Thought for the Day

One item that comes up over and over in discussions of racism is that of tone/attitude. People of Color (POC) are very often called on their tone when they bring up racism, the idea being that if POC were just more polite about the whole thing the offending person would have listened and apologized right away. This not only derails the discussion but also tries to turn the insults/race issues into the fault of POC and their tone. Many POC have come to the realization that the expectation of politeness when saying something insulting is a form of privilege. [...]

When someone is accused of racism/prejudice and they don’t want to address the concern or even think about it, well then the POC accusing is too loud, too angry. But that ignores the fact that we have every right to be loud and angry. If I were to say something sexist/classist/racist/ablist/etc. I would not expect my friends to say "Well I'm offended by what you said and let's have a calm discussion of why." (especially with my friends) I would expect their first and most visceral reaction to be "Listen up, what you just said is fucked up and you better research and correct yourself!" Hell, I'd expect the same response from strangers because I don’t expect them to teach me or help me work through my unconscious prejudices. If I have some fucked up unconscious thoughts it's my job to break it down and deal with it, no one else's.

— The Privilege of Politeness

Link via debunkingwhite

This reminds me a lot of this post in which someone was quoting from an ethnographic treatment of white culture:

In official meetings, inequality is built into the negotiations. It results from the power of one group--in situations like those I have described, the whites--to prevail regardless of the merits of their argument. Third, grievances are involved, not just issues;since blacks are a minority group in American society, they are generally the aggrieved party. Consequently, the stance blacks take in the classroom is intensified in official meetings. What is expressed is not only earnestness and dynamic opposition but also anger and hostility.

Whites react to this anger and hostility in negotiating session much the same way that white students react to emotional expression in the classroom: they consider it disabling to what they regard as a rational process. Consequently they feel that passion, prejudice, fear, and hatred should be set aside before negotiations even begin. (Wicker 1975 p. 45)

Blacks do not believe that emotions interfere with their capacity to reason [...] Blacks certainly cannot agree that the expression of anger and hostility by an aggrieved party is inappropriate during negotiating sessions. After all, they are reacting to the conditions and circumstances that constitute the agenda of the meeting. Blacks regard white efforts to get them to set aside their feelings as unrealistic, illogical, and politically devious. It is unrealistic to demand that an emotion be separated from its cause. It is illogical to ask aggrieved parties to do so before any concessions are made to them. It is politically devious as an attempt by whites to gain, as a prerequisite of negotiations what they want as a consequence of the negotiation i.e. the appeasement of black anger and hostility.

Bechdel Epic Win

I watched a film called The Women. While it's not the greatest film I've ever seen, it made me laugh in a coupl'a places. What's interesting about it, though, is that there aren't any men in the film. There are male characters, whose actions cause some of the plot points. But the characters never appear on screen. About half-way through the film, I was, like, "this is cool. Can they pull this off without us seeing any men in the whole movie?" There are no male speaking parts, and with one minor exception, we never see any males in the film.