Femonomics reads the internet: Phoebe Prince, sluthood, race and sympathy

Slate ran a piece on "What really happened to Phoebe Prince," which does some decent reporting as far as logging exactly what the attacks on Phoebe consisted of, and whether they deserve jail time, but also advances a rather questionable hypothesis that "Phoebe helped set in motion the conflicts with other students that ended in them turning on her" by "attracting guys away from relationships."  The Women's Rights blog rightly points out that what happened to Phoebe was slut shaming, not just bullying, but I'd go one step farther and say Slate's article buys into that same narrative.  Apparently, you can bring bullying upon yourself by daring to get involved with young men who may or may not be in fickle teenage relationships.  Men who are eighteen, mind you, but clearly the fifteen-year-old Phoebe is to blame.  Gross, Slate.

***

Jaclyn Friedman has a great piece on sluthood (hers, specifically) and about how talking about women's sexual experiences outside of committed relationships has the power to help break us free of the virgin/whore dichotomy.  After recounting a story about a casual encounter on Craigslist, she says:

I’m telling you this because sluthood requires support. Because any woman who indulges these urges carries with her a lifetime of censure and threat. That’s a loud chorus to overcome. A slut needs a posse who finds her exploits almost as delicious as she finds them herself, who cares about her safety and her stories and her happiness but not one whit about her virtue. A slut alone is a slut in difficulty, possibly in danger.

And rightly acknowledges that she is in a privileged position to talk about sluthood without jeopardizing her livelihood.  Hetero men can often indulge "sluthood" without fear for their safety.  For women,  non-hetero men, and transgendered individuals, it's rarely so easy.  And by not talking about it, we keep it that way.

***

For anyone who thinks we live in a colorblind society, please check out these two videos of news reports on 7-year-old boys who each highjacked a family vehicle for a joyride that ended in a police chase.  You'll never guess: When the white boy does it, it's "funny," and his video games are taken away; When the black boy does it, it's "dangerous," and he needs to be in the "system" so he can get "help."

Gawker: Shirley Sherrod should not have been forced to resign, White House "embarasses itself"

Perhaps you have seen this video, circulated by Andrew Breitbart, in which a black USDA employee supposedly exhibits "reverse racism" or whatever:

In it, Shirley Sherrod says that when she was called upon to help a white farmer (in her position with the Federation of Southern Cooperatives, not a government job), she did not put her full effort into his case.  She brought him to a white lawyer, to let "his own people" take care of him.

Yes, this is a personal anecdote of how Sherrod acted, in a role completely different than the one she held until being asked to resign by the head of the USDA.  But is she recounting this anecdote with pride?  The anecdote is from 24 years ago--is she speaking of it as a model for how she would act today?

It turns out, no, not at all.  She was using the anecdote to illustrate how she came to understand that it was not black versus white that mattered, but rather "those who have versus those who have not."  The story was about how she came to believe that all poverty comes from the same injustices, and that racism was a means created by wealthy white men to keep poor people of different races from helping and supporting one another.

In fact, she ended up spending years working to help the white farmer she speaks of in the anecdote, and his wife considers her a "friend for life."  So, that's cool, right, I'm sure the USDA checked into the full story before firing her, right?  Turns out, no.  From Gawker:

So, Andrew Brietbart lied and defamed a government employee. And yet: Sherrod was asked to resign from her position as the U.S. Department of Agriculture's director of rural development for Georgia by her boss, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, apparently without any attempt on the part of Vilsack or the rest of the Obama administration to check up on the origin of the video or the story. And even as the White House attempts to distance itself from her forced resignation, they say they stand by it.
What gives, guys? It's despicable, but we expect this kind of fatuous race-baiting from sleaze like Breitbart. What we don't expect—or what we shouldn't expect—is for the Obama administration to take the bait. The USDA is apparently "reconsidering" her forced departure, but get real: Sherrod should never have been asked to resign, period, and she should be reinstated to her former position immediately.

Um, seriously?  We celebrate Robert Byrd, who supported segregation and filibustered the Civil Rights Act, and fully embrace his change of heart, and yet the minute a black official says that 24 years ago she wasn't so sure how she felt about helping white people, in a notoriously racist state, until she changed her mind, we kick her out of her job?   Breitbart, in trying to illustrate "reverse racism," has actually just given us yet another example of the regular kind.

UPDATE: Robert Gibbs offers apologies on behalf of administration.

Your definitive guide to determining if blackface is offensive

 The short answer, of course, is yes.  But since so many people seem not to understand the short answer, I've decided to provide a long one.  The title of this post is tongue-in-cheek.  This is clearly not the definitive guide to whether something is offensive.  If someone finds something offensive that is outside the bounds of this guide, you may disagree with them, but I suggest you listen to them, understand their reasons for being offended or hurt, and then move on with your life.  (That last part is important--If you don't agree, and the opinion with which you don't agree is not oppressive or harmful, think it over, and then walk away.) 

[Image via TLo.  The image depicts a blond, white model in six photographs, dressed up in a different style in each, such as a "naughty secretary" or androgynous businesswoman.  The top-left image depicts the woman in a short black wig and "Asian"-style eye makeup.  The top-right image depicts the woman in an afro wig with her face darkened by makeup.]

The image above comes from a photo shoot Claudia Schiffer did with Karl Lagerfeld.  This photo shoot is an example of both black and yellow-face.  Renee Martin wrote about the offense caused by this image, rightly predicting she would experience resistance from her readership:

Watching The Blind Side, thinking about Hollywood's problem with race

Sandra Bullock won an Oscar for portraying Leigh Anne Tuohy in The Blind Side.  Bullock's performance is quite good--nuanced, funny, natural, and absorbingly watchable.  The film, on the other hand, is riddled with major problems in race representation.  But Hollywood doesn't care.  In addition to Bullock's nod, the movie was nominated for best picture.  Could Hollywood voters not tell that the film's representation of black characters was deeply problematic?  Or, do they just not think that's very important?

The Blind Side is a tricky case.  It's a true story, so we can't blame the film for the story of a white woman as the savior for a poor black child's problems--it really happened.  This was how I defended the film, when I initially expressed interest in seeing it, and my boyfriend said, "doesn't that sound a little bit racist?"  I said, "But it really happened!  Michael Oher really got taken in by this rich, white, Southern family!"  It's a true story, and it's also an inspiring one.  It's the story of an incredibly talented athlete who likely would never have become a household name if it weren't for the intervention of a conservative, white, Christian family that took him into their home and helped him get the grades he needed to play in the NCAA.  The story is real.  The story can't be racist.  But I believe the movie is.

Fashion photographers like to be racist, call it "edgy"

This latest spread from Interview magazine is soooooo not OK.

The copy reads:

Let’s get lost. The hour is late, the air is thick, and the evening is charged with a steamy sensuality. What works? Tone-on-tone swimsuits, slithers of silk, and plenty of skin, as flesh meets flesh, body meets soul, and Daria gets lost in the heat of the night.

From Africa is a Country: 

You would think that if they’re going to keep using Black people as the exotic background on which white people get to project their fantasies, they’d at least be more original with it. In the heat of the night? Really? Sorry, Interview, but the joke’s on you.

From TLo:

Aren't we past this whole colonialist idea of the fetishized black person? It's fine to cast a bunch of gorgeous black models, but they're more like props or backdrops for the white girl to play with or lean up against. Plus everyone's inexplicably sweaty, like sex is gonna break out at any second. This is all deliberate button-pushing and it's tired. "Let's be controversial" in a very 1979 kind of way.

Memo to fashion: stop being effing racist.  It is not edgy.  It is not artistic.  It is shameful.

Femonomics reads the internet so you don't have to: Bad research, transgender discrimination, racism, and PowerPoint strategy!

You ask why we're so obsessed with correlation not equaling causation?  Because real researchers whose work impacts real policies are still convinced that it does.  Business Week is reporting that watching R-rated movies causes early drinking.  The researchers surveyed kids on how often they were allowed to watch R-rated movies, and then followed them to see when they (if) they started drinking.  They found that kids who were more frequently allowed to watch R-rated movies were more likely to start drinking early.  Their conclusion?  "We think seeing the adult content actually changes their personality."  Note, that's a quote from the actual researcher, not just a journalist misinterpreting the findings.  Interestingly, they note that R-rated movies have also been tied to "early smoking, sex at a young age, and violent behavior," but it doesn't occur to them that some third factor, such as parental involvement or peer group, could be driving all those relationships.

Elsewhere, some actual decent research, thank god.  Blog Her has a post on new research finding that those who report a "colorblind" ideology are less likely to be bothered by racist images.  The researcher, Brendesha Tynes, showed participants images that depicted racist stereotypes, and asked them to respond as though seeing the images on a friend's facebook page.  Those who considered themselves "colorblind" were less likely to express disapproval of the images and more likely to offer positive or supportive comments.  Additionally, white students were less likely to be bothered by the images.  Tynes believes her research provides evidence that "colorblindness" masks racial differences, and may prevent people from having meaningful conversations about race.

A transgendered veteran who chained herself to the White House fence to protest Don't Ask Don't Tell has reported deplorable treatment at the hands of federal law enforcement.  Autumn Sandeen reports she was called an "impersonator," "shim," and "it," and was accused of lying about her gender, despite being honest the entire time, and imprisoned in a male cell block, putting her safety at risk.  [I am linking to Pandagon because it has the best coverage of this incident. It is a blog run by Amanda Marcotte, who has previously exhibited exceedingly poor judgment.]

Ke$ha finds a new way to do blackface, and I hope I'm not the only one who's appalled

Last night, Ke$ha appeared on Saturday Night Live.  She performed her "hit" Blah Blah Blah wearing neon bodypaint under black lights.  Because you can only see the paint under the lights, her skin appears black.  And the paint appears to be a crude approximation of aboriginal body paint.  You really have to see it to believe it.



Maybe Ke$ha didn't intend the paint to look like that, and maybe she didn't intend her performance to look like blackface, but I'm a lot less inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt after her Native American headdress-wearing performance on American Idol.  One commenter on MyIdol wrote:

I am a Blackfoot Native American.  The headdress is the highest honor one can achieve in lifes journey. One must do all the necessary steps in earning that place.  Once that is achieved, a headdress is made for the individual and a 'transfer ceremony' takes place.  As I write this, our tribe is 10,000 strong in population and I can count - say - 50ish who wear the headdress... Perhaps the 'shocker' in Kesha's performance was that the headdress looked very authentic and that's what pulled at my heart strings.  Now if it was one of those 1960s florescent turkey feather type (you know the one - LOL) I probably would of 'chilled'  On top of that, I still have a ways go in learning the balance of life so I am yet to wear such attire.  Perhaps I envied Kesha that she threw one on to no avail.

People on the thread told him to "chill out," as I'm sure some people will think in regard to this post.  But, those same people have probably never had anyone dress up like them to mock them, or their cultural imagery appropriated to represent generic stereotypes like "wildness."  I cannot believe the producers of American Idol and SNL did not see this in dress rehearsals and think, "gee, maybe we should pull the plug on this."

Now, I'm all for artistic freedom.  I'm all for artists doing wild and crazy things that make us uncomfortable, but also make us think.  SNL has historically been home to such artists, such as when Sinead O'Connor ripped up a picture of the pope.  That was very very offensive to some people, and some people think it never should have aired.  But it was in the service of something.  This, this wasn't that.  This was just a careless, casually racist move by a girl who thinks the image of being too drunk to care about things like history is "fun."  It's not.  It's outrageous.  Now please stop.

On race and feminism: A primer on feminist white privilege on the internet, and how we'll try to do better

"Be careful when you are dealing with white folks, because one day they wake up and realize they’re white and you ain’t." 

--Tiffany in Houston, on Feministe

Renee Martin of Womanist Musings recently wrote in the Guardian about why she doesn't consider herself a feminist: feminism doesn't seem to have a place for women of color or their issues.  I'm not what I would call an institutional feminist (I mean absolutely no disrespect in that term, just that I have never formally studied feminist theory or women's studies--I formed my feminist beliefs by reading Alice Walker, Virginia Woolf, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg), so I at first didn't see the relevance of her piece to my brand of feminism.  Maybe academic feminists had excluded women of color, but I was part of a personal, inclusive breed of feminists, right?  Then, I read this piece in Jezebel where Megan Carpentier bristles at the fact that Martin states mainstream feminist blogs such as Feministe, Feministing, and Pandagon are dominated by white women.  Carpentier points to the multiple women of color on each of the blogs mastheads

Feministing, which remains an explicit collective, has a new executive editor, Samhita Mukhopadhyay, who has been there for five years. Of the four people on the masthead at Pandagon, two are people of color. Of the two people I know personally at BitchPhD, one is a woman of color. At least two of the bloggers at Feministe — Holly and Chally — identify in their bios as non-white.

The commenters at Jezebel pointed out that Carpentier was guilty of tokenism: having a black kid on the debate team does not a race revolution make.   They also pointed me down a rabbit hole I've been exploring for the past two days--the frequent instances of white bloggers on mainstream feminist sites being racially insensitive and then surprised by the offense they caused.

Femonomics reads the internet so you don't have to: Kathryn Bigelow, plagiarism 101, racist drug laws, and more!

The NYTimes' Manohla Dargis, who previously used the F-word to hilarious effect in a rant about female directors, has a lovely piece on the woman of the hour, Kathryn Bigelow. 

Kate Harding over at Shapely Prose (which is an amazing fat-acceptance blog full of terrific writing) has a humorous and biting piece on how not to plagiarize like a certain NYT business reporter, even though you're writing on the internet, and the deadlines are really fast, and the links are all confusing, see?  No, says Kate, we don't.

The Huffington Post publishes a must-read by Michelle Alexander about how drug laws have been used to create a permanent under-class in the United States.  She points out several sad facts about the state of racial equality in the United States (noting it has gotten worse, not better), and looks to biased drug laws predicated on Americans' fears of the inner-city crime bogeyman for the explanation.  Most compellingly, she explains how everything from drug laws, to police incentives, to sentencing guidelines, are designed to get and keep black men in jail.

Reality Check has an update on Utah's effort to criminalize miscarriages (read our earlier piece here), and it seems that even though the governor sent it back without signing, and the bills' sponsor withdrew it, they're not giving up this fight to put women in jail so easily.

[Update: hat tip to Feministe, where I first saw the Alexander piece]

Forget Vienna, the real controversy on The Bachelor is...

Why is everyone white?  I have seriously just noticed this, mainly because I stopped watching Sassafras's favorite guilty pleasure after the tire guy (Andrew Firestone), but it turns out that after 14 seasons of The Bachelor and 6 seasons of The Bachelorette (Ali Fedotowsky was just announced as the latest one), our friends at ABC have been unable to locate a single non-caucasian man or woman to star.  As a result, The Bachelor and The Bachelorette are two of the whitest shows on television.  Not only is the star always white, but so is the host, and so, by nature of our society's continued discomfort with interracial dating, are almost all of the suitors.  The all-white star phenomenon then becomes a self-perpetuating cycle, because the newest star is usually picked from one of the nearly rejected contestants, who are all themselves white.  We have a black president, people.  This has got to stop.  America is a mulit-ethnic nation, and if I don't see someone whose tan doesn't come from the california sun or a bottle on my TV, stat, ABC is going on the femonomics blacklist. 

Now, simply choosing a black (or hispanic, or middle eastern, or asian, or south asian, or mixed race) star would certainly not remedy the problem.  In fact, it would likely only highlight it, since naturally ABC would never reverse the formula and stock this cast with all people the same race as the star (that would make The Bachelor a "niche" show, they would say).  Nonetheless, at least we would have taken a small, token step toward inclusiveness.  I know The Bachelor is ridiculous, that the formula of trying to find love in a couple months with 25 strangers is nonsense, and that we have bigger representation problems than television.  You can tell me all that, and yet it still enrages me how white this show is.  So ABC, you're on notice.

What do you think?  Does it bother you that The Bachelor and The Bachelorette haven't gotten the inclusiveness memo, or do we have way bigger things to worry about?

Today, I'm Not Mad At Harry Reid

As my pseudonym suggests, I have a complicated background. Growing up in Montgomery, AL, presented several challenges for a girl from the West side raised by blue collar parents. I remember my childhood in long bus rides across town to the more affluent neighborhood schools (read: white). My friends had straight blond hair, nicer houses, and it never seemed that their parents had to worry about where the next meal was coming from or how the power bill would be paid any particular month. At age 8, friends from school invited me to church and pretty soon I was living a life in two different worlds and I was learning the value of camouflage. I learned to fit in to a world where it became a joke to suggest that I was actually a black American. And I eventually learned to turn the proper down a notch when answering my phone at home, so as not to confuse family friends into thinking they had called a house that belonged to “somebody white” and hanging up. I taught myself to take it as a compliment when older white ladies in my church described me as “articulate” (Reid: speaking without a Negro dialect). I did notice that they never described my white friends that way—it was assumed that they would speak standard written American English. But I am neither mad at them nor Senator Reid.

I capitalized on the opportunities that being the polite, articulate little black girl brought me.