Social Justice

[Zeusthecat]

And somehow, even after they found no evidence of any wrongdoing whatsoever, he still remained suspended from school. That is the strangest part of all of it. Even though he did nothing wrong the school is basically like "Well fuck you anyways, you're still suspended, neener neener!".

[rohlfinator]

In high school a friend and I (both white) hid a 2-way radio in the school library to prank a friend. A librarian found it and thought it was a bomb (this was not too long after the 2004 Madrid train bombings that were suspected to have been detonated via cell phone).

 

We had to go see the principal for like, ten minutes, with no other discipline. I don't think they even talked to our parents.

[Reyturner]

https://theintercept.com/2015/09/18/prominent-anti-muslim-group-says-ahmed-mohameds-clock-resembles-ied-trigger-produced-iranians/

The center’s fringe rhetoric has not prevented it from becoming deeply entwined with the conservative establishment. It routinely hosts prominent Republican politicians for events. Earlier this month, the group co-sponsored a rally in Washington, D.C., against the nuclear accord with Iran where Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., Donald Trump, and several House Republican lawmakers appeared as speakers. Over the last year, Cruz, Trump, Bobby Jindal, Georga Pataki, John Bolton, and Rick Santorum have appeared at presidential forums hosted by the Center.

This is main stream America here. This isn't fringe. Serious people with jobs and keys are thinking and saying these things out loud.

[clyde]

It's frustrating to me that Obama looks like a saint for inviting 14 year-old Ahmed Mohamed to the White-House in domestic politics, but isn't held accountable whatsoever for killing a 16 year-old American citizen in Yemen (Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki) just because of who his father was.

 

[Merus]

I keep confusing George Pataki with George Takei and I do a double-take every single time.

[Bjorn]

Interesting article on the historic and modern elements of being trans in Native American culture. 

[clyde]

Here's another essay on cultural appropriation. The analogy between restrictive copyright and the (apparent) immediate goals of those who are concerned about a (seemingly) wide threshold of cultural appropriations is along my line of thinking.

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/art-design/2015/10/defence-cultural-appropriation

[Ninety-Three]

Here's another essay on cultural appropriation. The analogy between restrictive copyright and the (apparent) immediate goals of those who are concerned about a (seemingly) wide threshold of cultural appropriations is along my line of thinking.

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/art-design/2015/10/defence-cultural-appropriation

 

Attempting to frame cultural appropriation as some kind of copyright-esque "we own that" affair never sat well with me. I have many issues, most of which the article touches on, but as an extension of the "cultural purity" thing the article highlights, doesn't the copyright approach tell us that black people shouldn't appropriate blue jeans from white culture? I've never seen anyone discussing cultural appropriation suggest that it's even possible to appropriate from white culture.

 

To argue that appropriation is about ownership, one must acknowledge that white people made a lot of stuff, and either accept that ("No blue jeans for black people"), or create a "white people exemption" that denies them the same ownership that would be granted to others ("White people can't own things"). Both of those seem terribly flawed to me.

[Gormongous]

Attempting to frame cultural appropriation as some kind of copyright-esque "we own that" affair never sat well with me. I have many issues, most of which the article touches on, but as an extension of the "cultural purity" thing the article highlights, doesn't the copyright approach tell us that black people shouldn't appropriate blue jeans from white culture? I've never seen anyone discussing cultural appropriation suggest that it's even possible to appropriate from white culture.

 

To argue that appropriation is about ownership, one must acknowledge that white people made a lot of stuff, and either accept that ("No blue jeans for black people"), or create a "white people exemption" that denies them the same ownership that would be granted to others ("White people can't own things"). Both of those seem terribly flawed to me.

 

It appears that you've confused things that were invented, created, or popularized by members of a certain culture with things that are meaningful or important to members of a certain culture. Surely you can see the difference between ritualized or historicized garb like a kimono or a headdress with functional garb like blue jeans, especially since the appropriation and popularization of the former destroy the specificity and uniqueness for that culture in a way that it would be impossible with the latter because it's already popularized by being a product of the dominant culture.

 

Also, definitions of cultural appropriation don't really need to be reversible to be valid. The context of white patriarchal culture makes that as sensical as reverse racism or reverse sexism.

[Ninety-Three]

It appears that you've confused things that were invented, created, or popularized by members of a certain culture with things that are meaningful or important to members of a certain culture.

 

Blue jeans may be a poor example, but there are plenty of things with meaning or importance to white people. Are items of significance to white people supposed to be off-limits to black people? I also feel that your definition is a shifting of the traditional goalposts of cultural appropriation: are you saying that rap doesn't "belong" to black people and that white people are free to use it? After all, it was simply invented and popularized by black people.

 

 

Also, definitions of cultural appropriation don't really need to be reversible to be valid.

 

I could not disagree more. Do you really not see the problem with a system that says "This [cultural appropriation] is bad when you do it to one race [black people] but not bad when you do it to another race [white people]"?

[Merus]

I quite like that article, because it crystallised some thoughts I'd had about the interaction between cultural appropriation and racism.

 

It appears that you've confused things that were invented, created, or popularized by members of a certain culture with things that are meaningful or important to members of a certain culture.

 

It's definitely not just him - there was an incident in the UK recently of a Mexican restaurant being prevented from handing out sombreros as a marketing stunt, calling it cultural appropriation. Pretty sure sombreros mostly just keep the sun off.

 

I could not disagree more. Do you really not see the problem with a system that says "This [cultural appropriation] is bad when you do it to one race [black people] but not bad when you do it to another race [white people]"?

 

The flaw in this argument is obvious when we make it about something real:

 

I could not disagree more. Do you really not see the problem with a system that says "This [discrimination] is bad when you do it to one race [black people] but not bad when you do it to another race [white people]"?

 

Which is an argument that reverse racism exists, essentially, and I'm hoping that I don't have to explain why that's bullshit.

[itsamoose]

I think what Ninety-Three is talking about is that arguments for cultural appropriation at a certain point start to sound like arguments for racial purity. I don't think anyone is arguing the validity of religious or similar imagery being appropriated, it's more when things typically associated with one group being something only that group can have.

[ewokskick]

I think what Ninety-Three is talking about is that arguments for cultural appropriation at a certain point start to sound like arguments for racial purity. I don't think anyone is arguing the validity of religious or similar imagery being appropriated, it's more when things typically associated with one group being something only that group can have.

 

I think that misunderstands the argument of cultural appropriation.  Usually it is about protecting a marginalized group against the dominant culture.  So, it's actually more about protecting diversity by keeping certain traditional practices or art away from the hegemonic culture.

 

That's why the analogy about blue jeans about is pretty obtuse.  In western society, other cultures can't appropriate white culture because they have it forced upon them.  In the U.S. in general, people of color have lessened capacities to change the dominant culture.  Through cultural appropriation though, traditional tribal gear can become a Halloween costume or hip-hop can become about how much someone likes drinking at college.  Cultural appropriation is a problem because it doesn't respect the history or context from which something developed and as result removes the influence of a marginalized group from its own culture.  This doesn't really occur in the other direction.

[Mawd]

Wouldn't perhaps the reason (or just partly) why Martial arts 'dojos' invest so heavily into imparting the ideals of the culture surrounding their chosen athletic style is to stave off appropriation? Idk I just feel like part of the reason why teacher's feel it's important to teach the context of the martial art along with the form is to insure that the art is being treated respectfully in lieu of direct appropriation. Which could be a much better example of what appropriation would be without talking about wearing jeans and what colours they are.

--

Even if it's not done with appropriation at the forefront of the Sifu's mind I feel like it still indirectly adds weight to the ideas of what appropriation is and isn't.

Or let's go back to the topic of Maori which I brought up a few months ago.

Say I wanted to get some swirling face tattoos in a design that echoed traditional Maori (done partly to represent status) it'd be disrespectful to simply take the designs removed from the context. Why I could end up with a design of tattoo that completely copies a legendary chieftain who got those tattoos to reflect his mana (respect/standing/status); many would view my action as being one that undervalued his mana as it would be highly unlikely that I had done deeds that reflected the awesomeness those designs signified.

Or we could look at traditional Samoan customs. I have a friend who at some point in his life must have a tattoo on his abdomen because he descends from a chief of Samoa. It's part of his living culture which he respects and views as an action he takes not just for himself but those who came before and will come after. If I came along and got the same tattoo it'd be seen as an insult/joke seeing as I'm paying no mind to the context that the cultural artefact came from.

Anyway I see a lot of this stuff as highly intuitive/subjective and both of which aren't everyone's bag.

Idk, for all the rationalisations you can make if you show up to a Maori community with a Moku or a Samoan one with a chieftan's tattoo without any respect for what it means to the culture or why it's special, I guarantee you'll have a bad time in those communities.

I think essentially appropriation comes down to ignoring the context that a certain cultural artefact exists in and simply adopting it to 'have it'.

[Bjorn]

'Homeland is racist': Artists hide subversive graffiti in hit TV show

[Ninety-Three]

When people talk about the male gaze, they sometimes specify "straight male gaze". Is this a specific term with its own distinct meaning, or is it simply an attempt to be more inclusive? It seems like some rather half-assed inclusivity to go out of your way to acknowledge homosexuality, but only in one gender (shouldn't it be "straight male and lesbian female gaze"?), nevermind the failure to acknowledge bisexuality.

[Mawd]

If they're going to be specific about a visual shorthand they may as well define what they're referring to? Couldn't it be equally misleading to assume that the kind of fan service tropes used to entice straight men are the same ones that excite lesbians? Would bisexuals also be murky to include in a definition with the assumption or distinction that both the male and female bisexuals respond to those visual cues in the same way?

Does any of this overcomplicate the natural flow of a conversation?

I don't have any articles on hand but there is some research into how different sexes/sexualities perceive things like porn and despite groups having a preferred sex in common they often get different things out of them.

Think the difference between exploitative lesbian porn done for a straight audience (which is in way more abundance) vs lesbian porn for a female audience.

Or how some people who aren't gay end up watching gay porn because it's easier to find people who aren't faking the emotions they're feeling which ends up being more erotic than the actions and genders of the people themselves to some people.

There's other ways to define and call out the problems many people could have with the stereotypical 'male gaze' thing that people of other sexualities/backgrounds might not like/might be more sensitive to than the average straight male audience member but I'm not going to get stuck in much farther than this.

Maybe it is wrong/due to gendered bias that people indirectly refer to homosexuals over similarly inclined lesbians by earmarking straight males. But they're also specifying the primary audience and usual creators of the content. It's mostly men that defined and formed the traditions of it which could be important to distinguish.

Edit: Ewokskick said it way better.

[ewokskick]

When people talk about the male gaze, they sometimes specify "straight male gaze". Is this a specific term with its own distinct meaning, or is it simply an attempt to be more inclusive? It seems like some rather half-assed inclusivity to go out of your way to acknowledge homosexuality, but only in one gender (shouldn't it be "straight male and lesbian female gaze"?), nevermind the failure to acknowledge bisexuality.

 

I think it's intentionally exclusive of lesbian females because beauty standards for women are dominated by straight men.  I think the reason you specify straight male is to discuss the hegemonic male gaze in a way that doesn't erase the existence of non-straight men.

[Apple Cider]

The phenomenon male gaze was specifically meant to talk about straight men's objectification of women but I think the term could use the specificity. I would REALLY like to not pretend that this is a term that is just about a sexualized viewership and not about the power dynamics of looking. Lesbians and queer women do not look at women the same way straight men do. As a bisexual woman, I feel incredibly alienated by things that are meant specifically to appeal to how straight men look at women, as also a woman who is potentially looked at by men. 

[jccalhoun]

Several years ago I was teaching a college class and we went over Mulvey and the male gaze. The next class I mentioned "male gaze" a few times and then a student who apparently had been absent the previous class raised her hand and asked, "What about the female gays?"

[Merus]

So I started work at a university that claims that social justice is a core pillar of the university community. During the new starter's welcome the other day, I thought I'd ask the Vice-Chancellor (who insisted people should feel comfortable approaching him) about the response of UC Berkeley to claims that a prominent astrophysicist had a long history of sexual harassment, and how the university would handle that situation. He was alarmed, particularly at the response of the chairman of the department who asked faculty members to rally around the astrophysicist, and he ended up calling me over after his presentation to discuss it further with HR. It was an interesting conversation. I got the sense that they've had to handle smaller-scale incidents like this, and that sexual harassment is an ethical breach at this institution and so would result in the researcher being pushed out, in much the same way as if they'd falsified data.

 

But I'm wondering: it seems like most of the fight is to get universities to admit that they have a duty of care. I'm less clear on what happens when that fight is won. What sort of things should a university have in place if they're in the position my employers are in, where they consider it a core commitment and are (presumably) open to changing policies where necessary to better embody social justice? What sort of things should they be measuring, what could they implement to demonstrate that they're doing more than the minimum?

[clyde]

I've seen stories of things like schools of architecture having classes that involve going into local communities (with an emphasis on trying to do the most for the those in most need) and actually building public-works and or private-housing based on input from their clients.

That type of thing could be applied by any school in a university.

[clyde]

What do y'all think about this stuff? This article is all I have read about this instance where a fan-artist has been bullied with accusations of oppressive depictions.

http://www.dailydot.com/geek/steven-universe-fanartist-bullied-controversy/

I could see something similar happening just from large quantities of people having thoughtful criticism about a piece of art though. Thougful criticism will always be compressed into an us-versus-them summary; at the same time I want people who aren't impossibly confident to be willing to put their art out there. Anonymity doesn't seem like an option that can be relied on anymore. That would just turn a couple of these instances into an ARG.

[tberton]

From what I've heard about that incident, it seems like it was initiated by a group of people who have been harassing this artist for quite some time, claiming to be part of whichever fandom she's currently drawing fanart from. So it seems more like using trumped-up charges of offense as a smokescreen for abuse, which then got picked up by others who didn't look into the issue carefully, rather than a case of "social justice gone awry."

 

I think the Ian Jones-Quartey quote is perfect. "Bullying is not criticism." That's the essential point here. It should be shouted from the rooftops, put on billboards and played in front of every YouTube video.

[Markson]

Does it seem to anyone else like a lot of this is happening to younger folks? During a time when people are first forming their identities, when they're confused about who they are and what's right and wrong, telling someone "You're bad, what you do is bad, and you need to feel bad," is a really powerful punch to the face. In any context. Is it always deserved?

 

To me this does sound like a "community policing gone wrong" situation. But I don't know how I would fix it or if anything could have been done differently. This artist made an FAQ to answer her critics, so she was clearly listening and trying to change - but she still had abuse heaped on her. Some people don't know how to make a friendly call-out or a constructive critique.

 

I also think that the "Bullying is not criticism" is a good quote. I guess more people should ask themselves, "Am I being a bully or am I trying to be helpful right now?"