is a young, progressive woman declaring her support for Hillary. So clearly there must be something I haven’t considered. Clearly I’m just asking to be persuaded into supporting a different candidate.

Fuck all of that. I am firm in my support for Hillary Clinton. I’ll be damned if I let some Macklemore-listening and/or Macklemore-resembling liberal whiteboy condescend to me about politics. 

Of course Hillary Clinton doesn't represent all of my ideals. I'm not naïve enough to think that any one candidate (or any 535 members of Congress) could fully represent my ideals or the ideals of every one of the 319 million people living in this country. That's not how our political system works and it's not how it was designed to work. We can discuss what it would take for an upheaval of the political system if these brogressives want. But given that these people trying to sell me on their viewpoints are often the same people who opposed Black Lives Matter activists speaking up at political rallies and who paint reparations for slavery as “unrealistic”, I’m not convinced that they truly want a political revolution as much as they want to seem so much more progressive and radical compared to everyone else.

I understand all of the reasons people cite for not supporting Hillary Clinton. These reasons don’t persuade me. About 90% of the criticism levied against Hillary is just straight up sexism. If you start dissecting any of the rhetoric around “likability” you’ll find that people who say she’s “unlikeable” or that they “distrust” her simply aren’t ready to see a highly qualified, assertive woman take charge without apologies. Funny how so many of those attitudes are mirrored in critiques of women who write about supporting Hillary.

Beyond the blatantly sexist comments, you’ll find many other criticisms that may be reasonable on their own, but are aimed at Hillary disproportionately more than they would be aimed at any male candidate. Judgement against her connections to Wall Street seem to ignore the fact that Barack Obama, Martin O’Malley, John Edwards, John Kerry, every Republican, and hundreds of other male politicians have accepted money from the financial sector. Critiques of her having too long a history in the political realm trap her in an un-winnable cycle . Say we even accept the idea that there’s such a thing as “too much experience in politics” to become president. These people claim that Hillary has been in politics too long. She’s clearly too ambitious (an insult only when speaking about women). Yet they ignore how she was often criticized in 2008 for not being having enough experience—that she barely spent more time in Senate than Barack Obama—that her contributions as First Lady of the United States, as First Lady of Arkansas, and her legal advocacy career before that didn’t count as experience. Keep in mind that women typically have to achieve significantly more in their professional lives than men do just to be considered for the same role. So what, now she has too many qualifications to be president? She’s too “establishment”? But 25 years in Congress gets you labeled as an “outsider”? I see how this works.

About 10% of the criticism against Hillary Clinton is fair. When I have honest, thoughtful discussions with people about her candidacy that’s free from sexism and lazy attacks, we often land on some important issues. People who know me, who know my politics or have read what I’ve written about politics know what my reservations are. They know where I disagree with Hillary and they know where I want her to be better. But I’m not someone who throws the baby out with the bathwater. Even considering the points around her candidacy that aren’t perfect, I solidly believe that Hillary Clinton is the best presidential candidate—not just in the Democratic primary, not just in the 2016 election, but of any person who could possibly run for president right now (yes, even better than Elizabeth Warren).

My support for Hillary does not make me any less progressive. I support her because I am progressive. My support for Hillary doesn’t cancel out my social justice values or my identity politics. I support her because my values have been shaped by living at the intersection of several marginalized communities. My support for Hillary isn’t reluctant or quiet; it’s passionate and bold! I feel privileged to be witnessing such a monumental election and I’ll be proud to proclaim at the primary and in the general election this year that I’m with Her.

I am a progressive, feminist, queer, immigrant woman of color and I enthusiastically and fiercely support Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.

[kzhang]

Poetry, yellowface, espionage, and Chinese names

Over the last two weeks, two news stories surrounding Chinese names have occupied my mind. On the surface, the connection between the reveal that the poet Yi-Fen Chou is actually Yellowface-donning, medicore Midwestern White man, Michael Derrick Hudson and the Justice Department dropping charges on Chinese-American physics scholar, Xiaoxing Xi may seem tenuous or even shallow. But as a woman who has grown up codeswitching between my “Chinese name” and “American name”, both stories together perfectly encapsulate the gleeful exoticization and insidious othering that White American society inflicts upon Chinese and Chinese-American communities as well as Asian-Americans and Asian/Pacific Islanders on the whole.

First you have Hudson, an arrogant White man boldly taking a stance against the non-existent phenomenon of reverse racism in the literary world. If you haven’t already, check out the amazing piece by BuzzFeed contributor, Jenny Zhang, on her experience having a Chinese name as an actual Chinese woman writer. While I can’t speak to what racism is like in the writing world, I can offer my experiences as another actual Chinese woman with a Chinese name. Below is a list of just a few things I’m positive never crossed Hudson’s mind when wearing the name of an actual Chinese woman from his hometown as a costume:

He never thought about what it’s like to be 4-years old when your mom asks if you’d like to adopt a more “American-sounding” name so your preschool teachers and classmates don’t continually butcher your birth name. Your grandfather gave you this name after consulting the generations long naming taxonomy for your family tree. This is the name that spawned the nickname all of your family calls you by. But American tongues have no conception of certain sounds and no desire to try. 

He never thought about what it’s like to go through every period of every first day of school from K-12, correcting your (mostly White) teachers as they’re taking attendance and waiting in anticipation for them to get to the bottom of their list and take that universal pause before chiming in and saying “It’s Kathy”.

He never thought about what it’s like to spell out each letter of your first and last name to every customer service representative whenever you call a bank, credit card company, internet service provider, airline, etc. He never had to deal with the people who ask, “Where’s that name from?” or “How do you say that?” and then have to humor them as they try to repeat your name back to you. “Cushion? Cushion?” Yes, my name is cushion. Yes, sure. It’s very pretty. I’m sure you say this to people with White sounding names too and that this isn’t just something you say after othering me with your questions.

He never thought about what it would be like to have kids of Chinese descent. Should you give them “White” names? Just to make life easier? Or would you then be yielding to White supremacist notions of what names should be? How would you make sure your children feel connected to your heritage if you didn’t give them a Chinese name? How would you react to your child telling you they were bullied in school because of their name?

I’m sure Hudson has also never thought about what it would actually be like to be born with a Chinese name and a Chinese face. Has he ever considered what it might be like to be a Chinese person who has been living in the U.S. for the past 26 years, who is a naturalized citizen, who is a distinguished scholar and chair of a university’s physics department, and who is still unjustly accused of treason and espionage? I think we all know the answer to this one.

Xiaoxing Xi, a Chinese-American who can check off every single box on the respectability politics list, was accused in May of sharing confidential information with China regarding a pocket heater. Just this month, the Justice Department dropped its investigation after finally consulting an expert in the field who confirmed that nope, the “suspicious” emails in question weren’t even about what they accused him of. Xiaoxing Xi is completely innocent and the government didn’t even think of maybe doing some fact checking before barging into his house, arresting him in front of his family, and dragging him to jail. The entire situation is ludicrous. Xi was undoubtedly a target of racial profiling. As his lawyer asked the New York Times, “If he was Canadian-American or French-American, or he was from the U.K., would this have ever even got on the government’s radar?” Can you even imagine a White man with a name like Michael Hudson ever being in this situation? 

A few days ago, Xi’s daughter, Joyce, wrote an article in USA Today that begins: “This is not the America I thought I knew.” The piece reflects on her own family’s trauma related to the investigation and brings in the historical context of other Chinese-Americans being wrongfully accused of espionage. It’s a good read but I find it puzzling that Joyce began her piece the way she did because the America she describes is exactly the America that I’ve known my whole life. 

This is an America where just last week, police arrested 14-year-old Ahmed Mohamed for bringing a homemade clock to school. This is an America where police arrested Kiera Wilmot, a 16-year-old, and gave her a felony charge for a science experiment that backfired. This is not an America where people of color—especially not people with “funny names”—are allowed to make clocks, or perform experiments, or share academic knowledge without being watched, suspected, and arrested. This is an America where White people wear our names and cultures like masks while ignoring how those same names and cultures, worn on non-White bodies, are open for abuse and ridicule. This is an America, where, as Jenny Zhang explains:

They pretend to be us while pretending we don’t exist

[kzhang]

NMOS14 on August 14, 2014 @ Union Square, NYC

[kzhang]

Wellesley and the Privileging of Male Bodies

[Trigger Warning: sexual assault]

It's no surprise that I love my alma mater. I graduated from Wellesley College and I'm incredibly grateful for all the people, subjects, and ideas Wellesley exposed me to. Being one of the more prestigious and well-known liberal arts colleges, Wellesley as an institution is frequently mentioned in the media. However, these mentions are usually an aside--Hillary Clinton, graduate of Wellesley College; this study, conducted by Wellesley College professors, etc. I've learned long ago to cringe any time in the media that the Wellesley community is the focus of the story, rather than the Wellesley institution being a side note (See: Rolling Stone, Jeremy Pham). Whenever the media covers the Wellesley community, writers and anchors inevitably throw context and nuance out the window in favor of a sensationalist headline. The coverage of this goddamn statue was no different.

I first read about the Tony Matelli "Sleepwalker" statue being placed on a highly visible field on my campus through a few alums on Twitter and Facebook mid-day Tuesday. I couldn't imagine how within 24-hours the statue would be all over the internet and national news.

It's pretty remarkable, actually, how lacking the narrative surrounding this statue is. So much of this conversation is focused on "censorship" when the focus should be on how triggering this statue is for many members of the Wellesley community.

Let's get into this word for a moment: trigger. When I and others talking and writing about how this statue has been a trigger for some community members and could be a trigger for others, we're not using this word as a synonym for being grossed out or disliking the statue. "Trigger" is a widely accepted, clinical term used to describe the catalyst for involuntary memories or flashbacks to a trauma. This word is also associated with PTSD and other consequences of a traumatic event. Melissa Harris-Perry, in the beginning of her open letter to Richard Mourdock describes her own triggers and how she copes with them (tw: sexual assault).

So when we talk about the "Sleepwalker" and its role as a trigger, we're not just talking about some people not liking the artwork. We're talking about members of the Wellesley community being harmed by the artwork. This petition that a current student started and over 500 members of the Wellesley community (myself included) have signed simply asks the college to move the statue into the Davis Museum and prioritize the safety and security of individuals who have been and may be triggered by it. 

That's it.

No one is demanding that the statue be destroyed or even suggesting that it should be taken off campus! The only thing the petition asks of the administration is that it move the statue into the museum so individuals can choose whether they want to see it or not.

And honestly, had Lisa Fischman, Davis Museum Director, actually responded to the concerns of the students and community members who signed this petition, this issue would not have blown up the way it did. What is it with the college administration that they can't fucking listen to the students and engage in actual dialogue with them? The purpose of Wellesley College first and foremost should be to serve, protect, and inspire its students. No matter how much I love my Wellesley experience, any interactions I or any of my friends have had communicating with the administration were sore disappointments.

Fischman's response to the petition that "Art has an extraordinary power to evoke personal response, and to elicit the unexpected" completely ignored the actual concerns laid out in the petition and was a condescending lecture on the "power" of art. We know that art has the power to evoke personal responses. That's exactly what we're concerned about. Since the creation of this petition, at least two members of the Wellesley community have identified themselves (anonymously) as having been triggered by this statue. At least one of these individuals experienced a panic attacks after seeing it. These are the personal responses people have had. Should we not be considerate of their right to feel safe? 

I fully believe Matelli or the curator of this exhibit wanted to provoke responses and engagement with this piece itself and the exhibition as a whole. I believe they were expecting responses of humor, curiosity, and possibly disgust. I also believe one of the effects they were hoping for was that the statue would startle, inspire dialogue, and possibly challenge conceptions around art. But what are the power dynamics between the people the statue is supposed to startle, the dialogue it's supposed to elicit, and the conceptions it's supposed to challenge? In a way, this discussion reminds me of the questions around rape jokes: do these jokes challenge rape culture and address how fucked up our society is surrounding issues of sexual assault? or do these jokes just make fun of survivors? Similarly, with the "Sleepwalker", the piece probably does inspire nuanced dialogue around human perception and possibly challenges the way we view reality... if it were placed within the context of the Matelli exhibition as a whole. But as it stands, a lone statue of a man in his underwear with his arms outstretched, placed in such a prominent area of campus without the context of the rest of the collection, is triggering. All of the conversation around this piece and how students are "censoring" art ignores this fact that individuals have been harmed by it and it is the responsibility of the Wellelsey College community to support these individuals and do as much as we can to make sure they feel safe. The safety of the students on campus in particular should be prioritized as the vast majority of these students spend 3.5-4 years on campus, which is an extension of their home.

Many people writing and commenting on the numerous articles about this statue and this petition frame the issue around how students and community members signing this petition are "censoring" art. Some of the assertions are so hyperbolic that they compare this petition that, again, only asks the administration to move the statue inside, to actions inflicted and positions taken by the Taliban, John Ashcroft, and Adolf Hitler. Talk about Godwin's Law, right? Others have called us prudes, entitled, misandrists, and unable to handle the "real world". Some people say that identifying this piece as a trigger makes a "mockery" of "real" sexual assault survivors. Some people say that anyone who finds this piece triggering should "get over it" or get therapy. Some people say that since anything can be a trigger, it's useless to address this one. A fellow Wellesley College alumna has even implied that because students in Pakistan cannot have statues on their campus that Wellesley students shouldn't be so silly as to protest this one.

All of these assertions derail the conversation away from the actual concerns of the Wellesley community toward narratives that paint these concerns as frivolous and ignorant. These narratives are a sexist portrayal of women and women's issues. Sexual assault is most definitely a gendered crime. Yes, men are also survivors and women are also perpetrators. However, the vast majority of victims and survivors are women and the vast majority of perpetrators are men. 1 in 6 women have experienced rape or sexual assault at least once in their lives. That figure is significantly higher for women of color and transwomen. Talking about the prevalence and consequences of sexual assault is important. Talking about triggers is important. These issues are not juvenile complaints. They are issues that affect real lives.

When someone is sexually assaulted, they do not get to choose their triggers, just like they did not get to choose to be assaulted. Dismissing the fact that some survivors actually are triggered by this statue and calling the concern that the community has around this statue being a trigger a "mockery" of "real" sexual assault survivors perpetuates rape culture. This narrative puts in place a hierarchy of victimhood. Survivors who behave in a way that society deems acceptable are believed and supported. While survivors who react to and process their traumas differently are not believed or considered "irrational". This policing of how one should act and respond as a sexual assault survivor is just another way patriarchy seeks to control women. Painting certain triggers as acceptable and others as not is damaging to survivors and their experiences. Many survivors do go to therapy and try to move on from their traumas. But it is not up to us to dictate how quickly and in which form they must heal. It is our responsibility as a compassionate community to help survivors with what they need by helping to remove things that are or may be triggering to them. For this statue in particular, it isn't even an issue where someone is triggered by something that couldn't have been predicted or prevented. It's fairly obvious how this statue is triggering: life-like, life-size rendering of a man in nothing but his underwear with arms outstretched, placed in a highly trafficked and prominent area of campus with no clear connection to a larger exhibition. It isn't, say a portrayal of a season that may trigger someone (one of Melissa Harris-Perry's triggers). How the placement of this piece can and is triggering is easily understandable. So, the petition asking it to be moved inside is an entirely appropriate reaction to the piece and a respectful, pro-active steps community members are taking to ensure the safety of well-being of others.

Painting the concern the community has around this statue as somehow not important because there are students who have liberties suppressed in Pakistan reminds me a bit of the backlash for articles about Miley Cyrus's appropriative performance at the VMAs. "Why aren't we talking about Egypt?!" people would exclaim. To that, I asked, "Can't we talk about both?" Can't we be interested in more than one thing? And honestly, for some people, the revolution in Egypt does not affect their day-to-day lives, but White artists consistently appropriating Black culture and implicitly linking promiscuousness or criminality to Black bodies does affect some people's day-to-day lives. So acting as if the Wellesley community being concerned about triggers that may affect community members is somehow "solipsistic" and less important than issues in the "real world" is dismissive and silencing. I care about how this statue has triggered members of the Wellesley College community. I also care about Piers Morgan and his show transphobically trashed Janet Mock. I also care about how George Zimmerman is profiting off of his fame as a child murderer the week Trayvon Martin would have turned 19. I also care about the impending burst of the housing bubble in mainland China and it's possible economic collapse. I care about a lot of things! Choosing to write, tweet, petition about how this statue triggers people does not make any of those other things I care about less important. 

And as far as those of us signing the petition being prude misandrists?

One of the bitter ironies of this whole thing is the privileging of male bodies, by both the Wellesley administration and the media covering this issue. Wellesley College is an institution that was created to foster the intellectual growth of young women. It has since become one of the most recognized and celebrated liberal arts colleges that has graduated some of the most successful and powerful women in politics and business. While Wellesley does tend to get hung up on the more traditional, capitalist definitions of success, the fact that it is an institution aimed at encouraging this success among women--who have been historically excluded from these areas--is a powerful confrontation to patriarchy. Yet even in this environment, which should be prioritizing the safety and security of its (mostly) women students, the institution finds it more worthwhile to privilege the placement of a fake male body over the safety and security of real life female students. Media coverage of this entire issue that frames the concerns of the community as "censorship" ultimately supports the patriarchal assertion that men's bodies, no matter how invasive or triggering, inherently have a right to occupy women's spaces.  

[ladypoints]

We’re excited to present you with Episode 4 of LADYPOINTS, featuring Andrea Plaid, co-creator of Squeezed Between Feminisms and former associate editor at Racialicious! Get some insights from Andrea on what it’s like to freelance as a social justice writer.

If you enjoyed the episode, please share it with your friends!

And stay updated about future episodes via LADYPOINTS’ tumblr, Facebook, Twitter @LadypointsShow, Instagram @Ladypoints, YouTube & Mailing List!

[kzhang]

Awesome feminist webseries, LADYPOINTS, interviews social justice writer Andrea Plaid on how she entered the industry and how she's able to make ends meet.

[kzhang]

The definition of racism in public discourse has been so distorted that any mention of race is construed as racist, mostly by opportunistic right-wingers looking to deflect from their own racist beliefs. Any analysis of race and racism in America that does not account for the country’s white supremacist foundation is useless. Ultimately, racism is a system of oppression that has disproportionately benefited those classified as “white” and regards others as second-class citizens. For a policy/thought/action/statement to be racist, it has to reinforce that second-class status. Absent the power of doing so, we’re not talking about racism. Bigotry, perhaps, or personal hatred, but not racism. Racism needs power. It’s why Bloomberg’s stop-and-frisk is racist, and de Blasio’s pointing out that his son could be a victim of stop-and-frisk isn’t. One uses the power of the state to impose second-class citizenship on a group and justifies it by employing rhetoric that deems them inherently criminal and inferior; the other is a personal testimony of how that affects the lives of those who are targeted.

Mychal Denzel Smith on Michael Bloomberg saying that Bill de Blasio's campaign tactics are racist (September 9, 2013)

Just a friendly reminder that Michael Bloomberg said this of his Stop-and-Frisk program:

"I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little. It's exactly the reverse of what they say."

Thanks for your opinions, Mike! You're clearly the best judge of what is and what is not racist.

[spacejam-blog-deactivated202303]

[kzhang]

"Breaking Bad" is an undoubtedly a great show, but, as is the case with too many television dramas, for while there it didn’t really know what to do with its female characters. The AMC drama clearly struggled to make Skyler and Marie Shrader (wife of DEA agent Hank Schrader) anything but subsidiary figures who rarely moved into — or deserved — the spotlight. Their behaviors and reactions were easy to predict, and if the writers didn’t show consistent interest in their emotional lives and the women’s inner depths, why would viewers care about them, let alone have positive responses to them?

The reaction to Skyler — and to “Mad Men’s" Betty Draper — isn’t some fluke. Dramas that are otherwise competent in many different arenas are too often content to offer uninteresting, tone-deaf and/or poorly serviced female characters. I’m not condoning the worst responses to Skyler; I’m saying it was quite possible for a reasonable viewer to be frustrated with the character for a long time — as I was.

Too often, women are around to remind male characters of lines they aren’t supposed to cross, as the men (because they are rebels!) are allowed go ahead and break those rules. Too often, the dudes’ transgressive behavior serves as catnip to the women who float in and out of the guys’ orbit, and if the men act like assholes, well, they have so much pressure on them (nagging females, whaddaya gonna do?). Too often, women are around to assist the lead guy, to sexually service him or to perform some mundane plot-driven function […]

It’s true that there are more interesting female characters on the screen than there were even a few years ago. But it’s too soon to tell if the recent wave of programs with unapologetically complex female characters, female creators and/or female ensembles is the opening of the floodgates or a temporary fluke. Television writers, showrunners and executives have been overwhelmingly white, straight and male for decades, and those numbers hardly ever budge. Writers don’t write about things that don’t fascinate them, and executives generally don’t commission scripted shows that don’t speak to them on some level. Hence plumbing the depths of experience of women — or gay characters and people of color — just hasn’t been a consistent priority for ambitious cable dramas and populist fare alike.

From Maureen Ryan’s great follow-up to Anna Gunn’s NYT Op-Ed about the fan-hate of Skyler White. The way in which people, including myself, become frustrated with Skyler is a symptom of a greater problem. Even Vince Gilligan, an undoubtedly brilliant creator, is not immune to an incomplete or inconsistent vision of his female characters, as Greenwald points out:

In recent seasons the character has vacillated between cowed accomplice, depressed wine repository, and, most recently, earth-tone rocking, page-turning doyenne of a burgeoning car wash empire. While Walter took the express elevator down from Mr. Chips to Scarface, Skyler zigged and zagged like a remote control car with a ganked-up Badger twiddling the sticks.

And he also faces practical, series-specific issues:

Consistently one of the hardest things we were faced with as writers on the show was figuring out Skyler, Walt’s wife - particularly figuring out why she would continue to stick around. We wanted her front and centre on the show but we knew that there was a very good possibility that she would not stick around for Walt’s misbehaviour, and would most likely call the police. We had a great deal of headaches in the writers’ room trying to ensure that she would believably not call the police on Walt. That was a bit of “inorganic storytelling”. In a perfect world, you let your characters organically tell you their wants and needs and desires and you try to write accordingly - you try not to bang square pegs into round holes, creatively speaking. But every now and then - for instance, if the character of Skyler is telling you, the writer, that she really wants to call the cops and end this madness, and you know as a writer that if she does that, your series will quickly come to an end […]

This is the step-by-step way in which this kind of writing becomes institutionalized. Orange is the New Black is a great step in the direction of nuanced, strong female characters, but is still going to remain a fraction of our media pool if we’re all placated so quickly. Men make up an overwhelming amount of TV writers, and are entitled to be fascinated by stories about other men. And if we accept both of these as true, we then need then to re-examine a) what fascinates them about women such that this “TV wife” syndrome is so apparent, and b) why there aren’t more women writing for themselves (or even for men).

We can’t break this cycle of Skyler White backlash against women characters (and actresses) without stamping out all of our excuses for an entertainment world that just fundamentally doesn’t have enough safe space for women creators and performers.

Rekha has highlighted key segments from a couple of excellent pieces about audience reaction to Breaking Bad's Skyler White and the writing the female characters in the show. You should read them all.

[kzhang]

And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these "stand your ground" laws, I just ask people to consider if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he felt threatened? And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.

President Obama on Trayvon Martin (July 19, 2013) [Video]

[kzhang]

Three Black boys with candy

This afternoon, one or two stops after mine, two Black boys got on the L. The older boy couldn't have been more than 15 or 16. They were carrying boxes. The younger boy asked the older boy what time it was. "2 o'clock." he said.

2 o'clock. I remember reading something on Tumblr earlier today that there was going to be a rally for Trayvon Martin today at 2. I wondered what the crowd was like.

The two boys put their boxes down. The older one took a deep breath and bellowed:

Excuse me ladies and gentlemen! I'm sorry for the interruption. May I please have your attention? My name is James and we're selling candy today. This is not for a fundraiser. We are selling candy to keep ourselves off the streets, out of trouble, and to put a little money in our pockets. Today we have Oreo cookies, Welch's Fruit Snacks, and M&Ms all for one dollar. Would anyone like to buy some?

It's always great when they have something other than fruit snacks.

As the younger boy handed me my M&Ms, I suddenly felt a rush of sadness. These boys live in a city where they can--and likely will--be stopped and frisked by the police for simply being Black, and they live in a country where one in nine Black men will be incarcerated between the ages of 20 and 34. And as of last night, they live in a world where a White-passing 28-year old man can stalk, attack, and kill an unarmed Black boy, not be arrested and charged of any crimes for a month-and-a-half, publicly raise $460,000 for his legal fees, and walk away completely acquitted of all charges. 

A friend of mine wrote on Facebook last night that she has an 8-year-old brother and that she's scared of what's in store for his future, of what might happen to him. I also have a younger brother. He's almost 16. And although I worry the way older sisters do about whether he's doing well at school, whether he's making good choices in friends, and whether he'll be prepared for his SAT, I will never need to worry the way my friend does for her brother. I will never need to worry whether someone will think he's an intruder in our suburban Philadelphia neighborhood and violently pursue him because that's not something that happens to upper-middle class Chinese boys. Only sisters of Black (and Latino) boys know what it's like to worry about your brother that way in this country. I will never understand my friend's type of anguish because this case isn't as close to me as it is to her. And it never will be. We are not all Trayvon Martin. If we were, George Zimmerman never would have been allowed to leave the police station that night he murdered Trayvon and he wouldn't be a free man today.

After the two boys on the subway moved on to the next car I thought about how often I had heard that same sales pitch since I moved to New York. Every Black boy who gets on the subway with a Welch's Fruit Snack box recites the same few sentences, the most teling of which is that he's selling candy here today so he can stay "off the streets" and "out of trouble". I had always thought about this part of the pitch as a sympathetic marketing tactic. Who wouldn't want to help young boys stay out of trouble? Plus you get candy. Thinking about it all today, I realized that this part these boys recite is not simply a way for them to sell more candy, but more importantly, a defensive maneuver. These boys, by virtue of being Black, need to first define themselves to a group of strangers as non-threatening and on the "right track". In a society where you are presumed to be a criminal by merely existing as young, Black, and male in public, it is almost a requirement that you actively frame yourself as a nice, law-abiding citizen before attempting to move freely in the world. We live in a society where we expect Black boys with candy, moving around in their own neighborhoods, to ask us for permission to go carry along with their day by first proving to us that they are not dangerous. Trayvon was a Black boy with candy walking in his neighborhood who never asked us, never asked George Zimmerman, for permission to go about his day. And for that he was murdered, for the crime of being Black (and therefore a threat) without permission. 

I am not Trayvon Martin. My brother is not Trayvon Martin. We are not all Trayvon Martin. But my friend's little brother, he is Trayvon Martin. And those two boys on the L today, they are also Trayvon Martin. For all these boys and their families, that must be terrifying.

[kzhang]

[TW: rape culture] "The louder they scream, the more we know we are getting something done."

Governor Rick Perry on women protesting anti-choice legislation after shaming Senator Wendy Davis for being a teenage mother.

Pay close attention, everyone. Rick Perry is saying, right here, that the conservative anti-choice movement should be proud of the fact that they have forced women's rights activists to scream in order to be heard by old, White men trying to take control of our bodies.

This is rape culture. How can we expect to live in a society where women are safe when a powerful elected official of one of the largest states in the country not only pushes legislation aimed at stripping away women's rights over our own bodies but also publicly tells his supporters they should be celebrating how much this hurts women?

We live in a country where 1 in 4 women are sexual assault survivors. Political speeches should not need to come with trigger warnings and politicians should not be encouraging/protecting rapists by giving directives that we should ignore women's screams and protests when it comes to control over our bodies.

[kzhang]

Reasons Fitzgerald Grant is the worst president (TW: Sexual assault)

[fuckyeahtonygoldwyn]

He murdered a Supreme Court Justice

He’s rapey

He’s abusive

He’s manipulative

He’s sexist

He finds that he’s SO UNABLE to control his sexual attraction to Olivia when he first meets her that he fires her

He violently yells at and threatens his pregnant wife because he felt emasculated and undermined by her comment on genocide.

He doesn’t want to be president

He wasn’t legitimately elected

He finds out he wasn’t legitimately elected and he throws a temper tantrum about it (and murders a Supreme Court Justice)

He has two children he never mentions nor seems to care about

He has a baby he uses as collateral against his wife

He’s always making that pathetic sad face

He never passes legislation

He has Daddy Issues

He’s incompetent

He uses the Secret Service to make inappropriate, unwelcomed booty calls

He’s excessively veiny

Can I just say how dumb this is.

One: Almost everyone in the show has done something seriously wrong.

Two: He's in love with Olivia and not just for her body. (A key part in the flashbacks before he loved her but not now).

Three: Fitz is 50-51 and Tony Goldwyn is 53. Everyone is "veiny" anyway.

Four: It wasn't his fault he became president since it was rigged by his peers and loved ones. He became prez because he believed in himself, Olivia did and it's what his father wanted.

Five: How is he sexist? If anything he's far from it.

Six: Tom, the Secret Service agent (tall one) has supported Fitz since the beginning (four going on five years) when it comes to Olitz. Hal is just a snitch.

Seven: Arguments/conversing with someone because you're upset or angry cannot be considered abusive in some terms. If anyone is abusive, it's Cy when he's angry with his husband.He was drunk that one time where all he wanted was a kiss, not to rape Olivia and he never threatened her.

Eight: He mainly has daddy issues because his father controlled his entire life, who he married and what he became.

Nine: They don't put irrelevant scenes such as Fitz talking about legislation but you do see him always doing some type of paperwork or making phone calls.

Ten: He cares for his children dearly and Mellie only referred to Teddy (youngest son) as a political move for a long time. Fitz loves seeing his kids but at one point his kids didn't want to see him since he kept drinking over Olivia.

Conclusion, your argument is invalid.

[kzhang]

I originally wrote this list as a lead up to this joke but seeing as how I seemed to have touched a nerve in the Scandal fanbase, I figure it's only fair that I back up my points.

ONE. I don't deny that character on this show has done terrible things and most have committed heinous crimes. However, this post is about Fitz being a bad president. Presidents aren't supposed to murder old ladies with their bare hands. What another character does doesn't change the fact that Fitz murdered someone. So you haven't contended my point there.

TWO. Love doesn't excuse abuse and manipulation. 

THREE. I concede that veinyness isn't a fair way to judge someone's effectiveness as president. I thought it would be a humorous way to end my post. But my intention was obviously lost.

FOUR. I never wrote that it was his "fault" that he was illegally elected president. I wrote that him being illegitimately elected makes him a bad president as he, therefore, does not have the will of the people behind him, which also means he participated in the large-scale disenfranchisement of American voters. Whether he knew about it or not doesn't change the fact that he was the beneficiary of a massive exploit of voter fraud. And come on, "He became prez because he believed in himself"? No. He became president because the political machine behind him rigged machines in Ohio so that he would yield more votes. Let's not rewrite canon here.

FIVE. See #7.

SIX. It doesn't matter whether or not Tom supports Fitz and Olivia being together. Fitz is still inappropriately using the Secret Service to show up, uninvited to Olivia's home and endangering Olivia, the agents, himself, not to mention national security in the process.

SEVEN. There are so many issues here that I need to break it down into at least two main ones:

A. Fitz is abusive in his relationship with Mellie

For the record, the scene I was referring to in my original list is this one. Let's take a look at what he says here, shall we?

"NO ONE ELECTED YOU! YOU'RE NOT THE PRESIDENT! YOU DON'T WEIGH IN ON FOREIGN POLICY. YOUR OPINION DOESN'T MATTER. YOU'RE THE FIRST LADY, YOUR JOB IS TO PLANT GARDENS AND DECORATE ROOMS AND LET THEM BLOG ABOUT YOUR CLOTHES.YOU'RE ORNAMENTAL, NOT FUNCTIONAL. SO DON'T TRY TO COME INTO THE OVAL AND USE YOUR BRAIN BECAUSE NO ONE CARES."

I feel like I shouldn't need to explain how that is abusive and sexist but sometimes you just need to spell it out. To Fitz, his wife's only role is to be "ornamental" and refrain from thinking. Nevermind that Mellie graduated first in her class at Harvard Law School, apparently all she is supposed to do is typical "housewife" tasks since your husband becoming President automatically nullifies any intellect you may have. It's not just that Fitz doesn't respect Mellie, he doesn't respect women. He doesn't respect women's intelligence and he doesn't respect women's contributions. It might be different if this rant were an isolated incident of him disrespecting women or even Mellie but it's not. (See part B for further elaboration.) Also, no one elected you, Fitz.

B. Fitz is abusive in his relationship with Olivia

He is. He just is. You can find many articles online about why Olivia and Fitz are a terrible couple and they all come down to the fact that he is an abusive asshole. Below are just a few of the reasons that this relationship is terrible and just a few points to back up the "Fitzgerald Grant is a manipulative abusive asshole" stance that I so proudly take.

He cheats on Mellie with Olivia

He cheats on Mellie (and Olivia, ish) with Amanda Tanner

He blames his infidelity with Amanda Tanner on Olivia leaving because he can't take responsibility for anything in his life

He corners Olivia in an elevator in the "all he wanted was a kiss scene" you're talking about and forces himself on her despite the fact that she clearly doesn't want to kiss him and tells him "no" repeatedly

He frequently corners her in places and commands that she come see him in the White House when she is very obviously trying to leave this relationship and he refuses Olivia her own right to make decisions as to who she wants to be with

He tells Olivia, "I may not be able to control my erections around you" ??!?!! WOMEN ARE NOT TO BLAME FOR YOUR SEXUAL URGES

He gets crazy jealous and even more possessive when she starts seeing Edison Davis again and throws even more temper tantrums about it

He FORCES Olivia out of her home into his hunting trip by sending Secret Service to her door at 5 in the morning

He tells her he can't be with her during that scene in the restaurant but does so in a way that is a power play that makes it seem like she wasn't trying to leave him this whole time and he pretends he is being so noble to leave her for the good of his family and for the good of the country or some bullshit

He then commits MILITARY RESOURCES to have her followed and to put surveillance cameras in her apartment because he is a FUCKING CREEPY STALKER

He is so fucking manipulative that he somehow convinces Olivia that him not stopping Mellie from going on television and telling America about Fitz's infidelity is somehow "earning" her, when in fact, it's just Fitz not taking responsibility for his own actions AGAIN and passively making it seem as if other people are the ones responsible for his ineffectiveness as a husband, father, and president

EIGHT. Yes, that's why many men have daddy issues. But the whole thing about becoming president is learning how not to have your daddy issues affect the way you make decisions as Commander in Chief. Fitz clearly hasn't learned how to do this yet. Watch the end of this clip of Fitz in the hospital with Verna and you'll see that after finding out Olivia was involved, the part Verna says about owing something to his father is what hurts him most. Good presidents don't let their daddy issues turn into a reason to kill someone.

NINE. "paperwork or making phone calls" isn't legislation. Good presidents pass effective legislation. Fitz does not do that. I understand that addressing issue politics does not always fit into the narrative of Scandal plotlines, but Shonda Rhimes has not given her viewers much context about Fitz's legislative achievements (if there are any). So as a Scandal viewer, I absolutely do not understand why Olivia, his staff, and the American public would be so devoted to him politically as his character has given absolutely zero indication that he is an effective leader.

TEN. You are imagining this "care" Fitz has for his children. Yes, Mellie sees her baby as a political move. I do not deny that. But Fitz also uses his baby politically in an attempt to prevent Mellie from moving out of the White House. Yet, he would never admit it. Taking up drinking because you're upset at your mistress and drinking so much that your children don't want to be around you? That doesn't make you a good parent. And Fitz making his daughter play tennis even though she hates it shows that he doesn't care very much for his kids.

Conclusion, nothing you wrote invalidated my argument and Fitzgerald Grant is the worst president.

[kzhang]

Reasons Fitzgerald Grant is the worst president (abridged)

He's not Jed Bartlet

[kzhang]

Reasons Fitzgerald Grant is the worst president

He murdered a Supreme Court Justice

He’s rapey

He’s abusive

He’s manipulative

He’s sexist

He finds that he’s SO UNABLE to control his sexual attraction to Olivia when he first meets her that he fires her 

He violently yells at and threatens his pregnant wife because he felt emasculated and undermined by her comment on genocide.

He doesn’t want to be president

He wasn’t legitimately elected

He finds out he wasn’t legitimately elected and he throws a temper tantrum about it (and murders a Supreme Court Justice)

He has two children he never mentions nor seems to care about

He has a baby he uses as collateral against his wife

He’s always making that pathetic sad face

He never passes legislation

He has Daddy Issues

He’s incompetent

He uses the Secret Service to make inappropriate, unwelcomed booty calls

He’s excessively veiny

[kzhang]

What is the 'N word'?

I had known this guy for maybe 3 hours and had a cumulative total of 5 minutes of conversation with him at the point that he asked me this question. My former co-worker met up with me at a show this past Tuesday evening and invited a few friends. This guy, we'll call him T, was one of the people who came along.

Up till the point we started arguing, T wasn’t going to be someone I remembered. There was a point at which my former co-worker and I were briefly talking about a woman we weren’t fond of and T asked, “Is she hot?” I asked why that would matter, seeing as how it had no bearing on our discussion, and he said that her attractiveness may affect how much he would be able to stand her. That should have been the red flag. I brushed it off since being a QWOC in this world means it’s too exhausting to get worked up over every microaggression I come by.

A little while later, as I am having a conversation with my best friend, Rekha, who performed at the show we were all attending earlier, I hear T use the word “tranny” while describing a supposed friend of his. Rekha and I both stop speaking.

“Excuse me,” I ask, “did you just say the word ‘tranny’?”

“Yes. You see, my friend just lost her penis.” T explains, “In her country, she’s not legally recognized as a woman.”

“That’s fine and all,” I say, “but could you refrain from using such a derogatory slur when referring to transgendered individuals?”

“I see my friend as a woman and I treat her as one. But legally, she is not considered a woman. They don’t recognize transsexuals where she’s from.”

“But do you have to use the word ‘tranny’ when referring to her?”

“I won’t say that word if it’ll make you happy.”

“It will.”

“But we’re friends and to me, she is a woman. I think it’s more important the way I treat her and the way she views me than the types of words I use.”

“You don’t think it’s insensitive to use such an oppressive term when talking about a friend of yours?” I ask.

“I think you need to look at the history of that term,” Rekha explains. “It’s not a word that exists in a vacuum. There’s a context for why it’s offensive.”

“She knows that I’m fully supportive of her identity.” T says defensively.

Getting fed up with this nonsense, I resolve to using a comparison I try to avoid, but I know tends to be more accessible than launching into a whole lecture on queer theory. “Even if you have a Black friend who is okay with you using the N word, that doesn’t mean you should feel entitled to use it and ignore the word’s historical oppressive usage.”

“What is the N word?” T asks.

Not knowing whether he’s seriously confused as to the word I’m referring to or deciding to be an asshole, I ask, “Are you joking?”

“I want you to tell me, what is the N word?”

Answer: asshole. I stare at him for about 10 seconds. It’s 12:15 at this point and I’m weighing the pros and cons of launching into a 20-minute lecture on queer theory and objecting my ears to hearing more ludicrous cissexist bullshit or if I should just turn around and stop this conversation in its tracks. Based on our conversation thus far, I conclude that he is likely as stubborn as he is arrogant and that I’d rather not spend my Tuesday night trying to convince someone to stop using oppressive language when he is clearly not receptive to learning why. I turn my body to face Rekha, and continue the conversation we were having without another word to T.

It was a good decision. I would catch part of his ramblings the rest of the night about why identity politics is bullshit and similar gems of Libertarian thinking.

I constantly find myself surprised during situations like these where I directly encounter thinking so radically different from my own. Going to the college that I did, making the friends that I have, working the job that I do, and reading the Tumblr users I follow has created this hyper-aware social justice bubble around me, sheltering me from all of the incredibly problematic and awfully anti-progressive viewpoints out in the “real world”. I occasionally get into arguments with friends’ friends on Facebook, but rarely do I find myself in a similar argument with someone face-to-face. I have several close friends with whom I will occasionally strongly disagree over some political issue, whether it is current events-, economic-, or media-related. But having known my friends as long as I have, I can usually predict what subjects will land in arguments and I have a pretty good understanding of the philosophy behind our disagreements, Plus, I'm 100% positive these friends would never defend the use of the word "tranny".

Even though I live in this bubble, I consider myself to be realistically grounded. I know it would be naive to expect everyone I encounter to be as aware, as interested, or as able to be concerned with social justice issues as my self-selected communities are. But I tend to assume that people who don't pro-actively seek out discussions about power and oppression are more apathetic than willfully contrarian. And given the rather aggressive nature of my voice and personality, I don't often encounter  active resistance to my calling out of  -isms or problematic language. So it was a bit of a shock Tuesday evening to nearly start an argument with someone so unwilling to consider his language may indeed be perpetuating trans* oppression.

I wish the conversation had gone differently. But in a way, I'm glad it didn't; it reminded me that there's still a whole lot more to go in this fight.