Archive | March, 2014

Simulating poverty

31 Mar

Have you played Spent?

Key word: “played.” It’s in the URL (http://playspent.org/) for this poverty simulator, which is another reminder that some folks–too many folks–don’t have to “play” at poverty to understand the experience.

I do recommend this simulation to you, whether or not you yourself have experience or currently live in poverty–to notice what the simulation provokes in you. And I recommend playing out different choices, to see not only where the simulation leads you, but also what it feels like to make those different choices (ex. opting in or out of health care).

Now, if you’re thinking about using a poverty simulator with students or already do, I would add some recommendations:

  • Don’t assume that poverty is a new or unfamiliar experience for all of your students. Introduce the activity as an experience people understand and are connected to in different ways. (For example, I am one generation removed from poverty, but not the kind the simulation proposes: both of my parents grew up in Korea during the war and lived through starvation and homelessness. Getting a job with any kind of consistent pay, let alone health insurance, wasn’t an option for their parents, their older siblings or themselves. So while I myself have never lived in poverty, the people closest to me have.)
  • Let the students know that whether or not they’ve ever lived in poverty, they’re perspectives are no more or less valid than their peers’. Everyone’s experience is authentic. What we need to be mindful of is when we assume that our experience is the norm, and that our opinions are right, as opposed to just our experience-informed opinions.
  • Talk to the students about empathy, including what I think of as empathy simulation. That is, claiming empathy when I really don’t understand an experience because I think saying “I get it” is proof that I’m a good person. (See Mia McKenzie’s blog post on “being an ally” that has appeared in a couple of my earlier posts this month.) Sometimes, I really don’t understand your experience or perspective. And acknowledging that is a lot more respectful than editing, revising and contorting your experience to fit what I can understand.
  • Use individual reflection and journaling to help students process and think before they speak.
  • Ask students to notice their reactions (questions, feelings, impulses to act), where those are coming from (in their experience, identity, worldview) and what’s going on for them as they navigate their choices. (To start the simulation, you have to choose to play or “Exit.” Then, throughout the simulation, you can click “I can’t do this.” I wonder when and why people click this button.)
  • Address the idea that money = happiness (in The Geography of Bliss, Eric Weiner discusses how a baseline of money is a critical factor in happiness, but beyond that, more money doesn’t correlate absolutely with being happier). In other words, address a common, normative assumption that wealth makes us happier. Acknowledge the truth and misconceptions in that, as well as students’ perspective on their own experience and cultural norms surrounding the pursuit of wealth.
  • Connect the experience to a concrete “try today” or “try tomorrow” (ex. helping to educate when someone else says that people who are poor should just work harder, volunteering at a food bank…)

On that last point: if you’re going to educate about poverty, you have to empower student to do something about it, and not just to learn more about the issue. Learning more is important, but education without application can be demoralizing and even destructive. They may not end poverty (although I’ll still hope!) but they can stand up when someone says something classist. And that’s a real part of the problem that simulators like Spent are trying to solve.

What’s with the “”?

30 Mar

A microaggression is a subtle (to the person or group who just did it) but stunning (to the person or group who just experienced it) slight or dismissal of an identity as being unimportant, invalid or unworthy.

An example: I just took an online survey (because I’m procrastinating), and at the end, the company was gathering demographic information, including the relationship status of the survey takers. My options included:

Married or in a relationship with a “significant other”

The air quotes were theirs.

It’s a small detail, but one that potentially screams: “Because that’s what you call each other, but we all know your partner is only really significant when you put a ring on it!”

I’m just saying. And as a married person who:

  1. Has experienced the weird and powerful legitimization that “married” status suddenly confers on couples, not just socially but legally,
  2. Knows people who previously hadn’t been able to or still can’t get married because marriage is a heterosexist institution, and
  3. Doesn’t think people should get married (because a committed relationship is a committed relationship)–although it’s fine if they choose to

I think this company is doing itself a disservice by casually letting its unmarried but committed customers know (in a throwaway question at the end of this survey) that they are persona sorta-grata… after the marrieds.

To which I say (and wrote in my e-mail to the company): just remove the quotes already! Because they don’t serve your customers, and they don’t serve you. That’s the thing about microaggressions: they’re not useful for much, if you want to build community.

When support is the same as hate

28 Mar

I happened across this article “So you support your gay teen, great: You still have to parent them” (http://www.today.com/moms/so-you-support-your-gay-teen-great-you-still-have-2D79442916). The thesis:

“The problem for most gay kids is that they can lose their parents whether their parents are hateful or supportive,” says Dan Savage, author, sex columnist and creator of the “It Gets Better Project,” which helps gay teens recover from bullying. “When a kid is queer, the hateful parent shuts down and wants nothing to do with them. But sometimes a parent who is accepting feels like they can’t be critical or interfere, and they don’t fulfill their duties as parents any more than the hateful parent does.”

Savage, who has a son with his gay partner, says that he frequently hears stories about parents who are afraid to tell their gay son that they don’t approve of his boyfriend for fear of sounding intolerant or who help their gay teen sneak into gay bars by securing them a fake ID — a double standard that he finds frustrating.

“You’ve got to parent your queer kid like you would any other kid. Would you parent your straight 17-year-old daughter that way? No, you would not,” he says.

Savage makes me think of Mia McKenzie’s critique of “allies” (http://www.blackgirldangerous.org/2013/09/no-more-allies/). As McKenzie argues, being an ally is not about your beliefs (like, it’s OK to be gay). “It’s not supposed to be about your feelings. It’s not supposed to be a way of glorifying yourself at the expense of the folks you claim to be an ally to. It’s not supposed to be a performance. It’s supposed to be a way of living your life that doesn’t reinforce the same oppressive behaviors you’re claiming to be against.” And those oppressive behaviors include not saying what you need to say because your kid is gay (and you don’t want to be seen as or called homophobic). Back to Savage on this:

“Whether it’s a dating relationship you don’t approve of, or it’s your kid saying, ‘You said you loved and accepted me for who I was, and now you’re not letting me enter a Mr. Leather contest in a dog collar when I’m 16 years old,’ your response should be, ‘This has nothing to do with your being gay, and everything to do with the fact that I’m your parent and I don’t approve of the choice you’re making,’” says Savage. “Love them by parenting them — that’s the key.”

And as McKenzie puts it, being an ally is about what you do. It’s about “currently operating in solidarity with,” which includes helping your kid learn what their sexuality has to do with the rest of who they are and their relationships with other people, including you.

I say “happy,” you say “transgender”

27 Mar

Definitely a word association the world could use more of.

Another association that could help the world? “We’ll say things like, ‘God made you special’… because there aren’t many little girls out there that have a penis!” (http://www.upworthy.com/the-only-thing-wrong-in-this-little-girls-world-is-the-people-who-wont-accept-her-for-who-she-is?c=reccon1) That’s the mother of Jazz, a transgender child (who in her own words has “a girl brain in a boy body”), connecting God and folks who are transgender through love, not condemnation.

Click the link above for a great interview about Jazz, her family and her experience, including a moment when Jazz responds to her older sister’s description of Jazz’s gender identification as “a disorder” (starting around 4:45) by saying she sees her identity as “special” or “unique.”

I will say that I think Barbara Walters, the interviewer, seems to confuse gender and sex: a mainstay of her argument that Jazz is, of course, a girl–just look at how “girly” she is! But, of course, a boy who is transgender could identify as a girl and express her female identity across a spectrum of gender possibilities, including as a girl who doesn’t love pink or dresses but is still a girl. Because transgender identity isn’t just about expressions of masculinity and femininity: it’s about identifying as someone our reproductive organs say we’re not (around 3:16 Walters points out that “many” young boys who identify as girls are into mermaids, and Jazz’s mom offers an interesting, compelling thought as to why).

 

2014 Ivy and Pearls Foundation Scholarship Announcement

26 Mar

Please share this information forward!

The Rho Delta Omega Chapter of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. is pleased to announce applications are now being accepted for scholarships offered through their Ivy and Pearls Foundation. Since its inception, the Ivy and Pearls Foundation has awarded thousands of dollars in scholarships to help aspiring youth further their education, growth, and development.

In 2014, a minimum of four scholarships will be awarded, and are intended to aid entering college freshmen by providing financial support based on academic merit, community engagement and need. Completed application packages must be postmarked by 31 March 2014. Finalists will be publicly acknowledged during the annual African American Baccalaureate Program in San Jose, CA on Sunday, 01 June 2014.

Applicant requirements

o Be a resident of the RDO service area (San Mateo, Santa Clara and Alameda counties)

o Be African / African American

o Be a high school student, senior year

o Have a cumulative grade point average of 2.75 or above / 4.0 scale

o Be enrolled as a full-time student in a two or four-year college in Fall 2014

o Show recent community involvement

 

For more information and to download an applications, please go to: http://www.rdoaka.com/rdo-info-center/scholarships.

 

 

“First Gay Hug (A Homophobic Experiment)”

21 Mar

I’ve watched “First Gay Hug” by the Gay Women Channel on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1WEtFFPVBU) a few times today. I appreciate it. And it’s making me think that maybe we should talk more about heterophobia, which I would define as the reasonable fear of heterosexual people and heterosexist attitudes, words and actions. As brave as these heterosexual folks are to hug people they see as being or doing things that are wrong or “gross,” I’m humbled by the bravery it takes their gay partners to lean in and hug it out.

“Cheers to Guinness”

18 Mar

528147320

I appreciate this news from yesterday’s St. Patrick’s Day celebrations: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/hamill-cheers-guinness-pope-rejecting-bigotry-st-patrick-day-article-1.1724815. As journalist Denis Hamill notes, “Pope Francis is more accepting of gays in the church than the anachronistic [New York City] St. Patrick’s Day parade committee.” And it’s not just the committee. Hamill continues, “I hear from people all the time that gays are welcome to march up Fifth Ave. in the parade as long as they don’t identify themselves as members of the LGBT community.” That is, as long as they identify-by-default as members of the hetero community?

Hmm. Here’s to corporate activism making a difference.

Putting “Cover Girl” in another light

18 Mar

I just watched this TED Talk by journalist Tracey Spicer: in “The lady stripped bare” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PENkzh0tWJs) Spicer deconstructs the time women spend on personal grooming, and the impact this investment in grooming has on women’s psyches, earnings and parenting. (I’m thrilled to have a financial argument that I can present to my mother the next time I have to explain to her why I don’t and won’t wear make-up.)

I think it’s a great talk: informative, engaging and useful. Essentially, it’s about covering. Professor and author of Covering: The Hidden Assault on Our Civil Rights Kenji Yoshino explains the concept of covering, tracing it back to sociologist Erving Goffman’s coinage of the term in his book Stigma:

Written in 1963, [Stigma] describes how various groups including the disabled, the elderly and the obese manage their “spoiled” identities. After discussing passing, Goffman observes that “persons who are ready to admit possession of a stigma… may nonetheless make a great effort to keep the stigma from looming large.” He calls this behavior covering. He distinguishes passing from covering by noting that passing pertains to the visibility of a characteristic, while covering pertains to its obtrusiveness. He relates how F.D.R. stationed himself behind a desk before his advisers came in for meetings. Roosevelt was not passing, since everyone knew he used a wheelchair. He was covering, playing down his disability so people would focus on his more conventionally presidential qualities (http://www.kenjiyoshino.com/articles/pressure_to_cover.pdf).

This is what we women do: we literally cover (and compress) ourselves to cover what is “spoiled” or “stigmatized” about us (which everyone is aware of anyway, simply by recognizing that we are women, just as the world recognized that FDR was physically disabled). The visibility of the covering (the apparently teased hair, carefully applied makeup, slightly unnatural Botox-smoothness) underscores the purpose of covering: not to actually erase the stigmatized identity, but to reduce its “obtrusiveness.” And, therefore, to communicate our efforts to contain or tone it–and ultimately, ourselves–down.

As Yoshino argues, and I believe as Spicer’s talk suggests, this is a bigger issue than whether or not an individual woman decides to wear makeup. This is about what Yoshino refers to as “the new discrimination”:

In recent decades, discrimination in America has undergone a generational shift. Discrimination was once aimed at entire groups, resulting in the exclusion of all racial minorities, women, gays, religious minorities and people with disabilities. A battery of civil rights laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 sought to combat these forms of discrimination. The triumph of American civil rights is that such categorical exclusions by the state or employers are now relatively rare.

Now a subtler form of discrimination has risen to take its place. This discrimination does not aim at groups as a whole. Rather, it aims at the subset of the group that refuses to cover, that is, to assimilate to dominant norms. And for the most part, existing civil rights laws do not protect individuals against such covering demands. The question of our time is whether we should understand this new discrimination to be a harm and, if so, whether the remedy is legal or social in nature.

Put simply, the question underlying Spicer’s talk is whether women as a group have the right to “dare to be openly different” from what grooming standards dictate. And by “right,” I mean the same access to resources and opportunities (including employment and informal social networks), whether or how much we cover.

Shutting up: A social justice tool

14 Mar

I love when people send me web stuff they find inspiring or useful in the work of increasing equity, inclusion and justice in the world. All too often, they’ll preface the share with “You’ve probably already seen this…” as if reading or watching social justice resources again is a waste of time (especially when compared to all the other web stuff I crawl through every day). Whether I have or haven’t actually seen it before, I’m always grateful for the send.

Here, I’d like to share two awesome posts that have recently come my way:

I found myself nodding (and laughing) at the convergence of these articles, which are both about how privilege matters and impacts others even when the privileged have the best of intentions. Useful takeaways for me, mutually stated by Robot Hugs and Utt-recycling-McKenzie:

  • “Shut up and listen.” (Collective gasp–can you say that? Isn’t social justice about everyone’s voice being heard? Yes. Key word: everyone’s.)
  • “Stop thinking of ‘ally’ as a noun. Being an ally isn’t a status. The moment that we decide ‘I’m an ally,’ we’re in trouble.” It’s just like “inclusion,” “equity” and “justice”–those aren’t states of being: they’re processes.
  • “Learn from screwing up.” Tough, no? But what else can we do when, as Robot Hugs puts it, “I will screw up sometimes; I will be thoughtless, misinformed, aggressive or unkind”? Accept it? Heck yes! And then, “I will listen when people call me out on it, and figure out how I can avoid screwing up again.” I know, I know. I still cringe when say or do something that has an impact I didn’t (and sometimes did) intend. And I always will. The question is what I do next, including nothing.

** Thanks to my colleagues MB and NS for sharing these fun, educational and accessible resources!

Thanks anyway, for flying with us!

12 Mar

I’ve been flying a lot lately. A lot for me, that is. And my preferred airline is Virgin America. I love VX. LOVE VX.

Except.

There’s a moment–actually a few–every time I fly with them, that I wince. It happens during the safety video, which Virgin has done its athletic best to make entertaining. It’s not the video itself, or even the manic effort to be entertaining (!) It’s this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtyfiPIHsIg, beginning at 0:54):

For the .oo1% of you who have never operated a seat belt before… Really?!?

That is their punctuation. Presumably to underscore the point as a young female flight attendant rolls her eyes, with hands on hips and deigns to explain.

It’s a small moment. And it’s just a joke, right?

Yes. And…

I think about being among that .001% (a statistic which I’m sure VX can back up “?!?”) and maybe not knowing how to work my seatbelt for whatever reason. And now I’m being seat belt-shamed. Why? For the entertainment of the 99.999%.

This isn’t the biggest outrage of the year or today or even just the few seconds it takes for the video to move on, but I bring it up because it’s a great example of unintended exclusion that doesn’t really serve any purpose: the joke isn’t that funny, the video is still just a safety video… and why it benefits anyone to make even just one person on a plane feel less than is beyond me. And I simply expect more from a company “dedicated to making flying good again.”