Early in the life of this blog, I was trying to focus on being "adultish" -- which included some fashion and lifestyle tips and musings that reflected on acting more mature and professional. But lately, I've been wondering, what does that even mean?
At some point not too long ago, I was introduced to a site called Dress Profesh, which comes with the tagline "challenging notions of what it means to look 'professional.'" It shows people of all different sizes, races, and genders wearing what they work in. It really snaps into focus the fact that being "professional" is an arbitrary and often oppressive guideline.
A post was just going around a few days ago in which a college senior was rejected from a tech job because the guys that interviewed her claimed her outfit was more for "clubbing" than interviewing. There are plenty of people out there who think her tasteful top, skirt, sweater, and tights outfit is "unprofessional" because it's not a suit, ignoring the fact that tech companies are usually pretty casual, and in fact, overdressing too much can make an interviewee look out of touch with the culture of their field.
Regardless, insisting that everyone on the job hunt wear a suit is one of those oppressive things about the notion of professionalism that I take issue with. Suits are expensive. If you're long-unemployed, or you're a college student just starting out, even a find at Marshall's or a thrift store can be out of your budget. Plus, if you don't wear a straight size, or you are a woman with a large chest, it might be impossible to find anything that will even cover your body -- let alone fit well and be without cleavage -- especially when price is a dire concern. Additionally, if you are fat or busty (or both, like I am), there are some who will always classify you as unprofessional. No matter what you wear, being too fat will likely get you called sloppy, and simply having a large chest will get you classed as sexy or inappropriate.
There are racial implications, as well. Black people are often maligned for having natural hairstyles like Afros or dreadlocks -- women are generally expected to relax their hair and wear it straight, or wear a weave, to look "professional," for example. That is, if they even get an interview to begin with, since people with white/European sounding names are more likely to get called than someone with a more "ethnic" (for lack of a better word) names.
The idea of professionalism is outdated and ridiculous. It should be enough to say, perhaps, make sure you are wearing anything required for safety, your naughty bits are covered, you don't smell, and you aren't wearing hate speech symbols. Anything beyond that is unnecessary, and upholds a white supremacist, cisnormative, heteronormative, sexist, sizeist, kyriarchical structure.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Saturday, April 18, 2015
Monday, April 21, 2014
From the Archive: Writing to Congresspeople about H.R. 3
"From the Archive" is a series of posts that I wrote on past, no-longer-updated blogs that I feel are good enough to need a new home.
This post was originally written in January 2011.
Judging by this site, my Representative is Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez. I think she's pretty lefty and is probably opposed to H.R. 3 anyway, but you never know, so I wrote a letter that I plan to send her. I guess now it counts as an open letter:
I urge everyone to write to their representatives about this. No matter who they are, but especially if you live in a district represented by one of the people who support this bill. Especially if you can inform them that next time you are in the voting booth, where they stood on this bill may influence what lever you pull (or button you push, or whatever).
Also, if you click on the link above and look at the full text, at least four of the sponsoring Representatives are women. That just makes my soul ache.
This post was originally written in January 2011.
Judging by this site, my Representative is Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez. I think she's pretty lefty and is probably opposed to H.R. 3 anyway, but you never know, so I wrote a letter that I plan to send her. I guess now it counts as an open letter:
Dear Congresswoman:
Let me start by saying that I'm adamantly pro-choice. I believe that if a woman needs or wants an abortion, she should have it, no matter the circumstances. Her family, her partner, her doctor (barring legitimate medical necessity) and certainly the government should not get to dictate otherwise. It's her decision. I also believe that all reproductive health procedures - yes, including abortion - should be covered by whatever insurance the woman has. If it's private, fine, but also if it's government-based care like Medicaid. Even the procedures that make people uncomfortable should be covered.
I think that H.R. 3, which would limit access to abortion funds for rape victims based on the circumstances of the attack, is disgusting.
I'm not, at this point, a rape survivor. Luck has been on my side and I am not one of the 1 in 4 women who has been sexually assaulted.
So far.
Unfortunately, we live in a world where that could change at any time. It's something I think about when I walk home from the subway at night; when I have to cut through a park; when I meet a new man; when I get a drink at a party or a bar. Despite how cautious I am in all those situations, I could be attacked. Simply because I was born female, I have to worry about this.
John Boehner does not.
As a heterosexual, cisgendered man, the new Speaker of the House has likely never dealt with that sort of fear. He has probably never been cat-called on the street or had someone stalk him back and forth on a nearly-empty subway platform. No one will ever tell him he was asking for it; that he shouldn't have been drinking, shouldn't have accepted that ride home, or shouldn't have been wearing such a short skirt.
The same goes for most of the sponsors of the bill -- if you read the list, all but a few are male.
Congress has no business creating a hierarchy among rape survivors. All rapes are horrible, violent crimes by nature. Whether the attacker used physical force, drugs, coercion or some other method doesn't matter. Rape is rape, a crime is a crime, and a survivor deserves the dignity of having all options available to her (I say her, because while men do get raped, they will never need to seek an abortion after).
Sadly, we live in a world where I could rattle off a short list of friends I know to be rape survivors -- and I'm sure there are even more who haven't told me.
I don't know the details or circumstances for all of them -- and I don't need to. Each of them, along with all other survivors, deserves the same -- justice, of course, but also access to all the treatment they need and choose to have, including abortion. No matter how they got there.
And if my luck runs out and I am ever attacked, I would demand the same.
So I urge you to respect all sexual assault victims and preserve their dignity by voting NO to H.R. 3. It is a horrifying, appalling and unnecessary bill that will ultimately harm more people than it could ever help.
I urge everyone to write to their representatives about this. No matter who they are, but especially if you live in a district represented by one of the people who support this bill. Especially if you can inform them that next time you are in the voting booth, where they stood on this bill may influence what lever you pull (or button you push, or whatever).
Also, if you click on the link above and look at the full text, at least four of the sponsoring Representatives are women. That just makes my soul ache.
Monday, April 14, 2014
From the Archive: #DearJohn - another hashtag of note
"From the Archive" is a series of posts that I wrote on past, no-longer-updated blogs that I feel are good enough to need a new home.
This post was originally written in January 2011.
This time, it's not horrifying the way #rulesforgirls was.
The #DearJohn hashtag started in response to the HR3 bill - which is on the surface about federally-funded abortion but more importantly would re-define rape to include ONLY instances of force. Rapes that involve coercion or drugs, as well as statutory rape and incest on anyone over 18, would not be covered if they resulted in a pregnancy that the woman wanted to terminate.
Basically, it's a giant clusterf@#$ that serves only to endanger women and empower rapists.
So some awesome feministas have taken to Twitter, much like they did with the #mooreandme tag, to address tweets to Speaker of the House John Boehner, explaining to the self-righteous, overly-spray-tanned disaster of a speaker that HR3 is disgusting, appalling and unacceptable. They are also directed at different members of Congress to urge them to vote AGAINST this terrible bill.
The original call to action (with hashtag) appeared on Tiger Beatdown. They also linked to a site where you can find your representative and write to them.
I don't know if a Twitter campaign can truly change policy. I'd like to think it can - it certainly shows that the people are unhappy with this bill, and theoretically it's the people that Congress was elected to represent. I'd like to think at least some Representatives see what their constituents think and act accordingly. It's also somewhat heart-warming to see people use social media this way. In between idiocy and terrible grammar, people are speaking out about something important.
This post was originally written in January 2011.
This time, it's not horrifying the way #rulesforgirls was.
The #DearJohn hashtag started in response to the HR3 bill - which is on the surface about federally-funded abortion but more importantly would re-define rape to include ONLY instances of force. Rapes that involve coercion or drugs, as well as statutory rape and incest on anyone over 18, would not be covered if they resulted in a pregnancy that the woman wanted to terminate.
Basically, it's a giant clusterf@#$ that serves only to endanger women and empower rapists.
So some awesome feministas have taken to Twitter, much like they did with the #mooreandme tag, to address tweets to Speaker of the House John Boehner, explaining to the self-righteous, overly-spray-tanned disaster of a speaker that HR3 is disgusting, appalling and unacceptable. They are also directed at different members of Congress to urge them to vote AGAINST this terrible bill.
The original call to action (with hashtag) appeared on Tiger Beatdown. They also linked to a site where you can find your representative and write to them.
I don't know if a Twitter campaign can truly change policy. I'd like to think it can - it certainly shows that the people are unhappy with this bill, and theoretically it's the people that Congress was elected to represent. I'd like to think at least some Representatives see what their constituents think and act accordingly. It's also somewhat heart-warming to see people use social media this way. In between idiocy and terrible grammar, people are speaking out about something important.
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Don't Fat-Shame. Really, Just Don't Do It.
Seriously. Just don't fat-shame.
There's no point to it. It doesn't make people magically thinner. Being magically thinner wouldn't make people magically healthier. It doesn't make you superior. It doesn't do anything positive.
All it does it promote bigotry. It makes people hate themselves. It reveals that you are an ugly and small-minded individual full of prejudice.
It's worse for fat people than actually being fat. It's degrading to mental health. It promotes stereotypes. Stereotypes have real implications.
It leads to fat people being hired less. It leads to fat people hearing rude comments shouted at them from cars. It makes people feel awful.
It hides behind some veil of "helping." People who fat-shame get away with it because they think they're encouraging fat people to de-fat themselves. And apparently de-fatting is the be all and end all of...something.
But it just causes pain. It leads to depression and isolation and prejudice. It causes nothing good and everything bad.
So just don't do it.
There's no point to it. It doesn't make people magically thinner. Being magically thinner wouldn't make people magically healthier. It doesn't make you superior. It doesn't do anything positive.
All it does it promote bigotry. It makes people hate themselves. It reveals that you are an ugly and small-minded individual full of prejudice.
It's worse for fat people than actually being fat. It's degrading to mental health. It promotes stereotypes. Stereotypes have real implications.
It leads to fat people being hired less. It leads to fat people hearing rude comments shouted at them from cars. It makes people feel awful.
It hides behind some veil of "helping." People who fat-shame get away with it because they think they're encouraging fat people to de-fat themselves. And apparently de-fatting is the be all and end all of...something.
But it just causes pain. It leads to depression and isolation and prejudice. It causes nothing good and everything bad.
So just don't do it.
Sunday, July 28, 2013
The Abortion Rights Freedom Ride: Can We Not?
Last week, a group called Stop Patriarchy kicked off what they are calling their "abortion rights freedom ride" with the goal of ending both patriarchy and pornography. There is so much wrong here it's hard to know where to begin.
Let's start with the name. "Abortion rights freedom ride" obviously calls to mind the freedom rides of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. If you need to brush up on the history there, Wikipedia has a pretty good detailed description, but the quick and dirty overview is that a group of civil rights activist rode buses throughout the southeastern US to challenge segregation. Supreme Court decisions outlawing segregation in public places were not being enforced, and Jim Crow laws were still in place. The riders were frequently subjected to arrest and violence, and were even decried by the Kennedys as "unpatriotic."
The freedom rides were an historic milestone for civil rights. There is no denying their importance, and wanting to recreate that is an understandable feeling. However, using the name is misguided at best. The riders were putting themselves in very serious danger to correct an injustice, and appropriating their language dilutes what they did and disrespects their memory. And considering that one of their biggest name draws is Eve Ensler (who wrote an endorsement for them; it's unclear what her involvement is beyond that), I'm going to go out on a limb and say they are a very White Feminist (TM) group and didn't actually consult any activists of color when choosing this name. It's incredibly egregious when you consider how mainstream feminists have ignored non-white voices in the past and present.
In another linguistic form of appropriation, the group refers to forced motherhood as "female enslavement." While I agree that forced birth is horrible and torturous, using slavery-related terminology to discuss anything BUT actual slavery is simply unacceptable. There are many other ways to phrase this and get the same message across, so let's not misuse this one. Plus, "female" ignores trans* and other non-binary individuals who may have a uterus but do not identify as women.
We need to talk about their routes, as well. The three states that have been in the news lately for their horrific anti-choice legislation -- Texas, Ohio, and North Carolina -- barely feature on the tour. It seems they are going to blow through Texas and North Carolina without doing anything at all. There is one stop in Cleveland. You know, the major city that is only a few hours drive from New York, where reproductive rights are still pretty well protected. People in rural Ohio aren't on the group's radar, I guess.
If you look at the map above, you'll notice that even in states that are less known for their reproductive freedoms, the rides still stop in major cities. Chicago, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, and so on, are included instead of the small towns where people in need of abortion services are being the most screwed over. This indicates to me that the tour is more about making headlines and less about actually helping people.
The rides kicked off July 23 in, of all places, New York City and San Francisco. This makes the whole event reek of "let's take a poverty tour" where the activists can stay safely contained in their buses until they reach the nice cities where they can hold their rallies.
This group has raised plenty of money, as well. The figure I've heard is somewhere in the $20,000 range, and while I cannot find a specific plan for the money listed anywhere, I have to assume much of that is going toward travel costs. This amount of money could do a lot more good being sent directly to clinics or to organizations that provide funds or transportation to impoverished people who need reproductive services. Paying to bus in some coastal activists seems like such a waste.
The last thing that really needs to be addressed is the group's anti-pornography stance. I understand that the mainstream porn industry has a lot of problems, but ending porn altogether -- as if that were even possible -- is not the way to go. There are many people out there who identify as feminists who find sex work in varying forms empowering. Many people who do it voluntarily, because they enjoy it and can make a good living that way. Dismissing all porn and sex work as evil shames and degrades these individuals while also attempting to remove their freedom to choose their profession. It would be much more useful to reform the porn industry and legalize different forms of sex work so that they can be subject to regulations that protect against the more negative aspects.
This group needs to rethink its events and stances. There are ways to fight the anti-choicers and problematic aspects of our society without wasting money or appropriating language.
Opinions on this post are my own. However, I want to give credit where credit is due and thank @AngryBlackLady, @dwalton1, @meadowgirl, and many others for the Twitter discussions that brought this to my attention.
Let's start with the name. "Abortion rights freedom ride" obviously calls to mind the freedom rides of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. If you need to brush up on the history there, Wikipedia has a pretty good detailed description, but the quick and dirty overview is that a group of civil rights activist rode buses throughout the southeastern US to challenge segregation. Supreme Court decisions outlawing segregation in public places were not being enforced, and Jim Crow laws were still in place. The riders were frequently subjected to arrest and violence, and were even decried by the Kennedys as "unpatriotic."
The freedom rides were an historic milestone for civil rights. There is no denying their importance, and wanting to recreate that is an understandable feeling. However, using the name is misguided at best. The riders were putting themselves in very serious danger to correct an injustice, and appropriating their language dilutes what they did and disrespects their memory. And considering that one of their biggest name draws is Eve Ensler (who wrote an endorsement for them; it's unclear what her involvement is beyond that), I'm going to go out on a limb and say they are a very White Feminist (TM) group and didn't actually consult any activists of color when choosing this name. It's incredibly egregious when you consider how mainstream feminists have ignored non-white voices in the past and present.
In another linguistic form of appropriation, the group refers to forced motherhood as "female enslavement." While I agree that forced birth is horrible and torturous, using slavery-related terminology to discuss anything BUT actual slavery is simply unacceptable. There are many other ways to phrase this and get the same message across, so let's not misuse this one. Plus, "female" ignores trans* and other non-binary individuals who may have a uterus but do not identify as women.
 |
| Image from http://www.stoppatriarchy.org/ |
We need to talk about their routes, as well. The three states that have been in the news lately for their horrific anti-choice legislation -- Texas, Ohio, and North Carolina -- barely feature on the tour. It seems they are going to blow through Texas and North Carolina without doing anything at all. There is one stop in Cleveland. You know, the major city that is only a few hours drive from New York, where reproductive rights are still pretty well protected. People in rural Ohio aren't on the group's radar, I guess.
If you look at the map above, you'll notice that even in states that are less known for their reproductive freedoms, the rides still stop in major cities. Chicago, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, and so on, are included instead of the small towns where people in need of abortion services are being the most screwed over. This indicates to me that the tour is more about making headlines and less about actually helping people.
The rides kicked off July 23 in, of all places, New York City and San Francisco. This makes the whole event reek of "let's take a poverty tour" where the activists can stay safely contained in their buses until they reach the nice cities where they can hold their rallies.
This group has raised plenty of money, as well. The figure I've heard is somewhere in the $20,000 range, and while I cannot find a specific plan for the money listed anywhere, I have to assume much of that is going toward travel costs. This amount of money could do a lot more good being sent directly to clinics or to organizations that provide funds or transportation to impoverished people who need reproductive services. Paying to bus in some coastal activists seems like such a waste.
The last thing that really needs to be addressed is the group's anti-pornography stance. I understand that the mainstream porn industry has a lot of problems, but ending porn altogether -- as if that were even possible -- is not the way to go. There are many people out there who identify as feminists who find sex work in varying forms empowering. Many people who do it voluntarily, because they enjoy it and can make a good living that way. Dismissing all porn and sex work as evil shames and degrades these individuals while also attempting to remove their freedom to choose their profession. It would be much more useful to reform the porn industry and legalize different forms of sex work so that they can be subject to regulations that protect against the more negative aspects.
This group needs to rethink its events and stances. There are ways to fight the anti-choicers and problematic aspects of our society without wasting money or appropriating language.
Opinions on this post are my own. However, I want to give credit where credit is due and thank @AngryBlackLady, @dwalton1, @meadowgirl, and many others for the Twitter discussions that brought this to my attention.
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Facebook's Sex Trafficking Problem: A Follow-Up
So, the Sonagachi Facebook page has finally been removed. This is a good thing, and I'm proud to be part of the group of people who worked to have it done.
But I'm also incredibly disappointed in Facebook. Why did it take this much work to remove a page that was blatantly graphic and in promotion of human trafficking? Why was this example of violence against women not immediately recognized as a violation of their terms of service?
In light of WAM's successful campaign to get Facebook to agree to give gender-based hate speech the same treatment as homophobic, anti-Semitic, racist, Islamophobic, etc, hate speech, it seems especially appalling that it took as much effort as it did to have this removed.
Here is a brief overview of the process of reporting this page:
June 4
-My friend Liz discovered the page while doing research into the Sonagachi district for a blog post she is writing.
-She shared the page with a Facebook group that we are both members of, asking anyone who could stomach looking at the page to please report it.
-Many of us reported it as sexually graphic content.
-After a short period of time, those of us who reported it began receiving the emails saying it would not be removed (I included the language in my post last night). Many of us filled out the feedback form with some strongly-worded disagreement.
-Some of us reported it a second time, only to receive the same email, and fill out the feedback again.
-Liz wrote about the process on her own blog. Another friend, Slay Belle, wrote about it for the Powder Room section of Jezebel.
-We share these posts on Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr, sometimes tweeting at well-known feminist activists and groups who might also promote the issue.
-Emails were sent to WAM
June 5
-The Jezebel post was promoted to the first page of the site.
-More people tweeted at Nick Kristof, Anderson Cooper, and other individuals they thought might be interested in the story.
-Women's Media Center shared Liz's blog post
-Liz's post was also published on Persephone Magazine
-The Daily Dot picked up the story
-Another member of the same original Facebook group created a Change.org petition (which has been refocused to be a more general plea for the site to take trafficking pages more seriously)
-The Sonagachi fan page was removed
I repeat my question: why did it take almost a full day, dozens of reports, a social media barrage, and blog attention to get this page removed? Why was it not enough that it was full of graphic imagery and victimization of women, many of whom appear underage?
Why, despite their recent promises, does Facebook still not care about women?
But I'm also incredibly disappointed in Facebook. Why did it take this much work to remove a page that was blatantly graphic and in promotion of human trafficking? Why was this example of violence against women not immediately recognized as a violation of their terms of service?
In light of WAM's successful campaign to get Facebook to agree to give gender-based hate speech the same treatment as homophobic, anti-Semitic, racist, Islamophobic, etc, hate speech, it seems especially appalling that it took as much effort as it did to have this removed.
Here is a brief overview of the process of reporting this page:
June 4
-My friend Liz discovered the page while doing research into the Sonagachi district for a blog post she is writing.
-She shared the page with a Facebook group that we are both members of, asking anyone who could stomach looking at the page to please report it.
-Many of us reported it as sexually graphic content.
-After a short period of time, those of us who reported it began receiving the emails saying it would not be removed (I included the language in my post last night). Many of us filled out the feedback form with some strongly-worded disagreement.
-Some of us reported it a second time, only to receive the same email, and fill out the feedback again.
-Liz wrote about the process on her own blog. Another friend, Slay Belle, wrote about it for the Powder Room section of Jezebel.
-We share these posts on Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr, sometimes tweeting at well-known feminist activists and groups who might also promote the issue.
-Emails were sent to WAM
June 5
-The Jezebel post was promoted to the first page of the site.
-More people tweeted at Nick Kristof, Anderson Cooper, and other individuals they thought might be interested in the story.
-Women's Media Center shared Liz's blog post
-Liz's post was also published on Persephone Magazine
-The Daily Dot picked up the story
-Another member of the same original Facebook group created a Change.org petition (which has been refocused to be a more general plea for the site to take trafficking pages more seriously)
-The Sonagachi fan page was removed
I repeat my question: why did it take almost a full day, dozens of reports, a social media barrage, and blog attention to get this page removed? Why was it not enough that it was full of graphic imagery and victimization of women, many of whom appear underage?
Why, despite their recent promises, does Facebook still not care about women?
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Tragedy, Politics, and Knee-Jerk Reactions
It's really difficult to say something meaningful and sensitive after tragedies, like the Boston Marathon attacks on Monday or the fertilizer plant explosion in Texas last night. Everything I am thinking -- that this much human suffering breaks my heart, that I wish as much comfort as possible to the victims and their families, that I hope the culprits are swiftly caught -- has been said over and over, to that point that it feels like empty words.
But there is one thing I need to add, and that is that I cannot stand to see tragic events politicized or used as an excuse to discriminate or say terrible things about groups of people.
Whenever something earns the label "terrorism," as the events in Boston already have, far too many people jump to the same conclusions: Muslims, Saudis, Arabs, whatever word you want to use to mean "brown people whose god goes by a different name than mine." Obviously, this isn't OK. It's racism. It's Islamophobia, which is closely tied to racism since the image of the "extremist Muslim" is generally a darker-skinned person.
Can I reiterate the "not OK" part? Again? Because I feel like it can't be said enough. The New York Post is guilty of it, not once, but twice. The night this happened, they ran their incorrect story about a "Saudi national" being taken into custody, and then this morning's cover story is about two teenagers -- yes, one of them appears to be non-white -- who have been accused of the crime based on some photos of them in the crowd.
I get that people want to see the culprits caught. I even get that detectives make mistakes. However, I cannot get behind the witch hunt that has pit people against Muslims, or anyone that is guilty of being brown in public.
Besides, it seems worthwhile to point out that Timothy McVeigh was white. And you know what? If the bomber turns out to be a homegrown white terrorist like him, people won't classify my entire race as dangerous. Yet after 9/11 they are willing to be suspicious of anyone that kind of looks like they could be from the Middle East.
In addition, last night after the explosion in Texas, there was a comment on a news story (pro tip: don't read the comments on news stories) saying that liberals probably wouldn't care about it because it was in Texas.
Why must we make such crass knee-jerk statements? Let's set aside how wrong that is, how I could easily point out the irony in that some conservatives will write off New York City as a left-wing cesspool of heathen gayness unless it's politically advantageous to exploit 9/11, and the fact that there are liberal people living in Texas. Why must human tragedy be made political? Can't we just be sad, mourn, offer support, and spread the word without making partisan attacks?
Personally, I would prefer to avoid finger-pointing and racism, and to focus on what's important, which is finding out what kinds of aid can be sent from other areas to both Texas and Boston, and then helping as much as I can. I live in a city that was attacked by man 12 years ago (note: I didn't live here then) and by nature six months ago. I've seen how it's possible for people to work together to help each other. So let's do that.
But there is one thing I need to add, and that is that I cannot stand to see tragic events politicized or used as an excuse to discriminate or say terrible things about groups of people.
Whenever something earns the label "terrorism," as the events in Boston already have, far too many people jump to the same conclusions: Muslims, Saudis, Arabs, whatever word you want to use to mean "brown people whose god goes by a different name than mine." Obviously, this isn't OK. It's racism. It's Islamophobia, which is closely tied to racism since the image of the "extremist Muslim" is generally a darker-skinned person.
Can I reiterate the "not OK" part? Again? Because I feel like it can't be said enough. The New York Post is guilty of it, not once, but twice. The night this happened, they ran their incorrect story about a "Saudi national" being taken into custody, and then this morning's cover story is about two teenagers -- yes, one of them appears to be non-white -- who have been accused of the crime based on some photos of them in the crowd.
I get that people want to see the culprits caught. I even get that detectives make mistakes. However, I cannot get behind the witch hunt that has pit people against Muslims, or anyone that is guilty of being brown in public.
Besides, it seems worthwhile to point out that Timothy McVeigh was white. And you know what? If the bomber turns out to be a homegrown white terrorist like him, people won't classify my entire race as dangerous. Yet after 9/11 they are willing to be suspicious of anyone that kind of looks like they could be from the Middle East.
In addition, last night after the explosion in Texas, there was a comment on a news story (pro tip: don't read the comments on news stories) saying that liberals probably wouldn't care about it because it was in Texas.
Why must we make such crass knee-jerk statements? Let's set aside how wrong that is, how I could easily point out the irony in that some conservatives will write off New York City as a left-wing cesspool of heathen gayness unless it's politically advantageous to exploit 9/11, and the fact that there are liberal people living in Texas. Why must human tragedy be made political? Can't we just be sad, mourn, offer support, and spread the word without making partisan attacks?
Personally, I would prefer to avoid finger-pointing and racism, and to focus on what's important, which is finding out what kinds of aid can be sent from other areas to both Texas and Boston, and then helping as much as I can. I live in a city that was attacked by man 12 years ago (note: I didn't live here then) and by nature six months ago. I've seen how it's possible for people to work together to help each other. So let's do that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)