#but it made the microaggressions even worse because of the gender difference AS WELL as the culture difference

[smoshingatut]

I'm kinda tired of dungeon meshi fans blatantly misinterpreting Kabru's goals, motivations, and character so they can ship him with Laios...like obviously it's awesome if you enjoy Laikabu but can you nooot twist Kabru's intentions for involving himself with the guy who constantly triggers his monster trauma and pisses him off so bad he gets brain damage so that he turns into "the guy who wants to suck Laios's dick" as his entire character? I've even seen people cut off Kabru's words to make it seem like he is admiring Laios because it would disrupt that narrative

[blackstarising]

coming back to this post i made again to elaborate - especially as the ted lasso fandom is discussing sam/rebecca and fandom racism in general. there are takes that are important to make that i had failed to previously, but there's also a growing amount of takes that i have to, As A Black Person™, respectfully disagree with.

tl;dr for the essay below sam being infantilized and the sam/rebecca relationship are not the same issue and discussing the former one doesn't mean excusing the latter. and we've reached the glen of the Dark Forest where we sit down and talk about fandom racism.

i should have elaborated this in my last post about sam/rebecca, but i didn't. i'll say it now - i personally don't support sam and rebecca getting together for real. i believe what people are saying is entirely correct, even though sam is an adult legally, he and rebecca are, at the very least, two wildly different stages of life. for americans, he's at the equivalent of being a junior in college. there are things he hasn't gotten the chance to experience and there are areas he needs to grow in. when i was younger, i didn't understand the significance of these age gaps, i just thought it would be fine if it was legal, but as someone who is now a little older than sam in universe, i understand fully. we can't downplay this. whether or not you think sam works for rebecca or not, even despite the gender inversion of the Older Man Younger Woman trope, whether or not he is a legal adult, i don't think at this point in time, their relationship would work. i think it's an interesting narrative device, but i don't want to see it play out in reality.

that being said!

what's worrying me is that two discussions are being conflated here that shouldn't be. sam having agency and being a little more grown™ than he's perceived to be does not suddenly make his relationship with rebecca justified. i had decided to bring it up because sam was being brought into the spotlight again and i was starting to realizing that his infantilization was more common than i felt comfortable with.

sam's infantilization (and i will continue to call it that), is a microaggression. it's is in the range of microaggressions that i would categorize as 'fandom overcompensation'. we have a prominent character of color that exhibits traits that aren't stereotypical, and we don't want to appear racist or stereotypical, so we lean hard in the other direction. they're not aggressive, they're a Sweet Baby, they're not world weary, they're now a little naive. they're not cold and distant, they're so nice and sweet that there's no one that wouldn't want approach them, and yeah, on their face, these new traits are a departure and, on their face, they seem they look really good.

but at a certain point, it reaches an inflection point, and, like the aftertaste of a diet coke, that alleged sweetness veers into something a lot less sweet. it veers into a lack of agency for the character. it veers into an innocence that appears to indicate that the person can't even take care of themselves. it veers into a one-dimensional characterization that doesn't allow for any depth or negative emotion.

it's not kind anymore. it's not a nice departure from negative stereotypes. it's not compensating for anything.

it's patronizing.

it is important that we emphasize that characters of color are more than the toxic stereotypes we lay on them, yes, but we make a mistake in thinking that the solution is overcorrection. for one thing, people of color can usually tell. don't get it twisted, it's actually pretty obvious. for another, it just shifts from one dimension to another. people of color are still supposed to be Only One Character Trait while white people can contain multitudes. ted, who is pretty much as pollyanna as they come, can be at once innocent and naive and deep and troubled and funny and scared. jamie can be a prick and sexy and also lonely and also a victim of abuse. sam, however, even though he was bullied (by jamie, no less), is thousands of miles away from home, and has led a protest on his team, is usually just characterized as human sunshine with much less acknowledgement of any other traits beyond that.

and that's why i cringe when fandom calls sam a Sweet Baby Boy without any sense of irony. is that all we're taking away? after all this time? even for a comedy, sam has received a substantive of screen time over two whole seasons, and we've seen a range of emotions from him. so as a black person it's hurtful that it's boiled down to Sweet Baby Boy.

that's the problem. we need to subvert stereotypes, but more importantly, we need to understand that people of color are not props, or pieces of cardboard for their white counterparts. they are full and actualized and have agency in their own right and they can have other emotions than Angry and Mean or Sweet and Bubbly without any nuance between the two. i think the show actually does a relatively good job of giving sam depth (relatively, always room for improvement, mind you), especially holding it in tension with his youth, but the fandom, i worry, does not.

it's the same reason why finn from star wars started out as the next male protagonist in the sequel trilogy but by the third movie was just running around yelling for REY!! it's the same reason why when people make Phase 4 Is the Phase For Therapy gifsets for the mcu and show wanda maximoff, loki, and bucky barnes crying and being sad but purposefully exclude sam wilson who had an entire show to tell us how difficult his life is, because people find out if pee oh sees are also complex, they'll tell the church.

and the reason why i picked up on this very early on is because i am an organic, certified fresh, 100% homegrown, non-gmo, a little ashy, indigenous sub saharan African black person. the ghanaian tribes i'm descended from have told me so, my black ass parents have told me so, and the nurses at the hospital in [insert asian country here] that started freaking out about how curly my hair was as my mother was mid pushing me out told me so!

and this stuff has real life implications. listen: being patronized as a black person sucks. do you know how many times i was patted on the back for doing quite honestly, the bare minimum in school? do you know how many times i was told how 'well spoken' or 'eloquent' i was because i just happen to have a white accent or use three syllable words? do you know how many times i've been cooed over by white women who couldn't get over how sweet i was just because i wasn't confrontational or rude like they wrongly expected me to be?

that's why they're called microaggressions. it's not a cross on your lawn or having the n-word spat in your face, but it cuts you down little by little until you're completely drained.

so that's the nuance. that's the subversion. the overcompensation is not a good thing. and people of color (and i suspect, even white people) have picked up on, in general, the different ways fandom treats sam and dani and even nate. what all of these discussions are converging on is fandom racism, which is not the diet form of racism, but another place for racism to reveal itself. and yeah, it's uncomfortable. it can seem out of left field. you may want to defend yourself. you may want to explain it away. but let me tap the sign on the proverbial bus:

if you are a white person, or a person of color who is not part of that racial group, even, you do not get to decide what is not racist for someone. full stop. there are no exceptions. there is no exit clause for you. there is no 'but, actually-'. that right wasn't even yours to cede or waive.

(it's also important to note that people of color also have the right to disagree on whether something is racist, but that doesn't necessarily negate the racism - it just means there's more to discuss and they can still leave with different interpretations)

people don't just whip out accusations of racism like a blue eyes white dragon in a yu-gi-oh duel. it's not fun for us. it's not something we like to do to muzzle people we don't want to engage with. and we're not concerned with making someone feel bad or ashamed. we're exposing something painful that we have to live with and, even worse, process literally everything we experience through. we can't turn it off. we can't be 'less sensitive' or 'less nitpicky'. we are literally the primary resources, we are the proverbial wikipedia articles with 3,000 sources when it comes to racism. who else would know more than us?

what 2020 has shown us very clearly is that racism is systemic. it's not always a bunch of Evil White Men rubbing their hands together in a dark room wondering how they're going to use the 'n-word' today. it's systemic. it's the way you call that one neighborhood 'sketchy'. it's how you use 'ratchet' and 'ghetto' when describing something bad. it's how you implicitly the assume the intelligence of your friend of color. it's the way you turned up your nose and your friend's food and bullied them for it in middle school but go to restaurants run by white people who have 'uplifted' it with inauthentic ingredients. it's telling someone how Well Spoken and Eloquent they are even though you've both gone to the same schools and work at the same workplace. it's the way you look down at some people of color for having a different body type than you because they've been redlined to neighborhoods where certain foods and resources are inaccessible, and yet mock up the racial features that appeal to you either through makeup or plastic surgery.

it's how when a person of color behaves badly, they're irredeemable, but a white person performing the same act or something similar is 'having a bad day' or 'isn't normally like this' or 'has room to grow' and we can't 'wait for their redemption arc', and yes, i'm not going to cover it in detail in this post but yes this is very much about nate. other people have also brought up the nuances in his arc and compared them to other white characters so i won't do it here.

these behaviors and reactions aren't planned. they aren't orchestrated. they're quite literally unconscious because they've been lovingly baked into western society for centuries. you can't wake up and be rid of it. whether you intended it or not, it can still be racist.

and it's actually quite hurtful and unfair to imply that concerns about racism in the TL fandom are unfounded or lacking any depth or simply meant to be sensational because you simply don't agree with it. i wish it was different, but it doesn't work that way. i'm not raising this up to 'call out' or shame people, but i'm adding to this discussion because, through how we talk about sam, and even dani and nate, i'm yet again seeing a pattern that has shortchanged people of color and made them feel unwelcome in fandom for far too long.

coach beard said it best: we need to do better.

[raptured-night]

Hello, I have two questions this time. Why do you think we can’t really compare Death Eaters to Nazis? Why can’t we really compare purism with racism? Oh and do you think Death Eaters are more like nowadays’ terrorists or not?

So, it's no secret that I have drawn attention to the issue of Death Eaters being treated as literal stand-ins for Nazis or blood purism as a literal example of racism. Importantly, there is a difference between acknowledging the ways that Death Eaters or blood purity might work as semi-functional allegories for the Nazis and their ideology, white supremacy, racism, etc., and treating fictional representations of invented prejudices as if they were comparable or on par with non-fictional Nazi ideology, white supremacy, or systemic racism.

An article for Medium makes this point very well:

Silent resisters and ‘I don’t really care about politics’ people deserve our contempt. But what makes those who filter life through fiction and historical revisionism worse is that they are performing a soggy simulacrum of political engagement.

As a woman of colour watching, all I can do here is amplify the call to step away from your bookshelf. Let go of The Ring. My humanity exists independently of whether I am good or bad, and regardless of where the invented-fictional-not-real Sorting Hat puts me.

Realise that people are in danger right now, with real world actions needed in response, and not just because you want to live out your dreams of being Katniss Everdeen.

The problem with discussing Harry Potter’s fictional examples of prejudice as if they were literal or completely comparable with real-life prejudices is that it does lead to an oversimplification of the reality of prejudice (whether white supremacy, racism, homophobia, transphobia --looking at you Jo-- or otherwise) and the very real people who experience these prejudices every day. The fantasy of being Harry Potter up against Umbridge or Voldemort in a YA series where the line between the good and bad guys is almost clearly denoted by the narrator is a far cry from the reality of what activism is or what living under oppression is like for many marginalized people. 

I would argue that this is also a leading reason why the “social justice” (yes, in many cases I believe that deserves to be enclosed in dubious quotations) discourse in Harry Potter fandom trends more towards performative than it does sincere (one need only look at the defense posts for Rowling in response to real marginalized groups criticizing her for things ranging from her offensive representation of Asian people, Indigenous and Native peoples, or her failures in representing the lgbtq+ community particularly in light of her coming out as an open TERF and they can get an idea of how those “I’m an intersectional feminist/social justice ally and that’s why I read HP!” fans quickly shift gears to throw the bulk of their allyship behind Rowling instead) because when you spend all of your time debating fictional prejudices it’s much easier to detach oneself from the reality of non-fictional prejudice and its impact on real people.

Fiction has no stakes. There is a beginning, middle, and end. In Rowling’s fictional world, Harry Potter ends with Harry and “the side of light” the victor over her allegorical representation of evil and he gets his happily-ever-after in a world we are led to believe is at peace and made a better place. In the real world, decades after the fall of Hitler, there are still Nazis and white supremacists who believe in the glory of an Aryan/pure-white race and are responsible for acts of violence towards marginalized groups; even after the fall of the Confederacy in the U.S. we are still debating the removal of monuments erected in their honor (and the honor of former slave owners and colonialists like Christopher Columbus) while the nation continues mass protests over the systemic police brutality Black people and other people of color have long faced (not to mention the fact the KKK are still allowed to gather while the FBI conspired to destroy the Black Panther Party and discredit them as a dangerous extremist organization).

As a professor in literature, I’ve often argued that fiction can be a reflection of reality and vice versa. Indeed, it can be a subversive tool for social change and resistance (e.g. Harlem Renaissance) or be abused for the purposes of propaganda and misrepresentation (e.g. Jim Crow era racism in cartoons). So, I am not underscoring the influencing power of fiction but I do believe it is important that when attempting to apply fictional representations to real-world issues we do so with a certain awareness of the limitations of fiction. As I have already observed, there is an absence of real-world stakes for fiction. Fictional stories operate under a narrative structure that clearly delineates the course they will take, which is not the case for real life. In addition, the author’s own limitations can greatly affect the way their fiction may reflect certain non-fictional issues. Notably, a close reading of Harry Potter does reveal the way Rowling’s own transphobic prejudices influenced her writing, not least in the character of Rita Skeeter (but arguably even in her failed allegory for werewolves, which are supposed to reflect HIV prejudices, but she essentially presented us with two examples of werewolves that are either openly predatory towards children or accidentally predatory because they canonically can’t control themselves when their bodies undergo “transformations” that make them more dangerous and no surprise her most predatory example, Fenrir Greyback, seems to have embraced his transformation entirely versus Lupin who could be said to suffer more from body dysmorphia/shame). 

Ultimately, fiction is often a reflection of our non-fictional reality but it is not always an exact reflection. It can be a simplification of a more complex reality; a funhouse mirror that distorts that reality entirely, or the mirror might be a bit cracked or smudged and only reflecting a partial image. Because fiction does have its limits (as do authors of fiction), writers have certain story-telling conventions on hand through which they can examine certain aspects of reality through a more vague fictional lens, such as metaphor, symbolism, and allegory. Thus, the Death Eaters can function on an allegorical level without being problematic where they cannot when we treat them as literal comparisons to Nazis or white supremacist groups (particularly when we show a greater capacity for empathy and outrage over Rowling’s fictional prejudice, to the extent we’ll willingly censor fictional slurs like Mudblood, than we do real-world examples of racism and racial microaggressions). As an allegory, Voldemort and his Death Eaters can stand in for quite a few examples of extremism and prejudice that provoke readers to reflect more on the issue of how prejudice is developed and how extremist hate-groups and organizations may be able to rise and gain traction. Likewise, blood prejudice looked at as a fictional allegory goes a lot further than when we treat it as a literal comparison to racism, wherein it becomes a lot more problematic. 

I’ve discussed this before at length, along with others, and I will share some of those posts to give a better idea of some of the issues that arise when we try to argue that Voldemort was a literal comparison to Hitler, the Death Eaters were literal comparisons to Nazi, or that blood purity is a literal comparison to racism.

On the issue of blood prejudice as racism and Death Eaters as Nazis, per @idealistic-realism00.

On the issue of blood prejudice as racism, my own thoughts.

On the issue of Death Eaters and literal Nazi comparisons, per @deathdaydungeon and myself. 

Finally, as I have already argued, the extent to which fiction can function as a reflection of non-fictional realities can be limited by the author’s own perceptions. In the above links, you will note that I and others have critiqued Rowling’s portrayal of prejudice quite thoroughly and identified many of the flaws inherent in her representations of what prejudice looks like in a real-world context. The very binary (i.e. good/bad, right/wrong, dark/light) way that she presents prejudice and the fact that her villains are always clearly delineated and more broadly rejected by the larger society undermines any idea of a realistic representation of prejudice as systemic (we could make a case for an effort being made but as her narrative fails to ever properly address prejudice as systemic in any sort of conclusive way when taken along with her epilogue one can argue her representation of systemic prejudice and its impact fell far short of the mark, intended or otherwise). In addition to that, the two most notable protagonists that are part of her marginalized class (i.e. Muggle-born) are two comfortably middle-class girls, one of whom is clearly meant to be white (i.e. Lily) and the other who is most widely associated with the white actress (Emma Watson) who played her for over a decade before Rowling even hinted to the possibility Hermione could also be read as Black due to the casting of Noma Dumezweni for Cursed Child.

Overall, Rowling is clearly heavily influenced by second-wave feminist thought (although I would personally characterize her as anti-feminist having read her recent “essay,” and I use the term loosely as it was primarily a polemic of TERF propaganda, defending her transphobia, and reexamined the Harry Potter series and her gender dichotomy in light of her thoughts on “womanhood”) and as far as we are willing to call her a feminist, she is a white feminist. As a result, the representation of prejudice in Harry Potter is a distorted reflection of reality through the lens of a white feminist whose own understanding of prejudice is limited. Others, such as @somuchanxietysolittletime and @ankkaneito have done well to point out inconsistencies with Rowling’s intended allegories and the way the Harry Potter series overall can be read as a colonialist fantasy. So, for all of these reasons, I don’t think we should attempt to make literal comparisons between Rowling’s fictional examples of prejudice to non-fictional prejudice or hate groups. The Death Eaters and Voldemort are better examined as more of a catch-all allegory for prejudice when taken to it’s most extreme. Aicha Marhfour makes an important point in her article when she observes:

Trump isn’t himself, or even Hitler. He is Lord Voldemort. He is Darth Vader, or Dolores Umbridge — a role sometimes shared by Betsy DeVos or Tomi Lahren, depending on who you’re talking to. Obama is Dumbledore, and Bernie Sanders is Dobby the goddamn house elf. Republicans are Slytherins, Democrats are Gryffindors.

The cost of making these literal comparisons between Voldemort or the Death Eaters to other forms of extremism, perceived evil, or hate is that we impose a fictional concept over a non-fictional reality and unintentionally strip the individual or individuals perpetrating real acts of prejudice or oppression of some of their accountability. I can appreciate how such associations may help some people cope and for the readers of the intended age category of Harry Potter (i.e. YA readers) it might even be a decent primer to understanding real-world issues. However, there comes a point where we must resist the impulse to draw these comparisons and go deeper. Let Voldemort and the Death Eaters exist as allegories but I think it is important we all listen to what many fans of color, Jewish fans, lgbtq+ fans, etc. are saying and stop trying to fit a square peg into a round hole by treating these fictional characters and their fictional prejudices as if they were just as real, just as impactful, and just as deserving of our empathy and outrage as the very real people who are living daily with very real prejudices --because they’re not equal and they shouldn’t be. 

[belonglab]

Gaslighting: A Tool of Oppression and Exclusion

by Alisha Patel, Communications & Research Fellow at GenLead|BelongLab

February 2, 2021

“I don’t see color.” This is one of the most common phrases people will use to defend themselves against accusations of racism. It isn’t the best, but at least it’s not explicitly racist, right? In a culture where calling out institutional and systemic racism feels like an ongoing battle that’s fought tiny steps at a time, that phrase feels like an adequate place to start. However, this phrase is actually a form of racial gaslighting, and its acceptance only perpetuates stereotypes and the racism we are trying to fight.

Gaslighting in general is a form of manipulation and psychological abuse where the perpetrator convinces the victim that they are imagining or overreacting to abuse. Over time, this can solidify the perpetrator’s position of power over the victim, turning it into an ongoing cycle of abuse. The effects of gaslighting are extensive-- the victim will start to second guess themselves and their judgments. While this form of manipulation is often talked about with regard to personal relationships, it can additionally be used to to cloak bigotry like racism.

Racial Gaslighting

Racial gaslighting often is used to excuse microaggressions in all forms. It can invalidate someone’s experience of perceived racism by subtly denying their feelings and emotions, excusing implicit comments meant to demean or discredit them, or even excusing explicit attacks on them. Its effects are grave; it subtly reinforces and sustains racial and social hierarchies that inevitably hurt minority groups. Not only does racial gaslighting allow stereotypes to continue, but it also degrades the victim’s sense of self and teaches them to invalidate their own instincts and judgments.

For example, imagine if someone had experienced racism in the workplace and attempted to tell a fellow coworker about the incident; instead of empathizing, the coworker reassured the victim “it couldn’t possibly be racism,” “it is all in your head,” or “you’re too sensitive.��� Statements like this place the perpetrator in a position of power and control under the guise of morality, while undermining the victim’s experience as lesser-than. In turn, the victim can develop feelings of anxiety and depression as they start believing they cannot trust themselves and cannot express their emotions outwardly. According to clinical psychologist Dr. Roberta Babb, racial gaslighting also, “overtly and covertly erodes a person’s sense of self, self-worth, agency and confidence.” Thus, racial gaslighting feeds internalized oppression and Imposter Syndrome.

Racial gaslighting is so common that it is sometimes difficult to tell when it is happening, and it can even be unconscious or unintentional. Normalized phrases like “I don’t see color” seem to mean well at first glance, but in actuality serve to invalidate the struggles of a minority group while erasing the group’s lived history. It tells the listener, quite unequivocally, “I am not racist. What you are perceiving as racism on my part cannot possibly be racism.” Phrases like these are un-nuanced and oversimplified takes that may have been accepted in the past, but as we learn more about deep and entrenched racism, we see they are outdated, insensitive, and quite frankly, racist.

This type of manipulation often is used by mainstream media and people in power, ingraining its use in our culture and further highlighting the power dynamics underpinning racial gaslighting. Think of Donald Trump and his response to protest movements through the past year: On one hand, he refused to condemn Neo-Nazi protestors, saying there were “fine people on both sides.” But he mischaracterized Black Lives Matter protests calling for an end to police brutality as thugs and threatened them with the National Guard, warning “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” He then mischaracterized the white supremacist, violent insurrection he incited on January 6th as a march, declaring his love for the insurrectionists. According to Trump, white supremacists are allowed the benefit of the doubt and could possibly be good people at heart. Yet, those in support of black lives are automatically dangerous and should be perceived as a threat. With these statements, Donald Trump at once validates the platform of white supremacists while invalidating black lives in the United States and negating the idea that racism is a problem; he normalizes the presence of white supremacy while revealing the inability of the country to acknowledge its inherent racism and bigotry. Anyone witnessing photos and images of how the BLM protesters were treated versus how the white supremacist insurrectionists were treated at our Capitol can see that racial gaslighting has deeply permeated our country systemically and is a problem that outlives the Trump presidency.

Gender Gaslighting

Also problematic is gender gaslighting, where a woman may not feel comfortable voicing concerns about sexism because her concerns are automatically dismissed. Consider a woman -- let’s call her Jana -- who has been working for a company for many years and is very qualified for a promotion. Yet every time Jana expects to be promoted, a man is given the promotion instead, even though he has had less time at the company and is not as qualified. Jana may attempt to discuss this with her boss, but he insists it has nothing to do with her gender; he tells her she is overanalyzing the situation and being over-sensitive. While it is possible that Jana’s boss could be telling the truth, it is more likely that her gender is in fact playing a role in not receiving a promotion, as this pattern has repeated multiple times. However, Jana has learned that she does not have a space to speak up about this sexism, will likely be negatively judged for speaking up and thus have an even harder time getting that promotion, and therefore most likely will not attempt to speak up again. This is the same situation that is seen with racial gaslighting-- the cycle will continue for Jana, and her emotions may inevitably turn inwards, convincing her that she is not qualified for any promotion and deserves to be limited to her current level.

COVID-19 Gaslighting

We even see gaslighting around COVID-19. As a college student at a very urban university, the pandemic has shaken up every single aspect of college life. Though my school has adjusted as best as possible (we are tested twice a week and receive our results within 24 hours; most classes are online and if they aren’t, there are usually less than five people in-person, all socially-distanced; so on and so forth), interacting with other students and people my age really reveals the mindset around the pandemic.

As the pandemic has raged on, it feels as though people have accepted its presence, or stopped caring altogether. It’s a stark difference from the first lockdown in March, where it felt (at least for the most part) that everyone was on the same page. But now, instead of staying inside and mitigating the impacts of the pandemic, it feels as though it’s now a matter of working around the pandemic to do things we used to do. Those who are still staying inside have become more of the minority than the majority, and are sometimes gaslighted to feel overly paranoid for continuing to take the pandemic seriously. This gaslighting is clearly very harmful to society as a whole, as it simultaneously perpetuates coronavirus while undermining common sense and the empathy to care about the collective nation.

COVID gaslighting can exist on a small interpersonal level. Consider a situation where two friends want to get together, but one is insisting on following social distancing regulations while the other is suggesting to abandon them altogether. The one wanting to abandon social distancing may claim that they have both been isolating themselves since the beginning of the pandemic, and it is unlikely that they could infect each other. They may go on to call their friend overly paranoid of the virus and accuse them of not wanting to get together. Though this is not actually the case, the friend who was attempting to follow COVID regulations is made to be the villain, which is a common gaslighting mechanism.

Even worse, COVID gaslighting has been perpetuated by some people in power, who can afford to preach a careless and selfish mentality around COVID-19 because, even when they contract the virus, they have the money, power, and resources to combat it. Meanwhile, they continue to manipulate the American public into believing that COVID is not something to be taken seriously.Their followers adopt the same invincible mindset, but it is clear that they -- and most other average Americans -- are not in the same situation and do not have the same money and resources to combat COVID if needed. The situation is even worse for identity groups that have been historically oppressed.

Many Black and brown communities are disproportionately affected by COVID-19: African-Americans deaths are two times higher than would be expected for their population, and it is the same for Hispanics and Latinos. On the other hand, white deaths from COVID are “lower than their share of the population in 37 states.” These disparities result from institutionalized and systemic racism (fed by racial gaslighting) that has been snowballing since our country’s inception.

Combatting Racism by Contending with Gaslighting

It is in no way, shape, or form the victim’s responsibility to attempt to change their gaslighter’s behavior. Instead, it is important for us to create safe spaces for these victims to be heard and validated. Thus, putting a stop to gaslighting begins by looking inwardly at our own behavior and preconceived biases; particularly, if you find yourself recognizing some of the behaviors symptomatic of gaslighting, it may be wise to engage in self-introspection and attempt to accept some responsibility. Though some gaslighting may be done unintentionally or what you believed to be well-meaning, it clearly is still harmful and must be mitigated. To confront the biases that may underlie your possible gaslighting of others, you can also take this online test that examines and assesses internal biases that you may not have even noticed (it takes about 10-15 minutes). Attempt to challenge these internal biases, and pay attention to how they affect your interactions with others.

Additionally, be prepared and open to truly listen to and learn from other people and their experiences, and focus on increasing your awareness of others’ circumstances. These steps can begin the process of acknowledging gaslighter responsibility. By first starting on a personal scale, we can expand this introspection to a larger scale and begin holding the racist systems in our country accountable.

If you find yourself a victim of gaslighting, it is important to safeguard your mental health. This can be done by taking a step back from the situation and removing yourself from the environment to consider the hurtful behavior and resulting emotions. You can write down your thoughts to affirm your judgement as valid and for reference if necessary. It also can be helpful to talk with other members of your identity group and share experiences like this. Affirmation from others with similar circumstances can validate your experience of harmful gaslighting and remind you that you are not alone. This can help you to trust yourself more as well as recognize the gaslighting as it is happening.

In the moment gaslighting is occurring, it is important to call out the behavior publicly (when possible and safe to do so), showing the perpetrator and others in proximity that the behavior is inappropriate and will not be tolerated. Further (again, to the extent safe and not harmful), you can talk one-on-one with the perpetrator to discuss the behavior, making sure to describe the behavior and why it is harmful. Setting boundaries (e.g., taking a step back, removing yourself from the situation, as described above) will help to loosen any grip the negative environment or perpetrator may have on you.

As an ally, it is important to help support victims of racial gaslighting by helping to call out the unacceptable behavior, as well as creating a safe space for victims to express themselves and be heard and respected. Make sure that what you are doing is not self-indulgent or performative, but rather is truly helpful to the victim and in their self interest.

Combatting racism in a present day context is not an easy task -- it is extremely complicated and has far-reaching and entrenched roots in the United States. That said, the task should begin with dismantling the practices that perpetuate racism on interpersonal and societal scales. By recognizing racial gaslighting, it is possible to disrupt stereotypes and racial hierarchies, while also offering the historically oppressed, excluded, and marginalized a safe space to speak and be heard, which uncloaks hard truths from underneath imposed false narratives. Those who insist they don’t see color are not seeing people of color and their lived experiences.

Without seeing the hard truths, we are unable to address them.

[intheoryowl]

Diversity in KOTLC

[While commenting on this post please don't post spoilers for Unlocked just yet. Thanks. This post may contain legacy spoilers. This post is a repost of my Wattpad post that I made in Sunflower Crown called Diversity in KOTLC, so if you’ve seen this already please feel free to skip it. This post lines up with MLK day, but it was originally posted in reaction to Shannon Messenger announcing the live action movies.]

[Edit: Okay, after typing this post up I realize that there are a few more characters that are POC, but they’re not prominent at all, so the representation is still miniscule. They were mentioned, like, twice throughout the entire series. So, my point still stands.]

What's one thing you notice about the photo above?

Oh, yeah. All the characters are white, expect for the last three in the photo, which are all conveniently tacked onto the end.

Let's address the elephant in the room for everyone in the Keeper of the Lost Cities fandom. Recently, I've been thinking a lot about how little diversity there is within the cast, especially within the main group. I've been meaning to make a post about this since the #BLM movement started up, but I never got around to it.

I've found that a lot of the people in the fandom have been incredibly shy about having this conversation, but I think it's really time we have it. The cast contains very little diversity.

Disclaimer: Before anyone comes at me for this post, I'd like to first say that I've  been a huge KOTLC fan and a big fan of Shannon Messenger's work for a  long time. This isn't meant to be any sort of hate post, but instead a conversation I think we all need to have.

Let's start with the format of the art up above^.

First of all, out of eight characters 3 of them are POCs (or not white). Wylie isn't even in the main group/doesn't really enter the story until much later in the series. The same goes for Linh and Tam. They're all tacked onto the end of the photo, like they're just add-ons.

These three characters are the only characters I know the race of that are POC characters. Out of the entire series. Yes, the entire series. [And I would say that's the case for most people that aren't superfans or recently phased out of the series before art was starting to be released.] I wouldn't say I'm the biggest fan out there, but there aren't that many prominent characters in KOTLC, and just about every single one of them is white.

It feels like a last-ditch throw in when Shannon Messenger went *oops I forgot about diversity entirely!!*. I mean, think about it. Tam, Linh, and Wylie entered the series later on than everyone else.

The lack of diversity, quite frankly, I find ridiculous. And not even just because there are three characters out of eight in that photo (one of which that is POC isn't even in the main group, nevermind the original main group) are POC, and prominent characters. Not only is there a lack of diversity when it comes to race/features that aren't white, but Shannon Messenger also includes exactly zero LGBTQ+ representation throughout the entire series. There is nothing hinted, nothing said. Gender norms are never addressed in the story, and that's fine. But for there to be no gay/pan/aro/ace/freaking anything on the spectrum representation?? No trans representation? Non-binary? Hello??? I get that when she started the series LGBTQ+ characters might not have been something you saw in every single book, but even as new characters are added in we see absolutely no LGBTQ+ representation still. There's not even anyone questioning their sexuality or their gender identity. Nowadays, that's not only a huge part of being a teenager (I would know, I'm one), but also just something you would think is key in the identity of a character.

As a writer, when I start writing a book, one of the first things I do is make sure I know who I want my characters to be. Gender identity, race, sexuality, all of this - these are such fundamental parts to a character. Truthfully, i don't understand how you could just overlook them whatsoever. It's a choice you have to make, not a default setting that's already been turned on for you. I think - even to someone incredibly racist - that as an author writing a book, one would be aware of the outward appearance of their characters? Or the fact that all of the characters had one very certain thing in common? It's hard to miss, frankly, and it looks really bad.

There's really no excuse for it at the end of the day. You can't explain away the facts, and the facts are that the lack of diversity within KOTLC is concerning.

With KOTLC as well, the book doesn't even center around identity for the most part. It's fantasy, and that's what runs the plot, not someone's struggles with race. It really would've been just that easy for Shannon Messenger to throw in a few POC characters or people that weren't straight, maybe mention it in passing, and be done with it and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Another thing I'd like to bring up is the microaggressive character arcs of Linh and Tam song, the only two out of the entire central friend group that are diverse characters. (they appear to have some sort of asian heritage, in case you never caught that. But I bet you did with their very distinctly Chinese last names.) When Tam and Linh first appear in the book, they're suspected delinquents and exiled for crimes to a school of people that have been outcasted from society. They're seen as outsiders. During the story, we see the both of them climbing their way up in the ranks through hard work & connections. unlike everyone else who is going to Foxfire from the start, and we don't see them as nobility at first at all. Not only do the twins come into the story late, but they start out being pinned as supposed criminals (for going to their school which they were wrongly exiled to) and being the underdogs.

Twins are also scorned and families in the Lost Cities with twins are highly stigmatized. Same thing, the only two Asian characters in the entire series and they're the ones who have to be scorned instead of the white ones.

I'm sorry, but that rubs me the wrong way. it seems incredibly microaggressive to me. You're telling me that the only two characters of color [in the main group] are portrayed this way by accident? You couldn't have chosen any one of your fourteen white characters to play the role? Please.

Also, this might be a reach, but is there colorism also present in the KOTLC cast? The type of Asian that Linh and Tam seem to be (Eastern - Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc) have a very light skin tone. Throughout all of KOTLC, the only skin tone darker than white is Wylie's character, who is obviously African-American. There is no one that looks Latina [okay, there is, it's Jensi who was mentioned twice in the first two books and never again], a different kind of Asian,  Romanian, Indian, Middle Eastern, nothing. Actually, you know what, it's not a reach. You're telling me that objectively based on facts, there is only one character out of the entire KOTLC universe that's skin tone is darker than paper? That's the standard?

To that I say: get outta here.

I'm not convinced that Shannon Messenger - as much as I love and adore her writing and her book series - ever truly cared about diversity and inclusivity among her characters. There's no representation other than straight, white, male, female, two Asians, and a single African American character (out of anyone who actually matters). That's it. Statistically speaking.

That's ridiculous.

[This is a later edit: someone in the comments also pointed out that the Lost Cities are located all over the world, meaning that having a mainly white cast also is whitewashing? This only gets worse the more you think about it, ugh.]

I understand that the majority of the KOTLC fanbase is very young. Believe me, I do. I'm probably one of the older fans that has been here for a while/still is here. Most people my age have moved on to fangirling over the Umbrella Academy or something. I get it. But I do believe that even twelve year olds can understand what I'm saying, stay informed, spread awareness, and think critically.  

One of the reasons I think Shannon hasn't been called out nearly as much for the lack of diversity and representation in her stories is because she has such a young readerbase. That's fine. I don't expect people that are ten and twelve to be thinking about any of this. It never occurred to me at the age, so why would it occur to you unless someone else brought it up first?

That said, now that I have brought it up, I think that the least you can do is have conversations with your friends, tag a few people, and think critically about the casts of your favorite books/people you stan. If you're not speaking up, it makes you look like you don't care that there's absolutely zero representation and diversity in the KOTLC series. And you should care.

Keeper of the Lost Cities is a very white, straight series. What does this mean? It means that it's inherently racist, likely colorist, and not currently supportive of any LGBTQ+ people on any LGBTQ+ spectrum. People out there just like you (if you're white) aren't seeing themselves in stories or media. Instead, they're being told that only if you have European heritage or a lighter skin tone can you be a hero. It's harmful. And we need to speak out against it.

[Not to mention that there are no different body types. This post was just on core character identity, and nothing else. As my friend StickyCarpet put in a conversation, what about religions? Do all elves believe the same things? There's very little identity variation between characters beyond their personalities.]

The reason I want to speak out so strongly now, is because as you may know, KOTLC is being made into a live-action series of movies. On screen, it's going to be even more visible and in-your-face that there's no representation. You know what that says to everyone who wasn't represented at least a little bit (or well)? It says we don't see you because we don't approve of who you are, which is just such an awful message to send. In the movies, it's going to be super important for especially younger readers to see themselves on screen. I don't want these movies to just be another movie chock-full of straight white people. It's time for change. This was never something that should've been the standard, so we need to try extremely hard to change it.

By no means will that magically fix or amend the fact that Shannon Messenger chose to put just about zero diversity into the story in the first place, but it will at least show that she's trying beyond throwing a few new characters with different skin tones in after people start calling her out for it.

Keeper of the Lost Cities is my favorite or second favorite series, and it was (and always will be) a huge part of my childhood. I'm a huge fan of the series myself, but I want to make my opinion on this subject very clear and encourage you to form your own opinion on it. I don't have instagram or socials, but I do have a large platform on Wattpad to spread awareness with. Please spread the message.

Please, if you can, tag people from the fandom in the comments. Share this post. Reblog it on tumblr or post it on instagram. We need to get the conversation started. It's not enough to just sit here and pretend like we're all okay with the fact that the series we all love is grossly unrepresentative/not diverse.

In the external link, you will find a carrd leading to Ways to Help & be a part of the #BlackLivesMatter movement, including ways that don't involve money. In my bio, there's a link that goes to all crisis resources around the globe with links to causes. Please feel free to share and utilize both links.

Thank you very much for reading & (hopefully) spreading the message/awareness with me! Your favorite series and author(?) possibly being racist is something that's harder to come to terms with, even for me at my age, so please don't blame yourself for everything and just try to help as much as you can ♡

[Please feel free to reblog and repost on any platform anywhere as necessary. Spreading the message regardless is much appreciated!]

[aro-neir-o]

Results PART 1 DESCRIPTIVE DATA: Aro-Spec Identities and Experiences of Stigmatization

This post is a report of the findings of the survey I had running in the last couple of months of 2018, investigating the intersection of aro-spec identities and experiences of stigmatization and microaggressions.

This report is very long and comprehensive, so I will split it into three parts: - PART 1 will cover descriptive data, like demographics and general aggregate findings - PART 2 will cover inferential statistics, like correlations and variable relationships - PART 3 will cover discussion of the results, limitations, and plans for further study

A full version of these results on one page is available here.

Thank you to everyone who participated! 

Results are under the cut. Where possible, I will use graphs to show the data, but I will also explain the content of the graphs just under the images to accommodate people who may respond better or worse to data presented in a certain format.

THIS IS PART 1: DESCRIPTIVE DATA

DEMOGRAPHICS

There were 623 responses to the survey. 357 of these responses were complete - these participants completed the survey in its entirety.

People were recruited from Tumblr, the Arocalypse online forums, and the Arocalypse Discord server. Snowballing was used as a technique for recruitment, so there may also have been participants who were recruited indirectly through other participants.

The survey was only made available in English.

Age

Over half the participants in the study were between the ages of 18 and 24. Over a quarter of the participants were under 18. The rest of the participants were aged 25 to 34, with a small minority being over 35.

Gender

Over half the participants surveyed reported being non-binary, genderqueer, and/or an other gender identity. Just under half of all participants reported being cisgender women. Transgender men and cisgender men also participated, but in small numbers.

Note: I separated out cisgender and transgender identities for the purpose of analyzing intersectionality. It may be the case that transgender people who are aromantic navigate microaggressions and stigmatization differently than transgender people who are not aromantic or aromantic people who are not transgender. Unfortunately, there were not enough responses for me to run this statistically, but other queer-focused studies have noticed intersections of queer identities affecting life experiences.

Racial and Ethnic Background

A significant majority (read: over three quarters) of participants in this survey identified as white. Most of these participants (about three quarters) did not specify further than “white,” but those who did specify fell into European, North American, and Australian/New Zealander categories.

After white persons, the next most common demographic was Asian, followed by Latinx, Mixed race, Jewish, Hispanic or Portuguese, Native or Indigenous, and finally, Black or African. 

Note: In cases where ethnic backgrounds are reported together in these results, these categories were combined based on low numbers and relative appropriateness. Broad categories were determined based on several different Census conventions (e.g., Canadian Census categories) as well as categories used to report demographics in a variety of academic studies. If you are curious about which ethnicities went into which categories, you can ask me for more elaboration. People who reported multiple identities were counted in both or all relevant groups or put into the mixed race category, depending on the person’s answer (e.g., if they explicitly wrote “mixed race” or not).

(Romantic) Orientation

Almost three quarters of the participants surveyed identified as broadly Aromantic. The next most represented orientations were Demiromantic and Greyromantic, accounting for half a quarter of the total. Participants in the Other category were the next most represented, followed by Quoiromantic, Aro-spec, Aroflux, and Lithromantic or Akoiromantic people.

Other identities captured in this survey include: fictorimantic, sansromantic, aegoromantic, abroromantic, cupioromantic, nebularomantic, oriented aromantic, non-SAM-using asexual, non-SAM-using aromantic, and queer.

Partnership Status

Almost half of all respondents reported being single with no intention to marry at the time of the survey. About a third of respondents reported being single (never married). Single people therefore made up the vast majority (read: over three quarters) of the survey respondents.

The next most represented participants were those dating or Other. A very small minority reported being married, and an even smaller minority reported being divorced or separated from their partner(s).

Do you consider yourself polyamorous?

Just over a quarter of respondents considered themselves polyamorous. The rest (i.e., the majority) did not consider themselves polyamorous.

Have you ever been diagnosed with a physical or psychological condition? Does this have any bearing on your view of aromanticism?

Almost two thirds of respondents reported having been diagnosed with a physical or psychological condition. Of these people, about a quarter reported that their condition does have a bearing on their view of aromanticism.

MEANS AND AGGREGATE RESULTS

The following questionnaires are revisions made by the researcher to Foster (2017)’s revisions of existing queer/LGBT scales. Foster (2017) applied an Asexual focus to the scales. The researcher for this study applied an Aromantic focus, changing terminology where appropriate.

Experiences of Aromanticism

The diversity of the aromantic community was highlighted in the response rates to the following items.

• I experience romantic attraction toward other people: 22% True, 78% False

• I lack interest in romantic activities: 77.5% True, 22.5% False

• I don’t feel that I fit the conventional categories of romantic orientation such as heteroromantic, homoromantic (gay or lesbian), or biromantic: 92% True, 8% False

• The thought of romantic activities repulses me: 52% True, 48% False

• I find myself experiencing romantic attraction toward another person: 17.5% True, 82.5% False

• I am confused by how much interest and time other people put into romantic relationships: 85% True, 15% False

• The term “non-romantic” would be an accurate description of my romanticism: 70.5% True, 29.5% False

• I would be relieved if I was told that I never had to engage in any sort of romantic activities again: 77% True, 23% False

• I go to great lengths to avoid situations where romance might be expected of me: 76% True, 24% False

• My ideal relationship would not involve traditionally romantic activities: 73.5% True, 26.5% False

• Romance has no place in my life: 70% True, 30% False

Aromantic Microaggressions Scale (AroMS)

Of the participants who experienced microaggressions against them (i.e., participants who responded with frequency ratings greater than 1), the following trends were observed.

• Generally, participants reported experiencing microaggressions aimed against them at a rate of “sometimes” (mean=2.84/5). Participants reported these incidences as moderately distressing (mean=3.69/5).

• The most frequently reported aggression against aros was others telling them that there is no such thing as aromantic discrimination or prejudice (mean=3.39/5, sometimes to often). This moderately distressed participants (mean=3.72/5).

• The most distressing aggression against aros was aros being propositioned for pursuing romantic relationships because they were aro-spec (quite distressing, mean=4.01/5; occurring once in a while, mean=2.68/5). As well, participants found that being threatened with harm was quite distressing (mean=3.90/5; occurring once in a while, mean=2.5/5). The latter was also the least frequently reported occurrence.

• The least distressing aggression reported was being asked to provide examples of how aros knew they are aro-spec (mean=3.2/5, meaning being bothered a little bit to moderately).

MOST OFTEN EXPERIENCED TO LEAST OFTEN EXPERIENCED o Others have told me that there is no such thing as aromantic discrimination or prejudice o I have been made to feel inferior by others because I am aro-spec o I have been told that I am aromantic because I haven’t met the right person yet o Others have assumed that I choose to be aro-spec o I have been told that aromanticism “isn’t real” o I have been asked to provide examples of how I know I am aro-spec o I have been told that being aro-spec is against human nature o I have been told that no one will want me as a relationship partner because I am aro-spec o I have heard non-aro-spec people speculate about the ‘cause’ of my aromanticism o I have been called derogatory names (e.g., “manipulative” or “freak”) in relation to my aromanticism o I have been told that aromanticism is a form of dysfunction or illness, not a valid way to identify o I have been propositioned for pursuing romantic relationships because I am aro-spec (e.g., “I’ll show you what you’re missing”) o I have been harassed because I am aro-spec o I have been told that I am “not healthy” because I am aro-spec o People have asked me if sexual/relationship trauma is the reason I am aro-spec o I have been threatened with harm because I am aro-spec

MOST DISTRESSING TO LEAST DISTRESSING o I have been propositioned for pursuing romantic relationships because I am aro-spec (e.g., “I’ll show you what you’re missing”) o I have been threatened with harm because I am aro-spec o I have been made to feel inferior by others because I am aro-spec o I have been told that aromanticism is a form of dysfunction or illness, not a valid way to identify o I have been told that aromanticism “isn’t real” o I have been called derogatory names (e.g., “manipulative” or “freak”) in relation to my aromanticism o I have been told that being aro-spec is against human nature o I have been told that I am aromantic because I haven’t met the right person o Others have told me that there is no such thing as aromantic discrimination or prejudice o I have been harassed because I am aro-spec o I have heard non-aro-spec people speculate about the ‘cause’ of my aromanticism o I have been told that I am “not healthy” because I am aro-spec o People have asked me if sexual/relationship trauma is the reason I am aro-spec o I have been told that no one will want me as a relationship partner because I am aro-spec o Others have assumed that I choose to be aro-spec o I have been asked to provide examples of how I know I am aro-spec

Stigma Consciousness Questionnaire (SCQ)

This scale is a common and reliable questionnaire used to measure how aware respondents are of stigmas others have toward the respondents’ community.

• The most agreed upon item for all respondents was that most non-aro-spec people have a lot more anti-aromantic thoughts than they actually express (mean=4.03/6 or slightly agree)

• The most disagreed upon item for all respondents was that most non-aro-spec people do not judge aro-spec people on the basis of their lack of romantic attraction (mean=2.66/6 or slightly to moderately disagree)

• Particularly variable were participants’ responses to the item “I never worry that my behaviors will be viewed as stereotypical of aro-spec people.” Similarly, responses to the item “stereotypes about aro-spec people have not affected me personally” were variable.

Collective Self-Esteem Scale (CSES)

This scale is used to measure the aromantic community’s collective self-esteem.

• Most agreed-upon item internally (i.e., response with least variance) was “overall, aro-spec people are considered good by others,” with the response slightly disagreeing (mean=3.22/7)

• Respondents also generally agreed that others do not respect aro-spec people (mean=3.13/7 or slightly disagree)

• Respondents were ambivalent about “most people consider aro-spec people, on the average, to be more ineffective than other social groups” (mean=4.36/7, or ambivalent, but with quite a bit of variance)

• In general, respondents’ thoughts were that the aro community is not well-respected, liked, or considered good by others in society, to a slight degree

The Heterosexist Harassment, Rejection, and Discrimination Scale for Aromantics (HHRDS-A Aro)

For the participants for which these questions were applicable (i.e., for participants who reported frequencies greater than 0), the following trends were observed.

• The most frequently reported aromantic discrimination from participants was hearing anti-aromantic remarks from family members – on average, happening once in a while to sometimes (mean=2.68/6)

• The least frequently reported aromantic discrimination from participants was being denied a raise – on average, happening never (mean=1.02/6). Considering the most represented age demographic in this survey, this result makes sense, as many young adults and teenagers are not far enough into careers to have this opportunity arise at all

MOST TO LEAST FREQUENTLY EXPERIENCED o Heard anti-aromantic remarks from family members o Been treated unfairly by parents o Been treated unfairly by friends o Been treated unfairly by a romantic partner o Been made fun of, picked on, called insulting names, pushed, shoved, hit, or threatened with harm o Being treated unfairly by strangers o Been rejected by a romantic partner o Been verbally insulted o Been rejected by parents o Been treated unfairly by a sexual partner o Been treated unfairly by sibling(s) o Been treated unfairly by extended family o Been treated unfairly by people in a medical profession o Been treated unfairly by peers, co-workers, or colleagues o Been rejected by extended family o Been rejected by a sexual partner o Been rejected by sibling(s) o Been treated unfairly by teachers or professors o Been treated unfairly by employers or supervisors o Been treated unfairly by people in service jobs o Been denied a promotion o Been denied a job o Been denied a raise

[loveandcigarillos]

FDT

T’Challa x Black!Reader (ft. Shuri, Agent Ross, and Okoye)

A/N: Inspired by @brianabreeze and @wakanda-4evr with their T’Challa imagines and cannons. 

Warnings: Like 6 curse words.

“I like white folks but I don’t like you…”

Shuri and Y/N silently bopped their heads to YG’s lyrics as they busied themselves with their separate projects.

A visitor was on the way to Wakanda and each of them had presentations to make to the latest world leader to enter the once isolated nation. Usually they’d be excited to discuss their respective departments but today was different.

“Fuck Donald Trump! Yeah, nigga, fuck Donald Trump!”

“This song is so profound. Such poignant lyrics.” Shuri remarked with a smile causing Y/N to let a out a few chuckles. Before she could respond with equal amounts of praise for the Californian’s diss track to the leader of the United States, her husband walked into the lab.

Instead of being dressed in his normal traditional attire, he held two ties in his hand, studying the options to decide which one he would pair against his deep blue suit and white button down.

“My love, which of these would you-. What is this?”

“This is poetry!” Shuri answered increasing the volume as Nipsey Hussle's verse began. “Don’t you like it, brother?”

“Shuri,” he started with a smile. While his sister’s antics were funny, the song was inappropriate for the occasion. “while your friend YG’s music is rather poetic, this is not the time for this particular song.”

“Pick the kente one, baby.” Y/N answered in between laughing at her younger sister. She gently pulled the piece of cloth from T’Challa’s hands and positioned it around his neck to begin the process of tying it for him.

He gave her a thank you in the form a forehead kiss and turned his attention to his sister.

“You don’t like Mr. Trump, eh?”

“No, and neither should you! He shouldn’t even be here. Do you see the things that he says on Twitter?”

“I am not familiar with the platform. You run my account, remember?”

Shuri declined to verbally answer his question, instead showing him a series of tweets that were fired off at ungodly hours of the morning about matters that a world leader normally would not entertain.

T’Challa gave the tweets a curious look, not sure what he should do with the information. “Maybe he is just passionate?”

“Or maybe he is an idiot.” Y/N spoke up after doing the final adjustments on his tie and slightly lifting her body on her toes to kiss his nose.

“Do not tell me you have objections as well, uthando. I can not have you upset during this. You are set to entertain his wife.”

“And I will do just that. I will do everything in my power to support you. Still, he’s an asshole.”

“Listen to the outsider.” Shuri sneered.

Y/N playfully rolled her eyes and turned to meet T’Challa’s confused expression. “This man is not good. Do you know how he feels about nations like the one we are standing in right now?”

“I think the expression is ‘shithole country’?” Agent Ross answered strolling into the lab. T’Challa had requested Everett’s attendance to act as an advisor for the day. T’Challa claimed that it was because Agent Ross is an American but Y/N knew better. The King needed a bridge between himself and the white man he’d be greeting in mere moments.

Ross greeted everyone in the room with the customary bow before handing T’Challa the tablet with the afternoon’s pertinent information.

“Shithole?”

“That’s not even the worse part. He says he grabs women by the pus-“

“What Shuri was going to say,” Y/N said loudly enough to stop Shuri’s sentence. “,is that Mr. Trump frequently says inappropriate things. Be careful.”

T’Challa’s eyes shifted between the three of his advisors,wondering how they had allowed him to put his beloved country in such a volatile situation. If he had been privy to this information even a day ago, he would not have allowed this man within Wakanda’s borders.

Before he could inquire further, Okoye cleared her throat to get the King’s attention.

“My King, your guest and his wife are here. He is touching things and my desire to impale him to the wall is growing more and more by the second. Please, join us.”

Y/N placed one more kiss against his lips though he was too distracted to return it. She firmly grasped his shoulder to turn and push him towards the laboratory’s exit, giving Agent Ross a non-verbal cue to make sure that her husband would be okay. Everett gave her a reassuring look before following T’Challa to the main foyer.

“Are you ready, little sister?” Y/N asked while collecting the materials that she would need to make her presentation on Wakanda’s innovative education system.

“As ready as I’ll be. But, if he gets out of hand…” Shuri said trailing off and lowering her voice. “I’ve created a remote catapulting system that will send him flying all the way back to the Oval Office.”

The day was relatively mild once the group split off into their own jobs. Y/N spent much of her time explaining how Wakandan pupils matriculate at the nation’s post secondary institution though Melania did not seem to be paying attention. In fact, the dead look in her eyes translated to more of a lack of understanding than lack of interest. Her only responses were her unrelated questions about the Queen’s jewelry or about the decor in one of the palace’s sitting areas.

“You are American, no?” Melania asked abruptly, cutting Y/N off in the middle of her sentence. Though she was internally ticked off by the interruption, the Queen remembered her promise to her husband.

“Yes. I’m originally from Georgia but spent the latter half of my adulthood as the head of the education department at Teachers College, Columbia University.”

“We are very similar!” The First Lady answered reaching to grab Y/N’s hand. A swift movement allowed the Queen to escape the unwanted contact causing Melania to awkwardly clasp her hands in front of her.

“You were the head of an education department?”

“No...but we both married very rich men to get to get to where we are.”

“I…,” Y/N trailed off deciding whether or not she wanted to gather the woman walking beside her. “...sure. Of course.”

Her answer was given through gritted teeth presenting themselves as a forced smile. Before she could go on, T’Challa rounded the corner ahead of President Trump and Agent Ross clenching his eyes shut and rubbing his temples in tight circles.

When he finally opened his eyes, he was met by a sympathetic yet amused look from his wife. She new exactly how he felt.

“Back so soon, handsome?”

“Ay, beautiful, the two hours, 37 minutes and 14 seconds I spent away from you were far too long.”

T’Challa placed an innocent kiss on Y/N’s lips, simultaneously whispering ‘help me’ against her mouth sending her into a fit of giggles.

From the outsider's perspective, it looked like the newlyweds were harmlessly flirting. President Trump, not wanting to be outdone, made an attempt to grab his own wife. Mimicking Y/N’s maneuver earlier, she quickly dodged his advance, preferring to examine her nails for the 100th time that day.

“Uh, hi lovebirds,” Agent Ross said gaining the attention of everyone in the vicinity. “Yeah, Shuri says that lunch is ready. Shall we?”

“Ah, yes, lunch. I had my staff prepare a fusion of Wakandan and American dishes. I hope that they are up to par, Mr. Trump.”

“President.”

“Yes...President.”

The group proceeded to walk idly down the long corridor to the formal dining room, making small talk as they inched closer to the large doors at the end of the hallway.

“Shuri has the system prepared whenever you’re ready, T. I have the remote. Just say when.”

“That won’t be necessary, Y/N.” He laughed, slyly removing the small remote from his wife’s hand and intertwining his fingers with hers. “Only lunch is left and this day will be done.”

“More than enough time for you to make it up to me, hm?”

The two of them wiggled their eyebrows at each other, sharing a loud laugh while rounding the corner to enter the spacious dining room.

T’Challa pulled his wife’s chair out before making his move to the head of the table. Noticing that the president had already sat down before doing the same for his own wife, T’Challa graciously pulled out her chair earning another amused look from Y/N. She would tease him about that later.

“So little girl,” Donald said directing his statement towards Shuri. “What’s your name?”

He spoke to her in slow measured sentences as if she were a child that had not yet grasped how to properly communicate.

“I am Princess Shuri. You may address me as such from this moment on. Thank you.”

Muffled coughs and amused laughs were scattered across the dining room. Trump opened his mouth to speak again but closed it, instead preferring to address Y/N for the first time that day.

“Y/N -“

“Queen Y/N” She corrected, stealing a glance at a smiling Shuri.

“Right, Queen. Are you planning to produce a son for the King? I’m not sure how you people do it here but, in my country, a son takes over for his old man when the time comes. You want that for your husband don’t you?”

She opened her mouth to speak but felt a hand grip her thigh, advising her to let her husband handle this one. T’Challa could handle the microaggressions but would not allow his wife to be disrespected.

“When the time is right, an heir will be born. It does not matter the gender of the child. They will inherit the throne barring some unforeseen circumstance.”

“I see.” Trump answered. It was evident that he had more to say but decided to turn his attention Agent Ross instead. “What department do you oversee here? Must be big considering you left the greatest country in the world to come here.”

“Well, actually, I don’t -“

“He runs nothing in this country. Why do you assume that?” Y/N piped up. The entree had not even been brought out and the meal was already spiraling out of control.

“He’s an American. He came over here to help you people. That’s what we do.”

“You people, eh?” Shuri inquired. “Tell me, Donald, what kind of people are we?”

“This is adult business, princess.” He said, laughing. “Kids, I tell ya.”

Everyone one in the room watched in shock as the outsider took the back of his hand and lightly tapped T’Challa’s chest. All eyes followed T’Challa’s as he looked to the spot that had just been touched and back to the offender.

“Yep. I’ve made that mistake before.” Agent Ross said while shaking his head and sipping his water. “The nice bald lady won’t like that.”

“Kumkani wam, ndimele ndibeke isandla sakhe ngomkhonto okanye ngamazinyo?” Okoye had asked the King about the proper method to dispose of the target hand while staring at the now pale man.

T’Challa only raised his hand as a signal to stand down. He calmly removed the napkin from his lap and stood, causing everyone to stand along with him in anticipation.

“Mr. Trump, I believe it is time for you to go. Perhaps we can continue our conversation through an email? Allow my wife and I to escort you all to the loading hangar.”

Though his tone was pleasant, there was no mistaking the firmness in his statement.

The dignitary quickly stood up, making a move to shake his peer’s hand but receiving a blank stare in its place.

Y/N latched on to her husband’s left arm, discreetly turning to Shuri to give her the thumbs up.

The couples quickly made their way to the aircraft responsible for returning the unwanted guest and his wife back to the U.S.

Hasty goodbyes were offered before the older man and considerably younger woman were completely out of sight.

“You know, I feel bad for her. It must be hell having to wake up to that every morning.”

T’Challa let out a belly laugh while pulling his wife close to place a kiss on the top of her head. Once he had settled, he used his Kimoyo beads to reach his teenage sister.

“Shuri, play it over the palace speaker system.”

“Play what, brother? There are no announcements in the queue.” She replied confused at her older brother’s request.

“Play the song.”

A devious smile played at the princess’s lips before she emphatically pressed play on the board in front of her.

“Fuck, Donald Trump. Yeah, nigga, fuck Donald Trump!”

[myso-calledlibraryy]

Eleanor and Park

And here we have again a novel that perfectly depicts all the emotions of high school. I can’t tell if this is a real thing or if I was just constantly overly emotional and stereotypical. Genuinely leaning towards the stereotype because I can't remember the last time I saw a coming of age film that did not prompt “omg that is Maura” from all of my friends. 

Anywhoooo, this week I read the novel Eleanor and Park again for the first time since I was a junior in high school (ew). I seemed to have not changed a bit as all of my emotions were just as I remembered.

Eleanor and Park is written by Rainbow Rowell. Rowell has several other books all which I loved and had a similar coming of age theme. Rowell is from Omaha, where Eleanor and Park takes place. While living in Omaha she worked for a local newspaper as a columnist for many years. In 2011, she released her first novel, which was not YA, and the following year released Eleanor and Park. This novel, along with Fangirl, were critically acclaimed and among many top ten lists. In 2013, Eleanor and Park received scrutiny from parents due to its sensitive content(which we will get to soon) but Rowell replied with the fact that this stuff really happens. I commend Rowell for writing about such hefty topics, we cannot shelter children from the real world. Rowell currently resides in Nebraska with her husband and children and is currently working on writing some comic books. 

So let me begin by again saying that I love this book and I love books about love. I am so grossed out that I just said that. 

Eleanor and Park follows, well, Eleanor and Park on an epic little love story filled with chaos. Both kids struggle with their home life, bullies, and some gender expression, but in different ways that fit together perfectly. The novel is written in third person with different chapters focusing on either one. This makes it very easy to follow along even though you are taken on a bit of a crazy journey.

We start with Eleanor getting on the bus on the first day at her new school. She is at this new school because she is finally back living with her mom, siblings, and her mom’s AWFUL boyfriend Richie. Richie is incredibly abusive and had kicked Eleanor out of the house the year prior. Her mom is so sweet, but acts blind to the violence of Richie. The house they live in is only five rooms, with one of them being the fake room which is the bathroom in the kitchen separated by a sheet. Obviously the family is very poor and this is a struggle for Eleanor because all of the kids make fun of her. 

On top of having an awful home life, Eleanor is just so incredibly awkward. She is very tall and overall just kind of big, her bright red curly hair doesn’t help either. Eleanor also wears a lot of masculine clothes, which is how she chooses to express herself and the source of a lot of bullying. She wants to just blend in at her new school but the second she steps on that bus she becomes the target of bullying. 

When Eleanor is URGENTLY searching for a seat on the bus, the only available spot is next to Park. 

Park is half Korean, quite the rarity in Omaha, and this makes him the subject of a lot of racism and microaggressions. The opening scenes depict him sitting on the bus while Tina and Steve (gross nasty bullies I don’t care what nice things they do, they are gross and nasty) are questioning him about kung fu. Park has a much better home life than Eleanor with two very loving parents, but him and his father don’t always see eye to eye. Park puts a lot of pressure on himself to be the perfect man for his dad, but Park just always feels inadequate in this. This turns out to be something Eleanor really helps with and brings them closer together. 

How freaking perfect for a love story to start with two misfits finding each other on the bus. 

The two sit next to each other for quite some time and no one says ~anything~. These two little dorks just sit there in silence, but both are very happy to be sitting next to someone without admitting it. Park is happy to have a reason not to talk to the bullies and Eleanor is just happy not to be alone. 

Eleanor and Park begin to grow a silent bond. Eleanor reads Parks comic books over his shoulder and he begins to notice. She notices he notices when he waits to start his new comic book Watchmen (watch this show on HBO right now). When they get to her house, Park gives Eleanor the comic book to take with her and she reads it again and again that night. 

This where you really start to push for the couple. I was literally SHOUTING at the pages. I wanted Park to just like run up and kiss her. And then I would be like NO Eleanor be the strong woman we all know you are and make that move. But we have all been in high school and know it is most definitely not that easy. 

After exchanging comic books, Park finally has to talk to Eleanor. He notices the title of a Smiths song on her textbook and asks if she likes the Smiths. AND SHE HAS THE AUDACITY TO SAY NO AND THEN NOT SAY ANYTHING ELSE. If she was my friend I would’ve smacked her 100%. Eleanor stop being so freaking awkward and talk to the boy!!!! But yes of course I found it incredibly sweet how nervous he made her, I hate myself ugh. 

Then comes one of the best parts. Park makes the move of all moves. The mac daddy of all gestures. This boy goes on home and makes Eleanor a mix tape. So corny like gag, but literally this is what we want. If a boy makes you a mix you marry him. End of discussion. 

“Then he slid the silk and his fingers into her open palm. And Eleanor disintegrated.”

“Holding Eleanor’s hand was like holding a butterfly. Or a heartbeat. Like holding something complete, and completely alive.”

LIKE COME ON. I am such a dramatic baby but I promise you I cried at this. They are in LOVE. The way Rainbow Rowell writes this is just so good. I remember when the first real boy I had a crush on held my hand I talked about it for WEEKS. It is such a simple way to show affection but when you’re young it feels so special. Imagining this scene is so perfect and fills you with so much hope as to what is to come for the two little lovebirds. 

Now is when the story takes a bit of a turn for me. One night when talking on the phone, Park tells Eleanor that he loves her. The two begin to admit to each other that they need each other. As the relationship progresses it does kind of seem like they are a little too addicted to each other. Park is protecting Eleanor from the bullies at school and Eleanor starts to protect Park from his parents. They encourage one another in everything they want to do and help each other express themselves. I do wish this was something they were able to do on their own by each other’s side, but they seemed to really NEED each other which is a little problematic. Needing a significant other is definitely not something we should glorify to the young girl population this novel is geared towards. 

This qualm is not enough to ruin my love of the story though so we will move forward. 

As things at home get worse between Richie and Eleanor after she calls the cops on him one night, her relationship with Park is growing more and more. Eleanor is finally able to open up to Park about her family and it makes the two more comfortable with each other. 

On Christmas, Park’s mother breaks down about how she feels badly about the way she was treating Eleanor. She saw a lot of herself in Eleanor and almost resented her for it. After this, Park is more comfortable having Eleanor at the house and they spend the entire Christmas break there, 

At one point, towards the end of the break, we see Eleanor and Park both really tackle their gender expression. Park’s mom wants to give Eleanor a little makeover so she shows her how to apply eye liner using Park as a model. Both Eleanor and Park like the way it looks on him but his mother and father are not happy. Park is admitting he likes the way Eleanor dresses in boy clothes and she likes him in makeup. Neither of them care that this isn’t the norm, they know it makes themselves happy and now this is all they care about. The eye liner causes issues for Park with his dad but they are eventually able to resolve this.

This part of the book is SO important. Not only is it handled in a light way but it does leave an impression on the reader. When I read the novel the first time as a 16 year old, I remember loving how open they could be with each other. Now that I am older I am able to see the real gender expression that is there, but it still had the same effect. I think this is super important because it allows the reader to understand this situation in whatever way they can. While now, gender is much more widely talked about, in my high school this is something that never would’ve been talked about. When I read Eleanor and Park at that time I just thought they were super cool and I thought well that’s what love is about we have to support our significant other. Now I am able to see it for the much more serious thing that it is, but I still see the same message. 

Love people for their character and how they make you feel, not how they look or based off of what other people say. 

Shortly after this, Richie becomes even worse than we can imagine. Eleanor had been receiving really nasty notes in her textbooks and she finds out Richie had been leaving them. Now Eleanor knows how dangerous he is and she knows she has to run away. With the help of Park and surprisingly Tina and Steve the big bullies, Eleanor is able to escape to her uncle’s house.

Park drives her there and the two can’t let each other go when they arrive in Minnesota. They know they have to leave each other because it is what’s best for Eleanor but it is truly heartbreaking. 

Neither of them have ever felt so connected to anyone in their lives and now they have to say goodbye???? I cried for like four hours. It just felt all too real. Like not even kind of the same but I literally felt like I was leaving my high school boyfriend to go to college all over again. And like I thought that was the worst thing that could ever happen to me at 18. UGH I literally could cry again writing this. Ok lmao let’s not dwell on my lovely high school experience. 

Park goes back to Omaha and he starts to send Eleanor packages and letters. He constantly drives by her house just because he can’t stop thinking about her. And he never takes the bus again. 

Eleanor is literally me and cannot seem to find the will to confront her emotions and never opens anything Park sends her. She tells the girls at her new school she has never kissed a boy and she tries to leave the life with Park behind her. BUT do not get this twisted!!!!! This is because she loves him so much it hurts her. For girls like me and Eleanor with emotions too complex to even begin to understand sometimes it feels better to pretend they never existed. I know all too well though that this always makes it hurt more in the end. EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IS YOUR FRIEND ELEANOR WE GOTTA USE IT!!!!!

I was then hit with an ending that ripped my heart out of my chest. Eleanor writes Park a letter finally. This letter has three words. Three words that could mean so much. One thing Eleanor was never able to do was tell Park she loved him. She was too afraid but she definitely felt it. And in that moment I know she was able to finally tell Park that. The two had the love story of a lifetime and I feel confident at the end of the book that they would end up together again.

SO YEA another book I LOVE. I find the emotions of high school just overly relatable, and maybe even a little refreshing? Eleanor and Park throws you back to a time in life with so much uncertainty. In high school we ask ourselves so many questions constantly and are faced with a lot of idk ~shit~. Both Eleanor and Park struggle with expressing their gender but together they grow to just be happy with who they are even if it doesn’t fit the mold. Rowell tackles domestic violence and abuse which is something very real that happens every day and we cannot hide that from young people. Eleanor and Park struggle with emoting as they both seem to have a lot of pent up emotions (therapy is your friend someone needed to tell them that). 

All in all GREAT. 

Maybe next week I will finally read a book that doesn't make me cry!

[therapy101]

You mentioned that you're a woman and you started this career young. Do you think there are any times you were somewhat held back or had to work harder than others because of that? I've always been very interested in a career in therapy and wondered how my age and gender might effect how clients perceive me. Thank you!

absolutely. although psychology and the mental health field in general has a higher proportion of women than men, men hold a larger percentage of higher level positions, including professors, directors of programs, owners of private practices, and so on. My grad program was very progressive and focused on social justice, etc., but there was only one female faculty member. I had so few female supervisors in grad school that I prioritized having female supervisors during graduate school. 

That’s a problem of course due to issues of representation and difficulties for young psychologists to move up. Additionally though, a supervisory relationship with a male supervisor and a female supervisee is different than a supervisory relationship between two women. I didn’t really notice this until I got to internship and had mostly female supervisors. Suddenly I had someone I could talk to about male coworkers making microaggressions and male clients sexually harassing me. I had a support that I hadn’t been able to tap into before- not because my male supervisors were bad (they were mostly amazing) but because they didn’t share my experience and didn’t get what it’s like to be a young female clinician. (I’m sure this experience isn’t limited to gender, and I would imagine that other minority groups have an even more difficult time finding supervisors who have shared experience given even worse representation). 

One of the other issues regarding being a young woman in a professional field I didn’t fully comprehend until I received my PhD. I went through this euphoric period of feeling accomplished and respected (I still am but the euphoria has mostly faded), and was overjoyed to have “Dr.” on my ID and have people actually call me “Doctor.” I mentioned this to a male coworker of mine (also a recent PhD) who responded, “That’s male privilege in action- people have been calling me doctor since I started grad school.” (that’s paraphrasing, but I’m certain he labeled it male privilege, which made me happy). 

And it’s true, looking back at it. Throughout grad school, and sometimes even now, I was constantly being questioned and tested, and coworkers and clients alike tended to assume I had no idea what I was doing. People often assumed I was a college student getting volunteer experience, or that my current clinical placement was my first clinical experience, or that I didn’t know anything about stats, or that I didn’t understand brain function, etc etc etc. My male colleagues in grad school and on have not experienced this- at all or at the same levels. They get the privilege of people assuming they belong already. 

And so those things are hard and do get in the way of moving forward. The bar is always higher for women, and we typically have to deal with more obstacles. The intern in my position before me was a man, and honestly- was a shitty intern. He was lazy and not very experienced. I worked much harder and had far more experience. And although my immediate supervisors knew I was a better therapist, he had this insanely good reputation among my other coworkers and I spent a lot of time in his shadow. There’s a lot of that- women having to work harder to just be seen. It’s not limited to psychology or mental health, but it’s not absent from either just because there are more women.

I’ve talked mostly about coworkers, and you mentioned clients, so let me address that more specifically. Being young and female has hindered my therapeutic relationships at times with some clients. The vast majority of these clients are men. Men significantly older than me often question my skills and life experience, and are sometimes condescending and paternalizing- at least initially. Men around my age are sometimes uncomfortable with my femaleness, and sometimes develop transference that can be an obstacle. I am a very feminine-presenting woman, and have had male clients comment about that negatively (for example- that I’m a princess who will leave therapy once I get a sugar daddy). Early on I considered changing the way I dress- one (female) supervisor of mine thought women should dress androgynously in mental health, both to be more professional and to cause less distraction (I know). Eventually I decided that I liked who I was and even if I wore button downs and Docs wouldn’t mean I wouldn’t present femininely, so I might as well be happy in my clothes. 

I do think there are a lot of progressive and supportive people out there, and it’s absolutely possible to be successful as a young woman in mental health. My colleagues have mostly been wonderful, which gives me hope that the next generation will be far more supportive to women. 

______

If you enjoyed this post, consider making a pledge at Patreon to support Therapy101 and access to information about psychology and mental health.

[mdavi060]

LGBTQ Students and the link between mental disorders in college

I am going to be discussing and summarizing the first few pages of a study conducted by Michael R. Woodford, Alex Kulick, and Brandy R. from the Sinco University of Michigan, and Jun Sung Hong Wayne State University. This study was published in 2014 and titled “Contemporary Heterosexism on Campus and Psychological Distress Among LGBQ Students: The Mediating Role of Self-Acceptance.” 

Various research has shown that college students on average suffer from a multitude of mental disorders, many of which have contributions to the high levels of stress that is often created by classes, commuting, and social life (among other contributors ). Many students who come to college already have mental disorders (diagnosed or undiagnosed), for causes unrelated to college, however this does not mean that reasons related to university life cannot make symptoms of their disorder worse or heightened due to so many different stress factors.

For many minorities, there are a whole other different set of stress considerations that should be accounted for in compared to, for example, a cisgender white male college student. This peer reviewed study discuss such problems that LGBTQ students face. This article largely discusses microaggressions, which are in the article defined as “the everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership.”

The article focuses on the negative impact microaggressions can have on LGBTQ students who, are already under immense stress from education, and how this added stress of discriminatory behavior can negatively impact their mental health. “Minority stress theory,” is largely touched upon, as it “puts sexual minorities at risk for psychological distress and other negative outcomes.” The outcome of “minority stress” can often lead to students to suffer from chronic stress which can be a leading factor to psychiatric distress. The article mentions disorders such as anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Another main point in the article that I would like to touch upon, is how it points out that college culture is largely hetero-normative culture, and this in itself can lead to LGBTQ students feeling isolated, which can contribute to anxiety and stress, and lower self-esteem, which can negatively impact self-acceptance. The article defines heterosexism and its impact on LGBTQ students as “heterosexism can be manifested through direct, explicitly heterosexist acts, as well as through subtle, often unintentional behavior.” The article is not stating that heterosexuality is somehow bad, but how an environment based almost solely on heterosexism, can lead to LGBTQ students feeling alienated.

Just to break away from the article momentarily, reading this journalistic study brought me back to my own personal experiences of witnessing teachers blatantly commit such microaggressions in an environment where all students, should be made to feel welcome and above all else, safe. These stories did not take place at Old Dominion University, however, I do believe they are still very relevant. On one instant, in my first semester studying at Tidewater Community College, I had a teacher who, very openly admitted to the class that she quote “could not stand seeing gay people openly displaying affection in public” because she, again, quote “just did not think it looked right to see two people of the same-sex kissing.” If this was not bad enough, she then encouraged the class to openly admit things they were discriminatory about of which she seemed to empathize and agree with a student who said something along the lines of “I don’t have a problem with gays, I just can’t stand how whenever I talk to a gay person, they have to keep mentioning they are gay and telling it to the world like they should be special.” I could instantly see a multitude of students nodding their heads in quick agreement for both the teacher’s statement and the students statement, and among those who agreed with them, there seemed to be only a small number of students who like myself remained silent, but disproving; and likely, feeling just as angry and hurt as I was. 

Another two examples include one professor who, during my semester long research paper, attempted to argue with me on my own topic (which was work place discrimination for LGBTQ persons). She argued that my topic was irrelevant (this is after conducting a ten page thoroughly written, non-biased, evidence based research paper with academic sources), because she did not think that people had to know that someone is LGBTQ at work; because that was too personal to openly discuss (this coming from a teacher who discussed her husband on a weekly basis). I attempted to explain why it was important for people to feel safe in the workplace, safe enough to bring their spouses/partners to work outings (many examples of why it was harmful for peoples mental health to feel the need to hide who they were dating/married to were in my paper), yet, she seemed to still think the topic I chose was essentially something that wasn’t worth writing about, because as she said many people in the workplace already “suspect” who is straight and who is not. The same teacher also, inappropriately told me a story of a student she had, who told her that she identified as gay, to which my teacher ‘jokingly’ told me, that “she didn’t have to know that,” and “didn’t see why it was important.” This teacher heavily critiqued my paper all semester, even though I was one of the only people in the class who actually wrote the paper with the exact guidelines she gave us (correct format, word count, non-first person, citations etc.) yet she did not critique or question a student who wrote five pages, in first person, about the ‘research’ he did to fix his car parts.  

Last example, I had yet another teacher, at random, make a “joke” about how when you go to a bar, and flirt with someone, you “have to be careful because you might not know what is really under their clothes, because these days you can just change gender,” of which the class howled in laughter.

Now, of course I am paraphrasing these events as they happened during my first, third, fourth etc. semesters at Tidewater Community College however, I am writing these quotes because I was so shocked by them, that I can still remember them fairly well, with disgust. Due to these experiences I was really terrified at the atmosphere I might see and witness at Old Dominion, but to my surprise, all of my teachers are extremely open minded, and non-discriminatory. I cannot imagine any of my professors that I am taking this semester, ever uttering any of those things I talked about above; however, this does NOT mean that Old Dominion does not have any of the problems I had witness in my previous college. One line from the article discussed above, made me think of Old Dominion University almost instantly “although many college campuses are thought to be bastions of diversity and acceptance for minority groups, LGBTQ students, staff, and faculty experience heterosexism and a hostile institutional climate.”

 photograph credit to: https://taggmagazine.com/mental-health-in-the-lgbtq-community/

[silver-and-ivory]

Find out why local Evil blogger silver-and-ivory fears black people!

In a way, I think that criticizing me for being racist due to stereotypes is being pretty off-the-mark. Like, I’m not afraid of black people because I think they’ll Threaten The Future Of White Children. I’m afraid of black people because, well, lots of reasons.

Please note that none of them are endorsed, and none of them mean that black people as a collective are at fault, or anything.

I’m intensely afraid that I have to get everything perfect socially, or I’ll hurt black people. Every mistake is hurtful. The mistakes that people made with announcing Hidden Figures and Fences are racism, therefore all mistakes made around black people are racism as well.

This interacts really badly with my general guilt around not interacting enough with people, not being very good at socializing, and not being empathetic enough. (If you thought I was going to somehow connect this to ableism, then you were correct.)

I worry intensely that I need to appease all black people. Black people are very important! The most important! If a black person is upset with you then it’s always you who’s fucked up and you need to apologize, goddammit! Also black people are different from each other and you just need to do lots of research and you still could be wrong and a bad racist!

If I don’t automatically agree with whatever a black person says, then I’m not listening to black people enough! Also I’m privileged! Also I never have faced microaggressions! Also I’m not empathetic and careful enough! Don’t I understand that some people have literally died due to racism?

It still feels incredible to be that actually, no, I don’t need to appease black people. I only have to satisfy myself. If someone wants to accuse me of racism, they had better well have a good argument and a good concrete explanation. I am allowed to argue that I’m not a racist!

I’m scared to ask for any changes in the way black people behave towards me. This is because doing so would amount to a tone argument and would therefore be suppressing their culture and respectability politics. I don’t understand black culture and I might accidentally be silencing them. Also, this would be telling them about my privileged emotions and requiring that they appease my white guilt through emotional labor.

This means that I couldn’t object to certain behaviors. For example, She often would interrupt Her friends while they were talking about their problems (unrelated to race!) and say “Chill the fuck out, there are worse problems”. When they tried to talk more about their problems, She would yell the word “NO!” or “SHUT UP”. I excused this because it was just black culture, possibly. This despite the fact that she always wanted to complain about her problems to them!

I’m scared that I’ll have to sacrifice everything so I can help black people better. “Everything” here includes things like “my personal happiness” and “not feeling a crushing weight of guilt every day”.

I used to dissociate during arguments with Her. In fact, I used to dissociate all the time around Her. I was constantly tense and worried I’d screw up. Any sacrifice was okay as long as I was still supporting the black woman in my life through all the racism around her, because she was always hurting from the way white supremacy hurt her.

I couldn’t leave, because I need to Listen to Black People. Her opinions were important even if they were all predictably illogical and mind-bending, because she was black.

I feel bad for being white-cultured/privileged. This is based on both shame and guilt, both of which I automatically feel due to Her attitude of “fuck white people” etc..

Also, I then feel bad for feeling bad about being white-cultured. I must ignore my feelings and power through and still serve and protect black people, even though She is the one who makes me feel bad about being white-cultured.

To be perfectly honest, I’m scared of black people in the way that some people are scared of, idk, women? (female abusers cw)

Because they’re so ingroup, and you’re so outgroup, and once you were in a relationship with a woman and you sacrificed everything for her and poured everything you had into her and treasured her just like the books say and she treated you like shit. She treated you like a bank for her emotions to nest in. And you never felt okay with telling her about your emotions because that was asking for emotional labor. And she constantly put down your gender and also talked about people behind their backs and it was sexist if you tried to have boundaries or ask her to change her behavior.

And now that you’re talking about her behavior, everyone else is like “she’s not a bitch, you raging misogynist”, and you’re like I know that’s a bad stereotype but I was trying to avoid this allegation of sexism the whole entire time and that’s what got me into such deep shit. And they’re like So why are you talking about how much you hate women? And you’re like I’m sorry but these are literally just my unendorsed emotions :(( I’m trying to work on it okay but ON MY OWN TIME? If that’s okay with you sorry :))

I don’t think that was exactly a compelling comparison if you disagree with me, but like, I like that idea. Also I imagine that this is relevant to another anon that I got and which I haven’t answered yet, but also I will answer them separately also.

I honestly don’t know how to address these things. Right now I get nervous around blacks because I’m worried that they hate me because I’m secretly hurting them by being privileged and white-cultured; and that means I don’t feel safe telling them my feelings. I’m also worried that my guilt will make me agree to sacrificing everything again.

A good response to “I hate black people because I feel so obligated to listen to, not argue with, agree with, validate, forgive, protect, adore, and pay attention to every single black person ever that I just can’t take it anymore and also because I’m scared that black people think I’m a Bad Racist” is not “why don’t you try listening to black people more?? what a racist”.

I don’t know what a good response is, and would really really like it if someone gave me advice for how to manage my emotions.

[ace-muslim]

Asexual Muslim resistance, activism, and self care: Creating Change 2017 and me

This post is for the February Carnival of Aces.

Author note: I originally intended to write this post soon after I got back from Creating Change a month ago. However, thanks to the start of my spring term Arabic classes the week after my return, to the emotional stresses of #MuslimBan that hit right after that, and to the need to get caught up on my other responsibilities while all this was going on, it’s taken me rather longer than I expected to actually get this post out!

I attended the Creating Change conference in Philadelphia from January 18 to January 22, 2017. I had several different goals for the conference, reflecting different facets of my identity and work:

connect in person with other aces

connect in person with other queer Muslims

attend anti-racism workshops to further my volunteer work with the Muslim Anti-Racism Collaborative (MuslimARC)

attend organization building workshops relevant to the needs of MuslimARC

attend sessions on spirituality and self-care to help me in coping with burnout

The fact that I could further my interests in so many different areas of my life is why I was so excited to attend the conference. MuslimARC is not an ace or queer organization but since I have access to the resources that Creating Change offers due to my own ace and queer identity, I figured I might as well take advantage of it.

To my delight, I was able to attain all of my goals for the conference and benefit in each of these areas of my life.

Due to the way my asexuality, my being a Muslim convert, and my accessibility limitations intersect, I have difficult in connecting with groups in my local area. The Muslim spaces nearby that I am able to get to are usually not welcoming to me and not places where I fit in at all. I have been making efforts for the last several years to show up anyway because I hoped that even a flawed space would be better than nothing, which is what I have otherwise and what I had for most of the time since I converted.

Creating Change offered a chance to participate in spaces that are more inclusive of my identities. These spaces were limited - just one panel and one official gathering for each of my core identities (the ace inclusivity panel and ace caucus on the one hand and the Islamophobia panel and jumu’a prayer service on the other) - or on the margins (the unofficial ace hospitality suite and the unofficial queer Muslim caucus) but they did exist. While I could see ways these groups might fall short of providing all the support I need on an ongoing basis, within the context of the conference just the fact that they were there at all was enough.

Beyond just finding community spaces where I could meet others who share identities with me, I was able to have deep conversations with David Jay and with queer Muslim activist leaders Imam Tynan Power and Palmer Shepherd telling them my personal story and the issues I experience and even advocating for greater inclusion of asexual Muslims. The Muslim Alliance for Sexual and Gender Diversity (MASGD), which both Ty and Palmer are actively involved with, has not made any efforts so far to reach out to asexual Muslims or even acknowledge in their public materials that we exist and I emphasized to Ty and Palmer how important it is to mention aces by name because otherwise we will assume that we are not welcome. Meanwhile, I gave DJ a reference to my Asexuality and Islam website and a printout of asexual Muslim data gleaned from the ace census, so that he can amplify these resources.

The most valuable thing about these three talks was that although each group represents only half of my identity by itself, I was able to share all of myself with them. These were probably the most deeply validating experiences of the whole conference for me. And while there is still no actual asexual Muslim community (a continuing frustration of mine), I hope that my work in these conversations can help other asexual Muslims as individuals find the same validation I did.

Meanwhile, as I attended the Racial Justice Institute and a session on building sustainable funding for nonprofit organizations, I found that I was able to reference MuslimARC frequently, contribute usefully to the conversations based on my experiences volunteering there, and learn some tools and frameworks that will be useful to MuslimARC’s work. I even decided it would be useful to list MuslimARC as my organizational affiliation at future Creating Change conferences to continue building in this area. This was a pleasant surprise.

Two other workshops I attended with a racial justice focus, the Police Violence Institute and the alternatives to law enforcement session, gave me something I hadn’t expected - an insight into how Creating Change can be useful to connect ace youth, especially those from marginalized backgrounds, to LGBTQ resources that already exist to help address the larger systemic issues they face. I was able to talk with the head of an LGBTQ center in Colorado about asexuality, discover that they are already seeing ace youth seeking out their resources, and connect them with Asexual Outreach to get information and resources on asexuality. The opportunities for networking at Creating Change are amazing and next year I might print out some resources from Asexual Outreach to be able to give to people!

On the spiritual front, I made use of the Many Paths Spiritual Gathering Place as a prayer room - with five daily prayers, the logistics of being Muslim at a busy conference can be tricky and having that dedicated space out of the crowds made things a lot easier. I got to know the spiritual care team there and through the centering care workshop and the session on building an authentic spiritual path. Because of the limited space provided for Muslims specifically at the conference, and because Ty is only one person, the spiritual care team ended up providing me with a lot of support and friendship I didn’t expect to receive. Beyond this, some of the practices and ideas I gained from these sessions are things I am slowly working to implement in my life back home with links to both queer spirituality and anti-racist self-work.

Speaking of the unexpected, the conference pushed me way out of my comfort zone in multiple ways. I was initially very anxious about wearing both hijab and obvious ace gear at an LGBTQ conference where I wasn’t sure either identity would be fully welcome - but I spent five days as a very visible asexual Muslim and most people hardly blinked.

I did experience a few microaggressions, all related to being Muslim (none were related to being ace). While I was attending the Police Violence Institute a white woman acted to me in a way that I found rather tokenizing (”I’ve never seen a queer Muslim before! Can I have your business card?”) and I had to spend several minutes educating her about effective allyship (build relationships with the affected community and learn what they need you to do, then do that).

Also, at the end of the ace caucus, a white ace came up and asked me if I was a nun (yes, I consider this a microaggression). I also got this question from a random stranger while I was buying food in Reading Terminal Market one afternoon. Still, I was expecting a lot worse than this and I was really very pleasantly surprised by how unfazed most attendees were by me. Shout-out to the hijabis who have attended past conferences and paved the way for me.

Besides wearing hijab and ace gear all the time, I ended up on stage during the opening plenary session (me? shy Laura?) and even attended the lesbian caucus. I wasn’t forced to come out as anything (except as Muslim because I was wearing hijab) since there was just a large group discussion I listened to but didn’t take part in. But this was the first time I had made a public connection for myself between being homoplatonic and lesbian identity. I’m still hesitant to identify as an asexual lesbian specifically, but I took a baby step that evening and I’m proud of myself for that.

As if all this wasn’t enough, I participated in the Philadelphia Women’s March draped in an ace pride flag (and wearing an ace pride hijab) and shouting slogans like “We’re here, we’re queer, we’re fabulous, don’t fuck with us” alongside Mary and Brian, which was pretty freaking awesome. Between that and being at a session on combatting Islamophobia and then at a queer Muslim prayer service during Trump’s inauguration, I figure I put a distinctively asexual Muslim stamp on my resistance that I plan to continue.

Creating Change 2017 was a life-changing experience that for the first time brought my whole self together in a single activist space. I’m still struggling every day with burnout but this was just the self-care I needed to help me get through a very tough time.

[asfeedin]

How I Create My Own Seat at the Table

Feminism is a touchy subject.

Having voiced my opinions about women in the SEO industry a few times, I had seen opposition and support of the idea that this is a topic worth bringing the forefront.

Many have said that it’s a non-issue, but the posts I’ve seen in women-run SEO groups would beg to differ.

In actuality, many women in SEO are still undervalued, misrepresented, and often unacknowledged compared to their male SEO counterparts.

For example, when Serpstat published their roundup of the “Best Women in SEO”, the responses were less than stellar:

This flies in the face of countless other posts that cover the “best SEOs” where the list is 80%+ men, despite there being many women worth highlighting in our industry.

This is not to say that women haven’t made giant leaps ahead in our industry.

We have female CEOs (like Sarah Bird from Moz) and technical SEO pros (like Kristina Azarenko) that are doing great work, sharing their expertise, and gaining notoriety.

But there’s still this question of women and men in SEO are really on equal footing.

While I could go into the gender pay gap, glass ceiling, sexism in employment, etc., that’s not what this post is about.

My purpose here is to tell my story as well as share some tips for how other women in SEO can create their own seat at the table.

My Experience as a Woman in SEO

My experience as a woman in SEO has been, overall, a positive one.

When I came on the scene, it wasn’t like people were sliding into my DMs threatening, “You don’t belong here, wench!”

But my experience hasn’t been completely devoid of sexism either.

At my first SEO gig (in-house SEO manager), I was routinely the only woman to be present at meetings and I was very often talked over, disregarded, or otherwise told that my ideas “just won’t work”.

I remember one time talking about the value of growing our clients’ email lists and crafting email marketing campaigns.

I was told that this was something “mommy bloggers do”, but the same idea (when presented by my male coworkers) was heralded as a good idea.

These microaggressions add up over time and make it difficult to get recognized for our good ideas, be considered for promotions, or invited to career-changing networking opportunities.

Little by little, these things can certainly limit our career potential.

I believe I have things easy as a woman in the SEO content space because writing has, more or less, been a “female” domain.

But I have heard from my female cohort that being a female technical SEO specialist can be much more difficult, as people constantly question your expertise.

The solution, it seems, is to be louder, unapologetic, and have a thick skin – as the risk of being called “bossy” or worse.

And while many women can adopt this “Don’t mess with me” attitude, many others would prefer to stay in the background.

Very early, I decided to try and strike a balance – where I could stay true to myself (caring, feminine, creative) while also standing up to the bullies.

I decided I needed to create my own seat at the table.

Find Your ‘People’

Where would I be without my sisters in SEO who are always there when I need to vent, want to talk strategy, swap skill sets, and more?

I love that I have “my people” to go to who support me with no questions asked.

Many male-dominated spaces can be aggressive, particularly if you even bring up the topic of women in SEO.

You’ll hear statements like:

“Why does this matter?”

“Women are already equal!”

“It’s about experience, not gender.”

All of these statements ignore the very real disparities that women experience.

But if you seek out people who support you – whether that be other women in SEO or men who can lend a listening ear – you’ll be better prepared to weather the bullies.

Network Your @ss Off

As with most industries, SEO has an “It’s not what you know but who you know culture.”

To get featured in major publications, get considered for roundup posts, form business partnerships, and get invited to speaking events, you need to network with the right people.

Unfortunately, very rarely will people hand you these opportunities on a silver platter.

Instead, you should constantly be looking for ways to connect with people in SEO, grow authentic relationships, and earn a name for yourself.

You could be the best technical SEO pro ever, regardless of gender, but if no one knows you exist, you’re unlikely to get the recognition you deserve.

Connect with people on LinkedIn, submit guest posts, and attend networking events to put yourself out there.

Know When (& When Not) to Ruffle Feathers

I am a strong advocate for equal rights, but not at the expense of my own health and well-being.

You need to know when to speak up and stick your neck out, as well as when to disengage and give yourself a break.

Again, this is why I like having a community that has my back because they can always come to my defense if I am being dragged across the coals.

Further, they offer me practical advice when it comes to dealing with sexist clients, charging what I’m worth, and landing new opportunities.

You don’t have to fight every battle on your own and some days are harder than others.

Ultimately, what matters is that you reach your version of success.

Do Your Best Work

Sometimes you just gotta let your work speak for itself.

While it is true that it’s often difficult fighting to get noticed as a woman in SEO, you certainly won’t stand out if you stay on the sidelines.

Focus on providing the best value you can to your clients. Get them awesome results. Publish those case studies. Rake in those testimonials.

Inevitably, word will spread that you know what you’re doing – either from existing clients to prospective clients or from one SEO pro to the next.

We can all hope that the playing field will become more equal over time and you want to be one of the ones saying, “Look – I put in the work!”

If anything, you’ll have the satisfaction of knowing that you’re a total boss.

Charge What You’re Worth

One of the most common struggles I see women in SEO experiencing is not charging/getting paid what they are worth.

Sometimes this means not knowing how to negotiate their salary in fear of being considered “too demanding”, or it might mean setting their agency rates too low / not knowing how to attract high-paying clients.

As Beyonce once said, “Your best revenge is your paper” – and getting paid what you’re worth gives you more freedom to do what you love and have influence in the world.

I highly recommend working with a financial advisor or mentor that can help you navigate these often difficult money-related conversations, set competitive prices, and learn how to communicate your value to potential clients.

Confidence plays a major role in you asking for what you’re worth and getting paid what you deserve.

Know Your Talking Points

It never hurts to have some talking points in your arsenal for when misogyny rears its head.

If you’re used to encountering leads that say “I won’t work with a woman” (this has happened to me) or “This is kind of a boy’s club” (that too), then it might be helpful to know what to say next time these phrases come around.

You’ll feel more confident being able to school people on why feminism in SEO matters, why your work is just as good (if not better) than your male counterparts’, how you can help clients achieve X results, etc.

Know what to say so you don’t get bulldozed over by the haters.

For me, this sometimes means name dropping some of the amazing clients I have worked with in the past and the sweet results I have generated through my content.

So, when one prospect scoffed at my prices saying “You’re not even a household name”, I could shrug it off knowing that my real clients know the value in working with me.

Use Your Voice

If you’re bold enough to make yourself heard and talk about your experience as a woman in SEO, know that there are countless ways to do so.

Guest posting (like this), sharing your story on YouTube, posting inspiring social media posts, and speaking at events are all great ways to get your voice heard.

On a smaller level, share your expertise in Facebook groups, talk strategy, attend virtual summits, and network with other SEO pros to get noticed.

Work on sticking up for yourself and being confident in what you bring to the table.

Not every person is outspoken or has the desire to stand up on a soapbox, but for those of us that feel empowered to share our stories, doing so can make a world of difference.

Resources for Women in SEO:

Image Credits

Featured Image: Paulo Bobita All screenshots taken by author, April 2020

if( !ss_u ){

!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s) {if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)}; if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0'; n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window,document,'script', 'https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1321385257908563');

fbq('track', 'PageView');

fbq('trackSingle', '1321385257908563', 'ViewContent', { content_name: 'woman-in-seo', content_category: 'friday-focus ' });

}// end of scroll user Source link

Tags: create, seat, Table

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2Y3WVop via IFTTT

[deniscollins]

How to Disclose a Disability to Your Employer (and Whether You Should)

The Americans with Disabilities Act forbids employers from discriminating against applicants or employees on the basis of disability. But sometimes you are never sure what the real reason is why you get rejected for a job. What would you do if you were applying for a job and had a disability due to severe back pain that required some work accommodation: (1) mention it during the job interview, (2) wait until immediately after obtaining the job and then tell your employer, or (3) wait longer, until after you have proven your value to the company as a hard and talented worker, and then make the accommodation request? Why? What are the ethics underlying your decision?

The invisible nature of my chronic illness protects me from a whole universe of discrimination and microaggressions, but it also insulates me from potential support.

Of course, I acknowledge that my position is a privileged one. Some disabilities announce themselves as soon as a job candidate enters an interview room, along with all of the misconceptions society places on anyone with any degree of difference. I wondered what we’d have to do to help people come out of it empowered and employed.

The issue is as complicated as people are. As with all forms of discrimination, there’s a world between what the law says and how we relate to one another that’s murky and difficult to navigate, even for legal professionals, disability-rights advocates and those long-practiced in explaining themselves to a world not built for them. But there are ways to make it easier, and difficult truths everyone should know.

The cost of staying silent

Perhaps you’ve seen the little self-disclosure boxes on job application forms. Employers are prohibited from directly asking anything about your disability; that puts the onus on the employee or applicant to educate the employer, said Eve Hill, a disability rights attorney. You can request the accommodations you may need and explain how you can best perform the job, but that can be as much a burden as an opportunity, she said.

“In the best outcomes, you become the guide on how to do this well,” Ms. Hill said. “That’s an extra burden that people with disabilities bear.”

Disclosure during the interview process can open up a world of support. Or, worst case, it can reveal an atmosphere in which you wouldn’t feel comfortable working, anyway. And hiding a major part of yourself — assuming you have that ability — takes its own toll.

“Disclosing a disability to an employer enables a person to live one’s life authentically and be able to bring one’s whole self to work,” said Kathy Flaherty, executive director of the Connecticut Legal Rights Project. “Hiding a disability takes emotional energy that could be better spent elsewhere, like doing one’s job.”

That bore out for Katie Rose Guest Pryal, a former academic who said keeping her mental illness a secret from her colleagues meant she could be only about 70 percent herself at work. “Keeping a major aspect of your identity a secret because you fear for the ramifications is not good for you,” she said. “But every time I sat down and weighed the positive and the negative, the negative of sharing outweighed the negative of keeping the secret.”

After seven years, Ms. Guest Pryal left her position as a nontenure-track professor to become a full-time freelance writer and novelist, documenting her decision in a book, “Life of the Mind Interrupted: Essays on Mental Health and Disability in Higher Education.”

Legal requirements vs. reality

The Americans with Disabilities Act forbids employers from discriminating against applicants or employees on the basis of disability, but the gap between the letter and application of the law can swallow people whole.

Emily Johnson was denied a handicapped parking spot at work because her boss wanted to leave it open for visitors who might need it. Holly Nelson, who has a hearing impairment, was terminated from a new position during her probation period because she didn’t hear a supervisor’s instructions. Jocelyn Mondragon called to reschedule a job interview when her motorized wheelchair broke down. Instead, the hiring manager canceled entirely. Roz Tolliver’s supervisor told her she was “broken” and would never get promoted. Allyson DuPont started her own company after getting fed up with access barriers related to her wheelchair. All of these stories are horrifying. Many are technically illegal. None are particularly unique.

“It’s difficult to disclose at work because most of us know about cases of overt or covert discrimination in employment, whether it’s around disability or age, gender, sexual orientation, race, class or another category,” said Sonya Huber, an associate professor at Fairfield University who has written extensively about living with rheumatoid arthritis. “People are frightened for good reason.”

Caren Goldberg, a human resource management professor and a consultant on discrimination issues, said she often sees people grappling with the decision. “I wish I could say everyone should disclose, but depending on the nature of the organization, reactions can be very subtle,” Dr. Goldberg said. “Often, it’s something that’s not done with nefarious intention.”

Negotiations for accommodations can be arduous, even when they are conducted in good faith. When Charis Hill asked for a yoga ball chair to alleviate pain related to their ankylosing spondylitis, a type of arthritis that affects the spine, a simple request stretched into weeks of public self-advocacy. “I felt a little humiliated by the lack of confidentiality when the time came to complete the formal request,” they said. “The experience certainly made me have second thoughts about requesting any other assistance in order to do my job.”

For Jed Findley, who works in education, his reluctance to disclose stemmed from his desire for privacy, as well as fear of losing a position he loved. “I knew they couldn’t fire me, but that didn’t mean they couldn’t discriminate in other ways,” he said. “People’s attitudes could change toward me. Oftentimes an accommodation is viewed as an excuse.”

Eve Hill acknowledged that deciding whether and when to disclose a disability can be challenging. “You don’t want them to be thinking things that aren’t true, especially things that may be worse than the reality,” she said. “When given a choice, you probably want to go with the one that gives you civil rights protections.”

How to have the conversation

Under the A.D.A., companies with more than 15 employees are required to provide reasonable accommodations to people who disclose a disability, which the law defines as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.” Those with invisible disabilities may be asked to provide medical documentation to support their need for requested accommodations, and to suggest adaptations that will enable them to perform to their full potential.

“The accommodation changes how you do the work. It doesn’t change whether you do the work,” Ms. Hill said. “You still have to meet the basic productivity requirements, the basic outcomes of the job, just in different ways or in a different location or using different equipment.”

Of course, what’s considered a “reasonable” accommodation can be hard to determine. “The right to a reasonable accommodation doesn’t mean a guarantee of getting the accommodation you want,” Ms. Flaherty said. “The employer is not supposed to just say no; they have to engage in a discussion about the accommodation.”

Ms. Hill and Dr. Goldberg both stressed that communication is key when requesting an accommodation. “The employee can suggest things that might be helpful, when making their case to the employer,” Dr. Goldberg said. “As long as it doesn’t pose undue hardship, there’s really no reason for them not to do it.”

Preparation is also essential. “You ultimately need to be your own advocate,” Mr. Findley said. “Before disclosing your illness or disability in the workplace, come up with a list of answers to questions, and before listing duties you don’t feel comfortable performing, come up with solutions that will allow you to keep doing your job.”

Ms. Flaherty also recommends thinking creatively to come up with solutions that will carry minimal or no cost. The Job Accommodation Network is a helpful resource that your employer can consult for ideas. And as the old saying goes, trust — but verify. “If the employee is feeling in any way concerned that the employer is not responding positively, make sure you’re taking notes and keeping records of those interactions,” Ms. Goldberg said. “If things do unfold and you have to take further action, you’ll have a written record.”

Timing is everything

For people with visible disabilities, it’s not so much a question of whether to reveal, but when. After realizing the only successful job applications she submitted were ones on which she didn’t mention that she used a wheelchair, Ms. Dupont decided to disclose only after getting an in-person interview. “In the face of stigma and misconception, disclosing on my own terms does sometimes give me the opportunity to control the dialogue,” she said. “But I have to be strategic in doing so or the consequences can be disastrous. The balance between discretion and disclosure is treacherous.”

Keah Brown, a writer with visible and invisible disabilities, noted the balance between being upfront with potential employers and risking retribution if they find out later. “Disclosing means to risk not getting the job and then, if you do so afterward, you risk the boss and company’s trust because you waited to say something,” she said.

In light of that possibility, Ms. Tolliver hid her disability until she couldn’t anymore, sometimes performing tasks that aggravated her chronic pain until she’d proven her worth. “I always hid the truth and hoped I’d stay healthy until I’d been at a job for a while,” she said. “I thought that if I made myself valuable to the organization, then management would understand and accept my accommodations and absences.”

The A.D.A. protects people from losing their position because of disability, but it doesn’t prevent microaggressions or water cooler chatter that can turn toxic. “Even though it’s prohibited by law, the law is not a guarantee that discrimination won’t happen,” Ms. Flaherty said. “Unfortunately, bias and misperceptions abound, and employers will sometimes make bad decisions based on that false information. So I totally understand why people don’t disclose and stay in the closet about it.”

If you do decide to seek accommodations, Ms. Hill suggests doing so before disciplinary action takes place, or as close to afterward as possible, so no one ends up in a defensive position. “You want to keep it out of the law as much as you possibly can,” she said. “You want to say, ‘I’m still a great employee. I’m having this barrier to doing just the best work you’re ever going to find. How can we work together to fix this barrier?’”

People who encounter discrimination do have legal recourse. That may include filing a formal complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or a state agency that protects the right to work, or even taking the matter to court. However, there are time limits for reporting most forms of discrimination, as well as a formalized process to follow. The E.E.O.C. recommends contacting your local field office to discuss your best course of action before diving in.

Living in the light

The decision to disclose is as personal as what goes on in your body and mind. It’s often an ongoing process that evolves as we do, and as society hopefully evolves with us.

“People sometimes talk about disclosure like a single event,” Dr. Goldberg said. “But it’s not like a gender reveal party. We don’t always get along similarly with all co-workers and there may be those to whom you never disclose. But if you confided in one person and got a good reaction, maybe over time you might not think twice about telling someone else.”

Ms. Huber discovered a network of empathetic colleagues once she talked to them about her disability. By writing extensively about her life with chronic pain, she gained confidence that supported her work, as well.

“Disabled does not always mean ‘can’t work,’” she said. “I work very differently now, but I also appreciate how much I get done as I have learned to understand what daily schedule and conditions are best for my body.”

[andrebooker7532]

Women in the Workplace: 2018

Here is a brief excerpt from an article written by Alexis Krivkovich, Marie-Claude Nadeau, Kelsey Robinson, Nicole Robinson, Irina Starikova, and Lareina Yee for the McKinsey Quarterly, published by McKinsey & Company. To read the complete article, check out other resources, learn more about the firm, obtain subscription information, and register to receive email alerts, please click here. To learn more about the McKinsey Quarterly, please clickhere.

* * *

Progress on gender diversity at work has stalled. To achieve equality, companies must turn good intentions into concrete action.

Companies report that they are highly committed to gender diversity. But that commitment has not translated into meaningful progress. The proportion of women at every level in corporate America has hardly changed. Progress isn’t just slow. It’s stalled.

That’s what we found in Women in the Workplace 2018, a study conducted by McKinsey in partnership with LeanIn.Org. In the fourth year of our ongoing research, we probe the issues, drawing on data from 279 companies employing more than 13 million people, as well as on a survey of over 64,000 employees and a series of qualitative interviews. Women are doing their part. For more than 30 years, they’ve been earning more bachelor’s degrees than men. They’re asking for promotions and negotiating salaries at the same rates as men. And contrary to conventional wisdom, they are staying in the workforce at the same rate as men. Now companies need to take more decisive action. This starts with treating gender diversity like the business priority it is, from setting targets to holding leaders accountable for results. It requires closing gender gaps in hiring and promotions, especially early in the pipeline when women are most often overlooked. And it means taking bolder steps to create a respectful and inclusive culture so women—and all employees—feel safe and supported at work. This article presents highlights from the full report and presents six actions that could spark progress.

Revisiting the pipeline

Based on four years of data from 462 companies employing more than 19.6 million people, including the 279 companies participating in this year’s study, two things are clear: one, women remain underrepresented, particularly women of color. Two, companies need to change the way they hire and promote entry and manager-level employees to make real progress.

Women remain underrepresented

Since 2015, the first year of this study, corporate America has made almost no progress improving women’s representation. Women are underrepresented at every level, and women of color are the most underrepresented group of all, lagging behind white men, men of color, and white women (Exhibit 1).

Exhibit 1

For the fourth year in a row, attrition does not explain the underrepresentation of women. Women and men are leaving their companies at similar rates, and they have similar intentions to remain in the workforce. Over half of all employees plan to stay at their companies for five or more years, and among those who intend to leave, 81 percent say they will continue to work. It’s also worth noting that remarkably few women and men say they plan to leave the workforce to focus on family.

Hiring and promotion will be crucial to progress

The two biggest drivers of representation are hiring and promotions, and companies are disadvantaging women in these areas from the beginning. Although women earn more bachelor’s degrees than men, and have for decades, they are less likely to be hired into entry-level jobs. At the first critical step up to manager, the disparity widens further. Women are less likely to be hired into manager-level jobs, and they are far less likely to be promoted into them—for every 100 men promoted to manager, 79 women are (Exhibit 2). Largely because of these gender gaps, men end up holding 62 percent of manager positions, while women hold only 38 percent.

Exhibit 2

This early inequality has a profound impact on the talent pipeline. Starting at the manager level, there are significantly fewer women to promote from within and significantly fewer women at the right experience level to hire in from the outside. So even though hiring and promotion rates improve at more senior levels, women can never catch up—we’re suffering from a “hollow middle.” This should serve as a wake-up call: until companies close the early gaps in hiring and promotion, women will remain underrepresented. If companies continue to hire and promote women to manager at current rates, the number of women in management will increase by just one percentage point over the next ten years. But are companies start hiring and promoting women and men to manager at equal rates, we should get close to parity in management—48 percent women versus 52 percent men—over the same ten years.

Considering an uneven playing field

Many factors contribute to a lack of gender diversity in the workplace. This year, our report took a closer look at some of them. Beyond issues such as managerial support and access to senior leaders, it’s interesting to look at a few areas that play a role—including everyday discrimination, sexual harassment, and the experience of being the only woman in the room.

Everyday discrimination

Everyday sexism and racism, also known as microaggressions, can take many forms. Some can be subtle, like when someone mistakenly assumes a coworker is more junior than they really are. Some are more explicit, like when someone says something demeaning to a coworker. Whether intentional or unintentional, microaggressions signal disrespect. They also reflect inequality—while anyone can be on the receiving end of disrespectful behavior, microaggressions are directed at people with less power, such as women, people of color, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people.

Read the full report on Women in the Workplace

For almost two-thirds of women, microaggressions are a workplace reality (Exhibit 3). Most commonly, women have to provide more evidence of their competence than men and have their judgment questioned in their area of expertise. They are also twice as likely as men to have been mistaken for someone in a more junior position. Black women, in particular, deal with a greater variety of microaggressions and are more likely than other women to have their judgment questioned in their area of expertise and be asked to provide additional evidence of their competence.

Exhibit 3

Lesbian women experience further slights: 71 percent have dealt with microaggressions. The nature of these encounters is often different for them: lesbian women are far more likely than other women to hear demeaning remarks in the workplace about themselves or others like them. They are also far more likely to feel like they cannot talk about their personal lives at work. These negative experiences add up. As their name suggests, microaggressions can seem small when dealt with one by one. But when repeated over time, they can have a major impact: women who experience microaggressions view their workplaces as less fair and are three times more likely to regularly think about leaving their jobs than women who don’t.

Sexual harassment

Sexual harassment continues to pervade the workplace. Thirty-five percent of women in corporate America experience sexual harassment at some point in their careers, from hearing sexist jokes to being touched in a sexual way.1 For some women the experience is far more common. Fifty-five percent of women in senior leadership, 48 percent of lesbian women, and 45 percent of women in technical fields report they’ve been sexually harassed. A common thread connects these groups: research has found that women who do not conform to traditional feminine expectations—in this case, by holding authority, not being heterosexual, and working in fields dominated by men—are more often the targets of sexual harassment. Ninety-eight percent of companies have policies that make it clear sexual harassment is not tolerated, but many employees think their companies are falling short putting policies into practice. Only 62 percent of employees say that in the past year their companies have reaffirmed sexual harassment won’t be tolerated, and a similar number say that they’ve received training or guidance on the topic. Moreover, only 60 percent of employees think a sexual-harassment claim would be fairly investigated and addressed by their company—and just one in three believe it would be addressed quickly. There are also stark differences in how women and men view their company’s efforts to create a safe and respectful work environment. Only 32 percent of women think that disrespectful behavior toward women is often quickly addressed by their companies, compared with 50 percent of men. Women are far less confident that reporting sexual harassment will lead to a fair investigation. And they are twice as likely as men to say that it would be risky or pointless to report an incident. These numbers indicate the urgent need for companies to underscore that bad behavior is unacceptable and will not go overlooked. Leaders at all levels should set the tone by publicly stating sexual harassment won’t be tolerated and by modeling inclusive behavior. HR teams should receive detailed training so they know how to thoroughly and compassionately investigate claims of harassment, even if they involve senior leaders. And companies would benefit from putting an audit process in place to ensure that investigations are thorough and sanctions are appropriate.

The "Only" experience

Being “the only one” is still a common experience for women. One in five women say they are often the only woman or one of the only women in the room at work: in other words, they are “Onlys.” This is twice as common for senior-level women and women in technical roles: around 40 percent are Onlys. Women who are Onlys are having a significantly worse experience than women who work with other women. More than 80 percent are on the receiving end of microaggressions, compared with 64 percent of women as a whole. They are more likely to have their abilities challenged, to be subjected to unprofessional and demeaning remarks, and to feel like they cannot talk about their personal lives at work (Exhibit 4). Most notably, women Onlys are almost twice as likely to have been sexually harassed at some point in their careers.

Exhibit 4

Far fewer men are Onlys—just 7 percent say that they are often the only or one of the only men in the room—and regardless of their race and ethnicity, they face less scrutiny than women Onlys. By and large, white men who are Onlys have a better experience than any other group of Onlys, likely because they are broadly well represented in their company and are a high-status group in society. Women Onlys have a more difficult time. Because there are so few, women Onlys stand out in a crowd of men. This heightened visibility can make the biases women Onlys face especially pronounced. While they are just one person, they often become a stand-in for all women—their individual successes or failures become a litmus test for what all women are capable of doing. With everyone’s eyes on them, women Onlys can be heavily scrutinized and held to higher performance standards. As a result, they most often feel pressure to perform, on guard, and left out. In contrast, when asked how it feels to be the only man in the room, men Onlys most frequently say they feel included. Being an Only also affects the way women view their workplace. Compared with other women, women Onlys are less likely to think that the best opportunities go to the most deserving employees, promotions are fair and objective, and ideas are judged by their quality rather than who raised them. Not surprisingly, given the negative experiences and feelings associated with being the odd woman out, women Onlys are also 1.5 times more likely to think about leaving their job. * * * Here is a direct link to the complete article.

Alexis Krivkovich and Irina Starikova are partners in McKinsey’s Silicon Valley office; Marie-Claude Nadeau and Kelsey Robinson are partners in the San Francisco office, where Nicole Robinson is a consultant and Lareina Yee is a senior partner.

  from personivt2c http://employeeengagement.ning.com/xn/detail/1986438:BlogPost:201808 via http://www.rssmix.com/

[rabbiandrewrosenblatt]

The Power of Resilience

Co-written with Terry S. Neiman

One of the most important social issues today is the politics of power. We see this in the so-called “me too” moment with its revelations of systemic sexism, and in the struggles of Black Lives Matter. However, we should also consider the unintended effects of reversals of power in response to those movements. In The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas are Setting Up a Generation for Failure civil liberties activist Greg Lukianoff and moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt take aim at how the way people communicate about power has become as much of a problem as the abuse of power itself.

Their work began as an article in The Atlantic and is the result of Haidt’s professional observations. His job is to protect students from abuses of power by professors, to safeguard their academic freedom. He found that students were complaining about the oppressive effects of their professors’ use of language. The main buzzwords of concern in this discourse are microaggression and trigger warnings.  

Microaggression refers to the use of everyday words and phrases that might seem harmless, but that communicate prejudice and hostility toward someone’s identity or orientation. The term was coined by Chester M. Pierce - an African American psychiatrist at Harvard in the 1970s. When a male professor directs his female teaching assistant to bring him a cup of coffee, it can be experienced as a microaggression, because it reinforces old stereotypes about women being subservient to men in the workplace. Because it is a small, everyday thing, the incident goes unchallenged. By going unchallenged, it becomes reinforced, and normalized.

Lately, microaggression has become closely linked to the notion of intersectionality. This term, coined by UCLA and Columbia law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw, refers to how systems of power intersect to reinforce and multiply biases against marginalized groups. When a light-skinned, male professor directs his dark-skinned, female teaching assistant to get him a cup of coffee, it can be experienced as a mutual reinforcement of racism and sexism.

Trigger warnings are alerts that something is about to be said or shown that might traumatize some listeners/viewers/readers. In theory, if a male bible professor were to teach the story of the rape of Dinah, it might cause some students to experience a microaggression. In this case, the mention of the word rape is held to be a trigger that could cause victims of sexual violence to become re-traumatized. Also, in theory, others could become traumatized on their behalf – a kind of victimization by proxy. The dogma of trigger warnings states that the professor should issue a disclaimer or trigger warning that today’s lesson will contain material traumatic for some readers/listeners/viewers.

Microaggression, trigger warnings, and intersectionality have become integrated in the dogma of the social justice activism in post-secondary education. This is how our future leaders are being trained. It is a dogmatic, unforgiving culture of ideological correctness. Lukianoff and Haidt cite an example at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis (IUPUI).

[IUPUI] found a white student guilty of racial harassment for reading a book titled Notre Dame vs. the Klan. The book honored student opposition to the Ku Klux Klan when it marched on Notre Dame in 1924. Nonetheless, the picture of a Klan rally on the book’s cover offended at least one of the student’s co-workers (he was a janitor as well as a student), and that was enough for a guilty finding by the university’s Affirmative Action Office.

Lukianoff and Haidt widen their focus to show that the culture of protection and coddling is happening in tandem with a sea-change in how children are being raised and how it affects their mental health.  

They cite 1995 as the watershed year. People born before 1995 show greater resilience and profoundly fewer mood disorders such as anxiety and depression than those born after 1995.  There are differences both in behaviors and in outcomes. For example, those born before 1995 tended to get their driver’s licence on their 16th birthday; those born after 1995 - dubbed Generation Z - tended to wait until they had more supervision as learners. The members of Gen Z don’t go out as much, they don’t seek jobs as much, and they tend to be socially risk-averse.

Mental health outcomes related to trigger issues for Generation Z are getting worse. They suffer from exponentially higher rates of mood disorders such as anxiety and depression, even as other mental health diagnoses – e.g., bipolar disorder and schizophrenia - remain the same. This is especially prevalent for young women, where hospitalizations for self-harm have been found to be profoundly more common since 2011.  

Haidt - who himself suffered from depression - found that the most effective therapy for mood disorders and anxiety is to not avoid risks, but to develop resilience by taking risks. Thus, removing the representation of aggressions found in nursery rhymes, or the bible, or on the cover art of Notre Dame vs. the Klan is entirely wrongheaded. It is the exact opposite of what today’s university students need.

On the whole, the intent of trigger warnings and the appeal to fight microaggression and intersectional oppression are important, and just causes. However - and this is a big however - in practice they fall short of their purported goals. One problem is that it is impossible to warn an audience that rape will be discussed, without somehow imparting to them enough specifics about what will be discussed to actually warn them.

Another problem is that the backlash by social justice empowered students against teachers is a bad kind of quid-pro-quo. It in effect causes the students to exercise the same abuses of power that they have been taught have been perpetrated against them by broad forces of patriarchy, colonialism, white privilege, and even Zionism.

A colleague who teaches on issues of gender reports being criticized by students for committing microaggressions. For example, asserting that not only those who identify as “women” can be pregnant, students critiqued her use of the phrase “pregnant women,” which she should replace with their preferred language of “pregnant people.” This is a power issue for her, in part, because those evaluations figure into her performance reviews, and the students know it.

Our colleague, a scholar and researcher, concludes that the language of social justice activism “works analytically to a degree, but it is merely a tool, not a valid theory.” In other words, the language and discourse of social justice activism – intersectionality, trigger warnings, and microaggression – has changed from insightfully descriptive tools to dangerously prescriptive dogmas. This is so prevalent and oppressive that our colleague asked not to named, fearing backlash from students, other faculty, or people who have other political axes to grind.

We think this lesson follows very closely with how Torah scholarship understands the language and politics of power. Consider how Rav Yaakov Medan reads the Joseph story. He notes that Joseph and his brothers begin to overtake patriarch Jacob’s leadership of the family. From the story’s outset, Jacob’s leadership - or at least perceived leadership - is waning.

For some time, Jacob's household had been pervaded with a sense that Jacob - the patriarch and head of the household - was gradually losing his leadership ability. It is unclear where this feeling began. Perhaps it was his numerous - perhaps too numerous - bowings before Esav; Jacob may have lost his authority in the eyes of his own household at that time. Faced with the atrocity of Shekhem, he remained silent until his sons returned; they spoke in his place and Shimon and Levi then went out and acted without asking his permission. Reuven, too - in his act concerning Bilha - rebelled against his father's authority, ... In the story of the sale of Joseph and the taking of Binyamin to Egypt, Yehuda leads the family while Jacob is dragged along, almost unwillingly.

Joseph, already wearing the coat of many coloured leadership, and inspired by a set of dreams that places him at the helm of the family, may be making himself ready for the executive suite of his own family. However, he is still a pup, still a נער [a lad] in the words of the Torah.  He needs to grow up, needs to be challenged by life experience. He gets those in good measure, in a series of aggressions that no one would ever wish upon their child.

There is a strong lesson in resilience and growth to be found here. There are no shortcuts to growth. One cannot bubble-wrap the hard lessons. Much of who we become and what makes us wise and robust comes through our actual encounters with risk, adversity, conflict, and challenge. This lesson takes broader significance in the promise made to Abraham that his children will merit the legacy of the Torah and the land of Israel because they will suffer in Egypt. Our suffering has proven to be essential to our growth. Gd’s way of lecturing us – tough loving, respectful – through the stories of the bible is a model for how we should teach and learn life’s lessons.

The good news is that we do not have to inflict hardships on anyone on purpose. Life brings each of us enough growth-inducing hardships naturally. The Torah teaches us two key points in this regard. First, we must be kind in all our dealings. That means that there can be no hierarchies of power or quid-pro-quos of oppression when it comes to human rights, the dignity of the individual, or social justice. Second, we must understand that a Torah approach to learning is transcendent. Today’s narrative of oppression is narrow and myopic by comparison. It is too easily co-opted from a useful analytical tool to a dogma that seeks to redistribute abusive power from one group to another. The Torah’s stories might seem dated and simple, but they are complex and timeless.