Christmas in Cleveland

This is a pretty great song by the Raveonettes.

Free speech and work: Duck Dynasty’s patriarch’s comments are a labor issue

Ok, first let me go over the first amendment, labor in the US, and a simple truth that isn’t up for debate.

The first amendment protects US citizens’ right to speech, religion, assembly, etc. It doesn’t guarantee the right to an audience or to push your religious views on other people. Also, the area of this amendment most clearly under attack is the right to assemble, which you can see every time a protest is broken up for blocking a bridge or the street or because a permit wasn’t obtained. When a person is thrown in jail, censored, or otherwise restrained from speech that is a violation of the first amendment.

Most states in the US are at will employment states. This means you and/or your employer can cease your relationship at any time for just about anything. Discrimination claims are the exception. These claims are very hard to prove, see Lilly Ledbetter for details on that one. Additionally, I believe Louisiana is a Right to Work state, which means your employer has all the rights, and you have the right to shut up and take it.

Simple truth: In the United States of America, Christians are not persecuted. That is all. You can tell because they aren’t being rounded up and shipped off for indefinite detainment. They aren’t being spied on, well any more than the rest of us. They are the majority of our representation in government. So think long and hard before you invoke persecution rhetoric here. Especially when we’re about to talk about a man who things black people were better off under Jim Crowe.

Let me say, if the conservative right wants to come over to my side and set up some boundaries for employers they are more than welcome. But keep in mind this stuff doesn’t happen in a vacuum. You can’t argue employers can’t fire people for speaking out about their beliefs, but defend Walmart’s union busting for employees who speak out about their beliefs in collective bargaining. You can’t say A&E can’t impose their beliefs on equality on Phil Robertson, but support the Catholic Church’s right not to provide birth control coverage to their employees. Consistency is required.

So what happened? Phil Robertson, of Duck Dynasty fame, during an interview with GQ magazine said a variety of nasty stuff. I read about this from the Chicago Tribune, but then ended up have a conversation about it with a friend of mine. My understanding is that Robertson is a Christian, and that this is often played up on the show. Remember this is about a television show owned by A&E.

A&E issued a statement, “We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are nor reflected in the series ‘Duck Dynasty.” It continued, “His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely.”

So Robertson was suspended from filming. He continues to have the right to say anything, in fact he should head over to Fox, they love this shit. However, A&E as his employer do not have to tolerate hate speech on their network. As a company if his statements conflict with their mission and company values they can show him the door. Welcome to corporate America.

However, according to the Tribune, Robertson will probably be back next season. . Robertson’s statements centered on the sinfulness of gays and black people under Jim Crowe. Yes, that Jim Crowe.

Robertson’s quotes:

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that women and that women and those men. Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostituted, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking. There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

“Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks because we’re white trash. They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!...Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly, they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

All the things. All of them. Forget for a moment he is wrong about welfare and entitlement programs all together. Homosexuality isn’t bestiality. People can’t pick their sexuality. I’m hoping those other things women have to offer is more than a fuckable hole, and black people weren’t better off under Jim Crowe.

Robertson also released a follow-up statement, “I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”

This is where I take a moment to point out the cultural differences between us and him, this is also a generational gap. For example, my grandmother believed some hella racist things based on Cain and Able. Just saying. But this isn’t about Robertson being homophobic or racist, this is about his rights and the rights of his employers. For me this isn’t about religion at all, which seems to be a point of contention as well. Leave it to the atheist to see this as a conversation about labor not religion. Robertson can believe and say whatever he wants. But we don’t have to listen or give him a platform.

So rights, religion is becoming more and more often the citation people run to when they are trying to strip others of their rights. This is particularly true in respect to people of color, women, and the LGBTQ communities. These are communities seeing their rights systematically stripped away for everyone one victory there are hundreds (not hyperbolic) defeats. So people in these communities are going to be very offended when someone cries about their rights being violated, when they aren’t. Religion is a very clear example of how personal views are political. But Robertson’s freedom of religion wasn’t violated at all.

See, even from a Constitutional level, Robertson isn’t having his freedom of speech violated. His comments were published. He hasn’t been jailed. That said he is a public figure, and everyone has to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions and statements. The more famous you are the larger the fallout. Robertson will be and should be held accountable for his actions by his family, friends, employers, and fans.

Now, for a thought exercise: Imagine if you will that Robertson was the father from the “All-American Muslim” television show.  During an interview with GQ, he says women were happier before they could vote and when rape was a property crime. Also, that Christianity has been ruined by America because the corruption of Christianity by capitalism. He is then suspended from TLC with a similar statement as the one from A&E. Everyone is still going to run around defending his right to free speech, right?

Probably not. So let’s recognize this defense of Robertson is because he’s a white, Christian man. He expressed his views, which aren’t the views of all Christians, or white people, or men, so let’s take that concern away too.  

Thought exercise number two: Imagine, I am speaking at a conference, where in my bio it is listed where I work, and I say “I believe inequity in the US has contributed to the systematic oppression of all people. If you benefit from this in any way you are contributing to the problem. As a society we are better off supporting a new system of wealth redistribution. After all, that is my interpretation of the New Testament, specifically Matthew 21:12-13.” Can my employer reprimand me?

I am making an argument that can easily be conveyed as support of communism, though I never said communism. I rooted it in a belief and interpretation of my beliefs. It may even be factual and supported by data. But my employer does have the right to suspend me, possibly even fire me, at will employment remember.

Finally, I would love a national employee bill of rights that protects employees from dismissal for the sharing of personal beliefs as long as they are not harassing anyone else. Employers have far too much control over their employees’ lives. However, that is not the world we live in.

guys...... i just can't anymore pic.twitter.com/vqA0MtQn2q
— A Really Nice Tree (@dadflannels) December 19, 2013

I mean that most people assume the First Amendment extends to all parts of their life, including employment. And it’s just not close to true
— Michael Whitney (@michaelwhitney) December 19, 2013

Sometimes things make us uncomfortable

It happens to everyone, and sometimes we’re uncomfortable for good reason and sometimes not. So being uncomfortable because your privilege is being challenged is a good reason, being uncomfortable because some dude is saying sexually explicit things about you when he thinks you can’t hear bad reason. I meant this because I’m going to talk about #twitterfeminism, and people get real personal over it.

 

Meghan Murphy wrote a post entitled, “The trouble with twitter feminism,” and it read much like you’d expect. We’ve heard the arguments against online activism in the past. I kind of thought we were past it. Twitter is a specific kind of medium that makes it at times difficult to articulate complex points, but otherwise it enables people to engage with a variety of people and perspectives.

 

Murphy’s complaints and frustrations are normal and even honest, but online communities like Twitter enable some people have traditionally been silenced so when  someone writes something critical of this medium it very easily comes off as silencing. It is almost like a catch22: Twitter isn’t perfect, and Murphy’s experience is her’s and  it is valid, but Twitter has been an amazing medium for women of color to discuss and improve upon feminism . So just because it isn’t working for Murphy doesn’t mean there is no merit. Again, I’m not trying to beat up on Murphy, but because she wrote the piece I’m referring back to her. She also uses personal examples instead of examples from other people (she does use Gloria Steinem as an example), which makes this read more aggressive than I’d like.

 

I’ve pulled several quotes from Murphy’s work that I think speak to the key concepts while weeding out some of the personal examples, but do note as we’ll talk about tomorrow the personal is political.

“Most days I hate Twitter. And many days I think Twitter is a horrible place for feminism. While I would never argue that feminists stay off Twitter and do tend to believe it’s a necessary evil, of sorts, if you are in media/writing/journalism, I don’t think it’s a place for productive discourse or movement-building. I think it’s a place where intellectual laziness is encouraged, oversimplication is mandatory, posturing is de rigueur, and bullying is rewarded. I think it’s a place hateful people are draw toward to gleefully spread their hate, mostly without repercussion.”

Well, there is a lot there. I agree that one Twitter we have to be simple with our arguments, and for someone like me who spends a lot of time explaining the theory behind concepts, this act of simplification actually improves my ability to communicate. But that isn’t the case for everyone. Yes, bullying occurs, but we have to weigh the positives and the negatives. Does bullying not occur in academic journals or mean girls at conferences? I think a few bullies on Twitter is worth a diverse voice.

 

Murphy also notes that not all people use Twitter. Dismissing Twitter because some people don’t use it is about as productive as Twitter users dismissing all people not on Twitter. It is just shortsighted. It also sounds very much like being dismissed on Twitter because you can’t keep up with or counter all the negative statements. Twitter has been a wildly successful medium to organize as seen in Occupy and the international revolutions (though I will admit I’m much more versed in Occupy). Also, this post came days after the #notyourasiansidekick hashtag, seems really out of touch with intersectional feminism.

 

Murphy makes some good points in her post as well about compassion, which will come a little later, first I want to address her two points for why Twitter feminism is flawed.

“For these reason, I see the trouble with Twitter feminism as two-fold:

“1. It is not at all representative of the feminist movement and the actual beliefs of and work done by feminists around the world.

“2. It is a, generally, toxic and unproductive place for feminism and movement-building.”

The second reason is just false, because if has been effective in movement building see Occupy, revolutions, and Trayvon Martin. Yes, hashtag and profile picture activism occurs. Yes, people spread bad ideas like wildfire (“I am Trayvon Martin” used by white people; just no, bad white people). But I also appreciate there are flaws with Twitter activism, and as a community we have to commit not just to online organizing, but to organize in person as well and when called on. Twitter has done a lot for solidarity, particularly across social and cultural lines, which brings me to the big wrong in Murphy’s piece:

“Twitter is not representative. But we seem to believe it is. Twitter tends to amplify certain perspectives and voices and erase others—either because they aren’t there or because they’re too scared to speak up, lest they become the next target. Thinking about who is on Twitter and whose voices are the loudest on Twitter is worthwhile. Are poor women on Twitter? Are people who are busy working on Twitter? Are people who are sick of being harassed and bullied and attacked on Twitter participating in the conversations? Who’s there? Who feels safe to speak there? I’m preeetty positive that marginalized women living and struggling on the Downtown Eastside aren’t all up on #SexWork Twitter everyday, for example.

“Simple because you see a perspective shared widely on the medium, doesn’t mean it’s representative. And it doesn’t mean it’s right.”

Anyone want to guess why I flagged this? Come one, I already hinted. Academic feminism, “real feminism,” feminism on the street in the real world, whose voices are heard there? White people, sometimes even white men, which is fine, they are all aloud an opinion, but they silence, sometimes actively silence other perspectives. Poor people are on Twitter, trust me. Sex workers are on Twitter, and people  who work all the time are on Twitter. See any group of people Murphy doesn’t point out as missing? People of color, trans people, and other very marginalized people. This is particularly disconcerting because Murphy invokes the language of silencing, of herself, which is to say a medium where marginalized people get to share their voices silenced the white woman. No, pretty sure Murphy and her website will survive some angry Twitter followers.

 

Sometimes people make generalizations about white women on Twitter, and I get uncomfortable. I think “hey, I don’t do that thing they are attributing to people like me” (this will be important for tomorrow’s post to reader). Then I remember, they aren’t talking about me; they are talking about privilege and people with it. White women feminism is flawed. I know it; you know it; and Twitter definitely knows it.

 

Don’t get me wrong, someone I greatly respect took something I said on Twitter out of context, well he didn’t have all the context. I tweeting a video of his, days after he posted it. I delayed my promotion of the video because some of the things he said about feminism and women were things I don’t agree with, they were a simplification. I promoted the video because the MRAs came running, and I felt that even if I don’t agree with everything in the video he deserved my support. I was mortified. It even became part of a segment on his podcast. Mortified I say.

 

So I know this reference was about me. But most things people say on Twitter about people like me isn’t about me. These aren’t stereotypes or wrong either, white people have privilege, and we use it. We can’t get rid of it. Society isn’t ready for that, but we can use it to the advantage of other people. This statement leads me to believe that Murphy feels like her voice isn’t being heard, and maybe it isn’t. But that doesn’t mean that the voices on Twitter shouldn’t be.

 

But I want to end with the positive, see Murphy makes very good points about compassion. Which falls next to poverty in the ever changing list of my jam.

 

Murphy notes Ngoc Loan Tran’s  article on “calling in” and out. It was an excellent piece, read it now. I’ll wait. Murphy says,

“But, for the most part, I haven’t found Twitter to be a positive experience. And I’m not just talking about harassment from misogynists. I’m talking about the internal shit. The mean girls-style popularity contest so many of those on feminist Twitter engage in. The take-downs, the bullying, the mocking, the defamation, the snide remarks, and the absolute endless stream of hate.”

Drawing on Tran’s points about punishing people without having a way to reconcile the hurt and that this might be done out of fear of being the next to be ostracized . I would say that Murphy’s concerns about these perceived popularity contests is a legitimate concern. As a community we need to discuss and figure out a way past tearing each other down to build ourselves up. We also have to acknowledge this isn’t specific to Murphy or feminist Twitter. It is a larger cultural problem, which we know because we do it to celebrities, isn’t there a countdown to see when public opinion turns on Jennifer Lawrence?

Murphy makes two points about compassion that I think are worth a read: “We are made to care more about appearances than compassion, and more about winning than understanding.”

This is the conversation about Twitter and the Internet in general we should be having. She concludes her post with a discussion of considering the humanity of the people we engage with online, which I consider compassion. I completely agree with her that we should consider the impact of our words and actions. But I would urge Murphy to consider her words and actions. People who are routinely silenced might feel like their struggle is being dismissed when a person of privilege get a large platform to talk about how she is silenced.

Oh fiction, you slay me, or is this a rescue?

Let me begin with two statements: I love fiction, and I don’t care for romance novels. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve read them, but largely they just aren’t my thing. I mention this to divert complaints of elitism.

To me reading is reading is reading with a few notable exceptions. The first Twilight book is so poorly written it is hard to read and may actually result in people becoming poorer writers. But mostly my loathing is saved for books that promote bigotry in general…though that argument can be made for Twilight.

Palash Ghosh tells a tale of a woman reading and was thrust into a world of romance, left to ponder , why? Why would women be interested in romance novels where the plots are often archaic “hero saves woman” tropes? The only logical conclusion, all women want to be saved. Ghosh does note the importance and prevalence of guilty pleasures like genre fiction, but for some reason romance novels are different, probably because they are big sellers, huge actually. This might have something to do with women just read more fiction than men, actually, I think women read more books than men period, but men may consume other written media at a higher rate…I can’t remember that source.

Ghosh has trouble with successful, young, and generally attractive  women reading these books. Because only hags read romance or maybe the issue is women reading. I jest of course. Romance novels are big money makers for publishers, and this is really important in an industry that is dying. Ghosh discusses who reads these books, women between the ages of 30 and 54 in the middle and upper classes. Then Ghosh continues to discuss the industry specifically the publishing houses.

Ghosh then talks about the plots of these novels. Before I get into Ghosh’s perspective, a few notes: romance novels are genre fiction, and most genre fiction follows tropes of its genre. Romance novels play up the virtue of the woman protagonist, conflict, masculine hero who saves the day, and then there are some risqué scenes for our protagonist and hero, because love leads to happiness. More modern versions of these stories, usually called chick lit, will focus on virtues outside of purity, but like hard working, mothering, etc. Ghosh asks,

“But I must wonder why so many women—forty years after the women’s liberation movement, Roe vs. Wade and the pill have transformed the lives of women in the most dramatic of ways—continue to indulge in the fanciful tales of females so unlike them who live in fantasy worlds light years removed from their reality?

“I’m not sure if the immense popularity of romance novels represents a kind of ‘repudiation’ of the women’s lib movement, but clearly something is missing in the lives and experiences of tens of millions (maybe even hundreds of millions) of contemporary ladies.”

Of course, you don’t mean to imply women are rejecting women’s lib, which is exactly why you wrote it. Ghosh continues to cite a contemporary romance author who says women love masculine men as defined by the patriarchy…false. Also, please, tell me more about what is missing from my life? Because at the moment I think it is fair pay, wage equity, and comprehensive access to health care, but I could be wrong. But of course, to reinforce Ghosh’s not saying women are rejecting feminism asks, are women rejecting feminism:

“[T]hat is, in the early 21^st century, have women grown tired of the burdens and expectations that the ‘freedoms’ they have gained imparted upon them? Is this a rejection of modern feminism? An expression of distaste of the hippie culture which essentially destroyed all traditional forms or behavior in the western world? Do women long for days of old when men were masculine gentlemen and women were feminine and protected as precious treasures and regarded as possessions?

“Perhaps most women (even the ones who get lost in romance novels) do not want to go all the way back—but it is obvious, they are unhappy with how the world has turned out in the contemporary era.

“Still, I would suggest that is someone is enamored with romantic novels, one should perhaps eschew the contemporary books and read the beautiful, deep and moving works of 19^th century women authors like Jane Austen and the Bronte sisters—they combine romanticism with cold hard reality and profound insights in humanity.””

Wow. No. No. and No. Ghosh is drawing a lot of conclusions from the purchasing habits of people. Also, Ghosh knows shit about literature, which is demonstrated by his references to Austin and Bronte. So, women aren’t rejecting feminism and equality, some are, but as a movement we’ve been successful at changing the minds of a lot of women…men not so much. To imply reading a book about a woman protagonist with a shitty plot means you want to emulate said shitty plot is stupid. That is all. End scene.

Asserting women have grown tired of the expectations set for them is out of line. I get tired of people telling me what to do because I’m a woman so clearly I can’t make decisions for myself. My favorite is when all my men friends warn me about living somewhere, it has happened with every large move I’ve made. Cleveland, Baltimore, DC. Because you know there are bad neighborhood somewhere in those cities, and I’m the perpetual victim. Now I know they don’t mean it this way or in a negative way at all, but that is what they are saying. So unless, you have a different reason for not wanting me to move, save it. This is made all the more ironic when you consider the neighborhood I grew up in.

Also, hippies destroyed everything in the western world? Patriarchy did fine. Which we know because women were excluded from leadership in almost all the major movements (anti-war and civil rights). It was even noted in Occupy that women had less of a vocal presences than men. The “protected as treasures” line. Christ. I know I don’t want to go back to being property, which Ghosh doesn’t say, instead possessions. It is a nicer way to say it. Women were property and used as a commodity. Personally, I would love for us to chuck all the notions of purity and property from women because rape was a property crime and often is still treated as one, for example, people really believe that if a woman has had sex in the past she can’t be raped. Take a minute.

Then Ghosh concludes by telling women to read classic women’s literature. Except there isn’t that much of it, which Ghosh seems obvious to. Women were/are actively excluded from the cannon. Austin is a great example of this. However, Ghosh has a very limited and frustrating understanding of Austin. Austin is a class writer. Her books are often considered romance now, but those story lines are the means to talk about class, manipulation, and social expectations. Don’t believe me? Read Pride and Prejudice again, but this time note all the times marriage is referenced as a tool to mark class and social standing. Austin shows us the changing is society with the rise of the bourgeois and merchant class.

Finally, and my real point here, maybe women just want to read books about women, told from their perspectives. See literature has a man problem. Even J.K. Rowling was told Harry had to center around a boy. Men protagonists outnumber women except in romance novels. There are more women protagonists now than ever before, but still most children’s books center around white boys, and when a novel features a women protagonist it is assumed that the novel is romance or chick lit. Remember the scandal with Wikipedia about “American women authors” and who was listed there, who wasn’t, and how the women listed there weren’t listed on the “American authors”’s page? So my counter argument to Ghosh’s is that women want to read more stories about women, and since we read more fiction than men it shouldn’t be a problem. Also, we want more women authors, because authors still have a better chance of being published by using a male or sexually ambiguous name (see J.K. Rowling).

So literature industrial complex my demands:

More stories about women and women’s lives

More stories by women

More interesting and fully development women characters at large

More stories by and about marginalized women including women of color, women in poverty, and the oppressed

See there is a discussion around whether men can write women. We hear about it all the time when we talk about film. The female characters aren’t developed, and it is just assumed men can’t write them. Well, hire women to write them. I solve so many problems, you guys. However, this criticism is rarely applied to female authors, and that is because so many stories are men’s stories that everyone knows how to write relatable men. After all men are considered the default example of the human condition.