Month: November 2019

Disability justice is centered on the inclusion of those most impacted by systems of oppression and their intersectionality among other marginalized groups they identify. As with many other movements, the beginnings of disability rights was centric on white, heterosexual, males that had a disability to the exclusion of other people. “Disability justice recognizes the intersecting legacies of white supremacy, colonial capitalism, gendered oppression and ableism in understanding how people’s’ bodies and minds are labelled ‘deviant’, ‘unproductive’, ‘disposable’ and/or ‘invalid’” (https://www.letserasethestigma.com/disability-justice). It is important to incorporate disability justice into accessibility laws in order to combat the erroneous equation of legal opportunities to actual access to equal opportunities. This requires societal awareness that challenges discrimination, implicit bias, and marginalization of those society deems as “other”. For too long, intersectional disabled people have been subjugated to other marginalized groups while their disability was simply a nomenclature within that group (Bryan, pg 465).

The 1960’s ushered in a series of social justice movements across the U.S. Diversity across all groups contributed to this monumental task yet many of these movements ultimately became centered around white males. The uprising brought awareness of the marginalization of segments of society to the average American and enabled the pathway to a legal equality for some of these segments. For the disabled community this meant that they would be recognized as having the right to access, education and more, but it would be focused on their physical limitations as compared to a society and infrastructure that is centered around abled bodied people. The medical model of disability is an important part of the equation to equality that gives discriminated people a legal outlet to enforce laws but it frames disability as a function that they need to be fixed. The medical model has imitations by the way it shapes the conversation of impairment around the concept of disability as barriers because of the impairment (Barnard Center, 2017). An alternative approach is to flip the conversation and highlight the disability within society while amplifying the abilities of those with impairments.

It is important to move the responsibility of overcoming barriers from the individual with impairments to society and ultimately dismantle the “attitudes and physical barriers imposed on them by society that prevents them from achieving their potential” (Shape Arts, 2017). The way that society treats ablism is similar to how we do gender, as a social construct. Our current social construct is to marginalize people with impairment and subsequently minimize or erase their stories. The social model of disability will amplify their voices and their abilities.

Sources

Barnard Center for Research on Women, My Body Doesn’t, Oppress Me, Society Does, May 9, 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r0MiGWQY2g

https://www.letserasethestigma.com/disability-justice

Shape Arts, Social Model of Disability, November 28, 2017 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24KE__OCKMw)

The weekend approaches and naturally presents as a good time to take a look at the new movie releases. I scan the movie listings and notice that it is on par with most weekends. I can choose between the white guys that overcome wealthy car manufacturer, or the three women that fight crime where they show diversity but never tackle it, or the crazy white guy that torments a community, or the slap stick funny white guy with the black side kick. Not a lot of diversity or uniqueness. But this weekend a movie stands out because it is not only highlighting the strength of a black women but it is even directed by a black woman. I look at the reviews of Harriet and find that most of them find fault with either the casting of a Nigerian woman in the lead, or claim that the movie falls short significantly in part due to the “white savior” in the story. But is this truly how the movie represents or is this a misrepresentation by the media?

A movie that I was excited to watch became less enticing as I read review after review about the faults in the screenplay and casting of Harriet. As a feminist, I didn’t want to support a film that either misrepresented black women or perpetuated the white savior nonsense. Time and again we see black women represented as hyper sexual, physical, uneducated and out of control. Rarely do we get to see a film that portrays black women as a source of strength, intellect and serious perseverance. But then I came across a review from Ms. Magazine that was essentially a 180 degree difference from what I read in the mainstream. How could this be the case? Perhaps it has to do with the divisive culture in our current political climate that continues to magnify the white nationalist platform. As it turns out, the studio releasing the film is owned by Comcast and is “in partnership with the Trump administration to chip away at civil rights protections” (Hobson). This disparity in viewpoints highlights the power of media bias and the perpetuating of colonialism mentality. This power and influence is so strong that even a chapter of the NAACP canceled a viewing of the movie.

In the release of this one single movie we witness the power of the media to perpetuate colonialism by devaluing a black women that is historically significant, attempt to erase her story, and they cloak their racism around false accusations against the movie, the director and actors, while using their platform to manipulate audience attendance to ensure a failure at the box office. It is still a rarity to have true representation in entertainment but when it is achieved the results are typically on point. Harriet appears to be authentic and persuasive which presents as a threat to the images portrayed and valued by those in power. A move to not only continue the misrepresentation of black women but to also harness and deter future interest in black centric movies, the media giants opted to take this film out at the knees to maintain order in their colonized society.

Sources:

Hobson, Janell. “Who’s Afraid of Harriet Tubman?”, Ms. Magazine, November 5, 2019

Segments of our society assume that our culture embraced a post-racial community after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This monumental legislation marked the legal end to segregation and discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion or national origin. While overt discrimination became illegal as a result of this Act, it also ushered in a new type of racism that proved to be a pervasive and subtle type of discrimination took the lead and “enabled systems of oppression and disenfranchisement to remain intact while making public acknowledgement of race and prejudice a social taboo” (Noble, pg 244). This new style of discrimination and racism came in the form of linguistics codes with a “nod here, a wink there, and a subtle change in intonation all mark opinions and thoughts on race” (Joesy, 2010). Jump forward to the advent of the internet and the perception that it provided a “color-free” community and we soon see a new dynamic unfold that negatively impacts marginalized groups with misrepresentations and stereotypes amplified in a new medium.

Much of the content on the internet is driven my users that participate on platforms such as facebook, instagram, twitter and many more. These are simply platforms that give users a space to share their thoughts and images to the world and provides the opportunity to give users a space to expand their community and reach others that lie outside of their own. These platforms can be a great source of pedagogy and can connect users across the globe. However, the monitoring of these platforms for hate speech and deleterious misrepresentations is controlled within each company and their operating procedures while being weighted against profit maximizing decisions. Many of these companies outsource the monitoring and provide guidelines to recognize harmful images or speech. Even with guidelines in place, it leaves much of the discretion to the individual that has their own implicit bias that undoubtedly plays a role in their decision making process. What is clearly a harmful meme or picture to one person, can be shrugged off as just having fun to another. This has empowered some segments to step in where the companies have shirked their responsibilities.

Marginalized groups have been reclaiming identities on the internet by using the same mechanisms used against them to “critique and speak back to the (mis)represenations in the media” (Tanksley, pg 246). Black women and girls are notoriously presented in a negative manner in the media yet they have created a dialogue online that empowers and reclaims their identities. This is a significant movement that will hopefully insulate young black girls and women against “extensive exposure to raced and gendered stereotypes, or microaggressions” which can lower their self-esteem (Noble, pg 252).

The regulation over online spaces is in constant flux. Our political landscape continues to change and our online presence is shaped by these rules and regulations that seem invisible to the user or content provider. Hate speech, racist tropes and misrepresentations are abundant in online platforms and have been on the rise with the current political atmosphere. Where racists tropes were once suppressed to a wink or a nod, there are now full blown harmful stereotypical racists images and words in online platforms with the goal of taking us back in history. “The internet doesn’t reflect reality anymore, it creates reality” (Kakutani, pg 88).

Sources

Josey, Christopher. Hate speech and identity: An analysis of neo racism and the indexing of identity. Discourse & Society, 21(1) 27–39, 2010, Champagne, USA. https://journals-sagepub-com.ezproxy.proxy.library.oregonstate.edu/doi/pdf/10.1177/0957926509345071

Kakutani, Michiko. The Death of Truth. New York, Tim Duggan Books, 2018.

Noble, Safiya Umoja, and Brendesha M. Tynes, editors. The Intersectional Internet: Race, Sex, Class, and Culture Online. New edition edition, Peter Lang Inc., International Academic Publishers, 2016.

Gender reveal parties have been all the rage but they seem to be on the decline. With my niece expecting her second child, I was anticipating another one of these parties. This time around it was a simple announcement of “We’re having a girl!”. I kept my thoughts to myself that I was glad she chose a low-key event that did a little less gendering. But what was super impressive was when my brother sincerely pointed out that while we know the sex we don’t know the gender. This comment was from an ex Southern Baptist missionary. So how did someone like himself go from a strict literal-interpretation-of-the-bible guy to someone that is becoming educated in all things that have been dubbed as sinful from his community? He learned by talking with people and looking online in the privacy of his own home to find another viewpoint and educate himself.

The subtitles of what we read impact our implicit bias. ”Also known as implicit social cognition, implicit bias refers to the attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner” (OSU). The information that we take in silently and pervasively shapes our attitudes towards others and most often in favor of ourselves and our groups. But, our implicit bias can be modified which stresses the importance of written material.

Wikipedia provides a platform that incorporates policies that help minimize or possibly alter ones implicit bias by presenting gender neutral language. This helps readers by inviting them in to read material that is free from microaggression or as an introduction to more suitable verbiage that they may incorporate into their own dialogues. These policies also opens the door to editors and content providers to participate in a welcoming environment where they won’t have to push for equality.

Source: