The N-Word: Just Say ‘No’

(This posting written with an apology to my friend, D*.)

My friend D* is a white guy who doesn’t understand why black people call each other “nigger” (or more likely “nigga”), but white people can’t.

Yes, this question again.

D*, I’m going to attempt really, really hard to break this down for you, because I believe you’re honestly trying to understand what this is all about, and I respect that.

So here goes.

But first, a small history lesson.

Small, because I’m no historian.

However, Liz Regosin, a professor at St. Lawrence University, is a historian. And a couple of months ago, I attended a lecture with Regosin as the speaker. The topic was “Abraham Lincoln and Emancipation.”

The lecture was excellent. I learned things I hadn’t known. Such as, prior to the Civil War, Lincoln made this statement:

“Blacks and whites should not have perfect social and political equality.”

And this statement:

“Blacks and whites are not equal in color or moral and intellectual endowment; these differences keep us from living together.”

(Hmph. I guess Frederick Douglass was just a flippin’ freak of nature.)

These statements are startling in their boldness. They are startling in their denial of the humanity of black Americans.

And they reflect a worldview, or a belief system, that formed the foundation for race relations in these here great United States.

In my humble opinion.

In FY 2012, the EEOC fielded 33,512 charges of race discrimination, 10,883 charges of national origin discrimination, and 2,662 charges of color discrimination. Considering all the billions of workers in the US, these numbers may seem insignificant. However, I assure you that if you’ve ever been the victim of race, national origin, or color discrimination (I have), the situation wasn’t insignificant to you. I’d also bet cold hard cash that every single one of my readers of color has either experienced or knows someone who has experienced some form of race discrimination in the workplace that went unreported. Cold hard cash.

And I haven’t even touched on the umpteen numbers of microinsults and microaggressions that people of color experience each and every day. Just ask Trayon Christian and Kayla Phillips, both detained for shopping while black.

I’m not mentioning this stuff for the heck of it, and I’m certainly not mentioning it to stir up trouble. The point is, there is history here, there is a way that we’ve been taught to interact and view each other, and you could literally jump up and down while pounding your chest and swearing to God until you’re blue in the face that none of this has anything to do with you, a modern day white man, and I will simply respond that you, sir, are a liar.

You are no more capable of being unaffected by the culture than anyone else. We’re all in this mess together. We’ve all been tainted. Period.

So back to the n-word.

It’s simple really. If you are white, just say no. Historically, white people have used the word to demean, denigrate, and dehumanize black Americans. That’s a fact. And like it or not, you D* are a part of that history. As am I.

Perhaps it is hypocritical. Perhaps there is a double standard. (By the way, that’s not my opinion.)

But even if I were to agree that a double standard exists, I’m still perplexed as all get out why it bothers you so damn much. Are you just pissed that someone would have the gall to tell you what you can and can’t say? I don’t get it. Maybe you can write your own article, and then I’ll gain some understanding.

In the meantime, consider this.

There are women who affectionately refer to their girlfriends as “bitches.” (Personally, I have no love for the b-word.)

Now, if a group of women friends are out having dinner, loudly laughing and teasing each other, and one playfully warns the other “Alright bitch, you’re about to cross the line,” is it okay for the server (male or female of any ethnicity) to saunter up to their table, pen and pad in hand wanting to know, “Which one of you bitches is ready to order first?”

Exactly.

Context is everything. Relationship is everything. History as powerful as ours can never be made invalid.

Please D*, just say no.

Prostitutes Can’t Be Raped and Other Myths of a Rape Culture

The other day my son Adam, who's away at college, sent me this text message:

“Nothing worse than watching a film in class about poverty and obesity and a profile of West Philly comes up.” 

Philly. It’s a great town, but we’ve got our problems for sure.

Like judges who believe that prostitutes can't be raped.

The case in question was decided in 2007, but now that Municipal Court Judge Teresa Carr Deni is up for reelection, it's being talked about again.

The case involved a prostitute who met a man on Craigslist and then agreed to have sex with him for $150. The man asked if a friend could join in for another $100, and the woman said yes. However, when she met with the men, they pulled out a gun and demanded she have sex with them for free.

In Judge Deni’s mind, that’s “theft of services,” not rape. In my mind, Judge Deni couldn't be more wrong. The woman consented to have sex for money. She did not consent to have sex for free. And no consent equals rape.

For the record, I don’t approve of prostitution, and I don’t dismiss the danger inherent in the profession. But that’s beside the point. Deni’s decision was nuts.

Unfortunately, Deni’s attitude is not unique to her.

This past summer, a law professor from Tsinghua University wrote on his blog that "raping prostitutes is less harmful than raping ordinary women," a comment so blatantly ridiculous I can’t believe a man of intelligence could even think it, let alone write it.

In 2009, a lawyer in West Virginia defending a man accused of raping between 15 and 20 prostitutes after threatening them with a knife called the victims “tramps” and “whores” while stating that “[y]ou cannot rape the willing.”

Let’s try it again. Prostitutes present themselves as willing for a price. That’s the deal. Anything less is a problem. And threatening someone with a knife or a gun to do anything is definitely a problem.

I don’t care if all you want from me is that I repeat “She sells seashells by the seashore” three times. If you put a gun to my head so that I’ll say it, that’s a crime. And if you pull a gun on me so you can violate my person, that’s definitely a crime. At least it ought to be. Is this really that difficult?

The idea that there could exist a rape culture in the United States, that is, a culture in which rape is systematically normalized and excused, sounds like a radical invention of rabid feminists until you read some of the above, and then it just sounds like the truth.

Consider, for example, the increasing reports of rapes in the military. The news is full of testimonies from enlisted (or formerly enlisted) women who were raped by their fellow soldiers only to get mocked or ignored after coming forth about the crime. 

And a CNN story published last year revealed an even more disturbing pattern—female enlistees being discharged with a psychiatric diagnosis (one victim called hers a “ludicrous diagnosis”) after reporting a sexual assault—and no one investigating the allegations, of course.

Stephanie Schroeder, who was interviewed for the story, claimed that after she reported her rape to a non-commissioned officer he told her “Don't come bitching to me because you had sex and changed your mind.”

Well.

Just a few days ago, in one of the professional women’s groups I’ve joined on LinkedIn, one poster asked whether gender discrimination is over-emphasized, and if so, whether other “isms” deserve more attention.

Once the responses started, it was just a matter of hours before the boot strappers (as in “Women, pull yourselves up from your boot straps and stop whining!”) chimed in, claiming that gender discrimination is only as real as you make it, and if you’re well-spoken, can take things in stride, and have a good work ethic, you should sail through life just fine, discrimination be damned.

These responses make me want to scream.

Wallowing in self-pity and endless rounds of “woe is me,” won’t solve any problems, but suggesting that we women can avoid gender discrimination by improving our diction is insanity. It’s “blame the victim” at its finest, and it’s maddening. And if you think that gender discrimination and a rape culture aren't connected, well, I simply beg to differ with you.

In Ten Things to End Rape Culture, the author suggests that changing the way society thinks about rape can happen if we all get media literate, globalize our awareness of rape culture, practice real politics, and lobby our communities, among other things.

As for me, not only have I done a one-eighty and will from now on proudly declare myself a feminist, I might actually start picketing in the streets.

Will you join me?

Shopping While Black, Obama’s Dad, and the Death of HR as We Know It

A couple of weeks ago, Laurie Ruettimann of The Cynical Girl wrote an article in which she warned HR that we’re on the way to complete automation, and one of the reasons she gives is the profession has too many white guys in positions of power. 

I declined to comment, believing that my “Damn straight!” wouldn’t have added a whole lot to the conversation. But then a reader wrote this:

“I think the reverse is the problem in terms of race and gender. Too many HR departments think they aren't diverse enough if they hire white males, so they think they HAVE to hire a woman and or [sic] minority because they are in HR.

First of all, there are other types of diversity than race and gender. For instance, how about diversity of experience? How about age, part of the country you grew up in, majors in college, etc.? ...
 
Secondly, when you focus on hiring for race or gender, you don't necessarily get the most qualified employee. Affirmitive [sic] Action is great if you want to increase the chances of hiring an underqualified candidate.”
 
So I responded, and the reader replied:  

“How are you so sure that my theory is not supported by the facts? Do you have a study you can share, because I can tell you my experience is that at any HR networking event I attend in the DFW area, women outnumber men at least 80% to 20%, more than once I've been the only white male in the room.
 
And while the premise of AA is supposed to be all things being equal, I can tell you that in practice, it is very often the primary goal, especially when filling positions in HR.
 
I would argue that women or people have to be overqualified, that is no longer the case, because in 2013, we're living in a country that has elected and re-elected an African-American President. Actually, he's half black and half-white, but rarely seems to discuss the white portion of his heritage. Any objective person has to acknowledge that he has the weakest resume of any President elected in modern history. You would think if the deck is still so stacked against people of color, that Barack Obama would emphasize the fact that he is actually mixed race now and then, especially since his mother is the parent that didn't abandon him.
 
Finally, try having a white child get into an elite university or earn a scholarship if their GPA, test scores, extracurricular and leadership experiences in high school aren't FAR superior to minority candidates they are up against.”  

And I just gave up, because this man is so far gone (Seriously? Taking a dig at President Obama and his father?), I don’t have the time or energy. If he wants to believe the world is flat, then okay.  

But I know different.  

And so do Trayon Christian and Kayla Phillips, both detained in separate incidents by Barney's department store for having the temerity to purchase expensive items while black. Each has filed a lawsuit against the upscale retailer.

And I also know that every time I write something on this blog about racial profiling or discrimination, I’m going to turn off some prospective client who can’t handle the fact that I’m drawing attention to my blackness.  

Because being black, and all the shit that goes along with it, is something I’m supposed to ignore.  

Blogger Matthew Simmermon-Gomes put it this way:  

“The way I dress in an academic setting, the way I speak and write, the extra-curricular activities I put on my resume as a teenager, [are] all carefully considered to avoid any shred of ‘blackness.’ Why? Because blacks with the gall to be black, to act and speak as you have deemed ‘black,’ are rarely deemed worthy of your respect. In this world you have created for me my blackness is a handicap I must not acknowledge, a loadstone around my neck that I dare not draw attention to because then I will be the ‘activist;’ the ‘angry black guy’ who doesn’t know that MLK fixed the system, reshuffled the deck so now that everyone gets the same hand but who still needs to be Snoop Dog; or worse yet I will simply be criminal and suspect, a potential gangbanger who might be carrying so we better stop him just in case. So I must perform if I am to get ahead or even to get by. And perform I will, because I want nice clothes and good jobs and to walk down the street unhindered by the authorities. I will do so to please you and you will think it right.”

There is so much wrong with this picture.  

And I understand that certain white people are tired of hearing about racism. I get it. They’ve got their own problems and believe no one is looking out for them.  

But none of that changes the reality for people like Trayon Christian and Kayla Phillips or even Oprah, for crying out loud.
 
And when Bill O’Reilly says that Oprah maybe shouldn’t have made such a big deal about that Swiss shopkeeper—because after all, Oprah can hop on a plane and go anywhere in the world to buy a handbag—it’s appalling how badly he’s missed the point. No, she can’t, Bill. She actually tried, and it didn’t work. See? No handbag.  

So I agree with Simmermon-Gomes that I don’t know what’s worse—racism, or the constant, tiresome denial that it exists.  

But regardless, there’s only so much diminishing of self I’m prepared to do for someone else’s comfort. As we used to say back in the day, “Bunk that.”  

Which is why I appreciate writers and observers and thinkers like Ruettimann and Simmermon-Gomes and "Wicked Woman" Tamara Adrine-Davis, because they remind me I’m not crazy, and while I’m fairly certain I’m not crazy, it’s good to have proof every now and again.  

Proof that the world is not flat.

Condé Nast Makes an Announcement, and Another Unpaid Internship Program Bites the Dust

Earlier this week, The Wall Street Journal reported that publisher Condé Nast will be eliminating its internship program.
 
Condé Nast is being sued by two former interns who claim the publisher violated wage and hour law when it failed to pay the interns less than minimum wage. The interns are hoping the suit will qualify for class action status.  

Reading the press coverage and reader comments, it quickly becomes apparent that there are three kinds of people in this world:

• Those who believe government has no business regulating commerce for any reason whatsoever
• Those who’ve personally benefited from unpaid internships and look back on their experiences with fondness, while (sometimes) wondering out loud how any intern could be so ungrateful as to want money in exchange for such a great gig
• Those who view unpaid internships as exploitation

Well, I’m definitely closer to those last folks than not. As I’ve written in the past, I’m not down with free labor, unless it’s given to benefit a charitable endeavor.  

“Hours paid for hours worked,” that’s the FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) mantra. Everything else is an exemption. And to qualify for that exemption, employers need to meet certain standards. Fox Searchlight failed to meet that standard, and it looks like Condé Nast also may have failed.  

And yet, many in the public are mad at the interns, calling them “entitled,” and “greedy,” and “unwilling to pay their dues,” and all that junk. But it seems to me that any employer who wants labor in exchange for air is the party with the entitlement problem.  

Then there are those who characterize the interns as lawyer pawns.  

Hell yeah, if you’re an unpaid/underpaid intern, suing your sponsor/employer has become downright fashionable. 

Since the aforementioned Fox Searchlight case, Warner Music Group, Atlantic Recording, Gawker Media, Fox Entertainment Group, NBC Universal, Viacom, Sony, Universal Music Group, Bad Boy Entertainment, and Donna Karan have all been sued.  

But I’ll say it again. If these internship programs were providing the training the law required, these plaintiff/interns wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.  

I don’t get it.  

Just because an employment practice has become common doesn’t mean it’s right. These employers had their fun, now it’s time to pony up.

Pay for your labor. Invest in training for entry-level staff. Get your own damn coffee.  

I can’t agree with those who say that working at these companies is a huge privilege that many would gladly pay to receive.  

Instead, I’m convinced that many students accept unpaid internships because they’re advised by people in power they must, or they won’t get ahead.  

So let’s see. To get a “good” job, first these kids are told they have to get a college degree (the cost of which has increased more than a 1000% in the last 30 years). Then they’re told they must work for free to gain “experience.”
 
Come on. When will it end? With the cost of living skyrocketing as it has, I don’t think this generation (or their parents) can bear it much longer. And, when it comes to many of these unpaid internships, it’s immoral and illegal.  

You can disagree with the law, I suppose, and hope that it changes one day. But in the meantime, I support the interns. By challenging these companies, they’re taking a huge risk, even if they are lawyered up.

McDonald’s Worker Tells CEO She Can’t Feed Her Kids

I consider myself something of a bleeding heart. I like to root for the underdog, and I’m sensitive to those who might be having a harder time of things than some others. Truly.

But I’ve been struggling for the past few days about a story reported on AOL Jobs: Fast Food Worker To McDonald's CEO: I Can't Feed My Kids.

Nancy Salgado, a McDonald’s employee of 10 years, publicly confronted McDonald CEO Jeff Stratton while he was giving a keynote speech at the Union League Club of Chicago.

Salgado told Stratton, “I'm a single mother of two. It's really hard for me to feed my two kids and struggle day to day. Do you think this is fair that I have to be making $8.25 when I've been working at McDonald's for 10 years?”

And I’ve been stuck on the word “fair” ever since. How does one answer that question? How does a CEO decide what portion of profits he’s obligated to share with his workers? And considering that Illinois is an at-will state, and no one is forcing Salgado to work at McDonald’s for $8.25 per hour, is her question about fairness, “fair?” I’m not so sure.

When questioned by theRealnews.com, Salgado offered $15.00 an hour as a fair wage for what she does.

Now, that number has been thrown around quite a bit lately by those who advocate for a living wage versus a minimum wage, so I find it kind of suspicious that Salgado quoted it, because it seems to me that Salgado has no idea what her skills should be worth. Instead, she’s regurgitating a number she’s heard. And I think that before a worker starts asking for a raise, she ought to have some idea what her skills are actually worth in the marketplace.

Later in that same interview with theRealnews.com, Salgado said there are times she can’t buy milk for her kids. Well, then I really got upset. Remember, Salgado has been at McDonald’s for 10 years.

Listen sister. If ever you’re in a position where you can’t buy milk for your kids, then I think it’s safe to say your current work situation sucks, and it’s time to pursue a new one. I know the economy is weak, but still.

This is going to sound harsh, and I’m sorry. But if you’ve been with the same company for a decade and haven’t yet learned enough to qualify for a new job that pays you what's needed to consistently put milk on the table, then you’re a damn fool. Why haven’t you moved on yet?

And the answer can’t be, well, I like it here. I don’t want to leave, so management should pay me more. No. Management isn’t obligated to pay you more than your skills are worth because you won’t explore other career options.

The other day we went out for dinner, and Thomas, my 9-year-old, didn’t like his meal so he didn’t eat it. Irritating, but I don’t believe in shoving food down kids’ throats, so okay.

On the way home, I decide I want an ice-cream cone, and since we’re approaching McDonalds we stop there. Thomas asks, “Can I have a chicken sandwich?” Fine, Thomas.

My husband orders the sandwich, and it’s $1.00.

I understand volume sales and all that jazz, but $1.00? What kind of chicken sandwich costs $1.00? I’d be scared to eat it. 

So my husband and I go back and forth whether Thomas should eat it. I stick by my position—no way is actual chicken in this thing. Ed says, “Nah, McDonald’s sells a gazillion, that’s how they can charge so little.”  

I give in and Thomas eats the sandwich. (Okay fine—Thomas had already starting eating the sandwich while Ed and I were talking.)  

And Thomas loves it. The next day he wants another. I tell him, “Heck no, kid. You’re not getting another one of those ever.” It’s a fact. A $1.00 chicken sandwich should taste like poop. A $1.00 chicken sandwich that actually tastes good has got to have something in it that can kill you.  

But here’s my point. I’d gladly pay more than $1.00 for a sandwich so that someone else could have a better living.  

And I’d definitely pay more than $1.00 for somebody to get access to an educational or training program that would qualify her for a job that allows her to buy a gallon of milk for her children. Or a career counseling program that would open a world of possibilities to someone with enough hutzpah to confront her company’s CEO in public.  

By the way, I’m not saying I’m opposed to raising the minimum wage, per se.  

But at some point we have to help ourselves so that others can help us. And by help, I don’t mean asking questions like “is it fair that I have to be making …” as though you’re an indentured servant or something.

If I’m being a meanie, somebody, please let me know. But this I just don’t get. Ten years. No, something’s not right.

Not the Worst by a Long Shot

I think it’s safe to say that most folks have had about enough of this government shutdown as well as the tug of war around the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

As this thing drags on, the polls are showing that people are just disgusted. Heck, Americans claim to have a higher opinion of jury duty, hipsters, zombies, and dog poop than Congress.

From my corner of the universe, I can tell folks are getting antsy because I’m getting more pushback on my piece about Why the ACA Isn't As Unpopular As Some Would Like.

Hey, I’m just trying to give you some insight, here, thinking maybe it’ll help. If you don’t want insight, I get it. But that’s my way. I seek to understand and to be understood.

And in that spirit, here’s something that occurred to me when one reader expressed his incredulity that anyone could support such a bad, bad law as the ACA.

Now, this is going to sound a little odd to some folks. It’s going to sound a little ridiculous. A little irrational. Maybe even downright stupid.

But I’d be lying if I denied what I’m about to tell you, and I don’t want to do that.

So here goes.

For me, as a person of African descent living in these here United States (a country I love, by the way), I can’t help feeling a little incredulous myself when someone wants to preach to me about a bad law.

Because it brings to mind all the other bad laws that were created for no other reason than to:

Keep me illiterate
Keep me ignorant
Keep me “in my place”
Keep me invisible
Keep me away
Keep me from exercising my right to vote
Keep me enslaved
 
And I think, “Hmmm… as bad laws go, Obamacare doesn’t sound that bad.”

I’m not saying two wrongs make a right. I’m not saying it’s completely logical. I’m saying it is what it is. And if you find yourself dumfounded about what is, well, consider the history of what was.

Like I said, you may not “get it.”

And yes, the ACA is deeply flawed, I’ll give you that.

But I believe (and go ahead and call me a fool if you wish), that the intent of the law is good—to provide health coverage for those who have none. To provide something for someone who has nothing. Something we all want that recognizes the intrinsic worth of each of us. Basic flippin’ healthcare. To quote a friend “Is it so terrible to propose that if we all give a little we can give something to someone who has nothing?”

I don’t think it’s terrible. I think it’s what civil societies do. I think it’s what communities do.

And this is not purely a charitable endeavor. We know that the cost of care for uninsured individuals affects the entire healthcare industry.

I’m not happy about the current state of affairs, you can believe that. And at this point, I want it resolved as much as the next person.

But I can’t get on board with those who want to rant and rave about how terrible Obamacare is—that it’s the worst piece of legislation ever.

Pulease.