Gwen Ifill rocks. 'Nuff said.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Roker gets it right
Al Roker is calling for Don Imus to be fired over his "nappy-headed hos" comment. I'm no huge Al Roker fan (I don't dislike him, but I don't normally find him all that entertaining), but he's right on about Imus. As usual, I'm disappointed in the public reaction, as evidenced in many of the comments following Roker's commentary.
One comment that stands out was actually authored with good intentions (I think). The (white, female) author says Imus' comment was sexist, not racist, and that she's outraged that no one is focusing on the sexist part. While I agree that there is a huge, equally offensive misogynist element to his comment, one simply cannot dismiss the "nappy-headed" part as anything other than racist. And here's the nifty* thing: the comment, like most oppressive acts, doesn't have to be (and, in fact, isn't) only one or the other. The lines of power at play here are inextricably linked such that we can only really understand one thread by considering all of them together. These comments aren't racist or sexist. They're racist and sexist.
People experience multiple forms of oppression (unless, of course, they have the privilege of having been born white and male and monied), and the overall effect is not simply additive. Women of color don't just tack on the sexism they experience to the racism they experience. Lesbians don't compartmentalize the sexism they experience as women from the homophobia they experience on account of their queerness. Why? Because the effects of each brand of oppression are multiplicative, and the addition of multiple minority identities changes the equation exponentially. The experience of inhabiting a female body with brown skin is qualitatively different from the experience of inhabiting a male body with brown skin, and when you add being disabled (for example) to the mix, the overall experience doesn't simply absorb a stand-alone quantity of oppression resulting from disability. When interacting with this person, people don't see a disabled person. They see a brown, female, disabled person, and she is seen differently from a brown, queer, able-bodied male. Both experience racism, but their other identities intersect with and change that experience in important and multiple ways.
All of this is to say that you don't have to discount one form of oppression to legitimate another. In fact, if we are to have any understanding of the experiences of any form of oppression, we must consider the myriad ways that intersecting power lines complicate these issues. We can't free people from only one line of oppression, as the tangle of the others will pull them (us) down just as fast. We must understand all of the lines and how they work together and then liberate all people from all of them.
I don't know if this is exactly what Al Roker was going for, but kudos to him for starting the conversation.
*denotes sarcasm
One comment that stands out was actually authored with good intentions (I think). The (white, female) author says Imus' comment was sexist, not racist, and that she's outraged that no one is focusing on the sexist part. While I agree that there is a huge, equally offensive misogynist element to his comment, one simply cannot dismiss the "nappy-headed" part as anything other than racist. And here's the nifty* thing: the comment, like most oppressive acts, doesn't have to be (and, in fact, isn't) only one or the other. The lines of power at play here are inextricably linked such that we can only really understand one thread by considering all of them together. These comments aren't racist or sexist. They're racist and sexist.
People experience multiple forms of oppression (unless, of course, they have the privilege of having been born white and male and monied), and the overall effect is not simply additive. Women of color don't just tack on the sexism they experience to the racism they experience. Lesbians don't compartmentalize the sexism they experience as women from the homophobia they experience on account of their queerness. Why? Because the effects of each brand of oppression are multiplicative, and the addition of multiple minority identities changes the equation exponentially. The experience of inhabiting a female body with brown skin is qualitatively different from the experience of inhabiting a male body with brown skin, and when you add being disabled (for example) to the mix, the overall experience doesn't simply absorb a stand-alone quantity of oppression resulting from disability. When interacting with this person, people don't see a disabled person. They see a brown, female, disabled person, and she is seen differently from a brown, queer, able-bodied male. Both experience racism, but their other identities intersect with and change that experience in important and multiple ways.
All of this is to say that you don't have to discount one form of oppression to legitimate another. In fact, if we are to have any understanding of the experiences of any form of oppression, we must consider the myriad ways that intersecting power lines complicate these issues. We can't free people from only one line of oppression, as the tangle of the others will pull them (us) down just as fast. We must understand all of the lines and how they work together and then liberate all people from all of them.
I don't know if this is exactly what Al Roker was going for, but kudos to him for starting the conversation.
*denotes sarcasm
Monday, April 9, 2007
Need some new shirts?
I don't want to encourage consumerism, but on the off chance you were going to be buying a new t-shirt anyway, check out Radical Rags. They've got some good war stuff, some radical feminist stuff, and some shirts with pictures of some pretty righteous people (sadly, they're all dudes). Here is a sampling.
Happy shopping!
Happy shopping!
Friday, April 6, 2007
Friday Weigh In, 4/6/07
This week I only officially lost half a pound. I weighed in this morning at 192.0. Which is a little confusing since yesterday and Wednesday I was at 191.0. I know I didn't gain an actual pound in a day, as I came in well under my point limit every day. But it could be all the water I drank yesterday. And the salt. And possibly other factors. I'm not too worked up over it.
Shit happens. And at least it's still a loss. That's a total of 20.5 pounds overall. I still rock.
Happy weekend, all!
Shit happens. And at least it's still a loss. That's a total of 20.5 pounds overall. I still rock.
Happy weekend, all!
A little weekend music, 4/6/07
This week's music playlist is all about songs and artists that have been featured on Grey's Anatomy. Insufferable Music Snobs will pooh-pooh the list for that reason, but they actually pick some good music for the show. Enjoy!
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Today Show and CNET.com think women are frivolous
Full disclosure: MSNBC.com is a joint venture of MSN, NBC, and unadulterated sexism.
Jeebus, I hate it when companies/shows/things I generally like make it impossible for me to ignore their sexism. Not that I'm trying to ignore sexism when I encounter it. Just the opposite, really. I encounter it everywhere and almost always bring it to someone's attention - even if that someone is the already-sympathetic partner. But sometimes a blamer needs a break from all the misogyny and so is willing to put on mini-blinders just long enough to enjoy herself for fifteen minutes. So it's pretty frustrating when things jar me back to the depressing reality that is this: people don't think very highly of women.
The latest installment in the Women Are So Cute When They Want to Play With Men's Toys series comes to us from some knob at CNET.com, who so very kindly graced The Today Show with his presence to point out some tech gadgets women might find shiny and pretty. Seriously, what would we do without guys like this to point out girlie versions of what are mostly non-gendered toys to begin with? Can we not even shop correctly? That's the one thing you guys will give us!
The first item on the list isn't so bad. It's a digital camera, and aside from it being "stylish" and slim, I can't tell why it would be specifically marketed to women. They do make sure to mention that it's small enough to fit in a small purse, though, so maybe that's it.
The second item is a laptop. A pink laptop. "Designed to express personality." What personality that might be is anyone's guess, and my guess is plastic.
Item number three is an XM radio. You guessed it. A pink XM radio. Buying this, it is claimed, will help support the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation's fight against breast cancer. I would bet all $200 dollars of this pink nonsense that not a single dollar goes toward actually fighting breast cancer. But that argument is for another post.
Next on the list is a "fashion phone." Fashionable, it seems, because it is "accentuated with leather, cloth, metal, and ceramic-inspired finishes." It has a glass mirror display for, I presume, checking your lipstick.
Then there is something called a designer computer mouse. You can get a ladybug (how cute!), a bunny rabbit (how soft!), or a leopard print (how sexy!) mouse. If you're willing to shell out $25,000, you can even get a diamond-laced mouse. Are they effing serious with this shit? Since when do grown women want ladybugs and bunny rabbits on their computer accessories? And even if some do, it is not behavior we should be encouraging. Talk about giving men permission to think of you as a prepubescent girl! Eeew. Here's a picture of the only mouse on their site that is sold out right now. Big surprise.
Up next is an MP3 watch, which actually has some good features. I can imagine fully-evolved people thinking this is kind of cool. Not me, but someone. But just to make sure we ladies know this product is for us, the folks at Origim pinked it up for us. Silver dial with pink bank. Whatever that means.
And finally, by Rakku, a designer shoe wheel. Because it wouldn't be a list of stuff women want if it didn't have something to do with shoes. "Rakku," by the way, means "rack." Coincidence?
Ugh. Another day in a world where misogyny runs amok. Sorry to burden you with all of this. I just thougt you might want to update your boycott list. Or girlcott list.
It's lunchtime. Where are my fucking blinders?
Jeebus, I hate it when companies/shows/things I generally like make it impossible for me to ignore their sexism. Not that I'm trying to ignore sexism when I encounter it. Just the opposite, really. I encounter it everywhere and almost always bring it to someone's attention - even if that someone is the already-sympathetic partner. But sometimes a blamer needs a break from all the misogyny and so is willing to put on mini-blinders just long enough to enjoy herself for fifteen minutes. So it's pretty frustrating when things jar me back to the depressing reality that is this: people don't think very highly of women.
The latest installment in the Women Are So Cute When They Want to Play With Men's Toys series comes to us from some knob at CNET.com, who so very kindly graced The Today Show with his presence to point out some tech gadgets women might find shiny and pretty. Seriously, what would we do without guys like this to point out girlie versions of what are mostly non-gendered toys to begin with? Can we not even shop correctly? That's the one thing you guys will give us!
The first item on the list isn't so bad. It's a digital camera, and aside from it being "stylish" and slim, I can't tell why it would be specifically marketed to women. They do make sure to mention that it's small enough to fit in a small purse, though, so maybe that's it.
The second item is a laptop. A pink laptop. "Designed to express personality." What personality that might be is anyone's guess, and my guess is plastic.
Item number three is an XM radio. You guessed it. A pink XM radio. Buying this, it is claimed, will help support the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation's fight against breast cancer. I would bet all $200 dollars of this pink nonsense that not a single dollar goes toward actually fighting breast cancer. But that argument is for another post.
Next on the list is a "fashion phone." Fashionable, it seems, because it is "accentuated with leather, cloth, metal, and ceramic-inspired finishes." It has a glass mirror display for, I presume, checking your lipstick.
Then there is something called a designer computer mouse. You can get a ladybug (how cute!), a bunny rabbit (how soft!), or a leopard print (how sexy!) mouse. If you're willing to shell out $25,000, you can even get a diamond-laced mouse. Are they effing serious with this shit? Since when do grown women want ladybugs and bunny rabbits on their computer accessories? And even if some do, it is not behavior we should be encouraging. Talk about giving men permission to think of you as a prepubescent girl! Eeew. Here's a picture of the only mouse on their site that is sold out right now. Big surprise.
Up next is an MP3 watch, which actually has some good features. I can imagine fully-evolved people thinking this is kind of cool. Not me, but someone. But just to make sure we ladies know this product is for us, the folks at Origim pinked it up for us. Silver dial with pink bank. Whatever that means.
And finally, by Rakku, a designer shoe wheel. Because it wouldn't be a list of stuff women want if it didn't have something to do with shoes. "Rakku," by the way, means "rack." Coincidence?
Ugh. Another day in a world where misogyny runs amok. Sorry to burden you with all of this. I just thougt you might want to update your boycott list. Or girlcott list.
It's lunchtime. Where are my fucking blinders?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
