Your Body, Your Perspective
The body you inhabit affects your life experiences. This is a very basic, “duh”-level truth, one that goes a long way toward explaining why people have difficulty understanding different kinds of oppression, because the experiences they have are fundamentally different. When I walk down the street by myself, men yell at me, stare at me, and try to get in my way. When my male friends walk down the street by themselves, they … walk down the street. Voila. Amazing! So, when I talk about how infuriating it was to walk two blocks to BART twice a day on the way to and from work, and how I’m hyperaware of the men on the street, they have to think to understand it, because it’s not something that they’ve experienced. They don’t intuitively understand that this is part of my everyday life, that I’m not exaggerating or making things up. They doesn’t understand that as they might allocate two units of mental energy to digging our their keys, I have to allocate two units of mental energy to putting my shields up and power walking past the men hanging out in the plaza, pretending that if I pass them fast enough, I won’t hear them commenting on my body.
I knew this, and yet, I was shocked when C and I had this conversation about white and male privilege:
C: [talking about how it was depressing to realize that he has, and has benefited from, white and male privilege] Sorry, you’re probably thinking, “Ugh, what does he have to complain about?”
PD: No, I know it’s hard to deal with the realization that you have privilege, especially having grown up in a culture that argues that VAWA is sexist against men, or that affirmative action is racist against white people–
C: I really don’t think that’s the culture I grew up in.
PD: Really? You’ve never had a white man claim that he’s oppressed by anti-discrimination? At school, during orientation, there were those minority peer counseling groups–you never had a white boy come in claiming that white is a race, too, and that he’s oppressed by racism?
C: No, and if he had, he’d have been laughed out.
PD: *stunned silent*
I was shocked, because that happened during the first week of college: hip, “I’m so liberal and enlightened that I recognize that white is a race, unlike you racist, backward POC,” white boys coming into minority peer counseling groups saying that white was a race and so they should be allowed to attend these groups, too (and turn what were supposed to be safe spaces for POC into fora that privileged the voices of white boys). It really happened. And people have argued to my face that “VAWA discriminates against men!” and “women’s shelters discriminate against men!” and “affirmative action discriminates against whites!” I’ve experienced this so many times that C’s assertion that he’d never encountered this and that if he had, the perpetrators would have been laughed out of the room, dumbfounded me. He wasn’t saying that these things didn’t happen, just that he’d never seen them, and it was such a drastically different experience of race, gender, and bystander support from mine that I was shocked.
And then I realized, he’s white and he’s male. Of course he’s not going to experience idiot white boys trying to take over POC spaces, because firstly, he wouldn’t have been at the minority peer counseling group to begin with, and secondly, those idiots would have assumed that he agreed with them on account of their shared whiteness, and wouldn’t have brought up their distorted conceptions of race-based discrimination.
C is wonderful and I adore him. It remains shocking that our life experiences have been so drastically different, and not in the sense that individual lives are different, but that they’ve been so fundamentally influenced in broad strokes by our race and gender identities.
Ways Not To Strike Up A Conversation With A Woman
Dear Men-Who-Want-To-Talk-To-Women-But-Don’t-Know-How,
You’re interested in having a conversation with a woman, or at least that’s the impression I get from the way you yell and holler at me. (For the sake of this post, let’s pretend that I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt; let’s pretend that you’re not just catcalling and hollering as an act of aggression intended to establish your dominance over the women you’re harassing.) If you are in fact interested in having a conversation with a heretofore unknown woman without making her feel like a sex object rather than a human being with hopes, dreams, and aspirations, here are some tips on what not to do.
DO NOT:
Come up to a woman and say, “I’ll give you a ride for free, because you’re Asian.” [Man in question is a limo driver] When she says, “No, thanks, I’ll take the bus,” and walks away, follow her down the street and harass her with supposedly flattering comments about her hair, her dress, her ethnicity and repeated requests to get into your vehicle.
WHY NOT: It makes you annoying, because you didn’t leave her alone when she expressed disinterest. It makes you a disgusting, racist fetishist, because you’ve explicitly said that you’re interested on account of her race, and presumably whatever assumptions you’re making about it. It makes you creepy, because you won’t leave her alone and physically followed her. It makes you even creepier and potentially dangerous, because you won’t leave her alone and are intent on getting her into a vehicle that you are in control of.
Open with comments on the woman’s race or appearance, such as, “Hi, are you Chinese?” or, “Hi, gorgeous.”
WHY NOT: It implies that you are a creepy, racist Asian fetishist. It implies that all you see about her is her race. It reduces her down to her race, and there’s a probability of 1 that she’s heard the question before and is tired of complete strangers playing 20 Questions with her race and identity. Furthermore, even flattering comments about her appearance are problematic, because they’re nearly always implicitly sexist and support the assumptions that women are supposed to be decorative and attractive, and that they’re doing it for the observers, not for themselves. Their appearance is not for your evaluation.
Mutter, “Hey, sweetheart!” under your breath as you’re walking past a woman on the sidewalk.
WHY NOT: If you actually want to talk to her, muttering at her while you walk past and away is a bad strategy. It says, “I’m not really interested in talking to you, I just feel entitled to comment on you/your body in passing, as if you were an animal at the 4-H fair.” It also says, “I’m commenting on you–not to you, but on you–with no prior interaction, so the only thing I have to consider is your appearance, and I’m judging it, as if your appearance is for my sake, not yours.”
Call, “Hi,” at a woman in front of you as she’s walking through a subway station. Call, “Hi,” again after she ignores you. Call, “Can you hear me?” after she ignores you again.
WHY NOT: Calling at random people in the crowd is not a winning technique. Would you stop in the middle of your commute for some random person yelling at you, whom you’d never met before, who couldn’t be arsed to say, “Excuse me,” or come up to you or even enter your field of vision? Expecting her to stop, turn around, locate you, and engage in conversation with you after you’ve tried to call her to heel like an off-leash dog is sheer entitlement: a feeling of entitlement to her time and to her attention. It’s flat out rude, as well as stupid.
If you do want to have a conversation with a female stranger–I said, “have a conversation,” mind, not, “chat her up and hit on her”–and don’t want to come off as a sexist creep, here are some suggestions:
DO make sure you’re not bothering her. If she’s using her phone; listening to music; reading a book; looking at the bus map; or otherwise engaged, don’t interrupt her. Would you want to be interrupted by a complete stranger? No, not everyone minds it, but it’s better to err on the side of not being an ass. Bear in mind that some of these things are defensive techniques that some women have adopted specifically to keep asses away–”If I look busy/have headphones in/am buried in a book, maybe he’ll leave me the fuck alone.”
DO pay attention to her reactions. If she answers with monosyllabic words, keeps her attention focused on her book, doesn’t try to carry any of the conversation, or pointedly tells you that she’s married and waiting for her spouse (whether or not she’s got a ring on), politely end with something like, “It was nice to meet you,” or, “have a nice day,” and leave off.
DO introduce yourself or say, “Excuse me,” or find something relevant to say. For example, I was once holding a sack of pears at the farmers’ market, and a man asked if I’d tried the apples at his stand, and we had a conversation about stall fees at the various markets in SF. It was an interesting topic, and although I’d initially gotten weird vibes from him, I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he wanted to have an actual conversation.
Of course, then he ruined it by saying, “Actually, I only wanted to talk to you because you look so pretty.” In other words, he wasn’t actually interested in having a conversation with me about farmers’ markets–he was interested in getting my attention because he thought I had a hot bod, and for some reason, he thought I’d like to know that. Way to make me feel reduced to a sex object.
Actually, that’s been my experience multiple times in the past. For the guys who whine that they can’t have an innocent conversation with women because women will assume that they have ulterior motives, all I have to say is this: stop having ulterior motives. No guy who’s actually been interested in having an innocuous conversation with me has given me the creep vibes. We’ve had innocuous conversations that passed the time on the bus or in a coffee line. The only guys I get the annoying creep vibes from are the ones who inevitably indicate, whether by verbal or physical gesture, that it’s not a friendly conversation they’re after.
Sincerely,
PD
“Gay!”
I accidentally tapped a girl in the head with my book today while I was on the bus. As is typical of the 14, the bus was jam packed, standing room was at a premium, and people were falling over in the aisle and grabbing at hand rails while the bus lurched down Mission and the driver yelled, “Move to the back! Move to the back!” In the midst of it all, a querulous voice said, “You hit me in the head.”
I looked over and saw a black pre-teen, saw that my paperback was slipping ever so slightly from the hand that I was using to clutch a hand rail, and said, “I’m sorry.” And that’s the end of it. One of your run of the mill encounters on public transit, where the seething masses of humanity bump into each other, apologize, and move on.
As it turned out, the girl, another girl, her father, and I were all getting off at the same stop. As Girl #1 and her father stepped out, Girl #2 paused in the step well, looked at me, said, “Gay,” and stepped out.
I wasn’t sure if I’d heard her correctly in the midst of all the noise–”Move to the back! Move to the back!”–and got off the bus and started walking to a coffee shop, in the opposite direction from Girl #1, Girl #2, and their adult. Not more than two steps away, I heard it again.
“GAY!”
Oh, hell no. I turned around, saw Girl #2 staring at me, walked up to her, and said, “Excuse me, what did you say?”
Girl #2 looked at me, looked away, and said, “I didn’t say nothing.”
PD: No, I heard you call me “gay.” Using that as a homophobic insult is unacceptable.
Girl #2: I told you, I didn’t say nothing!
At this point, Girl #1′s father, who is a good half a foot taller than me and probably 75 lbs. heavier than me, comes over, plants himself right in my face, and says, “Get out of her face! She’s my niece! You don’t talk to my niece like that!”
I figure he’s obviously hoping to intimidate me with his size and masculinity, and react accordingly.
PD: Excuse me, your niece called me gay. It’s completely inappropriate for her to throw around homophobic insults.
Father: DON’T YOU GET IN MY NIECE’S FACE! SHE’S MY NIECE! WHAT’D SHE DO TO YOU?
PD: I understand that she’s your niece, and her behavior is unacceptable.
Father: I DON’T CARE, YOU DON’T TALK TO HER LIKE THAT, YOU DON’T GET IN HER FACE!
PD: I wasn’t in her face, I asked her what she said, and I would appreciate it if–
Father: SHE’S JUST A LITTLE GIRL, GET OUT OF HER FACE!
PD: –you would get out of my face.
Girl #1 dances around her father and shouts, “She wasn’t talking about you!” Girl #2 smirks, making Girl #1′s claim dubious.
PD: I want your niece to apologize.
Father: GET OUT OF MY DAUGHTER’S FACE!
PD: I wasn’t talking to your daughter, I was talking to you.
Father: GET OUT OF MY DAUGHTER’S FACE, I DON’T CARE, SHE’S JUST A LITTLE GIRL.
PD: I don’t care how old your niece is, it’s completely inappropriate for her to go around calling people gay as if it’s an insult.
Father: HOW OLD ARE YOU? HOW OLD ARE YOU? SHE’S JUST A GIRL, YOU DON’T GO NEAR HER!
PD: I wasn’t near your daughter–
Father: YOU WERE IN HER FACE!
PD: How can I get in her face if she dodges around you to yell in my face while I’m talking with you?
Father: I DON’T CARE, YOU WERE IN HER FACE, I DON’T CARE I DON’T CARE.
At this point, I’m almost losing it because the scene is so surreal: two preteens who are by no means little girls, dancing around their father/uncle and smirking; a man visibly trying to intimidate me with his size and volume and utterly failing, even as he leans in closer and closer, trying to loom; the repeated cries of “DON’T YOU GET IN HER FACE!” while he’s most definitely in my face. All I can think is, “Do as I say, not as I do!” while trying not to break out in laughter.
Father: HOW OLD ARE YOU? HOW OLD ARE YOU? MY NIECE IS JUST A LITTLE GIRL.
PD: How old are you? I don’t care how old she is, trying to insult someone by calling them gay is homophobic and inappropriate at any age and your niece needs to learn that.
Father: I DON’T CARE. I THINK YOU SHOULD LEAVE.
PD: I think your niece should apologize and I think you should get out of my face.
The father leans in closer so that I’m practically looking straight up at him, and leans and leans and leans. It’s ridiculous. There’s a pregnant silence, where he looms, I refuse to step back or back down, and he tries to loom some more. The moment drags on and on because there’s nowhere for this tension to go: he and his niece aren’t going to apologize and I’m not going to run away crying. As we stare at each other, we both fail at our prescribed gender roles: he’s failed to intimidate me and I’ve failed to be intimidated. The father says, “Whatever,” and walks away, Girl #1 and Girl #2 in tow. As I turn and walk away, he calls out over his shoulder, “Go back to China!”
Oh, dear. At that point, my temper explodes and I turn around and yell at him, “RACIST BASTARD!” Then I rifle through my mental file of insults, thinking that using bastard as an insult is inappropriate, because there’s nothing wrong with bastardy. A couple minutes later, the ridiculousness of the whole scene strikes me:
- It’s bizarre to call someone gay as an insult, because, well, so what? It has never made any sense to me as an insult because sexual orientation has no moral value or lack thereof. I’m queer and if pointing it out is supposed to make me feel ashamed of it, that is illogical and stupid. When used as an insult, gay is a catch all phrase for everything from “doesn’t adhere to stereotypical gender roles” to “gross” and the conflation just doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t understand the homophobic mindset.
- In a heterosexist society, everyone is assumed to be straight, except when it comes to insults. So does this mean that Girl #2 and other homophobes think that the people they yell at are actually gay, in which case the insult is even more nonsensical (“Yeah, I’m gay. And the sky is blue. Is that an insult to the sky?”), or do they think that the people they yell at are straight and will feel insulted at being called gay? The latter also relies on the assumption that being gay is bad and so a straight person would feel bad at being called gay, which takes us straight back to point #1.
- There is something distinctly ludicrous about being called gay while feeling too sore to walk due to some acrobatic sex with my boyfriend last night. I’m queer but currently in a relationship with a straight man–how does this fit into a homophobic paradigm? Am I supposed to feel insulted at being called gay? I DON’T KNOW!!!!!!!
- The spectacle of the father standing with his face not half a foot away from mine, screaming at the top of his lungs not to get in his niece’s or daughter’s face while his daughter dodges around him to yell at me: oh, the irony. As I texted to a friend, “Easy to see where the kids got their manners.”
“Go back to China.” It’s not a new insult to me, but it’s frustrating nonetheless. It’s racist because it assumes that I don’t belong here by virtue of my ethnicity; it incorrectly assumes what ethnicity I am; and it tries to reduce me to that erroneous assumption. Couldn’t he think of a less tired insult?
-sigh- I texted my sibling afterward, saying, “while on the way to coffee, was called gay&told to go back to china. As far as insult accuracy goes i guess 1 out of 2′s not bad? Its a failing grade@school Lol” That about sums it all up.
A Thousand Words
*sigh* The same place where I saw this poster now has this poster up.
It’s a poster of an East Asian-looking person wearing what looks like a surgical mask and sterile gloves (an allusion to SARS? I don’t know.). Someone defaced the poster by writing “ChinK” and “Fag” and drawing an arrow between the word “Fag” and the person’s head. There are two Chinese characters on the poster and it’s unclear as to whether they were part of the original piece or added in response to the graffiti. If anyone knows what the characters mean, please let me know and I’ll edit this post.
[ETA] Thanks to OD in the comments and SYW, the characters mean “Air” and are probably a reference to air pollution and Yellow Sand. That would also explain the face mask. [/ETA]
It just makes me sad and angry, y’know? I love street art. I love how creative it can be, how it interacts with landscapes and whimsy to raise questions about public vs. private property, transience, and anonymity. And where someone put up this poster, someone else saw it as a canvas for expressing hatred.
Someone is so full of racism and homophobia, is so steeped in it as part of the garden variety background noise in their head, that when they saw a poster of someone who looked East Asian, they thought, “Chink.” It wasn’t enough to merely think it, though, they had to express their hatred by scrawling it out for everyone to see, a reminder to me and to every other stereotypically chinky-looking person that we are not welcome, that we will be judged by our presumed ethnicity, by the color of our hair and the shape of our eyes, and found wanting.
The graffiti reminds me of every time people have yelled at me, “Go back where you came from!” or played the “Where are you really from?” guessing game or opened a conversation with, “Are you Chinese?” or run around pulling slanty eyes while yelling, “Ching chong ching chong!” *
Racism isn’t just a joke. The questions, the insults, the taunts add up over a lifetime and the sum is a great big get back on the boat and go home, Chink, because you’re not welcome here.
Now for the “fag.” The poster looks androgynous to me, neither particularly feminine nor particularly masculine–it doesn’t have markers that meet stereotypical depictions of masculine or feminine presentation. Yet, it’s still got “fag” scrawled across it. So either “fag” is just a generic insult, because being gay means that you’re worth less than a straight person (or just worthless, full stop), or the vandalizer read the poster’s subject as male and the use of “fag” to deface the poster is tied to the racist, misogynistic, and homophobic stereotype of East Asian men being effeminate and therefore gay, because gay men are practically like women and that makes them worthless.
As a queer, chinky-looking woman, I say, “Fuck off.” I’m not leaving and I’ll never sit down and shut up.
*“Go back where you came from!” You mean California, you idiot
“Where are you really from?” I’m from America. Yeah, America. California. San Francisco. THE UNITED FUCKING STATES. No, really, I was born and raised in the U.S., and if I had to call any place else home, it would be Italy, so if you want to ask what ethnicity I am, that’s not the same question. Don’t assume that I’m “really” from somewhere else.
“Are you Chinese?” No, I’m not, and that’s not the way to start the conversation if you want to hit on me, jerk.
Yes on Prop. K Town Hall!
Yes on Prop. K is holding an historic town hall and discussion panel today, 7 P.M. – 9 P.M., at the Unitarian Universalist Church, 1187 Franklin St. (Franklin between Geary & O’Farrell).
Already support Prop. K? Come out and show your support! Meet the organizers and learn about easy ways to volunteer during the days of the campaign. Undecided about Prop. K? Come out and listen to sex worker activists, criminal attorneys, public health experts, local politicians, labor activists, and members of church, LGBTQI, and neighborhood communities speak for themselves about Prop. K. It’s a great opportunity to ask questions and get answers straight from the source, unfiltered by journalists (and bloggers, heh!).
For the last century, year after year, sex workers in SF have been hounded, arrested and jailed, evicted, raped and even murdered, their children taken away. Those of us who have least – often women of color – have received the brunt of this persecution. Why has our city famed for being open minded allowed this injustice to continue? Now we can make a change and win greater protection, well-being and safety for all. Join a cross section of communities who want to make this happen!
Speakers include: sex workers and sex worker organizations, criminal attorneys Nedra Ruiz, Stephanie Adraktas, Stuart Hanlon and David Bigeleisen, Conference of Delegates of California Bar Association, Dr. Jeffrey D. Klausner, SF Green Party, neighborhood residents, church representatives, candidates for board of supervisor and other politicians, the LGBT community, labor representatives, and others.
- Prop K was put on the ballot by more than 12,000 San Franciscans to ensure that basic human and civil rights are extended to sex workers. It follows the recommendations of the path breaking SF Task Force on Prostitution.
- Prop K calls on the police to prioritize sex workers’ safety by vigorously enforcing coercion, extortion, battery, rape and other violent crimes.
- Prop K will end the criminalization of sex workers, many of whom are mothers trying to support their families in increasingly hard times. Criminalization traps sex workers in prostitution, increases vulnerability to violence and sets sex workers apart from the rest of the community.
- Prop K is an anti-racist initiative. Women of color are disproportionately arrested under the prostitution laws and make up the majority of women in prison.
- Prop K will not stop the prosecution of traffickers but will protect immigrant women from being targeted for arrest. According to the Public Defender, not one trafficker has been prosecuted in SF. However, many sex workers of color have been rounded up and deported.
Hope to see you there!
Sen. Obama: Racism and the Race Card
I saw this article a few weeks ago in the FT but haven’t had time to sit down and write about it yet. FT, Gideon Rachman, “Why Obama Looks Vulnerable” (08/08/25) is a crappy op-ed that can be summed up thusly: Obama’s black/elitist/exotic/New England liberal elitist/BLACK BLACK BLACK and that makes me uncomfortable! So he’s going to lose.
The header graphic is what really pisses me off, though:
The race card. Hardy har har. The thesis of the cartoon is that using the “race card” is going to crush Obama and that there is such a thing as a “race card” and it’s used by people of color (POC).
That’s bullshit. The idea of a race card (or gender card or any other card) is that when POC, women, or any group that differs from the rich, white, straight, able-bodied, cisgendered male form in any way brings up their race, gender identity, sexuality, disabilities, they’re engaging in special pleading and making an unwarranted fuss about nothing, rather than raising legitimate concerns about the very real discrimination and prejudices they face. The idea of the race card denies that persons of color are systematically and constantly discriminated against and is in itself prejudiced, assuming that white is the norm. Not only does it assume that different experiences don’t exist, it also seeks to silence and shut down discussions about them.
That deck of cards ought to be labeled racism and it ought to be looming over McCain and the GOP, because they’re the ones engaging in racist tactics. May it blow up in their faces.
Obama & Gov. Palin: Sexism and Racism
I tried to write a thoughtful, eloquent post on Anne Applebaum’s op-ed in the Washington Post, “Class of ’64,” but it was not in the cards. So here’s the list version:
1. Sexist: the premise of the article is that Michelle Obama and Governor Sarah Palin are comparable because (a) they were both born in 1964 (Not coincidentally, Applebaum was also born in 1964, which makes this op-ed more than a little bit narcissistic, a la Erich Segal’s The Class.); (b) they’re both women; (c) they’re both involved in politics.
Sarah Palin and Michelle Obama, two of the stars of this year’s political conventions, do have a few important things in common.
For one, both were born in 1964 …
More important — for the purposes of this otherwise unlikely comparison between two women who probably don’t agree on anything at all — both of them belong to the first post-feminist generation.
So, they’re women of the same age and that’s enough to override the huge differences between them, the first being that Palin is an actual political candidate and Obama, although she is campaigning for her spouse, is not. Then there are the differences in ethnicity, education, careers, backgrounds, and, oh, political positions. Apparently, it’s irrelevant that more relevant and more meaningful comparisons actually do exist, such as Geraldine Ferraro, the first female VP candidate on a major party ticket, or Rosa Clemente, the current VP candidate for the Green party. However, writing about Ferraro or Clemente would mean focusing on Palin as a politician and admitting that there is substance behind the beauty queen history and gender identity that Applebaum seems intent on. The column reinforces the idea that no matter what a female politician accomplishes, she’ll be seen as part of the monolithic idea of Woman first and an unique individual second, if at all (see this xkcd cartoon for an illustration).
The op-ed relies on the same sexist assumptions as the women-voters-who-voted-for-Clinton-will-vote-for-VP-Palin-because-they’re-all-women idea: all women are similar and interchangeable because they’re women, and their gender is similarity enough to override their distinguishing characteristics as individuals. What other reason is there to compare Michelle Obama, spouse of Democratic presidential candidate Senator Obama, and Governor Sarah Palin, Republican vice-presidential candidate? The compare/contrast formula assumes that either there’s a reasonable basis for comparing them to begin with or there’s some meaningful insight to be gained from the discussion.
Gustav
Three years after Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Gustav is threatening New Orleans, and once again, it is the people who are considered marginal and expendable (the elderly, the poor, people of color, immigrant workers, and prisoners; not coincidentally, many of these groups overlap). Brownfemipower has more news and information on how to help:
brownfemipower, Prisoners of New Orleans need your help now (Hurricane Gustav)!!!!!!! – this is sick and inhuman:
During Hurricane Katrina there were prisoners able to evacuate and
others who remained locked in their cells with a minimal chance of
survival. Prisoners were left in flooded cells, with no food, and had
minimal ventilation, to say the least. Family members, of prisoners
who were held at Orleans Parish Prison, are still in the fight to
locate their loved ones who had been evacuated to other prisons during
Katrina. Due to the flooding, lack of organization and care from New
Orleans Department of Corrections and elected officials, prisoner’s
records were also missing. As a result, prisoner’s constitutional
rights have been violated.
…Critical Resistance (CR) is demanding that the elected officials of
New Orleans will not create the same devastating wrongs as they did to
the prisoners of Orleans Parish Prison during hurricane Katrina.1. we demand a full and safe evacuation of all prisoners
2. we demand to know what the evacuation plan for prisoners is
3. we demand to see a public document about that plan immediately
4. we demand information about how we can find people after an evacuationWe are urging every member, ally and comrade of New Orleans across the
country, to make atleast one call to:Sheriff Malrin Gusman: 504.827.8505
(James Carter’s secretary said “Orleans Parish Prison is Gusman’s prison”)
James Carter: 504.658.1030
(Criminal Justice Council Member who is able to put pressure on the
sheriff even if they say they can’t)
You can also send an email: JCarter@cityofno.com
please put in your email subject: How will you protect prisoners this time? [emphasis mine]
brownfemipower: Incite! New Orleans Needs Your Help: info and donation links for Incite!
which are necessary because
The city of New Orleans will not offer emergency services to those who stay behind, and there will be no “last resort” shelter. I read on CNN last night that there would also be no rescue services offered either, for those who may need it–but today, I can’t find the report. Hopefully that means that they will offer rescue services–what I think it’s more inclined to mean is that CNN was told to take the news down for some reason.What all this means is that those who are most vulnerable–those who are most in need, are the ones who are being set up, yet again, to suffer the consequences.
brownfemipower: Immigrant workers gain Key Assurance From Homeland Security:
NO CHECKPOINTS ALONG EVACUATION ROUTES FROM GUSTAVImmigrant workers demanding a safe evacuation from the path of Hurricane Gustav received key assurances from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that no immigration enforcement actions or checkpoints would occur in the evacuation process or along evacuation routes. The New Orleans Workers’ Center for Racial Justice gained the assurances for safe passage of immigrant workers just as mandatory evacuations began across the Gulf Coast.
Check out Redstar’s guest post at Shakesville: The Katrina Pain Index for information on the grim reality of New Orleans, three years after Hurricane Katrina. It reads as an epic failure on the part of the federal government and an abandonment of the most vulnerable citizens. Reading it, I have the sick feeling that many of the politicians and officials involved in the recovery effort are, if not deliberately trying to make it as difficult as possible for non-wealthy, non-white people to move back and rebuild their lives, certainly not going out of their way to help them.
It’s unlikely I have to disabuse Shakers of the notion that the city has “recovered”—whether equitably or even just substantially enough to withstand another devastating hurricane. Katrina killed over 1,800 people and permanently displaced roughly 100,000 people from their homes. Rents are up almost 50%, and the city is whiter and wealthier than prior to the storm. The Council is majority white for the first time in decades, and 5,000 units of public housing were razed this past winter, despite nationally concerted efforts to pass legislation that would have preserved and/or replaced them one-for-one with new housing or housing vouchers. The Corps estimates the levees can handle a 30-year storm like Gustav (Katrina was a 396-year storm), but that does little to reassure and protect the newly 12,000 homeless in a city facing the worst blight and murder rate in the country, a city that lacks a public hospital and mental health system that can adequately meet the needs of a broadly traumatized population.
Happy Blogiversary: Checking My Privilege
Today is my one year blogiversary. Happy one year, virtual, WordPress self!*
When I started blogging here last year, I was moving off of LJ due to 6A’s shenanigans–strike through and similar and their dismissive attitude toward their fandom users. I thought I’d blog about food, cooking, fandom stuff, restaurants, maybe post some photos, maybe some personal writing, and a little bit of feminism here and there. At that point, I’d been reading Feministe on and off for a year and had just started reading Shakesville, I think, or maybe that came later. In short, I was coming from a fandom-centric blogging and blog community experience.
A year later, I’m mostly blogging about feminism, politics, GLBTQ rights, and various intersections thereof. Occasionally, I stick up photos and once in a great while, I talk about food and music. Not quite what I envisioned, and yet, I like it.
Over the past year, my reading and commenting shifted toward feminist, political blogs and blog communities. I’ve become much more involved with politics and with individual activism, on however small a scale. And reading, writing, and blogging was hugely influential in that process, widening my worldview, sharpening my critical thinking skills, and leading me to volunteer in the offline world, as well. Commenting, reading comment threads, and writing on my own blog all helped me keep my writing and argumentative skills in shape. They also taught me about empathy, about the importance of standing up for what’s right rather than silently colluding, about checking my own privileges, and about compassion. It’s been a journey that’s helped me grow and also humbled me every step along the way, because I’ve learned so much from everyone in so many spheres. Their eloquence, determination, intelligence, compassion, principles, and kindness for others are daily examples of what I strive to be.
Jackass publicly simulates/advocates rape of Latina activist
Via Galling Galla, “Radio Shock Jock Commits On-Air Simulated Rape of Latina Immigrant-Justice Activist”, here’s a not-so-fantastic combination of racism & sexism:
I’m coming out of my temporary blog-break for this one, b/c there’s another rapist scumbag out there who needs taking down, after he simulated an act of rape against an effigy of Isabel Garcia, a human rights activist in Arizona, because she dared to participate in a protest against Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has a *long* history of massive abuse against immigrants and prisoners.
Galling Galla has links to more posts and info about what to do at her place, including a link to:
Video at brownfemipower’s place:
I want people to see this for what it is–a white man feeling like he can control, humiliate, and imply sexual violence against a brown woman–all while be recorded for public broadcast. It’s about a white man controlling a woman who pissed him off, by mocking her race, by implying sexual control over her through the use of racist imagery and language.
So here’s an example of intersectionality. How would you separate out the threads of racist and sexist hate here that intertwine dynamically and fuse together? The answer: you can’t. It’s like a chicken and egg question except that the chicken and the egg are melded rather than discrete entities, constantly changing in size and shape and blending into one another as you look at them. So the next time someone wants to argue about which is “worse,” racism or sexism, ask them how this instance of simulating and publicly advocating the rape of a woman of color fits into their narrow binary, because the crime is motivated by misogyny and racism and the interactions of the two – it’s violence against a person of color but also a misogynist form of violence. It’s a misogynist form of violence but it also hinges on Isabel Garcia’s ethnicity. The racism and sexism enable each other and the identities and the forms of oppression cannot be separated from each other.
The Sexist, Racist Demonization of Michelle Obama
Via Amandaw, discussion of the it’s-already-started vilification of Michelle Obama. Discussions by Tami at Racialicious “Michelle Obama: Ain’t She a Woman?”. Recently, a dailyKos post on the Republicans’ Southern Strategy included this graphic:
Sexism is always wrong. Racism is always wrong. And the curious blend of bigotry and oppression that exists at the intersection of the two is wrong. Any form of systemic oppression is wrong and furthermore, it’s not a handy dandy tool for anyone to use to make a point. It is completely unacceptable to use a violent image of a woman being strung up, burned, and branded as property to make a point about the Republicans’ political strategy. Yes, the Southern Strategy was racist. Yes, it was vile. But trafficking in the same kind of imagery and language that they used, whether you use it to mock them or not, perpetuates the notion that such rhetoric is acceptable if you’re on the right side. It is not. It is never right and never acceptable and furthermore, using women as expendable tools to make a point has a long and not so glorious history. Women are not commodities. Women are not things, are not casual illustrative examples. This graphic trivializes the violence that women of color, women, and people of color, constantly suffer by employing it for shock value.
Amandaw’s post “Check This Out” discusses the demonization of Hillary Rodham Clinton and predicts what will happen–what has already started–with Michelle Obama.
Here’s an exercise. Imagine every racist and sexist cliche you can think of. Bring the worst invective to mind, the things that would automatically make someone A Racist(tm) if they expressed it today.
Then think of a way to disguise that invective, to strip it of any direct reference to race or gender. Rationalize.
Then commit that thought to memory.
Because you’re going to hear all those rationalizations in the coming years.
I guarantee it.
Tami’s post at Racialicious, “Michelle Obama: Ain’t She a Woman?” discusses the silence of the mainstream (predominantly white) feminist blogosphere on the nasty racism and sexism against Michelle Obama that’s seeping up through the MSM sewers and also discusses the image above.
The mainstream feminist blogosphere has been largely silent on an issue that is spreading through the black blogosphere like wildfire. This image… [the graphic above]
…which was initially posted last week on the progressive site Daily Kos and has now spread through the rightosphere, has struck many black women as blatantly offensive. To be fair, the image initially accompanied a post about the modern Southern Strategy and how it is being used against Barack Obama. The social criticism of racism by the author, a poster called One Citizen, was good, but the inflammatory image injected into the discussion a disturbing aspect of woman in peril sexuality. Here you have Michelle Obama, bound, submissive and strangely sexualized in a backless, clinging red dress intersected with themes of racial violence. Black female bloggers raised a ruckus, but many of our allies have been noticeably silent, and if possible, the groups that have been most vocal about sexism against Hillary Clinton have been worse than silent on this and other incidents of sexism aimed at the presumptive Democratic nominee’s wife.
Say it with me, folks: sexism is always wrong. Racism is always wrong. No matter who the target is. Speak out and speak loudly.
Dear Sharpton & NAACP
NAACP National Headquarters
4805 Mt. Hope Drive
Baltimore MD 21215
National Action Network
Rev. Al Sharpton
106 W. 145th Street
Harlem, New York 10039
To Whom It May Concern,
I recently heard about the NAACP’s involvement with the Dunbar Village rapists’ case. Seeing as how the NAACP’s mission statement is to “Ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination,” I thought for certain that the NAACP was standing up for the victims in the case, who suffered rape, assault, disfigurement, and grievous bodily and mental harm. Advocating for them, providing legal counsel, pressing law enforcement agencies to do their utmost to find the six rapists currently not in custody, and ensuring that the cases of this black woman and her son would not be lost. That injustice would not prevail again in the case of a population that has consistently been disregarded, silenced, and abused.
I was horrified to find out that instead, the NAACP is standing up for the rapists. This is completely unconscionable, particularly given the DNA evidence and confessions, and the magnitude and monstrosity of the rapists’ crimes. By standing up for the rapists, you’re telling every woman of color in this country that we do not matter. Our suffering does not matter. When we’re raped, assaulted, abused, and victimized, even a group supposedly committed to fighting racism and injustice will not be our allies. Instead, you will ignore women and ignore children, because in your eyes, we don’t matter.
With your actions in this case, you do no more than perpetuate the subhuman status of women of color in American society. By standing up for these rapists, you are not fighting racism for a world of equality–you are fighting for a world in which white men and black men are equally patriarchal and can rape with impunity, while everyone else is left cowering in fear, unheard and oppressed. If you were fighting racism, you would have stood up for the victims and would have advanced a case where, for once, sexual violence against a black woman and a black child are being taken seriously rather than dismissed.
I am completely appalled, and furthermore, I will never support or contribute to the NAACP until you renounce your position and demonstrate a commitment to helping all people of color–remembering that people means women and children, and not just men.
Sincerely,
Me.
Feel free to take, copy, expand, make much more eloquent, whatever–just so long as you print and mail to the NAACP and Sharpton.
Women’s Rights Are Human Rights, Children’s Rights Are Human’s Rights
Last time I checked, women were people. Children were people. Men were people. The word people encompassed all those groups and more. People did not exclusively mean men.
Al Sharpton and the NAACP apparently aren’t operating by the same dictionary as I am. The NAACP’s mission statement reads, “Ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination.” (emphases mine) You’d think that’d mean standing up for all people, now, wouldn’t you?
Apparently not. The Dunbar Village rapists:
On June 18, 2007, a black woman was gang raped by 10 youths and forced at gunpoint to have sex with her own 12 year old son in a housing complex called Dunbar Village in West Palm Beach, Florida. The young men not only viciously punched, kicked and sliced this sister and her son with glass objects, but they also blinded her boy by pouring nail polish remover into his eyes.The young men forced this sister and son to lay naked in a bathtub together, and attempted to set them on fire (they could not find matches). The youths boldly took cell phone pictures so that they could enjoy their violent, immoral and sadistic acts at a later time. The violence continued for more than three hours, and although this sister’s neighbors heard her screams, no one called the police or came to her aid.This sister and her son had to walk a mile to the hospital, because the assailants stole her car, and threatened to kill her and her family if she told the authorities.
Only four of the young men have been apprehended, while the remaining six are on the loose, doing Lord knows what in our communities. There is no manhunt for the remaining suspects.
Al Sharpton and the NAACP are involved. Sounds good, right? They must be advocating for the woman and her son, right? They must be standing up for individuals who are generally discriminated against, un(de)represented, and don’t receive justice, and they must be pressing the cops to search out the other six gang rapists, right?
WRONG. Sharpton and the NAACP are standing up for the rapists, arguing that because some white rapists are free on bail, it’s unfair that these black rapists are being held in jail. Look–I think that all of the rapists should be in jail, and although it’s possible that there is racism at play in the refusal of bail, it’s also possible, and highly probable, that the Dunbar Village rapists are being held without bail because of the magnitude and monstrosity of their crimes. BlackAmericaWeb has a discussion of the two rape cases and the difference between them.
Bail is usually granted based on the defendants’ risk to the public or whether they pose a flight risk. And it doesn’t take a genius to see that the Boca Raton teenagers who got drunk and had non-consensual sex with drunk, underage girls who they were hanging out with pose less of a danger to the public than the West Palm Beach teenagers who armed themselves with guns, staked out a stranger and committed every act that their perverted imaginations compelled them to do.That’s why they need to stay locked up.
BAW also points out that despite their supposed missions of helping all black people, the NAACP and Sharpton’s actions in this case do nothing more than betray the majority of their constituents and enforce the societally subhuman status of black women and black children:
Black women are 12 percent of the U.S. population, yet we make up 13 percent of all rape victims. And scores of black women are silent about rape because of the kind of thing that Sharpton did. They believe they won’t be listened to; that no one will care.Sharpton bills himself as a spokesman for the voiceless. Too bad this time, he decided to lend his voice to the ones who needed it the least — and guarantee that more raped black women will continue to suffer in silence.
Rev. Dr. Renita J. Weems’ call to action is below. Please, please call, write, and email Sharpton and the NAACP. In this fucking world, we aren’t going to receive anything gratis. We–women, minorities, women of color, and everyone else who isn’t a rich, straight, cisgendered, white man–have to demand our rights and fight for them. Don’t be silent. Speak up.
Read the rest of this entry »
Fun and Joy of Being a Korean-American Woman
Yesterday, I went to the Ferry Building to run some errands. I was walking through the plaza reading Nothin’ But Good Times Ahead when I heard a call behind me.
“Hey, beautiful!”
It wasn’t coming from someone right behind me, so I ignored it. It sounded like he was ten feet away or so, and whatever–it’s not worth my time to face off with some jackass catcaller. It was just one comment, and maybe that would be it.
“Do you love me?”
The passive response of ignoring him clearly isn’t working. I was irritated at the first comment and I’m growing angry, but I tell myself that maybe he’s not yelling at me. Maybe he’s yelling at someone else, not that it would make the situation any better–by not facing him and not calling him out on his verbal harassment, whether it’s me or someone else he’s catcalling, I implicitly condone him harassing a woman because she’s a woman and she dares to walk outside in the city. Dares to exist and live in public spaces.
“You don’t love me.”
Okay, I’m angry now. Goddamned right I don’t love you, you jackass fuckwit asshole. I don’t like sexist jackasses who yell indiscriminately at women and feel entitled to sexually harass women and think of women as sex objects for their viewing pleasure rather than as people and make women feel unsafe, unwelcome, and afraid in public spaces. I’m thinking about facing him and calling him on his shit.
“Fine. Go back to China!”
Ok, that’s it. That is absolutely it and I’m not taking racist shit from anyone. Sexual harassment is bad enough, but the combination of racism and sexism makes me see red. I stop, whip around, and see that I’m the only stereotypically “Chinese” woman in the vicinity, so there’s no question that he’s been yelling at me the whole time. I see one man in the area, an African-American man lugging a suitcase.* I yell, “Excuse me, are you talking to me?”
He looks at me. “Yeah.”
I’m furious. Livid. Sexual harassment simply for being a woman is run of the mill for me–I don’t like it and I’m increasingly likely to not tolerate it, but the racist comment just broke my restraint. I yell at him, “What the hell makes you think it’s okay to yell at random women and harass them, you asshole?”
He sulkily replies, “You harass us all the time.”
I see red. I yell at him, “I’ve never harassed you in my life, and it is not acceptable to harass random women. Fuck you!”
I’ve never seen this man in my life. I’ve never harassed an African-American person in my life. I’ve never harassed anyone for racist or sexist reasons in my life. His bullshit attempt to use anti-African-American racism as a justification for anti-Asian racism and anti-woman sexism is complete bullshit and it doesn’t even work as a justification. If anything, having experienced racism himself should have taught him that racism is wrong, period, and it’s poisonous to everyone. Using it himself is hypocritical and it makes him petty, vindictive, and immature. I learned in kindergarten that two wrongs don’t make a right, and his attempt to use racism to justify racism and sexism is simply nothing more than perpetuating the system.
He walks away and I storm off, mind awhirl with anger, loathing, fear, and adrenaline. Facing a harasser always results in the volatile emotional cocktail of the flight or fight response. While I’m fighting, the anger burns away almost all of the fear, but as soon as it’s over, I’m left shaking and the fear lurches back. Women are told not to respond to harassers because as soon as they know you’re paying attention, they’ll ramp it up. They might grow violent. And so we have to endure the verbal and physical attacks on our persons and let them go on, because if we don’t, something worse might happen. Dum dum dum. Fuck that shit, I’m not listening anymore to that passive endorsement of harassment and a patriarchal society where women are advised to endure harassment because they can’t expect anything better. Fuck that shit, I’m not putting up with harassment from sexist individuals anymore.
Behind every “Hey, beautiful!” is the notion that I, a woman, exist for the harasser’s viewing pleasure. I’m walking along the sidewalk so harassers can stare at me and remind me that because I’m a woman, I don’t deserve respect. Because I’m a woman, I don’t deserve to feel safe outside. Because I’m a woman, I’m a sex object and I shouldn’t be outside running errands, jogging, working, or living. Because I’m a woman, I deserve to be catcalled and intimidated.
Insults and catcalls aren’t just words. First of all, words have power. They’re the predominant form of communication between humans and they’re used to cajole, placate, threaten, thrill, and more. Words matter. Second, behind every catcall, every reminder that in the harasser’s sexist worldview, women exist for men and women are inferior to men and he’s entitled to treat me as lesser, is the reality that one in every six women is raped at least once and far more women are sexually assaulted. I turned around and yelled at my harasser, but the entire time, I was thinking about how he was larger than I was and quite capable of assaulting me. If someone thinks it’s okay to act sexist and racist, that person might not have qualms about attacking someone perceived as inferior for sexist and racist reasons. The entire time I was in the Ferry Building, I was scanning the crowd, looking for him so that I’d be prepared if he tried to grab, grope, shove, bump, or hit me. This alertness and fear is part of being a woman, even in liberal, progressive San Francisco.
I faced the harasser and stood up for myself. It’s my way of challenging every sexist harasser who thinks it’s okay to objectify me–to break out of the box they put me in and say, fuck you. Fuck you and your attempts to make me a passive object who’ll succumb to your oh so charming insults and swoon before you, or a victim who’ll stoically endure your fucking insults. I am a person, an individual, a woman, and I am active. I deserve respect, civility, and safety by virtue of being a human being, but if you think you can take those away from me because I’m a woman, I’ll take them for myself.
————————————-
* I only note his race because it’s relevant to his pathetic justification for his racist sexual harassment. As pocochina says, I don’t give a flying fuck if a man harassing me is white, black, yellow, brown, or any other color. He’s harassing me and that’s what matters to me; his ethnicity is irrelevant.
This passes for informed commentary
A friend linked me to Gail Collins’ op-ed today, “Hillary, Buckeye Girl.” I haven’t been reading the NYT columnists for the past few weeks, so I’ve missed my daily dose of inane elections commentary. Upon reading the op-ed, I had two reactions:
1. Huh?
2. This passes for informed commentary?
The premise of the op-ed, near as I can tell, is that Ohio is “a no-frills kind of place, suspicious of glamour” and Clinton is similarly unexciting and boring. So the thread of the columns winds all over the place:
1. Ohio is boring and Clinton is boring: a match made in heaven!
If Hillary Clinton were a state, she’d be Ohio.This is a no-frills kind of place, suspicious of glamour. Barack Obama’s promise to make politics cool again doesn’t necessarily resonate here. Eight presidents came from Ohio, and the coolest was William McKinley.
…
“We have to start acting like Americans again, and roll up our sleeves and start solving our problems,” Clinton said, launching one of the least-exciting discussions of economic development in memory.
There she sat, one of the best-known human beings on the planet. The first woman ever to be a serious United States presidential contender; the face that launched a thousand books; a former first lady, current U.S. senator and survivor of the most famous sex scandal of the century. And yet she has managed to become the boring candidate in this primary.
This is one of the great anti-glamour stories in history. How could Ohio not relate?
2. Obama is too exciting for boring Ohio:
If Hillary can win this one — and if she doesn’t, she is as cooked as reheated risotto — it will be because people here worry that Barack Obama is getting show-offy.
3. Obama is doing well, learning quickly, and even Bill Clinton would’ve had a hard time beating him, if he were running. See how she managed to divert focus from Hillary Clinton to Bill there?
Back around Debate 10 — lo those many debates ago — Hillary routinely wiped the floor with Barack. He was reluctant and stumbling. She was confident and presidential. Then, as Adam Nagourney pointed out in The Times this week, he suddenly evolved. Now, he’s better than she is — calm and witty at crucial junctures, always to the point, never obsessing on the small stuff. After this week’s Debate 20, Hillary’s people gloated over the fact that Barack had said he agreed with her entirely on several key points, as if this was an admission of weakness rather than the key to his campaign — the promise to find whatever consensus there is and build on it.
4. So, naturally, Obama will win:
If Hillary is stumbling, it may be because there just isn’t any good path to take. Nobody wants a bloodbath, and fighting against the first possible African-American president can be as tricky as going after the first possible woman. Still, she might have been able to handle all that, and the fact that he is a product of Kansas and Hawaii and Kenya, of Christians and Muslims, of a single mom on food stamps and Harvard Law, if he didn’t also turn out to have the best learning curve in political history.You don’t often see a candidate on a trajectory like Obama’s, and at some point it will inevitably head down again. But until it does, even the original Bill Clinton would have a hard time beating him.
5. Then again, he might not. Because if he won the Ohio primary, then he’d be a winner, and Ohio is a loser and would empathize better with Clinton (and suddenly reverse its votes?):
You do your best, and if things don’t work out, it just wasn’t your time. Life isn’t always fair.All of which Ohio understands very well.
Honestly, I don’t know what the hell she’s saying, and the whole piece is fluff. It’s less than a week to the big Mar. 4 primaries and instead of providing a moderately informative and entertaining column on the candidates, which is her usual stock in trade, she stereotypes an entire state and entirely omits the candidates’ platforms, focusing instead on a bizarre narrative of who’s cool and who’s not, which sets up the primary as a popularity contest. I know Gail Collins can do informative and funny, because she did it with Huckabee, but I’m not even seeing the humor here. I see lazy attempts to reduce both of the candidates to “boring” and “glamour,” and that’s unfair to both of them.
You Don’t Speak Japanese?
Setting: a Japanese restaurant during the dinner rush. At the crowded sushi bar, customers are eating, drinking, staring into space, looking at the menu, or talking to each other and the sushi chefs. Pizza Diavola is sitting at the bar, reading The Economist and waiting for the check. Next to her is a white man, who in earlier periods would have been described as “bluff” but nowadays is called “hearty,” “outgoing,” or “loud,” depending on your mood and relation to him.
Pizza Diavola: reads about Britain and the EU constitution. Charlemagne is making a confusing argument about pro- and anti- EU British nationalism and pro- and anti- British EU nationalism.
Out of nowhere, Bluff Man suddenly turns to Pizza Diavola
BM: How do you say, “That’s enough, I’m satisfied?”
PD turns to Bluff Man and looks at him blankly.
PD: I don’t know.
Ignoring PD, BM blithely and loudly continues.
BM: Is it, “[however you say, 'That's enough, I'm satisfied,' in Japanese]?”
PD continues to look blankly at BM.
BM: Do you speak Japanese?
PD: No.
PD turns back to her magazine.
BM jumps back and pulls an exaggeratedly startled face, as if he’s been run over by an entire freezing truck full of cold, cold ice.
Dear Sir,
I would like to point out a few things. I realize that I have pale skin, black hair, and brown eyes; am short of stature; use chopsticks correctly; and I was eating at a Japanese restaurant. However, none of these things imply that I am ethnically Japanese. Even if I were ethnically Japanese, that would not imply that I spoke Japanese. Even if I did speak Japanese, that would not imply that I am receptive to being interrupted at dinner without so much as a by your leave to act as your personal English to Japanese translator. In fact, even if I spoke Japanese fluently, I can tell you right off that being stereotyped as a Japanese-looking person, who must therefore know Japanese, being rudely interrupted at dinner while I’m reading, and being expected to perform translation services for you just because you think I know Japanese and assume that I would therefore be happy to be your human dictionary, guarantees that I will not spit out Japanese translations for you.
You have pale skin and dirty blond hair. Remarkably, I didn’t assume that you knew French, German, Czech, Romanian, Hungarian, Polish, Russian, Swedish, Danish, Norse, Irish, Flemish, Scots, Welsh, Hebrew, Finnish, or Greenlandic. Remarkably, I didn’t assume that you like baseball, football, beer, barbecue, hunting, or any of the stereotypical behaviors associated with being American. Remarkably, I didn’t act upon any number of baseless stereotypes to interrupt you at your dinner to demand information from you.
In the future, please think before you speak and ask yourself, “Am I making an assumption about PD’s language abilities based on her skin color and appearance? Is that right? Is that even logical?” If you do decide that I must know Japanese because you think I look like a Japanese person, ask yourself, “Am I expecting her to translate phrases for me even though I’m interrupting her while she’s clearly engaged in reading something? Do I have any right to expect translations from a complete stranger?” If you do decide that you’re entitled to your translation and that I’d be thrilled to be your human dictionary, then ask me politely to be your human dictionary. Better yet, think on this:
1. Not all black-haired, brown-eyed, pale-skinned people are Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Taiwanese, or of whichever ethnicity developed the cuisine of the restaurant you’re at.
2. Not all black-haired, brown-eyed, pale-skinned people know Japanese. Or Mandarin. Or Korean, Taiwanese, Cantonese, Thai, Vietnamese, or any of the 2,269 languages spoken in the continent of Asia.
3. Many people dislike being judged based on their appearance.
4. Most people dislike being interrupted by complete strangers when they’re reading or having dinner.
Sincerely,
Pizza Diavola
I would like to point out that I do not look Japanese except superficially, in that all black-haired, brown-eyed, pale-skinned people are assumed to be whatever ethnicity the observer thinks they are: Japanese in Japanese restaurants, Korean in Korean restaurants, Chinese in Chinese restaurants, etc. I would also like to point out that anyone who expects me to speak any language for them is going to be disappointed, because I dislike being asked to perform on command by entitled idiots. I would also like to point out that of the four languages of which I have speaking knowledge, and of the five languages of which I have reading knowledge, the Asian language is at the bottom of both lists. Sorry to disappoint you, but I can speak English, Latin, and Italian better than I can Korean, and I can read all of those and Ancient Greek better than I can Korean, ferchrissake. How’s that fit into your stereotype-based paradigm?
