Tumblr and White Privilege: Who are we defining?

Audre Lorde could not have predicted the phenomenon of Twitter, Tumblr, and various other forms of social media when she pronounced that the next generation of feminists needed to “define and empower” rather than “divide and conquer.” Because Tallyn posted on what’s been happening with Twitter, I wanted to examine my own privilege as a white female when it comes to Tumblr. 

Tumblr is a space where I seek to discover new writing (both prose and poetry) from lesser-known writers.  Many of the writers that I have stumbled upon happen to be Black women, including two of my favorites-Warsan Shire and Nayyirah Waheed (everyone should check them out!)  As I enjoyed the beauty of their language and syntax, I found myself wondering if I really had a right to relate to their words.  As a white woman, it is difficult to imagine the kinds of daily oppression that they face, because is often insidious.  They occupy a unique position of intersectionality that is expressed very beautifully throughout their poetry.  They both write fluently about the oppression that they feel. 

I discovered a very passionate response written by a woman of color to a white woman’s post of a Nayyirah Waheed quote tattooed on her body.  The white woman felt that the words had so much meaning in her own life that she decided to put them on her body.  I struggled with this.  Waheed’s writing is so lovely.  But I feel that the woman who responded with anger had a valid point.  She said, “Here we are, terrified of baring our souls because we know you’ll take our words, douse them in bleach, twist them through your colonizing machine, and spew them back out with your own trademark on it.”  It’s not that her tattoo, in and of itself, is oppressive to women of color.  It’s that writing was Waheed’s way of defining her existence, of verbalizing her intersectional experience as a Black woman in the modern world.  White people do have a long history of appropriating the customs and creations of other races and twisting them to fit their own lifestyles. 

However, I’m not sure where to draw the line between appreciating someone’s writing and art, and taking it as one’s own experience.  I’d welcome other thoughts and opinions.

"A Man with Balls": Possibly the Worst Title of Anything Ever

In February, Rhodes is hosting Kye Allums to speak on campus about being an out transgender athlete. While Rhodes is usually attempting to progress on LG(B?) issues - attempting is the key word - there is absolutely zero effort to be an inclusive campus for transgender or genderqueer students. Housing is gender segregated, there is little infrastructure for changing one's name or gender that is used in documentation, gender neutral bathrooms are not clearly advertised. And don't even mention how deeply rooted the ignorance about trans issues is on this campus, even (maybe even especially) in queer spaces. This talk is a very small step toward awareness on transgender issues, and there will be a concerted effort to continue this work past this one event.

With that out of the way – As a part of the publicity for Kye’s visit, the company which contracted him as a speaker sent a few suggested titles for his talk. One of the suggested titles was “A Man with Balls: Coming Out as a Trans Athlete.” For those of you who know me, this pissed me off beyond belief. The problem with the title simply comes down to misogyny and cissexism.

Equating having balls with being brave is misogynistic, as it assumes that the state of having balls predisposes you to bravery/confidence. It equates bravery with a masculine nature, therefore denying women the ability to be brave. In this situation, women are weak and inferior.

Cissexism is the belief that transgender people are inferior to cisgender people. (Cisgender people are people whose gender identity matches the gender they were assigned at birth.) Cissexism is often expressed when one’s genitals are conflated with one’s gender. For instance, the Vagina Monologues’ title assumes that everyone who is a woman has a vagina/everyone who has a vagina is a woman. This is not true. (Eve’s attempts to include the narratives of transgender women are a shitty effort to address this problem. It does not change the fundamental problem with her title/marketing that she is equating vaginas with women.) Cissexism is also expressed through the invasive focus on transgender folks’ genitals. Asking questions such as “Have you had the surgery yet?” is basically asking the state of someone’s genitals. Would you ask this of any cisgender person? “Hey, man. Just wondering how your balls were doing today?” “Hey, I know I just met you, but do you have a vagina or a penis?” Katie Couric made this mistake recently when she had Laverne Cox (star of Orange is the New Black) and Carmen Carrera (of RuPaul’s Drag Race) on her show. Watch Laverne Cox blow her away here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/07/laverne-cox-carmen-carrera-katie-couric_n_4555080.html The title of Kye’s lecture, although it is meant to be in good fun, reminds us to think about Kye’s genitals in relationship to his trans-ness. He is so much more than this. Needless to say, we will not use that title for his talk.

When Speaking Up is Speaking Over

This week in class, we discussed privilege and the question of what to do with it. The two answers we came up with were either finding ways to sacrifice it or using it to make a better world for those we have privilege over.

I find that the second option can be problematic. For instance, many people discuss Muslim women wearing head coverings whether they are feminist or not. There have been so many debates and but rarely are Muslim women asked about what they think – they are cut out of a conversation about their own lives. In a British Empire history class I took freshman year, we read about suttee in colonial India, but we never read any first hand accounts from widows, only from “white men [who talked about] saving brown women from brown men." These men who wrote accounts of sati, and white feminists who talk about how oppressed hibjabis are, and Macklemore, who sings about how hip-hop hates gay people, without acknowledging LGBTQ rappers like Angel Haze and Le1f, are all speaking over marginalized groups of which they are not a part. Using privilege in this way, to speak “for” a group, is dangerous because it is easy to misrepresent desires from that group or individuals in it.

So the question remains, what should you do with your privilege? I think this video of Dr. Joy DeGruy gives a good example. In the video she talks about going to the grocery store with her sister-in-law, who passes as white, and whose check is not scrutinized at the register. When Dr. DeGruy comes up to the register after her and pays with a check, she is asked for two pieces of identification, and the cashier searches for her name in the registry of people who have written bad checks. Her sister-in-law steps in, using her white (passing) privilege, to call attention to the injustice of the situation. In that moment, she used her white privilege to make everyone else in the immediate area aware of something that might otherwise have gone unnoticed. This example isn’t quite sacrificing your privilege and asking the cashier to look at your identification, and it’s not using your privilege to try to effect major societal change. I believe this use of privilege is more effective at getting others to be aware of microaggressions and racism than sacrificing everyday privileges because it reaches a wider audience and draws attention directly to the problem.

On Solidarity

As a white, cisgender, upper middle class male who advocates for the economic, political, and social equality of women, I often wonder where my niche exists within the feminist movement. Furthermore, as my understanding of feminism develops, I see many critiques of those within the movement and about what issues they prioritize, which exacerbates my concern over my position. From Twitter topics like #solidarityisforwhitewomen to terms like TERFs, or Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists, my original view of feminism as simply a movement that combats issues like unequal pay and the removal of sexual double standards has been challenged and the concept of feminism as a unified group that shares, in Rebecca West’s words, “the radical notion that women are people” has expanded to become more nuanced.

Considering the ways in which race, gender, socioeconomic status, locality, physical ability, and so on intersect, then how does a feminism that encompasses such diverse people as white women and men, women and men of color, and transgender women and men of a variety of ages, physical abilities, and global location as well as such an extensive range of issues, from the seemingly superficial, like non-utilitarian clothing or body hair length, to the crippling economic, such as the gender wage gap, achieve solidarity? Are there competing interests among the issues feminists battle? How does one prioritize issues without excluding someone else? And largely, what does it mean to call oneself a feminist? (E.g., Robin Thicke, who popularized the controversial “Blurred Lines” with lyrics indicative of rape culture’s notions of ‘I know you want it’ now considers himself a feminist and even credits himself with starting a new form of the feminist movement.)

Solidarity seems to become problematic at the intersection of identity labels. That is to say, since no one individual exists merely as a woman, but rather as a woman of a particular race, in a particular place, of a particular class, she may have interests that compete with other women of different backgrounds. So then does feminism become an expansive checklist of different issues that all agree on, which begs the question can these groups overcome the problems between these other identities to unify? And then to what extent does feminism vary from a humanitarian movement focused on women's issues? For example, if feminists focus on ending female genital mutilation in Somalia, is that intervention ethnocentric instead of humanitarian? It seems that those aware and capable of preventing physical harm to others should try to alter those behaviors. However, we run into a problem of whether or not this constitutes physical harm, and many Somalian women would argue that it is a cultural practice; therefore, should we simply let the Somalian feminists advance this cause? As a result of these conflicts, I wonder then if it is possible even for the movement to achieve global cohesiveness.
Furthermore, if feminism is an expansive checklist of different issues, then how do we decide our priorities while being sensitive to other groups? For example, some point out mainstream rap lyrics’ rampant sexism. They cringe when Childish Gambino raps “Half Thai thickie/All she wanna do is Bangkok” or Kendrick Lamar states “See my standards are pampered by threesomes tomorrow” or any suggestion of shaking ass for the heterosexual male gaze – and rightfully so in that women’s bodies become a vehicle for men to achieve masculinity -- however, people’s prioritization of this to the exclusion of discussing the sexism inherent in other predominantly white lyricists suggests a racist notion and an assumption that could marginalize people of color. Another instance occurs with class differences; for example, as Jezebel  blogger Ninjacate points out, many feminists “cheekily denounce ‘twitter feminism’ as useless, without considering that twitter is the main medium through which less economically privileged women (usually women of colour) can put their feminism into practice.” To use a more personal example, as a white male, I often wonder if my speaking out in class – even in a class focused on sexism and where my contribution would hopefully further this conversation -- is itself a function of my white, male privilege and whether or not utilizing thator divesting it would be better. In some sense, my constant discussion seems to contribute to networks of oppression. 

 To that end, I would consider that we must be very self-aware in determining our places in the larger feminist movement. For instance, given I, a white male, have a limited amount of time and energy, I should personally prioritize my energies in the areas my white, male privilege would best serve, such as combating sexual assault by talking to men about how they can stop rape and about how the objectification of women promotes rape culture. I furthermore must be constantly critical and check my privilege so that I do not trump others’ effort.

I do not think that feminists' diversity of interests creates issues that are mutually exclusive; however, public critique of these interests and where they compete is necessary to promote a more unified movement. We must use our privilege to promote the voices of those who are squelched and listen to marginalized voices' concerns in the movement.

White Privilege in a RAV4

Since the beginning of the semester, I have not had a sticker on my car that says I am a Rhodes student and can park on campus. However, every time I drive past campus safety in my silver RAV4, I am not stopped; they barely glance my way before giving me a friendly smile and wave that is taken as permission to enter. Every time this happens, I always remark to whomever is in the car with me that it is because of the color of my skin that I am not stopped. I have had friends counter by saying that it is more because I look young and college-aged or because it is cold outside and the officer does not want to step out of their warm gatehouse or even because the officer is lazy, which is often a racially fueled comment in itself.  

I think that to most of my peers reading this post, this will be an obvious form of white privilege and I do not disagree. If I were black, even if I still looked young, there is a significantly higher probability that the officer would have stopped me, regardless of the outside temperature or how motivated they were feeling. As we discussed in class, the real question is to ask myself if I am willing to give up that privilege.

In theory, yes, of course I am willing to take the 5 extra seconds to stop and roll down my window and explain that I got a new car over break, but in practice, I might be late for class or convince myself that the officer simply recognizes me from around campus (and the latter could potentially, though not likely, be true). Simply put, even the smaller privileges can be hard to give up and it also gets complicated when you think that just because you give up this one thing, does not mean that it gets better for someone else.

However, I think the bigger problem that our society faces is getting others to realize that both white and male privilege are very real. As this cartoon from The New Yorker shows, those who experience the privilege are often in denial. They benefit from the system and cannot see the larger picture of how this hierarchy came to be nor how our privilege only exists at the expense of others (see first cartoon). Although I do think we should continue to give up our privileges, I think it should be to educate those around us on how they have become numb to the ways in which people of color are treated in our world. And even though I will not be able to use the car example to expose inequality anymore (I just got a sticker from Rhodes Express), I have made a promise to myself to recognize and challenge privilege whenever I notice it. 

Twitter Privilege

Our discussion about privilege, both as they relate to the ideas of Lorde and McIntosh, discuss privilege as a primary factor in effective feminist organizing.

This week, progressive online and print publication The Nation, published a four page long piece (that also served as the cover story of their magazine) that parrots the classic White Feminist rebuttal to the criticism that they face from people of color during dialogue on Twitter. In short, they claim that by criticizing the ignorance and lack of inclusivity often perpetuated by white feminists, marginalized feminists on Twitter, they are creating a “toxic” environment that is unconducive to the feminist movement as a whole.

The ongoing criticism of white, privileged feminists by otherwise marginalized voices on Twitter is not “toxic;” It’s necessary.

Twitter is a vital platform for marginalized voices that don’t have access to a more “legitimate” or high profile publishing platform. During introductions at the beginning of the semester, I would get an unwanted laugh from the class when I mentioned that I was a regular consumer of feminist dialogue on Twitter. I found this extremely frustrating because in a liberal arts environment overpopulated by white privilege, the idea that I could find any valuable academic information on Twitter, as opposed to in a book or journal article, was apparently laughable.

At least in terms of Twitter, this is perhaps the largest way that I have experienced privilege silencing not only the legitimacy of these voices in themselves, but also their ability to shared with others through an intermediary. By not acknowledging the inherent privilege that many white feminist writers have in their ability to obtain a publishing platform that is viewed as “legitimate” by most media consumers, we cannot even begin to explain to those same consumers why Twitter is so crucial for marginalized voices.

Because women of color, trans, and queer people don’t have the same opportunities to gain “legitimate”  visibility in the media, they take to Twitter. This allows for them to steer their own dialogue while interacting with others. Additionally, it allows them to interact more effectively with other people whose issues and experiences align with theirs, making any subsequent thought more informed.

Thinking that this makes the information, which is typically included with resources and references, as less important or valid, is toxic to the maintenance and growth of the online feminist movement.

Calling out privilege for the sake of intersectionality, however, really isn’t.

I have included links to some of my favorite feminist writers on Twitter, who you should all definitely check out. They speak on a variety of different issues but all have extremely interesting things to say about privilege.

#FollowFriday

1. @FeministaJones

2. Suey Park, @suey_park, #NotYourAsianSidekick

3. Mikki Kendall, @Karnythia #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen

4. Sarah Kendzior, @sarahkendzior

5. Ayesha A. Siddiqi, ‏@pushinghoops

Sex v. Gender and Men Trying to Guess Bra Prices

After reading Simone de Beauvoir’s piece, I realized that I had not formulated an opinion myself about what exactly constituted a ‘woman.’ Was it appearance, biological difference, how one simply identified themselves and acted, or was it something more? I was interested to know what others thought a woman was. My thoughts went to the South African runner, Caster Semenya, who was forced to undergo a “gender verification” test after competing and placing in the women’s 800-meter Olympic run in 2009. She was forced into this test simply because of the way she looked. Her body type did not fit that of a “typical” woman, even an athletic woman, and many of her competitors were upset that such a seemingly manly woman should be able to compete in the same category as them. Her test results showed that she had three times the normal level of testosterone than the average woman (accredited to her internal testes), and was also missing both a womb and ovaries. What was most notable about Semenya’s situation however, was what happened after the race. She was asked to give an interview and be on the cover of You magazine, a South African publication. As you can see, she is wearing a flattering black dress and a ton of jewelry. Her hair, now taken out of braids, is done beautifully and compliments the eye makeup, lipstick, and nail polish someone has put on her. (As a side note, when you search her name, the first thing Google suggests is “Caster Semenya makeover.”) When this was printed, it was make clear that there was to be no hint of masculinity in her cover photo, which made her both more relatable and easier for people to accept. When she was seen as a hermaphrodite, she made others question what exactly it meant to be a woman, by default forcing men to question what it was to be a man. If this woman was stronger, faster, and had more masculine features than many men in America, yet she still identified as a woman, how did that modify the definition of a ‘woman’? Simply by being herself, she threw off the entire balance of feminine v masculine and female v male. This proved to be unacceptable and controversial though, and she was quickly corrected and made a definitive woman.

Knowing this and everything else we’ve talked about in class, I’m still struggling to determine what makes a woman a woman. In recent history, it has been exciting and popular to talk about LGBT people and the rights they are being granted or denied, just as it was popular to talk about black people and the rights they were granted or denied 60 years ago. Great change came about for African Americans then, and maybe big changes will come about for the LGBT community in the next decade. Will gender be seen as more fluid? Will those who do not conform be able to live the lives they want without fear of violence or ostracism? Are there other elements that are preventing a gender/sex uprising that were not present during the Civil rights movement of the 1960s?

To end on a happier and unrelated note, I thought this was hilarious and showed just how out of touch men are. These kinds of products are nowhere near the realm of men's thoughts, but I'm pretty sure most women would be able to put prices on men’s products without issue. Click HERE

Once upon a time...

We were talking on Thursday about the ways by which biological boys and girls grow up to be feminine or masculine. Jett-Simpson & Masland (1993) showed that gender bias exists in the content, language, and illustrations of a majority of children’s books. Through this popular media, girls are already learning to be marginalized from a young age. What’s a girl to do then? I guess there are other forms of media that children subscribe to… let’s go with movies. What does she learn there? Well, Cinderella teaches her that beauty is what really matters and gets you ahead in life, Jasmine that you should run away from home when you disagree with your parents, Belle to remain in an abusive relationship, and Ariel to change your body for a man. Of course, these are somewhat of a dramatization, but these negative lessons are still implanted to various degrees in the young girls of our world under the pretense of children’s movies.

Chris Cragin-Day has a slightly more positive (and unexpected) thing to say about the plight of Disney princesses in a recent blog post. She argues that the knight in shining armor, the prince charming – he is a metaphor for God, a divine prince of sorts. This prince is someone who loves your (the princess’) inner beauty and, if you persist in goodness, someday you and your prince will live happily ever after. Take that as you will…

Little boys are not immune to these stories either; Disney imparts their own lessons for them. When girls are told these things from a young age, that the only thing that matters is their beauty or that they must rely on men, boys get the same message. Plus, they get one of their own. As Sanjay Newton relates in this short video, young boys are fed sexist views that negatively affect them too. Newton mentions the perpetuation of the sexual objectification of women, the need for chiseled bodies and physical prowess, and the emphasis of violence and dominance.

Disney has also received many blows about its rampant racist tendencies, to which it responds with movies like Pocahontas, Mulan, and The Princess and the Frog. Still, stereotypical racist messages abound (video).

I will be seeing Frozen for the second time in theaters tonight. And I am not ashamed to tell you this. My two favorite movies (probably ever) are Tangled and now Frozen. Why do I like this movie so much? One, because it is a great sister movie: having a younger biological sister and 177 sorority sisters, I really like the message. Two, it is different from the other Disney films. Tangled, Allendra Letsome, NOW Vice President of Membership says, was Disney “taking baby steps on the path to feminism.” Now, with Frozen we take a few more baby steps toward feminism. Exalted as a progressive film by Gina Luttrell of PolicyMic, Frozen also tackles social issues of sexual orientation along with sexism. I don’t want to give too much away, but if you’ve already seen it (or don’t plan to) here’s the article (SPOLIER ALERT). At the very least, it passes the Bechdel test.

Clearly, Disney has some work to do, but maybe things are getting better. 

Speaking of Queen B

In case you couldn't get enough of Beyoncé, here is an article from the Huffington Post that's been getting a lot of traffic.

Do y'all think she "lost the feminist game in one fell swoop" with Jay-Z's lyric to domestic violence in "Drunk in Love"? Definitely an interesting conversation to have.

Beyoncé 101

So… I stumbled upon this today. Dr. J - your dream is coming true for this guy. And at Rutgers, no less. But really; what he says at the end of the article, "It's important to shift students away from simply being consumers of media toward thinking more critically about what they're engaging on a regular basis." is dead on!! Too bad you didn't have more time here. With classes about Elvis (which I really want to take!), Beyonce doesn't seem so radical. 

~Brooke

Seperate being-ness

I have taken various classes at Rhodes - each hitting upon ideas of difference. Within these classes I've consistently been taught similar lessons. Race, I am told, is a social construct. So is the concept of gender. These statements have been emphasized with text from current as well as past authors. Simone de Beauvoir, as a leading writer within gender and sexuality authorship, stands out among the rest. Though I had previously recognized the difference between sex and gender - it was her words which outlined for be the defense for this statement. If ever approached by someone who was unable to grasp the concept of sex and gender being two distinct and separate forms of being-ness, I would likely point them to her. 

In her text, Simone de Beauvoir distinguishes between the concept of sex and gender. She suggests that gender is an aspect of identity which is gradually acquired over time. This distinction is essential to the effort in debunking the claim that sex is invariant. By differentiating between the terms sex and gender, de Beauvoir expressed her belief that gender is the cultural meaning that the body acquires over time. With this – it becomes incredibly difficult to attribute the social values of woman to the biological compulsion of female. Neither can we easily refer to gendered behavior as natural/unnatural. By definition – all forms of gender is socially constructed. All gender is therefore unnatural.

If this idea (that gender is the accumulation of cultural meaning over time and therefore is essentially unnatural) is preserved, then it follows that being a given sex has no necessary consequence to gender. The presumption of a cause-based relationship between sex and gender is then undermined. Following this, the identification of the female body as the center of the gender “woman” is recognized as arbitrary.

I believe that this line of thought is what leads to a distinct contribution of Simone de Beauvoir: that being female – and being woman – are two separate forms of existence.