This was a response to a seemingly well meant, but ultimately un-reflective (and consequently tinged with racist overtones) article/blog post by Dr. Saturday about New Mexico football player (safety) Deshon Marman who was arrested for:
1) being Black and large of stature/width
2) having dreadlocks
3) wearing baggy pants
4) daring to ignore the power-tripping commands of the TSA agents that he pull his pants up higher - said TSA agents then followed him to his plane and had him arrested and charged with trespassing for #3 above... Sigh.
Dear Matt,
Your comment...
"Personally, I feel a little dumber for having spent a portion of my morning on it [Marman's story], and for actually feeling compelled to offer this parting advice, applicable to any situation you can possibly encounter in life: When in doubt, always pull your pants up."
...Should make you sad for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that your "advice" comes:
1- without recognition of its own racist underpinnings,
2- without any consideration of historical context, and
3- without real or simulated empathy/sympathy/attempt to accept that although some folks may live their lives differently than yourself, that does not make that difference inherently negative or in need of alteration/change.
Perhaps an example might make number 3 above easier to accept and assimilate. Impossible as it may be for you to believe, imagine, or comprehend, lets say tomorrow, all of US history is reversed: Brown and Black people were the imperial forces who conquered the planet and spread their ideology, and therefore - since 'to the victors go the spoils' - being White in and of itself carries a criminal undertone. So for example, folks get killed just for driving while White, you can and often will be harassed for shopping while White, and people will always believe you are less than capable, intelligent, and of sound moral constitution simply because you are White.
Then lets say in this flipped version of the USA, it is decided that an indicator of criminality worthy of being harassed in public or arrested and hauled off of an airplane, is wearing: Sperrys, polo shirts with the collar popped, LLBean anything, those hideous madras or Nantucket red shorts, or, God Forbid, simply having White skin! Then lets say, a White Man boards a plane wearing madras shorts and is expelled from the plane for it. Are you then going to say your final advice is "When in doubt, don't wear Madras on flights"? Because somehow I don't think you would tell someone that and really think it made any sense.
In the same way, your comment closing out reporting on this ridiculous incident doesn't make any sense.
Yes I agree with you, there will be tons of vitriol and horrible comments about this incident lacking in meta-consideration of all the elements that brought this epically-trivial power struggle to its depressing conclusion. And yet your awareness of this fact does not prevent you from ultimately judging Marman at fault - very unfairly - since he should have "just" pulled up his pants. As someone who hates seeing underwear in public, I might have supported this IF they also arrested women showing thongs above their jeans, or flashing photographers their genitals, or displaying bra straps and cups. If they arrested women equally as often as they harass and arrest young Black men for this allegedly horrific breach of public decency, perhaps... But, wait, no, its still not right in either case for clear reasons.
As a writer in the public arena I expect more of you Matt. As benefactor and progeny of the First Amendment, and the freedom of expression and speech it enables and ensures, you should know better. You don't have to be a libertarian - although hearing stories like this may push you in that direction - to think this much government interference in folks expression through attire is too much. Nor do you have to be very well versed in American racial history to decry attempts like this to stifle people's expressive freedom simply because it is almost exclusively expressed by one racial group who've been vilified, so they're easy to beat up on.
The First Amendment, although often under attack in cases like this with TSA ego-explosions, requires that we tolerate and allow people to wear what they want. Nowhere does it say that Marman's, or anyone else's right to expression ends and their harassment begins at the point where some schmo on a power trip declares they don't like what they're saying/wearing.
16 June 2011
09 June 2011
Difference Between White & Black Men in Marriage? History!
This is my response to a disturbing article called 8 Reasons to Date a White Man, published over at Madame Noire, which does a great job at making Black men (en masse, without any historical reflection) out to be horrible, ignorant, jerks:
As a Black woman who always dated inter-racially, but is now married to a White man, I feel keen to comment. At first I felt a sense of the ridiculous in reading this piece and was only laughing - then when my husband began reading as well, he became really upset in part on behalf of my brother and father who do not fit any of the underhanded, vicious, evil stereotypes this scary, unsettling article heaps onto Black men!!
As I reflected on my husband's frustration I too got upset because, not everyone can or will laugh and dismiss this garbage - some people will come away thinking this is a valid list of "reasons" White men are "better" than Black men, which would be a crime! Because 1) one needs to find a person who fits or clicks with them regardless of race! Plus, 2) in relationships, all bets are off! And 3) these broad stereotypes just don't hold up to scrutiny or careful thought!
For example, the author clearly didn't do research when declaring white men free of "down low" behavior or she would have discovered that in strict religious communities, White gay men are just as repressed as Black. I had a gay Mormon acquaintance in college who readily admitted he planned to marry a woman, have a family, and have sex with men at the same time later in life. And what he was saying did not seem odd to him since there were many out there he knew planning to do the same. The only difference between White and Black is that Black people are amazing at clever language and naming things - hence the Down Low idea has more traction with us, but if you look up books or info on the internet about women finding out their husband is gay, you will find all races of women dealing with this.
Another example: as for babies out of wedlock, insecurity, financial intelligence, and all the rest, these alleged differences are wholly attributable to different economic and social situations rooted in historical inequities!! Of course it may be easy for a White man to be more secure: he can trace his family history back to a country of origin, he's never been assumed criminal simply based on his skin color, and he has never/seldom had to swallow his pride to stay alive! And neither has anyone in his family! Of course a White man "may" know about finances: when you have never been disenfranchised you have had your wealth long enough to learn how to make it work for you! (see film & history of Rosewood for what happened often/for a century or more to Blacks who tried to own, have, or build anything - success stories are the rule, not the exception)
Finally, of course White men aren't threatened by educated, accomplished Black women: as Cheryl Harris' brilliant essay "Whiteness as Property" makes clear, regardless of how brilliant you are, you're still not White - so even if this never occurs to your husband as a reason not be threatened by you, the fact that he's always had an easier time of it means your hard work in some sense means less. That may sound harsh in some ways, but the fact of the matter is: if you're with a White man, then there was never a time when it was literally illegal for he and his family to Learn, as it was for Black folks. Therefore, accomplishing the feat of gaining a lot of education means more within the Black community and inside Black relationships than in Black women/White men relationships.
And finally, considering that poverty is the determining factor for Many of these issues: if you go to any poor white community, you find these same problems/issues are not only pervasive but the norm. Has the author even seen MTV's show "16 and Pregnant" because I've only seen one or two featuring Black people, most are White! And that show "Sister Wives" on TLC - you would be hard pressed to show me a more insecure White man than the one on that show who needs 4 women adoring him to feel complete!! And you get the feeling that these women come from non-too-wealthy backgrounds.
All this is to say, generalizing about men like this does a grave wrong by ignoring the history and present and the fact that at the end of the day, every man wants someone to take care of them!
As a Black woman who always dated inter-racially, but is now married to a White man, I feel keen to comment. At first I felt a sense of the ridiculous in reading this piece and was only laughing - then when my husband began reading as well, he became really upset in part on behalf of my brother and father who do not fit any of the underhanded, vicious, evil stereotypes this scary, unsettling article heaps onto Black men!!
As I reflected on my husband's frustration I too got upset because, not everyone can or will laugh and dismiss this garbage - some people will come away thinking this is a valid list of "reasons" White men are "better" than Black men, which would be a crime! Because 1) one needs to find a person who fits or clicks with them regardless of race! Plus, 2) in relationships, all bets are off! And 3) these broad stereotypes just don't hold up to scrutiny or careful thought!
For example, the author clearly didn't do research when declaring white men free of "down low" behavior or she would have discovered that in strict religious communities, White gay men are just as repressed as Black. I had a gay Mormon acquaintance in college who readily admitted he planned to marry a woman, have a family, and have sex with men at the same time later in life. And what he was saying did not seem odd to him since there were many out there he knew planning to do the same. The only difference between White and Black is that Black people are amazing at clever language and naming things - hence the Down Low idea has more traction with us, but if you look up books or info on the internet about women finding out their husband is gay, you will find all races of women dealing with this.
Another example: as for babies out of wedlock, insecurity, financial intelligence, and all the rest, these alleged differences are wholly attributable to different economic and social situations rooted in historical inequities!! Of course it may be easy for a White man to be more secure: he can trace his family history back to a country of origin, he's never been assumed criminal simply based on his skin color, and he has never/seldom had to swallow his pride to stay alive! And neither has anyone in his family! Of course a White man "may" know about finances: when you have never been disenfranchised you have had your wealth long enough to learn how to make it work for you! (see film & history of Rosewood for what happened often/for a century or more to Blacks who tried to own, have, or build anything - success stories are the rule, not the exception)
Finally, of course White men aren't threatened by educated, accomplished Black women: as Cheryl Harris' brilliant essay "Whiteness as Property" makes clear, regardless of how brilliant you are, you're still not White - so even if this never occurs to your husband as a reason not be threatened by you, the fact that he's always had an easier time of it means your hard work in some sense means less. That may sound harsh in some ways, but the fact of the matter is: if you're with a White man, then there was never a time when it was literally illegal for he and his family to Learn, as it was for Black folks. Therefore, accomplishing the feat of gaining a lot of education means more within the Black community and inside Black relationships than in Black women/White men relationships.
And finally, considering that poverty is the determining factor for Many of these issues: if you go to any poor white community, you find these same problems/issues are not only pervasive but the norm. Has the author even seen MTV's show "16 and Pregnant" because I've only seen one or two featuring Black people, most are White! And that show "Sister Wives" on TLC - you would be hard pressed to show me a more insecure White man than the one on that show who needs 4 women adoring him to feel complete!! And you get the feeling that these women come from non-too-wealthy backgrounds.
All this is to say, generalizing about men like this does a grave wrong by ignoring the history and present and the fact that at the end of the day, every man wants someone to take care of them!
19 May 2011
Don't Sue Your Students! Survive Ivy League Teaching or Move On!
This is my response to story of coo-coo Professor Priya Venkatesan who threatened to sue her students over harassment when she tried to teach!
All I want to say - without in any way supporting the profoundly bizarre and odd act of attempting to sue your students for being their silly, young selves - is that, if you have never been a woman of color attempting to teach in the humanities (or any other discipline for that matter) in one of these Ivy League institutions, then its going to be extremely difficult bordering on impossible for you to understand what it is like in these environments, and why this poor woman may have snapped like she did. Let me explain:
There is an inherent competitive hostility (even with/against a student's professor/instructor) because it is The Ivys. Then add in the "naturally" socialized prejudices/biases and argumentative predilections of young people who are in fact untutored and unschooled but believe themselves already perfectly brilliant - after all they were valedictorian of their school or whatever - and you have a recipe for some often very difficult classroom moments as an instructor/professor of color. And being a woman can often make things ten times worse! Heck, in discussing teaching pedagogy, we have to make sure we cover the chapter titled:
"How to deal with an extremely stubborn and hostile student who is targeting you for harassment - probably/possibly due to race or gender - in a neutral and diplomatic fashion"
And this is even if you are teaching something very rote and basic and widely accepted. In the past with difficult students, teaching simple reading/writing techniques, I have had to literally blanket the table/desk at the front of the classroom in paper/texts from other, respected, published, usually White sources that echo whatever I've been trying to teach, just to get students to lay off! Even now I can hear myself saying, "Look, Plato started doing this first, not me, and that's why the university feels it is important for you to learn." Sigh. It can drive one insane.
That said, I have pity on her, although I think she only made things worse with all this lawsuit business. She just should have written it off as a bad semester and moved on! You can't win every group over every term.
All I want to say - without in any way supporting the profoundly bizarre and odd act of attempting to sue your students for being their silly, young selves - is that, if you have never been a woman of color attempting to teach in the humanities (or any other discipline for that matter) in one of these Ivy League institutions, then its going to be extremely difficult bordering on impossible for you to understand what it is like in these environments, and why this poor woman may have snapped like she did. Let me explain:
There is an inherent competitive hostility (even with/against a student's professor/instructor) because it is The Ivys. Then add in the "naturally" socialized prejudices/biases and argumentative predilections of young people who are in fact untutored and unschooled but believe themselves already perfectly brilliant - after all they were valedictorian of their school or whatever - and you have a recipe for some often very difficult classroom moments as an instructor/professor of color. And being a woman can often make things ten times worse! Heck, in discussing teaching pedagogy, we have to make sure we cover the chapter titled:
"How to deal with an extremely stubborn and hostile student who is targeting you for harassment - probably/possibly due to race or gender - in a neutral and diplomatic fashion"
And this is even if you are teaching something very rote and basic and widely accepted. In the past with difficult students, teaching simple reading/writing techniques, I have had to literally blanket the table/desk at the front of the classroom in paper/texts from other, respected, published, usually White sources that echo whatever I've been trying to teach, just to get students to lay off! Even now I can hear myself saying, "Look, Plato started doing this first, not me, and that's why the university feels it is important for you to learn." Sigh. It can drive one insane.
That said, I have pity on her, although I think she only made things worse with all this lawsuit business. She just should have written it off as a bad semester and moved on! You can't win every group over every term.
15 May 2011
Objectionable Prescriptives for Women's Viewing Behavior...
Response to Edelstein's review of BrideWars over at NPR:
Dear Edelstein,
As a female-of color-English Ph.D. student with very broad interests and sensibilities, I am having trouble figuring out in what way your 'review' of this film is most offensive! Is it:
1)In its essentializing of the female experience - as if there is some exclusively female frailty that is inherent and prohibitive of certain behavior. In other words, you seem to believe that if men find it funny women can't as well because...?
2)In your presumption that to be Female is to only find specific (what, "ladylike"?) forms of humor funny or acceptable. The scene at the bridal shop became more funny for me than for my husband because he doesn't know the value/cost of bridal gowns (I do) nor the strain women regularly are under Not to allow any untoward smells to escape their person- let alone a food poisoning explosions. For the women of our group, this made the scene a cathartic rush revealing that we too are human... and in pain over that gorgeous ruined gown!
3)Your reduction of Melissa McCarthy's wonderful and emotionally complex performance to one of playing off of her Girth! There was more nuance and grace to her portrayal than you give her credit for, and your review smacks of your inability to see beyond her weight.
Part II:
I'm sorry, but I must make one more comment or suggestion about what makes this review problematic - as 'Analytical Ph.D. Student' I cannot fail to give "suggested reading" if I take issue with an argument.
It seems that at best, this Review would be better described as an ill-intentioned and oddly toned Referendum on what women are or are not permitted to find humorous, or what experiences women are or are not entitled to have/claim as part of their functioning as human beings in an American cultural setting!
I suggest you watch the South Park episode on queefing. (Though unladylike I suppose, there is no other more appropriate and simple word to choose.) I thought they did a great job at highlighting that women have a sense of humor as well that can intersect with bodily (mal)functions.
Women have bodies too, and in some ways are more of our bodies than men are by virtue of our frequent object status. (See fast food places giving girls dolls and boys trucks in kid's meals.)
There is a prim propriety thrust upon women which I am happy to see these hysterical, bright women shake off the yoke of in this film! Please stop trying to tie them back down with antiquated, prescriptive genre titles.
Dear Edelstein,
As a female-of color-English Ph.D. student with very broad interests and sensibilities, I am having trouble figuring out in what way your 'review' of this film is most offensive! Is it:
1)In its essentializing of the female experience - as if there is some exclusively female frailty that is inherent and prohibitive of certain behavior. In other words, you seem to believe that if men find it funny women can't as well because...?
2)In your presumption that to be Female is to only find specific (what, "ladylike"?) forms of humor funny or acceptable. The scene at the bridal shop became more funny for me than for my husband because he doesn't know the value/cost of bridal gowns (I do) nor the strain women regularly are under Not to allow any untoward smells to escape their person- let alone a food poisoning explosions. For the women of our group, this made the scene a cathartic rush revealing that we too are human... and in pain over that gorgeous ruined gown!
3)Your reduction of Melissa McCarthy's wonderful and emotionally complex performance to one of playing off of her Girth! There was more nuance and grace to her portrayal than you give her credit for, and your review smacks of your inability to see beyond her weight.
Part II:
I'm sorry, but I must make one more comment or suggestion about what makes this review problematic - as 'Analytical Ph.D. Student' I cannot fail to give "suggested reading" if I take issue with an argument.
It seems that at best, this Review would be better described as an ill-intentioned and oddly toned Referendum on what women are or are not permitted to find humorous, or what experiences women are or are not entitled to have/claim as part of their functioning as human beings in an American cultural setting!
I suggest you watch the South Park episode on queefing. (Though unladylike I suppose, there is no other more appropriate and simple word to choose.) I thought they did a great job at highlighting that women have a sense of humor as well that can intersect with bodily (mal)functions.
Women have bodies too, and in some ways are more of our bodies than men are by virtue of our frequent object status. (See fast food places giving girls dolls and boys trucks in kid's meals.)
There is a prim propriety thrust upon women which I am happy to see these hysterical, bright women shake off the yoke of in this film! Please stop trying to tie them back down with antiquated, prescriptive genre titles.
25 September 2009
Why Are We So Slow As A Country??
If you haven't seen this amazing comic-commentary pseudo-commercial from Will Ferrell friends speaking out against Big Health Care Companies making billions off of keeping Americans sick, then go see it now!!
When will we realize its crazy that we are the only westernized wealthy country who doesn't care about the health of our citizenry? No wonder we're the fattest country in the world, the insurance companies need us to be!
When will we realize its crazy that we are the only westernized wealthy country who doesn't care about the health of our citizenry? No wonder we're the fattest country in the world, the insurance companies need us to be!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
