Fuck all the men on the left.

I don’t know how to put this as to not anger anyone, but then I remembered I don’t care. Over the weekend, I heard a socialist invoke intersectionality to dismiss the concerns of women and black people because CLASS! I’m not even going to highlight the irony there, just take a minute and bask in it and the total lack of self-awareness. Lean in everyone, capitalism sucks. Capitalism has been notoriously bad for workers, particularly workers who identify as women and people of color (you know the one’s excluded from the unions early on). Capitalism also came after gendered and racial divisions. This is why no one likes you. I swear to god every time I go to one of these things, it is an exercise in self-control. Then the group on to discuss gender as a binary, which explains the lack of gender queer and Trans individuals in that room, in a city with a radial Trans population. But is fine. White guys doing it for themselves. They’ll liberate all of us, and we can say thank you, politely with a smile. There was a very good point raised that women’s issues, issues important to people of color, etc. are optional for the left whereas the labor struggle is a given. That resonates, and the group quickly moved on.

But why am I complaining about all this? Some of the attacks on Hillary Clinton from the left are sexist. To dismiss them is to dismiss the concerns of women on the left. Some of the critiques of Clinton would be sound if they didn’t devolve into gendered critiques. The language you use matters, and I’m offended that men think they can tell me what feminism is. Fuck you buddy. Fuck you. Was that not clear? F-u-c-k you.

You know what I think is an affront to feminism? Men deciding what it is without doing any work. Hillary Clinton is a feminist. She is a radical or a liberal feminist, and if any of you guys bothered reading a feminist theory book or even just googling it you’d know what that means. The liberal and radical feminists fought for legal rights and protections; they were less concerned with economic inequality and more concerned with being able to make medical decisions without their husbands. I’m not a radical or a liberal feminist. I’m a Marxist feminist, but I appreciate and respect their struggles while I disagree with them.

But let’s talk about some patriarchy and condescension. When you say women are defending Hillary because she is a woman that is offensive. It means women will back any woman regardless of politics. There is also a weird essentialism happening here too, and I’ve seen it written a few times about women supporting anyone with a vagina, which is weird since all women don’t have vaginas, but what can we expect? Nuance? Please, not these guys strong point. But you know what, men should totally tell me what I think and why I think it. That totally isn’t sexist and condescending.

Don’t get me wrong, the struggle is real, but you don’t get to decide if something is coming off as sexist. Sure it wasn’t your intention, but *shrug*. I might have cried in a room where everyone was chanting liar while Clinton was on screen. It is an emotion inducing word for me. See men call a lot of women liars usually survivors of sexual assault. It has at some point become gendered; women lie. We’re seen as less trustworthy than men. Now, Clinton has lied about things during her political, which makes it hard, but everything is hard, and if it is too hard to be specific and clear then you shouldn’t be talking about it. But every time I read someone’s take on all this as all in women’s minds, all I hear is gaslighting. I guess women are just too fucking stupid to know when something sexist is going on. Must be in their heads because the women folk are irrational. Forget the dude who said some pretty offensive things to me when I pointed out the false equivalency of the first Jewish President and first woman president. These things are not the same. Well, that isn’t evidence anyway, right? That is just me being hypersensitive (which as all of you know is totally a word to describe me), and it is anecdotal at best. 

It was a legit hard question

Rape and this presidential campaign. Damn. I’m not even going to touch the Republicans here. But while the left is really concerned about Clinton taking responsibility for her husband’s sexual assaults, I’m looking forward to all the think pieces on Sanders’s campus rape remarks from his supporters. It’s fine. I’ll wait.

I want to be very clear, Hillary Clinton has been inconsistent on rape survivors. That said, she has made statements about her victim blaming past. If we want to talk about that, I can get behind it. I’m not however here for trying to get her to take responsibility for Bill’s actions. People are going to jump on that and claim no one is doing that, but let me lay this out for you. Hillary’s husband has a shameful history of assaulting women, which he had when in office. You know him; he is a public figure, used to be President. Hillary can make statements about Bill’s behavior but at the end of the day his behavior. I also caution against acting like Hillary should be running from Bill or taking some kind of militant stance. I don’t know their relationship except it is marriage. I do know when I found out a friend of mine was a predator; I didn’t take it well. I believed it immediately, but I had also for years defended and dismissed his predatory behaviors. Just pointing out this is a complicated personal issue. Hillary has said she failed women in the past for her positions on specific cases, and she says she’s changed her position. As someone who has also changed my mind on some things that’s enough for me. I know where Clinton falls, and, what's more, I know that she might blame victims again. But I also know that women can count on Hillary on the macro level even if she falls them on an individual level.

Bernie Sanders, when asked about campus sexual assault, took a criminal investigation stance. This is a legit stance. It was a legit hard question. Sanders’s stance is the wrong stance. It is also a little troubling given Sanders’s positions on other aspects of the criminal justice system. Sanders advocates for campus sexual assaults to be handled by the police. Below is the statement, and it reads like someone who isn’t familiar with rape, but thinks this is the way women want people to respond to it.

“Absolutely it is, and you’re right, it is an epidemic. And here’s what I think has to happen. Rape and assault is rape or assault whether it takes place on a campus or on a dark street. And if a student rapes a fellow student, that has got to be understood to be a very serious crime. It has got to get outside of the school and have a police investigation. And that has to take place.
“Too many schools now are saying, well, this is a student issue, let’s deal with it. I disagree with that. It is a crime, and it has to be treated as a serious crime. And you are seeing not the real horror of many women who have been assaulted or raped sitting in a classroom alongside somebody who raped them. Rape is a very, very serious crime. It has to be prosecuted, and it has to be dealt with."

Let’s table the discussion about how the police don’t believe victims, the systemic racism and sexism, and all the other shortcomings of the criminal justice system, but I’m coming back here. Campuses are required to investigate sexual assaults because of Title IX, which protects students’ rights to equal education opportunities for women and men including education free from harassment and assault based on sex. Campus rape is a civil rights violation. Colleges have to investigate even when a sexual assault isn’t officially reported. Moving forward, I’m going to demand my left candidates know this. Low bar for the men feminist, just know what Title IX is. I naturally have issues with campuses dealing with sexual assaults internally in a backroom, but I’m also not here for compulsory criminal reporting. Also, if justice (and we can talk about whether justice comes from a criminal system or not) is only pursued through the criminal justice system, then it is seen as an individual crime not necessarily a failure of an institution to protect their students from civil rights violations.

According to RAINN, for every 100 rapes, only two rapists spend time in prison. According to Kate Harding’s book Asking for It, the majority of police believe rape myths including most are false accusations. Just some perspective before we start advocating for a single approach to dealing with campus rape…because it is working so well for those, who seek justice through the criminal justice system. This doesn’t even include how notoriously racist the criminal justice system is or the steeper prosecution and penalties for black men, which Sanders knows about because he has spoken about the mass incarceration rates among black men. I can’t advocate for an exclusively criminal justice response to rape and sexual assault in one breath and the dismantling of the criminal justice system in the next. That said, there is a fine line here. And if anyone deserves extensive and over the top prison sentences it is rapists.

Sanders’s has been good on women, but moments like this make me wonder how many women in his campaign are up close advising him on how to answer questions. Does anyone in his campaign know what Title IX is? That person should have been the person advising Sanders’s on this question. My rough estimate is five women at Sanders's headquarters of 21 staff with two vacancies, roughly a quarter of his staff. This is kind of like when people are like how many women do you need? I need half; we’re half the population so it shouldn’t be that hard to find qualified women, but that is a pipe dream I know. I need enough women represented that a campaign gets women’s concerns right. That can be one or 21. I don’t care.

Sander’s is a good progressive, but once again, I’m wondering if he has a gender problem. His campaign, his grasp of the issues, etc., which leads me to being concerned about women during his Presidency. I know I’ll retain my reproductive freedom—but when the Republicans come for Title IX again (and they will) will Sanders have our back? What about other nuanced issues facing women and the gender nonconforming? Will Sanders have someone in the room who can explain it to him? I don’t demand he have every answer perfect, but guys someone needs to be there to talk him through it. If in the end, Sanders truly believes the criminal justice system is the only way, fine, he’s wrong but fine. I disagree with the guy I vote for all the time, but I wonder if anyone in his campaign has any kind of background on gender-based violence. Finally, as Clinton can change her mind so can Sanders; he has demonstrated with the Black Lives Matter movement that he can learn. I look forward to his more nuanced responses on questions like this one moving forward.

Man, Jonathan Franzen is a critically acclaimed author.

It is like a bad joke, who is a well-known author with no self-awareness? You almost feel bad for the guy. Well, that passed. Let me begin by saying I like books, and I even like some of Franzen’s books. But he isn’t worth all the hype. Much like a lot of male authors, they’re good, better than me, but not super original or groundbreaking. I mean take The Corrections, a book that can be boiled down to a tale of a middle class family with a declining patriarch and the disappointment you find in others, and he’s not experimenting with form or language here. John Green’s Papertowns is about a young man projecting onto a girl something she can’t possibly be and thus being forced to grow up. You’ve read these stories before; we all have. This is the Western canon: man + decline or conflict (literal or metaphorical) / personal growth = Great American Novel. Man, I’m a genus. I have one story about a white male lead, and it deals with the ideas we hold about ourselves and others, and how you determine the truth if everyone is telling you different versions of the truth and no one is lying. Literally, a white guy learning about different people’s perspectives and recognizing their value. This will never be a great American novel.

But today is a day of Franzen. As reported by the Guardian, Franzen was considering adopting an Iraqi orphan to understand young people. Thankfully, his editor pointed out the problems with this. Which I imagine was just his editor writing colonialism and fetishism over and over again at Franzen in an aggressive manner. No, sir, you don’t adopt a child from a country your country has destroyed for research. YOU DON’T GET TO USE PEOPLE THAT WAY. Franzen is the Joe Biden of literature. He talks and talks, sometimes he does something right, but most of the time you’re yelling “FRANZEN!” at the top of your lungs shaking your fist in the air. I give Franzen a lot of room most of the time because he’s a writer, and they’re all weirdos with a lot of insecurities and usually self-loathing. However, there comes a point, and for me it was his terrible views on women writers (read about them here). Any man who says that about Edith should know they are on my shit list.

See Franzen is finding himself in that scary place a lot of men go when they think they are the victims:

“I’m not a sexist. I’m not somebody who goes around saying men are superior, or that male writers are superior. In fact, I really go out of my way to champion women’s work that I think is not getting enough attention. None of that is ever enough. Because a villain is needed. It’s like there’s no way to make myself not male.”

Ok, but for Franzen the canon is representative of the best work. It doesn’t matter it was determined by men for men in a time when women and people of color didn’t get attention they deserved. He is unable to see this. A great example of this is the novel itself, which was largely considered to be a feminine form, largely until the 18^th century, which is when things change. Men began giving up the epic and moved into this form. On top of it all, he’s releasing a book called Purity which has a man hating feminist in it who emasculates her husband so much she makes him sit down to piss.

This is the best response to that:

AFTER ALL THESE YEARS WE FINALLY GET TO READ A MAN'S TAKE ON FEMINISM BLESS YOU AND THE HARD WORK YOU DO, MR FRANZEN pic.twitter.com/2bK0okClFA

— Anne Thériault (@anne_theriault) August 11, 2015

I truly do think he lacks any self-awareness. That or he’s a master troll and this is all one big social experiment. 

Happy Birthday to a rad lady and thoughts on another lady

Today is Cari’s birthday, and she’s pretty rad. I say all this knowing full well, she didn’t scream let them eat cake at her juniors when there was in fact cake present. Missed opportunities. I know, now you need proof of Cari’s awesomeness, well she started this blog. She also reads like a…fool isn’t the right word, but you know what I mean. She’s an all-around great person and friend. I miss your face darling.

Caitlyn Jenner is a brave woman, and I can’t image the strength it takes to come out like this. She didn’t have much of a choice, but to do it in the most public way possible given the stories swirling about her. She is also a conventionally beautiful woman. I didn’t give much thought to this until a conservative friend of mine noted, Jenner is prettier than she is and she’s been a woman her whole life. It was a joke and not meant to be hurtful or anything. In fact knowing this friend like I do, it was more self-deprecating than anything else. But it made me think of two things: 1. How the public is taking Caitlyn Jenner’s transition, and 2. Womanhood and the conventionally feminine.

First, you can present your gender identity however you’d like. I’m not trying to give anyone permission or restrictions here. That said, our famous Transwomen in the spotlight are overwhelmingly attractive women. Any not just attractive, but conventionally attractive. Jenner’s cover is in a vintage swimsuit and clothing, which puts me in mind of a pin-up shoot. Obviously, this isn’t an easy transition for her (her family or anyone else transitioning), but it might have gone very differently if she hadn’t embraced conventional femininity. The public is taking to it. We’ve already schooled the media on how to address Caitlyn after the Chelsea Manning debacle. Additionally, Laverne Cox is practically a household name. While, I’m still very apprehensive about how Trans and bisexual characters are portrayed on television, we’re light-years away from anyone not conforming to an assigned gender and assumed sexual identity as a villain—One day I’ll collect all my thoughts on Outlander and write about it or maybe just Jamie’s forearms.

This is one of those things I struggle with. I’m feminine identifying and wear a lot of skirts because I’m lazy and dresses are one item of clothing compared to pants and a shirt. It truly saves time. I don’t have to try and match things, which because I lack other traditionally feminine characteristics can be quite the time suck. A friend and I recently discussed how I’m into things that are really traditionally feminine like I’m learning to sew and I crochet, but I have no sense of style or taste, and I might starve to death if I couldn’t order takeout, and I’d rather lose a limb than talk about my feelings. So I struggle with the narrative that Caitlyn Jenner is beautiful as if that is all there is to being a woman. Well, passing as a woman means being pretty and/or surgery. But that isn’t all being a woman is. All the stories I keep seeing are talking about transition as if it is just surgery to look more like a woman and then wearing “women’s clothing” which by the way is very feminine clothing.

Honestly, I have no idea what makes you a woman or not. But it is more than physical presentation, and I hope someone covers that aspect of transitioning too. I also wonder if Caitlyn Jenner will undergo some of the same struggles other Transwomen and all women have? I mean Caitlyn is transitioning as a wealthy white woman. She won’t have to struggle to afford hormone treatments or worry about employment. She will also by default already hold a lot of power in social situations that many women don’t. For a lot of women gender becomes overwhelmingly clear when you’re told you can’t do something because of your gender or it prevents something. For example, I knew a girl in grade school who was told she couldn’t play football anymore at recess with the boys because she might get hurt…they were playing touch football. *side eye* The subtext, girls don’t do that. I often wonder what those aspects of transitioning feels like, the giving up of power. Or is it completely overshadowed by other issues such as acceptance and the discrimination Trans people face? And I understand if it is, but at some point, someone who was always regarded as a white man, and now identifies as a white woman must have had a situation where she thought, “WTF is this?” in regards to an everyday situation. That first cat call, that first question, shouldn’t you check with your husband, father, brother, random stranger on the street with a penis? The first time that male privilege doesn't exist. Then again, for Transwomen who don’t "pass" might always follow the stares and comments about not passing.

I wish all the best to Caitlyn and her family. I hope everyone continues to embrace individuals as they are instead of how we’d like them to be for easier classification. But I also hope for a more nuanced conversation around gender and identity that doesn’t just revolve around appearance. 

Don Lemon is still on TV, can someone explain this to me?

Begin angry rant. Don Lemon says terrible things. I know this; you know this. I imagine the people who pay him know this. I also imagine he is profitable, right? Drumming up controversy by saying stupid shit? I mean that is every right wing pundit. However, Lemon is now telling an alleged sexual assault victim she should have fought harder then she wouldn’t have been raped.

I don’t know how to begin this. I really don’t. I mean I could start with some advice my father gave me in junior high, “Don’t pick a fight you can’t win” or I could start by saying that they tell you the most important thing is to survive. But the latter is just something they say and don’t mean, and the first, well that’s solid advice. See the fine print, if you fight back and lose, well then you are a victim, cut and dry, but you may also be killed because rapists are violent and will probably kill you or beat you within an inch of your life, but hey no one will question your victimhood—except when they do anyway. Or you can prioritize survival, and know that it is going to end. At some point he is going to be stop. But then you’re going to have to defend your experience at every turn. People are always going to want to know why? Why didn’t you do all the things they tell women to do so they aren’t raped?

Lemon pretty much says if you’re raped well you should have fought back harder so you’re at fault. I would love just once people to publicly say men who rape are at fault, and we should teach men not to rape (and not you know receive a public backlash and rape threats). I don’t understand why part of my adolescence was about learning how not to be raped. Any of you guys get that talk? Maybe, you got a how not to be a rapist talk? No? Of course not.^ It is wrong to treat all men like rapists; their feelings might be hurt. We can condition all women to expect to be victims though. I mean that can’t have long reaching consequences. And god forbids we me make men mildly uncomfortable. Right?

Better not talk about it, someone might be uncomfortable. Better not talk about it, your boyfriend will feel bad and think you’re broken. Better not talk about it, no one will believe you. Better not talk about it because your father won’t be able to look you in the eyes. Better not talk about it because there is no coming back from that victimhood. No point in talking about it, because you waited too long. The police won’t believe you. He didn’t seem like a rapist, after all they are easily identified by the long black coats. Are you sure it was rape? Were you clear that you didn’t want to have sex?

I think men should be uncomfortable. Women are. Silence and shame go hand in hand, and I’m sorry if you’re uncomfortable because you don’t want to acknowledge someone’s lived experience. But I give exactly zero fucks. I also think people who have nothing to contribute to the conversation should just stop talking. I’m looking at you Lemon, Goldberg, and every other rape apologist. I’m looking at and blocking the people trolling those posting on the #WhenIwasRaped. But Lemon is still on TV, and there are people on this hashtag calling for a #WhyIRaped and saying they are uncomfortable. Well filter the damn hashtag. And as for a #WhyIRaped, sure rapists should be the responsible party, but maybe not asking for it in a place where survivors are sharing their stories? Also, I give zero fucks what rapists have to say. Also, there are studies that interview rapists, and yes, they are disturbing. End angry rant.

^I am putting a note here that of course men can be victims/survivors of sexual assault and women can be perpetrators. However, women are disproportionately the victims/survivors. That doesn’t deny men’s experiences, but it does make one think and the power differential between genders and how structural forces are at play.

Fat shaming isn’t cool guys

I have Facebook friends I grew up with, and a handful of us would probably be friends now if we hadn’t emotionally scarred each other during puberty. Specifically, a few of these kids went vegan, which I did in undergrad. I had to reincorporate some diary after I became really sick. Mostly this resulted from me not paying attention to being healthy. Overall, these kids have a very progressive outlook on life, which is awesome. But every once in a while I just don’t know what the fuck is going on. I’m not picking on these people, by the way, but I’ve noticed vegans and environmentalists get real preachy on people and often say very disgusting things about those who opt out of their lifestyles. I once got into an argument with a girl over how funding should be spent on social justice causes. She was an environmentalist who wanted new recycling equipment; the equipment was still in working condition. I wanted to use the money to feed the poor, and we fed the poor via donations. Both of our stances had working solutions, but we both though the funding applied to our cause would be better spent. She accused me of not caring about the environment, which I pointed out I was the vegan in the conversation, and she still ate meet, but for me compassion for people trumps compassion for animals.

I bring all this up because Tuesday morning, I once again saw an article that has been circling the internet for at least a month. It was posted by a vegan I grew up with. An obese woman in the UK receives welfare benefits and claims she needs more money if she is going to lose weight because she doesn’t want to give up fast food and junk food. Look, we can all make better decisions about our food choices…I mean I drink soda, which has no nutritional value. Everyone has something. Additionally, a lot of these junk foods and fast foods are targeted toward the low-income, particularly low-income children (I’m looking at you kid’s meals).

There are a few not so great facts about poverty that people would rather overlook:

1. Low-income people are predisposed to certain diseases including obesity and diabetes. This can stem from lack of access to medical care from childhood through always.  This isn’t just diet by the way; the poor have increase rates of respiratory illnesses as well including asthma.
2. Low-income people have lack of access to healthy food choices, which is evident when you see five fast food places on a block and the only grocery store closed or a corner store (for those playing back home remember when Finest closed on Broadway and our parents had to drive to the suburbs for a grocery store because Dave’s was always selling out?). This is called a food desert. Corner stores, gas stations, etc. have low quality food choices, and then of course the ever present fast food…back home if you ordered fries before your burgers at the Wendy’s on Broadway and Harvard, you’d get narcotics. Helpful life tips.
3. Low-income neighborhoods also have fewer recreational places to exercise, and if they do exist like the shiny Boys and Girls Club on Broadway with the high fence to keep the dealers out, the dealers just hang by the entrances and exits. Parks, pools, etc., hell even our roads lack funding. And I dare someone to run in my neighborhood. Then again, last time I was home my dad said he say some guy running down Fleet looking stupid so we know gentrification is coming.

Additionally, I wanted to point out that once a benefit is dispersed then you don’t really get to decide anymore how it is spent (as long as it is within the confines of the law). It isn’t my or your choice to make. It is their choice. Once, I listened to a fellow-student complain that an EBT recipient in line behind her had nothing but ice cream and a ready-made cake in her basket. I pointed out it could have been someone’s birthday because you don’t know anything about other people’s lives. The student conceded that there are reasons someone might only buy those items…no shit, how big of you. What this comes down to is a lack of empathy for people outside your circle. I find this all the more disturbing when you consider these are people pushing for compassion for animals.  

Finally, the last real issue here is that the person who posted this article (and I use the word loosely), was trying to fat shame this poor woman because there is nothing worse than poverty except poverty co-occurring with unattractiveness.

About money and relationships

I prefer to keep my finances separate. I get that sometimes it comes up like if one of you make a lot more than the other, well partner B might not be able to afford everything partner A wants thus compromise and a direct conversation about it. This comes up with partners and friends, and somehow we all navigate this just fine. Of course, when it is an intimate partner relationship, things get unnecessarily complicated. But my father taught me never to give or loan people more than you’re willing to lose so if you need something ask for it and let’s move on. There is a lot we could say about relationships and money. As a woman I’ve dealt with partners obsessing over how much I make in comparison to them (one fight ending when I lied just to put an end to it—might have contributed to the disaster that was that relationship) or how some people feel they can purchase your time and attention through implicit contract when they send you drinks you didn’t ask for (I have all the feelings on this). However, I want to talk about a blog post, “If you don’t make money, I won’t date you,” I read earlier in the week when I was laid up sick. It was written by Elle for YourTango.com, but I read it on blogher.com. And I guess all of this was in response to someone else’s post about not wanting to date men who make under s certain amount.

Immediately I went through the oh hell no emotions, then I figured I knew where this is going, and I was right because of course I was this is my blog. All that said, the blog is about how this woman writing is very successful, and that success has put strain on any relationship she has with men outside her economic social class. She is looking for her financial equivalent. I don’t know about her data, but anecdotally, her view is that she has had more successful relationships with men in the same economic zone; meaning “Similar socioeconomic class=better match.” She argues that less affluent men are intimidated by her because she is successful. She continues to argue that when the man she is with has similar means then he has to show her who he is without his possessions and status interfering. She makes some large assumptions about men in her economic status—and by extension herself, which we’ll come back to. She concludes by arguing that she isn’t shallow.

So here is my dilemma (and insecurity), I come from a working poor family in a low-income neighborhood. There is nothing super shocking there. That said, I have academically surpassed most (if not all) the kids I grew up with, and without taking into account cost of living (much cheaper in Ohio) I probably out earn all of them too. On one hand that doesn’t matter at all right? Except, I can’t have conversations with a lot of them anymore. Our conversations circle gossip and the superficial because we don’t care about the same things. The flip side of this is that sometimes I date men who have no idea what they say with their PhDs and “important jobs” like the chemist who thinks poor people bring poverty on themselves. Sometimes I find myself sitting there thinking “this is not my life” “what am I doing here? This dude is making such unintentionally aggressive and boarding bigoted statements.” Any woman reading this knows what I am talking about because you’ve probably been out with a man (friend, partner, whatever) and he has said something really sexist. You can just tell he has no idea what he has said, and now do you start an argument over it or not. I also imagine most people of color have had this experience with white friends or strangers or all white people. These are called microaggressions, the often unintentionally verbal and nonverbal slights that lead to negative feelings, perceptions, etc. to persons of a specific marginalized group. A good example for women, a man saying, “You’re not like other girls.” Is there something wrong with being like women? For a person of color, “Wow, you’re articulate!” Anyone else having flashbacks to the 2008 Presidential campaign? Because obviously black men aren’t articulate so you must be the exception. In these examples these statements are intended as compliments, which to me always makes them worse.

I know everyone can’t be aware all the time. I was talking with a friend of mine about microaggressions against black people at work. She sees them when I sometimes don’t because I’m white and my privilege can blind me to things. Once she mentioned them, I knew she was totally right, and I couldn’t believe I didn’t see it. Then others were way more obvious. All that said, microaggressions are often reflections of institutional and systematic oppression.

All of this brings me back to some of the assumptions about class the author of this post holds:

Wealthier people are more invested in the future

Wealthier people are stable

Similar education is related to similar intellectual capacity

Hard work and economic yield are related. For example, if I work hard I make more so if my partner works hard he will make more.

When you pull these out you see immediately why they are problematic and classist. There are also boarder implications for example, the standard being used here is the white privilege standard. We know the pay gap exists between races as well as genders, and obviously social economic access. I believe Hispanic women make the least compared to white men. When you put it in those terms if financial gain or expectation of that gain then isn’t the author dating down? I mean she would have to control for pay discrimination in her calculations on whether a partner would be a good match. Really this argument could be made for dating outside of any socially constructed group. I reject it. Let me be clear, I’m a dating disaster, and I have a type (tall, skinny, thinks he is the smartest person in the room—that’s the guy I’m into every time), but I don’t intentionally rule people out because of social constructs. There is of course room to discussion gender presentation v. sex here, but maybe another time.