Thursday, July 21, 2011

This is What Someone Who Benefits from White Privilege Looks Like

You know those t-shirts that say "this is what a feminist looks like?"  Sometimes I want to make one that says "this is what someone who benefits from white privilege looks like."  I doubt they'd sell well, but that's not the point - the point is to call out whiteness where whiteness is present so that it doesn't remain invisible, taken-for-granted, or normative.  So I'll say it now - being white is a huuuge leg up...seriously, if you're not white, you're missing out, because this shit is thoroughly good.

Case in point: I returned last week from a trip to Canada with my family to see my grandmother.  Bear with me through this walk down patrilineal lane.  My sister flew in from Georgia and my mom and dad drove up from North Carolina to pick us up en route north.  My dad had gone up last spring to help my grandmother move out and sell her home, and he had taken a scenic route he wanted us to see.  Oh, readers, I can't begin tell you how significant were the many moments during that trip when the benefits of our whiteness was starkly evident.  But, as this is blog where I try to tell you everything you never knew you wanted to know about me, I will try!

As promised, it was a beautiful drive, even given the overcast weather.  There were lots of lovely rolling hills with clouds settling in the background, and plenty of gently winding roads that can make road trips so romantic, at least for the first few hours until your bum starts hurting.  There were also a number of small towns we passed through, some quainter than others, others a bit worn down.  My dad is a fan of local cuisine ("Why go somewhere new and eat what you can get back home?" is his travel philosophy), so he prefers to stop at roadside places and grab a quick bite.  On the way up, somewhere in Pennsylvania, he spotted a little family restaurant in an older, wood-sided building with a hand-painted sign, Finn's Family Restaurant.

Inside Finn's, of course, were only white people.  Mostly white people over 60, but definitely just white people.  I knew we were already a bit out of place (as any visitor is to these roadside restaurants) as out-of-towners, but I wondered...what if we were a Black family?  Would we stop at a roadside restaurant?  Would we even feel completely at liberty to take the scenic route?  Maybe it would just be easier to stick to the main highways and pick up McDonald's...at least the people serving us would probably look like us.  It reminded me of the time my Asian American partner and her white friends stopped in tiny Calypso, NC, on their way to the coast, and a little white girl who was definitely old enough to be past the staring phase stared at her the whole time she was in the gas station.

Even more broadly, crossing the Canadian border itself is always an act of white privilege.  My dad, who's very well versed in such things, is usually pretty nervous and sometimes bumbles what he's going to say.  A few years ago, when asked if he had anything to declare, he said "oh, just some materials."  The officer looked up sharply and asked, "What kind of materials?"  My dad hastily explained that he was referring to some ornaments and chocolates or whatever it was, but I have no doubt that people of color would have been stopped right there for such a gaffe.  Especially if they looked, um, non-Christian.

This time, there was no word faux pas, but the officer called attention to the fact that my dad has had a Canadian/British greencard for twenty years while the rest of his family are American citizens (my mom naturalized about fifteen years ago).  Would this have been more suspicious if we weren't a nuclear white family?  Likely.

When we reached my grandmother, we drove up to her new residence at a graduated assisted living facility.  (It's not a nursing home, my grandmother keeps telling me, because they don't have nurses and she can do her own laundry...but it's basically a glorified nursing home).  As we walked through the halls, my grandmother knocking on doors - usually the wrong ones - and waving to everyone, I wondered to myself, where do the old people of color live?  Certainly not at this facility.  This may be tied in part to class privilege - more on that next - but Canada has a healthcare system that actually takes care of all of its citizens, no matter their income.  Were assisted living facilities segregated by choice or by happenstance (or what Berube calls unintentional whiteness, where the whiteness 'just happens' because no on thinks about including anyone else)?  There were certainly no gay couples there, either, which made me wonder where they live, too.

Our white privilege became most evident to me on this trip when my grandmother sat us down in her living room and handed us all envelopes.  Enclosed, in my envelope at least, was a check for $2,000 in Canadian dollars, and my parents had a much, much larger check (let's just say theirs had a lot of zeros).  In April, my grandmother had sold the house she and her husband bought in 1956 for $13,000 for a whopping $360,000 - that's an impressive profit even accounting for inflation (which would have made the house worth about $110,000 today).  Due to my grandfather's pension and other state/personal income sources, my grandmother is more or less making money for the rest of her life.  She decided she didn't need the profits from the home, so she wrote a check to all five of her grandchildren and a very large check to each of her two children.

Three words, dear readers: White privilege much?

The brilliant irony of all of this is that my grandmother's check came at a time in which I am finding my privileged white ass unemployed.  (Well - more like about to embark on four months of working for free, yippee!).  This fall, I will be networking and conducting field observations for my dissertation research on white privilege, and there is no money in that.  In short, my grandmother's check - acquired through white privilege and race-based historical access to the transformative assets of home ownership - will be subsidizing my research on white privilege.  As the elders say, if you aren't using your privilege, you're wasting it!

So I can cross national borders, stop at roadside restaurants, and be pretty sure my nursing home will filled with folks who are as pale as me.  If I have no job, no worries!  An elderly relative will sell her house and cut me a share.  And while my cousins are buying new couches and roofs (all valuable investments), in a hilarious twist, I'm going to use my part of the proceeds to study white people.  Oh yes...this is definitely what someone who benefits from white privilege looks like.

Thursday, July 7, 2011

How to Sell Yourself

So phase one of the multi-step moving process is over.  I have relocated with one backpack and one piece of wheeled luggage to my partner's apartment just outside of D.C.  Ten boxes of my Stuff arrived last week at our soon-to-be new place.  The rest is packed and ready to go when we motor it down in just over a week.  Huzzah!

Life is much improved.  The stress of teaching is over, the worst part of my own packing is complete, and at last I have left upstate New York and am in a climate where the summers are appropriately sweltering.  I feel as though I have escaped something.  Indeed, I know I have.  I just haven't spent much time dwelling on the magnitude of what I have just escaped, and I won't be dwelling on it in this post.

Instead, I'd like to talk about another emergent dilemma.  Unemployment.

It's not the joblessness that's bothering me...at least, not yet.  And I've been in the game long enough that it probably should be bothering more than it is.  I've been flooding the market with my cover letter and resumes since mid-April, but beyond a few phone calls, I've yet to have any biters.  (In an ironic twist, I started to have more luck once I turned to unpaid internships, but this has only exacerbated my dilemma.  Do I commit to an unpaid internship for several months and risk not securing paid employment, or do I risk losing any possible job experience at all and ensuring I continue to not secure paid employment?)  I crossed my 120th application mark a few days ago, and I feel surprisingly at peace with it - a bit of a dark chuckle directed at myself, perhaps, but at peace.

Really, once I arrived here, the pressure to be employed suddenly lifted.  Money is worrisome, but it's not worrisome at the moment.  I have some savings to subsidize the next couple months if need be, and my partner is prepared to cover most of our overhead for a little while.  Gaps in employment histories are inconvenient, but I really don't know if I ought to be working right now; quite frankly, there's been so much to do lately that having a job would really get in the way.

It's not so much the getting a job part that is bugging me, but rather the process of getting a job.  While a fully competent and capable worker, I have found myself to be completely ill-prepared for the unique subculture that is the D.C. job search.

My first problem is learning how to spin it to win it.  I was at my partner's annual office party in May, about a month into my job search and still in the middle of my final semester of courses.  I struck up a conversation with a very nice couple who inquired about "my story."  Hm...my story?  What does that mean, exactly?  I told them about being originally from North Carolina, but now I am a grad student, how I was planning to move to D.C., find a job, work on my dissertation...

By this point I could already tell "my story" needed to be shortened.  They don't really want to know the full scoop, just the bullet points.  But there are some details they do want to know - and you are supposed to magically know to provide them.  When one of the women asked me what kind of job I was looking for in D.C., I just said, "Oh, you know, advocacy work."

"But what kind of advocacy?" she asked.

"Well, social justice advocacy, I guess.  Like in terms of women's issues, or LGBTQ issues, or anti-racist work."

"But what specifically do you want to do?" she inquired.

Um...hell if I knew.  All I wanted was a job.  You know, one of those things where you show up and do stuff and they write you a check.  I hadn't really gotten to the part about what kind of tasks I thought I ought to be doing.  I realized then that one does not only need a "story," but also to be able to provide a genre of employment.  Here, there are code words for the kind of work you do, and you are supposed to know where you fit.  Code words like policy.  Lobbying.  Communications.  Programs.  Outreach.  Membership.  Events.  Development.  She was looking for those words, words that help people in DC make sense of each other, and I didn't know to say them.

When my partner visited me last month, she helped me draft out a quick way to say what it was I wanted to do.  Well, first she helped me figure out what it was I wanted to do, then draft out a way to say it to other people I might meet at, oh, say an an office party.  Now, when I say things like, "I'm interested in transitioning out of the academy and exploring new opportunities," everyone seems to know what I'm really saying (whatever that is...I'm still not entirely sure, but they all seem to get the cues).

The second major problem I've encountered are qualifications.  I have some, but minimal, non-academic work experience.  On the other hand, I have considerable academic work experience that I see as directly transferable to non-academic work, but this isn't how employers see it.  Having a master's and being in a doctoral program means my application gets tossed out very quickly.  The expectation is that I will use my higher education as leverage for better pay or a better title, and in the ideal world, I could do that.  It's hard to do that when they skip that minefield by just not offering me a position.

I've adjusted my tactics to try and trick employers into seeing my work experience first rather than my credentials by moving my education to the bottom of my resume, and switching my graduate student work with my most recent non-academic job.  They still aren't deceived.  I have been told by several leads that I'm just too overqualified to be considered for their positions, and I was repeatedly cautioned in one recent unpaid internship interview that the work I'd be facing would be far too "mundane" and "not challenging" given the rigor I'm accustomed to.  (The rigor of what...grading papers?)

After all that time and dedication and abysmal compensation, my higher education is now working against me.  I might have more of a shot if I was just fresh out of college, or even if I'd been working for the past three years.  But if I had been working, I'd probably be thinking I need a master's right about now...so this is one of those gambles with a payoff I won't really know until the years to come.  Right now, though, it's kicking my ass.

My third, most recent problem are my clothes.  D.C. culture is extremely conservative as far as workplaces go, and I knew all of this going in.  I'm not a bad dresser, but I haven't had the funds to invest in a power wardrobe beyond some select Clothes Mentor purchases or Christmas presents.  Still though, I have decent taste and nice pairings...I thought.

I'd like to think I know what is appropriate workplace attire, but this morning I had that awkward moment at a temp agency where I was offered a flyer for a reduced price monthly business clothes sale.  Sadly, I was wearing one of my more professional summer outfits at the time - I suppose I made the mistake of dressing for the humid weather, rather than to be on L.A. Law.  The temp agency placement worker told me, in the nicest way possible, that sweaters were to only be worn with sweater sets (I was wearing a sweater, but I did not buy it in tandem with my shirt), that I could only wear business pants (I was wearing business capris) or formal skirts or dresses, and that I should invest in a matching suit, or at least a blazer, for interviews.  She added, with a glance at my flats, that I should wear heels...I told her, in the nicest way possible, that I do not wear heels.

Bless her, she also told me I was extremely overqualified for the agency's positions....overqualified and under-dressed, apparently.  We hit it off, as she took a maternal approach to my woeful wardrobe decisions. I had also made the mistake of not bringing in my resume because I'd already emailed it to her (I guess I'm supposed to bring my resume everywhere, like a flyer for a yard sale), so I think she took pity on me as a recently relocated charity case from upstate New York.

Sociologists tell us we know are breaking social norms when we encounter resistance, and I keep stumbling along headfirst into these gaffs.  Tell us about yourself, but in the right way.  Tell us what you want to do, but in the right way.  Tell us about what you've done, but in the right way.  Do business attire, but do it the right way.  Don't be too educated or too inexperienced, be just right.

When so many seem to tell you (as politely as they can) there is something wrong with you, it can be difficult to keep a healthy perspective on what really is right and wrong.  So far, I've been more or less zen about the rejection.  Today's clothing potshots stung a bit (I thought I looked so good today!), but I know they are part of a long, bumbled and brier-strewn path of learning how to sell myself.  I've been through the 'professionalization' machine of other sorts, and this is just a new version of the same old shtick.  Except this time, instead of publishing in the top tier journals, I'm supposed to rock Anne Taylor and summarize my resume in twelve seconds.  I just have to keep in mind, just like before, that professionalization is far less about me and way more about what they want me to be...and some rules you can bend (heels), while others you can't get away with not following (blazer...once I find one of those).  It doesn't take much to figure out what those are - people seem to have no problems telling you.

I should also conclude here by saying I brought this all upon myself.  This full-frontal confrontation with deficiency-inducing judgement is entirely of my own volition (another chuckle in my direction).  I came here for this.  I came here, I should say, to be with my partner, and to take on whatever repercussions that decision brought with it.  So this is a path willfully chosen, a path I've bought into for the time being, even if it's not yet sold on me.

Sunday, June 19, 2011

The Rental Market, Capitalism-Style

We - my partner and I - are trying to get an apartment.  She currently lives in a two-bedroom, and with her roommate moving out to live with her partner, and me moving down there to live with my partner, it doesn't make economical sense to stay in an $1850 a month two bedroom with an exorbitant amount of space for young professionals.  Especially since I am, as of yet, still facing unemployment once my class ends.

So even though "moving" is probably a lot what hell is like (that, and maybe a never ending visit to the dentist or gynecologist), it is ideal from both an economical and a personal perspective.  My partner has lived with her Stuff for three years in one place, and I have lived with my Stuff for three years in another place, and combining our Stuff (probably more of hers than mine at this point) may necessitate a new stage in our relationship.  One where we are in neither her space nor my space, but a smaller, shared space that belongs to us both.

All that is easily said.  So, as we've recently discovered, is saying "let's move into a one-bedroom!"  How hard could it be to move from a two bedroom unit in one complex to a one bedroom in the same complex, you might wonder?  Surely it's like all other apartment searches we've ever made (between the two of us, we've done this probably four or five times...that's plenty of experience, one would suppose.)  We don't even really want to move anywhere - just to a smaller unit in the same place.

Oh, dear readers, how wrong we were.  Nothing could have ever prepared me for the pure batshit irrationality of the rental market in this greater-DC condominium.  There are many things that fuel this irrationality.  Part of it is because my partner lives in a lovely garden condo complex where each condo is owned by someone different. So there is no overarching condominium office where you can put your name on a list or coordinate multiple showings.  Instead, every negotiation is with a new owner, which means there is no regulation or bench line for pricing.  One 630 square foot unit can be priced at $1450, while another 530 square foot unit with comparable specs can be priced at $1550.  I'm pretty sure they just price it based on their mortgages.  Or malicious whim.  It's hard to say at this point.

Dealing with multiple owners also means there is no standard for each apartment.  Some of them have hardwood, some have carpet.  Some have had their bathrooms redone, some are still in original form.  Some original features have been worn pretty hard, some have been better taken care of.  Some have new cabinets and granite counter tops in the kitchen, some still have the original oven and dishwasher.  Some have new windows, others don't.  Some renovations are professionally executed, others are a little homemade.  With every unit being so variable, you really don't know what you are getting until you see it.

But the point, we've found, is not to see it, not even to care whether it's worth the money or whether the features are ideal or whether we really want to hold out for hardwood or an eat-in kitchen or whatever.  The point is to sign a lease as soon as freaking possible.  It doesn't matter if you really aren't sold on a place - you must convince the owner that you and only you are the destined future tenant for the unit.  Why?  Because there are at least a dozen other winsome and articulate and appallingly rich young professionals just like you trying to do exactly the same thing.

Basically, one of these apartments can be posted on Craigslist at 3 p.m., and if you email them half an hour later, you are number five in line.  That's how high the demand is.  But even your placement in line doesn't matter much - these apartments don't go first come, first serve.  What counts is you making it to the designated showing decided based purely on the convenience of the owner.  That might mean Saturday at 2 (sorry if you had plans this weekend - if you don't make it to the showing, you're utterly SOL).  It might mean tomorrow at 4:30 (oh, is that usually when you're at work?  Guess you'll have to leave early on less than 24 hours notice!).  If you make it to the showing - and you must make it to the showing - you will be obligated to sign an application and authorize a credit check on the spot, plus make out a check for $25-$45 for your own credit to be scoped.  My partner's had hers run through whatever magical system they use upwards of four times in two weeks - it's so great to pay for the privilege of repeatedly being assured that you are a respectable, bill-paying citizen.

Making it through the application stage is nothing.  There are probably still ten other people, maybe more, who have done the same thing.  This whole securing an apartment process might involve four stages where you see the apartment, have a phone interview with the owner, have a personal interview with the owner, fill out a credit check/application, have your references called (and they will call your references), and then possibly still not be offered a lease.

You might get really, really, really close - a verbal agreement on the phone, a written agreement through email, even set up a time to sign on the dotted line - when capitalism body slams you against those sweet hardwood floors.

The problem is, as you might suspect, ka-ching ka-ching, a case of the Benjamins.  Being both desperate and in a high-income tax bracket makes people do strange, strange things.  Such as bidding on rentals.  Yes!  To secure a one bedroom, one must bid on it like it's the Queen Jewels at Christie's Auction House!  And this means, of course, that the most desperate and most wealthy always wins.

Let me tell you, dear readers...I now know there are some very desperate and very wealthy people out there.  One who will, for example, bid on a $1550 apartment for $1800 a month, a full $250 over the listed rent, plus covering painting costs.  Or another who will offer a full 12 months rent upfront, somewhere around a $16,000 one-time payment for one unit.  (Why they don't drop that on a down payment for condo of their own, I have no idea...the market is not logical, only driven by the principle that s/he-with-the-most-cash-wins.)

Desperation for housing inflates these units to obnoxious, impossibly high levels.  There are two sides to this capitalist inflation - one side are us prospective renters who stomp on each other and wave our wallets around to entice future landlords.  The other side are the owners, who take advantage of the irrationality of the market and ride out the capitalism for all its worth.  In our experience, owners may even narrow down their list of applicants to a handful of those who's credit checks have cleared and who made similar bids, and then ask them to name their "best offer," thereby ensuring the price will go up even more than the original bids.  Sometimes I feel like we're trying to get our kid into a NYC nursery school.

Clearly there is no way this can be sustained - at some point (I hope), people are going to realize that $1800 for a one bedroom without a washer and dryer in unit and no covered parking space is absolutely outrageous.  By bidding against each other, we create a ridiculous housing bubble that ensures only semi-wealthy people live in the condos, and pretty soon not even semi-wealthy people will be able to afford to live there.  We are not just pricing ourselves out of the market - we are pricing everyone out of the market.  I'm not sure where the invisible hand is yet, because the market hasn't self-corrected as far as I can tell - even if it all comes crashing down a few years from now, there will still be suckers like us paying inflated prices for months on end.

Capitalism only works because everyone is participating, competitively bidding on a supposedly scare product - myself included.  It also feels like there aren't any other options - surely if we want an apartment under these circumstances, we have to play the capitalism game.  We can't tell the owner, "You know, I think your original rate is already inflated, so I'm going to price you a little lower since it reflects the actual value of the unit," and we can't call a meeting of all the prospective tenants and say, "Alright, y'all - who really needs this place?  And let's agree to cap the bidding, okay?  It's us versus the owning class!  We need to work together in collective solidarity until we all have homes!"  If I thought Marx could really spare us from what we've had to do thus far, I would have tried other tactics.  But resistance doesn't work on an individual level, and this is a clear case in which I'm totally pwned by capitalism.  Part of the sinister logic of capitalism is that it shuts down all other paths, and leaves no option but playing Monopoly.

Sunday, June 12, 2011

Consumption

After nearly three years of waiting, waiting, waiting, the end is almost here.  In just under three weeks time, I will be leaving upstate New York and relocate at long last to someplace where somebody loves me and where winter is about four months shorter (like it SHOULD be!).  And that means, of course, just like when I'm raptured into heaven, all my stuff cannot come with me.

Now, I'm not one of those people who is super attached to stuff.  I don't generally keep Things I don't need or use.  I do not hoard.  In fact, I may have a more serious problem of the opposite.  Last year, I read an article about an emerging urban simple living movement - not urban simple living in the sense of inner city poor people who are minimalist by force (bwahaha - who in the world would write an article about folks who have to limit their consumption as experts on limiting consumption?!), but white professionals who independently and of their own free will choose to abscond with Things.  I'm with the latter.  Inspired by such calls for limiting consumption to necessities, I've routinely purged my attic apartment of excess books, clothes, and sundry knickknacks.  The only time I ever feel any guilt is when I pull out something someone I care about gave me, usually my Mom.  Sometimes, dear readers, I am not strong enough to let it go...maternal obligation and projected guilt is an unconquerable force, but I do try.

And I'm not much of a Thing Purchaser, either.  I find the mall horribly depressing.  I get a very powerful urge to go, oh, four times a year, usually when the seasons change.  Suddenly it becomes very important that I get some shorts, or new canvas shoes, or a wool coat.  But then I become incredibly sad on the bus ride home with all of these bags of Things under my seat, over half a day lost to the great mall vortex and a credit card bill to look forward to, and I've maxed out on shopping until the next solstice.

Don't think that my resistance to Things is due to some Gandhian-like qualities.  It's not.  It's more because I am extremely cheap.  Like my mother, I adore a good 'deal.'  I abhor paying full price for anything.  As a rule, I shop sales racks (sometimes I pretend to look at items at the front of the store because zipping back to the sales feels a tad rude...but it's all for show, sales staff, all for show).  A few years ago, I discovered Clothes Mentor and have been a devoted convert ever since.  Basically you bring clothes you don't wear anymore and they maybe buy some of it (I'm generally told my style is "too mature" or the tags are too old) and donate the rest to charity, and then you can get bourgeois brands for cheap, cheap, cheap.  All you need is endurance to look through the crowded racks and a hunger for the unfathomably low prices.  (Although, after you buy high end slacks for $10 a pop, it feels even more criminal to be charged $120 for them in a mall store - hence, beware that Clothes Mentor will rapidly erode your already low tolerance for buying full price items.)

But I digress.  The Things in my apartment are a bit different than clothes or mall shopping or resale stores that only narrowly allow me to opt out of fueling the oppressive sweatshop industry.  (Buying second hand is better, but in no way perfect...cheap Banana Republic is still, sadly, Banana Republic....but seriously, y'all!  Pants for $10!!)

The Things in my apartment are furnishings I've acquired in part to make my home more homely.  They have both a utilitarian value and a chosen aesthetic.  All together, they 'represent' me, or whatever.  And for three years, they've more or less remained constant.  My dresser has dutifully held my clothes.  My bookshelves have lovingly buckled under my books.  My toaster has cheerfully toasted my toast (with the exception of the time I ran the toaster and the microwave at the same time and blew the fuse).

Due to high gas prices and U-haul's low mileage, however, my partner and I have decided it is best to Do Away with the Things.  I am taking this far better than she is - somehow she is more attached to me being attached to my Things than I am actually attached to my Things.  After a moment of, "what?! not my Thiiiiiiings!," I was pretty much over it, taking photos and making a Picasa page to send a mass email to about 120 graduate students advertising my wares.

Surprisingly, demand was high, and now the Things are departing, slowly, a few at a time.  The other day was the first big batch - a toaster, a knife block, a floor lamp, and my laundry hamper.  Even though I rarely used the floor lamp, I keep turning around from my desk and wonder why it is so empty behind me.  In a few hours, my six foot bookcase and rolling kitchen island will be leaving me.  While I know there is probably some part of me somewhere that feels a little sad to let things go - a little pinch as I load them in the back of someone else's trunk - mostly I just feel lighter.  "Good," I think every time something goes, "now I won't have to post that on Craigslist!"

Maybe the reality of having fewer Things will settle in later, but I doubt it.  Letting them go is perhaps the best way to realize how unimportant they really are.  In some ways, I feel like they hold the energy of the past three years and perhaps should stay here, anyway, so I can make a clean break of it.  It's always nice to give your Things to someone who is really excited about them, so your life can end just like Toy Story 3.  But I also realize that, as the Things go and leave empty spaces where they once stalwartly stood, I don't actually feel more empty.  Fewer Things means fewer worries.

And pretty soon I'll probably have to get more Things to replace the Things I'm letting go of now.  (I'd like to say I can live without a dresser, but who am I kidding?  I reiterate, I'm no Gandhi.)  But for the moment, I feel very lucky to have the opportunity to de-Thing.  It is a rare opportunity and a beautiful lesson about consumption, about importance, and about meaning.  So right now, I am just going to try to embrace this period between Thingyness, that quieter, less-cluttered, lighter, more open space when my love and attention and attachment can be devoted to the Things people that really matter.

Sunday, June 5, 2011

Making it Better for Everyone

This was written for a class assignment, but I was hoping to get it to a larger audience.  I may have missed the boat on timing, though, so at least I can post it here!  This is my contribution to the critical commentary of the It Gets Better Project, not to tear it down, but to point out the limitations of addressing LGBTQ youth suicides with a single-axis framework.  With a special thanks to Caitlin Breedlove for answering questions and S.I.H for asking them <3.

UPDATE: A wider audience happened sooner than I thought!  Thanks to Caitlin, the article is now posted on S.O.N.G.'s website.



Making It Better for Everyone: A More Careful Look at LGBTQ Youth Suicide

First it was Justin Aaberg.  Then, just two months later, Billy Lucas. 

What both young white men shared besides their age – they were both 15 when they died of suicide – was that homophobic bullying destroyed their lives. 

Dan Savage, the gay white journalist behind the popular syndicated sex column, Savage Love, was frustrated and saddened by the loss of Aaberg and Lucas.  So he started an “It Gets Better” YouTube channel to reach out to those who are terrorized for their perceived or actual sexual identity.  On September 21st, 2010, Savage and his partner, Terry, posted the inaugural video directed at lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) youth contemplating taking their lives, promising “it gets better.”

The next day, 18-year-old white gay Rutgers college student, Tyler Clementi, jumped off the George Washington Bridge after having been cyberbullied by a roommate who streamed Clementi’s sexual encounter with another man online.  His body was recovered a week later. 

Due in part to the publicity around Clementi’s death and the growing media attention surrounding gay male youth suicides that month, the It Gets Better (IGB) project went “viral.”  Savages’s original goal of collecting 100 online video posts offering encouragement to LGBTQ youth was shattered almost overnight.  The project has since swelled to over 10,000 video submissions, including high profile celebrity endorsements such as Ellen DeGeneres, the cast of Glee, Perez Hilton, and Hilary Clinton, all echoing the “it gets better” message.  Even President Barack Obama posted a video advocating for the end of LGBTQ harassment.

The widespread popularity of the project is undeniable – the original video of Savage and his partner has accumulated over 1.2 million hits.  “It Gets Better”-themed events have sprouted up across the United States from California to Maine.  A purple “It Gets Better” t-shirt is available through American Apparel.  And a collection of stories, The It Gets Better Book: Coming Out, Overcoming Bullying, and Creating a Life worth Living, hit bookshelves in March and shot up to the number one spot in Amazon’s “Coming Out” section.

With a cacophony of voices – celebrities, politicians, and regular folks alike – insisting that “it gets better,” such certainty begs the question, does it really?

Beyond LGBTQ Identity

The groundswell behind IGB is clearly responding to a pressing social tragedy.  Suicide is the third leading cause of death for all youth ages 10-24, outranked only by accidents and homicide.  It is estimated that LGBQ youth attempt suicide at rates four times higher than that of their heterosexual peers, and this rate may be even higher for transgendered youth. 

To look at statistics for LGBTQ youth suicide alone, however, only paints a partial picture.  When youth suicide rates rose in 2004, the largest jump was for young girls.  Although young men were almost four times more likely to die from suicide than young women in 2007, young women were almost three times more likely than men to attempt suicide.  In other words, although girls are less likely than boys to die from suicide, they are more likely to try to. 

Nationally, Alaskan natives and Native Americans have suicide rates that are 70% higher than the overall US average.  Latino/a and Black youth are also much more likely to attempt suicide than white youth, with Latino/a youth being the most likely to consider attempting suicide.  Although less data has been collected for Asian American youths, Department of Health and Human Services data shows that Asian American women ages 15-24 have the highest suicide rates among their age and gender group. 

Suicide rates vary by economic status as well.  Poverty, while not directly correlated with suicide, is a high stress condition linked to depression.  LGBTQ youth are overrepresented among the homeless youth population, and in one study of homeless LGBTQ youth, over half reported that they had considered or attempted suicide.

Given the complicated reality of suicide rates, focusing on homophobic bullying alone does not address the gendered, racialized, and classed pressures that lead many LGBTQ youth to see their lives as unlivable.  The suicides that achieved the widespread publicity were those of white boys, but there were likely many more suicide attempts by white girls and youths of color, especially those living on the street, that never caught the public’s attention.

It Doesn’t Get Better For Everyone

Following the release of the It Gets Better Book, David Michael Connor of the Advocate critiqued IGB for privileging the attractive, masculine gay white man.  Indeed, life might not get better for gay white men who do not meet exacting beauty standards, and it certainly is a false message for gay white men like Connor, who struggles with persistent depression.

Beyond the hierarchy of gay male beauty and gender presentation, however, is the privileging of white men, period.  While IGB has made significant and meaningful contributions to LGBTQ suicide and LGBTQ bullying, the project further invisibilizes non-white and non-male LGBTQ youth by only responding to, highlighting, and constantly invoking suicides of mostly white men and boys.

Life may have ‘gotten better’ for Dan Savage and other white gay men with money, but the future of “happiness, potential, and positivity” promised by IGB is not as easily accessible for many LGBTQ youth who are women, low-income or poor, gender non-conforming, and people of color. 

Gabrielle Rivera, a self-identified queer women of color, defied the “it gets better” message in her video contribution to IGB.  “It doesn’t get better, but what does happen is you get stronger,” she said, adding, “Don’t give into this myth that it’s going be fancy and amazing when you’re older and that everything’s going to be fine.” 

Rivera’s video has accumulated 16,000 views, and a transcript of her contribution was included in the It Gets Better Book.  In a recent Time Magazine article, Savage names Rivera’s video as one that “surprised him,” saying that IGB put her video in the top viewing spot even though some thought he would not post it. 

That this video stands out so strongly amid the thousands of contributions speaks to the importance of Rivera’s voice, as well as the rarity of her perspective.  It also points to how the hyper messaging of “it gets better” has left very little room for alternative messages.

The Difference between it Getting Better and Making it Better

Many have challenged the core “it gets better” message as a reactive, rather than proactive, measure to help LGBTQ youth.  Implicit in the ‘it gets better’ frame is that LGBTQ youth should endure bullying until it ends, presumably when they graduate high school.  Encouraging LGBTQ youth to hold out for a better life eventually doesn’t do much for them in the meantime. 

One community group that has addressed this shortcoming is Southerners On New Ground (S.O.N.G.), a social justice group that centers the experiences of southern LGBTQ, low-income people of color.  S.O.N.G. co-director Caitlin Breedlove says, “The idea that "it gets better" suggests that young people should wait, and should not organize.  It intentionally or unintentionally erases the history of struggle in LGBT communities while also not confronting the realities of how deeply our world needs people and youth to fight for gender justice, racial justice, environmental justice, and against systems of oppression.” 

San Francisco’s Gay-Straight Alliance Network, among other organizations, shares this framework.  They created “Make it Better,” a project that aims to empower LGBTQ youth and adult to create immediate change in their schools, neighborhoods, and communities. 

Savage has answered this pervasive criticism by noting that IGB does not prevent people from taking action.  This response, however, does not address the core concern voiced by critics – IGB might not be holding anyone back from taking action, but it is not actively encouraging it, either. 

Reflecting on the strengths of IGB, Breedlove said that it has provided a valuable “space for anguish,” particularly through “access to storytelling through the internet.  It also meets the longing that LGBT adults have to protect youth from homophobia and transphobia.”  But, she adds, “To think about liberation is messy and complicated.”  What IGB proposes is too simple, too neat, and too easy of a response to LGBTQ suicide.  It does not address the far more complex realities of all LGBTQ youth.

Homophobic bullying alone does not define the lives of those who experience racism, sexism, and classism.  In order to truly make life better for LGBTQ youth, we cannot treat LGBTQ bullying as something that is separate from other forms of discrimination and harassment, but rather as something connected to larger systems of oppression. 

Making it better for all LGBTQ youth requires addressing school harassment, yes, but also ensuring adequate food and housing for low-income youth and adults, a living wage and job security, as well as integrated and well-funded schools, for a start.  We also cannot forget that LGBTQ bullying is intimately connected to sexism, and that anti-gay bullying is just as tied to sexist oppression as lesbian-baiting, where women who defy gender expectations are pejoratively called lesbians, regardless of their sexuality.  Addressing LGBTQ bullying without addressing gender discrimination is to miss the forest for the trees.

The It Gets Better Project has provided a valuable space for LGBTQ folks and allies to speak up in support of LGBTQ youth.  But we must remember that the It Gets Better Project on its own won’t necessarily make it so.

Saturday, May 28, 2011

Fearless Teaching

I just finished the first week of my six week summer course, dear readers, and let me tell you, I am living the dream of teaching without consequences.  That's right - no consequences.  So what if my course evaluations are terrible...my career doesn't currently depend on them.  So what if I say something that makes them uncomfortable.  So what if they complain to the department chair.  So what if they all suspect that I'm a lesbo commie.  I mean, really, what can my department do?  Fire me?  I've already given up my stipend.  My health insurance is set to expire in about three weeks.  I've even finalized a clean break on my lease.  In five weeks, I'm walking out of the last class session onto a plane to Baltimore.  I'm a free woman, Big Bad University!  You got nothing on me!

I'm pretty sure this is what tenure feels like.  Except probably with more meetings.

Fearless Teaching.  That's what I'm calling it - that is what teaching without consequences enables me to do.  If I were to write a handbook to a brave pedagogy such as this, I would outline the following necessary components:

1) No pressure.  This might be the last class I'll ever teach, and instead of feeling the overwhelming pressure of wanting to make it the best class ever, I only feel a huge release of pressure to give a crap about all the obstacles that get in the way of actual learning.  I am not governed by the looming bureaucratic expectations for what I ought to do, and instead just do what I want to do.  This means a release of control - I feel less of a need to 'control' my students, or 'control' how they perceive me and my course, or 'control' how rigid my policies are.  For example, I just took in a student one week late - sure, she missed one-sixth of the whole class (and probably the most important sixth, as we laid the groundwork for the next month).  But a little exposure to radical theories is better than no exposure radical theories.  Such an approach takes a lot of the internal pressure I put on myself for things to be perfect - liberation is messy, as they say, so when I allow for my teaching to focus on liberation, I allow for myself (and others, and life in general) to be imperfect, too.

2) Shift from testing to engagement and application.  For an educator, it's ironic that I greatly dislike most of what are considered to be necessary course components.  Like tests.  Or quizzes.  Or grades, for that matter.  So I cut them out.  Now, I still grade things, but I've set up the class so that everyone can get an A.  Unfortunately, I have to have some accountability measures or else they won't do the readings, but a large part of their grade is made up of activities where they apply what we're learning in their everyday lives.  Is this harder to grade?  Probably - there are fewer 'right' answers in applied learning, and mostly I just grade them based on the degree of effort and reflection they put into the activity.  But they are DOING things, and that is beautiful.  They have to think beyond multiple choice answers, and the class experience is carried over into their everyday lives.  My goal is not for them to understand everything or memorize it or be able to parrot it back to me, but to engage it, to apply it, to immerse themselves in a critical, liberatory framework.  You can't grade that, and, frankly, I'm not really trying to.

3) Tell it like it is.  This is probably the best part of Fearless Teaching.  In the past, even during my class last summer, I tried very hard to be a Good Instructor, to be Fair and Balanced, to be Open-Minded.  I would ask things like, "Why might this be considered oppressive?" or, "Do you think the birdcage theory reflects women's experiences?"  But trying to toe the line didn't spare me course evaluations that wrote me off as "biased" simply because I was a woman teaching the sociology of gender.  So now, I don't try to be Fair and Balanced.  I was called biased even when I was trying very hard not to be; now, I am completely unapologetic about my agenda.  Now I ask, "Why is this oppressive?" or "How does the birdcage define the lives of other groups at the bottom of hierarchies?"  I don't ask, "do you think the model minority stereotype is true?"  I say, "It's a myth, and it's a myth because of these three reasons."  I am more forceful, certain, unambiguous.  I don't offer room for interpretation.  I provide no space for capitalism, patriarchy, sexism, or heterosexism.  Instead I'm just embracing the flame-spitting prophetic Voice of Truth.

In that respect, this is one aspect that makes my Fearless Teaching not so grassrootsy radical.  It's lecture-heavy, and I don't allow much room for exploration.  I don't really lead them along into some of the main ideas, letting them work their way through the murky waters, slowly unpacking their privilege, slowly decolonizing their viewpoints.  There is some exploration, but mostly I just tell them.  There just isn't enough time.  They aren't here to come exploring with me - they didn't sign up for a six week workshop on self-decolonization.  They are here because it counts toward their major, or they need a general education credit, or they failed out of another major and need to finish a sociology major in six months.  They have no idea what ride they signed up for, and if there is a ride, most of them would rather not go on it, thank you very much.  So I am rolling with their interpretation that this class is like other classes, and not really an extended radical workshop thinly veiled by seemingly legitimate class things like a syllabus and a Blackboard account.

The way I see it, I got six weeks, and I will tell them as much as I can in that six weeks.  A few of them are hungry for these theories now - I can see them make connections and their minds expand as they realize how to reinterpret their own experiences of marginalization or privilege.  A few others think I'm a lesbo commie, and they are wishing they signed up for something less infuriating, like introduction to theory.  But for now, most of them are pleasantly noncommittal - they stare at me with an indifferent smile on their faces and take down notes as they see fit.  They still see it as a regular class.

Soon, they may come to realize its not.  Or it might take a year, or three years, or seven.  Or never.  But I will finish this class knowing that at least I didn't hold back.

Saturday, May 21, 2011

Negotiating gender in the hair salon

As a short-haired woman, I have come to see hair cuts as a ceaseless negotiation.  They probably wouldn't be if I found a stylist and stuck with it, but as I am incredibly cheap (more to come on this front in a future post), I'd rather just pop into a Hair Cuttery or Fantastic Sam's or my mall's Unisex Hair Salon (that's its real name!) for a $18 trim.  As these locales are revolving doors for sylists, every trim is with a new face.  There is much to be said for having a perfect stranger cut your hair every six weeks - they always make small changes or have slightly divergent techniques.  Some prefer using razors, some prefer scissor-over-comb, some like thinning shears and others clearly don't own a pair.  If you aren't too attached to having your hair just one way, it can be nice to have it a little different every time.

But having to explain what it is I want in a cut every time I visit does have its obvious downsides.  I have regaled you all, dear readers, with a post mentioning my short hair as a gender challenge before.  As I identify as a woman and generally go through the world read and treated as a woman, sometimes I forget that short hair on a woman can still pose a challenge to gendered expectations.  I am made the most aware of this challenge when I get my hair cut and for a few days afterwards, when it's shortest.  It could be that I feel more exposed, or it could be that people really are looking at me differently - it's hard to say, as my sense of sudden baldness may tinge my perspective.

The most overt comments on what my short hair means for my gender presentation (which, in all respects, is almost completely gender conforming) have come from the stylists themselves.  Seeing as how I meet a new one every month or so, I have a steady stream of opportunities to negotiate what I want versus what they are comfortable giving me.

Last fall I paid a visit to my Unisex Hair Salon and I was assigned to a middle-aged Asian woman.  I was about to ask for my usual ("I'll take a three in the back, cut out around the ears, keep it a little longer on the sides and the front, and thin it out if you can too, please!"), but before I even sat down she put her hand on my shoulder and said, "You look like a boy!"  Gotta love her for coming right out with it.  "You are a woman, but you look like a boy.  I can help you look more like a woman."

"But I like it this way..."  I mustered feebly.  It's difficult to stand up to woman for whom tact is not really an issue.

"But you look like a boy!"

"I know but that's okay.  I prefer it short."

She stared at me dubiously, and then proceeded to trim my hair a tiiiiiiny bit.  Then she whipped out the thinning shears and thinned it a tiiiiiiiny bit.  "Okay!" she announced.

"Um...can you cut a little more?"

She thinned it a tiiiiiiny bit more.  "Okay!"  she said again, and this time moved to take my cape off.  Clearly she had cut as much as she was going to cut.

For months I went to the Unisex Hair Salon in fear of being saddled with her again (there is no non-racist way to say, "I'd like a haircut, please...but, uh, give me anyone but the Asian lady").  Last April I was assigned to her chair once more.  I braced myself for a pointless thinning, and I made up my mind to demand that she cut more if she tried to pull the cape off me again, but she actually cut my hair very thoroughly.  It may have something to do with the fact that the woman both before and after me were middle-aged white women with that short, middle-aged white women hair, so I fit right in.  She must have cut enough heads of hair like my own mother's to feel like it didn't matter much when she cut mine.

Last weekend, when I was in D.C., I dropped by the Dupont Circle Hair Cuttery, which has always been a dependable place to get my do cropped.  Historically, they haven't been so afraid of cutting too close.  It may be that it is in a trendy metropolitan area, or it could be because, as my partner tells me, all the gay boys get their hair cut there, so the stylists are accustomed to such things.  Who knows.

But last week (with another Asian stylist, strangely enough), gender came up again in an overt way.  She asked me whether I wanted the neckline trimmed straight across with the buzzer, or if I'd rather she blend it in.  I told her she could do whatever she preferred - I don't see the neckline, so as long as I can tell it's not a mullet, I'm none the wiser to the specifics.

She stood quietly for a moment, running her fingers through the freshly trimmed locks at the crown of my head.  "Well, straight across is...is more like a man.  That's a man's cut.  Blended is for a woman.  So I will blend it."

And then she spend maybe six or seven minutes meticulously manicuring a "blended" hairline, digging different buzzers into my neck to achieve the appropriate womanly effect.  My main thought while she was doing this: "dang, if I were a man I'd so have been out of here five minutes ago!"

It's interesting to me that hair can be so definitively gendered, to the point where a neckline is denoted as masculine or feminine.  It's sort of like the Butch Bakery, that cupcake place opened by a dude who wanted to make cupcakes "for men."  (Although with a name like Butch Bakery, he's not just going to be getting men looking for cupcakes.)  They are CUPCAKES.  Literally pieces of baked sugar and flour and butter with some icing on top.  They don't have a gender!  And neither do neckline techniques, or hair itself.  Hair is as dead and chromosome-less as cupcakes.  But as gender is a defining social organizing principal, we seem to only be able to understand inanimate things by imbuing them with gendered meaning.  Very often these meanings seem to keep us safely within our assigned boxes, even if we have tried to take a step out of them.  If women have short hair, they should at least have a feminine neckline; if men eat cupcakes, they better be whiskey flavored and covered in camo.

We are ridiculous.  All of the energy and creativity and human brilliance squandered on such meaningless details as how to make our choices more like a woman's or more like a man's, so that we don't really have to change much of anything at all!

Now I really need a cupcake.